Sun has been emitting unknown particles, carbon dating may be completely off

[JBroll]

Hey I'm back. This is in today's news:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/07/19/3548489.htm

I am not trying to prove anything (clearly that is not going to happen here).

It could, if you bothered to do any actual legwork instead of just mouthing off.

But here are a few quotes that I found interesting:

"As you go back in time, galaxies look really messed up, clumpy and irregular, not symmetric," says Shapley. "The vast majority of old galaxies look like train wrecks, so I was shocked when I saw this one was so different, and so beautiful."

...The data also shows the galaxy is merging with another...."We think this is what's driving the formation of the spiral structure," says Shapley. "Even now, many of the best known spiral galaxies in the nearby universe including the Whirlpool galaxy, Messier 81 and the Pinwheel Galaxy, appear to have satellite galaxies."

"We looked at over 300 early epoch galaxies and this is the only one we've found with spiral arms...One interpretation of the data is that spirals may not last that long...Yet when we look at the modern universe we see lots of spirals, so something has changed."
...

Whee, things change over time. Massive shocker there.

We are, for the record, still looking into why spiral galaxies arise so naturally. However, we do this with *math*, not with jerking off to how smart we think we sound by throwing around half-baked rambly nonsense without first looking into the basics of the field.

Again, this does not prove anything. However, just consider which of these seemingly oversimplified explanations are the most logical to you:

This is already a *HORRIBLE* start. You don't get to just go with gut instincts with what seems 'logical' and what does not - as your mancrush Einstein found out the goddamn hard way - even if you do actually grasp logic and the principles of science.

1. Spiral galaxies are more common now than they used to be. We don't know why. (By the way, we think we are in a spiral galaxy but we are not sure.)
2. Spiral galaxies are more common now than they used to be. This is because physical laws have changed in the past 11 billion years. (By the way, we think we are in a spiral galaxy but we are not sure.)
3. Spiral galaxies are not actually spirals. They appear to be spirals due to not-yet-understood observational distortions. The further away an older a galaxy is, the more distorted it tends to get. (We are not in a spiral galaxy because spiral galaxies do not exist).

Once again, you haven't really given *any* merit to 'Spiral galaxies aren't! They look that way, but they're not! Nuh-uh! Totally not!'.

(1) We're fine with saying that we don't know why. As for figuring out the shape of our own galaxy *while we're still bloody in it*, I hope you can exercise a tenth as much patience as everyone competent in this thread has had to exercise for you and just bear with us for a while.

(2) Without exhausting all sensible options, we don't see much reason to abandon current laws of physics - especially since, as you might have perhaps heard possibly maybe a little while ago,

DUN DUN DUN!

We applied some wacky science AWESOME to the HOLY CUNTSHITTING MECHAFUCKTITS early GODDAMN universe, predicted some cool things that we thought might happen TO BE BADASS YEAH, built the most advanced ASSMANGLING JACKHAMMER MADE OF URANIUM DILDOS shiny smashy things in the history of COCKS ever, and found the GOD OF THE NUNRAPING DALEKS particle we predicted to an *obscene* degree of confidence.

Sure, maybe it seems like the guy at the bar is too drunk to see straight, but after he throws three bullseyes a round for half an hour it's time to just accept that maybe he's decent at darts.

(3) Since we already know that some form of 'distortion' takes place in our observations (that's that little relativity thing there) we work in a way that allows for some weeblity womply nonsense. Again, since you don't seem to have put much effort into seeing what's done, how it's done, and how far ahead of you scientists actually are, this is just getting as far as explaining the Teletubbies to an extraordinarily colorblind shoe.

Why is explanation #1 the only one scientists seem to be exploring?

It's not, but you wouldn't know that because you don't goddamn listen.

What's wrong with at least exploring #2 and #3?

*Time isn't free*. Unless given some good reason for taking some wonky back road, we don't take them. We go with the most plausible, eliminate that, go with the best still plausible thing, and so on... and since you're talking about making a huge leap into unknown territory without evidence (oh, wait, except that you see things differently... since you have the goddamn devil's eyeglasses and see spirals as straight lines, scientists as religious fundamentalists, and every single one of my posts as a big flashing neon sign reading NO REALLY DON'T READ THIS JUST KEEP BLATHERING AWAY WITHOUT A CARE IN THE GODDAMN WORLD IT'S NOT LIKE PEOPLE WITH A CLUE ARE WORKING ON THIS OR ANYTHING with a bunch of hookers pointing their tits at it) the main problem is that it seems to be a colossal waste of time.

