Sebastian Shaw (questions)

I was working a nice summary of this fun thread to point out where there may be someone who can't get comic versus real world physics straight in their arguments - switching back and forth just isn't a good way to bolster a position (and, incidentally, neither is mixing in rudeness as a debate tactic).

But I decided it wasn't worth it.

Thank you for the humor today, and... well, that is all.

So Durakken's long angry mega rant got axed? Bummer.

Curious if there are any comic book characters that can control 'Force' rather than 'Kinetic Energy' and if there is a difference. Personally, I have a concept character who can absorb and redirect force with his own physical movements and always thought, if he went up against a punching stomping Hulk, he could probably 'stop' him but once the Hulk picks up and throws a building at him, my guy's simply going to get crushed.

I suppose the question lies in 'What can absorbing force do?' considering it's not the same as kinetic energy and 'What can absorbing force not do?'. This is all in the context of the thread, of course. Just my own curiosity. Say you replaced Shaw's power description ('can absorb kinetic energy' to 'can absorb force') along with the fundamental concept of his ability to something relatedly appropriate.

It would depend on whether you were going with the layman's term of 'force' as in the kind of energy that deforms an object when you push on it strongly enough...which is often interpreted as 'concussive force' or 'kinetic energy'...

And the physics term 'force' as in intermolecular forces, fundamental forces, that sort of thing.

The Power Pack could specifically manipulate the Four Fundamental Forces: Gravity, Density, Energy, and Acceleration.

( cracks knuckles )

I am a physicist. I have taught freshman level physics at a university. I've been ignoring the physics side discussion because it made me weep for your generation. But let me do a little explaining.

There are 'forces'. We know of five: Electricity, Magnetism, Gravity, Weak and Strong. Electricity and magnetism are usually rolled into one, called Electromagnetism, because they can be described with a single theory.

The Weak force handles interactions inside an atomic nuclei. It is very seldom relevant.

The Strong force handles interactions inside a boson -- a proton or neutron. These particles are made of smaller particles called quarks, and the Strong force is all about the quarks. It's only relevant at energies where you're splitting particles apart.

You all know Gravity, I hope.

Now, when we talk about 'energy', it really only exists in combination with momentum. Photons have momentum and thus energy, but no mass. Other particles have mass and momentum, and their energy is often called kinetic energy.

'Potential energy' isn't an energy at all, it's just a privileged position within a force field that could turn into energy in the right circumstance. Lift an object, you create gravitational potential. Pull quarks apart and you create strong force potential. It ain't energy until it moves something.

Saying that 'everything is kinetic energy' is not quite right, but it's a simplification I could live with if I were talking to kindergartners. The main problem with it is not in how energy is defined but in how it is transmitted. Those means are varied. At a macroscopic scale, objects hit each other when their electron shells try to overlap but can't because of electromagnetic forces, and so instead of collapsing they trade kinetic energy.

At a microscopic scale it gets more complicated. The kinetic energy of ions can break molecular bonds (alpha radiation, fire), or create molecular interactions at an accelerated speed (fire, acid), you can get resonant absorption (light, gamma radiation), you can get bremstralung effects from magnetic forces on near-light-speed particles (beta radiation, particle beams), you can get weak interactions (meson beams), you can get strong interactions (very high energy particle beams), and you can get heating from a particle current jostling past your atoms (fire, lightning). I've probably missed a few.

So there's a lot of different ways to hurt something. They're not all 'kinetic'.

You decide for yourself which can be absorbed by any fictional supervillain you choose to name.

Oh goodie, maybe I won't miss Durraken's response this time:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Durakken The lie comes from the omission where it is implied I don't know what I'm talking about because when i said Nuclear energy I'm talking about it LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. The way you and i and everyone else thinks of nuclear energy and power is kinetic energy.

That's not a lie, its the truth and your reaction to it betrays a very trivial error. In physics, there is a presumption that potential energy can't really be directly used, it has to be converted into a kinetic form, because typically we use energy to produce work, and work in the specific physics sense requires motion. By definition, this means potential energy while doing work is being converted into kinetic energy.

However, to state that nuclear energy is kinetic is like saying nuclear energy is steam energy. Nuclear energy - the energy in atomic nucleii - is potential energy. At least the energy that is typically harnessed. It is potential energy just like the energy harnessed by a dam is also potential energy: potential gravitational energy due to water being elevated in a gravity well. Of course the water moves but no one would say that the energy harnessed by a dam was kinetic energy. The dam stores potential energy, and it is that energy that is harnessed.

Similarly, nuclear energy is energy *stored* in atoms. Let me repeat: nuclear energy is energy STORED in atoms. I would ask all non-physicists to read that statement and ask if it seems colloquially reasonable. If it does, then QED it is potential energy. By definition stored energy is potential energy in physics. That is a black and white statement.

