The article is irrelevant.
Peer review is not necessary for the overwhelming dialectical synthesis of reviewed DATA.
Show yours with regard to entirely nuclear events.
If you can.
If you have any.
At all.
I can’t find any.
Anywhere.
Your argument is not with me, but scientists from Ben Gurion University, Purdue University, the Israel Geological Survey.
You have taken a side. Possibly prematurely. That isn’t scientific. Rather acknowledge there is a top level debate among respected scientists. Be interested in the outcome. Don’t write off the one side prematurely, these are respected scientists from 3 respected institutions. Acknowledge that there is a natural tendency to confirmation bias when the status quo is threatened.
To state that science is always neutral is to live in a dream world. The reality is that egos and confirmation bias are a reality that can sometimes slow down the acceptance of new truth. You know this to be true, any one can follow debates between the old guard and new thought among a variety of fields. To too readily agree with the old guard, is not scientific.
I have listed some studies. It has been argued that these are not satisfactorily peer reviewed. That is the objection. Yet you can’t propose actual flaws in the data.
I don’t find that objection, lack of peer review, to be sufficient for recent studies, look at the data, and find objections.
Eg the Suigetsu studies have sufficient peer review, but when I looked at them, they do not sufficiently explain away the tendency of layers to be precipitation based. Yet you guys rely on the conclusions of the reviewed study, rather than applying your own thought to the actual study.
I can agree with this. If the data is good, why require peer review. If so, what are the flaws in the recent studies that show decay is not a constant?
The side is of disinterest. Of completely rationally open inquiry. Give the links, don’t keep prevaricating. Otherwise it means that you cannot as they don’t exist.
Show entirely nuclear events are affected by air pressure, humidity, ambient temperature or anything else in the consensual, hard won, repeatable, body of truth. I.e. Wikipedia.
Which studies? Which repeated studies anywhere show that entirely nuclear events depend on the weather?
I have no argument with disinterested, repeatable science. Show where the weather affects purely nuclear events.
This is not about “taking sides,” @Mindspawn. Nor is it a “natural tendency to confirmation bias when the status quo is threatened.” This is about demanding reproducibility. You’re getting things completely the wrong way round here. You simply do not introduce new science – especially not radical new science – on the basis of one or two studies that haven’t been replicated. If you could introduce radical new science on the basis of one or two disputed studies, you would also be granting a free pass to astrology, homeopathy, water divining, reading tea leaves, feng shui, and tobacco companies claiming that smoking is good for you.
What you are demanding is a lowering of scientific standards of quality control in order to accommodate your ideas. No responsible scientist would agree to such a demand: to do so would be a matter of serious professional misconduct.
2 Likes
No, I’m just asking you to respect the scientists and the institutions that are currently challenging the status quo, and instead of just dismissing them because of “lack of peer review”, to actually look at what they are saying.
That’s all, give respect where respect is due, don’t be so dismissive of new ideas.
Don’t misquote me. I never said there are studies which show that decay depends on the weather.
There are studies which show that decay varies.
With the weather.
I’ll check what you’ve posted.
If entirely nuclear events DON’T vary with it, what’s your point?
“I see a strong relationship between background radiation and decay variation, rather than the neutrino hypothesis. Background radiation being affected by solar flares (forbush effect), time of day, and season (via average air pressure changes).”
Did you forget that you posted this for a start? Where did you get the idea from if not from studies?
I was referring to background radiation, not decay rates.
Decay has the same patterns, so I see the possibility that they are related. The detected fluctuations in decay can better be explained by background radiation, than by neutrinos which are a doubtful cause of decay variation due to studies that show decay doesn’t vary with earth sun distance.
So that’s my hypothesis, that background radiation affects decay, but I have never claimed that this hypothesis is proven. Neither have I claimed that decay is weather related. Background radiation is however weather related.
No, @Mindspawn, you are asking us to go far beyond “giving respect where respect is due.” You are asking us to lower our standards of rigour and quality control. Period. End of story.
If someone wants to “challenge the status quo” in science, their results must be consistently reproducible by other researchers. Period. End of story. Until and unless that is done, science demands that we be dismissive of “new ideas” that fail that test. If this weren’t the case, then New Age snake oil vendors would be able to claim that astrology, homeopathy, essential oils, flower remedies, palm reading, feng shui and water divining were legitimate science, tobacco companies would be able to claim that smoking is good for you, and everyone would get a free pass to challenge police speeding tickets because treknobabble.
There’s something important that you need to realise here, @Mindspawn. Science has rules. “Challenging the status quo” has nothing whatsoever to do with it: if you want to propose new scientific phenomena, whether now or in the past, you need to stick to the rules. It’s as simple as that.
2 Likes
So you were @Mindspawn, so you were.
My apologies.
Please show the patterns.
How can background radiation affect decay?
And if background radiation is weather related and affects decay, then weather affects decay.
There are no decay variations, as the paper discusses.
2 Likes
Those studies have been debunked.
Any observed deviation from known decay rates are due to measurement errors.
3 Likes
Or genetic…or Doppler shifts and astronomy…
2 Likes
Of all the astonishing statements you have made, this one might be the topper. I am aghast that you would make such a claim after I wrote this:
Have a blessed Holy Week,
Chris
4 Likes
Geology had independently and firmly established long time frames well before even the foundations for radiometric dating were conceived of. Therefore, radiometric dating is not a matter of circular reasoning. The many varieties of radiometric dating is entirely consistent with geology, however, and is part of the several threads of evidence informing the mainstream narrative of life on earth.
3 Likes