What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
324 Comments
- MattNF, on 11/21/2008, -52/+722I just had sex with a goat.
Thanks to this comment graveyard, my secret is safe... - noelsusman, on 11/21/2008, -43/+563Why do all of these comments fail so much?
- dbsanfte, on 11/21/2008, -26/+318E=mc^2 only for rest mass.
In the real world, you deal with the relativistic mass-energy equation, and E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2, with m being the particle's mass, and p its relativistic momentum.
This article has to do with exactly that phenomenon, the majority of a quark's energy being dependent on its momentum. E=mc^2 isn't the equation you use to deal with that. - tgc1, on 11/21/2008, -8/+288They weren't relative.
- dmyajd, on 11/21/2008, -6/+117pics or it didnt happen.
- TheLichKing, on 11/21/2008, -3/+94Exactly. Or rather the "correct" equation for particles with (non-zero) mass is:
E = mc^2 / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).
However, no one dealing with public ever writes this form of the equation, maybe denominators and square roots scare people away. :)
Similar thing goes for photons; their momentum is p = h * lambda, where lamda = wavelength. They have no rest mass, so you'd get E = h*f, i.e. energy depends only on their frequency which is an experimental fact. I mention this because maybe someone remembers this from high school physics.
Why would you prove it? Because energy is *defined* this way, it does not "pop out" of the assumptions of special relativity (as pointed as some other user buried earlier). One of the reasons for this particular definition are conservation laws; you want to define it in such a way as to be conserved in all inertial [read: equally valid] frames of reference. - Spade914, on 11/21/2008, -1/+73I'm a goat and just had sex with a fat guy :
- junkwheel, on 11/21/2008, -4/+71You think the goat isn't gonna tell anyone?
- TnTBass, on 11/21/2008, -6/+71You're a baaaaaaaad baaaaaaaad man.
- rinote, on 11/21/2008, -10/+70You really shouldn't talk about your mother like that...
- KrazyKoala, on 11/21/2008, -6/+64First, its Einstein (spelled correctly in the title), second its squared, not 2, third it would be lame even had you got it right in the first place.
/being a dick - TheDHC, on 11/21/2008, -2/+57You are allowed to use naughty words on this site.
- reddevild, on 11/21/2008, -1/+48Thanks to dbsnfte, TheLichKing, and YourDoom123 for actually explaining what these scientists did
- LiebeMachtFrei, on 11/21/2008, -7/+42It had come into doubt by some mathematicians. Nice to see it stand up to scruitiny
- Namaha, on 11/21/2008, -1/+34Because this totally doesn't happen every time there's a comment graveyard...
- mrseptic, on 11/21/2008, -0/+23You serve us fries now.
- inactive, on 11/21/2008, -0/+20I have this weird feeling you're about to get blocked by a lot of people.
Shut the ***** up, go back to 4chan, leave the real ***** news to digg.
Polesmoker. - YourDoom123, on 11/21/2008, -0/+18careful, inertial does not mean equally valid. while all inertial reference frames are equivalent, that does not define the word inertial. inertial simply means that it is experiencing no changes to its motion.
- J16T3CH, on 11/21/2008, -1/+14Whats the equation for that?
B(bm)+N(bm)/L=l
Where B = Bully and N = Nerd, with bm = body mass, with L = Lunch break and l = locker?
Clearly I failed algebra, epically. - d17182, on 11/21/2008, -0/+13OK, seriously yall, the four head comments before this were useless and redundant (and some below suck too), but this one is getting buried for asking a valid question. I could have sworn I'd heard somewhere before that this was already done and taken care of (in which case this digg is inaccurate).
Even if genericdigger and I are wrong, is it so bury-worthy just to ask out of curiosity? Isn't that kinda like burying someone else who asked some questions that, at the time, seemed rather ridiculous, like "Is time constant for all frames of reference?"? Just asking.
Don't be hating on curiosity. - inactive, on 11/21/2008, -1/+14Please read the article.
- doople, on 11/21/2008, -0/+12Think about nuclear explosions. That energy is held in a relatively small number of atoms. The catch is harnessing it, which is basically impossible. Even existing nuclear power plants don't truly capture nuclear energy. They just use the byproduct of heat to spin turbines and generate power the old fashion way.
- Archos, on 11/21/2008, -0/+11Watch the excellent documentary "E=mc2 - Einstein and the World's Most Famous Equation"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4144497206 ... - sweeneyowns, on 11/21/2008, -2/+13digg comment-conversation at its finest can be witnessed ^ here ^
- xartemisx, on 11/21/2008, -0/+11No changes being no acceleration, not no motion. Inertial reference frames experience no acceleration, so all the laws of physics must be equally valid.
