swansont

No, but the water surrounding it is, and will freeze at a lower temperature. Consequently, it can melt ice, with which it comes into contact, at a lower temperature. But I believe that's above the sublimation point, so there can still be loss of mass that increases with increasing temperature.

Or a wave taking up only a small region, as opposed to a long wave-train. Like this

I think what you'd have to do is account for the optical depth of the atmosphere for all of the wavelengths in the blackbody spectrum. IOW, is the atmosphere opaque at 10 microns, or partially transparent? If the latter, you'll couple to both the atmosphere and the CMB.

Thread moved as being OT.

It's predicated on the extrapolation of the Lorentz transformations, which diverge at v = c, but tend toward infinite time dilation and length contraction. Unfortunately, v = c is not a valid frame for a massive object.

Unfortunately that's a (weak) appeal to authority (and in my case, very weak). But the counterclaim of "there's no (or little) evidence for it" is crap. The CMB is not the only evidence. There is the expansion (Hubble's law) and the relative abundances of the light elements, to name two major lines of evidence.

No. That's the amount of energy you'd get from this mass, were you to annihilate with an equal amount of antimatter, from which you'd get an additional amount of energy equal to that number. The speed of light is not attainable for an object with mass, even as the energy added approaches infinite value.

<cue Grandpa Simpson voice> Let me tell you about USENET ...

Don't be shy about adding some or all of these to your blogroll. Not sure if there's an easy way to do it; I think there's an "import" function but I haven't actually used it. edit: and I'm interested to see that some of the blogs haven't been updated since 1999.

Actually, it's no change in the acceleration. The same concept applies to the objects falling. The acceleration is the same, and they hit the ground at the same time (assuming nongravitational effects aren't included)

I find that a little amusing, because I never thought of it in terms of "earning" mine, though in my case, not all that much was required to get it (I earned my bachelor's degree above a certain GPA and passed a series of interviews). In my current job, I'm considered to be the equivalent of between an O-4 and O-5, in large part because of my degree. Having done both the military thing and grad school in physics, I can tell you that to me the "Dr." represents a greater investment of time and effort than the commission was, and IMO acts as a much better discriminator of technical ability (though not so much on leadership ability) as the selection and promotion process of the first couple of paygrades of the military. I don't want this to sound bad, but I'm glad that none of the junior officers I've encountered at work have ever tried to play the game and try to impress me with their rank, because I have a pretty good idea of how "hard" it was to get there. I'm not particularly impressed by titles — you get respect by your actions, demonstrating competence — but then, isn't that the whole point of this thread?

It does, but since the increase in force and increase in mass are in exactly the same proportion, the value of the acceleration does not change, so the orbit does not change.

If you want to make a fair comparison, wouldn't you want to make sure that the tablets and capsules had equal mass? You can use the filters if you were to measure how much remained after a certain time, i.e. let them dissolve for some time and then filter out the remaining material and see how much had dissolved. Do this for different lengths of time, of course.

Thread moved. The sorting of posts is quite simple: if you want to discuss Hall fractions (and perhaps we all learn something about them) then it can go in physics. If you want to talk about CLF or any alternate interpretation of the Standard model, it goes in speculations.

P is N/m^2, V is m^3, m is kg. N is kg-m/s^2 [math]\frac{kg*m*m^3}{m^2*s^2} = \frac{m^2}{s^2}[/math] so you get m/s, just as you'd expect

And the article points out that 1.5 microns a year can be safely ignored in light of other factors.

Ah, yes. I was assuming it was recognized that they are different terms: on the left, V is Volume and on the right, v is speed

Oh, yeah, how'd I miss that? Freezing point depression. Salt water has a freezing point below 0 ºC. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=30735

An increase in mass and an increase in acceleration must result in an increase in force. The force can't remain constant. Mass isn't present in Kepler's laws because the gravitational effect on orbits doesn't depend on mass, as the equations the Cap'n has provided demonstrate.

Which equipment are you unsure about?

Why? If you're looking solely at warming, the mass hasn't changed, just the density. And the expansion increases r, so the weight actually decreases ever-so slightly. And if you are looking at added mass, why would the effect of the crust drop exceed that of the water addition?

That will give you a reasonable upper bound as long as the temperature doesn't change much. It ignores drag, so the actual numbers you achieve will be smaller. If you solve for v you should end up with a speed — if you don't you have made a mistake. Then you assume a launch angle of 45º and apply kinematics.

The Cap'n pointed you to it a week ago: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=395004&postcount=65 "Time is largely defined by its measurement in physics" What you seem to be asking for is a metaphysical explanation about what time is, and science doesn't provide that.

But a condition of the OP is being near 0 ºC.

You can't reach absolute zero, so that doesn't strictly follow. However, the third law of thermodynamics is classical, not QM, so this is a bit of apples-and-oranges.