Chapt25 planet cores evidence #1624 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Some developments have occurred since this old post of 2011. We are now starting to measure gamma ray spectroscopy of planets and their satellites. Already we see the Moon is far different in abundance of uranium than expected. We should be able to date the ages of the outer gas giant planets and their satellites with gamma ray spectroscopy and put to a conclusion that our Solar System has layered ages due to Dirac New Radioactivities.

Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.math
From: Archimedes Plutonium
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 23:34:26 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Fri, Apr 29 2011 1:34Â*am
Subject: ... Planet Core Evidence

Â*Cores of planets and satellites tells us their ages and that Earth 
is 
Â*twice as old as Jupiter or Io or Europa.
I took a brief false turn in the roadway for evidence that inner- 
Â*planets are 10 billion years old versus 5 billion 
Â*years for outer-planets. A bad turn in the road because atmospheric 
Â*science of the Solar System is not going 
Â*to tell me much if anything about age. Instead of atmospheres, I 
need 
Â*to get to the cores of these objects. Because 
Â*the difference between a Nebular Dust Cloud theory versus Dirac 
Â*Radioactivity as the creation of the Solar System 
Â*would be registered in the core composition. It has been known for a 
Â*very long time that the inner planets have 
Â*dense cores and the outer planets have lighter cores. This is 
because 
Â*Earth is 10 billion years old and 
Â*Jupiter is a young object of 5 billion years old.
Mars probably had a dense core as Earth but some collision, much like 
Â*the Earth and Moon collision 
Â*separated the core of Mars and we see it as the Asteroid belt.
I was googling for evidence and data on the outer planetary cores:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001Icar..151..204K
Unless I am reading that harvard report wrong, it says the cores of 
Â*the satellites of the outer-planets 
Â*are similar to the core of the Moon and about 1/2 the density of the 
Â*core of Earth. So that Europa, Titan, 
Â*Io and others are about 1/2 the core density of Earth core.
So, backtracking, I should focus purely on cores of planets as the 
age 
Â*reckoning of planets.
What is the age of our Sun? Is it 10 billion or 5 billion years old? 
Â*Well what is its core composition? Does 
Â*it have a dense core and does it have alot of thorium and uranium?
I am going to need to have to reconcile the idea that many Solar 
Â*Systems have binary stars. So that most 
Â*Solar Systems have to be at least 10 billion years old, so that 5 
Â*billion to give birth to one of the stars 
Â*and another 5 billion for the binary star. What is the age of the 
Milky 
Â*Way Galaxy? Is it 10 billion or 
Â*15 billion years old? The key is to measure core abundance for 
thorium 
Â*and uranium. Zircon crystals 
Â*can be a very excellent measure also.
So, here, it is ironic that the present day astronomy community uses 
radioactive elements 
to date things, but that I use not these radioactive dates but rather 
use the abundance to date things. So where the typical astronomer 
takes a radioactive sample to the lab to date the specimen, I rebuke 
that dating and say that the astronomer should have collected data as 
to the abundance or lack of abundance of radioactive substances.
So the present day astronomer is mistaken to think that dating of a 
sample by means of radioactivity gives a reliable date, whereas I 
contend that if the sample is of a large density of radioactive 
substances tells us more about the age of the object.
Just knowing that Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars+Asteroids have twice 
Â*the density of their cores 
Â*compared to the Outer Planets and their satellites tells us that 
Earth 
Â*is 10 billion years old and Jupiter 
Â*is 5 billion years old.
The Cosmos has layered ages where some stars are older than the 
recent 
Â*Plutonium Atom Mini-Bang Accretion, so that where the oldest stars 
of 
Â*20 billion years old are of the Uranium Atom Totality and the newest 
Â*accretion layer is only 8 billion years old (the Freedman vs. 
Sandage 
Â*debate).
Perhaps the best way of determining the age of Sun and 
