swansont

PV = nRT (ideal gas) You can get the decrease in pressure from an increase in volume, decrease in number of atoms or a decrease in temperature. Under the circumstances of constant volume and number of atoms, the decrease, as Klaynos has said, must come from a decrease in energy, reflected by a decrease in temperature.

Only 1049 of those are mine

Sisyphus is right. Newtonian gravity depends on the mass, so the density doesn't matter— the basic function is like it's at a point anyway (this ignores tidal interactions). Gravitationally speaking, we wouldn't notice the difference.

Leap seconds are the interest accrued from daylight savings. It compounds, and we'll get more as the years go by.

How do you account for atomic structure in atoms that have no nuclear dipole moment?

But you know it's 19 minutes fast and you do the math (making what we call a paper clock) so you know what time it really is, and you're still late. So you subscribe to my service (still in the planning stage) wherein I set your clock ahead and unknown and random amount each day (from 0-20 minutes fast), so you can't assume that it's really off.

That's because you need to get the ball into orbit — if you don't follow that circular path, you can run into the earth. That part's not about weightlessness.

OTOH, there are a lot of actions that are defended as religious practices that would otherwise be disallowed or decried. I thought the ruling about peyote said that there was no constitutional right to peyote use — the government may allow otherwise illegal activity, but are not required to do so. Was there a later ruling? http://www.totse.com/en/drugs/psychedelics/bbros_number_09.html Refusing medical treatment is not necessarily an exercise of a religious viewpoint, and any adult can make that decision — for themselves. The question arises when you make that decision on behalf of a child.

I think one can determine for sure if one has purchased a pineapple. Determining the veracity of the premise isn't germane if you state it as a conditional, i.e. "IF A is true, then A is true" is still circular logic, and does not depend on the truth of A. Error correction is tangential to the arguments. Make a new thread to discuss them, if you wish

You can discuss circular reasoning within syllogistic logic — the premise and the conclusion are the same thing, or equivalent to each other. This has nothing to do with error correction.

No, pressure is not only dependent upon mass, nor on volume. And these are properties of what's in the balloon, not the vacuum.

No, it's not. The behavior of the molecules' escape depends on their pressure. A balloon at 2 ATM of pressure will disperse at a different rate than a balloon at 1 ATM, all the while the vacuum is unchanged. Saying it depends on the vacuum has no predictive power. No. The volume of the mass does not effect the force, as long as you are outside of that volume. It depends on the amount of mass.

All except a sign. It's v X B

Note: another discussion here

That's due to the pressure inside the balloon, though, not because of the vacuum.

Most systems will do something similar to that — they'll get their NTP signal and update the clock when they do their next synchronization. Any system that requires a time stamp at the level of a second, though (e.g. financial institutions), would need to add it, as would all of the NTP servers disseminating the signal.

Except those works were published, just not in Germany. It was local, and not related to the material. What is proposed here is a global suppression of an idea, because "they" do not want you to know "the truth." ——— In rereading the review, I have to wonder — if Dr. Morse is not schooled in physics, how does he know he learned a lot from reading the book? I mean, if you "learn" that the earth is banana-shaped and that sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes, have you actually learned anything?

Vacuums do not exert forces — they correspond to an absence of pressure, or force.

The lockup happened well before, though. I read speculation that it was a leap year problem, which is unrelated to leap seconds. (Revolution discrepancy causing a calendar correction vs rotation discrepancy causing a clock correction)

I don't believe in superstitious stuff. It's bad luck.

Perhaps it's because the claims are without merit, and these people feel an obligation to point this out. Silence can sometimes be viewed as tacit agreement. It's the same reason some scientists spend time debunking creationism. Why? If the work is fundamentally flawed, having some positive qualities will not salvage it. The reviewer isn't a physicist and admits that he is unqualified to evaluate the math and science. We're supposed to buy it for the jokes?

Liberal guilt about the military.

I haven't voted yet and have cleared some space in my freezer. Anyone in a mood to "convince" me?

GMT won't have a leap second added, since it's already there. GMT is basically the same as UT1, which is terrestrial time. UTC, on the other hand, is based on atomic time and will have a leap second. We do this mostly for the astronomers, so that they know where objects are in the sky based on the time. A couple of arcseconds can be pretty big in the context of telescopes. Pedantic, yes, but that's my job.

I thought you were just happy to see me.