#1 preface to new book: Growing-Solar-System theory via Dirac New-Radioactivity replaces Nebular-Dust-Cloud theory

Let me start over fresh since the first attempt was poorly ordered and
poorly organized and plenty
of mistakes.

New Book: "Growing Solar-System theory via Dirac New-Radioactivity
replaces Nebular-Dust-Cloud theory",
author--Archimedes Plutonium,
Internet book copyrighted and published 1993-2007 (amassed in
Sept 2007 in sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.geo.geology).

Chapters of this book:
(1) preface
(2) introduction
(3) Dirac Radioactivity as explained in his book "Directions in
Physics"
(4) Titius-Bode Solar System spacing
(5) Quantum Mechanics of seed-dots of electron-dot-cloud in Mini-Bangs
from Uranium
Atom Totality to our present day Plutonium Atom Totality
(6) CellWell1 and CellWell2)
(7) zircon crystal dating of Earth age
(8) cores of Sun, planets and satellites as age-dating
(9) abundance of radioactive elements in parts per billion for age-
dating
(10) Cosmic Rays and Cosmic Gamma Ray Bursts for age-dating
(11) exoplanets and binary stars evince a pattern of Growing Solar
Systems not a Nebular Dust Cloud
(12) the universe at large is too impoverished to have supernova
spew dust clouds all about which then forms a solar-system
(13) future news and research reports commentary

PREFACE

This book comes at the tail end of my last published Internet book--
the 2nd
edition of my Atom Totality theory book which I completed in August
of 2007, and yet I had many pages of that book talking about zircon
crystal dating of Earth where I speculated that Earth is twice as old
as Jupiter. And where I wrote many pages on the idea of a Growing
Solar System theory that replaces the Nebular Dust Cloud theory. So
the posts to the Atom Totality theory 2nd edition are transfered to
this book. And fitting that I amass this book here in September of
2007 from my posts going all the way back to August of 1993.
Many of the main ideas of Growing Solar System Theory began in
August of 1993 and shall discuss some of that history in this preface.

I used to call it assimilation of old posts in the formation of these
Internet published books by me. Now I call it "amassed". Since what
I am doing is amassing the old posts into forming a Internet
published
book. I ask the question "why not use one's past history of developing
these ideas and theories?"
And something new is that I now list "copyrighted" in the title page.
For I consider all of my posts to the sci newsgroups of the Internet
as
copyrighted. And the first time I posted about Dirac New-
Radioactivities
as described in Dirac's book "Directions in Physics" was August of
1993.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...5116a0beb 28c

The above post of mine in 1993 highlights my thinking about Dirac new
radioactivities and how to begin to
replace the Nebular Dust Cloud theory for the Solar System. Back in
1993, though, I was more concerned
about filing a patent over what I called RSNM "radioactive spontaneous
neutron materialization" because I
was interested in the cold fusion claims about fusion in a test tube
by simply applying an electric current to
heavy water with palladium as a battery set up, cathode and anode. It
would not be until about
1995 where my attention to Dirac new radioactivities would focus on
replacing the Nebular Dust Cloud theory.
And as the years rolled by from 1993 to 1995 Dirac new radioactivity
became one and the
same as RSNM.

Then around 1995 was the first time I posted the concept of Growing
Solar System as a theory:


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...3d7dca735a6ab2

The above gives a 1995 post of mine detailing the concept of "Growing
Solar System"
and in that post I mentioned Dirac new radioactivity and mentioned my
concept of RSNM "radioactive
spontaneous neutron materialization" for which I applied for a patent
to explain cold fusion in a test tube.

Then to see when the first time I detailed the concepts of CellWell1
and CellWell2 in the
Growing Solar System theory.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...23e5f34deaa803

It was March of 1996 that I was deep into the crux of the Growing
Solar System theory in that I proposed
the concepts of CellWell1 and CellWell2.

It is nice that Google retains old posts so that one can easily check
into the history.

From about years 2000 onwards to present day September 2007, I mostly
dropped RSNM
and narrowed down the Dirac new-radioactivities to that of simply
Cosmic-Rays and
Cosmic-Gamma-Ray-Bursts. So that Dirac new radioactivities was simply
cosmic
rays and gamma rays. In a sense, what remains by 2007 is more exciting
than what was
started in 1993-1994. I say this because more mathematics can be
applied to this theory
such as figuring out how long it would take for Earth to grow from a
seed-particle to our
present day Earth mass and size from simply cosmic rays and gamma
rays. Did it take
4.6 billion years or did it take 8 to 10 billion years?

I am going to start this book with an major idea I left-off with in
the 2nd
edition book of the Atom Totality theory. I spoke of in that book, the
idea
that in
the history of science, when scientists are confronted with a new
phenomenon
for which they must explain in a scientific manner, that usually their
first science
theory that covers that new phenomenon turns out to be found wrong by
future scientists. I cited the example of the "flat Earth theory" and
the
example of the Ptolemy epicycle theory and the example of the cholic
humour theory of disease in biology where leeches bleed out the bad
cholic. The list is a huge and long list of where the first scientists
trying
to theorize a new phenomenon invariably get it mostly wrong. And where
future scientists replace the early theory because it is so very much
wrong.