So there's something else. Let's take a look at Q2343-BX442, the earliest known spiral galaxy, and the subject of the article:

What do you see? My untrained, uneducated, childish, ignorant, (insert any of jbroll's many adjectives here), marble eyes see yet another two-armed "spiral" galaxy. The top arm appears broken, for lack of a better term, into two arms. Where each of these two arms are missing stars, the other arm has a high concentration of stars. It's like someone took scissors and cut the arm apart and stuck it back on the picture in the wrong place.

Okay, so you straighten out something that isn't straight and it becomes straight. If there were a Nobel Prize in The Fucking Obvious you'd be thanked first in the acceptance speech by whatever jackass just came out and published Things Become Different After You Change Them. Could you get to the point already?

Why? And, more important, why isn't this mentioned in the article? A kid could see this but the article doesn't point it out. I don't know if the discovery article in Nature discusses it but I'm not paying $35 for a Nature subscription to find out. And we all know it's not mentioned there anyway because any distortions must be caused by some unseen satellite galaxy because the science we learned in grad school told us so. It couldn't be a problem with our observations. Once again the beautiful marble forest is ignored while people stare at the wooden trees.

You're actually looking at a postcard upon which some nonce drew a forest in broken crayon lines while trying to lure you into his van. We have the forest, because our eyes aren't completely screwed.

You keep going on about what kids could do and what's obvious. It's not working. Are you just not seeing that? You have some blathering and we have math. You have a straight galaxy and we have 'well, it looks like a spiral, but even if we throw that out it moves like a spiral, evolves like a spiral, interacts with other things like a spiral, behaves according to our predictions of what a spiral would do, wears a big galactic nametag saying LOOKIE I'M A SPIRAL, but I suppose it could be a NO IT COULDN'T GO BACK TO THE SQUARE PEG AND THE ROUND HOLE.

Oh, and by the way, clearly this galaxy below is being distorted by an unseen satellite galaxy. This is the exact shape. There are no observational distortions because I learned about spiral galaxies in grad school:

In short, the complaints you've brought up are either straw men entirely of your own invention, gross 'oversimplifications' that 'simplify' the matters in the same way that blenders 'simplify' hamsters, and appeals to complete and utter bullshit stemming from the mistaken belief that all you need is 'intuition' like what a child would have and maybe some just EXTREMELY powerful drugs that are actually making me reconsider my anti-drug-war stance at the moment.

If it seems any more like you just haven't been paying attention at all there will be a quiz. Get ready.

Jef

 

[Melb_shredder]

 

[Genius Gone Insane]

1. Spiral galaxies are more common now than they used to be. We don't know why. (By the way, we think we are in a spiral galaxy but we are not sure.)...

Why is explanation #1 the only one scientists seem to be exploring? What's wrong with at least exploring #2 and #3?

It's not, but you wouldn't know that because you don't goddamn listen.

Please do share other explanations not listed above, thanks.

 

[John_C]

This thread is a sad thing to read. If you want to get a good understanding of science, you need to go learn some. That will mean several thousad hours of hard work and then you'll understand why what you're saying isn't clever or revolutionary, it's just naive.

 

[Genius Gone Insane]

This thread is a sad thing to read. If you want to get a good understanding of science, you need to go learn some. That will mean several thousad hours of hard work and then you'll understand why what you're saying isn't clever or revolutionary, it's just naive.

Well what's sad is apparently none of you guys are getting this. A lot of these responses just have nothing to do with what I am saying. For instance, there is not much clever or revolutionary about it. So I must be doing a poor job of communicating. So thanks for making that clear. I'll have to fix that somehow.

 

[drew_drummer]

Well what's sad is apparently none of you guys are getting this. A lot of these responses just have nothing to do with what I am saying. For instance, there is not much clever or revolutionary about it. So I must be doing a poor job of communicating. So thanks for making that clear. I'll have to fix that somehow.

You can start BY SAYING EXACTLY WHAT THE FUCK IT IS THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO SAY!!!

 

[Genius Gone Insane]

Ha ok damn calm down lol

 

[ahjteam]

I remember some Finnish professor/scientist/whoever was very skeptic about radiocarbon dating, because he bought that days newspaper and carbon dating said it like 40 000 years old.

 

[JBroll]

Well what's sad is apparently none of you guys are getting this. A lot of these responses just have nothing to do with what I am saying. For instance, there is not much clever or revolutionary about it. So I must be doing a poor job of communicating. So thanks for making that clear. I'll have to fix that somehow.

There we go!

I remember some Finnish professor/scientist/whoever was very skeptic about radiocarbon dating, because he bought that days newspaper and carbon dating said it like 40 000 years old.

