swansont

! Moderator Note This is not a puzzle, it's a math problem. Yes, they are equal. If there is more to think about, you need to give everyone the additional context.

! Moderator Note That's not really a puzzle. You need to provide more information.

Yes, but... Since most people aren’t familiar with chemistry nomenclature what ir reveals is people willing to respond without getting clarification of what they don’t understand

This. Makes it sound bad. Carbon monoxide is bad. To catch folks unaware.

Which was based on the evidence and science available at the time. IOQW, he did not predict something that had no basis in evidence or theory, which is how science is supposed to proceed. (If you're making predictions any other way, you aren't doing science) Some gets to us slower than c.

I was thinking about this; I agree. It's a poorly-worded question, because of the other variable the energy (or power) depends on.

You need to be familiar with the journals in the topic, but they all should have formatting and submission guidelines, and you can see what articles in their publication look like and see if your tone and format are consistent.

So Dennis Kucinich filing a suit, contending a violation of the WPR, didn't actually happen? (and he wasn't joined by John Conyers and Michael Capuano in the suit, because hey, democrats didn't have an issue) And democrats didn't vote for any of the resolutions limiting involvement in Libya? When did Trump consult with congress about his act, as required?

In what way is Tyson "rejecting all known science"?

No, he had a mathematical model for special relativity, derived from mainstream physics, and the predictions were in principle testable. (i.e. the limits were technological, and not a shortcoming of the hypothesis) He later developed a model for GR, which was also testable, and was in fact tested just a few years later. You can formulate an hypothesis and describe how you would test it, and explain how such tests would tend to confirm or falsify your hypothesis. If you can't do that, then you're guessing.

My irony meter just melted. And now, back to the program...

Yes, there is an angular magnification when you use a telescope/periscope. It makes objects look bigger and narrows the field of view, as compared to naked-eye vision. But presumably the object is smaller than the limits of the field of view. If the regular horizontal field of view is 2 radians (for humans it's a little bigger than that) and you have a 10x angular magnification, then the FOV in your device is 0.2 radians.

I think "in writing" means a wet signature (but maybe a digital signature will do); a tweet cannot necessarily be traced back to the president. Can you say with reasonable assurance that he wrote it? Maybe someone else did. Also, a tweet is not something that you can say has been delivered to the Speaker of the House and President pro tem of the Senate.

It needs to be written from SEC. 4. (a) (3) "the president shall submit within 48 hours to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing"

Once the air condenses, it releases the energy. If you shift the equilibrium, you are only storing the energy of that amount of water. Plus, you've made the atmosphere more efficient at trapping heat. It's a feedback term. Can you estimate how much energy would be stored for a 1% shift in humidity? I'll bet it's not a lot, comparatively.

The 99.97% is probably a measurement of input air vs output air (if it's legit), not of an entire enclosed space, and using a brand-new filter. If your air purifier is moving 10 m^3 of air per hour (to use the earlier example), but the room is 50 m^3, it's going to take a while to filter the air — the purer air will mix with the smoky air, so you'll see about a 20% reduction in one hour, with an exponential reduction in smoke particles. (this means ~8 hours to reasonably clean the room, not 5, assuming no source). A dirty filter is less efficient and that increases the time to reduce the smoke levels. In addition to John Cuthber's point above about the introduction of new air, consider that smoke gets into a lot of materials, and will be a continual source of contaminants even after a smoker leaves/stops smoking.

Seconded. People have provided citations and other material to back up their position. All you (westom) have done is make assertions.

The minimalist approach is not going to work here. It is not obvious what you mean by “scaled larger” (since lengths contract for moving objects) and what all a focal point has to do with it. If you aren’t going to explain your idea, based on actual physics, this will be closed.

Ah, ok, they’re in a rocket, pulling 10g but the bulk mass is exerting 9g.

If you are accelerating the ship at 10g, how do you have the people experience 1g?

! Moderator Note Please address what I asked you to address.

How, exactly?

——— anyway: from the WPR “SEC. 3. The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities” The written notification to congress is an additional requirement.

“What specifically in the Constitution gives this authority to Congress?” (In conjunction with iNow’s post) doesn’t require a lot of context.

! Moderator Note Not sure how you conclude this. Meanwhile, “If we could somehow harness spacetime, we could magnify atoms ..not optically, with reality scaling” is something that requires a whole lot more detail and amplification. Please focus on that.