So, now, looking at the new phenomenon of having a Solar System of
the Sun and Inner Planets and the Outer Planets and their satellites
and
the other astro bodies such as asteroids and comets and Kuiper belt
objects.
That the first theory to account for the Solar System was the Nebular
Dust Cloud Theory. So given the track record of most theories of
science
when formulated to describe a new phenomenon, that it would be
prudent and wise to say that the Nebular Dust Cloud theory
will be found out as a fake and wrong theory and replaced by a true
theory.

When I first learned about the Nebular Dust Cloud theory in the mid
to late 1960s, for I well remember taking astronomy books with
me on vacation out West and pondering the Nebular Dust Cloud
theory and what struck me as rather odd and troublesome is the fact
that supernova are rare, yet
the gold we have on Earth is alleged to come from a supernova. So if
supernova are rare and yet the number of stars with their own solar
systems is a
huge and large number and yet the age of the cosmos is a mere 4.6 to
14
billion years old just does not make sense as to how rare supernova
can spew out that many Dust Clouds and spew them out uniformily all
over the Cosmos. So this vast discrepancy always bothered me. And I
ignored it by saying to myself in an analogy of the sights and scenery
I was seeing in those vacations, since, it is hard to imagine that a
river
can carve out the Grand Canyon but given millions of years time it
can.
So in my youth, I was giving the Nebular Dust Cloud theory wide
latitude
because it was billions of years and besides, I had nothing better of
an
idea to replace the Dust Cloud theory. But can
rare supernova create and spread uniformily all the gold in the world?
So I never liked the Nebular Dust Cloud theory for it never resolved
those obvious contradictions.

But if you dislike a theory of science, that is not enough to dismiss
it. The burden is to find a theory that replaces it and solves the
contradictions. And at my age of around 18 or 19 or 20 years old
I had other things more on my mind.

After I discovered the Atom Totality theory in 1990, it would only be
a matter of time before I would then clean out and clean up the
Nebular Dust Cloud theory. And it would be a help from Dirac's book
that would trashcann the Nebular Dust Cloud theory.

What solves the Solar System origins and creation and building is the
"new radioactivities" as described by Dirac in his book Directions in
Physics. Dirac never went further with his new radioactivities because
Dirac did not have a Atom Totality theory to give rise to where these
new particles are coming from and what these particles actually were.
Dirac could not say that Cosmic Rays and
Cosmic Gamma Ray Bursts came from the Nucleus of the Atom Totality.
But it is his credit for his enormous genius that he even had the
remarkable insight that the Cosmos must have a "new radioactivity".

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

Let me try to straighten out the chapters a bit more before I go to
the introduction. There are
two concepts brand new to science that need to be clarified and by
giving them a proper
scientific name is helpful. The two new concepts are "seed-dot" and
"cellwell".

"Seed-dot" is the idea that in the Atom Totality, the point in space
where planet Earth
is to be borne and grow into a planet via cosmic rays accumulating at
that point. So
let me call this new concept that of QM-seed-dot. The "QM" standing
for Quantum
Mechanics and the "seed" for the idea that the astro body will be
borne from that
point in space and the "dot" for the electron-dot-cloud representation
of an electron.

And for the new concept of "CellWell" let me call that QM CellWell.
This concept is
the idea of an Atom Totality that regions of space are marked out as
to where
a solar system will grow henceforth or where a solitary star solar
system will
have a twin star growing with its own solar system. An example will be
easier
to explain this concept. The Sun and the Inner Planets was really the
only
Solar System for the Sun some 10 to 5 billion years ago, and I call
this system
of the Sun and Inner Planets as QM CellWell1. Some 5 billion years ago
was
borne from QM-seed-dots the planets of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and
Neptune.
And these Outer Planets started growing and growing much faster than
the Sun
and Inner Planets. So the Outer Planets I call QM CellWell2.

Now there is alot about both these concepts that I do not know and
hopefully
each time I write and revise this book, I may find some new
information and
and new knowledge.

New Book: "Growing Solar-System theory via Dirac New-Radioactivity
replaces Nebular-Dust-Cloud theory",
author--Archimedes Plutonium,
Internet book copyrighted and published 1993-2007 (amassed in
Sept 2007 in sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.geo.geology).

