| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
03 Jan 2007 07:26:36 PM |
| Object: |
Radioactive Dating -- NOT RELIABLE |
4>
Radioactive Dating NOT RELIABLE
Radioactive dating techniques are routinely used to
determine the ages of fossils, dinosaur bones, ancient
artifacts, meteorites, moon rocks, geological
formations, and Mother Earth herself.
ALL radioactive dating techniques rely on the
ASSUMPTION that the radioactive decay rate of each
isotope is CONSTANT with time.
But this ASSUMPTION might NOT be true! Radioactive
dating techniques may be extremely IN-ACCURATE beyond
ten thousand years into the past!
Someday soon, scientists will discover (some know
already!) that every 13,000 years our Solar System
passes through an extremely energetic area of space
(sometimes called the "Photon Belt"; look it up on the
Internet, including http://www.paoweb.com/glossary.htm ).
During the two thousand years that it takes to pass
through it each time, radioactive decay rates here are
greatly SPEEDED UP or even MULTIPLIED !
This would have the effect of making ancient
objects AND THE EARTH seem to be MUCH OLDER than they
REALLY ARE !
Robert E. McElwaine
B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
http://members.aol.com/rem547 PLUS
http://members.aol.com/rem460
Preserve BOTH on CD-R and PRINT-OUTS
P.S.: PASS IT ON !
"EVERYTHING you know is WRONG."
"The Truth IS STRANGER than fiction."
"The Truth is ALWAYS the FIRST CASUALTY OF WAR."
"OFFICIAL LIES are ALWAYS the BIGGEST LIES OF ALL."
"The more things change, the more they STAY THE SAME."
.
|
|
| User: "George" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating -- NOT RELIABLE |
04 Jan 2007 10:38:09 PM |
|
|
<rem460@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1167873996.447949.221090@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
4>
<snip>
I wouldn't consider anyone who is radioactive to be a reliable date, unless
you plan on spending a lot of time together reading by glowlight.
George
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "SBC Yahoo" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating -- NOT RELIABLE |
04 Jan 2007 10:29:08 AM |
|
|
<rem460@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1167873996.447949.221090@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
4>
Radioactive Dating NOT RELIABLE
Radioactive dating techniques are routinely used to
determine the ages of fossils, dinosaur bones, ancient
artifacts, meteorites, moon rocks, geological
formations, and Mother Earth herself.
ALL radioactive dating techniques rely on the
ASSUMPTION that the radioactive decay rate of each
isotope is CONSTANT with time.
But this ASSUMPTION might NOT be true! Radioactive
dating techniques may be extremely IN-ACCURATE beyond
ten thousand years into the past!
Someday soon, scientists will discover (some know
already!) that every 13,000 years our Solar System
passes through an extremely energetic area of space
(sometimes called the "Photon Belt"; look it up on the
Internet, including http://www.paoweb.com/glossary.htm ).
During the two thousand years that it takes to pass
through it each time, radioactive decay rates here are
greatly SPEEDED UP or even MULTIPLIED !
This would have the effect of making ancient
objects AND THE EARTH seem to be MUCH OLDER than they
REALLY ARE !
Robert E. McElwaine
B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
http://members.aol.com/rem547 PLUS
http://members.aol.com/rem460
Preserve BOTH on CD-R and PRINT-OUTS
P.S.: PASS IT ON !
"EVERYTHING you know is WRONG."
"The Truth IS STRANGER than fiction."
"The Truth is ALWAYS the FIRST CASUALTY OF WAR."
"OFFICIAL LIES are ALWAYS the BIGGEST LIES OF ALL."
"The more things change, the more they STAY THE SAME."
Robert E. McElwaine, B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
is not another crackpot, he is just plain CRAZY. Is there a university
UW-EC that issued a degree to this looney? I would say it is one that one
can purchase for a hundred dollars over the internet.
Albert Einstein said his greatest mistake was recommending the building of
the atomic bomb. I got news for him, that was not even close to his biggest
mistake, in fact it was not even a mistake. That just goes to show, no
matter how good of a mind one has, they can always screw up. To err is
human, as they say. Some people are just erroneous from the beginning to
the end (McElwaine, for example).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating -- NOT RELIABLE |
04 Jan 2007 03:10:58 AM |
|
|
<rem460@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1167873996.447949.221090@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
4>
Radioactive Dating NOT RELIABLE
No kidding! I went on a radioactive date, and two days later my hair fell
out.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "george" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating -- NOT RELIABLE |
04 Jan 2007 01:39:01 PM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
<rem460@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1167873996.447949.221090@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
4>
Radioactive Dating NOT RELIABLE
No kidding! I went on a radioactive date, and two days later my hair fell
out.
