Posted on 08/29/2008 9:29:09 AM PDT by LibWhacker
I don’t understand why changes in decay rates are important.
They say something about the sun and about the elements but I can’t tell what it is on first glance.
Wouldn’t carbon 14 dating issues be related?
only for stuff that originated off world
Wouldn't this also relate to the SPIN issue highlighted by Hoagland recently on C2C . . . also on his website . . . the Parts I & II of "Von Braun's 50-Year-Old Secret: . . .
LINK:
HERE: http://www.enterprisemission.com/Von_Braun?.htm
On p 18 of 39 is the blue background gif of DePalma's Spinning Ball Experiment. . . . wherein he put 2 identical 1" steel balls such as pin ball machines use . . . in 2 identical cups. Don't recall all the details but essentially--one ball was in a cup affixed to a spinnable drill. The other wasn't. After the spinning ball was up to a given number of rpm's both balls were tossed equally into the air. The spinning ball rose significantly higher etc. as the graph shows from the strobe pics.
IIRC, such a spin effect also effected chemical reactions and a host of other things, it turned out.
Seems plausible to me, that the spin of the sun, as well as the solar system and the earth would be influenced--that is the effects of such spins would be influenced by distance, to some degree. ???
Would love to see folks discuss this with the proper understanding and training.
There have been several unexpected changes with those flights as Hoagland’s articles on “Von Braun’s 50 Year Old Secret” delineate. See link above.
UFO CRAFT have neutralized missles
AND WAREADS
with light . . . even into buried bunkers.
Fascinating stuff indeed.
Reportedly Von Braun was quite disturbed at the implications of all the launched vehicle data . . .
kind of shredding Newtonian and Einsteinian physics in very significant ways.
IIRC . . .
some such differences have been reported.
I’m certainly a believer in the Biblical ID, but not the young earth variety.
Too much other evidence of very ancient civilizations, imho.
As I see it, particularly in the case of lead, uranium, gold etc. there is a problem involved in the standard idea of our planet having formed up from swirling masses of solar material since you'd expect any heavy metals to end up near the center of the planet. There seems to be a possibility that any sort of age you might derive from heavy metals might apply to the heavy metals themselves but not to the planet.
I thought so, too.
Though I wasn’t entirely sure, being a layman and all! LOL.
Of course you would have to prove that the earth's orbit changed significantly in the last 6000 years which you cannot do. Your argument is like saying the distance from LA to NY is 17 feet due to the change speed of light.
And if what they say is true, I wonder if it might help to explain the anomalous acceleration perturbations acting on those distant spacecraft.
***Well, the esteemed DarwinCentral former freeper dude “Radio Astronomer” put the kibosh on that idea a couple of years ago, but I still have sneaking suspicions.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1794297/posts?page=20#5
To: Alamo-Girl
Hi Alamo Girl:
Would an adjustment to the fine structure constant account for a slight increase in gravitational pull?
5 posted on Friday, March 02, 2007 4:38:22 PM by Kevmo (Duncan Hunter just needs one Rudy G Campaign Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVBtPIrEleM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: Kevmo
In a word - no.
20 posted on Friday, March 02, 2007 5:45:44 PM by RadioAstronomer (Senior and Founding Member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
To: RadioAstronomer
that was easy ;-)
23 posted on 03/02/2007 5:50:09 PM PST by Kevmo (Duncan Hunter just needs one Rudy G Campaign Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVBtPIrEleM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Kevmo
At these masses and velocities, the fine structure constant is just that. A constant.
33 posted on 03/02/2007 7:50:05 PM PST by RadioAstronomer (Senior and Founding Member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: Kevmo; RadioAstronomer
that was easy ;-)
LOLOL! It certainly was. Thanks, RadioAstronomer!
41 posted on 03/02/2007 10:05:59 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
a couple of years ago ==> last year
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).The results show that it's not true; what the connection is isn't clear; it's possible that the correlation (which appears to be cut and dried) will lead to something new in the way of understanding. Of course, it could be swept under the rug, mentioned in passing in undergrad courses, then ignored for a few more decades. :')
They would go out and come back in annually?
Bending of light due to the gravitational distortion of space by the mass of the sun has been reported. This effect causes a very slight displacement of the images of stars near the disk of the sun (e.g. as seen during an eclipse).
But if the speed of light varied with distance from the sun, the space around the sun would act like a giant lens and starlight even at wide angles from the sun would be affected. I have never heard of anything like this being reported.
Please add me to your String Theory ping list.
:’)
I don’t recall the details. One of those minutae that lodged partially amidst the other . . . assorted stuff . . . in the noggin.
Probably was in a thread on FR or . . . ???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.