Chapters of this book:
(1) preface
(2) introduction
(3) Dirac Radioactivity as explained in his book "Directions in
Physics" and how Cosmic Rays Flux alone can build the Sun and planets
(4) Titius-Bode Solar System spacing
(5) QM-seed-dots of electron-dot-cloud in Mini-Bangs
from Uranium Atom Totality to our present day Plutonium Atom Totality
(6) QM-CellWell1 and QM-CellWell2
(7) zircon crystal dating of Earth age
(8) cores of Sun, planets and satellites as age-dating
(9) abundance of radioactive elements in parts per billion for age-
dating
(10) Cosmic Rays and Cosmic Gamma Ray Bursts for age-dating
(11) exoplanets and binary stars evince a pattern of Growing Solar
Systems not a Nebular Dust Cloud
(12) the universe at large is too impoverished to have supernova
spew dust clouds all about which then forms a solar-system
(13) future news and research reports commentary

I am still trying to locate the very best data on the Cosmic Ray Flux.
As I spoke
of in a recent post that 1/6 the flow of the Amazon River is about 2
billion liters
of water per minute. So if I can verify the data, that Cosmic Ray Flux
to Earth is
of the amount of 2 billion kilograms per minute, then there is no need
for a
Nebular Dust Cloud theory. And in fact, if I can verify that Cosmic
Ray Flux would
trashcan or terminate the Nebular Dust Cloud theory automatically.
Because
it stands to reason that if both were true that Earth would now
possess twice
the mass it presently possesses. Which is an obvious contradiction and
hence
the Nebular Dust Cloud theory was a fake theory all along.

I also found some interesting Gamma Ray Burst Flux information, of an
equation
for Gamma Ray bursts and a speculation that when 1 Gamma Ray Burst is
sighted
that there were 450 to 500 other Gamma Ray Bursts that had occurred.
The equation
from the Harvard or University of Chicago website (can't remember
which) looks
awfully much like an radioactive decay equation. As to the
significance of 450 to
500 bursts joined in some form of Cosmic linking, would make sense in
an
Atom Totality theory in that Cosmic Gamma Ray Bursts is the display of
radioactivity
of the Atom Totality. High energy Cosmic Rays and Gamma Rays are not
phenomenon of the Observable Universe but are events of the Nucleus of
the Atom
Totality. Not events of Supernova or what some are calling HyperNovas.
These
energetic Gamma Rays are created by the Nucleus of the Atom Totality,
keep in
mind that our Observable Universe is a mere electron and so it is
possible that
a Gamma Ray Burst could occur which has the total amount of energy of
our entire
Observable Universe. So that one of these big Gamma Rays if bursted
near
the Solar System would incinerate Earth.

I am rather surprized at how primitive is our data on Cosmic Ray Flux.
Where
some websites are saying that the flux is about "thousands of protons
traversing
a human body per minute". It would be nice to have a very accurate
measure of
Cosmic Ray Flux.

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

Chapters of this book:
(1) preface
(2) introduction
(3) Dirac Radioactivity as explained in his book "Directions in
Physics" and how Cosmic Rays Flux alone can build the Sun and planets
(4) Titius-Bode Solar System spacing
(5) QM-seed-dots of electron-dot-cloud in Mini-Bangs
from Uranium Atom Totality to our present day Plutonium Atom Totality
(6) QM-CellWell1 and QM-CellWell2
(7) zircon crystal dating of Earth age
(8) cores of Sun, planets and satellites as age-dating
(9) abundance of radioactive elements in parts per billion for age-
dating
(10) Cosmic Rays and Cosmic Gamma Ray Bursts for age-dating
(11) exoplanets and binary stars evince a pattern of Growing Solar
Systems not a Nebular Dust Cloud
(12) the universe at large is too impoverished to have supernova
spew dust clouds all about which then forms a solar-system
(13) future news and research reports commentary

I still have not been able to find a accurate data of how much mass the
Earth receives per minute from Cosmic Rays and from Gamma Rays. Is it a
figure that approaches the number of 2 billion kilograms of mass per
minute? I suspect the Fly's Eye Apparatus in Utah could answer that
question, but difficult to answer from the journal reports on Cosmic
Rays.

The crux of this book is that specific rate of mass increase of Earth
due to Cosmic Rays plus Cosmic Gamma Rays.

Another issue that this book should cover is how Earth got its vast
oceans of water. The current expected theory is the oceans came from
comets but the evidence is against that theory because the amount of
heavy water in comets is different from the amount in Earth's ocean
water.

So, here, maybe, Cosmic Rays may answer how Earth obtained its ocean
waters. If we imagine Earth bombarded by the minute with Cosmic Rays
(which are hydrogen nuclei) that these hydrogen nuclei enter Earth's
atmosphere or surface and combine with oxygen to form water.

So the formation or origin of water throughout the Solar System is
mainly via this mechanism of bombardment by Cosmic Rays. If this
is true then we can expect water to form on comets and satellites of
the Outer planets. We can expect water to form on the Moon or Mercury
or Venus or Mars but easily blown off some of those bodies by the
solar winds.

The main idea of this book is that the origin and creation and formation
of the Solar System was not due to a Nebular Dust Cloud but rather due
to a continual bombardment of Cosmic Rays over 5 to 10 billion years.
So that all the matter and mass of our Solar System came from the
accrual and accretion of Cosmic Rays and Cosmic Gamma Rays.

