abundance of binary stars where one is 2X older than the other; Earthis 2X older than gas giant Jupiter #191 Atom Totality Theory

Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:27:05 -0700
Subject: #31 fourth way of proving Earth is 2X older than Jupiter;
twin stars are mostly 2X age different?? ATOM TOTALITY (Atom
Universe) THEORY REPLACES BIG BANG THEORY IN PHYSICS

a_plutonium wrote:

(all snipped except for this)


--- quoting from
http://www.indiana.edu/~g302/planets.pdf.
---
Solar System Composition
Metals
Oxides
Mass
Diameter
Fe, Ni
SiO
2
,MgO,FeO
Name
(10
27
g)
(10
3
km)
%
(10
27
g)
%
(10
27
g)
Sun
1,990,000
0.1
0.2
Mercury
0.33
4.88
50
0.16
50
0.17
Venus
4.87
12.11
30
1.46
69
3.36
Earth
5.97
12.76
29
1.73
69
4.12
Mars
0.64
6.79
10
0.06
90
Asteroids 0.0002
15
3x10
-5
85
1.7x10
-4
Jupiter
1900
143.2
4
80
9
170
Saturn
570
120
7
40
14
80
Uranus
88
51.8
8
7
17
15
Neptune
103
49.5
6
6
14
14
--- end quoting from
http://www.indiana.edu/~g302/planets.pdf.
---

Sorry, but perhaps the easiest way of proving Earth and Sun are 2X
older than Jupiter is
the fact and data on Twin Star Systems. I have not researched that
data, but intend to
after posting this post.

Also, notice in the above Indiana EDU website that the core of the Sun
is approx

1,990,000 times 0.1% which is 1,990

while the whole of Jupiter is 1,900 in units of 10^27 grams.

Some may say that is mere coincidence that the core of the Sun is
almost exactly
the size of all of Jupiter in terms of mass. But I say it is because
the Growing Solar System
Theory with Dirac Radioactivity is a precisely measured out
phenomenon. Just as Tifft
found precisely measured galaxy speeds and Titius-Bode found precise
distance spacing
within our Solar System that the mass of the Sun in iron and nickel is
equal to all of the
mass of Jupiter.

So the fourth method of proving that Sun and Inner Planets are twice
as old as the Outer
Planets is to see if in twin star systems that the majority or even if
a minority are found
to have stars wherein one is 2X older than the other twin star.

Now it is my understanding that most stars are twin stars and the
number is that 90% of
stars are in a twin star relationship.

So if we can find a large number of stars that are twin stars and find
that one of the star
partners is twice as old as the other partner such as perhaps one of
the stars has twice
as much thorium or uranium or radioactive strontium or rubidium. In
other words, if one
twin star partner has 2X the amount of a radioactive element would
imply that the star
is twice as old as its twin partner.

So today I am going to look and research whether anyone has found twin
stars, keep in
mind that 90% of the stars in the night-sky are twin stars, found that
one of the partners
in a twin star system is twice as old as its other partner.

For you see, if it is found that twin stars are usually partners of 2X
older would obviously
indicate that Alien Solar Systems or ExoSolar-Systems never were
created by a Nebular
Dust Cloud theory but that they were created the same as our own Solar
System by means
of Dirac Radioactivity. And that our Jupiter is thus slated to become
a twin star to the Sun
some 5 billion years into the future.

So, let the looking and research into twin star ages, begin.


Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:22:05 -0700
Subject: #31B fourth way of proving Earth is 2X older than
Jupiter; twin stars are mostly 2X age different?? ATOM TOTALITY
(Atom Universe) THEORY REPLACES BIG BANG THEORY IN PHYSICS

Okay I did a preliminary search to see what binary or twin star
systems can reveal as
per age of stars and it does not look promising. There is too much
soft data and not
hard data. For much is in doubt.

Even the claim that 90% stars are twin or binary stars is doubtful
since another
website claims 50% are twin star systems.

One site claims Arcturus and Porrima as twin stars yet the data is not
hard data
but doubtful.

Then there are these twin stars of Cygnus X-1 and 61 Cygni and Beta
Lyrae
and Sirius and Albireo and Epsilon Aurigae but the data is not hard
data.

So I may not find overwhelming convincing evidence from binary stars
that they
originated from a Dirac Radioactivity. Where one member of a twin star
system
is about 2X older than the other member.

