Subjectirac's New Radioactivities and Gamma Ray Bursts

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

(all else snipped)


- Show quoted text -
Well, I want to qualify that thought of "more energy than an entire
galaxy"
More electromagnetic energy than an entire galaxy of its
electromagnetic energy.


--- quoting Wikipedia on a energetic gamma ray burst ---
GRB 080916C is a gamma-ray burst (GRB) that occurred on September
16,
2008 in the Carina constellation and detected by NASA's Fermi Gamma-
ray Space Telescope. It is the most powerful gamma-ray burst ever
recorded. The explosion had more power than 9,000 supernovae, and
the
gas jets emitting the initial gamma rays moved at a minimum velocity
of 99.9999 percent the speed of light, making this blast the most
extreme recorded to date.[1][2]
--- end quoting ---


These powerful gamma ray bursts are true and undeniable. They exist.
What does not
exist are black-holes, Big Bang which cannot explain something like
GRB 080916C.


There is no debate, no argument as to the existence of these powerful
Gamma Ray Bursts.
And the only reasonable explanation is that the Cosmos has a
powerful
Emitter to create
such a burst. That Emitter is a Nucleus of an Atom Totality. Black
holes are no emitters
of such a event. The Big Bang is no emitter except if you want to
count its initial explosion as
an emission.


So there is nothing in the physics of a Big Bang with black-holes to
account for a Cosmos
that has frequent and periodic Gamma Ray Bursts of such a huge
magnitude. The only
reasonable accounting for these huge bursts is a Nucleus of an Atom
Totality. It is radioactivity of an Atom Totality.


A Nucleus of an Atom Totality would account for the building of the
Universe via
Dirac new radioactivities of a constant spew of cosmic rays and
cosmic
gamma ray bursts. Whether it is a additive or a multiplicative
creation.
A Nucleus would also account for Solid Body Rotation of galaxies,
since that
type of rotation requires the force of Electricity-Magnetism and rules
out
gravity as the cause of solid-body-rotation. No
scientist, with any
sort of reasoning or logic could accept a Big Bang with black holes
when they see
a Cosmic Gamma Ray Burst of that magnitude. The Universe is not
driven
by gravity
with black holes swallowing up things, but rather, the Universe is
driven by an EM nucleus of a giant cosmic atom and that nucleus is
also
an emitter. A huge emitter such as a Nucleus that can routinely emit
huge
gamma ray bursts.

Subject: Comet's 320ppm versus Earth's 160ppm experiment; Dirac's new
radioactivities

Androcles wrote:
"Owen Jacobson" wrote in message
news:2010061900210633875-angrybaldguy@gmailcom...
| On 2010-06-18 02:37:18 -0400, Archimedes Plutonium said:
|
| Then I have experiment (B) where I take a given quantity of
Earth
| simulated ocean water and another sample of a simulated Comet
water
|
| Ocean water is easy, but how do you propose to simulate comet
water?
|
| -o


Buy a fridge from he
* http://www.comet.co.uk/shopcomet/homePage.do?zone_id=13

Well the experiment would have to run through a bombardment test
of protons on ice water versus liquid water in that ice water may
cause
the higher ratio of heavy water formation. I saw no reports of
Antarctica having
a higher density of heavy water compared to liquid ocean water. But
would
have to rule this out.


I am guessing that astronomers know the salinity of Comet water with
some
high degree of accuracy. So what I am guessing the reason that Comet
water is 2X more heavy water than Earth water is that both are
created
via
Dirac new radioactivities additive/multiplicative creation, but that
the Cosmic Rays
(protons)
end up on Earth into making more heavy salt rather than heavy water
since
chlorine has two stable isotopes of CL35 and CL37. Or, perhaps the
protons
go into some other aufbau because of the special environment on Earth
compared
to Comets.


I have not yet confirmed whether astronomers know what the salt
density
in Comets is? My suspicion is that these equations are true:


Earth water + cosmic rays = 160ppm heavy water + 1/4 more CL37
density
than Comet


Comet water + cosmic rays = 320ppm heavy water + miniscule CL37
density increase


Of course, Earth is bombarded with more cosmic rays than a comet.


In summary, the cosmic rays as additive/multiplicative creation
Dirac's new
radioactivities causes
Earth water to use more of the protons in creating heavy salt, or
something
else, whereas
in Comets
those protons go to making 2X more heavy water than Earth.


This is what the experiment hopes to verify. And if it does so, would
be substantial
proof that Dirac's new radioactivities additive/multiplicative
creation is true.