Be very very careful.
The Russian dissadent had a date with radiactive elements and look what
happened to him
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating -- NOT RELIABLE |
04 Jan 2007 05:04:44 AM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
<rem460@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1167873996.447949.221090@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
4>
Radioactive Dating NOT RELIABLE
No kidding! I went on a radioactive date, and two days later my hair fell
out.
Ah, but was she reliable? I bet you could count on her!
Regards
Alan
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating -- NOT RELIABLE |
04 Jan 2007 03:22:18 AM |
|
|
<rem460@aol.com> wrote in message =
news:1167873996.447949.221090@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| 4>
| Radioactive Dating NOT RELIABLE
|=20
| Radioactive dating techniques are routinely used to
| determine the ages of fossils, dinosaur bones, ancient
| artifacts, meteorites, moon rocks, geological
| formations, and Mother Earth herself.
|=20
| ALL radioactive dating techniques rely on the
| ASSUMPTION that the radioactive decay rate of each
| isotope is CONSTANT with time.
|=20
| But this ASSUMPTION might NOT be true! Radioactive
| dating techniques may be extremely IN-ACCURATE beyond
| ten thousand years into the past!
|=20
| Someday soon, scientists will discover (some know
| already!) that every 13,000 years our Solar System
| passes through an extremely energetic area of space
| (sometimes called the "Photon Belt"; look it up on the
| Internet, including http://www.paoweb.com/glossary.htm ).
|=20
| During the two thousand years that it takes to pass
| through it each time, radioactive decay rates here are
| greatly SPEEDED UP or even MULTIPLIED !
|=20
| This would have the effect of making ancient
| objects AND THE EARTH seem to be MUCH OLDER than they
| REALLY ARE !
|=20
| Robert E. McElwaine
| B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
| http://members.aol.com/rem547 PLUS
| http://members.aol.com/rem460
| Preserve BOTH on CD-R and PRINT-OUTS
|=20
| P.S.: PASS IT ON !
|
Your ASSUMPTION might NOT be true!=20
You are a fuckwit.=20
P.S.: PASS IT ON !
PPS *plonk*
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cantabridgian" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating -- NOT RELIABLE |
04 Jan 2007 08:09:03 AM |
|
|
wrote:
During the two thousand years that it takes to pass
through it each time, radioactive decay rates here are
greatly SPEEDED UP or even MULTIPLIED !
This would have the effect of making ancient
objects AND THE EARTH seem to be MUCH OLDER than they
REALLY ARE !
If radioactive dating is to be adjusted in any way, it ought to be the
OTHER way; stuff's older than mainstream science thinks. Since that
would bring the radioactive dating of the geological periods in better
accordance with the 'molecular clock' arguments from biology. But I and
most in the field consider the radioactive dating more reliable that the
biochemical.
Personally, I see no reason why the decay constants should change.
They're not data that stand alone; they tie in with our general
understanding of geological processes.
Heavy neutron flux and suchlike can affect radioactive decay, but would
also be incredibly lethal to any life on Earth. And no, you can't claim
that explains mass extinctions; they're nothing like severe enough. Plus
you'll have the problem of explaining the penetration of particles to
depth in the Earth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aidan Karley" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating -- NOT RELIABLE |
07 Jan 2007 04:58:39 PM |
|
|
In article <enj1pa$8db$1@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>, Cantabridgian wrote:
Since that
would bring the radioactive dating of the geological periods in better
accordance with the 'molecular clock' arguments from biology. But I and
most in the field consider the radioactive dating more reliable that the
biochemical.
Everyone, biologist and physicist alike, considers radioactive
dating more reliable than molecular/ genetic clocks. Also, the paucity of
the fossil record makes it pretty damned hard to calibrate the genetic/
molecular clocks as well - while the fossil record can clearly indicate
that a particular group existed at some particular date in the past, the
odds are high that these fossils actually are not the first representatives
of the group in question.
If you follow PALAEONET, there's a discussion (well, gripe-fest)
going on there at the moment over different biostratigrapher's use of
very-similar acronyms to indicate diametrically opposed ways of
interpreting the true duration of groups from the first and last
occurrences of their members in the fossil record. It is really, really
boring.
--
Aidan Karley, FGS,
Aberdeen, Scotland
A light wave is more like a crime wave than a water wave.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "junoexpress" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating -- NOT RELIABLE |
07 Jan 2007 11:11:16 AM |
|
|
wrote:
4>
Radioactive Dating NOT RELIABLE
Absolutely correct, and as a matter of fact, I never date *anyone* who
is radioactive.
