Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 15, 2010, 10:23:35 PMQuote from: markjo on May 14, 2010, 06:15:12 PMQuote from: Tom Bishop on May 14, 2010, 05:19:43 PMQuote from: markjo on May 14, 2010, 04:52:39 PMQuote from: Tom Bishop on May 14, 2010, 04:02:24 PMUnless someone has a time machine, one couldn't really say for certain that the half-life of xyz atom is 4,000 years or whatever.lrn2extrapolateLearn to have a testable hypothesis.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life#Formulas_for_half-life_in_exponential_decayFormulas don't sound like tests to me.You didn't ask for tests, you asked for a testable hypothesis. According to those formulas, a percentage of a sample of radioactive material will decay over a period of time. Sounds like a testable hypothesis to me.
Quote from: markjo on May 14, 2010, 06:15:12 PMQuote from: Tom Bishop on May 14, 2010, 05:19:43 PMQuote from: markjo on May 14, 2010, 04:52:39 PMQuote from: Tom Bishop on May 14, 2010, 04:02:24 PMUnless someone has a time machine, one couldn't really say for certain that the half-life of xyz atom is 4,000 years or whatever.lrn2extrapolateLearn to have a testable hypothesis.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life#Formulas_for_half-life_in_exponential_decayFormulas don't sound like tests to me.
Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 14, 2010, 05:19:43 PMQuote from: markjo on May 14, 2010, 04:52:39 PMQuote from: Tom Bishop on May 14, 2010, 04:02:24 PMUnless someone has a time machine, one couldn't really say for certain that the half-life of xyz atom is 4,000 years or whatever.lrn2extrapolateLearn to have a testable hypothesis.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life#Formulas_for_half-life_in_exponential_decay
Quote from: markjo on May 14, 2010, 04:52:39 PMQuote from: Tom Bishop on May 14, 2010, 04:02:24 PMUnless someone has a time machine, one couldn't really say for certain that the half-life of xyz atom is 4,000 years or whatever.lrn2extrapolateLearn to have a testable hypothesis.
Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 14, 2010, 04:02:24 PMUnless someone has a time machine, one couldn't really say for certain that the half-life of xyz atom is 4,000 years or whatever.lrn2extrapolate
Unless someone has a time machine, one couldn't really say for certain that the half-life of xyz atom is 4,000 years or whatever.
Quote from: markjo on May 15, 2010, 10:53:57 PMQuote from: Tom Bishop on May 15, 2010, 10:23:35 PMQuote from: markjo on May 14, 2010, 06:15:12 PMQuote from: Tom Bishop on May 14, 2010, 05:19:43 PMQuote from: markjo on May 14, 2010, 04:52:39 PMQuote from: Tom Bishop on May 14, 2010, 04:02:24 PMUnless someone has a time machine, one couldn't really say for certain that the half-life of xyz atom is 4,000 years or whatever.lrn2extrapolateLearn to have a testable hypothesis.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life#Formulas_for_half-life_in_exponential_decayFormulas don't sound like tests to me.You didn't ask for tests, you asked for a testable hypothesis. According to those formulas, a percentage of a sample of radioactive material will decay over a period of time. Sounds like a testable hypothesis to me.Unfortunately, the hypothesis was never tested.
You have proof of this?
Quote from: Deceiver on May 16, 2010, 05:54:43 PMYou have proof of this?Unless someone has a time machine to test the decay of an atom over the period of eons, it's impossible to test such a hypothesis.
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.
Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 16, 2010, 06:12:05 PMQuote from: Deceiver on May 16, 2010, 05:54:43 PMYou have proof of this?Unless someone has a time machine to test the decay of an atom over the period of eons, it's impossible to test such a hypothesis.Who says that you have to watch exactly 1/2 of a sample of radioactive material decay in order to determine its half life?
That's the equivalent of someone saying that in order to gauge how fast a car is going, they actually have to watch it for an hour to get a mph reading. As it was said before, learn to extrapolate.
Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 16, 2010, 06:12:05 PMQuote from: Deceiver on May 16, 2010, 05:54:43 PMYou have proof of this?Unless someone has a time machine to test the decay of an atom over the period of eons, it's impossible to test such a hypothesis.That's the equivalent of someone saying that in order to gauge how fast a car is going, they actually have to watch it for an hour to get a mph reading. As it was said before, learn to extrapolate.
Quote from: Deceiver on May 16, 2010, 06:14:35 PMQuote from: Tom Bishop on May 16, 2010, 06:12:05 PMQuote from: Deceiver on May 16, 2010, 05:54:43 PMYou have proof of this?Unless someone has a time machine to test the decay of an atom over the period of eons, it's impossible to test such a hypothesis.That's the equivalent of someone saying that in order to gauge how fast a car is going, they actually have to watch it for an hour to get a mph reading. As it was said before, learn to extrapolate.Guessing isn't testing.Anyone can guess. Unless you have a test to back up your hypothesis, it's worthless.
We're all jealous of Raist.
The conspiracy do train attack-birds
Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 16, 2010, 06:12:05 PMQuote from: Deceiver on May 16, 2010, 05:54:43 PMYou have proof of this?Unless someone has a time machine to test the decay of an atom over the period of eons, it's impossible to test such a hypothesis.You love the time machine argument. Someone should hop into a time machine, tell your parents what you're going to become, and see if they still try and have you.