swansont

I disagree. Hydroelectric plants, for example, do this all the time. There are some that will pump water up into a reservoir to be used at a later time at peak electrical demand.

It's only 24 hours at the poles (actually 23 hours 56 min). You have to multiply 24 by sin(latitude) to the the period for a Foucalt pendulum.

Sorry, but this is watered down to the point that it's wrong. Things are either stable or they aren't, so I object to "more stable" - you can have degrees of instability, but not stability. Gold has stable isotopes - to say it "decays slowly" and imply that's why it's not used for fission is incorrect. Gold doesn't fission because that wouldn't tend to release energy. Plutonium and Uranium fissioning often yield nuclei that are even more unstable (i.e. shorter half-lives) which is why nuclear waste is a problem. On to an explanation for fission- Nuclei are made up of charged protons and neutral neutrons. There are two forces inside a nucleus: the electrostatic forces of repulsion between the protons and the nuclear force of attraction between all of these particles. The nuclear force wins, because it's stronger, but it only acts between particles that are close to each other. The repulsion acts between all of the protons. So there's energy stored (not unlike a spring that's compressed) when you have a lot of protons around - which happens in heavy nuclei like Uranium and Plutonium. Hitting them with a neutron can make them distort to the point that they can break apart and become two smaller nuclei - the nuclear attraction is about the same, but there's less energy tied up in the electrostatic repulsion. You also release a couple of neutrons, which means theis whole process can be sustained in a chain reaction, which was described earlier. Other nuclear reactions release energy as well, such as alpha and beta decays. If you want explanations of these, just ask.

What, pray tell, is the "standard model?"

I just glossed over it - I didn't see where he drefines what unintelligent design would look like. Until you define that properly, how can you differentiate it from intelligent design?

The question states that you are to find the power of the motor, which is related to the work it has to do.

No, because that term would go away if the coefficient of friction went to zero, and you still have gravitational potential energy for which you must account.

You want the total, not just in the x-direction. Since the net acceleration is zero, you can get the power with P=Fv, and the net force is the vector sum of the weight, friction, normal, and rope. You want to solve for the force from the rope. Alternately, you can solve for the work done by friction and potential energy in a given amount of time, since you have a constant known speed. Work/time = P

Right. Sundials don't work because the sun is not exactly overhead at noon most days of the year, and they just plain aren't going to be precise enough. Plus, you want to be able to make the measurement at your convenience.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it homeopathy is basically extreme dilution of a solution, well past any meaningful concentration compared to contaminants in the water, and often past a factor of 1024 per mole, meaning there's a good chance the water doesn't have any of the original solute in it.

A problem is that saying "I did X and then I felt better" relies on the logical fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Happened after, therefore was caused by. You may drink water (homeopathic remedy) and feel better, but you don't know that you wouldn't have felt better anyway. Most common ailments improve with no real action on our parts - just time. That's why conventional medecine requires double-blind tests to show that there's a real, causal link between the remedy and the cure. Show me a homeopathic remedy that's passed this hurdle.

d is differential, p is momentum, x is position, E is energy, t is time :delta:x:delta:p is how it's usually written, where :delta: is the uncertainty in the variable that follows it

No, it's written as h, but since the 2:pi: shows up a lot, :h: is useful. e.g. E=h:nu: = :h::lcomega:

Homeopathy, etc. (I assume you aren't asking for the definition, here. Coprophage...I gotta remember that one )

That should be h, not :h:, since :h:=h/2:pi: The relationship also works for dE x dT

I think the problem is that science does understand that it's coprolitic nonsense.

You can show the continents are moving trivially these days with some GPS monitoring. The part about the lava is that when it cools, any ferromagnetic material in it, like iron, will align itself with the earth's field. Some layers of the lava have the field oriented opposite to others. The dates of the field reversals are known to some accuracy via radiometric dating, so the positions of the layers show the sea floor spreading. for more, click here Wegener is the guy who though up plate tectonics, so doing a Google search on 'Wegener plate tectonics evidence' should get lots of info. I can't vouch for the quality of that info, though.

12 AM or PM is ambiguous and incorrect. It's either 12 Noon or 12 Midnight. click here

12 is right. Look at the data and you can estimate what the half life is, even if you initially assume zero background. This will overestimate the half-life, and you should be able to convince anyone that waiting 60 days is many half-lives. e.g. if you wait 5 half-lives, you are down to about 3% of your original activity. If you wait 10 half-lives, it's about 0.1%. So the 12 cpm at two months is essentially all background.

I think that's phase velocity you mean. The phase relation between individual waves can exceed c, because there's no information there. It's the group, or wave packet, that cannot exceed c. The popular phrase that "nothing can exceed c" is a simplification to the point that it's wrong.

They didn't cause the particles to spin - they already had spin. What they did was measure one particle, and instantly knew, because the particles were entangled, what the spin orientation of the other particle had to be. This is because the spins had to add up to some value.

Your plasma ball is giving off X-rays. Very "soft" ones (i.e. relatively low energy), to be sure, so I'm a little surprised that it sets off the Geiger counter, but I suppose it's possible.

Not quite. C-14 decays to N-14. It's a beta decay, so a neutron changes into a proton, and emits an electron and antineutrino. For C-14 to decay to C-12, it would need to emit two neutrons. Neutron emission can happen for some nuclei, but that requires an large excess of neutrons, and doesn't happen in this case.

In a medium (n>1) the wavelength becomes lambda/n. The frequency stays the same. Light travels at c/n through the medium.