PDA

View Full Version : "Terrifying" Sun changes



wd40
2010-Dec-24, 12:59 AM
Are the mutative Sun changes here truly 'terrifying', or is it hyped?
http://projectworldawareness.com/2010/10/terrifying-scientific-discovery-strange-emissions-by-sun-are-suddenly-mutating-matter/

kleindoofy
2010-Dec-24, 01:11 AM
I took a look at it.

It's certainly not hype.

It's a load of crap.


Exactly what has scientists so on edge is the fact that the natural rate of decay of atomic particles has always been predictable. Indeed, using the decay rate of Carbon-14 has been a method to date archeological artifacts. The process, known as carbon dating, measures the quantity of Carbon-14 within organic objects. According to the numbers, Carbon-14 has a specific half-life of 5,730 years. Physicists have proven through exhaustive observation and experimentation over the course of a century that it takes 5,730 years for Carbon-14 atoms to decay into a stable Nitrogen-14.

The values don’t change—or at least they never have in the past. With certain evidence that radioactive decay can be significantly affected by an unknown effect from the sun, much of science is turned on its head.
Fe, Fi, Fo, Fuh. I smell the blood of back door creationist woo.

baric
2010-Dec-24, 01:19 AM
Fe, Fi, Fo, Fuh. I smell the blood of back door creationist woo.

haha! I know what you mean. Every time I hear something about radiometric dating being invalidated, there always turns out to be a creationist pushing it.

wd40
2010-Dec-24, 02:18 AM
You mean there's nothing scientific in the article at all ie it's science fiction from someone's fetid imagination masquerading as science? That's disgusting!




It's certainly not hype.

It's a load of crap.

kleindoofy
2010-Dec-24, 02:29 AM
Now evidence has surfaced that something potentially more dangerous is happening deep within the hidden core of our life-giving star: never-before-seen particles—or some mysterious force—is being shot out from the sun and it’s hitting Earth.

Whatever it is, the evidence suggests it’s affecting all matter.

... Something impossible has happened. ... Something being emitted from the sun is interacting with matter in strange and unknown ways with the startling potential to dramatically change the nature of the very Earth itself.

...
Etc. Etc.

Isn't it glaringly obvious?

That sounds like the beginning of a bad catastrophe paperback found on the lower price shelves of a cheap book shop.

baric
2010-Dec-24, 02:39 AM
Etc. Etc.

Isn't it glaringly obvious?

That sounds like the beginning of a bad catastrophe paperback found on the lower price shelves of a cheap book shop.

ok, now I really am terrified!

Ken G
2010-Dec-24, 02:55 AM
The effect is being looked at seriously, and is mysterious if true. But nothing about it is "terrifying" or making scientists "frantic." The article for some reason seems to equate every tiny unknown effect going on in the universe as some kind of harbinger of terrible doom, I have no idea why.

Centaur
2010-Dec-24, 03:01 AM
From the article that inspired this thread: “Physicists have proven through exhaustive observation and experimentation over the course of a century that it takes 5,730 years for Carbon-14 atoms to decay into a stable Nitrogen-14.”

A half-life of 5,730 years does not mean 100% of a group of carbon-14 atoms are expected decay in 5,730 years. It implies that 50% of them should. Then after a total 11,460 years it would be expected that 25% of the carbon-14 atoms remain. In other words, every 5,730 years the number of carbon-14 atoms would be halved. Even if what the more basic sources indicate is true, they claim that the variance is only slight. In any event, carbon-14 dating is a marvelous tool for obtaining good approximations of the ages of organic matter, even if not absolutely precise. Yet some sensationalist hack writer with a hazy understanding of physics chooses to headline an article on the subject with the word “terrifying”. There are scientists who are quite skeptical of the research involving this matter:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/08/26/scientist-smackdown-are-solar-neutrinos-messing-with-matter/

kleindoofy
2010-Dec-24, 03:13 AM
... carbon-14 dating is a marvelous tool for obtaining good approximations of the ages of organic matter ...
Unless, of course, you're a creationist. Then it's something to be denied, contradicted, proven to be nonsense, or at least shown to be inaccurate to the limit of being useless.

