swansont

Then the correct thing to do would be "testicals [sic]"

I think now you want to estimate the number of atoms in contact with the surface, and compare that to the weight of the droplet. But this will tell you about the attraction to the suface, not the attractive forces between the water molecules.

The relevant factor is how fast can one charge exert a force on another. "One side of a particle to the other" has very little meaning in QM.

And that should be related to the forces, because surface tension occurs from asymmetric attraction — the surface breaks the symmetry.

Ignoring the assumption of the mass increasing (you need to define which mass you are talking about), the rod would bend.

If you want an estimate, you assume that other regions of the galaxy aren't all that different than the ones we can see. Estimates for the number of protons range from 1078 - 1080

It's reasonably well explained by general relativity. It is left as an excercise to figure out what is laughable and where the lack of information lies.

No, Polaris is just very close to being on the rotational axis, which is tilted at ~23.5 degrees to the orbit. Due to precession, this angle changes over time. An observer on the equator sees rotation for overhead constellations. Polaris is the only star that appears ~stationary, all others appear to rotate.

The classical electron radius is not the physical radius of an electron.

The speed cannot exceed c. It can go slower.

From a Newtonian perspective, it's caused by mass (The general relativity explanation is more complicated). But why mass causes gravity isn't something that has been answered, AFAIK. We just know that it does.

From what I'm reading (Mooney's book and elsewhere), this really hasn't been the case. Supplements, for example, aren't subject to the FDA in the same way that drugs are. You don't have to demonstrate effectiveness, you just have to be careful not to claim too much. (e.g. don't claim that Ginkgo-Biloba will improve cognitive functions, just have a testimonial that "I take it and now I'm more alert and my memory has improved!"). Look at what happened with ephedra. In cases where some effect has been found to be harmful, it's a lot easier to strike down the rules regulating the substance than it used to be. Read up on the Data Quality Act. It makes it much easier to question the science on which policy is based; all you need is a study or two (who cared if they're funded by the affected industry?) that contradict the other studies upon which the policy was based.

It's an analogy, not a definition. Just a way to visualize it.

The two blades need not be connected. As such, there is no causal relationship between the position of two, so there is no limit to how fast the contact point (or apparent contact point) can move. It's similar to a light beam from a source rotating at [math]\omega[/math]. The speed of the projected beam is [math]\omega r[/math], so if you are far enough away, this can exceed c. But there is no information contained there, and the photons do not have a causal relationship. It is always possible for two (or a series of) unrelated events to be temporally separated by less than t = d/c

The irony of Milloy having a column (and book) about Junk Science is that Milloy is a shill, and presents science within an ideological framework. So "junk" science becomes science where he doesn't like the answer. The larger problem of not trusting studies is related. If ideology has already dictated what the results have to be, you can't trust it. Sadly, this has infiltrated government-sponsored work, which is supposed to be free from such interference. It has become increasingly perverted by politics in what conclusions are allowed to be drawn, and especially so in the recent past. You get decisions like not approving (or delaying) medical treatments or not dispensing medical advice (or dispensing wrong information) because of political and ideological stances; IOW you'd rather kill people than help them, because you disapprove of their ideals or behavior, or because helping business is worth a few lives. Recent legislation has turned the system backwards with regard to burden-of-proof, or requiring kinds of proof/evidence that science cannot provide. I'm in the middle of reading "The Republican War on Science" by Chris Mooney. It's good, but scary.

You're thinking of a parallel plate capacitor, right? As Atheist stated, it's not true in general. The ideal parallel place capacitor always looks the same, no matter where you are, since it is infinite in extent, or approximately so for the length of a side >> separation distance. When you get closer to one plate, more of the charges give you a lateral force, which cancels out, and this balances the fact that you are closer to them. Fewer charges give you a large force in the direction of the field. It all balances to give you a constant field.

Gravitational fields do slow time; near earth this is by g/c2, which about a part in 1016 per meter of height change.