Comments on: Decay detector gives solar flare alert

By: Andar

Andar — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 23:18:18 +0000

I was thinking the same thing, Jason. The effect might be minimal, but we do not know for certain what effects various solar weather might have had on carbon decay rates in the distant past.

It is known that the percentage of radioactive carbon in Earth’s atmosphere has fluctuated over the ages, resulting from extraterrestrial material entering the atmosphere, cosmic rays interacting with atmospheric nitrogen, and most recently, nuclear testing.

If solar activity does indeed affect the decay of radiocarbon, dating of more ancient materials may be less accurate than many believe it do be.

By: Jason

Jason — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 18:32:19 +0000

Does anyone know how this fluctuation in decay rate might effect carbon dating?

By: Paul Werbos

Paul Werbos — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 16:21:59 +0000

This line of work may add some important richness to our understanding of basic nuclear forces, if we ever figure out what is going on. From the press report above, I was hoping they could report something as exciting as a signal BEFORE we can see a coronal mass ejection. (CMEs are a very big deal for the power grid; see Trent Lott’s Shield Act and all that went into it.) But in the paper itself, I couldn’t find anything like that. The preliminary evidence suggests that it’s not neutrinos, but something more unknown — which is all the more intriguing. Whether it’s a useful predictor or not, it’s worth understanding. (But I am not speaking for my employer in saying that.) Of course, they also seem to predict that many decay
rates would be very different, say, as far away as Mars or asteroids; too bad they didn’t hitch a ride on CURIOSITY (or, more realistically, the furthest asteroid probes… or did they?).

By: inverse137

inverse137 — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:44:29 +0000

@TimothyMBurke,you’re kind of “special,” aren’t you?

By: Jere Jenkins

Jere Jenkins — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 14:36:53 +0000

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jere Jenkins
Date: August 15, 2012 9:55:03 AM GMT-04:00
To: Emil Venere , Jere Jenkins
Cc: Ephraim Fischbach
Subject: Re: Fwd: [Futurity.org] Comment: “Decay detector gives solar flare alert”

SOHO can give close to real time info when a flare occurs, but does not offer any predictive method at the present time, and certainly not several hours in advance of the flare.

Whichever particle is causing the decay rate variations (we’ve eliminated all of the knowns except neutrinos) must be able to transit Earth’s diameter (we saw a monotonic decrease in the decay rate of 54Mn for ~38 hours prior to the Dec 2006 flare, or about 1.66 Earth rotations) and whichever part of the Sun in which they are being produced prior to emission.

Best,

–jere

By: Keith Strong

Keith Strong — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 13:43:34 +0000

Neutrinos are produced in the solar core as a result of the nuclear fusion processes. The are not produced in flares (no fusion), and certainly not 2 days before a flare happens.

I can understand if the neutrino flux changes as a result of the earth’s diatance from the Sun varying (inverse square law) but there is (at the moment) no causal link between these variations in decay rates and any form of solar activity.

I am wondering as someone else pointed out above if the authors are confusing a coronal mass ejection with a flare. CMEs do take 1-3 days to arrive at earth whereas flares 8 minutes. If so this warning mechanism ahs no value, NOAA and NASA already provide excellent geomagnetic storm warnings up to 3 days in advance.

More study is neded to sort this out but making wild claims on TV about new solar activity diagnostics does nothing to advance science, and it just disillusions the public when it all comes to naught (like cold fusion).

By: kimbee

kimbee — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 07:34:17 +0000

Click on his website link… that tells you all you need to know… o_O

By: Michael

Michael — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 05:21:12 +0000

” but never stop to think whether or not the methods we are using today to determine their mass or charge is even accurate”
Yes they do and yes it is accurate.

“time is always relative, speed, location, gravity, and energy and much more factors all affect decay rate”
Already taken into consideration – not a problem.

And since both of your premises are false, we can safely ignore your conclusion:
“our teachings of how the universe functions are all founded on virtual nonsense.”

“Until they learn to compensate…”
Let me stop you there because i already covered this, they do compensate.

This is a new discovery, but it is not proof of earlier incompetence. Your entire post is nothing but a red herring. I only reply to warn others of your misinformation.

By: Marc Blasband

Marc Blasband — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:18:49 +0000

Saying that decay rates are not constant is a bold and interesting step.

Nevertheless, I thought the Soho satellite provides already early warnings. Would this method improve on that or provide a confirmation warning? Is the sight of Soho limited? Would this be cheaper than the satellite?

By: TimothyMBurke

TimothyMBurke — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 16:06:13 +0000

“neutrinos have essentially no mass or charge”
They claim they have no mass or charge, but never stop to think whether or not the methods we are using today to determine their mass or charge is even accurate, then also there is the whole idea that we use time to track decay rate, this is also extremely faulty since time is always relative, speed, location, gravity, and energy and much more factors all affect decay rate, unfortunately today’s scientists refuse to accommodate for these very significant truths in countless calculations, so our teachings of how the universe functions are all founded on virtual nonsense. Until they learn to compensate for the the factors affecting us outside of the readily monitored visible spectrum in this small area of our universe, all theories will be appear somewhat flawed and have random degree of error.