Scientists worried: Strange emissions by sun are suddenly mutating matter

reply to post by crezo


You will have to work for it. Skills like that need to be developed.

reply to post by AnotherYOU


Consider the fact that in 1755 there was no internet, no computers to run most of the world, and electricity itself was more of an oddity. When almost all of humanity on earth is affected by the loss of electricity it will plunge us literally into the dark ages. Most people would not know how to survive. We have become so dependent on our technology age.

Originally posted by Aliensun

Originally posted by PrinceDreamer
This post may be interesting, but I cant just read a wall of text like that, you need to break it down in to sections and paragraphs, it is too hard on the eyes

Rather than complain to just one person, the OP, do us all a favor and spend your time--only a few seconds--to copy the text into a word processor and suit yourself to every possible whim you can imagine such as colors, font sizes, bullets, indents, layouts, etc. That would be, oh, so much more fun and enlightening to yourthan a bitch about what you don't like to read. Give us a break. Grow up and get serious.

not trying to be a dick but you had to waste a post on that? strait being a dick, maybe he doesnt have a word processor(# is spendy now a days)
Paradigm shift for you sir

I think there is a misunderstanding here... Now correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I read the article, it stated that an unknown force was SLOWING down the rate of radioactive decay of radioactive elements... not speeding up, as everyone seems to be concerned over. The article speculates that the sun is the likely culprit as there was a noticeable decrease or slowing in the rate of decay during a solar flare. It was noted that the slowing started a full day and a half before the flare even occurred. Solar flare predictor? Maybe.
Anyways... all the "Oh no, what does it mean???" and "It sounds like a conspiracy!!" is not relevant to this discovery in my opinion. It has likely been happening for as long as stars have existed in the universe. (If indeed this phenomenon is caused by stars and flares.) So all it really means is we don't fully understand the universe we exist in but we find out something new all the time. And radioactive decay is not constant... Doh! So does that mean radiocarbon dating has been dating things slightly younger than they really are?? Think about that for a second...

And I'm going off the info in this article...
news.stanford.edu...

Was fun to think though for a little bit in the OP that the world was in danger from matter mutation and time warping of god only knows what sort. It was rather captivating till I read the more scientific report... You have to admit... ignorance really is more fun/entertaining.

Speaking of time, "One day in the life of Brahma is called a Kalpa or 4.32 billion years"
en.wikipedia.org...

I posted this earlier, but its buried in the thread so heres the original peer reviewed article that stanford etc based this on.

Heres some links to the peer reviewed articles, you need to buy them but its the hard data you might be looking for.
its by the authors mentioned in the Stanford article on the journals mentioned.
www.sciencedirect.com...
search for jenkins as the author or use the volume number etc in the search box at the top of the page.

this is the issue,

Astroparticle Physics, Volume 29, Issue 2, March 2008, Pages 130-157

Abstract
Evidence for an anomalous annual periodicity in certain nuclear decay data has led to speculation concerning a possible solar influence on nuclear processes. As a test of this hypothesis, we here search for evidence in decay data that might be indicative of a process involving solar rotation, focusing on data for 32Si and 36Cl decay rates acquired at the Brookhaven National Laboratory. Examination of the power spectrum over a range of frequencies (10–15 year−1) appropriate for solar synodic rotation rates reveals several periodicities, the most prominent being one at 11.18 year−1 with power 20.76. We evaluate the significance of this peak in terms of the false-alarm probability, by means of the shuffle test, and also by means of a new test (the “shake” test) that involves small random time displacements. The last two tests are the more robust, and indicate that the peak at 11.18 year−1 would arise by chance only once out of about 107 trials. However, the fact that there are several peaks in the rotational search band suggests that modulation of the count rate involves several low-Q oscillations rather than a single high-Q oscillation, possibly indicative of a partly stochastic process. To pursue this possibility, we investigate the running-mean of the power spectrum, and identify a major peak at 11.93 year−1 with peak running-mean power 4.08. Application of the shuffle test indicates that there is less than one chance in 1011of finding by chance a value as large as 4.08. Application of the shake test leads to a more restrictive result that there is less than one chance in 1015 of finding by chance a value as large as 4.08. We find that there is notable agreement in the running-mean power spectra in the rotational search band formed from BNL data and from ACRIM total solar irradiance data. Since rotation rate estimates derived from irradiance data have been found to be closely related to rotation rate estimates derived from low-energy solar neutrino data, this result supports the recent conjecture that solar neutrinos may be responsible for variations in nuclear decay rates. We also carry out a similar comparison with local temperature measurements, but find no similarity between power spectra formed from BNL measurements and from local temperature measurements.

reply to post by SaturnFX


I never said anything about abandoning science....

I said that it is never currently accurate. I say we rely to heavily on it as a society and I say that we need to stop teaching lies about it, teaching people that things are fact when they are anything but the sort....

That's what I say. Treat scientific paradigms as a belief system just like they are. Or get back to real science. Teach people the actual evidence (not conttived B.S.) and teach them how to logically analyze it with DEDUCTIVE reasoning and teach them how to properly evaluate using inductive reasoning instead of erroneously teaching that fact can be derived from inductive logic.