And it leaves the field of astro chemistry wide open to explore other
chemicals on
planets or moons and their density disparity. Why does Earth have
a larger iron density than Mars or Venus? Is it because the larger
magnetic field of
Earth brings in more Cosmic rays than normally?

Subject: additive versus multiplicative creation: Dirac's new
radioactivities


An interesting prospect would be to see whether the planets and
satellites have a
chemical composition more in keeping with a additive creation versus
multiplicative.


In Dirac's book, Directions in Physics, he computes that the Moon
would recede
from Earth if multiplicative creation by 2cm/year and would approach
Earth by
2cm/year if additive creation.


So in this edition of this book, I am wanting a better experiment to
decide between
additive and multiplicative creation because the detection of motion
of 2cm/year is
too messy and complex of a task with something so complicated as the
motion of
the Moon with such a small measure of 2cm/year. So I believe the
chemistry of
New Radioactivities is a far far better proof scheme, such as the
Comet water
is 320ppm versus Earth's 160ppm.


Now in additive creation, the formation of new matter occurs where
matter
already exists, and little to no new matter where there is absence
of
existing
matter. In multiplicative creation, there is new matter arising
everywhere. A mathematical example is the logarithmic spiral or the
fractals that as they become larger, they
keep their same shape. So the logarithmic spiral is multiplicative
creation. An example
of additive creation is the tree rings of a tree or the growth of a
tree.


So, now, let us check what the growth pattern of the chemical
elements
for the planets and
moons have been? We really have access to only one astro body of its
interior composition,
our Earth. And the question would be, has the Earth grown from a
multiplicative creation
or a additive creation of Dirac New Radioactivities?


And here, we also must include what the Big Bang via Nebular Dust
Cloud theory would say
of chemical composition in that the planets were created from a
gravitational lumping together
of planetesimals.


Correct me if wrong, but I understand of the data and facts of
chemical composition of Earth
and stars is that the elements of thorium, uranium are seemingly
overabundant for what they
should be compared to neighboring elements on the periodic chart.
That
for some reason
of creation process, the elements of thorium and uranium are
overabundant once we go
beyond bismuth as the last stable isotope of the periodic chart. And
this thorium and uranium
overabundance can be seen on Earth chemistry and in stars where we
can
check spectroscopically.


In an earlier edition of this book I relied on a publication of the
1980s on the cosmic
abundance of the chemical elements and it seems as though no-one in
the
science
community is making that data up to date. If I remember correctly,
someone in Europe,
Holland? was keeping the data of cosmic abundance of elements. But
whether anyone
is making that data an ongoing up to date event is worrisome. Some
physics data should
be a recurring up to date report and the cosmic abundance of
elements
is one of those
important needed reports. I have to search through my previous
editions to find that reference. But basically, what I recall is
that
the abundance of
chemical elements decreases the higher the atomic number. And that
after lead
and bismuth, there are few atoms of any elements except for thorium
and uranium
and these two are just as abundant as many of the elements lower in
atomic number
than bismuth. This seems to be a astronomical truth and fact and
data
that is
highly reliable. That thorium and uranium are as abundant as a
nonradioactive
element of lower atomic number.


This fact or data disproves the multiplicative creation process, for
you cannot have
a overabundant thorium and uranium in that process. This fact and
data
also
disproves the Nebular Dust Cloud creation process of gravity as the
creator of our
planets, and also, the abundance of uranium and thorium on the
surface
of Earth
is contradictory to gravity and Nebular Dust Cloud.


The cosmic abundance and distribution of thorium and uranium support
only one
creation process-- Dirac's new radioactivities of additive creation.
As I started with
analogies of a tree ring growth or a tree in general, that the rings
are rather uniform
and so the amount of thorium and uranium as overabundant is uniform
in
each layer
of a star or layer of Earth. So we can expect overabundant thorium
and
uranium atoms
given any layer of Earth or a star.


If multiplicative creation and Nebular Dust Cloud creation were true,
we could expect that
the center of Earth is not a iron core but rather a thorium uranium
core center. And especially
Jupiter. But we see none of that.


The chemical composition and abundance point to Additive Creation as
the true process.

I wrote most of the above years back in earlier editions of this book.
I do not
like additive creation, as a hunch I do not like it. So what I am
going to do
is waver on the issue and say that both Dirac's additive and
multiplicative
creation are in action, and that it is not a either or but rather,
both are
in action. And that in some circumstances such as measuring whether
Moon is
+2cm/year or -2cm/year then it is multiplicative creation that is
predominant,
but in other circumstances
such as abundance of elements it is additive creation that is
predominant.

I want to keep my mind open as to which of the two, or both, are in
play.


Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies