Solar flares affect radiometric decay rates?

I also call bullshit.I've been working with LASER ablation techniques in Mass Spectrometry for almost 20 years and this is the first time I have ever heard anybody spout such a load of rubbish about it.LASERs ablate material by heating it to the point of vaporization whereupon it rapidly expands into the cooler gas surrounding the point of ablation.
The ablated material composes of a mixture of charged (both - and + ions) and neutral particles of various sizes (depending largely on the energy supplied by the LASER). LASER Desoprtion is a technique used to directly ionize organic materials for introduction into a mass spectrometer. Different compounds accept different charges (some + and some -) when hit with a LASER. This is pretty well understood and is used to the analyst's advantage by only taking the negatively charged components into the mass spec while rejecting unwanted positively charged components. (can be reversed in some cases)
This is most typically used in MALDI and similar techniquesThere is no pulling involved. It is more like an explosion.The sum of positively and negatively charged ions coming from an ablation event are pretty much equal to the overall initial charge of the object being ablated. There will be a certain amount of loss though. Some electrons or protons may be lost or gained in interactions with the local environment.
This is especially true in a very high powered LASER where the point of ablation becomes a plasma

quote:

---

Plasma is loosely described as an electrically neutral medium of positive and negative particles (i.e. the overall charge of a plasma is roughly zero). It is important to note that although they are unbound, these particles are not ‘free’. When the charges move they generate electrical currents with magnetic fields, and as a result, they are affected by each other’s fields. This governs their collective behavior with many degrees of freedom

---

All the LASER supplies is heat.

That almost sounds like chemical bonding - electrons (negatively charged) are shared by positively-charged nuclei.Is it possible that you got some correct information somewhere and totally screwed it up?

I have a bachelors degree in electrical engineering and I almost got an ice cream headache reading those sentences.First off, if you are talking positive and negative charges, what might you be referring to if not electricity?Secondly, charges either attract or repel. But they don't have anything to do with what 'holds the universe together'. That is accomplished via gravity, through its affect on matter, and through the strong nuclear force (gluons) that are a constituent of neutrons that prevent positively charged protons from flying apart.Incidentally, positively charged electrons are called 'positrons'.

As ringo pointed out, if we allow OS the use of some poetry, we could interpret 'hold the universe together' to be a description of chemical bonding. If we do that we can find some truth in his post. And is there in truth no beauty?That still leaves a couple of handfuls of manure in his post. Electrons prevent positrons from repelling too much? A complete denial that negatively charged particles repel each other? No easy justification for any of that stuff. Plenty of ugly.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

It is an unusual hypothesis/theory of the standard model. I should have kept my mouth shut.

The electrons are actually holes for subprotons, while positrons are actually common electrons. The thing would be that electrons would start at the positive end, and the nucleus holes do all the work.Edited by OS, : No reason given.

DELETEDEdited by OS, : No reason given.Edited by OS, : The question was not worth it.

No, you're totally wrong and misguided. But rejoice! all the answers to your questions, and even ones you didn't know you have, can be found here:bet365 Bonus Code India 2022 [BETMAX365]: 15% up to Rs.4000 in Bet Credits

Ouch, CS. That link goes to a very bad place.

Perhaps, you should visit the site by yourself.

You need to understand the standard model before proposing unusual hypotheses of your own.

I'll get as much sense out of that webpage as I'll get out of you.This isn't really a good place for cranks to write gibberish.

Actually, I don't mind the cranks so much as long as they do the job properly. The best cranks don't just spout bad science. They also have a fully developed philosophy behind the science that can be fun to probe, poke at, and laugh about dismissively.But just spouting a couple of silly incoherent concepts or denying one or two well known physical laws does not entertain. If OS has a framework he'd like to discuss hopefully we'll get a topic started to discuss it.

In the other thread he participated in, someone asked OS for a reference for his claim. He responded: "I am not your peer. Look it up yourself."So fuck this guy. Message 319

No, fuck yourself. You didn't even watch your language.