Jaden

reply to post by sprocket2cog


The way the article is written, it sounds like the author is very skeptical of what evidence has been uncovered so far. Clearly the author is not the first to make these observation, merely confirming the test results obtained by others. This much is clear in the first sentence.

Evidence ..... has led to speculation concerning

I don't see how this can be the "original peer reviewed article". Clearly this article is a review itself, which begrudgingly admits to finding similar results.

reply to post by Oakx79


a big applause for you..you got the picture right,i guess we dont know that muchabout how the universe or reality works..so lets just stop acting like kids wow ing at everything..

Funny hey?

So no man caused anything by his servitude in Earth.

That's kind'a really funny.

reply to post by Holly N.R.A.


You talk about this demension shift like its something out a si fi but you in reallity you will not really now whats really happening apart from from some strange avents i think the oaps will possible not adjust, the really young folk will not know whats happening which will seem normal to them the rest of us may go beserk because of the dna change but there will be no proof because we will no remember even when the madness has passed everything will seem normal thats how it always will be

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by sprocket2cog

 

The way the article is written, it sounds like the author is very skeptical of what evidence has been uncovered so far. Clearly the author is not the first to make these observation, merely confirming the test results obtained by others. This much is clear in the first sentence.

Evidence ..... has led to speculation concerning

I don't see how this can be the "original peer reviewed article". Clearly this article is a review itself, which begrudgingly admits to finding similar results.

IMO scientists are the least likely of all professions to lend credence to the successes of their peers. They each pride themselves in their intelligience..... and for a discovery to be made in a field that you practice is not pleasant. Only the noblest of them would unbiasedly uphold the findings.

reply to post by bookmandh2


I read your interesting comment but what will happen after any transformation we will loss our original human qualities eg senes of humor, sadness, laughter etc

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Harte

 

Have any links to back up your claim.

The author in the link states this.

But as you can see, carbon dating makes one huge assumption: radioactive decay rates remain constant and always have been constant. If this new finding is proven to be correct, even if the impact is small, it will throw the science community into a spin.

On what basis would it be established that the variability is significant or insignificant? On what basis do they determine how much variability exists, and the duration cycles of these variations. Odds are greater that this variability is larger than we have yet to observe.

Calculate in the possible durations of this variability, and there could be considerable discrepancies.

Had to reinstall windows the other day and lost adobe so I can't open these. Not sure now if this is where I read it:
Evidence for the effect:
arxiv.org...

Evidence that there is no effect:
donuts.berkeley.edu...

No effect was found on Carbon anyway.

Harte

reply to post by sprocket2cog
This video is of Dr. Kaku and he talks about controling and maniputlating the Sun. It just might be something doing this that the author of the paper doesn't know about. [not trying to convert anyone in to believing anything & I don't mean religion]

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by sprocket2cog

 

The way the article is written, it sounds like the author is very skeptical of what evidence has been uncovered so far. Clearly the author is not the first to make these observation, merely confirming the test results obtained by others. This much is clear in the first sentence.

Evidence ..... has led to speculation concerning

I don't see how this can be the "original peer reviewed article". Clearly this article is a review itself, which begrudgingly admits to finding similar results.

I am not saying that this is something to be worried about
but this is not just a rehashed web article
this is the journal that the results are published in.
you see when a scientist comes up with a theory and gets results for it , he normally publishes it in a review journal.
thats the original scientists article for review.
what you are reading is the abstract of the results that will be contained in the paper when you buy it.
hence the fact that if you look at the authors names you will see it is the two scientists doing the experiment , oh and the date shows that it is the one every other article is getting their information from.
As you most likely know , the internet isnt the place to publish results of experiments, journals are,
Speculation is the word that they use, because thats what it is
all the other "mainstream sites" jumped on the band wagon
oh and heres the definition of a scientific abstract.

An abstract is a brief summary of a research article, thesis, review, conference proceeding or any in-depth analysis of a particular subject or discipline, and is often used to help the reader quickly ascertain the paper's purpose.

Academic literature uses the abstract to succinctly communicate complex research

reply to post by Farnhold


With science advancing at break-neck speeds, if everyone freaks out every time we find something new, we're going to end up back in another dark age.

If you look at the age of the universe versus the extremely short time we've been recording data about our world, we know NOTHING. We don't know if these things happen all the time, on a regular or irregular basis, whether it means something or not.

It's very interesting, but not worth freaking out about.

Originally posted by Schkeptick
reply to post by Farnhold

 

With science advancing at break-neck speeds, if everyone freaks out every time we find something new, we're going to end up back in another dark age.

If you look at the age of the universe versus the extremely short time we've been recording data about our world, we know NOTHING. We don't know if these things happen all the time, on a regular or irregular basis, whether it means something or not.

It's very interesting, but not worth freaking out about.

I would certainly agree with that.

The whole thing is really only a reflection of the vasr improvements made in our ability to measure things, which is the real impetus for every scientific finding made over the last 500 years.

Harte

This is one of this subjects where I just say..
O well Mr. Sun..All I can do is hope you do not do you worse and hopefully we can live our lives just like we want to because I don't want you mutating everything.
Thanks.

reply to post by Farnhold


S + F! Great article!