It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Nuclear decay rate vs. distance from Sun

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 11:31 AM
Apparently, nuclear decay rates have been found to vary by distance of earth from Sun. I find this quite interesting, but carbon is not included in the list. Silicon-32 and radium-226 are on that list, though, and they only measured those two.

Jere Jenkins and pals at Purdue University in Indiana have re-analysed the raw data from these experiments and say that the modulations are synchronised with each other and with Earth’s distance from the sun.

If true however, this will have some measurable effect on carbon dating. Error that comes from this is reportedly 0.1% (for silicon-32 and radium-226), which also averages out since this goes both ways each year (it is a seasonal variation).

Now, we just need to figure out an equation that tells us whether that 0.1% increases or decreases by square or linearly, because if by square (or something similar) we are going to have a problem with carbon dating.

Basically, every 100 000 year old object would turn out to be 99 000 or 101 000 year old, if that change is linear.

If earth has had a different orbit at some point, say 3 billion years ago, error is larger. With timescales such as that, carbon dating cannot be used anyway, though.

What do you think happens if we find out that decay does not even happen if you are not near a star? Or, other way around: it happens in an instant if you are far away enough.

As of now, fine-structure constant is also screwd (wikipedia:

I would like to emhasize that I'm not sure if they *really* found out our nuclear decay rates are changing. This would explain why physicists have been unable to agree on what those rates are anyway.

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 1/1/2009 by Mirthful Me]

posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 11:35 AM
My religious friends told me that God controls the rate of nuclear decay. I had to agree, you can't argue with god. God speeds up nuclear decay to get creationists and scientists to debate, I suppose.

posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 11:43 AM
reply to post by earthman4

The one thing I would rather not want in this thread are religious zealots who just cannot see that it averages out if that change by distance is linear.

posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 06:55 PM
Radioactive decay occurs at the nuclear level (i.e., nucleus), don't associate it with religion and I wouldn't bet on the sun affecting the rate of decay.

posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 10:13 PM
I remember reading a few years back in Sci Am that some constant appeared to have changed with time.
I wish I had paid more attention to the article.
I cant remeber what the constant was but it one of those numbers you need you plug into another set of equations to get solution.
But this constant that had been a measured value for almost 75 years, appeared to have been changing with time.
Its new value was a significantly different than when measured the first time.

I have a theory, it just came to me.
The biggest prize in modern physics is A Grand Unification Theory.
A theory that ties all the forces of nature up into a nice tidy inter related package.
How do you tie gravity to electromagnetism and the nuclear forces?
The relationship between magnatism and electricity is clear.
Maybe what they have found illustrates a relationship between one or more of the other forces to the weak nuclear force.

Maybe this apperant change in the atomic decay rate(the weak nuclear force), with a change in distance is caused by the interaction of either the force of gravity, which varirs with distance, or the interaction of the the bodies magnetic fields, that are causing the shift.

Doe the change of decay rate hold true for a sample out side of a gravity well or infulencing magnetic fields.
Would this change of decay hold true for a sample, orbiting the sun at the varying distance but free of the gravitational and magnetic inflluences of the earth?

posted on Aug, 29 2008 @ 10:18 PM
God created the ether that only Tesla controlled.
Isotopes are affected by ether concentrations.
The Sun might then have an influence.
Isotopes might make good electrical generators.

Isotopes use free ether energy to release and gain particles
and never lose more mass than ejected and never use
any mass converted to energy since that would be too
great an explosion, so thank God for that.

Germany made the first three types of atomic bombs with
Illuminati funding in Telemark, Norway and most probably
with the help of Neils Bohr, at least for the first two types.

posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 12:39 AM
It would not be expressly related to distance.

It would correlate with distance, meaning correlation not causality.

Probable causality being interaction with solar radiation.

Therefore the Inverse square law would apply to the degree of effect.

Like a magnet getting rapidly stronger in it's effect as you get closer to an iron object.

Expressly not linear.

[edit on 30-8-2008 by Cyberbian]

posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 01:45 AM
Gravity definitively affects things in ways we don't fully understand

I think a change in the earths Orbit is likely due to the fact that we see a huge discrepancy in size in relation to dinosaurs and mammals and I don't think it's biological I always have had a hunch gravity somehow changed.

