Sebastian Shaw (questions)

You have referred to comic physics repeatedly as what you are talking about. If that isn't what you mean, you aren't as succinct and clear as you think.

Again, I think your perception of most people is flawed. Or certainly flawed for a geeky web community forum. And it takes no searching at all...
As an example of fact, the Google return was within seconds to present me 5 million results. I am not going to spend the necessary time to read about them - because it really doesn't matter. If I where, there are many .edu sites included in the results so I could learn a lot, I am sure.

No... not at all. In my world it includes politely referring to sources, discussing why 'facts' may be different and find where an opinion may be mistaken as a fact before attacking someone who may have questioned my side of things.

no i have not

So instead of reading what you found you decided to say "i got x number of results" because if you were to type strong nuclear potential energy you get all of 1 or 2 actual results that use that term... Now after rethinking it I thought what if I typed in "nuclear potential energy" with the quotes and then i used it with strong and weak... well the first search turns up very little actual results but links to 5 million-ish sites... while with the quotes you get 86,000 for the first and roughly 6 each for the other two. Considering you got the former... well. Yeah that tells a lot about what you're willing to go on.

You think not lying, not harassing, paying attention to the wording and the context... is not polite discussion?

As far as posting sources. i'm not going to go look for sources again just cuz someone flagged my post with sources in it. And they did flag it the "filter" doesn't work the way someone thinks it does.


Anyways I'm done with this. There's no point in continuing with people who have decided I'm wrong without actually paying attention.

Dude, just within my first page of the thread:

and

You've been all over the map.





Your statement was "quite a bit of searching". Which was not true, and all I was trying to prove. Maybe I forgot quotes - yep, you are right, bad form. But 86,000 is still a lot of results and I bet you got that nice and easily.



I will not assume the reading comprehension or attention to detail of others. I will try to more clearly, and politely state my position. I would not call them liars, or otherwise aggressively speak down to them or call them names.



Sadly, I have been paying attention. And that may be the problem.

ha ha ha, oh wow

The level is misunderstanding you have here is simply phenomenal. This isn't even wrong. It's a level so far and beyond wrong that no possible descriptor exists in this or any possible universe.

It's a fundamental fact of the universe that photons have no mass. That's why they move at the speed of light.

I don't even know what else to say if you actually believe that what you said is true.

Photons are said to have a mass-energy due to the equivalence of mass and energy, but no rest mass. However, gravitational lensing is due to the general relativistic principle that all massless objects move in geodesics (essentially: straight lines) at the speed of light and gravity curves space-time and bends those geodesics, forcing light to take essentially a curved path.

Depends slightly on context, but there are four fundamental forces: Gravity, Electromagnetism, the Strong, and the Weak forces. The Strong and Weak forces are considered "nuclear" forces because they operate at short ranges comparable to the size of an atomic nucleus or smaller. They don't operate exclusively in atomic nuclei, but were first discovered in context of atomic nuclei.

The specific force that overcomes electric repulsion and holds atomic nuclei together is the strong nuclear force, which acts to bind quarks together, and also protons and neutrons in the nucleus. The weak force is responsible, among other things, for beta decay - one way for a radioactive nucleus to decay to a lighter one. So one nuclear force keeps nuclei together, and the other sometimes causes them to break down (somewhat).


The phrase "nuclear energy" has two distinct meanings in common usage. In colloquial usage it can refer to "the kind of energy we get from nuclear power plants." In the context of physics, nuclear energy is potential energy stored in atomic nuclei, the kind that can be released by radioactive decay. Fission, which is the spontaneous or induced splitting of nuclei into two smaller nuclei of comparable size, is the process behind atomic bombs and nuclear reactors. Uranium or Plutonium is processed in the right way and configured in the right way so that chain reactions occur: one nucleus spontaneously splits (because they are unstable and naturally split) and generates some heat and some extra neutrons. These neutrons can strike other uranium atoms and cause them to split. When this reaction happens at a controlled rate you have a reactor. When it happens in a rapid exponential rate you get an explosion.

All this energy comes from the potential energy stored in the atoms' nuclei. If you were to add up all the mass of all the particles that are generated by all that atom splitting, you'd end up with a little less mass than you started with. The rest of that mass was converted to energy: in an atomic bomb about a tenth of a percent. That mass was stored in the nuclei in the binding energy of the forces holding it together, and when those forces are released that mass is converted into energy - kinetic energy for the most part, in the fact that the pieces tend to fly away from each other at high speed. Trivia fact: in the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, about 6 tenths of a gram of mass was converted into energy. The E=mc^2 equation allows us to calculate that this much mass converted into about 54 trillion joules. Enough energy to boil about five hundred thousand tons of room temperature water.

(fingers in ears) La, lala, lala...I'm not listening...

SCORE! mad points for the classic FASERIP! (Class5000 btw, after unearthly it went to the Shift X, Y, and Z, then Class1000, 3000, 5000.... i was wayyyy too into that game apparently) Shaw was always my favorite mutant in all of marvel, i have a character that i have been remaking in every superhero rpg and video game i have ever played that is basically Shaw with a little more control over what he can do with the stored energy. but to the OP's question, any one outside of cosmic level would get stomped by shaw (muscle toons that is, psychics kick his butt) Thing, original Thor (not todays superman analog), Abomination, etc... the initial one "super duper punch" approach would have been an interesting subplot to try out.

Well, i know of one descriptor that is used for things that are beyond wrong.

No, i think this is quite accurate. It's much like Humpty Dumpty:
“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’ ” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’ ”
“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master that’s all.”
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. “They’ve a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they’re the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!”