swansont

Look at your watch right now, and write down the date and time. That, too, will never happen again in your lifetime.

Since the square of the wave function is symmetric about x = 0, that should be fine.

I think what you need is an equation that gives you the probability of tunneling through a barrier. (like this)

No. Invariably, when they contort their hypothesis to fit some facts, it doesn't end up fitting a bunch of others. That was a problem with Setterfield's work. IIRC it failed when analyzing supernovae intensity decay profiles, while GR gave the right answer. The creationists don't seem to realized that they are trying to solve a massively overconstrained problem, and the constraints placed by their interpretation of the Bible are the reason their hypotheses don't work.

Or you could just put the video cameras in place with a recording device...

EG is the energy of the ground state? You have the tunneling probability for one strike against a barrier. If you have the energy of the alpha, you should be able to calculate how often it hits the barrier, and get the total probability of tunneling. You can use the U-235 data to fix one parameter of your equation, and then estimate the Pu-239 half-life.

Go do the research yourself, then. Failing that, be prepared to pay for things that cost money to produce. Ummm, a library?

Is this the Podkletnov apparatus? If so, it's not the same thing — that's antigravity bunkum.

What is the make and model of your camping fridge? I'm sure it does not use magnetic evaporative cooling, and if is true that, from an article from last week that "only recently that magnetocaloric materials have been known with the right properties for use in everyday refrigeration. But several factors have so far prevented such applications. " then it's probably not that, either. I'm betting it's a Peltier (thermoelectric) cooler.

All conserved quantities stem from a symmetry in nature. With momentum it is a translation, which implies a vector. With energy, it is time, which is not a vector.

If you're putting the cucumber in your DNA, I think you're doing it wrong. Or so I've read.

Sure there can, just not for one person. Two people can disagree on what time it is, and neither of them be wrong. Time is relative.

Then the thesis that "more oil = less coal" would result in less pollution is also incorrect. We would have as much pollution as the political will allowed. Which is to say, the same amount we have today. I'm not sure what you meant by "gas today is three times what it was 30 years ago" Do you mean price? Adjusted for inflation, oil only got expensive in the last couple of years, and is still cheaper than it was in the early 80's. And because of improvements in gas mileage, gas is a smaller fraction of the total budget for most people. And the increase in driving also has to be tied in with population growth. More consumers would imply more consumption.

But oil would likely have remained inexpensive, and there would have been little incentive to improve gas mileage. We would probably have more consumption than we do today, and more pollution as a result.

"No pollution" ignores the construction of the plant, but it's certainly less pollution per kWh produced over the life of the plant than for fossil fuels. A problem in the US is education. People are afraid of nuclear power and radiation, but partly because they don't understand anything about the technical issues and can't objectively assess the risk.

Your link admits that Setterfield's contention is wrong (a prediction is not borne out), and that the work of Humphreys did not yield anything. There are a number of experiments that show that the fine structure constant, which depends on c, could not have changed by more than a tiny amount.

"see" = "detect photons"

Do posts in speculations count toward your total? (edit: it seems to be so) I know that general discussion ones do not. If so, posting in this thread would not contribute toward "informative, knowledgeable, well-founded posts" even though it padded your post count total. I don't think post count is particularly meaningful.

The iron core concentrates the field lines, so that the secondary sees a larger field, and thus a larger changing field, so Faraday's law tells you you get a larger voltage out the other side. If you take the core out the load is reduced, so I think you will just draw less current in the primary.

Evolution does not have a direction, and you need to define "information" It's already been pointed out that "Darwinists" is an incorrectly applied (and some might say pejorative) term. I don't see where you've presented any evidence. Sure it can. Lamarckism was a naturalistic (would-be) theory, and it was shown to be wrong. However, you can't refute a theory that is correct, but it is falsifiable (i.e. you can test it in a way that it would fail if it were wrong). e.g. Darwin knew nothing of DNA when he came up with his theory. No mechanism for passing on of traits would have been a big blow.

Nothing you've said here is objectively true, not the least of which is that molecules-to-anything is not part of evolution. If you've already assumed that Genesis is true, then the rest is circular reasoning. The Creationist interpretation breaks physical law. Evolution doesn't say God didn't do it, it just says that if he did, that we can see the mechanism. Lewontin is stating an opinion, and this is just an appeal to authority if you think it applies to anyone but Lewontin. There are reputable Creationists?

That wasn't one of the categories. It was "creator" or "random chance."