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 All this talk about time dilation, Lorentz contraction, "event horizon", would be better understood in my opinion in terms of changes in ABSOLUTE velocity (absolute relating to that? relating to that that is not moving. And what is not moving? Empty space isn't. Do you want a preferred reference frame? you'll have to look for it in the void: The void is not moving, because the void is nothing, and that which is "nothing", can't move.) All the rest(i.e. "matter" and "energy") is moving!: Macroscopically, our galaxy is probably accelerating towards somewhere, and is rotating on its axis. Our solar system is travelling inside our galaxy arm, in a curved path, and probably rotating around a some "center". Our planet is rotating on its axis, and following the curved path of the Sun. Microscopically, elementary "particles" are no more than tiny rotating(i.e. moving) "things". If yo start to slow down or stop all or some of that movement, "anomalous" things start to happen. Ask those crazy nutating Sufis, if you don't believe me :-) Maybe thougths and reflections on the nature of turbulence can shed light on all this. And we'll slowly start to realize the intimate correlation between the macrocosmic and the microcosmic. Best regards, Mauro OrionWorks wrote: > 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"? > > An empirical observation, one that my brain has never been able to > adequately grasp, is how seemingly deterministic the rate of nuclear > decay appears to be, particularly when one takes into account very > large samples of unstable atoms. That "half lives" can be determined > with such incredible accuracy boggles my mind. > > Or am I simply repeating speculation (albeit less eloquently) that has > already been brought up in recent threads concerning "Hydrinos", > "Lorentz contraction", and "event horizon" stuff. > > Regards > Steven Vincent Johnson > www.OrionWorks.com > www.zazzle.com/orionworks > > >