The problem with this is that 'brief' fluctuations in carbon-14 levels (deviations occurring in a relatively small period in time - remember that this specific element has a half-life of something like 5700ish years) don't get rounded off for longer periods of time. This is a common creationist argument - bad sign on its own, granted, but fortunately it means that you can check out the usual explanations of why carbon dating something new is going to yield bizarre results. Making a statement of that kind is either disingenuous or massively oversimplifying... and sadly not uncommon.

Jef

 

[LeSedna]

Pretty sure that if carbon dating was that un-reliable, it wouldn't be used. It's not difficult for people who set up carbon datation systems to calibrate them using objects which datation is sure and well known.

 

[Genius Gone Insane]

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/01/scientist-says.html

From 2008. I feel better now. Senovilla is going to be real famous one day.

 

[JBroll]

If it hasn't gotten anywhere in four years, it may not be cause for much comfort.

Jef

 

[LeSedna]

Although coming from a good idea (as time is proven to be non-constant if you compare different conditions), it really doesn't explain many key points, like how would time slowing down explain angular accelerations that give credit to the "there is mass missing in the equation down there" (send an object near an object with mass, you will see its different velocities increase and then decrease as it passes at the closest distance from it. It depends mostly on mass). I wouldn't have the tools to dis-prove this theory (not to mention there is absolutely no detail given in this kind of websites about the theory itself) but it was probably easy for specialists to dis-prove it. Otherwise we would have known about it.

Stay away from this website though, I read some of their articles and some of them were really dancing with logic, in a creepy "let's be scientific but as a diversion, it helps me diverge some time to time to get my point across". The population that post comments is a bit scary too. I mean : "Hi. If time is slowing down in one fasion or another...does that have anything to do with the polarization of the planet? If it does what will happen when 2012 comes and the planets line up and the pole shift? Is there documentation of that ever happening?"

 

[Genius Gone Insane]

Although coming from a good idea (as time is proven to be non-constant if you compare different conditions), it really doesn't explain many key points, like how would time slowing down explain angular accelerations that give credit to the "there is mass missing in the equation down there" ...

Stay away from this website though, I read some of their articles and some of them were really dancing with logic

When you say angular accelerations I assume you mean the galaxy spin problem. Explanation: if there is less mass at the ends of galaxies then time would be moving faster relative to the center of the galaxies, causing them to appear as though the outside is spinning too fast. That's why they have these funky spiral shapes. Think about it. It makes sense.

The other point you have about the website being sketchy is much more relevant, but misguided. The question you should be asking is "why is a legitimate scientist only getting published in obscure science magazines?" That's the real issue at hand and it's what I've been trying to show you guys in this thread. This discovery, which makes perfect sense and seemingly explains damn near all the observational problems we have been having, is a threat to the current science heirarchy. So the people in charge do what they can to illegitimatize it. That's why it is appearing in crap journals, with carbon-copied articles.

You laugh at me now. But if the government operates like this, then why would you expect the science and academic world (which is run by government) would be any different? Who is being naive, Kate?

Final note, for now: Spain has the best soccer team and the 2nd best basketball team in the world. How the fuck that is possible is beyond me (no offense to my Spanish friends here). Many wealthy Americans are moving their money and homes to Spain. And now they are on the verge of the the greatest discovery since Einstein? What the hell is going on over there? What drugs are they on?

 

[LeSedna]

When you say angular accelerations I assume you mean the galaxy spin problem. Explanation: if there is less mass at the ends of galaxies then time would be moving faster relative to the center of the galaxies, causing them to appear as though the outside is spinning too fast. That's why they have these funky spiral shapes. Think about it. It makes sense.

The other point you have about the website being sketchy is much more relevant, but misguided. The question you should be asking is "why is a legitimate scientist only getting published in obscure science magazines?" That's the real issue at hand and it's what I've been trying to show you guys in this thread. This discovery, which makes perfect sense and seemingly explains damn near all the observational problems we have been having, is a threat to the current science heirarchy. So the people in charge do what they can to illegitimatize it. That's why it is appearing in crap journals, with carbon-copied articles.

You laugh at me now. But if the government operates like this, then why would you expect the science and academic world (which is run by government) would be any different? Who is being naive, Kate?

Final note, for now: Spain has the best soccer team and the 2nd best basketball team in the world. How the fuck that is possible is beyond me (no offense to my Spanish friends here). Many wealthy Americans are moving their money and homes to Spain. And now they are on the verge of the the greatest discovery since Einstein? What the hell is going on over there? What drugs are they on?

How can't you get laughed a little with this bolded line ? You can't realize how the world of über-my-ties-are-yellow-with-purple-dots theorist physicists is. One of my friends has worked in MIT for 6 months very close to a Nobel Prize (I don't know which one). He told me many funny stories about him and his still-in-campus-life, none of this included "the FBI knocked at the door to tell him to shut the fuck up". Or maybe my friend has been told by the FBI agents to shut up as well.