Â*planets and satellites in our Solar System-- their cores. Cores of 
Â*stars become 
Â*dense in iron as they age. So if you see a star with a large iron 
Â*core, it is an 
Â*old star.. Likewise we can age Earth and Jupiter and Io if we know 
Â*their core 
Â*data.
Now I am using this website for information on cores: 
http://www.nineplanets.org/sol.html
And from the Harvard source which says that Jupiter's satellites are 
Â*about 40% the size of Earth's core.
Io core is huge compared to Earth.
From that information I figured out that the Sun core compared to 
Â*Earth core is a factor of 300,000 in size whereas Jupiter core (even 
Â*though much is unknown and says about 10-15 Earth masses) is only a 
Â*factor of 30 in size to Io.
What that tells me is the Nebular Dust Cloud theory cannot cope with 
Â*those figures. 
Â*That if the Nebular Dust Cloud theory were true then the ratios of 
Â*cores of Earth with 
Â*Sun and Jupiter with Io should have been in somewhat agreement.
About the only agreement we see in cores of the Solar System is that 
Â*the Inner-planets 
Â*cores are relatively the same, and that the Outer-planet cores are 
Â*relatively 
Â*the same amoung one another, and that the cores of the Outer-planet 
Â*satellites are 
Â*approx 40% the size of Earth's Core.
So what the core data suggests is the age of the Inner planets and 
Sun 
Â*are of 
Â*the same age and twice the age of the Outer Planets and their 
Â*satellites. That 
Â*Sun and Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars are 8 - 10 billion years old 
and 
Â*Jupiter, 
Â*Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and their satellites are only 5 billion 
years 
Â*old.
Also, I want to say something that is pretty neat about the Growing 
Â*Solar System 
Â*theory in that it allows for the Sun to be younger, say 5 billion 
Â*years old, yet 
Â*Earth being 10 billion years old. That is a remarkable feature of 
that 
Â*theory 
Â*and where the Nebular Dust Cloud could never have accomodated.
The reason Growing Solar System can have such a feature is because of 
Â*Dirac Radioactivity. And I do not remember if I called the concept 
as 
Â*"seed-dot" 
Â*of the electron-dot-cloud. How our Solar System started was that Sun 
Â*and Mercury 
Â*and the other planets and their satellites were borne of a "seed- 
dot" 
Â*which taps 
Â*directly into the Nucleus of the Atom Totality and from which cosmic 
Â*rays or gamma 
Â*bursts from the Nucleus end up at this "seed-dot" making it grow. So 
Â*it starts growing 
Â*from a few rays and bursts and more are added to that seed dot. I 
Â*called this 
Â*concept in the 1990s as "neutron materialization" and later called 
it 
Â*"dirac radioactive materialization".
Our planet Earth, every day is bombarded from cosmic rays and gamma 
Â*ray bursts. 
Â*These are particles that came from the Nucleus of the Atom Totality 
Â*and created our 
Â*planet and continues to grow our planet.
But some planets like Jupiter seem to have a fountain of growth where 
Â*Jupiter receives 
Â*even more Dirac radioactivity and grows Jupiter faster than even the 
Â*Sun. So in this 
Â*vision of solar system dynamics, one planet can accelerate in growth 
Â*while another 
Â*has tiny growth.
So one can envision how in this theory, Earth could be twice as old 
as 
Â*the Sun, and 
Â*where Jupiter could be growing exponentially faster than the Sun.
Summary: Yes! indeed! the pattern of the cores of the Sun and Inner 
Â*Planets compared 
Â*to the cores of the Outer-Planets and their satellites suggests that 
Â*the Inner Planets 
Â*are twice as old as the Outer-Planets, so that Sun and Earth are 
8-10 
Â*billion 
Â*years old and Jupiter and Europa are 4-5 billion years old. Also, 
the 
Â*cores should 
Â*trashcan the Nebular Dust Cloud theory because proto-Jupiter as it 
was 
Â*sweeping 
Â*up the gases of the primordial Dust Cloud would not have a physics 
Â*that allows 
Â*for Europa and Io to have such a huge sized metal core. The metal in 
Â*the dust-swath of the 
Â*proto-Jupiter would have sunk into Jupiter, leaving any satellites 
Â*that formed as 
Â*impoverished of a dense core.
And the Nebular Dust Cloud theory has never explained the obvious fact 
of the 
dense cores of the inner planets.

--

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