It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Is the sun emitting a mystery particle?

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   
source


But what if a well-known — and apparently constant — characteristic of matter starts behaving mysteriously?

This is exactly what has been noticed in recent years; the decay rates of radioactive elements are changing. This is especially mysterious as we are talking about elements with "constant" decay rates — these values aren't supposed to change, school textbooks teach us this from an early age.

This is the conclusion that researchers from Stanford and Purdue University have arrived at, but the only explanation they have is even weirder than the phenomenon itself: the sun might be emitting a previously unknown particle that is meddling with the decay rates of matter. Or, at the very least, we are seeing some new physics.




posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by wiseone11
 




To quote texts, do this : (quote) Howdy (/quote) (but replace the parentheses with these [ ]). And you will get...

Howdy


Anyhow, what is your opinion regarding this article?



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Maybe the sun is evolving, maybe it is going to Supernova soon. The sound is getting louder, we are getting closer to the party, it's like we can hear the booms off in the distance, and it's only going to get louder as we get closer to that cloud of fast moving, highly energized space stuff. It could temporarily put the sun in a supernova state, and as we pass or move away from the high vibrations, perhaps the sun will return to normal.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by wiseone11
 


I believe there is reason to question everything we have ever been told about the age of the cosmos.

So how old are we actually? How much time has actually passed?



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by wiseone11
 


i would like to propose a theory
there is a force at the centre of the sun that is expelling an energy unknown to us atm we have no way of measuring this force and it manifests itself as an outward projection of the opposite of the wave forms we are fimiliar with the inverse of a wave or negitive energy
this energy interacts with matter in various way
gravity is common of all mass but some elements and configerations of elements manifest this energy in different ways
gravity=common to all mass
magnitism=common to aligned molicules of certain elements
radiation=direct emitions of this energy transfered into a wave we can measure

now the opposite of this energy coming from the fact that mass is interacting inside the energy feild proagated from the sun (a sympathetic feild responce) being wave forms and electromagnatism radiation gravity

the planet acts like a capasitor and generates the energy expressed by the feild in an electrical sence and creates an electromagnet with the iorn core of the earth this projects our magneto sphere

this capasitor (earth) resonates energy and creates a wave form that is connected to the sun as the oposite as the unknown energy and permiates to the core of the sun

with different energys entering the sun from the different planets the frequencies size, feild streangh, capacitence and distance from the sun create a converging of frequencies that when interacting create a wave overlap

now depending on orbit location and angle of influence this interaction produces different amounts of the unknown energy for the planets to induce a gravity magnetic or radiactive out put

the effect in the centre of the sun can be likened to sonoluminescence
as discussed in this thread
www.abovetopsecret.com...

this is only my opinion but it makes sence to me

xploder

[edit on 27-8-2010 by XPLodER]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by wiseone11
 


its very strange you posted this as i was about to post a theory of solar system interaction and output charictoristics(spelling)

xploder

i notice the 11 year solar cycle rufly relates to the movement of some planets and there interaction with one another and the sun
corolation is abscure in aspect as alignments of planets interacte with each planets interaction with the sun
ie planets can align to double up frequencies

as i said though it only a theory

xploder

[edit on 27-8-2010 by XPLodER]

[edit on 27-8-2010 by XPLodER]



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by TarzanBeta
 


My opinion regarding this article is that we think we know a lot, but we really know so little about ourselves and the universe. I tickles me when they speak with such definite terms about things we have no way of knowing at all...and then, ooops, something pops up and there goes our theories again...I suppose we have to manage it somehow (our theories and definitions,etc) to progress in our understanding but we must realize that what we "know" is only the very tippy-top of the iceberg.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 10:14 PM
link   
It doesn't say how the decay is changing... Whether taking longer or less time. My theory is that gravitational forces are changing. For instance, it just came out that the moon mass has changed. Think about it.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Earth is well within the sphere (pun intended) of influence of the Sun's magnetosphere. If solar-magnetic structures change, geo-magnetic structures will change in kind. This can affect radioactive decay (in my opinion).

Now the thing to question is why did the radioactive decay (of magnesium) change before the solar flare actually occured?



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by TarzanBeta
reply to post by wiseone11
 


I believe there is reason to question everything we have ever been told about the age of the cosmos.

So how old are we actually? How much time has actually passed?



I have said it more than once right here on ATS. I have always felt that the world and in fact the whole universe was far far older than we think it is. We have been told the universe is 13.5 billion years old. I think it is more likely to be in the hundreds of trillions of years old if not older. And each day stuff like this comes along and proves me less wrong. Will something come along one day and prove me right? I would say time will tell but that would be a bit too much.



posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by fixer1967
 


I'm thinking that I agree with you more or less.

Due to the relativity of time and our inability to ever measure time except by observing the transference of energy in some way, shape, or form... I wouldn't even guess the time...

When something is relative to all other things, how can that thing ever be discerned to be something on its own?

Where there is "space", there is "time". I believe if we ever learn whether the universe is actually infinite or finite, we will then have the possibility of discerning whether there even is a finite age for the universe.

Another way I just thought about it.. when you slumber, time apparently passes quickly. Imagine if there was all space and nothing to observe that space from within. Any time that passed passed practically instantly...

Isn't it true that when "electrons" are observed that their wave function apparently collapses into a particle function? I mean... All information that exists today has always existed. Meaning, the blueprints for fashioning an airplane has existed forever. But we discovered how to put it together and then we fashioned it... but the airplane always existed. All things already existed. The information has been here as long as information itself has existed. And information is just a pattern of particles. So, if no one was within the universe to observe the information, the information was all in wave form... or rather, the universe was dark because there was no one to receive the light! Once we were created/came to be, we observed and all things came into particle existence and we observe it.

Wow.

I could keep going, which is crazy. What is crazier is that a half-second thought turned into that paragraph. Whatever man.

I think what I mean to say is that you are correct in thinking that the age of the universe is pretty much immeasurable.




top topics



 
5

log in

join