The part about the spain team is beyong me, what's to do with it ? Another conspiracy ?

 

[LeSedna]

About angular acceleration no you didn't get what I mean. Say you drop a ball around the sun. If the trajectory is elliptic, the angular coordinate of the ball will have a varying position, a varying speed too, and therefore, at least a static acceleration (a force). You can relate accelerations and forces very well, hence why it's important to get to this level.

Now do some hi-tech measurement of the trajectory, realize you didn't predict it as acurately as you thought.

Now you a have a problem. That problem is solved by creating the dark matter which would be the missing mass in the equation to get to that final trajectory. That's how you "create" something that is not there, which gives a clue about, maybe, the existence of something there than we can't technically grasp but seems to exist. Then the goal is to prove this is true, or not.

Now find its characteristics. And when you are able to predict first hand the effect of such dark matter in another case, that's a good point to eventually one day prove its existence because that meast you didn't write only BS until then (goog job), if before you didn't realize you had another better idea, and that was a silly one after all..

That's more or less how science works. Find a problem, a gap, put something that doesn't sound too silly to explain, or fill, the gap, and se if you can predict and verify this somewhere else. If you can, good job you are closer to the mighty truth than what you were before, without saying "omg look at this picture i think i see two eyes, oh yeah, this is a proof the venusian aliens landed in my backyard last night"

The "time is decreasing until eventually" is not at all going in your direction unless I read it too fast. It only says the universe would get cooler, slower, until a stop, an image. It doesn't say in the borders of a galaxy the time is slower than in its center. Also, I'd just like to remind you that for an object to stay at a steady distance from a center attraction source, its velocity decreases if its distance from the center increases. It is impossible for a stick of stars to turn and stay a stick. That's neglecting second effets, of course. That means than without having to cheat on the variable "T", after a time T, a bunch of stars who are stable in orbit around a galaxy center aren't aligned anymore. That's pretty much the case in our solar system, unless you decide Pluto doesn't move slower but time is slower there and that's where I should plan to end my life if I wanna read my Jules Vernes collection 10 times when I'm retired.

You also put conspiracies where there aren't. So many scientists don't give a shit and go to work in their croc's because they can. There only goal there is, after finding money to keep their lab running, to go towards the truth and not follow what the Government sent them by fax in the morning, with "Object : discredite this traitor, if he releases the trough, our power is gonna be down, money with it, and we can't promise you the coke n' hookers party like the one we did last month"

 

[Genius Gone Insane]

I am not familiar with this angular acceleration problem you are trying to describe. I had no luck googling it. You have me confused and intrigued. Could you share a link?

 

[Genius Gone Insane]

The part about the spain team is beyong me, what's to do with it ? Another conspiracy ?

No conspiracy theory yet (stay tuned :Spin. But interesting nonetheless.

 

[monoxide_child]

http://news.discovery.com/space/is-the-sun-emitting-a-mystery-particle.html

Very crazy news. If it is true then our entire understanding of carbon dating is totally wrong. Fossils can be much younger than we realize, etc. I feel like this totally overshadows the recent experiment which further proved Einstein's theory of relativity (http://gizmodo.com/#!5799128/nasa-gravity-experiment-proves-einstein-was-right) which was pretty awesome to learn.

there have always been "Christian Scientists" asserting that "science proves intelligent design" and that "carbon dating is wrong" and that "behemoth and leviathan were dinosaurs" and that "the earth is not billions of years old" and that "the entire universe is only 5 days older than Adam" and this seems like it's just another "Christian-Science" thing of Christians again trying to say "Science proves the existence of God"

Behemoth Leviathan and Dragons were NOT dinosaurs
and humans did NOT interact with dinosaurs
anyone who believes this article is a gullible idiot

 

[LeSedna]

I am not familiar with this angular acceleration problem you are trying to describe. I had no luck googling it. You have me confused and intrigued. Could you share a link?

I'm just talking about the basic physics thing, if an object has an elliptic trajectory. Look at the animated gif on the right here :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic_orbit

remove the 2nd ball and imagine there is the sun in place of the cross and the first ball in the earth. Then you imagine the angle between the horizontal and a line drawn from the sun to the earth (polar coordinates are distance and angle to a reference) and you can see the angle changes with an acceleration and deceleration. Same for the Earth velocity.

In a more complicated, and bigger level, with different physics than the basics, it applies to interplanetary travel for example (probes meeting with Jupiter to use their gravitational force to accelerate). And on a bigger level there must be some kind of analogy with light and mass since light is deviated by heavy masses.