Thank you for the helpful information,
M
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timberwoof" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating -- NOT RELIABLE |
07 Jan 2007 03:39:56 PM |
|
|
In article <1168189876.572057.9430@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>,
"junoexpress" <MTBrenneman@gmail.com> wrote:
rem460@aol.com wrote:
4>
Radioactive Dating NOT RELIABLE
Absolutely correct, and as a matter of fact, I never date *anyone* who
is radioactive.
Thank you for the helpful information,
M
Is that a Geiger counter in your pocket, or are you happy to see me?
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
It's easy to say a war is so important your neighbor should go fight it for you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Charles" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating -- NOT RELIABLE |
09 Jan 2007 03:09:34 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 13:39:56 -0800, Timberwoof
<timberwoof.spam@infernosoft.com> wrote:
In article <1168189876.572057.9430@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>,
"junoexpress" <MTBrenneman@gmail.com> wrote:
rem460@aol.com wrote:
4>
Radioactive Dating NOT RELIABLE
Absolutely correct, and as a matter of fact, I never date *anyone* who
is radioactive.
Thank you for the helpful information,
M
Is that a Geiger counter in your pocket, or are you happy to see me?
Um, it's a Geiger counter.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "peter" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating -- NOT RELIABLE |
08 Jan 2007 01:03:35 PM |
|
|
junoexpress wrote:
Absolutely correct, and as a matter of fact, I never date *anyone* who
is radioactive.
That doesn't sound like much fun. Do you insist that your dates have
been dead long enough for their C14 to have decayed?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stuart" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating -- NOT RELIABLE |
04 Jan 2007 03:20:23 PM |
|
|
wrote:
4>
Radioactive Dating NOT RELIABLE
Radioactive dating techniques are routinely used to
determine the ages of fossils, dinosaur bones, ancient
artifacts, meteorites, moon rocks, geological
formations, and Mother Earth herself.
<snip>
I liked your "Earth is Hollow" posts more.
Stuart
.
|
|
|
| User: "George" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating -- NOT RELIABLE |
04 Jan 2007 10:39:27 PM |
|
|
"Stuart" <bigdakine@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1167945622.276285.315990@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
rem460@aol.com wrote:
4>
Radioactive Dating NOT RELIABLE
Radioactive dating techniques are routinely used to
determine the ages of fossils, dinosaur bones, ancient
artifacts, meteorites, moon rocks, geological
formations, and Mother Earth herself.
<snip>
I liked your "Earth is Hollow" posts more.
Stuart
So he's the culprit. I thought his 'e-mail' address looked familiar.
George
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sean" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating -- NOT RELIABLE |
06 Jan 2007 12:45:13 PM |
|
|
wrote:
4>
Radioactive Dating NOT RELIABLE
Radioactive dating techniques are routinely used to
determine the ages of fossils, dinosaur bones, ancient
artifacts, meteorites, moon rocks, geological
formations, and Mother Earth herself.
ALL radioactive dating techniques rely on the
ASSUMPTION that the radioactive decay rate of each
isotope is CONSTANT with time.
But this ASSUMPTION might NOT be true! Radioactive
dating techniques may be extremely IN-ACCURATE beyond
ten thousand years into the past!
Someday soon, scientists will discover (some know
already!) that every 13,000 years our Solar System
passes through an extremely energetic area of space
(sometimes called the "Photon Belt"; look it up on the
Internet, including http://www.paoweb.com/glossary.htm ).
During the two thousand years that it takes to pass
through it each time, radioactive decay rates here are
greatly SPEEDED UP or even MULTIPLIED !
This would have the effect of making ancient
objects AND THE EARTH seem to be MUCH OLDER than they
REALLY ARE !
Robert E. McElwaine
B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
http://members.aol.com/rem547 PLUS
http://members.aol.com/rem460
Preserve BOTH on CD-R and PRINT-OUTS
P.S.: PASS IT ON !
"EVERYTHING you know is WRONG."
"The Truth IS STRANGER than fiction."
"The Truth is ALWAYS the FIRST CASUALTY OF WAR."
"OFFICIAL LIES are ALWAYS the BIGGEST LIES OF ALL."
"The more things change, the more they STAY THE SAME."
This looks like a poorly disguised attempt to bring back creationism.
The next stage in the arguement is to state that the world is only 4000
years old and the new "evidence" supports this.
Of course, you can't confuse these people with facts once their minds
are made up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aidan Karley" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating -- NOT RELIABLE |
07 Jan 2007 04:58:38 PM |
|
|
In article <459fee39$0$16956$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Sean wrote:
This looks like a poorly disguised attempt to bring back creationism.
