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.


Scientists worried: Strange emissions by sun are suddenly mutating matter

page: 14
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 22 2011 @ 11:44 PM

Originally posted by antmax21
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.

So funny.

posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 12:32 AM
reply to post by Farnhold

Makes you wonder about all of the ancient sun worship and if there were any truth to it. It gives us life. And takes it away. What can be more godly than that?

posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 04:11 AM
reply to post by sprocket2cog

I am glad that you got the abstract part, but it seems you are missing the point of peer review. It winds down to essentially a format that is not all that different from the forums we participate in here, except that the people involved are considered experts, while we here are more BS artists.

Here from Standford that puts the story in better light, published by the way, in Aug 10

The story begins, in a sense, in classrooms around the world, where students are taught that the rate of decay of a specific radioactive material is a constant. This concept is relied upon, for example, when anthropologists use carbon-14 to date ancient artifacts and when doctors determine the proper dose of radioactivity to treat a cancer patient.

Random numbers

But that assumption was challenged in an unexpected way by a group of researchers from Purdue University who at the time were more interested in random numbers than nuclear decay. (Scientists use long strings of random numbers for a variety of calculations, but they are difficult to produce, since the process used to produce the numbers has an influence on the outcome.)

Ephraim Fischbach, a physics professor at Purdue, was looking into the rate of radioactive decay of several isotopes as a possible source of random numbers generated without any human input. (A lump of radioactive cesium-137, for example, may decay at a steady rate overall, but individual atoms within the lump will decay in an unpredictable, random pattern. Thus the timing of the random ticks of a Geiger counter placed near the cesium might be used to generate random numbers.)

If this is the Standford article you mention, then it isn't just on the "original peer reviewed article". It was originally discovered by what sounds like studies lead by Fischbach. Jenkins, Fischbach and their colleague published a series of articles on the subject, and others have gotten involved.

Clearly this ongoing debate is not all from person, but researchers, at least not according to the Professor Emeritus who wrote the article in the link I have provided.

Maybe I misread what you were saying, because you seemed to dismiss the subject by trying to put it on one article.

posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 04:19 AM
reply to post by Harte

Um, your second article was from 2008, while the Standford article in from 2010, so obviously everyone doesn't agree that this question has been answered, and even then your link does not back your claim that "it wouldn't change anything". Nor does it back your claim that it doesn't pertain to carbon dating, as the Standford article clearly states that it does. See my post above.

posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 04:55 AM
reply to post by poet1b

Thanks poet, no im not dismissing it , i read the stanford article at the beginning, thats what pointed me to the articles

series of papers published in Astroparticle Physics, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research and Space Science Reviews, Jenkins, Fischbach and their colleagues showed that the observed variations in decay rates were highly unlikely to have come from environmental influences on the detection systems.

this was done by the two scientists you mention. in 2008 the august artilce was 2010
maybe im missing something but hey im only human


edit on 23-4-2011 by sprocket2cog because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 05:40 AM

Originally posted by coolottie
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]

Maybe it's not something...maybe it's somebody. One of Joeseph's dreams (Genesis 37:9) depicted the Sun and the Moon and 11 stars bowing to him in obeisance. In the account it was a metaphor of his parents and siblings rendering homage to him. But the earthly fulfillment of that dream may have only been a shadow of a fulfilment on a more celestial level. I'm not trying to take this somewhere that you didn't intend for it to go...but i couldn't resist using the springboard which your statement provided. The fact that the story is recorded in the Torah gives it much more weight IMO.
edit on 23-4-2011 by HarryJoy because: Edit to add

posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 05:53 AM
reply to post by coolottie

Sorry coolottie, i did miss your post directed at me, thx to ever pointed it out

im on mobile broadband for a few more days, so i will watch it when i get back as a ten minute clip will eat my limit up, thanks for posting it though .
again sorry i missed you post

posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 09:10 AM
Foremost, there is no such thing as "proof" in science - it violates the Scientific Method in which explanation is for theology while description is for science (there's always a better description). That the sun and its electrical environment affect all other lesser charged matter in its sphere of influence is absolutely right. That matter warps "space" is a mathematical proof, but in no way is proved by science; much better descriptions exist about gravity and electrical-magnetic effects that require no mystical thing called "space-time" or its various children (blackholes, dark matter, dark energy, yada yada).

