Reflection FAIL

Physics textbook cover violates laws of physics.

Examine the book cover to the left closely; you can click on it for a larger version.  Notice the problem?

Let’s start by stipulating that it was unreasonable to actually photograph a real reflection of the Presidential Seal, so the publisher was justified in photoshopping it.  Keeping in mind that this is a real-life physics textbook, there are three schools of thought about the actual resulting book cover:

  1. Most charitable: this is all the publisher’s fault.  The author would have spotted this, but no one on the editorial side noticed it.  If only the illustrator had read the book (or taken the course it’s based on) this would never have happened.
  2. Less charitable:  at some point, some involved in this mishap realized that the reflection should have been inverted, but it was too much trouble to fix.
  3. Least charitable: the publisher knew the reflection job was botched but figured that the general public was
    1. too stupid to notice, and/or
    2. too stupid to comprehend reversed and distorted letters if the cover were fixed.

I understand the rationale for the reversed lettering on the front of ambulances: you want to avoid the split-second of incomprehension when a driver sees the ambulance in the rearview mirror.  But is the publishing industry really so cut-throat that the fraction of a second necessary for cognitive processing of a reversed Presidential Seal would have materially affect the sales of this book?

This one is even harder to explain.

Electrostatic magnetic ion attraction

Looks technical though, doesn't it?

Iraqis are using a bomb detector that operates on the principle of “electrostatic magnetic ion attraction”.  The physics behind this device is a mystery, since the existence of magnetic ions is unknown to conventional science, so I can’t comment on why explosive material would have more (or fewer?) magnetic ions than other materials – which is presumably the basis for bomb detection.

The company that makes the apparatus acknowledges your skepticism: “One of the problems we have is that the machine does look primitive. We are working on a new model that has flashing lights.”  That new model may not be enough to save the company’s director, though.  This NYT editorial implies that corruption – rather than “legitimate” bad science – explains this fiasco.

Newton’s 3rd law is tricky

Many people have trouble really understanding Newton’s laws.  Including, apparently, the Chinese government, which is building a prototype engine that violates Newton’s third law.  The most straightforward critique describes the problem as a violation of conservation of momentum, but a basic consequence of Newton’s third law (that a closed system cannot produce a net force on itself) is equivalent to conservation of momentum (a closed system cannot spontaneously accelerate).