swansont

Yes, but how do they feel about that?

I'm not sure that's an answerable question. How would you possibly study it? It's not a macroscopic effect that can be studied at a more fundamental level. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Virtual particles are part of mainstream physics models.

Air has internal stress?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WaterPhaseDiagram.png Which form of ice are you forming?

What equations did you use? Chances are good that they use the rest mass.

Careful of your units. It's 20 km/hr * mf = 5 mf, and mf cancels

Quantum mechanics is the basis of a large fraction of basic physics understanding of anything discovered since around the 1920's. Not being familiar with these ideas means not understanding the basic science behind the transistor and integrated circuit, the laser, and by extension not understanding a fair amount of today's technology. Not understanding would leave you more susceptible to being hoodwinked by charlatans (like Deepak Chopra) who bandy the term "quantum" about like it's magic and/or mystical. It's part of the broader question of why science is important. And on that subject, here is a quote I like: Separating truth from fraudulent mumbo-jumbo is just one reason why science is important. Which I believe is from http://whyscience.co.uk/

That's one explanation of it.

A system under pressure has some energy, but you supplied that energy in creating that pressure. If you increase the pressure, work is being done somewhere, or some other conversion is taking place. Energy can be stored in a number of forms, and you have to account for all of them.

For #1. "Fully clothed" is a hint, though there are solutions that are available otherwise. You've equated the initial and final momentum, which is correct. Do that with the variables, rather than the numbers. (dttom has already pointed out that you don't actually know the value of the momentum)

SI units are not always practical. We physicists regularly use electron-Volts and the aforementioned barn, because they are appropriate to the scale of the problem. In my limited experience, unit conversion helps foster understanding, and it's the engineers (the ones building bridges) that have more problems with needing units to be consistently given, because they don't do the conversions well.

I agree — you are using less surface for the same amount of sun. The only way this wins for you is if the crop yield not only increases with more sunlight, but the increase is a greater factor than the area loss. But, as I said, if the plant already naturally tracks the sun, this is moot — all you've done is decrease your area.

But there are configurations in which you can start without increasing entropy over time — a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of speeds, i.e. thermal equilibrium. We always tend towards this distribution; the final boundary condition is always the same. The decision of "order" isn't arbitrary, it follows kln(N)

Man apparently does not live by rice alone. One needs spam, too.

And in a lot of places, they make tiers that are level when faced with (originally) uneven terrain.

As far as the solar aspect goes, there is more solar if you tilt the surface, and make the sun normal to it. It will vary as I*cos(theta), i.e. you do get less solar power in the winter, at the same time of day, because the sun is lower in the sky This is why people tilt their solar panels. But … some plants track the sun by themselves, so I don't know how much you would gain from this.

Just a quick perusal, but I find this generalization/portrayal interesting: Liberals are ethical but not necessarily moral, and conservatives are moral but not necessarily ethical.

As D H points out, the "why" of these are unsolved issues. So it shouldn't be surprising that I have not offered a solution.

Planting, watering and harvesting are probably all easier with flat land.

The distant stars are a convenient reference. But they are not a necessary reference.

An inertial frame has no acceleration. You can tell if you are accelerating, not if you are moving with constant velocity.

I have to concur with toastywombel here. Keep things civil.

You'll have to explain why you think there is a connection here. The OP said nothing about EM waves. I think these have been addressed. You can tell if you are in a non-inertial frame. Perhaps you need to reformulate the question.

Yes, you can, but you have to be very careful about it. That's the gist of it.

In the absence of EM radiation (and other sources of fields, like charges and currents), there are no fields.