The next stage in the arguement is to state that the world is only 4000
years old and the new "evidence" supports this.
Only 4000 years old? Sheesh, that'll make it kind of hard for all
the Xtians who have been following Usher's combination of the begats etc
to put the creation of the Earth at 4004 BCE, some 6011 years ago.
Can we put some of these new creationists into a pit with some of
the 4004 crowd and take bets on who'd be the last ones left standing?
Throw a few lions into the mix too?
--
Aidan Karley, FGS,
Aberdeen, Scotland
A light wave is more like a crime wave than a water wave.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating -- NOT RELIABLE |
07 Jan 2007 08:42:49 PM |
|
|
Aidan Karley wrote:
In article <459fee39$0$16956$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Sean wrote:
This looks like a poorly disguised attempt to bring back creationism.
The next stage in the arguement is to state that the world is only 4000
years old and the new "evidence" supports this.
Only 4000 years old? Sheesh, that'll make it kind of hard for all
the Xtians who have been following Usher's combination of the begats etc
to put the creation of the Earth at 4004 BCE, some 6011 years ago.
Can we put some of these new creationists into a pit with some of
the 4004 crowd and take bets on who'd be the last ones left standing?
Throw a few lions into the mix too?
Why be so cruel to the lions? I have a mental picture of the lions
cowering in a corner with their paws over their ears while the holy
rollers argue enlessly and pointlessly with each other!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aidan Karley" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating -- NOT RELIABLE |
09 Jan 2007 02:06:34 PM |
|
|
In article <45a1afa7$0$18128$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Sean wrote:
Why be so cruel to the lions? I have a mental picture of the lions
cowering in a corner with their paws over their ears while the holy
rollers argue enlessly and pointlessly with each other!
The average lion has something they can do to shut the (progeny
of) fuckers up. Involving claws, teeth and digestive processes.
Actually, scratch the last bit - they'd probably taste bad.
Wouldn't want to try pushing that down the poor puddy-cat's throat.
--
Aidan Karley, FGS,
Aberdeen, Scotland
A light wave is more like a crime wave than a water wave.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "george" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating -- NOT RELIABLE |
03 Jan 2007 08:11:07 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Radioactive Dating NOT RELIABLE
Wrong.
Silly person
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating -- NOT RELIABLE |
03 Jan 2007 08:24:12 PM |
|
|
In article <1167876662.684962.159940@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com>,
"george" <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
rem460@aol.com wrote:
Radioactive Dating NOT RELIABLE
Wrong.
Silly person
McElwaine has been doing this for a long time. He's utterly clueless.
--
This space reserved for Jeff Relf's 5-dimensional metric.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Timberwoof" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating -- NOT RELIABLE |
04 Jan 2007 12:01:30 AM |
|
|
In article <phineaspuddleduck-BC590E.02241204012007@free.teranews.com>,
Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com> wrote:
In article <1167876662.684962.159940@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com>,
"george" <gblack@hnpl.net> wrote:
rem460@aol.com wrote:
Radioactive Dating NOT RELIABLE
Wrong.
Silly person
McElwaine has been doing this for a long time. He's utterly clueless.
The web site he points to is mildly entertaining. It's a little better
than the $cieno garbage that passes for mythology.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
It's easy to say a war is so important your neighbor should go fight it for you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "WillE1" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating -- NOT RELIABLE |
04 Jan 2007 10:12:44 AM |
|
|
Perhaps the original poster should bring the matter up with the "Time
Loards" at the site he referred http://www.paoweb.com/glossary.htm Will
E.
.
|
|
|
| User: "WillE1" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating -- NOT RELIABLE |
04 Jan 2007 11:14:33 AM |
|
|
OOps! Make that " Time Lords". Will E.
"WillE1" <wille1@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:12pqcspkkguj495@corp.supernews.com...
Perhaps the original poster should bring the matter up with the "Time
Loards" at the site he referred http://www.paoweb.com/glossary.htm
Will E.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Bagula" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating -- NOT RELIABLE |
04 Jan 2007 10:33:49 AM |
|
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------020304030001040906030403
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
george wrote:
rem460@aol.com wrote:
Radioactive Dating NOT RELIABLE
Wrong.
Silly person
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/decay_rates.html
--------------020304030001040906030403
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
george wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid1167876662.684962.159940@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rem460@aol.com">rem460@aol.com</a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> Radioactive Dating NOT RELIABLE
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Wrong.