I noticed on report talking about Be9 and Be10 as sort of fossils
of Cosmic Rays. So I suspect that if beryllium is a good subject to
research then also water and heavy water should be a good subject
to research in connection with Cosmic Rays.

I also noticed in one research report that Cosmic Rays synthesize
oxygen, so that Cosmic Rays would have the ability to synthesize
the hydrogen and the oxygen atoms to form water.



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

a_plutonium wrote:
Let me try to straighten out the chapters a bit more before I go to
the introduction. There are
two concepts brand new to science that need to be clarified and by
giving them a proper
scientific name is helpful. The two new concepts are "seed-dot" and
"cellwell".

"Seed-dot" is the idea that in the Atom Totality, the point in space
where planet Earth
is to be borne and grow into a planet via cosmic rays accumulating at
that point. So
let me call this new concept that of QM-seed-dot. The "QM" standing
for Quantum
Mechanics and the "seed" for the idea that the astro body will be
borne from that
point in space and the "dot" for the electron-dot-cloud representation
of an electron.

And for the new concept of "CellWell" let me call that QM CellWell.
This concept is
the idea of an Atom Totality that regions of space are marked out as
to where
a solar system will grow henceforth or where a solitary star solar
system will
have a twin star growing with its own solar system. An example will be
easier
to explain this concept. The Sun and the Inner Planets was really the
only
Solar System for the Sun some 10 to 5 billion years ago, and I call
this system
of the Sun and Inner Planets as QM CellWell1. Some 5 billion years ago
was
borne from QM-seed-dots the planets of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and
Neptune.
And these Outer Planets started growing and growing much faster than
the Sun
and Inner Planets. So the Outer Planets I call QM CellWell2.

Now there is alot about both these concepts that I do not know and
hopefully
each time I write and revise this book, I may find some new
information and
and new knowledge.

New Book: "Growing Solar-System theory via Dirac New-Radioactivity
replaces Nebular-Dust-Cloud theory",
author--Archimedes Plutonium,
Internet book copyrighted and published 1993-2007 (amassed in
Sept 2007 in sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.geo.geology).

Chapters of this book:
(1) preface
(2) introduction
(3) Dirac Radioactivity as explained in his book "Directions in
Physics" and how Cosmic Rays Flux alone can build the Sun and planets
(4) Titius-Bode Solar System spacing
(5) QM-seed-dots of electron-dot-cloud in Mini-Bangs
from Uranium Atom Totality to our present day Plutonium Atom Totality
(6) QM-CellWell1 and QM-CellWell2
(7) zircon crystal dating of Earth age
(8) cores of Sun, planets and satellites as age-dating
(9) abundance of radioactive elements in parts per billion for age-
dating
(10) Cosmic Rays and Cosmic Gamma Ray Bursts for age-dating
(11) exoplanets and binary stars evince a pattern of Growing Solar
Systems not a Nebular Dust Cloud
(12) the universe at large is too impoverished to have supernova
spew dust clouds all about which then forms a solar-system
(13) future news and research reports commentary

I am still trying to locate the very best data on the Cosmic Ray Flux.
As I spoke
of in a recent post that 1/6 the flow of the Amazon River is about 2
billion liters
of water per minute. So if I can verify the data, that Cosmic Ray Flux
to Earth is
of the amount of 2 billion kilograms per minute, then there is no need
for a
Nebular Dust Cloud theory. And in fact, if I can verify that Cosmic
Ray Flux would
trashcan or terminate the Nebular Dust Cloud theory automatically.
Because
it stands to reason that if both were true that Earth would now
possess twice
the mass it presently possesses. Which is an obvious contradiction and
hence
the Nebular Dust Cloud theory was a fake theory all along.

I also found some interesting Gamma Ray Burst Flux information, of an
equation
for Gamma Ray bursts and a speculation that when 1 Gamma Ray Burst is
sighted
that there were 450 to 500 other Gamma Ray Bursts that had occurred.
The equation
from the Harvard or University of Chicago website (can't remember
which) looks
awfully much like an radioactive decay equation. As to the
significance of 450 to
500 bursts joined in some form of Cosmic linking, would make sense in
an
Atom Totality theory in that Cosmic Gamma Ray Bursts is the display of
radioactivity
of the Atom Totality. High energy Cosmic Rays and Gamma Rays are not
phenomenon of the Observable Universe but are events of the Nucleus of
the Atom
Totality. Not events of Supernova or what some are calling HyperNovas.
These
energetic Gamma Rays are created by the Nucleus of the Atom Totality,
keep in
mind that our Observable Universe is a mere electron and so it is
possible that
a Gamma Ray Burst could occur which has the total amount of energy of
our entire
Observable Universe. So that one of these big Gamma Rays if bursted
near
the Solar System would incinerate Earth.

I am rather surprized at how primitive is our data on Cosmic Ray Flux.
Where
some websites are saying that the flux is about "thousands of protons
traversing
a human body per minute". It would be nice to have a very accurate
measure of
Cosmic Ray Flux.

