Scientists worried: Strange emissions by sun are suddenly mutating matter

page: 16
142
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 06:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Farnhold
 


Very interesting post. I cannot believe all the whiners as to the form and content of your post. What a bunch of babies.

Anyway, this seems to correlate with some of the many native American prophecies and Mayan regarding the change or ascension or DNA upgrade we are supposed to be experiencing sometime in the very near future. This is one to keep a close eye on.

Thanks for the heads up.




posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
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.



I believe, then, that the pertinant info is already here at ATS.

Or it could be at Unexplained mysteries.

I rarely post anywhere else.

Once I get all my stuff reloaded at home, I'll get back to you if you haven't found it yet. But it is there.

I didn't say it didn't pertain to carbon dating. I said the effect wasn't found in C14.

I do know that the effect, assuming it's real, is (like I said) orders of magnitude smaller than the margin of error for C14 dating. So, not gonna cause a problem there.

Harte



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


You are saying that the net change means that this doesn't make the whole dating process questionable, when the Standford article clearly states that it does, because the overall variability is to large to not question whether or not this can be considered a constant.

If you review the peer-reviewed paper that the Stanford article is based on, the change in counting rate for Ra226 is 0.003. This translates to a fluctuation of +/- 0.308 years over a half-life of 1601 years, or a maximum fluctuation of 0.02%. Is a maximum fluctuation of three months over a period of over a millennium and a half large enough of a deviation to overturn all of the radioisotope dating we’ve done to date? In my opinion, no. Especially since, as shows in the paper, the variations are cyclic.


The articles you cited about supernova radioisotope decay are about identifying different species of radioactive materials in deep space. Radioisotope decay of carbon 14 for dating is a different process. This requires looking at specific materials, and measuring the decay. This is not what they are doing when looking at species of radioactive materials in deep space. They have to have the samples of known carbon 14 to establish the decay rates, they don't have those samples from deep space. They can only measure the combination of frequencies of gamma rays to identify categories of these emissions.

I’m sorry, I don’t think I expressed my point clearly enough. Yes, C14 is mentioned early on in the Stanford article. However, none of the research performed by Jenkins et al was in regards to C14 - they were working with Si32 and Ra226. They do suggest that the same phenomenon should have an effect on all radioisotopes, but that it will take more research to verify. My specific point is that if decay rates were “drifting” here on Earth, as you suggest, we’d see variation between the decay rate of a radioisotope here on Earth and the same radioisotope under different conditions i.e. in space. We don’t.


Calculations are based on previously measured values.

No, calculations made from first principles are done independently of empirical measurements. That’s why they’re called calculations from first principles.


Acceleration is the speed of the rate of change, not the total change. If you are in a car 60 mph, and accelerate at 5 mph per minute for five minutes, and then drop to 0 mph per minute acceleration, you will then be moving at 85 mph, having change the rate of travel from 60 to 85, or 25 mph. It is the change in rate, not the speed of the change of rate that is important here. Maybe I am being nitpicky.

Yes, and in order to exhibit a net change in a rate, there must be a net acceleration or deceleration of that rate. Or, in other words, in order for you to get from 60 to 85 mph, you still had to have accelerated more than you decelerated. In the case of decay rates, you have a population of particles (N) that is changing over a period of time (t). This changes is referred to as the activity (A) and is defined as –[dN/dt], or as a reduction in the species over time in the case of decay. What we’re talking about here is a change in A with time, or dA/dt. If you look at the original peer-reviewed paper that the Stanford article is based on, it shows that the variations as measured by the research teams are cyclic and that the averages are still constant when taken over a sufficiently long period of time i.e. no drift.

I hope I'm not giving the impression that I think they're not seeing what they're claiming or that it's not an important finding. It absolutely is and I can't wait to see the results of the experiments that will be conducted in order to test the various hypotheses for why this is occurring. I just don't think it's going to have any effect on radiometric dating methods. If anything, I think this will ultimately provide for more accurate measurement of half-lives and help resolve the discrepancies previously found in half-life measurements that had no explanation other than experimental error.
edit on 25/4/2011 by iterationzero because: fixed italics tag
edit on 25/4/2011 by iterationzero because: apparently i'm really bad at tags
edit on 25/4/2011 by iterationzero because: ...really really bad at tags.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pressthebutton
Ok, why now? You would think there would be a major reason for these sudden catastrophic changes in the Sun. I would REALLY like to know!


Gods Grand Design ?
It turns out God has been here all along.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 

Thank you for that. Now I don't have to remember to look it up after reloading Adobe Acrobat.

Poet, C14 has a half-life of around 5730 years. C14 dating is useless beyond 60kybp or so.
The average margin of error is plus or minus around 250 years (larger for older samples, smaller for younger ones.)

If you apply the rate stated by iterationzero (and that could be wrong because they didn't test C14) then you can see what I was saying.

Remember, as was stated, the effect is cyclical - not constant.

Radiocarbon dates will not be affected.

Harte



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by karen61057
 


Who said that TPTB are mankind or Human for that matter!!!!!!



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   
This phenomenon reminds me of a verse in the Bible it's found in Malachi 4:2 Here it is..... see what you think.
" But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of Righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth and grow up as calves of the stall". If you read the verse in the context of the surrounding verses and with an open mind toward the possibility of ascension and metamorphosis it seems to make a clear statement that this could come about through such a mechanism as is being discussed here.





new topics

top topics



 
142
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join