Time to put away the foolish notion that math IS science rather than a tool of science.

The sun is having an effect on matter. It isn't warping a non-real object.

posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 09:14 AM
Generally when they call it project-fill in the blank some kind of psyop from a socio anthropology think tank is taking place. Do not be afraid as the angels say when they introduce themselves. These dark powers that feed off fear are not as powerful as they would like to think.

posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 10:40 AM
It is possible, religously it sounds similar and not far off

Revelation 16:8

The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was allowed to scorch people with fire.

Revelation 6:12

I watched as he opened the sixth seal. There was a great earthquake. The sun turned black like sackcloth made of goat hair, the whole moon turned blood red,

The fourth angel sounded his trumpet, and a third of the sun was struck, a third of the moon, and a third of the stars, so that a third of them turned dark. A third of the day was without light, and also a third of the night.

Revelation 19:17
And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, “Come, gather together for the great supper of God,

Revelation 9:2
When he opened the Abyss, smoke rose from it like the smoke from a gigantic furnace. The sun and sky were darkened by the smoke from the Abyss.

These are not the only passages about the Sun and the endtimes in the Bible the Old Testament prophecies tell them too.

posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 12:19 PM

Originally posted by malicacid922002
reply to post by Arcade425

This is true. I would have to think that TPTB will have something over their heads that could hurt them would be great!!! Could this be it????(I personally doubt its this though)!!!

Wishing ill on another member of mankind makes yuou as bad as they are.

posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 12:28 PM

Originally posted by Turq1
Is there a better source?

I wouldn't be too caught up in it if it's only one site saying that.

One would think that Stanford and Perdue Universities would be reliable enough. Not for you huh?

posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 12:38 PM
reply to post by sprocket2cog

Ah, sorry then, I clearly misunderstood your post I was responding to. As I was writing my reply I began to realize that I might have jumped the gun, caught in a debunking the debunkers mode.

What makes you think that the abstract you posted was from the original publication, I am guessing date. Maybe it was, but it seems from the abstract that it was already a subject much discussed.

From the Standford article, the whole discovery was apparently by mathematicians looking for a better way to generate random numbers, who discovered this going over old published data that had been collected independent of this discovery. It seems that is where the original numbers came from. I guess the first thing to wonder if this was done from only one set of published data, or from numerous sources. If it came from numerous sources, then it would be hard to dispute the data, and then it all comes down to how the math is done.

posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 12:58 PM

Originally posted by kwakakev
On the positive side it sounds like all the radiation in Japan and elsewhere will get cleaned up a bit quicker. It is so good for the Sun to look after Earth like that as well all mess it up, I am really impressed.

As for this time thing, recently I have noticed that time is going faster compared to when I was a kid. When I try counting of seconds now compared to 30 years ago they do go by at a faster rate. Use to do it to judge how far away lightening was. I was thinking that this is just a normal part of getting older, it is quite common for many older people to say this. This is generally put down to natural aging and psychological reasons, but maybe this speed up of time has been going on for a very long time?

There are a few other threads starting to bring this time acceleration thing up with 2012 and the galactic alignment. I did try looking for a more reputable source about it and it is interesting to hear the scientific community and other ATS threads confirming that something is actually going on. I was left pretty disappointed after experiencing my first failed doomsday prediction so I am not inclined to go all apocalyptic about all the ongoing next ones. The SHTF could happen any time and we all have to die one day. However, it does sound like 2012 (or when ever it happens) could be quite an event if there is any substance to it.

What you speak of is referred to as subjective time. Relative time (such as is is) does not change as a measure. One second still takes one second.
As an example of subject time vs relative time.
A young man spends 15 minutes talking to a young lady but it only feels like only 5 minutes. The same man sits down on a hot stove for 5 minutes but it feels like 15 minutes.

posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 01:12 PM
reply to post by ETSubmariner

Time to put away the foolish notion that math IS science rather than a tool of science.

