8
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 27:
Line 27: +
no edit summary
:::::::The burden is on those who claim the decay rate was always constant. Prove it. Given that perpetual motion machines are impossible (do you doubt that?), the claim is implausible. The rates for everything else (as cite above) have obviously changed over time, and there is no reason to think that the decay rate is forever unchanged.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:58, 25 June 2009 (EDT)
:::::::The burden is on those who claim the decay rate was always constant. Prove it. Given that perpetual motion machines are impossible (do you doubt that?), the claim is implausible. The rates for everything else (as cite above) have obviously changed over time, and there is no reason to think that the decay rate is forever unchanged.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:58, 25 June 2009 (EDT)
::::::::Is not the burden on the person who wrote the article stating "But it is a logical tautology to assume that radioactive decay rates have always been constant, even at higher energy levels. Such assumption is identical to assuming that the Earth is old, and hence that argument is circular." This statement is not supported. You have not provided support. Why is friction different now than it was many years ago? [[User:Lexfundamen|Lexfundamen]] 14:20, 25 June 2009 (EDT)