Posted on 08/17/2012 11:21:22 AM PDT by fishtank
If there is a non-constant nuclear decay rate for objects at rest relative to us, and you claim you're a credentialed "Nuclear Engineer", why aren't you calling for every nuclear reactor in operation to be scrammed?
Since you claim you know nuclear engineering, what do I mean when I say, “the reactor is critical”?
Is fishtank’s credentials in “nuclear engineering” real?
Imagine a car being driven all the way across the United States.
You’re in Nebraska and you’ve got a radar gun. You clock the car for the quarter mile or so you can see it. It registers a steady 55 miles per hour.
You don’t know when the car left New York, and you have no idea when or even if it will ever get to Los Angeles.
A) Based on the actual data you possess can you rightfully claim that the car has been traveling at a steady 55 miles per hour since it left New York?
B) Can you with any accuracy project how fast the car will be traveling on the trip from Nebraska to California?
Or, are you just guessing, based on certain assumptions?
These questions have occurred to me before concerning the speed of light. But I think it applies equally to decay rates.
Fact is, there is no way to go back in time, or forward in time, to know for sure.
If decay rates are unreliable, why aren’t you advocating that all nuclear reactors be shutdown?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.