|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
The Floating World
Joined: 01 Oct 2011
Location: Here
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 7:50 pm Post subject: A foundation of modern physics is possibly shattered |
 |
|
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/speed-light-theory-challenged-170444597.html
| Quote: |
| Professor Themis Bowcock, head of the university's particle physics team, said: "Should neutrinos travel faster than light, it would overthrow our ideas of the structure of space and time." |
I always did think m theory and 11 dimensions was an act of desperation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I told you so.
Neutrinos are also likely responsible for accelerating nuclear decay.Hence the age of the earth is way less than traditional dating methods claim.
If neutrinos or some other agent trigger nuclear decay, an increase in the presence of this agent would accelerate nuclear decay. This model predicts that there should be a small annual variation in decay rates as the Earth�s distance from the sun varies, According to a recent article in New Scientist this affect has been observed, in a variety of isotopes in several different experiments. It has been demonstrated in both Alpha and Beta decay.
| Quote: |
Solar ghosts may haunt Earth's radioactive atoms
30 June 2009 by Justin Mullins
Magazine issue 2714.
It's 1986, and there's a puzzle on Dave Alburger's desk. Not Ern� Rubik's latest toy, but the data from a four-year experiment to measure the half-life of the rare radioactive isotope silicon-32. On one level, the numbers fit together just fine, adding up to a half-life of 172 years, in keeping with previous estimates.
There's a devil in the detail, however. The sample's radioactivity has not been dropping steadily over time, as the textbooks demand. It has fallen, to be sure, but superimposed on that decline is an odd, periodic wobble that seems to follow the seasons. Each year, the decay rate is at its greatest around February and reaches a minimum in August.
If we know anything about radioactivity, it's that this kind of thing just doesn't happen. Radioactivity decreases predictably over time.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227141.400-solar-ghosts-may-haunt-earths-radioactive-atoms.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 3:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
I told you so.
Neutrinos are also likely responsible for accelerating nuclear decay.Hence the age of the earth is way less than traditional dating methods claim.
If neutrinos or some other agent trigger nuclear decay, an increase in the presence of this agent would accelerate nuclear decay. This model predicts that there should be a small annual variation in decay rates as the Earth�s distance from the sun varies, According to a recent article in New Scientist this affect has been observed, in a variety of isotopes in several different experiments. It has been demonstrated in both Alpha and Beta decay.
| Quote: |
Solar ghosts may haunt Earth's radioactive atoms
30 June 2009 by Justin Mullins
Magazine issue 2714.
It's 1986, and there's a puzzle on Dave Alburger's desk. Not Ern� Rubik's latest toy, but the data from a four-year experiment to measure the half-life of the rare radioactive isotope silicon-32. On one level, the numbers fit together just fine, adding up to a half-life of 172 years, in keeping with previous estimates.
There's a devil in the detail, however. The sample's radioactivity has not been dropping steadily over time, as the textbooks demand. It has fallen, to be sure, but superimposed on that decline is an odd, periodic wobble that seems to follow the seasons. Each year, the decay rate is at its greatest around February and reaches a minimum in August.
If we know anything about radioactivity, it's that this kind of thing just doesn't happen. Radioactivity decreases predictably over time.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227141.400-solar-ghosts-may-haunt-earths-radioactive-atoms.html |
|
Is that to say that the Earth is less than 10000 yrs old and not billions of years old? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 3:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
| Is that to say that the Earth is less than 10000 yrs old and not billions of years old? |
Would that bother you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Floating World
Joined: 01 Oct 2011
Location: Here
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 5:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Junior - out. This is not a platform for your soapbox tirades against science. Start your own thread for that.
We are here to discuss how this new finding - if proven - changes theoreticl physics.
A friend of mine who himself majored in physics, suggests it will add another 4 dimensions.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
Neutrinos are also likely responsible for accelerating nuclear decay.Hence the age of the earth is way less than traditional dating methods claim. |
Are you implying that this will make for a definitive test of the concept of a young Earth? Would the outcome of this prove or disprove your assertion? If so, I welcome it with open arms.
I hope you equally willing to accept or reject your current notions of the age of the Universe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
silkhighway
Joined: 24 Oct 2010
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Floating World wrote: |
Junior - out. This is not a platform for your soapbox tirades against science. Start your own thread for that.
We are here to discuss how this new finding - if proven - changes theoreticl physics.
A friend of mine who himself majored in physics, suggests it will add another 4 dimensions.... |
There are already models that have the universe in 20-something dimensions. All that really means is they can throw together a whole whack of variables into one equation instead of separate equations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Floating World wrote: |
Junior - out. This is not a platform for your soapbox tirades against science. Start your own thread for that.
|
now now, let's be fair. Junior doesnt have anything against science, just the science that doesn't agree with his bible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Floating World
Joined: 01 Oct 2011
Location: Here
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
| The Floating World wrote: |
Junior - out. This is not a platform for your soapbox tirades against science. Start your own thread for that.
|
now now, let's be fair. Junior doesnt have anything against science, just the science that doesn't agree with his bible. |
Lol. But really, if it is shown that neutrinos can indeed travel faster than the sol, how will this change theoretcial physics?
