swansont

Yes, that's a good point. I meant "explain" in the broadest sense — both predicting and postdicting.

I'd go with the paddles hooked straight into the generator, and the water turning the paddles. Keep it simple. For that reason I'd also use a flashlight bulb and not an LED, so you don't have to worry about wiring it up correctly. You can test how changes in the volume of water and the height of the reservoir affect things

You'll need to set up a differential equation, with acceleration as the second differential of position.

In the context of this discussion, about a scientific case for a designer, it doesn't matter. It is an ID claim that design must have a designer, because all things must have a cause. That's where the burden of proof is. In general, there's decay, vacuum fluctuations, the big bang. The validity of the model does not depend on there being a cause. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Science is a search for models that explain how nature behaves.

The problem with this is that ignores the original premise of the intelligent designer, which is that anything that looks designed must have a designer. That is why it's legitimate to ask "Who designed the designer?" Science doesn't require this, so the comparison to the big bang is not apt. Science is not the system claiming that everything must have a cause.

You've just changed definitions — not referring to seconds because you've called them something else does not mean you have eliminated time. No, that's not true. The rate at which an atomic state oscillation occurs is affected by relativity. It's something that has to be accounted for in atomic clocks, and the errors from the effects are a reason why efforts are made to build clocks with less motion on the part of the atoms. (fountains vs beam clocks) Since length contracts from relativity, we do actually use a variable length standard. We have to — that's how nature behaves. Time and distance are frame dependent. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged That's not an experiment that could determine if the atomic oscillations are affected by relativity, so what's the point?

That's right.

The equation is for a bulk material, not a single atom. If you shine light on a material, the amount that penetrates falls off as an exponential.

Um, yeah. —— Speculative posts belong in the Speculations forum, subirsengupta.

v^2/2 + gh = constant v^2/2 = 24.5 m^s/s^2, so at h=0, this is the value the sum must always have. At the maximum height, v=0, so gh= 24.5 m^s/s^2 When it hits the ground, you again solve v^2/2 + gh= 24.5 remember that h= -1.6 m (you've defined h=0 as the release point)

As long as n=2 you should be OK

Too right. Let's stay on topic of the OP, which was scientific evidence for some designer, and not other aspects of the topic

[math]I = I_0 e^{-\alpha x}[/math] Light gets absorbed, and this is more likely at the surface of a material. Interior atoms are shielded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo_theory

You can describe motion without reference to forces at all, though they are related by the equations Bignose has given. But remove the mass from the relationships and you have how acceleration, velocity and displacement are connected.

You may find it easier to use the energy equations, or he related kinematic equations. KE = 1/2 mv^2 and PE = mgh. Once the ball is released, PE + KE = constant, so you can choose the release point to be h=0 (or any other convenient point, as long as you apply it consistently) Divide by m (since it isn't known) and you get v^2/2 + gh = constant

The problem with this is that bonding is a result of removing energy from a system. Removing more energy can't result in a failure of the bond, because if it did I could make a perpetual motion machine out of it, and the entropy cops tend to find that objectionable.

Ho much mass are you talking about? Multiply it by 9 x 10^16 m^2/s^2. If the mass is in kg, the answer will be in Joules.

You have Beer's law, which says that macroscopically the intensity drops off exponentially. Atoms near the surface are more likely to interact.

Quantum teleportation is not being in two places at once. It refers to the transfer of quantum information

The dynamics of how that charge would accelerate would be different — the proton will go in the opposite direction as an electron, and it will have a different speed. But a fundamental charge that is accelerated through a 1V potential difference gains 1 eV of energy, by definition. So the idea in the OP is right — the pV and eV would be the same, so there's no need for both.

I see how it's exponential … and 1 mrem out of 360.

Because they can't see that they're dinosaurs.

Sorry if this isn't particularly helpful in this context, but … What an awful set of answers. Heat isn't a substance or property to be gained or lost. Heat refers to the transfer of energy, so if "heat" is used, all of those should be worded like "there is heat flow from A to B" In reality, one should replace the word with "net thermal energy" Saying that something heats up is fine — that describes an influx of energy which raises the temperature. But what you added to the system was energy.

What kind of circuit? If there is a capacitor discharging in it you can get a funny result.