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.

 

65 million year old turtle

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Lionhearte
 


before I reply to the others this IS part of the story... good call... I do not know if this made a thread but if it is I suggest you open one on it... post a link here when you do...

io9- sun is changing




A team at Purdue University needed to generate a string of random numbers, a surprisingly tricky task that is complicated by the fact that whatever method you use to generate the numbers will have some influence on them. Physics professor Ephraim Fischbach decided to use the decay of radioactive isotopes as a source of randomness. Although the overall decay is a known constant, the individual atoms would decay in unpredictable ways, providing a random pattern.

That's when they discovered something strange. The data produced gave random numbers for the individual atoms, yes, but the overall decay wasn't constant, flying in the face of the accepted rules of chemistry. Intrigued, they checked out long range observations of silicon-32 and radium-226 decay, both of which showed a slight but definite variation over time. Intriguingly, the decay seemed to vary with the seasons, with the rate a little faster in the winter and a little slower in the summer.


This is a game changer...

it would allow for rapid mutations if the sun was in flux more.... the dating process I never bought because the idiot that originally taught me was sleeping with another teacher yet had the gall to chew a student out for low morals, ect...

(It made me suspicious of anything he said and everything....)




posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by BrianC
 


that would have been cool... dont feel bad either me too first glance.... it was what was the three second grabber



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 


it funny enough may be the basis.... i would think that due to budget it may be based off of another thing or two at the site...



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by dethduck
 


to true...

of course competency equals price for services....

A specialist in turtle actually sounds a lot like a kid who never grew up and said I WILL BE A TURTLE MAN.... good for him..

They are partially necessary and at least he got something done that is semi-cool



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


I guess ask...

lol..


I have no clue either I will dig a little later



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Some of the comments on this thread seem a bit bizarre?

Anyway, the gist of the story is that they found a fossilised Cretaceous era turtle in Cretaceous era rock, under New Jersey. Interesting, but sadly no conspiracy.

And yes, there are paleontologists who specialise in turtles

But no, you cannot use carbon dating on anything this age, not least because such fossils do not contain any carbon. Carbon dating is generaly ony reliable to ~45,000 BP. We know it's age because of the age of rock it came from and the fact it's the same species as other such turtles found in other rock of the same age. Basic paleontology/geology.



new topics

top topics
 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join