Quote:

Further she's just straight wrong in what is considered potential and kinetic energy within the reaction. The fact is the energy that we call nuclear energy and the one that is implied is that of what would be the result from a nuclear bomb. Not between particles at the atomic and sub atomic levels. But more over the fact is the energy that I was referring to IS kinetic and comes from intrinsic energy and never is potential.

Now you're in real physics territory, and no physicist or even competent physics student would say that. All nuclear energy is refers to interactions that at least nominally occur within atomic nuclei, and definitely interactions between subatomic particles. That's what makes them "nuclear." They can also occur outside of atomic nuclei, but that doesn't seem relevant to the issue.

More directly, the notion of potential binding energy being converted into radiant or kinetic energy is text book stuff. Its been textbook stuff for almost a century now. If you haven't learned it or haven't been exposed to it, your opinion on this matter isn't informed.

Quote:

More over the example given by Arcana for what nuclear energy is is wrong

My example of beta decay is wrong? How?

Quote:

and the statement that radiation is not kinetic shows a clear misunderstanding of the concepts.

Shows clear illiteracy. The quote is:

Quote:

Some radiation technically contains a component of kinetic energy

Now why would I say that? Because in context, I was replying to your statement that "nuclear energy is kinetic energy" with:

Quote:

Some radiation technically contains a component of kinetic energy but nuclear energy as the term is generally used is potential strong and weak energy.

In other words, first, I did not say that radiation is not kinetic. I said radiation contains a component of kinetic energy, i.e. not all of radiation's energy is necessarily kinetic. Nuclear radiation is not all photons, by the way: nuclear radiation includes things like alpha radiation (helium nuclei) and beta radiation (high energy electrons). There are also other things a nit picker might pick on, like mesons which rapidly decay to daughter radiation - which means some nuclear radiation has potential energy again.

Second, I was trying to highlight the fact that while the products of nuclear energy - radiation, for one example - might contain kinetic energy, that was in contrast to nuclear energy itself which, all together now, is energy stored in atomic nuclei. Stored.

Quote:

Within that "rant" I even admitted that I found ONE and ONLY ONE source referring to strong and weak nuclear energy but obviously gave bad examples and in general wasn't a credible source and didn't match up with any other sources I could find.

Well, let me help you out there. We'll start with what I'm assuming is your educational wellspring, Google, and its top source, wikipedia:

Quote:

Nuclear potential energy Nuclear potential energy is the potential energy of the particles inside an atomic nucleus. The nuclear particles are bound together by the strong nuclear force. Weak nuclear forces provide the potential energy for certain kinds of radioactive decay, such as beta decay.

Lucky hit. #9 on google's hit list:

Quote:

potential energy — position gravitational potential energy roller coaster waterwheel hydroelectric power electromagnetic potential energy electric potential energy magnetic potential energy chemical potential energy elastic potential energy strong nuclear potential energy nuclear power nuclear weapons weak nuclear potential energy radioactive decay

The terminology still seems to be in general use in schools:

Quote:

Inter-nuclear potential energy is stored in the position of a test nucleus, relative to a source nucleus, and is the result of electric potential energy and nuclear strong potential energy.

at least two schools:

Quote:

Two main categories of energy Kinetic Energy: Energy of motion A moving baseball can do work A falling anvil can do work Potential Energy: Stored (latent) capacity to do work Gravitational potential energy (perched on cliff) Mechanical potential energy (like in compressed spring) Chemical potential energy (stored in bonds) Nuclear potential energy (in nuclear bonds)

Actually, probably a lot more than three schools:

Quote:

A pellet of plutonium-238 glows with its own heat. Its nuclear potential energy is being converted into heat, a form of kinetic energy.

Not to mention the fact that you dissed Ionic Man.

And using the term in basically the same context I did:

Quote:

Fusion represents the release of nuclear potential energy, while fission represents the release of electric potential energy.

Quote:

More or less this is 2 people talking past each other but one is being purposely dishonest and maliciously trying to make the other look bad in favor of trying to look like an intellect.

Only one of us is trying to look like an intellect, and not succeeding.

You continue to miss that you may be talking about how you think comic physics works but Arcanaville is solidly keeping to the real world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Durakken You still don't get that it is very clear what I was talking about considering the context and most people's use of the word nuclear energy. I've also directly stated it several times now so the rest of whatever you are going to say is irrelevant.

Oh, and nuclear explosion and its many and varied results does not equal nuclear energy. I've never thought so, so either I'm not 'most people', or you could quit claiming to speak for me.


Frankly, there are ways to politely discuss a difference in interpretation of facts and opinion that supports civil discourse when a disagreement arises. Then there is... well,...