[003]
TwinBird
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
** \
to:
** \\\"Inertial dampeners\\\" are a big energy conservation violator, as \\\"inertia\\\" and \\\"energy\\\" are equivalent (according to Einstein\\\'s famous equation, often misstated as E=mc^2). For those who care, the full formula is E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2.
Sorry, but this smacks of \\\"reading somewhere the CommonKnowledge is wrong and not looking into it further.\\\"
First off, inertia and \\\'\\\'gravity\\\'\\\' are equivalent, and \\\'\\\'mass\\\'\\\' and energy. It is true that an object\\\'s energy will rise with its momentum (as seen in that equation, where p is momentum), but that comes from Newton, not Einstein, although Newton\\\'s formula is, like all his mechanical formulas, off by a usually negligible amount (his being ΔE = ∫(dp/dt)·dl, where if you don\\\'t understand the notation, it would take a semester or so to explain it).
E = mc^2 \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' the proper, universal formula showing mass-energy equivalency (it\\\'s essentially a unit conversion). In that other formula, m is actually the \\\'\\\'rest\\\'\\\' mass, or what the mass would be if the object were still. The object, however, has increased in mass by virtue of being moving, just as it\\\'s increased in energy, since they\\\'re the same quantity.
In any case, depending on what the \\\"inertial dampeners\\\" are, they don\\\'t seem to violate conservation of energy any more than the impulse drive. In space, no one can see your contrail.
Sorry, but this smacks of \\\"reading somewhere the CommonKnowledge is wrong and not looking into it further.\\\"
First off, inertia and \\\'\\\'gravity\\\'\\\' are equivalent, and \\\'\\\'mass\\\'\\\' and energy. It is true that an object\\\'s energy will rise with its momentum (as seen in that equation, where p is momentum), but that comes from Newton, not Einstein, although Newton\\\'s formula is, like all his mechanical formulas, off by a usually negligible amount (his being ΔE = ∫(dp/dt)·dl, where if you don\\\'t understand the notation, it would take a semester or so to explain it).
E = mc^2 \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' the proper, universal formula showing mass-energy equivalency (it\\\'s essentially a unit conversion). In that other formula, m is actually the \\\'\\\'rest\\\'\\\' mass, or what the mass would be if the object were still. The object, however, has increased in mass by virtue of being moving, just as it\\\'s increased in energy, since they\\\'re the same quantity.
In any case, depending on what the \\\"inertial dampeners\\\" are, they don\\\'t seem to violate conservation of energy any more than the impulse drive. In space, no one can see your contrail.
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
I have the feeling you don\'t even \'\'understand\'\' it. ThereIsNoSuchThingAsNotability means you can make a page or add examples from any works, no matter how obscure, nothing to do with TakeThat or Nattter.
to:
I have the feeling you don\\\'t even \\\'\\\'understand\\\'\\\' it. ThereIsNoSuchThingAsNotability means you can make a page or add examples from any works, no matter how obscure, nothing to do with TakeThat or Nattter. (Not that I agree with cutting things because of \\\"negativity\\\", but there\\\'s not much that can be done)
Changed line(s) 5 from:
n
Anyway, the examples from the former Sonichu Draft page have been added. Huzzah!
to:
Anyway, the examples from the former Sonichu Draft page have been added. Huzzah?
