SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
→Added a new topic: reply
Also, further down it says that the energy of an atom has nothing to do with gravity. However, since both protons, electrons and neutrons have mass, there will be a gravitational component to the potential energy of an atom. Using an atom is a bad example, since the formula is talking about the energy associated with mass, and not talking about any other sort of energy. This is similar to how the formula for kinetic energy only tells us the kinetic energy component of a particle's energy, and says nothing about its potential energy. It would be better to talk about a sub atomic particle such as an electron here. [[User:Richardm|Richardm]] ([[User talk:Richardm|talk]]) 12:06, 11 September 2016 (EDT)
Also, further down it says that the energy of an atom has nothing to do with gravity. However, since both protons, electrons and neutrons have mass, there will be a gravitational component to the potential energy of an atom. Using an atom is a bad example, since the formula is talking about the energy associated with mass, and not talking about any other sort of energy. This is similar to how the formula for kinetic energy only tells us the kinetic energy component of a particle's energy, and says nothing about its potential energy. It would be better to talk about a sub atomic particle such as an electron here. [[User:Richardm|Richardm]] ([[User talk:Richardm|talk]]) 12:06, 11 September 2016 (EDT)
:I'm trying to adopt a general policy, in science articles and especially relativity articles, that questionable statements go in the top of the article, above the table of contents, while non-admins try to make the part below the TOC correct. Do not worry about the discrepancy. Just edit the part below the TOC to contain correct information. Attempts by ordinary people (e.g. you and me) to "fix" the parts above the TOC can lead to being reverted or blocked. So I don't worry about the "liberal claptrap" sentence. I tried to take it out once, and got reverted. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 15:08, 11 September 2016 (EDT)