Hi,
There seem to be some evidence that nuclear decay is not so stable as
thought:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/36108
http://arxivblog.com/?p=596
http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3156
http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283
And a negative result, for completeness :)
http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3265v1
26, 2009 10:38 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hydrinos, Lorentz contraction, and event horizon
stuff.
Hi,
There seem to be some evidence that nuclear decay is not so stable as
thought:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/36108
http://arxivblog.com/?p=596
http://arxiv.org/abs
Strictly approaching this question from a layman's POV:
Is it conceivable to speculate that an unknown component, one that is
possibly bound to the effects of time dilation play an integral role
in determining the rate of decay in radioactive nucleus, specifically
when an atom decides to decay?
Maybe these help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decay
http://www.eas.asu.edu/~holbert/eee460/decay.html
Meow!
Terry
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 2:11 PM, OrionWorkssvj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote:
Strictly approaching this question from a layman's POV:
Is it conceivable to speculate that
contraction, and event horizon stuff.
Strictly approaching this question from a layman's POV:
Is it conceivable to speculate that an unknown component, one that is
possibly bound to the effects of time dilation play an integral role
in determining the rate of decay in radioactive nucleus
5 matches
Mail list logo
