doG

Ummm.....no. There are no towns that are in between 2 time zones since there are no gaps between time zones. Towns that lie on the line that separate 2 time zones are technically in 2 time zones. BTW, disadvantages of the current system are not automatically advantages of a new system. What "advantages" are there in the new system?

What color is that? Gamma?

Would it matter if one was redshifted and the other blue shifted?

Sous Vide equipment is probably an affordable path....

You could probably find a big enough deep cycle marine battery to get you through a day. They're available at 500AH or more and they're 12V so retail inverters are readily available. Some automotive batteries like forklift batteries are available at a 1000AH or more but are usually higher voltages, 36V and 48V are common and I've seen some that were 90V. Another thing to consider is the weight of your power source if you are the propulsion source. Would you rather push around 10 car batteries or one bottle of propane gas?

Sure. You will need either a DC heating appliance or an inverter to convert the batteries dc current supply to AC since normal household type appliances are designed to run on AC. The heating element in the unit probably doesn't much care if the power is AC or DC but any motors in the unit will only run on the type of current they are designed for. Many marines appliances are designed for DC. I think you will also find that they cost quite a bit more than AC appliances because of their smaller market. FWIW though consider the average tailgater. They run their grill with gas or charcoal because it is convenient and cheap. I've never seen a portable electric grill. I suspect that's because of the higher cost of an electric grill plus the cost of a suitable battery to power it.

Artw, consider the buoyancy of crocodilians. Their body mass(the stone) remains the same and the quantity of air in their lungs(the balloon) remains the same. They go up and down by controlling the volume of their lungs. When they want to rise they push their liver back which allows the lungs to expand thereby changing the volume of their lungs. This doesn't change the quantity of air in their lungs, just its displacement. When they want to sink they allow their liver to move up against the lungs to compress them. By fine tuning the volume of their lungs they can precisely control their buoyancy.

Ummmm....no. That's not what the Constitution says. It says nothing about what arms the State may or may not keep, only the people. Not exactly what arms do the people have a right to that shall not be infringed? This was easy to answer back in 1791 but what about now? Bad answer, that's what causes the Judicial branch to write legislation via judicial fiat. It was the intent that the judicial branch interpret law, not write it and since the language has changed from then to now so has the meaning and that's what causes living document interpretation. The system is broken and it needs to be fixed, not patched but fixed.

That's why I am generally opposed to voting as a means of picking leaders since it doesn't qualify them in any way other than popularity. Presidential elections have become a good example. It was originally intended that the electors of the Electoral College would meet and discuss who was most qualified for the job but the States have corrupted it by passing laws to instruct their electors to adhere to the popular vote. Now all we have left is a beauty contest and one moron after another leading the country

Clear cut? Hmmmm. The 2nd Amendment says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." What are Arms? Sidearms? Cannons? Suitcase nukes? Just exactly how clear cut is the intended meaning of this word in the context used by the framers? BTW, do we even still have or need a well regulated Militia? I favor the right to keep and bear small arms but I'm not convinced we need a Militia in the current age. You avoided the key question there. Is the meaning of that clause debatable or not?

Red shift is just doppler shift. It doesn't mean the light is actually red, just that the wavelength of light radiated from an object moving away from you is stretched and therefore shifted in the direction of the red end of the spectrum.

