forastero
Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011
|
| Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 08 2011,14:11) | | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,12:56) | | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 08 2011,12:47) | | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,18:42) |
Of course they are going to fight it tooth and nail. In fact your article says: "Recently, Jenkins et al. [4] proposed that these decay rate variations were correlated with the distance between the Earth and the Sun. Jenkins et al. went on to suggest that the underlying mechanism responsible for this correlation might be some previously unobserved field emitted by the Sun or perhaps was the result of the (±3%) annual variation in the flux of solar
neutrinos reaching the Earth. If the Jenkins et al. [4] proposal were correct, it would have profound consequences for many areas of science and engineering.
Oh and Notice how the "correlated" is used? It doesnt actually dismiss the 3% decay rate but rather some correlations with the son. |
"We observe no systematic oscillations in half-life and can set an upper limit on their amplitude of ?0.02%."
No oscillations AT ALL, not just no oscillations based on earth orbit. Also 0.02% < 3%, IDiot. |
Again, your looking at an older article about different isotopes.
Here is the new one
Oh and actually, Jenkins et al. did find fluctuations in radium, which is a popular dating isotope and often used with lead and a daughter element of uranium
http://arxiv.org/abs........08.3283
“They [Jenkins et al.] discovered that a spike in X-ray flux associated with the flare roughly coincided with a dip in the manganese’s decay rate. Two days later, an X-ray spike from a second solar flare coincided with another, though very faint, dip. Then, on 17 December, a third X-ray spike accompanied yet another dip, which was more prominent (see above figure).”
http://physicsworld.com/cws........s....08 |
Now why should these be unaffected, but other isotopes affected? There is no physical basis whatsoever for thinking that. Observation of no variation in beta and alpha decays is directly relevant to rebutting claims of varing decay rates, even if they are different isotopes, even if the claim is made in a later paper, because they all have the same decay mechanisms (alpha and beta) and so all isotopes using the same mechanism should be affected.
But no, an IDiot is incapable of thinking for himself.
Requiring a physical basis = "fighting tooth and nail" to somebody who does not understand how science works.
By the way, if alpha decay is included, a third paper also see no variation in decay of Pu-238. P.S. Cooper, arXiv:0809.4248v1 [astro-ph] 24 September, 2008. And
So we have:
Long established well known particle physics
knowledge of how alpha decay works (strong nuclear force)
Knowledge of how beta decay works (electroweak force)
Knowledge of how gamma decay works (nuclear excitation) 3 groups seeing no variation in decay rates
Previous reports of yearly variation disappearing when ratios are used, which cancels error in intrumentation
vs
only one group seeing variation
a requirement that particle physics be all wrong but nobody has noticed any other discrepancies
plus one Bozo |
Actually, radioisotopes have different decay events, sensitivities, and energy barriers that require a specific activation energy that reactants must surpass in order to nudge it into decaying.
...Btw, its not just decay of alpha and beta, but also positron, gamma emission, etc..
More importantly, how do you know that surrounding rocks are not contaminated with isotopes from surrounding materials and runoff?
What the fluctuating effects on radioisotopes produced via cosmic rays like C14 and Argon?
|
