When no observer is present, can we comfortably assume anything about the physical state of the universe at a time when no recorded physical data is available?To merely observe the physics of atomic structures in the "here and now" and then state that "it's always been like this", seems somewhat presumptive. I'm not pushing some creationist angle here, they just like to pick nice "round" numbers.It was no doubt an important question when dating first took Side rant from me as a scientist: I find ranty non-scientific curt dismissals of theories with this sort of attitude half baked and highly aggravating.It's like a little kid turning their nose up their parent cause they think they know better.The constant, that is the Strong Nuclear Force, is absolute.It'd have to be, it's what controls radioactivity and all other nuclear reactions.

So a revised, and more scientific, of your OP would be: Can the Weak Force within an atom be effected? I have no idea what the answer is off the top of my head, but my intelligent guess says that this topic has already been researched and literature exists on it.The next step, using the scientific method, would be to come up with an experiment that would elicit a recordable change.In this specific case, try to manipulate the environment around a radioactive element to effect a change in the half-life constant.Forget your miffed dismissal of the current thought on the history of the universe.You postulate that the laws of physics may not be constant.

Search for carbindating:


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

One thought on “carbindating”

  1. 4A, B) and suggest that ZLD is more generally important for enhancers in early zygotic genome (ten Bosch et al. We further found that the activity of many HOT enhancers appears to be unrelated to the expression of the bound transcriptional activators, suggesting that neutral TF binding to HOT regions is frequent.