I have always been curious about gravity waves, I have wondered if they are sometimes put out via black holes and once in awhile cross over the Earth

and if so... what would a nano second without gravity do? To a planet, probably nothing is my guess, but on an atomic scale, I would think that would very much so change the rate of decay

and in terms of light, light is obviously affected by Gravity, It can't escape Black holes

so how have we determined the speed of light? If we have never been out of the solar system

Wouldn't it be possible that once light escaped our suns gravity it sped up arriving at the next gravity well almost instantly?

and if those two assumptions Carbon dating and the speed of light are wrong then isn't our universe much younger than we think it is?

posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 02:10 AM
According to Einstein, Light is traveling at a constant speed relative to the observer. Any observer. Even observers moving at different speeds themselvs.

So you are moving away from laser at 1/4 speed of light, laser is shooting past you from some point behind. You see light moving at speed "c". The same as observed by someone on still ship shooting laser.

Your buddy ahead of you moving at 1/2 light speed also observes same light traveling at "c" in relation to him.

If you read up on "c" you will find this is accepted behavior.

The following interpretation is my own. I say light is everywhere at once.

Physics just shrugs it's shoulders and says it can't be but it is.

If light is truly moving, this cannot be happening. The light is everywhere along it's path simultaneously. This must be so, because you could have infinite observers of any and all speeds and in both directions, all seeing the light move past at "c" in relation to themselves.

The observers are detecting it's existence at the same constant "c".

It is the speed of detection, not the speed of light.

Light therefore is operating outside the dimension of time. It is without motion or time. It simply is, and it is everywhere along it's path (I fight not to say at the same time). Our abilty to detect within time and space changes.
It may be that the behavior of light is outside the ability of logic and reason and I am therefore incorrect. If you have another way to explain this inconsistancy of having consistant relative speed with objects of different speed, I would love to hear it. Until then I think mine is reasonable.

[edit on 30-8-2008 by Cyberbian]

posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 02:31 AM
I was wondering whether or not nuclear energy can even be used beyond Oort-cloud if nuclear decay rates get worse by distance from Sun. Because of things like these it may be yet again become a problem to have a energy source for such long journeys.

posted on Jan, 1 2009 @ 09:32 PM
God is in control. He made it all and he controls it all. I'm a PhD Physicist
and I figured out long ago that man can't make anything without using God's materials. It has nothing to do with religion. It's plainly obvious. If
you don't believe me, try to make a living baby without using any of God's materials.


posted on Jan, 1 2009 @ 11:29 PM
As curiosity goes...

I have my own theory for the Aether and a few more big pieces I havn't yet found a good fit for.

I propose an experiment. To pass an electric current through a conductive isotope, and measure its decay rate.

It's just an experiment. But has it been done?

posted on Jan, 1 2009 @ 11:35 PM
I'd have to check further on this but Tesla thought that
radioactivity was caused by cosmic rays.
So radiation is a result of external stimulus.
Quite a different model than the standard adhered to by everyone else.

posted on Jan, 1 2009 @ 11:46 PM
reply to post by Matyas

I think Lithium compounds when given UV emit alpha and beta
enough to charge batteries and develop a 50KW generator.

The current must sense the load or too many partials have casused
explosions. The is the Dr. Moray device and his son went to
courses in digital control to improve the device.

Current from isotopes apparently have a problem.

The Sun giving off cosmic rays and influencing the nuclear decay
rate is another tip of the hat to Tesla.
We should read up on his discoveries.

posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 12:15 AM
Wonder what the decay rate becomes faster or slower.

Perhaps the Sun actually shields most of the cosmic particles
and deep space is even more active.

posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 12:25 AM

My religious friends told me that God controls the rate of nuclear decay. I had to agree, you can't argue with god. God speeds up nuclear decay to get creationists and scientists to debate, I suppose.

Nice one... God also put dinosaur bones on Earth to test your friend's faith. God the prankster!!

posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 12:49 AM
reply to post by Americanist

What God put on Earth, stays on Earth.

Jesus has left the building.

posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 02:50 PM
reply to post by Americanist

Ah, yes, or the "Trickster" Raven, being more like that, as He is known to the Native American. You do not want to go there, or we will be arguing about dice.

new topics

top topics


log in