swansont

UF6 is a gas (under the right conditions) It's formed so that one can use gas membrane diffusion or gas centrifuge for the enrichment of uranium.

The one that was moving with respect to the earth ran slower than the one that was fixed. But, as has been mentioned, in some of these experiments, GR effects were also present - clocks that move to a weaker gravitational potential will run faster, and that may end up being the larger effect. (and there is also the Sagnac effect present because we're in a rotating coordinate system) To clarify about the acceleration - if the clocks were compared during the experiment, each one would see the other as running slow. It is only because one clock was accelerated to move fast and again accelerated to slow down that it ends up running slower than the fixed clock. There need not be any measurable GR effects for this to hold.

And rockets, and they do it all the time now with GPS satellites.

You can add to your KE if you do it right. The symmetry of losing as much energy as you gained is true for a stationary planet, but if you approach in the direction of the orbit, you can gain extra energy (the planet keeps moving away, so you spend more time/travel a longer distance accelerating toward it). The trick is that it is asymmetrical in our frame, so the energy lost is smaller than the energy gained. Here is amore complete explanation.

Consider that you need to give whatever chunk of material you want to eject the required escape velocity without frying it. "Unlikely" is an understatement.

How would you get a tidal lock with no tides? Tides are a consequence of there being elasticity in the surface of the planet/moon. As long as a force is exerted, there is a tide.

The object will tend to speed up as it approaches the earth. But unless it loses energy along the way, it won't be captured.

But to any extent this happens, it does so radially WRT the sun, and thus it doesn't exert a torque.

Technically potential energy is shared between the objects in the system, but when the masses are so different we usually "assign" the energy to the smaller. But yes, all objects affected by gravity have some amount of gravitational potential energy.

The earth rotates because it has angular momentum, and that's a conserved quantity in the absence of an external torque. We are transferring some angular momentum (and energy) to the moon through tides, so I imagine the same is happening with the sun at a smaller scale. (The moon is currently receding at ~ 4 cm/year). It doesn't take any energy to rotate - the energy is already there. It would take energy (and a torque) to increase the rotation, and energy would have to go somewhere if the rotation rate decreased.

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)