Researchable fact vs. wishful faith.

forrest noble
2010-Dec-24, 05:00 AM
I've read a paper on this effect. In the paper of course the word "terrifying" was not present, maybe instead the word curious was used to explain that certain half-life isotopic decay rates are less constant than previously thought, not by big factors like 50% but maybe 5% greater which is a lot more than the .5% rate in some cases. The same speculation involved electron neutrinos as the most likely solar cause but it is curious that there is no surface indications of increased solar activity during these observations and the 33 day period correlated with the changing rates is not coincident with the suns rotation period but it possibly could be the rate that the solar core could be rotating. It is interesting and it is science, and this effect was unexpected which is often the case in the observational sciences.

Hornblower
2010-Dec-24, 11:28 AM
I've read a paper on this effect. In the paper of course the word "terrifying" was not present, maybe instead the word curious was used to explain that certain half-life isotopic decay rates are less constant than previously thought, not by big factors like 50% but maybe 5% greater which is a lot more than the .5% rate in some cases. The same speculation involved electron neutrons as the most likely solar cause but it is curious that there is no surface indications of increased solar activity during these observations and the 33 day period correlated with the changing rates is not coincident with the suns rotation period but it possibly could be the rate that the solar core could be rotating. It is interesting and it is science, and this effect was unexpected which is often the case in the observational sciences.Did you mean neutrinos?

wd40
2010-Dec-24, 01:26 PM
The article doesn't even hint at anything creationist. I think you're seeing 'Barry Setterfield's' behind every stone, when there aren't any!


Every time I hear something about radiometric dating being invalidated, there always turns out to be a creationist pushing it.

Hungry4info
2010-Dec-24, 05:05 PM
Unless, of course, you're a creationist. Then it's something to be denied, contradicted, proven to be nonsense, or at least shown to be inaccurate to the limit of being useless.

Unless of course it's the newly discovered Noah's Ark that you're testing, in which case it's only valid if it supports an age of ~5 kyr.

Gillianren
2010-Dec-24, 05:49 PM
The article doesn't even hint at anything creationist. I think you're seeing 'Barry Setterfield's' behind every stone, when there aren't any!

I think, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, speculation may be made of its avian nature even if the word "duck" never shows up.

forrest noble
2010-Dec-24, 05:50 PM
Hornblower, corrected it even before I saw your comment, thanks.

slang
2010-Dec-24, 06:22 PM
The article doesn't even hint at anything creationist. I think you're seeing 'Barry Setterfield's' behind every stone, when there aren't any!

Long years of experience show that in cases like this, where important supporting evidence for evolution is attacked, there very, very often is a connection to creationism of some sort. In the articles themselves there is indeed often no mention of creationism, as I think that such authors are well aware that most readers will immediately reject it if they did mention it. These connections are often earlier papers/articles/websites by the same author, or some connection to organizations with anti-scientific angles. In other words, it may not immediately quack like a duck, you may need to squeeze a little first. :)

The notion that there are factors which can influence radiometric dating is not new at all, and credible research takes those factors in consideration. Here's some more reading material on the topic, if you're interested.

Talk Origins: Age of the Earth FAQ (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html)
Talk Origins: Isochron Dating FAQ (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html)

Trakar
2010-Dec-24, 09:34 PM
...Fe, Fi, Fo, Fuh. I smell the blood of back door creationist woo.

From their mission statement page it looks like some pseudolibertarian **, a look at their links page is unhelpful (empty) as well, but a collection of their recent posts:

Rage against the Machine!!…
IDB says Mega Islamic Bank to start with $1bn…WAIT!! an idea…
Goldman’s Massive Bonuses ‘Totally Deserved,’ Says Satan…
Taliban’s Cash Flow Grows From Heroin Trade, Crime…by SORAYA SARHADDI NELSON
GULF WAR SYNDROM…
Monitoring America…
Monitoring America: The Government’s Development Of A Vast Panopticon Spy Network …
The Psychopath’s Kettle Is Boiling…
Unifying the UAE stock exchanges a win-win strategy…
South Korea to Conduct Firing Drills Despite North Korea’s Threat to Retaliate…

looks to be a bit more revelatory with regards to their Wootastic take on the world.