- k3rfuffl3, on 11/21/2008, -1/+12Note even close with our current methods of fission or fusion. It's still better than chemical reactions such as burning coal, and better for the environment provided you can safely dispose of the radioactive waste from fission of uranium.
- noumuon, on 11/21/2008, -4/+15i think you need to learn what a scientific theory is.
- mongoh8fire, on 11/21/2008, -0/+11Thanks for the new adjective, "*****". Can I use that? I'll give you the credit, okay?
***** - created by davidkeithjones - czarr, on 11/21/2008, -1/+10That wasn't the bury brigade, all those comments were garbage.
- arobicha, on 11/21/2008, -0/+9I'm confused... A few people from the CNSR use Lattice QCD and determine the role of the relativistic rest mass in what I can only assume is some small closed-system approximation - E = mc^2 being something which has been used endlessly in high energy particle physics for decades, and was key in the discovery and perfection of the standard model. - and show why the energy difference between "free" quarks and a nucleon differ so greatly - understood by experimentalists to be due to a quark-like cloud popping in and out of existence due to the exchange of strong force interaction particles (gluons) alongside the regular 3 valence-quark content we know as nucleons - and suddenly this becomes important?
Take a hike Yahoo... - bdfariello, on 11/21/2008, -0/+9I think I'd digg a picture of MattNF sexing a goat, with all the nudey bits blurred out. The 'wtf, he was serious?' factor would blow everyone away. And of course, the description would have to be a screenshot of his comment here..
- Kent767, on 11/21/2008, -0/+8while true, it is mostly government regulations that dictate nuke power can only power steam turbines. They've become quite advanced at doing it, but better ways are certainly possible if the government could just get out of the way.
- junkwheel, on 11/21/2008, -3/+11Now I get it.
*cough* - danj484, on 11/21/2008, -0/+8Those bombs didn't reach the full energy-mass equivalence.
- MuskokasFinest, on 11/21/2008, -0/+8Yo Subduction! I asked for onions on my burger, not dumb-ass comments! And where the hell is my coke!?
- Incomp3tnt, on 11/21/2008, -0/+8And now they're revolutionizing our understanding of the universe we live in. What are you doing, may I ask?
- brad3378, on 11/22/2008, -1/+9More specifically, it's about energy, mass, and the distance light travels in a vacuum per unit of time.
- cristianorem, on 11/21/2008, -4/+11lol
- Valyn, on 11/21/2008, -2/+9Well genius, explain the holes?
Obviously I don't know physics, so i'd love to see whats wrong with the article. So far the only hole i see is the ***** bitching about the article. - heavyd14, on 11/21/2008, -1/+8You had sex with the goat too?
- inactive, on 11/21/2008, -1/+8I made this comment to Mehow just a couple above.
Shut the ***** up, go back to 4chan, leave the real ***** news to digg.
To get the reply you were looking for:
Your mother's vag smells like the dumpster behind red lobster. - supferrets, on 11/22/2008, -2/+9First time I've seen one like this. Go ***** a goat.
- slifty, on 11/21/2008, -2/+8Bah fine I get it:( French jokes died in 2003.
- thegrantman, on 11/22/2008, -1/+6You know how goats blaaaaab.
- bdfariello, on 11/21/2008, -1/+6I guess you were just typing to (sic) quickly as well.
- eSentrik, on 11/21/2008, -4/+9Totally didn't expect this thread in a comment graveyard. Thanks!
- DESTROYER2118, on 11/21/2008, -3/+8The speed of light is constant.
Ok, I didn't see an equation pop out from that. And he didn't prove it, he explained it, nice try. - TSK05, on 11/21/2008, -4/+9"i think you need to learn what a scientific theory is."
No, I think you do. He's absolutely right - it WASN'T proven before, it's not proven now. You cannot prove a theory. Theories are the current best explanation for a given set of facts. You cannot prove that there is not a better explanation out there.
FTA: "Until now, this has been a hypothesis," France's National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) said proudly in a press release.
"It has now been corroborated for the first time."
Notice how he does not say it's been proven. What he says is that now there is DIRECT evidence instead of indirect. - BabaRamDass, on 11/21/2008, -0/+5We built the atomic bomb based on the formula. I'd consider that practical use.
- jjpertusch, on 11/21/2008, -4/+9hahaha. i spit up my drink a little. dont worry about the wave of digg downs, you made me laugh
-
Show 51 - 100 of 330 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is