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

a_plutonium wrote:
(snipped)

I still have not been able to find a accurate data of how much mass the
Earth receives per minute from Cosmic Rays and from Gamma Rays. Is it a
figure that approaches the number of 2 billion kilograms of mass per
minute? I suspect the Fly's Eye Apparatus in Utah could answer that
question, but difficult to answer from the journal reports on Cosmic
Rays.

The crux of this book is that specific rate of mass increase of Earth
due to Cosmic Rays plus Cosmic Gamma Rays.

Another issue that this book should cover is how Earth got its vast
oceans of water. The current expected theory is the oceans came from
comets but the evidence is against that theory because the amount of
heavy water in comets is different from the amount in Earth's ocean
water.

So, here, maybe, Cosmic Rays may answer how Earth obtained its ocean
waters. If we imagine Earth bombarded by the minute with Cosmic Rays
(which are hydrogen nuclei) that these hydrogen nuclei enter Earth's
atmosphere or surface and combine with oxygen to form water.

So the formation or origin of water throughout the Solar System is
mainly via this mechanism of bombardment by Cosmic Rays. If this
is true then we can expect water to form on comets and satellites of
the Outer planets. We can expect water to form on the Moon or Mercury
or Venus or Mars but easily blown off some of those bodies by the
solar winds.

The main idea of this book is that the origin and creation and formation
of the Solar System was not due to a Nebular Dust Cloud but rather due
to a continual bombardment of Cosmic Rays over 5 to 10 billion years.
So that all the matter and mass of our Solar System came from the
accrual and accretion of Cosmic Rays and Cosmic Gamma Rays.

I noticed on report talking about Be9 and Be10 as sort of fossils
of Cosmic Rays. So I suspect that if beryllium is a good subject to
research then also water and heavy water should be a good subject
to research in connection with Cosmic Rays.

I also noticed in one research report that Cosmic Rays synthesize
oxygen, so that Cosmic Rays would have the ability to synthesize
the hydrogen and the oxygen atoms to form water.





I am looking for data on the Cosmic Rays that are oxygen nuclei.
Research papers claim 90% of Cosmic Rays are hydrogen nuclei and
9% are helium nuclei and the remaining 1% comprise up to iron
nuclei. So what proportion of the 1% remainder are oxygen nuclei?

So as to get some rough ballpark figure as to how much water can be
formed by incoming Cosmic Rays which are hydrogen nuclei and oxygen
nuclei and thus forge water in the planet atmosphere or surface.

I suspect this is how comets gain their water from cosmic rays
incident to the cometary surface.

Some may ask how do planets gain their elements beyond iron? And
that would probably be from the energetic Cosmic Ray or Gamma Ray
which can be 10^20 eV. Such energetic particles can transmute
an element from iron up to uranium.

Now this is very interesting if we can obtain all of Earth's water
from Cosmic Rays, because then we can date backwards and realize that
Earth must be older than 4.6 billion years and must be somewhere between
8 and 10 billion years old.

And also, we should have a rethink of the alleged Earth Moon collision
because of what such a collision would have done to Earth's Oceans.

A more plausible scenario of the Moon is that it was the rocky portion
of the Asteroid Planet before it was broken up. A Moon Earth collision
on the scale envisioned does not make sense as to Moon's ever increasing
distance away from Earth. So I doubt there was such a Moon Earth
collision some 4.5 billion years ago. There may have been a Moon capture
and some big asteroid ploughed into Earth giving Earth its 23 degree
tilt on axis but the Moon itself never collided with Earth but was
captured and is gradually moving further and further away.

A Moon Earth collision has more problems than what little it solves.
So I think this collision is more of a high-speculation than it is of
any resolution. It is extremely difficult of a mechanics to think the
Moon slammed into Earth some 4.5 billion years ago and then walked away
from Earth at ever increasing distance from Earth with as much mass
as it now has. The physical mechanics of that just do not work out.

So I think what really happened is that a big asteroid was absorbed
by Earth which created the 23 degree tilt on axis.

How do you get Earth covered in 70% water when it takes 10 billion years
to get all that water and to have a Moon collision some 4.5 billion
years ago is just not compatible of a scenario.

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

I have been putting off this calculations for some time, but cannot
stall any more.

Trouble is that I am not confident of the numbers given for Cosmic Ray
impacts and Gamma Ray
impacts on Earth.

Also, I note, that if it were easy and obvious that Cosmic Rays impact
Earth at a rate of 2x10^9kg
per minute, then almost every scientist in the world would have
realized that Earth grew from Cosmic
Ray bombardment over 5 to 10 billion years span of time. In other
words, I would not have discovered
this first but that thousands of other scientists would have
discovered this when Cosmic Rays were
discovered.

