1
edit
Changes
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)
::::::::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)
::::::::Perpetual motion is not impossible, Superfluid fountains are perpetual in nature for several different gravities, including earth normal gravity. This[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z6UJbwxBZI Video Clip]illustrates a perpetual motion fountain. Furthermore, Lexfundamen is correct in his statement in the fact that no change in radioactive decay of any element has ever been shown to change, only the amount of the material is in flux and decays at a predicted rate. Since the claim that it DOES change goes against what I learned in my education in nuclear engineering, I am curious where Mr. Schlafly gets this idea from. If requested I can point you to several nuclear engineering books in both academic and industrial applications that hold the decay rate to be constant.--[[User:RichardB|RichardB]] 15:34, 25 June 2009 (EDT)