mfb wrote: gmalivuk wrote:
As for my strange definition of "moving" I'll use "has non zero momentum".
This is still frame-dependent.
In addition, it does not account for spin, which is non-zero in every frame.
I never said it wasn't frame dependent.
It does account for spin. Objects with spin have angular momentum, and under my situational definition are moving.
Anyway back to the original subject, after reading the OP's list I have some comments:Thought the laws of Gravity applied everywhere
They do, we just don't understand them is certain extreme circumstances.Thought gravity is not the weakest for of nature
typo: force, not forThought ice is always water, not carbon dioxide, methane, and ammonia
Really more of a matter of definition then understanding. Solid volatiles became know as ices by analogue to (water) ice. It would make as much sense to say that ice can be made from SiO2 because the Latin word for glass derived from ice by analogue.Thought there are only 3 dimensions
Again, definition. When a lay person says that there are three dimensions they mean spatial dimensions. It's more accurate to say physicists use
four dimensions as they describe space-time, not space.
The astrophysics section seems to be a mislabeled miscellaneous categoryThought glass is a solid
I've seen other lists of misconceptions saying the opposite. I've also personally had a chemistry phD tell me glass being liquid is an urban legend, that the unevenness of old windows was a result of original manufacture, and that one could find old windows thicker at the top.Thought weak force is the weakest force/Thought the electromagnetic force is the strongest
I've read that color > EM > weak > gravity. However since (as I understand it) color and weak don't have a k/d2
propagation I don't really understand how they're comparable and hence well ordered. I'd bet people who don't "know" weak > gravity generally don't know what it means to be the weakest force.Thought water drains differently in the southern hemisphere
Good one, although I did have to look them up. If/when you add explanations be sure to mention that the effect is there, it's just trivial compared to other sources of momentum at play. I guess people in Rand-Mcnally don't really wear hats on their feet either.Thought there is only one type of water (i.e. no D2O )
Another good one. If/when you add explanations be sure to mention that it has significant chemical differences, otherwise it may seem that D2O isn't really a different chemicall.Thought time and space are infinite (or universe is infinite)/Thought the universe is too big to measure/Thought there could only be one universe
This is begging the question. The "observable" universe is finite, as in the rest of the universe inferred from observed effects. It makes sense for scientists to only talk about what's observable/testable, but that doesn't mean the other statements are wrong, so much as using unscientific definitions.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.