The surface area of Earth is 4(pi) r^2
The volume of Earth is 4/3 (pi) r^3

The rate of Cosmic Ray impacts on Earth is approx 1,000 per square cm
second so that
makes 60,000 per minute

I am going to assume the same for Gamma Rays

The mass of a proton is 1.6 x 10^-27 kg

So what I would like to see is a number figure of 2 x 10^9 kg of mass
per minute striking Earth
from Cosmic Rays.

Obviously I cannot get that figure from surface area of Earth alone
for that is of a range of about
5 x 10^18 square cm . So the cross section of Earth as that of
*surface area* is not going to
give me a large enough exponent to retrieve 10^9 kilograms per minute.
In fact it gives me about
1 gram of Cosmic Ray mass per minute and I want about 10^9 kilograms
per minute.

So, what I have thought of and done is to consider not the Surface
Area of Earth in the amount of
mass accumulated by Earth for 5 to 10 billion years but the Volume of
the Magnetosphere.

The volume of Earth Magnetosphere catapults the exponent into the
range of well over 10^36 cubic
centimeters so that I can derive a Cosmic Ray Mass Impact for Earth of
a flow range of
2x10^9 kg per minute.

Some may say I am playing trickier here by invoking the Magnetosphere.
But I ask the question
of if a Fly's Eye apparatus were set up in the Magnetosphere itself
instead of the desert of Utah
that would not the influx of Cosmic Rays be very much greater than the
mere 1,000 per sq cm
per sec???? Considering that these are charged particles of protons
and nuclei? And that
Earth is growing faster from the mass impacts at the poles than
elsewhere?

I gave the analogy of the Amazon River which has a flow rate of 12
billion liters of water per
minute. So that to build a planet like Earth all that is needed for 5
billion years is a Amazon
River that discharges 2 billion kilograms of protons upon Earth.

So I think the calculation requires the magnetosphere and thus Earth
is built from Cosmic Rays
over 5 to 10 billion years. Now if anyone bulks at my magnetosphere
entry can look to Jupiter
or other planets as to where Cosmic Rays become part of Jupiter's
overall mass. Does not Jupiter
have more Cosmic Rays coming in from its poles of the Jupiter
Magnetosphere???

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

Alright, the Magnetosphere is not really a sphere but more like a
toroid shape and not exactly
sure what the name of the shape is. And what the formula for computing
the volume of the
Magnetosphere of Earth. I did some searching if anyone had a rough
figure for the volume of the
Magnetosphere and spyed none. So I am going to guess that the Earth
Magnetosphere is
safely within the figure of 10^36 cm^3 volume. Correct me if anyone
knows better.

Now the mass of a hydrogen nuclei (proton) of a Cosmic Ray is roughly
1.6 x 10^-27kg

Several websites listed the Cosmic Ray flux at about 10^3 per cm^2
sec. I am going to guess
a more conservative figure for the density of Cosmic Rays in the
Magnetosphere volume at
1.3 Cosmic Rays per cm^3 per minute.

So multiplying these numbers gives me a Cosmic Ray Flow in the Earth
Magnetosphere
at 2x10^9 kg per minute

That rate gives me a building or constructing of the planet Earth from
a QM-seed-dot some
5 billion years ago to our present day planet.

Now some may object to the above scenario and mechanism as the
Magnetosphere prevents many
nasty and harmful Rays from striking Earth. But what I am suggesting
in the mechanism
is that the Rays are neutralized in the Magnetosphere becoming
hydrogen molecules or water
molecules and then entering the Earth lower atmosphere and surface.

So the accretion rate of Earth from Cosmic Rays is of the order of
2x10^9 kg/minute, the form
of that mass that Earth absorbs is in the form of hydrogen or water
molecules or other
molecules and atoms which slowly drift or migrate to the lower
atmosphere or surface.

--- about Cosmic Rays, quoting in part ---
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ro/cosmic.html
Medium elements (carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and flourine) are about 10
times their
abundance in normal matter and the heavier elements are increased
about a hundredfold
over normal matter.
--- end quoting http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ro/cosmic.html

So what I am saying is that Cosmic Rays impact into the Earth
Magnetosphere and comprise
a overall Flux of 2x10^9 kilograms per minute for which they are
neutralized into atoms
and molecules such as water and drift and migrate to the lower
atmosphere and the surface
of Earth.

So in this mechanism we see how Earth is built from a mere QM-seed-dot
into our present
day planet.

The above would also explain how Earth gots its vast oceans of water
as Cosmic Rays are
rendered into water molecules in the Magnetosphere and drift to Earth.
Perhaps we have
some evidence of where "extra water comes drifting near the poles".
And where the poles
seem to have abundance of gas molecules not found at other latitudes.

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

a_plutonium wrote:
Alright, the Magnetosphere is not really a sphere but more like a
toroid shape and not exactly
sure what the name of the shape is. And what the formula for computing
the volume of the
Magnetosphere of Earth. I did some searching if anyone had a rough
figure for the volume of the
Magnetosphere and spyed none. So I am going to guess that the Earth
Magnetosphere is
safely within the figure of 10^36 cm^3 volume. Correct me if anyone
knows better.