But the data appears to show that in binary stars, it is usually the
case where one
star is very much different from its companion. This alone indicates
that one is twice
as old as the other star.

So it looks as though twin stars will not offer up a easy proof but
only more
mounting evidence of Dirac Radioactivity.


Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 21:38:50 -0700
Subject: #31C fourth way of proving Earth is 2X older than Jupiter;
twin stars are mostly 2X age different?? ATOM TOTALITY (Atom
Universe) THEORY REPLACES BIG BANG THEORY IN PHYSICS

Nope, I do not think this method is going to be as productive as
zircon dating or core dating
or radioactive element abundance. The trouble with twin stars as much
of astronomy has the trouble
of such huge distances away and the unwarranted assumptions that goes
into the data. When
astronomy can not tell whether a star is a binary system in many
cases, then that leads
to little confidence on my part that binary stars can tell us age
differences.

If we find a zircon crystal from Vesta asteroid that measures the age
of the Solar System at
8 billion years old is about the best evidence we can find. Or if we
find Earth having twice
as much radioactive elements like thorium or uranium than does Jupiter
in parts per billion
would be strong evidence.

Another search for ages of companion stars in binary systems

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000PhDT.........7P

http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com...aryPulsar.html

One of those sites mentions an age difference of 1 billion years of
companion stars.
But that is not a large enough difference for what I am looking for.

So I think that binary stars can be supporting evidence that Earth is
twice as old
as Jupiter, but I suspect binary star studies cannot be the primary
lead evidence.


Date: 13 May 2007 20:58:10 -0700
Subject: # 27 include in book ATOM TOTALITY THEORY REPLACES BIG BANG
THEORY oldest star in the Milky Way discovered to date

a_plutonium wrote:

Google is doing a good job of matching interests of what I write and
what is advertised.
This one caught my eye.
--- quoting http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science...ent-star_N.htm
Long before our solar system formed and even before the Milky Way
assumed its final spiral shape, a
star slightly smaller than the Sun blazed into life in our galaxy,
formed from the newly scattered remains
of the first stars in the universe.

Employing techniques similar to those used to date archeological
remains here on Earth, scientists
have learned that a metal-poor star in our Milky Way called HE 1523 is
13.2 billion years old-just
slightly younger than 13.7 billion year age of the universe. Our solar
system is estimated to be
only about 4.6 billion years old.

The findings are detailed in the May 10 issue of Astrophysical
Journal.
--- end quoting http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science...ent-star_N.htm

I am excited by this discovery but will be even more excited because
the Atom Totality theory predicts stars in our
Milky Way Galaxy that are older than the alleged age of the Cosmos
13.7 billion years.

In the Atom Totality theory ages of stars and galaxies are layered.
Some ages are from the Plutonium Atom Era,
some from the previous Uranium Atom Era, some from the prior Thorium
Atom Era. So that the age of
13.7 billion years was merely the Plutonium Atom extension onto a
prior older cosmos of the Uranium Atom
Totality.

So what does this mean for the oldest stars in our galaxy? It means
that in the future, there will be found a
star that is 15 billion years old, and in the future a star that
clocks up an age of 19 to 20 billion years will be
found. Such discoveries will bring crisis to the Big Bang believers
and they will be robustly adamant that the
researchers made mistakes. But they did not make mistakes. The trouble
is that the Big Bang theory is a fake.

And closer to home, according to the Atom Totality theory, our own
Solar System displays this same layering
of ages in that the Sun and inner planets date back to the prior
Uranium Atom Totality and can be as old as
20 billion years, whereas the outer planets of Jupiter and beyond are
of the recent Plutonium Atom Era and
are only 4-5 billion years old. So when experimentalists can
accurately date the Sun and inner planets compared
to the outer planets, be not surprized when the data says that the Sun
and Earth are closer to 20 billion
years old and Jupiter and Saturn are only 5 billion years old.

But can I claim this layering truth now from the given 13.2 billion
years? Can I claim victory for the Atom Totality
theory, right here, and right now? I think so. Because in the Big Bang
theory requires billions of years for the
explosion to have coalesced the material to form a star and not just a
mere 0.5 billion years. In other words,
our present understanding of solar dynamics does not allow for a star
forming in 0.5 billion years immediately
after the Big Bang explosion. That picture conjures up the image that
the explosion had pre-made stars.

So I think I can count victory right here and right now. And the icing
on the cake will be when researchers report
a star that is 20 billion years old in our galaxy.

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