Tracy P. Hamilton
Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006
|
| Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,18:42) | | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 07 2011,14:58) | Cut and paste IDiot strikes again!
| Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,13:35) |
The Sun is changing the rate of radioactive decay, and breaking the rules of chemistry
http://io9.com/5619954....emistry
{quote deleted}
Your Wiki might help
{snipped to get to the part that contradicts the argument right above}
However, such measurements are highly susceptible to systematic errors, and a subsequent paper[11] has found no evidence for such correlations in six other isotopes, and sets upper limits on the size of any such effects.
|
You have contradicted yourself. I think it is because you are clueless. You are not ready for such subtleties as the distinction of spontaneous vs stimulated radioactivity. |
Whoa why you mixing and matching to make a 2009 study appear as subsequent to the 2010 Stanford/Purdue study that my quote I first mentioned?
Power spectrum analyses of nuclear decay rates Volume 34, Issue 3, October 2010, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science....0001234
Norman, E. B.; et al. (2009). "Evidence against correlations between nuclear decay rates and Earth–Sun distance" |
The 2009 article references that very same Stanford-Purdue group making claims before 2009: J.H. Jenkins, E. Fischbach, J.B. Buncher, J.T. Gruenwald, D.E. Krause, J.J. Mattes, <> arXiv:0808.3283v1[astro-ph] 25 August, 2008.
| Quote | Not only that, but that 2009 article mentioned in wiki didnt all together dismiss the variation found in the other three wiki articles but rather the mechanism hypothesized to cause the variation in different kinds of isotopes.
|
Actually, it did dismiss the variation. "We have reexamined our previously published data to search for evidence of correlations between the rates for the alpha, beta-minus, beta-plus, and electron capture decays of 22Na, 44Ti, 108Agm, 121Snm, 133 Ba, and 241Am and the Earth–Sun distance. We ?nd no evidence for such correlations and set limits on the possible amplitudes of such correlations substantially smaller than those observed in previous experiments."
So you are wrong (again) on both counts.
Langmuir had a famous lecture about pathological science based exactly upon this type of research (very low signal to noise). Given that there is only one group who is seeing this over and over, and particle physics would require a major overhaul, the probability is high that the effect is an artifact.
--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world." PaV
"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen
"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers
|