This is very much at the crux of it. 1=1 is only true in the abstract, in the real world, one is only approximately equal to one. Most of these modern physics equations use symbols as numbers which are even far more abstract than a basic integer. They don't seem to bother to pay any attentional at all to the scale of probability, or any effort to the reality that the scale and accuracy of the numbers being represented by a simple symbol have a vast effect on the relationship, and so the concept of equality is woefully inadequate.

For example, the concept of 1 Vac greatly varies with the application in which it will be used. In a household electrical system, the term is used very loosely, in old analog aircraft instrumentation, it is very significant. In a computer, the difference between 0 and 1 is a gap between 0 and 5 of about 2 volts, and all of this drifts.

That a great deal of modern physics is based on complex formulas with even more complicated systems of symbols, to the point that only a few people are supposedly capable of understanding what is written, it is not that much of a step from a priest interpreting the entrails of the sacrificial animal.

They really need a very good dictionary that completely explains what all these symbols represented, because when you look down into it, many of these symbols have very broad interpretations. Then they need a much better set of symbols to define the middle of the equation currently occupied only by the equal sign.

edit on 23-4-2011 by poet1b because: add word "look"

posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 01:21 PM
reply to post by karen61057

I think a better way of stating relative time would be standard time, as in the standard time constant.

The world operates on standard time, but everyone in it actually lives in subjective time. Thus we are all, always, either ahead of behind.

posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 01:27 PM
We will be done....well....maybe medium done.

One thing is for sure, fits perfectly within the whole 2012 package....and the conspiracy theorist will go crazy on this one.

posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 01:43 PM
A discussion based on the same article occurred recently over in the O&C forum. A few points to note:

1. The variations occur based on a 33 day cycle, that of the solar core. What is being observed is not a net acceleration or deceleration of decay rates over long periods of time, just on a day to day basis during that cycle. One of the researchers explicitly stated that this would have no significant impact on archaeological data. Which leads to...

2. Radiocarbon dating methods are calibrated based on samples of known age. Research teams publish their calibration curves regularly. Someone would have noticed and published if results deviated significantly from expectations. It would be a great way to get grant funding for life, maybe even a Nobel if they could explain it. But radiocarbon dating isn't the only method, which leads to...

3. Decay rates haven’t been observed to change significantly since we’ve started measuring them. We can observe gamma ray frequencies and fading rates from multiple supernovae that we’ve observed at distances ranging from the hundreds of thousands of light-years to billions of light-years and those frequencies are accurately predicted by our current terrestrial decay rates. There are other methods for verifying that decay rates are stable, and the most deviation they've found is 0.000005% over the last two billion years.

posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 01:44 PM
reply to post by karen61057

I do acknowledge that there is a psychological component to this and your description of subjective time is valid. As we get older we have more exposure to time that can alter our perception of it.

There is also a physical component to time as well, time is not constant. Take the journey of an astronaut for example as he spends a few days in orbit. When he get back his watch is a few minutes slower and he is a few minutes younger compared to if he just stayed on Earth. This is due to Special Relativity and how the speed we are travelling at influences our progression through time. The closer you get to the speed of light, the more time slows down.

If the speed the universe, galaxy, solar system or earth is accelerating or decelerating this will influence the rate at which we perceive time. This is because our speed is changing, so our progression through time changes as well. So for the common perception of time speeding up as people get older, means that somewhere things are decelerating and we are gradually moving more slower in the universe.

Then there are also stories of secret projects like Philadelphia and Montauk as well as the Anderson Institute that have been messing with time travel. Who knows what genies may have been let out of the bottle with unknown repercussions?
edit on 23-4-2011 by kwakakev because: added bit on moving slower in space and faster in time

posted on Apr, 23 2011 @ 01:49 PM

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.

the fact that u turned that into an argument looks like maybe u should grow up....not everyone likes to read a wall of text, it takes a strain on some peoples eyes, he wasnt rude about it he just requested that he use paragraphs...a very basic thing that we learn in school....

top topics

<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in