swansont

Yes, but it's still unanswered because known processes don't account for the magnitude of the effect.

That's a bit easier to do. Estimate the thermal content. Use the Stefan-Boltzmann law to find out how much power we are radiating. Then integrate to see how long it will take to radiate away that much energy. That won't account for the transport time within the planet, but it'll give you a first-order approximation.

Because you can generate more energy that way. Hydro plants use the vertical drop of the water rather than the motion in a river. The potential energy is mgh, which is converted to kinetic energy as it falls (1/2mv^2), and you can extract some fraction of that. The kinetic energy in a river is much smaller because the speed is small, and you don't have access to all of the water to turn your turbine — if you came anywhere close to doing that, the river wouldn't be navigable. In a dam, a much larger fraction of the water can be directed through the turbines. Also, I think turbines are more efficient at higher speeds.

Is there a point you wish to discuss?

Your gravitational potential is smaller on the moon, and this makes time run faster. But the moon is also moving with respect to us (and accelerating) so that makes the clocks run faster. You'd have to run the numbers to see which one dominates.

The matter/antimatter asymmetry is one of the big open questions of cosmology.

Assuming constant density, so this is approximately correct but there will be some deviations from the linear decrease.

But this misses the point that Sisyphus made — what gravity is is not the same as how it behaves; science is primarily concerned with the latter. And Einstein has been spectacularly right with relativity.

Absolute zero is not attainable in a finite number of processes, even in an unphysical scenario such as described.

It is a reaction force, but not a reaction force to the person pushing it down. Reaction forces always act on different objects, so the fact that they add to zero does not mean the object would like to remain at rest. (The ball pushing back on the person is the reaction force to the person pushing on the ball.) The ball is displacing water — pushing water out of the way. The water is pushing back, with an equal and opposite force. The action of the ball will be due to the forces acting on it: buoyancy, gravity, and (perhaps) someone pushing on it. If the ball is submerged and then nobody is pushing on it and the buoyancy force is greater than the weight, it will push the ball up. If it is less, then the ball sinks. If it is equal, then you have neutral buoyancy.

I haven't done a "classic" post in a while. I'll see what I can cook up.

The current is not free to flow unimpeded. The electrons are bumping around inside the circuit (the wire, in this case) and the electrical energy is converted to thermal energy.

Visible light only spans one octave, so I think the comparisons will be limited.

Right. The spectrum of the kind of signal they can detect is by no means complete. Earth-like planets in earth-like orbits around sun-like stars are not yet detectable, though we are getting close. One tool in this improvement is an optical-frequency comb used (the "astro-comb") to improve the calibration of telescopes as they measure spectral line Doppler shifts. http://www.photonics.com/Content/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=33353

Yes, but OTOH, no, it won't. But that off-topic for this thread, and has been brought up elsewhere.

The material will become polarized; in a uniform field, the force on the + and - charge of the dipole will be equal. That causes the orientation, but there is no net force on the material. +qE - qE = 0 I think the attraction mentioned in that other post was referring to the orientation of the dipoles, rather than the bulk behavior.

That's true of any explosive, though. But having the energy densely stored as a chemical potential is a lot more comfortable than having it present more diffusely as thermal and kinetic energy.

Depends on the research. I haven't used dirac notation for my job very much at all, but I'm an experimentalist. If you look at papers, I think you'll see it's fairly common.

What about planets that aren't volcanically active?

There's the buoyancy, which gives you the force being exerted back at you, but there's also the concept of unstable equilibrium — any force or motion not directly down is going to cause the ball to want to "squirt out" from whatever is exerting the force.

If an atom could be at rest (as it is in its own frame) it can quite happily oscillate between two states, which is one way of measuring time.

It's a closed loop.

Banned accounts still exist — just in a banned status. Their posts don't disappear.

The "flows under its own weight causes them to be thicker on bottom" part has been debunked.

Since it's Florida, I have to wonder if it coincides with thunderstorms. You could be getting a surge from the strikes or outages elsewhere, though the UPSs complaining for that long doesn't seem to fit. There are dataloggers you can buy, or get a multimeter/voltmeter with a USB connection if you are going to use the computer to log the data.