That's just above and beyond my layman's knowledge, but I'd really like to hear people's informed ideas.
For example, does it shatter the big bang theory, alter the way we see quantum theory, will it constitute a massive overhaul of the current mainstream theories etc?
For example, which theories depend heavilly or totally on the rule of nothing being able to travel faster than the sol and what happens to them if this is proven false. Furthermore, what kind of ripple effect does that have.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2011 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| Junior wrote: |
Neutrinos are also likely responsible for accelerating nuclear decay.Hence the age of the earth is way less than traditional dating methods claim. |
Are you implying that this will make for a definitive test of the concept of a young Earth? Would the outcome of this prove or disprove your assertion? If so, I welcome it with open arms. |
is there such a thing as a definitive test? People usually interpret evidence to mean different things.
radiometric dating is based on the assumption that radioactive decay rates are consistent with time.
However if the decay rate has historically varied then any date assigned by radiometric dating..and applied to evolution...is beyond useless.
What the evidence I'm showing you confirms is that nuclear decay is not constant. It accelerates at certain times. This evidence has been dismissed by scientists on the basis that they assume decay rates to be constant and that any evidence to the contrary must be in error.
Its a classic case of evolutionists dogma defeating science. Instead of following where the evidence leads, they force the evidence to fit their preconceptions. Circular reasoning.
| Quote: |
We think that the decay rates of elements are constant regardless of the ambient conditions (except in a few special cases where beta decay can be influenced by powerful electric fields).
So that makes it hard to explain the curious periodic variations in the decay rates of silicon-32 and radium-226 observed by groups at the Brookhaven National Labs in the US and at the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesandstalt in Germany in the 1980s.
Today, the story gets even more puzzling...
http://arxivblog.com/?p=596 |
In any case the rate of helium produced as a by-product of nuclear decay confirms a young earth.
| Quote: |
The Helium loss rate is so high that almost all of it would have escaped during the alleged 1.5 billion year uniformitarian age of the rock, and there would be very little Helium in the crystals today. But the crystals in granitic rock presently contain a very large amount of Helium, and the new experiments support an age of only 6000 years
http://www.icr.org/article/new-rate-data-support-young-world/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
UknowsI
Joined: 16 Apr 2009
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 5:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Most troubling for OPERA is a separate analysis of a pulse of neutrinos from a nearby supernova known as 1987a. If the speeds seen by OPERA were achievable by all neutrinos, then the pulse from the supernova would have shown up years earlier than the exploding star's flash of light; instead, they arrived within hours of each other. "It's difficult to reconcile with what OPERA is seeing," Ellis says.
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110922/full/news.2011.554.html |
Uh..have they ever considered that its perhaps because their calculations of distance for stars are incorrect?
....as I asserted in an earlier thread.
-talking of light speed in a vacuum, it is well known surely that the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If neutrinos are moving faster than the speed of light, and they have mass (there's still debate over how much they have.) Then E=mc^2 is wrong. As is much of Special Relativity. If it pans out, this does to Einstein what Einstein did to Newton. However, there's still a lot we don't know about neutrinos. Maybe they'll turn out to be some weird case of negative mass or something... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Menino80
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Location: Hodor?
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2011 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
I told you so.
Neutrinos are also likely responsible for accelerating nuclear decay.Hence the age of the earth is way less than traditional dating methods claim.
If neutrinos or some other agent trigger nuclear decay, an increase in the presence of this agent would accelerate nuclear decay. This model predicts that there should be a small annual variation in decay rates as the Earth�s distance from the sun varies, According to a recent article in New Scientist this affect has been observed, in a variety of isotopes in several different experiments. It has been demonstrated in both Alpha and Beta decay.
| Quote: |
Solar ghosts may haunt Earth's radioactive atoms
30 June 2009 by Justin Mullins
Magazine issue 2714.
It's 1986, and there's a puzzle on Dave Alburger's desk. Not Ern� Rubik's latest toy, but the data from a four-year experiment to measure the half-life of the rare radioactive isotope silicon-32. On one level, the numbers fit together just fine, adding up to a half-life of 172 years, in keeping with previous estimates.
There's a devil in the detail, however. The sample's radioactivity has not been dropping steadily over time, as the textbooks demand. It has fallen, to be sure, but superimposed on that decline is an odd, periodic wobble that seems to follow the seasons. Each year, the decay rate is at its greatest around February and reaches a minimum in August.
If we know anything about radioactivity, it's that this kind of thing just doesn't happen. Radioactivity decreases predictably over time.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227141.400-solar-ghosts-may-haunt-earths-radioactive-atoms.html |
|
This is a colossal waste of bandwidth. Why why why can't we get the bandwidth back on this post? Such a waste of time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 21, 2011 5:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| This would be sooo cool if it turns out to be true. Go scientists! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
