View Single Post
  #3  
Old July 3rd 13, 11:44 PM posted to sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 291
Default Chapt24 the cosmic abundance and distribution of chemical elements#1622 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

The below post, I wrote in May of 2011 and now it is July 2013, and there is a new method of age reckoning that may revolutionize our understanding of the Solar System. It is called gamma ray spectroscopy and is a science just beginning to make measurements. If we can measure Pluto and the satellites of the gas giants, perhaps the gas giants themselves for the relative abundance of elements, we are likely to see this 2 times age difference between inner planets and outer gas giants.

Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.math
From: Archimedes Plutonium
Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 23:11:51 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Thurs, May 5 2011 1:11Â*am
Subject: Chapt24 Cosmic abundance and distribution of the chemical elements

Chapter 24
Subject: chap 24, cosmic distribution and abundance of chemical
elements
COSMIC ABUNDANCE OF THE CHEMICAL ELEMENTS
Â* Â* Â* Â* The cosmic abundance of the elements suggested 
Â*by the Big Bang would predict 
Â*a lower abundance of hydrogen coupled with the age 
Â*prediction of the observable 
Â*universe. In the Big Bang model, all the other 
Â*elements were derived from 
Â*hydrogen nucleosynthesis.. Â*Considering the average 
Â*lifespan of a large star which 
Â*will terminate in a supernova explosion and the 
Â*maximum age of the observable 
Â*universe according to the Big Bang then it is math-wise 
Â*impossible to have the 
Â*uniformity and homogeneity spread of the elements 
Â*throughout the observable 
Â*universe and still maintain the cosmic abundance of 
Â*hydrogen. Â*The three facts of 
Â*(1) the homogenous dispersal of the elements from 
Â*carbon on up (2) the prevalent 
Â*abundance of hydrogen (3) the maximum age of the 
Â*observable universe as 
Â*calculated by the Big Bang model of around 14 to 15 billion years 
age, are mathwise 
Â*impossible for the chemistry of the Cosmos to be so uniform.
Â* Â* Â* Â* The Big Bang model would predict a gradual 
Â*decline in abundance of the 
Â*elements concomitant with increase in atomic number. 
Â*What needs explanation in 
Â*the Big Bang model is the fact of increase in atomic 
Â*number with an increase in 
Â*abundance but with less stability than its neighboring 
Â*elements. Â*The element 
Â*thorium and uranium are such elements. Â*A Pu Atom Totality model 
Â*would require Â*differential 
Â*abundances of elements even though these elements have 
Â*a higher atomic number. 
Â*The reason-- the differential abundance of the 
Â*elements are required for 
Â*stability of successive atom totality and the case for 
Â*a purposeful-atom- 
Â*totality going towards a heavier element atom 
Â*totality. Biological evolution 
Â*which is nucleosynthesis is a purposeful process. Â*We 
Â*would not be here now to 
Â*discuss a Plutonium Atom Totality if it was not for 
Â*the prevalence of thorium 
Â*and uranium inside the Earth heating-up the interior 
Â*and having caused mutation 
Â*of genetic material in the past. Â*The abundance of the 
Â*radioactive elements is 
Â*required in the future for us to obtain huge supplies 
Â*of energy required for 
Â*heavy element nucleosynthesis.
Â* Â* Â* Â* The Big Bang model of the observable universe 
Â*predicts that the element 
Â*technetium with atomic number 43 by laws of math 
Â*probability must be more 
Â*abundant in the observable universe than the higher 
Â*odd numbered atomic elements 
Â*such as rhenium atomic number 75. Â* A Big Bang model 
Â*would show at least one 
Â*nuclide of each mass number stable to radioactive beta 
Â*decay modes. Yet 
Â*technetium and promethium are counterexamples. Â*An 
Â*Atom Totality would 
Â*explain the abundance of thorium 90 and uranium 92 and 
Â*the depletion of 
Â*technetium 43 and promethium 61 in the observable 
Â*universe, because of a 
Â*purposeful-atom-totality.
We have a mystery as to their rarity of the lighter elements in our 
Solar 
Â*System. A fact that the Big Bang theory has never 
Â*been able to wrestle with. The Atom Totality theory 
Â*has begun to wrestle with why the Comets have twice 
Â*as much deuterium as does Earth, saying that Earth 
Â*is twice as old at 10 billion years than the Comets and 
Â*due to this age that the radioactive elements in 10 
Â*billion years of Dirac radioactivities loses about 1/2 of 
Â*its deuterium density. Earth and the inner planets are 
Â*soaked full of radioactive elements whereas the outer gas giants and 
Â*the comets have missed out on 5 billion years of Dirac 
Radioactivities 
Â*creating radioactive elements that depletes the deuterium density.
Probably the same explanation goes for the lighter elements such as 
Â*lithium, beryllium, boron et al.
