swansont

Gravitational force is infinite in range, but decreases in strength as 1/r2

The formula you want is F=dP/dt, which i the source of the well-known F=ma, or force is mass X acceleration. But that assumes constant mass (so dP/dt =m(dv/dt), or ma), and isn't useful in this case. Rearrange it and you get F= v (dm/dt), where dm/dt is the rate at which mass is ejected and v is the speed, which is assumed constant.

Travel in 3D leads to collisions, which will tend to eliminate the particles in these orbits, over time.

Water is a polar molecule, so there are attractive forces between them. On surfaces they will be asymmetrical (along the surface and inward, but not outward) If the drops are small enough, the force is sufficient to make them stick to things, and also accounts for why drops tends to be small. Detergent tends to destroy surface tension - you can float a razor blade or paper clip on water and then sink it with a drop of liquid dtergent. Also works with water strider bugs (or so I'm told

Short wavelength photons pass through the atmosphere more readily, and are then absorbed be the earth. The earth radiates - this is blackbody radiation, since it has a temperature, and the molecules are vibrating - which is at a much longer wavelengths. The longer wavelength light doesn't pass through clouds readily. Your characterization of IR=heat is incorrect. All EM radiation transfers energy. Hot objects tend to radiate strongly in the IR. But IR is not heat.

Actually it was Mrs. Scroedinger's cat.

You'll. Have. To. Do. More. Than. Make. The. Claim.

Uh, no. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (aka Lou Gehrig's disease) Body breaks down, mind still works.

There's a whole bunch of links on the Ketterle page.

More simply (perhaps): the PE at infinity is zero. If the force is attractive, you have to add energy to separate the particles, so they have negative PE. You could have extracted this energy as the particles came together. One of the implications of this convention is that negative mechanical energy (KE + PE) implies a bound system.

Entropy is a macroscopic property/concept, so the notion that perpetual motion of the first kind can't work doesn't apply on the atomic scale.

Here is a link from Wieman and Cornell at U. Colorado. Here is Ketterle's page (MIT) (Those three are the Nobel Prize winners for BEC)

What General? Pres. and Mrs. Kennedy were in the back seat, and Gov. and Mrs. Connoly were in the seat in front of them.

Thanks, and mea culpa. Populations evolve, not individuals.

But we observe it whenever we look. Same as with gravity - we don't need to measure it everywhere to have confidence that it is present. We've long passed the point where we understand that large masses exert gravitational forces, and that living beings with DNA will evolve. I don't advocate teaching that evolution is unquestionable. But neither is it conjecture. The amount of evidence that supports evolution is staggering. It is irresponsible to teach that it's just a guess (and made up by those Godless scientists who want to topple the church, as is often implied)

Evolution occurs, as you say. Thus it is a fact. The fact of evolution (it occurs) and the theory (the explanation of why it occurs) are two different things. It would be incorrect to say that evolution in the past is a fact - that has to be inferred from the evidence. Theories don't "grow up" to be laws. A law is merely a fairly simple mathematical relationship that has been observed to be valid under some set of conditions. The law of gravity (F=GmM/r2) is, if fact, "wrong" in the sense that it is less complete in explaining behavior than the general theory of relativity. It's not the "law of relativity," because you can't write it out as a simple equation. Hooke's law is only valid under certain conditions (no deformation of the spring). Ohm's law has exceptions. Having something named a theory or law doesn't have the implication that one might infer from the lay terminology. Science terminology tends to have very specific definitions. To a scientist, speed and velocity are not interchangeable as they are in common use. There is no such thing as e.g. deceleration or de-evolution, if you are rigorous about the scientific definitions. So when people who have little training in science start arguing these points, there is going to be confusion if you don't understand the definitions. But "theory" is often interpreted as "guess" and it just isn't so.

Evolution is both fact and theory. The phrase "only a theory," in science terms, is an oxymoron, since theory is the pinnacle (vice hypothesis or conjecture) and requires a large amount of supporting evidence.

Except that creation isn't a scientific theory.

And since the carbon source must be terrestrial (exchanged with atmosphere), and fish do not fill this requirement, it is extremely likely that whomever did the testing knew it would be invalid. Similar to the dating of inclusions (xenoliths) in a recent lava flow not giving the age of the eruption - you didn't fulfill the requirement if the rock being molten in order for it to work. You might want to give scientists the benefit of the doubt that they aren't terminally stupid.

A number of reasons, including radiometric dating. I suggest reading The Age of the Earth by G. Brent Dalrymple.

There are two forces on the balloon - gravity and the bouyant force. Generally the bouyant force is larger and the balloon rises. Accelerate the elevator, though, and you get a pressure differential which affects the bouyant force. Do this in car, so that the horizontal bouyant force isn't fighting the vertical one, and the balloon moves forward when you accelerate the car forward, because of the air pressure buildup in the back of the car. So for the elevator it will depend on what the initial bouyant force is and how that compares to mg. Do it with a neutrally or marginally bouyant balloon, and it'll move down.

Here is the talk.origins FAQ on the topic. H. sapiens dates back to about 500,000 years. Anatomically modern humans (H. sapiens sapiens) dates back about 120,000 years.

I think Homo sapiens dates back to 500,000 years or so.

On the periodic table it's the average mass, wieghted by the abundance, as noted. For atoms with no stable isotopes, it's the longest-lived isotope that's represented, and the mass number is given (total number of protons+neutrons). C-12 and C-13 are stable. All other isotopes are unstable. Don't hold your breath trying to find any C-32, though - it's very far from the line of stability, so I doubt it's ever been synthesized.

I think the question dealt with heat, so a discussion of wood conducting electricity is off topic. So, wood will conduct heat, but does so poorly. for 5, (when gas or liquid is heated,Its molecules move away from each other?) since it's not universally true, the answer has to be "false." The molecules' motion is random, not away from each other, and not all materials expand when the temperature is increased, so it's not even a general trend.