Let me revise that number to 10^31 cm^3 volume because 10^36 is too
large
and need the Rays to interact to form neutral atoms and molecules.


Now the mass of a hydrogen nuclei (proton) of a Cosmic Ray is roughly
1.6 x 10^-27kg

Several websites listed the Cosmic Ray flux at about 10^3 per cm^2
sec. I am going to guess
a more conservative figure for the density of Cosmic Rays in the
Magnetosphere volume at
1.3 Cosmic Rays per cm^3 per minute.

No, let me revise that to 1.3 x 10^5 Cosmic Rays per cm^3 per minute.
Because
they need to be somewhat abundant to interact to form neutral atoms
and molecules



So multiplying these numbers gives me a Cosmic Ray Flow in the Earth
Magnetosphere
at 2x10^9 kg per minute

That rate gives me a building or constructing of the planet Earth from
a QM-seed-dot some
5 billion years ago to our present day planet.

Now some may object to the above scenario and mechanism as the
Magnetosphere prevents many
nasty and harmful Rays from striking Earth. But what I am suggesting
in the mechanism
is that the Rays are neutralized in the Magnetosphere becoming
hydrogen molecules or water
molecules and then entering the Earth lower atmosphere and surface.

So the accretion rate of Earth from Cosmic Rays is of the order of
2x10^9 kg/minute, the form
of that mass that Earth absorbs is in the form of hydrogen or water
molecules or other
molecules and atoms which slowly drift or migrate to the lower
atmosphere or surface.

--- about Cosmic Rays, quoting in part ---
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ro/cosmic.html
Medium elements (carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and flourine) are about 10
times their
abundance in normal matter and the heavier elements are increased
about a hundredfold
over normal matter.
--- end quoting http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ro/cosmic.html

So what I am saying is that Cosmic Rays impact into the Earth
Magnetosphere and comprise
a overall Flux of 2x10^9 kilograms per minute for which they are
neutralized into atoms
and molecules such as water and drift and migrate to the lower
atmosphere and the surface
of Earth.

So in this mechanism we see how Earth is built from a mere QM-seed-dot
into our present
day planet.

The above would also explain how Earth gots its vast oceans of water
as Cosmic Rays are
rendered into water molecules in the Magnetosphere and drift to Earth.
Perhaps we have
some evidence of where "extra water comes drifting near the poles".
And where the poles
seem to have abundance of gas molecules not found at other latitudes.

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

I should summarize at this moment before I go further. For the Growing
Solar System theory to
work and replace the Nebular Dust Cloud theory, there must be a
mechanism of a flow or flux
of particles which makes bodies grow over a 5 to 10 billion years.
That mechanism is Dirac's
new radioactivity and it takes the form of Cosmic Rays and Gamma Rays
which originate
from the Nucleus of the Atom Totality. So I need a flow rate of approx
2 x 10^9 kilograms
per minute over 5 billion years to model the growing of Earth. That
rate of flow resembles the
rate of liters per minute by the Amazon River. So where on Earth is
there such a flow rate of
new mass coming and impacting and bombarding Earth? The answer is the
Magnetosphere.

So Earth begins where the Magnetosphere begins. The volume of Earth's
Magnetosphere
is in dispute, but I peg it around that of 10^31 cm^3 volume. It could
be 10^30 or 10^32.

So I need a number data of how many Cosmic Rays exist in the
Magnetosphere and that
figure is not well established because it is difficult to place
instruments into the Magnetosphere.
I peg the density of Cosmic Rays within the Earth Magnetosphere on
average as about
1.3 x 10^5 Cosmic Rays per cm^3 per minute. That is a reasonable
estimate because the
Fly's Eye Instrument in the Utah desert measures the density about
10^3 cm^2 per second.

What is not in dispute is the fact that the proton mass is 1.6 x
10^-27 kg. So when I multiply
these three parameters together I get a rate of flow of 2 x 10^9
kilograms per minute where
the particles drift to the Surface of Earth in the form of mostly
neutral atoms and molecules such
as hydrogen or water or nitrogen etc.

Both the Nebular Dust Cloud theory and the Growing Solar System theory
must explain how
Earth got all of its water and why the water on Earth is lighter than
the heavy water of Comets.
And both theories have to explain how comets get their water if they
want to be serious theories.
So how does the Nebular Dust Cloud theory answer the question as to
why comets have so
much water and why is it so heavy of a water? The answer that the
Growing Solar System
provides is that water is formed on those planets and satellites that
have a form of a Magnetosphere
which turns Cosmic Rays into mostly "light water" and plenty of light
water the more powerful
the planet Magnetosphere is. So Earth has a strong magnetosphere and
thus oceans of water.


Now I looked to see if the polar regions get alot of "new water" from
outer space due to the Magnetosphere
and what I found were terms such as "aurorae", "polar wind" and "polar
rain". What we need to
find out now is whether the polar regions seem to be outlets of "new
water" that was created
by the Magnetosphere turning Cosmic Rays into mostly "light water".

