swansont

No, I was answering your question about where in the constitution the power is enumerated. That could only be so if you had made that determination first. I was not assuming that’s what you meant. Well, then, find where I actually said that he declared war.

No. It assumes a circular orbit stemming from a Coulomb force. Why would there be a magnetic field?

Bohr’s formulation does not have a magnetic field

You would need to know the magnification to know the angles. The angle between the two points is approximately the length of the island divided by the distance to it. (The exact equation would use the arc length)

And my other posts were not necessarily restricted to that

I think maybe you shouldn’t presume to tell me what I was talking about. I said it’s up to congress. And the war powers resolution was enacted by...congress. And you had stated . “If a declaration of war is not defined, then you cannot claim that what he did was a declaration of war.” and I NEVER SAID HE DECLARED WAR You may have been talking about declaration of war, but I had moved past that.

Why would it do that? The torque drops to zero, but there would still be a angular speed A photon cannot be absorbed by a free electron. E is energy and p is momentum

I didn’t say what he did was a declaration of war, I said it was an act of war. And if you are going to apply a different standard to this part of the constitution as to much of the rest of it, then you’re right - there is no discussion to be had. If everything in the constitution were clearly defined, the SCOTUS would have nothing to do.

Have you met our constitution? How so? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_engagement Rules of engagement (ROE) are the internal rules or directives among military forces (including individuals) that define the circumstances, conditions, degree, and manner in which the use of force, or actions which might be construed as provocative, may be applied.[1] They provide authorization for and/or limits on, among other things, the use of force and the employment of certain specific capabilities. (Emphasis added)

There’s more than 200 years of precedent. There’s the war powers act, and probably other legislation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution A colonel would be familiar with the rules of engagement Because the constitution grants that power to congress, not the president. Rules of engagement War powers act.

You’re assuming the vapor never condenses. Is that resonable?

IIRC electrolysis is ~1.25 eV, so it would be 7.5 x 10^26 eV for a kg. That’s 120 MJ, or 33.3 kWh

Why would it? The thermal energy is still around.

It’s up to congress. We haven’t made an official declaration of war since 1942. More recently it’s been an authorization to use military force. But killing a military member n a military action, and having military craft enter sovereign territory to carry out the attack are considered acts of war. The UN terminology is aggression, and includes “armed invasions or attacks, bombardments, blockades, armed violations of territory” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_3314#The_definition_of_aggression

At the very least he needed to inform the “gang of 8” which he did not do. The problem is that there are currently no repercussions for not following the rules.

Article 1, section 8. Congress shall have the power to declare war (edit: also to raise money for armies, and that money can’t be appropriated for longer than 2 years)

How much water do you use each day for cooking? The energy is being absorbed here on the planet, so I don’t see how the heat island effect would be reduced. To reduce albedo the light has to be reflected out to space. Solar thermal would tend to increase absorption.

If that's correct about the vials being uniform (I would expect some variation, but uniform is a reasonable initial assumption) then you would have to look at the density of water (or the ethanol+water mix) as a function of temperature. https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2007/AllenMa.shtml For water the variation is small, about 5% between 10 ºC and 30 ºC, but it's pretty linear Then it's a matter of matching the density of a vial to a temperature.

The tags can probably be made of anything that will survive without corroding The thermometer bobs I've seen are blown glass and wouldn't be adjustable by themselves. Their average density is adjusted by the amount of weight in the tag, so that the vial has the proper buoyancy at the chosen temperature. You can either change the weight of the tag, or the number it displays.

! Moderator Note Moved. This doesn’t belong in the Lounge

If you tilted the glass at the right rate you could do this with a straight glass, but you would have to do it at the ball’s cycling frequency, so the ball always sees an upward force from the tilt. (It’s a little like how a Paul trap works for ions, by rotating the electric field)

There needs to be an upward force which is exerted by the slope of the glass. In the motorcycle trick, the bike is angled upward a small amount to ensure there is this force. Honey would be problematic, since it’s viscous and you might not be able to get the ball to move fast enough to provide a sufficient centripetal force. And I don’t see how it would give a net upward force.

In that case you haven’t been given c, as described in the title. But I realize now that inverting the decimal might not yield an integer, so you have to multiply by another factor to get it.

whether it causes severe burns would depend (at least in part) on the concentration. Something that burns severely at one value may not when diluted. I, too, would like to know why the OP wishes to know this.

cm/cm should not give you cm