The only agenda I'm interested in is clarifying what we have and amending it if necessary. I'm very much opposed to "living document" interpretations of law including the Constitution. The law needs to say what it means and mean what it says, regardless of the era in which it is read or interpreted. We currently have endless debates on the exact, explicit meaning of many of the amendments as they are now written. Our current President has even given rise to ask what exactly is meant by "natural born Citizen" and the Constitution specifies no criteria of any kind to be met for this requirement. If there are reasonable questions as to what the Constitution means exactly then it should be clarified and the only way I know of to do the job right is to have a convention. There should be no doubt what the law says or means. It should not be written so that one court can say it means one thing and a different one something else. As written it is outdated and due for a makeover to remove the many doubts it currently creates. The first Amendment currently states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." In this Amendment is "establishment" a verb, a noun or both? Does it just limit Congress from the establishment(v) of a national religion by law or does it also limit them from recognizing a particular religious establishment(n) like a particular belief or church? Most people read it to mean that Congress cannot establish a national religion but Jefferson read it to mean that he could not recognize the Dansbury Baptists, a religious establishment, when they asked him to give them some federal land. Should we simply interpret the word as it was used when the Constitution was written or should we practice some variety of "living document" interpretation according to the current usage of the word? Bottom line, is the exact meaning of this clause debatable or not?

See http://auto.howstuffworks.com/gears2.htm

I'm far from Republican or Democrat and don't much care for the ideology of either, I find both repulsive. IMO it's time for another Constitutional Convention.

Perhaps, that's not what was said though.

Well that's peculiar. One of those links you've deleted from my post still stands in the OP. I'd quote that post but then I'd be reposting the link you deleted from me posy huh?

IMO this thread and every other post by us-tech.us is just spam for url deleted This thread was put here simply as an attempt to get clicks at url deleted I'd ban the user as a spammer.

Why? Greg said that 99.9% of the scientific community disagrees. OK, the scientific community includes climate researchers, physicists, doctors of all kinds, geologists, chemists, etc. etc., all scientists of all kinds. Then you post a link that says 97-98% of climate researchers believe in ACC. I don't dispute that. I'm just saying that your link does not represent anything close to 99% of the scientific community because the scientific community is not comprised of 97-98% of climate researchers. They are a small part of the scientific community as a whole. Do you really want us to believe that you can't see the difference? Do you really want us to believe that you think 97-98% of climate researchers is the same as 99% of the WHOLE scientific community?

Sure. Iron does the same thing in double hulled ships. The space between the hulls gets depleted of oxygen as the surface of the steel turns to iron oxide. Entering that space for maintenance without ventilating it first will suffocate you.

I worked in a fiberglass pipe plant years ago and we regularly used acetone to clean various resins from our hands and tools. I never had a problem with it really. This glove selector lists natural latex and butyl as the best choice with neoprene next.

I understand that and yes, 99.9 is close to 97 but even 100% of climate researchers is not close to 99.9% of the whole scientific community unless the whole scientific community is climate researchers. I may be wrong but I tend to think there are probably a lot of scientists that are not climate researchers. Imagine a truckload of fruit. One box on the truck is 100% apples. Does that mean the rest of the truck is all apples?

What's there to reference? I made no claim to support except that ACC is debatable. Greg said 99.9% of the scientific community disagrees and you posted a link to a peer reviewed article as a respponse to support his claim that which clearly states, "...97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change...". Sorry, your link does NOT support the claim he made. Greg's statement is wrong and unsupported. No Where does your link say that 99% of the scientific COMMUNITY supports ACC and there's no reason any of us should believe that the scientific community as a whole is 97-98% climate researchers.

According to what definition of "god"? According to Pantheists there is no doubt that god by their definition exists because it is simply another term for nature. According to Christians, God is some great granddaddy in the sky that listens to and answers their prayers. Exactly which god are you referring to?

That doesn't matter. You can't claim that no communist countries have ever existed because they didn't meet YOUR definition of communism. Your definition is unsupported. Even the Oxford English Dictionary defines communist as an advocate or adherent of the theory of communism. If you want to argue that your definition is THE definition then you need to back it help. Short of that it's just your opinion and just because it's your opinion doesn't make your statement a fact.

Really it was an irrelevant topic to begin with. With dark energy there is discussion about what the term means and a goal for everyone's discussion about the possible existence of dark energy to have a common definition of the term. With "god" everyone wants to argue about it's existence with no apparent attempt or desire to do so with a common definition. The term "dark energy" was a poor choice to compare with the term "god".