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.
Now, it’s claimed that there is a certain periodicity to the allegedly variable radioactive decay rates. A certain annual periodicity suggests a link to the varying distance from the Sun to the Earth, as a result of the Earth’s elliptical orbit – as well as there being other overlying patterns of periodicity that may link to the production of large solar flares and the 11 year (or 22 year if you prefer) solar cycle.
The standard model requires the universe to be isotropic and homogeneous – meaning it can be assumed to have the same underlying structure and principles operating throughout and it looks measurably the same in every direction. Any significant variation from this assumption means the standard model can’t adequately describe the current universe or its evolution. So any challenge to the assumption of isotropy and homogeneity, also known as the cosmological principle, is big news.
Antoniou and Perivolaropoulos’ analysis determined a preferred axis of anisotropy – with more supernovae showing higher than average velocities towards a point in the northern hemisphere (within the same ranges of redshift). This suggests that a part of the northern sky represents a part of the universe that is expanding outwards with a greater acceleration than elsewhere. If correct, this means the universe is neither isotropic nor homogeneous.
We explore the origin of Type I burst oscillations in IGR J17480–2446 and conclude that they are not caused by global modes in the neutron star ocean. We also show that the Coriolis force is not able to confine an oscillation-producing hot-spot on the stellar surface.” says lead author Yuri Cavecchi (University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands). “The most likely scenario is that the burst oscillations are produced by a hot-spot confined by hydromagnetic stresses.”
Originally posted by CriticalCK
The latest data of the LHC in Geneva hints that we may soon burry the standard model. I just want to point a few more things.
Supersymmetry - the data of the LHC suggests there are no supersymmetric particels. If you know something about physics, you'll know that this has vast consequences as many theoretical concepts require supersymmetry in order to make sense.
Dark Matter - LHC Data suggests CDM (cold dark matter) does not exist. Some try to adjust the model by thinking of WDM (warm dark matter) but that will probably falsified very soon, as it doesn't make much sense at all.
Higgs Boson - The LHC suggests that there is a higher than 95% probability that the Higgs-Boson, the particle that gives mass/gravity, does not exist. We will know by end of the year, whether it is right, as it looks for the last place it could hide without the standard model being wrong.
If it is true that a black hole, neutron star or a magnetar's magnetic spin rate and field strength determines the collimation of polar plasma emission as gathered from the equatorial accretion disk, then it stands to reason that those spin rates slowing below the speed of light due to gravitation would then exhibit quantum effects upon those emissions and therefore potentially produce oppositely spun matter or 'mirror matter'. Should that 'mirror' matter then interact due to gravitational effects it would create the tremendously explosive annihilation events as theorized/observed above?
There is one final twist in the answer to this question. It has been suggested by Stephen Hawking that once quantum effects are accounted for, the distinction between black holes and white holes might not be as clear as it first seems. This is due to "Hawking radiation", a mechanism by which black holes can lose matter. (See the relativity FAQ article on Hawking radiation.) A black hole in thermal equilibrium with surrounding radiation might have to be time symmetric, in which case it would be the same as a white hole. This idea is controversial, but if true it would mean that the universe could be both a white hole and a black hole at the same time. Perhaps the truth is even stranger. In other words, who knows?
math.ucr.edu...
Originally posted by sbctinfantry
We were a star, a bright and beautiful star. We are all born from this star, and it collapsed into a black hole when the "universe" was born.
Originally posted by User8911
Originally posted by sbctinfantry
We were a star, a bright and beautiful star. We are all born from this star, and it collapsed into a black hole when the "universe" was born.
I love it! Sounds like a decent theory considering what we know about black holes.
It's a mystery that presented itself unexpectedly: The radioactive decay of some elements sitting quietly in laboratories on Earth seemed to be influenced by activities inside the sun, 93 million miles away.
Is this possible?
Researchers from Stanford and Purdue University believe it is. But their explanation of how it happens opens the door to yet another mystery.
There is even an outside chance that this unexpected effect is brought about by a previously unknown particle emitted by the sun. "That would be truly remarkable," said Peter Sturrock, Stanford professor emeritus of applied physics and an expert on the inner workings of the sun.
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.
Originally posted by XPLodER
i have noticed a major shift in some major aspects of science and science thinking,
it looks like we as a race are re concidering what we know in some key areas of science,