Tracy P. Hamilton
Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006
|
| Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,01:42) | | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 12 2011,23:19) | | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,16:37) |
You now seem to be confusing reaction and decay.
|
Er, what reaction exactly? There is none proposed for what those papers claim except stuff they made up to explain something which probably does not exist.
You also mentioned stability which has bupkis to do with decay modes.
U-238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, alpha decay.
Rn-212, 24 min, alpha
Se-82, 10^20 years, beta
Po-219 <300 nanosecond, beta decay.
You are confused, I have focused only on mechanisms of decay (alpha, beta, gamma), the fundamental forces involved (and particles), lack of foundations for claims of observation of variation with solar orbit, lack of an mechanism based on solar orbit that would affect the alpha, beta or gamma via the fundamental forces.
| Quote |
You first asked how the sun could effect the strong nuclear binding force of a alpha decaying isotope and I told you that the force doesnt necessarily make them less vulnerable to reaction. In fact, alpha radioisotopes are often the most vulnerable to reaction.
|
You're babbling - what reactions, and how would they depend on distance from the sun?
| Quote | On the other hand if protons and neutrons can be rearranged inside the nucleus by deuterium tunneling and if cosmic rays and/or quantum tunneling can greatly effect reaction rates of radioisotopes and fission, its logical that it can also effect decay rates.
|
More babble, and IFs with no evidence. What would be logical is something that would change what is going in in the nuclear decay that is related to solar orbit. So, what goes on in the sun - OUT. What goes on elsewhere in space - OUT. What changes with orbit is the distance and variation of neutrino flux is quite clearly evident there. Alas for you, neutrinos don't affect decay rates.
| Quote | | Actually its called quantum physics. You and your sun god priests love fantasizing about mutationism but when someone talks logically about a mutation that can effect your scriptures, the whole congregation starts foaming at the mouth |
Now you're babbling about something that is wholly unrelated to orbital influences on radioactive decay rates.
| Quote |
| Quote | | No answer to why alpha decay should be affected, eh? This group seeing variation in decay rates is seeing variation in alpha and beta decay. The fact that alpha should not be affected at all casts doubt that this is not just observational artifact for ALL the results. |
Radium decays alpha, beta, and gamma and Princeton and Purdue show that the decay rates do change |
The continued absence of answer is glaringly obvious.
Radium-??? There are these things called "isotopes". Look it up.
Actually, these are currently unverified claims. You keep credulously repeating them, because you are an IDiot. There is a long history of a seasonal variation in measurement of decay rates, that does not mean it is real instead of instrument sensitivity to winter vs summer climate. That is why other experiments using different measurement techniques are important. Others have done this, with the result being - NO VARIATION. |
Google radioisotope and "reaction" rate and nuclear force and activation energy and you will how they tie together |
What is needed is an argument for CHANGES in these rather vaguely described processes on your part.
All your sources (which I deleted since they are superfluous - we've seen you repeat them unthinkingly every time) are from the same group making the same claims that aren't holding up.
Nobody is fooled.
My arguments are unanswered still. The only reason I am interested in this particular issue is that it shows a pathological thinking process on your part. Putative oscillating decay rates would have NO effect on a radiodate, which makes it curious why you insist on defending this.
Although I am interested in these staffs in all cultures that record the Global Flood - any progress on finding one? I suggest you google it. :p
Edited to add, 1) because I can and you can't, and 2) you claim scientists lie a lot: why do you believe the Purdue et al scientists and not the others? Do you have a procedure for doing this that does not depend on other scientists, who could also be lying? By the way, I have found that people who think everybody else is a liar is just projecting their personality onto others.
--------------
"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
|