The Growing Solar System theory has to explain how Comets have so much
water in the first
place? Comets do not have a magnetosphere as far as I know. So how do
Comets grow water
in the Growing Solar System theory? The answer I can provide is the
path or orbit of Comets
in that they traverse through the Solar Winds and the Interplanetary-
Space that has alot of
Cosmic Rays. So as the Comet traverses the Interplanetary-Space it
loses some of its ice
in the form of the Comet-tail that we see, but it also gains new water
as it moves through
the path. Water formed in Inteplanetary-Space without the help of a
magnetosphere is heavier
water than that formed in magnetospheric space. So that is an attempt
to answer the difference
between Comet water and Earth water and why Earth and other planets
have so much.

Most people think that the start of Earth proper is the surface crust
of Earth as a planet. But
the proper astronomical start of Earth is really Earth's
Magnetosphere. It would be interesting
to redo the images and pictures and calculations of planetary science
from the viewpoint of
magnetospheres as the start of a planet and not as some exotic or
esoteric appendage of a
planet.

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

I am doing a poor job of following the purported chapters of this book
as I seem to be
jumping to whatever topic followed the last. Perhaps when I write the
2nd edition of this
book I will put it into chapter order. So much of this book is new and
thus cutting edge
theory. When I wrote the guideline to the chapter titles I did not
know the Magnetosphere
would play such a key role in this theory of Growing Solar System. And
there is very
much we do not know about the Magnetosphere. But now I am going to
write about
something which is very extremely unknown-- the center of a star or
planet.

In this theory of Growing Solar System, apparently the bulk of the
mass of a star
or planet is accreted from Cosmic Rays and Cosmic Gamma Rays. But the
star
and planet originally was borne as a QM-seed-dot. Which is a few atoms
that
continues to grow. Obviously a planet or star when borne from a few
atoms is not
going to have a magnetosphere, and so how does it grow into a star or
planet
before it does possess a magnetosphere?

So what this theory of Growing Solar System via Dirac new
radioactivities suggests
is that a QM-seed-dot is a special conglomeration of atoms which is
linked to the
Nucleus of the Atom Totality and which has particles materialize in
the center of that
QM-seed-dot. My impression is that a energetic Gamma Ray burst can
occur at the
center of a QM-seed-dot which makes it grow faster than any
surrounding particles
or collections of atoms in the surrounding space.

I am speaking of Earth when it was borne as a few atoms and grew into
a large
enough planet to have a magnetosphere. So the sources of mass to make
Earth
grow were (1) materialization of mass from the Atom Totality Nucleus
directly to the
center of the seed-dot (2) acquired mass from the impact of the seed
dot as it
travels through space (3) mass acquired when the magnetosphere is
formed.

Two of those sources are easy to check upon and observe and confirm
but the
materialization at the center of the seed-dot is very much more
difficult to confirm
provided it is true. What I suspect is going on at the center of a QM-
seed-dot are
the materialization of large amounts of energy/mass such as a
energetic Cosmic
Ray or Gamma Ray of the order of 10^20 eV. So the infant Earth of a
small ball
say the size of a orange or apple would not have a magnetosphere to
grow
rapidly nor grow rapidly from the impact of particles to the surface
of this infant-Earth.
So the center of this infant-Earth would receive a energetic Cosmic
Ray of the
amount of 10^20 eV or perhaps 10^25 eV which would be a mass addition
to the
orange or apple sized Earth and thus become pumpkin sized or
watermelon
sized Earth. And then another Cosmic Ray of 10^25 eV materializes in
the center of
this infant Earth and growing larger.

Do we know if ever there was something big going on at the center of
the Sun or
Jupiter or Earth? Do we know whether a Cosmic Ray of 10^25 eV
materialized in
the center of Earth today would leave some sort of evidence?

So what I am saying is that we have three ways of growing a star or
planet when it
starts out as a QM-seed-dot of a few atoms. We have the collisions of
this seed-dot
with mass in its path which then becomes a larger seed-dot. And we
have magnetosphere
accretion of Cosmic Rays and Cosmic Gamma Rays once the planet or star
is big enough to form a magnetosphere. And it is the third means of
growing that
this post is addressing. The idea that the center of this QM-seed-dot
is linked directly
to the Nucleus of the Atom Totality which then so-to-speak, directly
pipelines massive
particles to the center-of- QM-seed-dot.

Now perhaps some pulsars or quasars maybe evidence of this center
contribution.
That a pulsar or quasar maybe where a star center receives periodic
Gamma Rays
directly into the center of the star which then emits uniform pulses.

So I have a lot of work to be done on how a QM-seed-dot grows to
becoming a
planet or star, before it gains a magnetosphere. More knowledge of the
cores
of young planets like Jupiter compared to old planets like Earth or
Mercury
my help in answering this growth of young planets or young stars.

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