Cap'n Refsmmat

We're considering whether such behavior would be immoral. If it can be demonstrated that it is not harmful to children, it is much easier to make the case that it's moral. If it can be demonstrated that it's in fact beneficial in some way, then not much else is needed. Sure. But suppose we had a society where open sexuality was acceptable. Would there be a tendency towards prostitution and abuse when sex is more freely available? I think the answer is "We don't know," which is why I wanted to dig up some references.

There are a number of cultures in which children are encouraged to be far more sexual than they are in our Western culture; presumably we should look to them to find out how it's worked out. I may dig up some references if I have time.

Well... is this in solution, or in some other situation? You can start by giving the definition of equilibrium constant. You should be able to work out concentrations based off of the information the problem gives.

Hm. Usually programs are supposed to remember their size, so if you close them while it's maximized, it'll open again maximized. Does that not happen?

Well, question: What browser are you using, and on which operating system? And if you don't mean F11, what do you mean?

In a vacuum with nothing else going on, a radio wave (or light wave, or whatever else) will just keep going. It will, however, gradually spread out (even a laser beam), until it spreads so wide that you can't even tell it's there. In a conducting medium (or in an atmosphere that scatters radiation), a portion of the wave will be absorbed as it passes through, and it'll die out. As lemur points out, in an expanding universe, the wavelength will gradually get longer (lower frequency), but there's no limit, so it'll just stretch until the wave is unnoticeable by instruments.

The electron may be a physical object, depending on your interpretation, but it's still not spinning. That's still not a virtual particle. The point of quantum mechanics is that the electron, for most of the time, has no defined location. It is merely somewhere, with the probability of finding it at a given point given by the square of the wavefunction. It's not that it's a small particle that pops from one place to the next -- it has no single location. Under a strict interpretation of QM, I don't think there can be a physical thing going on. It's like asking what physical thing is going on to give a particle mass.

Photons can be absorbed by atoms. When they do, they give up their energy to the atom; for example, a photon striking a hydrogen atom with the right amount of energy will be entirely absorbed, and its energy will go to boosting the hydrogen's electron to a higher energy level.

Why should there be a physical explanation? What matters is that we can use our mathematical understanding to predict real-world phenomena like the Stern-Gerlach experiment. It doesn't matter what the electron does in its spare time unless that affects experimental results.

Er. Who exactly is charged or prosecuted under the Defense of Marriage Act? Nobody. DOMA says that any state is not required to recognize a same-sex marriage made in another state, and it defines "marriage" under federal law. It is up to the states to continue obeying the first part of the law, and the IRS will continue preventing same-sex couples from filing joint returns as it always has. There is no prosecution under the act; the only law suits will be civil rights suits against states or against the IRS. No selective enforcement. Part of the law is enforced by individual states, and the other part is still in full effect. The federal government is not arresting people and then letting them go upon appeal.

They know it exists because of experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern-Gerlach_experiment Classically, an electron does not have physical spin. Physical spin cannot account for spin angular momentum. Physical spin has nothing to do with spin angular momentum. Electrons do not spin. The only way you can think of spin angular momentum is that it is "some property an electron has that behaves like angular momentum." You cannot visualize it, because it is not spinning. You cannot liken it to any motion of the electron because it has nothing to do with how the electron moves. It's just a property an electron has. It acts like angular momentum.

Sure, but that doesn't make them virtual. I don't think you can actually think of electrons in orbits as occupying a certain space or having a certain shape. Spin is merely something an electron has. You can't consider it as a way the electron moves or orbits. Quantum physics can't be visualized in terms of discrete particles moving around in certain ways. It won't work.

It also provides a platform for propaganda, surveillance, and censorship. One must not assume that the Internet will automatically encourage good; wise governments can use it for nefarious purposes as well.

There are the forum rules, and section 3 is fairly accurate. We usually warn members, then give a short suspension, then permanently ban.

How can this be true given the current shortage of doctors in many fields?

And as we've already seen in the US, there's a shortage of primary care physicians as doctors head for better-paying specialties. Cut their salaries and this will increase. You'll also discourage future medical school students from ever becoming doctors. Unfortunately that's not how most people think about it. Also, I understand that medical school and residency is not much of a pleasure, by any stretch of the imagination.

I thought there was already a shortage of qualified doctors in certain fields. Also, some doctors already reject Medicare patients because the pay is too low. Reducing their pay would simply exacerbate these problems and decrease access to healthcare.

Well, if the doctor writes a note saying, "Frank is severely ill with diarrhea and can't make it to work," and Frank is standing in a large crowd in a protest, I think the doctor's diagnosis can be easily questioned.

Yeah, inline spellcheck is done by your individual browsers.

You can also check these people out -- they do free textbooks for K-12 education: http://www.ck12.org/flexbook/ I can't vouch for their quality, but some school systems have switched to them.

All right, let me explain a bit. In circular motion, the force required to keep the object moving in the circle is: [math]F = \frac{m v^2}{r}[/math] where m is its mass, v its velocity, and r the radius of the circle. The gravitational force is, of course, [math]F = G \frac{m \, m_e}{r^2}[/math] where G is the gravitational constant, m is the mass of the object, me the mass of the Earth, and r the distance. Setting these equal (since gravity is the force keeping the object in circular motion), we see that: [math]v^2 = G \frac{m_e}{r}[/math] so the velocity of the orbit decreases as the radius increases. Of course, the math gets more complicated when you consider non-circular orbits.

lemur's scenario is more accurately a geostationary orbit, and there is only one altitude at which you can have a geostationary orbit.

No, it'll have a lower velocity; the higher you are, the slower you need to go to stay in orbit. [math]F = \frac{mv^2}{r} = G \frac{m \, m_e}{r^2}[/math] [math]v^2 = G \frac{m_e}{r}[/math] As you can see, velocity decreases with increasing orbital radius.

Orbital mechanics are weird. But yes, if you're in orbit and you apply your thrusters to try to speed up, you end up in a higher orbit, going more slowly than before. If you decelerate, you drop into a lower orbit and accelerate. On the other hand, if you accelerate and go into a higher orbit, but continue applying thrusters, you will just move into higher and higher orbits until you just launch yourself out into space. That's what's happening with the elevator that rises above a geosynchronous orbit.

There is a way, but it doesn't seem to be working at the moment. I'll investigate.