Silly person
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/decay_rates.html">http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/decay_rates.html</a><br>
<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------020304030001040906030403--
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Rocket Scientist" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating -- NOT RELIABLE |
08 Jan 2007 02:31:51 PM |
|
|
And don't forget, the Flying Spaghetti Monster alters the data of
radioactive dating as you read it by waving His noodley appendage.
WWFSMD?
Bill Sullivan
"What, me worry?" - Neuman
rem460@aol.com wrote:
4>
Radioactive Dating NOT RELIABLE
Radioactive dating techniques are routinely used to
determine the ages of fossils, dinosaur bones, ancient
artifacts, meteorites, moon rocks, geological
formations, and Mother Earth herself.
ALL radioactive dating techniques rely on the
ASSUMPTION that the radioactive decay rate of each
isotope is CONSTANT with time.
But this ASSUMPTION might NOT be true! Radioactive
dating techniques may be extremely IN-ACCURATE beyond
ten thousand years into the past!
Someday soon, scientists will discover (some know
already!) that every 13,000 years our Solar System
passes through an extremely energetic area of space
(sometimes called the "Photon Belt"; look it up on the
Internet, including http://www.paoweb.com/glossary.htm ).
During the two thousand years that it takes to pass
through it each time, radioactive decay rates here are
greatly SPEEDED UP or even MULTIPLIED !
This would have the effect of making ancient
objects AND THE EARTH seem to be MUCH OLDER than they
REALLY ARE !
Robert E. McElwaine
B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
http://members.aol.com/rem547 PLUS
http://members.aol.com/rem460
Preserve BOTH on CD-R and PRINT-OUTS
P.S.: PASS IT ON !
"EVERYTHING you know is WRONG."
"The Truth IS STRANGER than fiction."
"The Truth is ALWAYS the FIRST CASUALTY OF WAR."
"OFFICIAL LIES are ALWAYS the BIGGEST LIES OF ALL."
"The more things change, the more they STAY THE SAME."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Timberwoof" |
|
| Title: Re: Radioactive Dating -- NOT RELIABLE |
04 Jan 2007 12:00:11 AM |
|
|
In article <1167873996.447949.221090@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
4>
Radioactive Dating NOT RELIABLE
Radioactive dating techniques are routinely used to
determine the ages of fossils, dinosaur bones, ancient
artifacts, meteorites, moon rocks, geological
formations, and Mother Earth herself.
ALL radioactive dating techniques rely on the
ASSUMPTION that the radioactive decay rate of each
isotope is CONSTANT with time.
But this ASSUMPTION might NOT be true! Radioactive
dating techniques may be extremely IN-ACCURATE beyond
ten thousand years into the past!
Someday soon, scientists will discover (some know
already!) that every 13,000 years our Solar System
passes through an extremely energetic area of space
(sometimes called the "Photon Belt"; look it up on the
Internet, including http://www.paoweb.com/glossary.htm ).
To wit,
"Photon Belt: Huge torroid or "belt" of inter-dimensional Light that
passes through this part of Milky Way galaxy in 26,000-year cycle. Last
encountered at beginning of 1997. Fortunately, Earth was put into
special hole in it that was drilled by a coherent bow wave of gamma
particles from a nova that was first observed by astronomers in 1987."
This is ... ahm .. interesting:
"Planetary or Solar Hologram: Special inter-dimensional hologram
composed of polarized light field. Used to surround planet or sun and
preserve it from possibly dangerous situation. Since 1972, solar
hologram has been used to prevent Earth's sun from prematurely
undergoing final stages of massive stellar explosion or nova."
Not many astronomers know that this happened.
During the two thousand years that it takes to pass
through it each time, radioactive decay rates here are
greatly SPEEDED UP or even MULTIPLIED !
That's very interesting. By how much, exactly? (You can give separate
values for the reduced strong and weak nuclear forces if you want. We
can work out the rest.)
This would have the effect of making ancient
objects AND THE EARTH seem to be MUCH OLDER than they
REALLY ARE !
How cool! Errr, how hot! Now wouldn't all that extra radioactivity (for
not only would radioactive isotopes shorten their half-lives, but
isotopes we consider to be "stable" would become radioactive) cause a
whole lot more heat in the Earth's interior?
Now if what you say is actually the case, that would suggest that fusion
processes going on in stars in that "photon belt" would change just as
dramatically. Again, previously "stable" isotopes would disintegrate.
This would show up in changes in the stars' spectra: fewer heavy
elements, changes in temperature and energy output. I wonder why
astronomers haven't seen any of that.
Could it be that your hypothesis, and the web site you cite as a
reference, is full of *****?
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
It's easy to say a war is so important your neighbor should go fight it for you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
