Chapt12 Dirac New Radioactivities #337 Atom Totality

Chapter 12
Subject: recalibrating whether Cosmic incoming rays equals flow rate
of Amazon
river discharge


Below is an old post of mine dating back to 2007 for
the 2nd edition of this book. This is a post in which
I am trying to link Dirac's new radioactivity to create
the Solar System and in particular the planet Earth
by saying that the Cosmic Rays and Cosmic Gamma Ray Bursts is what is
actually creating Earth.

Dirac sought supporting evidence by a receding Moon of 2cm/year. I
seek supporting evidence
by the rate of Cosmic incoming rays as equal or
near equal to a flow rate of the Amazon River
discharge. So if those two rates are nearly equal,
then it is not a coincidence they are so much the
same rate of flow.

--- quoting old post of mine about flow rates ---

Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.math, sci.chem
From: a_plutonium
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 09:06:31 -0700
Local: Sun, Sep 2 2007 11:06 am
Subject: #31i the flow of 1/6 Amazon River in Cosmic Rays to create
Earth over 5 billion years ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY
REPLACES BIG BANG THEORY IN PHYSICS

a_plutonium wrote:

Gladly I was mistaken. Looking through this website:
http://www.int.washington.edu/PHYS55...hapter8_04.pdf

They give a figure for Cosmic Ray Intensity at 1/cm^2 sec ,or, 1 ev/
cm^3
They say that most Cosmic Rays, or 90%, are protons and about 9% are
helium nuclei. I saw no Intensity figure for Cosmic Gamma Ray Bursts
on
that website.

But I think I can get 2.5 x 10^12 grams per minute from the figure 1/
cm^2 sec
and then some.

So what we see here, is how to create and build Earth from purely just
the
Cosmic Rays and Cosmic Gamma Rays that impact Earth every minute of
over day and year. So we never needed a Nebular Dust Cloud to create
our
Solar System when it can be created purely from the Cosmic rays
impacting
on the astro bodies of our Solar System.

So what I need to create and then build Earth over 5 billion years is
a flow rate
of Cosmic Rays plus Cosmic Gamma Ray Bursts of about 2.5 x 10^12 grams
per
minute which is the same as 2.5 billion kilograms per minute.

The Amazon River has a flow rate of 12 billion liters per minute, and
keeping in mind
that a liter of water is a kilogram of water. So we can have a mental
comparison of
what we need to replace the Nebular Dust Cloud theory.

So is the flow rate of Cosmic Rays plus Cosmic Gamma Ray Bursts about
on the
average of 2.5 billion kilograms per minute, roughly 1/6 of the flow
rate of the Amazon
River?

I would think so, because every lightning bolt that strikes Earth is
accompanied or created
from a "Cosmic Ray leader strike". So Cosmic Rays are very abundant.
And the Amazon
River is tiny compared to all of the surface of Earth. So if you want
to spread the mouth of the
Amazon River over all the surface of Earth then it is rather easy to
see that Cosmic Rays
plus Cosmic Gamma Ray Bursts could easily provide the mass of Earth
over 5 billion years.

--- end quoting old post of mine ---

So I need to see how close together is the
flow rates of the Amazon River versus the
incoming Cosmic Rays.


Subject: recalibrating whether Cosmic incoming rays equals flow
rate of
Amazon river discharge




Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Below is an old post of mine dating back to 2007 for
the 2nd edition of this book. This is a post in which
I am trying to link Dirac's new radioactivity to create
the Solar System and in particular the planet Earth
by saying that the Cosmic Rays and Cosmic Gamma Ray Bursts is what is
actually creating Earth.

Dirac sought supporting evidence by a receding Moon of 2cm/year. I
seek supporting evidence
by the rate of Cosmic incoming rays as equal or
near equal to a flow rate of the Amazon River
discharge. So if those two rates are nearly equal,
then it is not a coincidence they are so much the
same rate of flow.

--- quoting old post of mine about flow rates ---


A flow rate of 2.5x10^12 grams of water per minute translates into

4 x 10^10 grams of water per second

A proton rest mass is 1.67 x 10^-24 grams

So I have 2 x 10^34 protons per second.

The cosmic rays (protons) as given is estimated as 1/cm^2 sec

Now if the Earth volume is used at 4/3(pi)(r^3) with a radius of 6.3 x
10^8 cm,
we are talking about 10^24

So I am caught short by a factor of 10^10. However, if we consider
that
neutrinos have a tiny rest mass. And if we consider the contribution
of
Cosmic gamma ray bursts, I think we can reach a flow rate that matches
2x10^34 protons per second.


I do not know the cosmic contribution of gamma rays is in the above
calculations.

And looking in Wikipedia on neutrino rest mass I find data of
0.0027eV^2. Also
I find that cosmic-background-neutrinos as 56 per cubic centimeter.

I believe the shortfall above of 10^10 is made up with the neutrino
flow. Although
some cosmic gamma ray bursts are the equivalent in energy of entire
galaxies.
So I may have a difficult time of suggesting that the entire shortfall
of 10^10 protons
per cm^2 sec is due to a gamma-ray event. Seems too "ad hoc", but then
if someone
has measured the average Cosmic Gamma Ray event flow, it may just make
up for
that 10^10 shortfall without ever needing to look into neutrino rest
mass. I wish Dirac
were here, right now, for he would probably instantly straighten the
above out. That is
why he was the most preeminent physicist of the 20th century because
within those
pages of his book Directions in Physics, pages 74 to 81 are the most
important messages
of physics that carries physics from the 20th century into the 21st
century. Only two
physicists of the 20th century are the vanguards of where physics is
going in the 21st
century and they are Dirac with his "new radioactivities" and John
Bell with his
"superdeterminism". And all other physics was either dead end or
misguided such as
general-relativity.

Dirac looked for his new radioactivity in the recession of the Moon by
2cm/year. I am
looking for Dirac's new-radioactivity by how Earth was created via the
steady flow of
Cosmic rays and gamma ray bursts (possibly neutrino contribution).

Correct me if wrong but I remember reading that the 2cm/year Moon
recession was already
verified in the 1990s. Remarkable that not only is Dirac's book
ignored, his vanguard future
vision of physics ignored but even when his 2cm/year Moon recession is
verified as true, it
is also ignored.

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