One method for proving Earth and Sun and terrestrial planets are 
Â*twice as old as the 
Â*gas giant planets is the core data.. Cores of planets are somewhat 
Â*analogous to tree-rings 
Â*because the older an astro body is, the more it has iron nickel, 
Â*especially old stars. So a 
Â*comparison of Solar System cores should indicate dense iron cores 
for 
Â*Inner Planets compared 
Â*to Outer-Planets. But the mathematics of cores would not be a linear 
Â*relationship but rather 
Â*a logarithmic relationship tying into the Dirac Radioactivities. For 
Â*the Solar System 
Â*was created and grew from particles shot from the nucleus of the 
Atom 
Â*Totality which landed 
Â*and ended up on one of the planets or Sun, such as what is daily 
seen 
Â*as gamma ray bursts 
Â*or cosmic-rays.
Why am I so keen about proving Earth is twice as old as Jupiter? 
Â*Because if this is true, then 
Â*not only is the Solar System a layered age system but the entire 
Â*Cosmos is layered in age. 
Â*A layered age Cosmos and Solar System would destroy both the Big 
Bang 
Â*theory 
Â*and the Nebular Dust Cloud theory. So if I can prove that Earth is 
Â*twice as old 
Â*as Jupiter, would lay to rest the contentious debate between 
Freedman 
Â*and Sandage 
Â*of older stars in a younger Cosmos. And the Solar System is a better 
Â*data 
Â*collection than stars that are light years away and surrounded by 
Â*assumptions and 
Â*presumptions.
So I had zircon crystals and cores as methods to prove the claim that 
Â*Earth is twice 
Â*as old as Jupiter and I used the cores of the satellites of Jupiter 
Â*and Saturn to 
Â*compare which does not accord with the Nebular Dust Cloud theory. So 
Â*in the core 
Â*method of proving, I use the cores of the Sun and Inner planets and 
Â*compare them 
Â*with the Outer Planets and their satellites. I was able to find a 
Â*table from this 
Â*website on the cores of the solar system or inferred cores:
--- quoting from 
Â*Â*http://www.indiana.edu/~g302/planets.pdf. 
Â*--- 
Â*Solar System Composition 
Â*Metals 
Â*Oxides 
Â*Mass 
Â*Diameter 
Â*Fe, Ni 
Â*SiO 
Â*2 
Â*,MgO,FeO 
Â*Name 
Â*(10 
Â*27 
Â*g) 
Â*(10 
Â*3 
Â*km) 
Â*% 
Â*(10 
Â*27 
Â*g) 
Â*% 
Â*(10 
Â*27 
Â*g) 
Â*Sun 
Â*1,990,000 
Â*0.1 
Â*0.2 
Â*Mercury 
Â*0.33 
Â*4.88 
Â*50 
Â*0.16 
Â*50 
Â*0.17 
Â*Venus 
Â*4.87 
Â*12.11 
Â*30 
Â*1.46 
Â*69 
Â*3.36 
Â*Earth 
Â*5.97 
Â*12.76 
Â*29 
Â*1..73 
Â*69 
Â*4.12 
Â*Mars 
Â*0.64 
Â*6.79 
Â*10 
Â*0.06 
Â*90 
Â*Asteroids 0.0002 
Â*15 
Â*3x10 
Â*-5 
Â*85 
Â*1.7x10 
Â*-4 
Â*Jupiter 
Â*1900 
Â*143.2 
Â*4 
Â*80 
Â*9 
Â*170 
Â*Saturn 
Â*570 
Â*120 
Â*7 
Â*40 
Â*14 
Â*80 
Â*Uranus 
Â*88 
Â*51.8 
Â*8 
Â*7 
Â*17 
Â*15 
Â*Neptune 
Â*103 
Â*49.5 
Â*6 
Â*6 
Â*14 
Â*14 
Â*--- end quoting from 
Â*Â*http://www.indiana.edu/~g302/planets.pdf. 
Â*---
But let me give a third method of proving Earth is 2X as old as 
Â*Jupiter. The idea 
Â*here is that if the Inner Planets and Sun have double the abundance 
of 
Â*elements 
Â*like Rubidium and Strontium and Thorium and Uranium, these 
radioactive 
Â*clocks, 
Â*than the Outer Planets, would imply that Earth is 2X as old as 
Â*Jupiter. So I was 
Â*looking for any reports on the relative abundance of the radioactive 
Â*elements for 
Â*the Inner Planets compared to the Outer Planets.
About the only website I found indicated that the recent robot flyby 
Â*of Saturn's Titan 
Â*indicated alot more thorium and uranium in parts per billion than on 
Â*Saturn. So just 
Â*as the iron cores of Io, Europa, Titan are incongruent to Jupiter 
and 
Â*Saturn, that it 
Â*appears as though the relative abundance of radioactive elements is 
Â*also 
Â*incongruent.
So I have these three methods to attempt to prove that Earth is 2X as 
Â*old as Jupiter: 
Â*(a) Zircon crystal 
Â*(b) cores of iron and nickel, relative size and mass 
Â*(c) relative abundance of radioactive elements such as rubidium, 
Â*strontium, 
Â*thorium, uranium
If this claim of mine is true that Earth is twice as old as Jupiter, 
Â*then there will not 
Â*be much of a contentious debate over such a report because it is 
Â*relatively easy 
Â*to follow-up and since it is in our backyard of the Solar System, 
that 
Â*skeptical 
Â*scientists cannot deny such a report whereas they can easily deny 
the 
Â*ages of 
Â*stars light years away. So, if my claim is true and once a report is 
Â*filed indicating 
Â*the age of Earth is 2X as old as Jupiter, is a day in which two 
widely 
Â*accepted theories 
Â*are destroyed and thrown into the trashcan-- the Big Bang theory and 
Â*Nebular Dust Cloud theory.
- hide quoted text -

--

More than 90 percent of AP's posts are missing in the Google 
newsgroups author search archive from May 2012 to May 2013. Drexel 
University's Math Forum has done a far better job and many of those 
missing Google posts can be seen he

http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986

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