swansont

And since the carbon source must be terrestrial (exchanged with atmosphere), and fish do not fill this requirement, it is extremely likely that whomever did the testing knew it would be invalid. Similar to the dating of inclusions (xenoliths) in a recent lava flow not giving the age of the eruption - you didn't fulfill the requirement if the rock being molten in order for it to work. You might want to give scientists the benefit of the doubt that they aren't terminally stupid.

A number of reasons, including radiometric dating. I suggest reading The Age of the Earth by G. Brent Dalrymple.

There are two forces on the balloon - gravity and the bouyant force. Generally the bouyant force is larger and the balloon rises. Accelerate the elevator, though, and you get a pressure differential which affects the bouyant force. Do this in car, so that the horizontal bouyant force isn't fighting the vertical one, and the balloon moves forward when you accelerate the car forward, because of the air pressure buildup in the back of the car. So for the elevator it will depend on what the initial bouyant force is and how that compares to mg. Do it with a neutrally or marginally bouyant balloon, and it'll move down.

Here is the talk.origins FAQ on the topic. H. sapiens dates back to about 500,000 years. Anatomically modern humans (H. sapiens sapiens) dates back about 120,000 years.

I think Homo sapiens dates back to 500,000 years or so.

On the periodic table it's the average mass, wieghted by the abundance, as noted. For atoms with no stable isotopes, it's the longest-lived isotope that's represented, and the mass number is given (total number of protons+neutrons). C-12 and C-13 are stable. All other isotopes are unstable. Don't hold your breath trying to find any C-32, though - it's very far from the line of stability, so I doubt it's ever been synthesized.

I think the question dealt with heat, so a discussion of wood conducting electricity is off topic. So, wood will conduct heat, but does so poorly. for 5, (when gas or liquid is heated,Its molecules move away from each other?) since it's not universally true, the answer has to be "false." The molecules' motion is random, not away from each other, and not all materials expand when the temperature is increased, so it's not even a general trend.

This is speculation, but... I disagree slightly - more mass is a necessary but insufficient condition. I think if the barycenter is inside one of the planets (or maybe within ~ a diameter) then you talk about the other object orbiting it. Otherwise you say they orbit each other as a binary system.

I did read the rest; it's wrong. There are no refernces included to make me think otherwise. Basically it says that glass doesn't behave like a crystalline material. Big surprise -it's not a crystalline material! There are a number of material that behave like glass (amorphous materials), so much so that they coined the term "glass transition."

The first sentence from your link: "In any meaningful sense of the word, glass is not a liquid: it is as solid as any other solid." I don't see how this bolsters your case.

This sounds suspicious. If the crust was going to move due to the pressure exerted by the underlying liquid, why can't it move due to the direct tidal force?

I've linked to a number of credible (IMO) sources who disagree. Do you have anything to support your contention that it's a liquid?

Seconded.

The solid parts, too. But since the liquid parts are more free to move about, we see the water tides. But the solid parts move by about 30-50 cm each day.

One effect would be that somebody would shoot C. Montgomery Burns.

1 Watt = 1 Joule/sec, and 1 Joule = 1 kg m2/sec2 moving 100 g a distance of 1 m in 1g = .1 kg * 9.8 m/sec2 * 1m = .98 Joules It's close, but is not the way the Watt is defined.

Glass doesn't flow. It's thicker at the bottom because it was installed that way - old glass wasn't necessarily of uniform thickness. urban legends page U Alberta page yet another site

A longer arm has more mass, and so has more KE that can't be transferred to the projectile. That's one reason that the trebuchet works better - longer moment arm with essentially no increase in mass.

But less common that solar eclipses.

That's because the objects have equal masses and the collision is pretty much elastic, so KE is a conserved quantity along with momentum. If the collision isn't head-on, or the masses are unequal, the conservation laws dictate that the projectile will retain some KE. Under some circumstances, it can end up with more than it started with (target moving toward projectile).

No, because the resistance goes up with more wraps, so the current goes down for a fixed voltage.

Basically, yes. If you know which slit it went through, you no longer get interference - all the quantum effects go away.

The types of magnets used for mounting things on refrigerators are pretty weak and the field doesn't extend very far. Chances are any deflection you are seeing is an effect of the airflow.

Perpetual motion. And energy being conserved isn't just a fad, it's a consequence of the laws of physics not changing with time. Check out Noether's theorems - all conservation laws have a corresponding symmetry, and vice-versa. (e.g. conservation of momentum for translational symmetry, conservation of angular momentum from rotational symmetry)

Understand that physics in general and QM in particular typically require years of study to understand. The prospect of an understandable five-minute summary that has any depth or breadth is an unreasonable expectation. This stuff ain't easy.