Cap'n Refsmmat

Farsight, if you want to contradict established physics, please do so in Speculations. We're getting tired of this.

You need to split up each compound into its ions (assuming it's aqueous). You'd split this: [ce]2Na + 2HCl -> 2NaCl + H2[/ce] into this: [ce]2Na + 2H+ + 2Cl- -> 2Na+ + 2Cl- + H2[/ce] and then eliminate "spectator ions" -- those that stay the same on both sides.

All you have to do is re-use the type of train that goes through the Channel Tunnel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurotunnel_Shuttle

Further proof of the existence of time travel.

Nice. I look forward to seeing mine

Because the magazine's type of skepticism is "to stay neutral until the facts are out," and presumably they're insinuating that global warming "skeptics" choose the negative side even when the facts are out. One of the cover stories' descriptions is "The claim that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for the current warming of Earth climate is scientifically insupportable because climate models are unreliable," so I suppose skepticism of the true sort is certainly involved...

Losses in American jobs are also offset by lower prices paid for goods by American consumers, so I wouldn't be surprised if NAFTA worked out to be a positive influence.

Pangloss, this is the Ecology and the Environment forum. Unless you have some sort of scientific argument against climate science (and I have seen none beyond the "post hoc" claim, which has been refuted), I suggest this discussion should stop.

But we have no way of determining which frame, while he's moving, is the "right" one.

You'd only be able to see it during the day over half of the month (or, rather, the lunar cycle). The other half of the month it'll rise at night.

The tree analogy doesn't really work because the tree has an easily measurable height. There may be a contradiction in what you see, but how do you verify which observer is correct?

Please try to be more respectful.

The Moon orbits the Earth once every 28 days, not once every 24 hours, so it doesn't show up at consistent times. Instead, the Earth rotates around as the Moon moves relatively slowly, so your side of the planet rotates away from the Moon sometimes and rotates towards it sometimes. The Moon doesn't come into view exactly every 24 hours because it's also moving, so when your side of the Earth rotates away from the Moon it has to do slightly more than a full rotation to "catch up" with the Moon. Because of this slight difference, the Moon rises at a different time every day -- sometimes during the day, sometimes during the night.

Alternately, you may just remember the cases in which this is true more than cases in which it's false. You could try recording how many times you went with your first or second decision and how well each worked.

Okay, so if all of our measuring devices suggest that the matter is getting smaller, how can we say it's not "actually" getting smaller? There's no way to distinguish between matter "actually" getting smaller and us measuring it to be smaller because we don't have a magical meterstick that tells us "actual" length. We are constrained by what we can measure.

So if we continue to apply heat to the glass, the water level should not rise?

The temperature of the flame is dropping, but not necessarily the temperature of the air in the glass. If someone has apparatus to run the experiment with pressure and temperature sensors inside the glass, that would be perfect.

You could measure the volume of liquid in the dish before and after the experiment.

It's still the same number in base 3 or base 29485. It'd be just as irrational.

If you watch Mooeypoo's original video, however, a significant portion of the milk is sucked up while the flame is still burning.

Your thermometer gives you a reading of 35.3 degrees. Is it 35.31? 35.34? You don't know. The measuring device is only approximating the temperature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg_uncertainty_principle

Look at the equation you use to find impulse. You already have the right pieces to use in it.

Think about conservation of momentum. The total momentum before has to be the same as the total momentum after the collision.

How so?

Unless you suck all the magma out, there's still a good lot of mass in the center of the Earth that you'll be attracted to.