To simplify the matter, a simple exercise in order to
understand the percentages of the three earthly Magnesium
isotopes: Magnesium 24 has a percent abundance of 78.99%,
Magnesium 25 has 10%. What is the percent abundance of Magnesium 26 ?
Assuming we have no other isotopes, the total must be 100%, and we
have: % of Mg24 + % of Mg25 + % of Mg26 = 100. Therefore, we obtain a
percent abundance of Mg 26 = 100 (78,99 +10)= 11,01% .
In the Ubatuba sample, the result obtained shows a percent
abundance of Mg 26 equal to 14,3 % ( it appears that
as it was not quite clear and even rather unclear in the article,
the left page giving the value of 14.3 that concerning the Ubatuba
sample, it turns out that the sample’s percent abundance was
effectively of the exact value see right pageof (0.4085x100
/ 2.842)= 14.37368 ) plus or minus 0,7%, value which is statistically
significant and indicative of the existence of a sample
notably different from the earthly one. Strangely enough, neither Dr
Craig nor the Colorado project did take this into account,
writing “it should be noted that the statistical counting error (0,7%)
does not include other analytical errors such as relative counting
geometry or neutron thermalization due to the relative sample sizes. It
is felt therefore that the abundance of the Mg26 in sample 4527
is in reasonable agreement with the Mg26 abundances shown in the
literature”.
Some biased judgment thanks to the “other analytical
errors”(sic)? Why? Asking the question is giving the answer, as
recognizing the true nature of Ubatuba sample would have been an
implicit recognition, an implied acceptance of the strangeness of
this sample, of its unearthly origin to say it bluntly. Note the fast
neutron thermalization implies a slowing down of the neutrons becoming
slow neutrons when the sample size is big enough, according to
the fact that the neutron energy distribution is a Maxwellian
distribution (MaxwellBoltzmann molecular speed distribution )
like a thermal motion.
