#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:
(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:
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 in
ups.com:

Look who I found while checking to see which groups knew that their
favorite resident net.kooks were on the ballot--Archimedes Plutonium,
the archetype of a mad scientist on USENET! Since I have a fondness for
1) classic net.kooks (and Achimedes here is as classic as they get),
making sure that gaping holes in net.kooks' resumes get filled, and 3)
getting in the fun of being FNVW by rewarding the kooks that Phoenix
poked on my watch, I'm going to see which awards Element 94 here has
won, and which ones are notable by their absence.

http://www.caballista.org/auk/kookle...arch=plutonium

Kookle Search Results

9 matches for "plutonium".

Ludwig "Archimedes Plutonium" Poehlmann

Kook of the Month, August 1994
Golden Killfile, August 1996
Victor von Frankenstein "Weird Science" Award, December 1997
Victor von Frankenstein "Weird Science" Award, February 2006
Looney Maroon Award, November 1997
George Pickett Memorial Trophy, October 1999
Bobo Award
Kook Kard Deck, Ace of Diamonds
Kook Chess Set, Blue King

For such a classic koo^H^H^H net-legend, Element 94 has a pretty skimpy
resume. The one that most stands out to me, especially since I'm
responding to a /205-line/ post that begins a 17-post thread of articles
that average more than 100 lines each, is the lack of a Unabomber
Surprise. I know I just seconded Art Deco's nomination of Johnny Wizard
for Unabomber Surprise, but A [Temporary] Dog also seconded that nom, so
I'll avoid having to use my FNVW privilege by withdrawing that second
and nominating Ludwig "Archimedes Plutonium" Poehlmann for the Unabomber
Surprise.

Seconds?

May this be the first of more nominations to fill in Element 94's
resume!

[evidence retained below.]

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...thread/thread/
94c55a4772fece55/122a5116a0beb28c?
lnk=st&q=plutonium+Dirac+radioactivities+materiali zation&rnum=
5&hl=en#122a5116a0beb28c

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.../browse_thread
/thread/5a7f5be96bbfd1a/8a3d7dca735a6ab2?lnk=st&q=plutonium+%
22growing+solar+system%22&rnum=32&hl=en#8a3d7dca73 5a6ab2

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.../browse_thread
/thread/440b4dd246a61e3e/d523e5f34deaa803?lnk=st&q=plutonium+CellWell1
+Cellwell2&rnum=145&hl=en#d523e5f34deaa803

Psst. Your links are fugly and I had to fix them. Perhaps you should
use tinyurl instead.

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
--
Pinku-Sensei
Co-FNVW of AUK
Acting Pollmaster of AFA-B
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in rec.arts.marching.drumcorps
http://www.caballista.org/auk/index.html

"Pinku-Sensei" wrote in
. 245.131:

http://www.caballista.org/auk/kookle...arch=plutonium

Kookle Search Results

9 matches for "plutonium".

Ludwig "Archimedes Plutonium" Poehlmann

Kook of the Month, August 1994
Golden Killfile, August 1996
Victor von Frankenstein "Weird Science" Award, December 1997
Victor von Frankenstein "Weird Science" Award, February 2006
Looney Maroon Award, November 1997
George Pickett Memorial Trophy, October 1999
Bobo Award
Kook Kard Deck, Ace of Diamonds
Kook Chess Set, Blue King

For such a classic koo^H^H^H net-legend, Element 94 has a pretty
skimpy resume. The one that most stands out to me, especially since
I'm responding to a /205-line/ post that begins a 17-post thread of
articles that average more than 100 lines each, is the lack of a
Unabomber Surprise. I know I just seconded Art Deco's nomination of
Johnny Wizard for Unabomber Surprise, but A [Temporary] Dog also
seconded that nom, so I'll avoid having to use my FNVW privilege by
withdrawing that second and nominating Ludwig "Archimedes Plutonium"
Poehlmann for the Unabomber Surprise.

Seconds?

Oops! Forgot to format Subject line corrrectly for a Nomination poast.
F1X0R3D.

May this be the first of more nominations to fill in Element 94's
resume!

The Custer also comes to mind, although I'd like to see something
approaching a declaration of victory first. I'd also have to see which
of Element 94's weird science ideas have already been recognized before
entertaining another VVFWS nomination for an ostensibly "new" idea, such
as the subject of the book that is being posted to USENET in this
thread.
--
Pinku-Sensei
Co-FNVW of AUK
Acting Pollmaster of AFA-B
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in rec.arts.marching.drumcorps
http://www.caballista.org/auk/index.html

Pinku-Sensei wrote:

"Pinku-Sensei" wrote in
.245.131:

http://www.caballista.org/auk/kookle...arch=plutonium

Kookle Search Results

9 matches for "plutonium".

Ludwig "Archimedes Plutonium" Poehlmann

Kook of the Month, August 1994
Golden Killfile, August 1996
Victor von Frankenstein "Weird Science" Award, December 1997
Victor von Frankenstein "Weird Science" Award, February 2006
Looney Maroon Award, November 1997
George Pickett Memorial Trophy, October 1999
Bobo Award
Kook Kard Deck, Ace of Diamonds
Kook Chess Set, Blue King

For such a classic koo^H^H^H net-legend, Element 94 has a pretty
skimpy resume. The one that most stands out to me, especially since
I'm responding to a /205-line/ post that begins a 17-post thread of
articles that average more than 100 lines each, is the lack of a
Unabomber Surprise. I know I just seconded Art Deco's nomination of
Johnny Wizard for Unabomber Surprise,

That was Archie, not I.

but A [Temporary] Dog also
seconded that nom, so I'll avoid having to use my FNVW privilege by
withdrawing that second and nominating Ludwig "Archimedes Plutonium"
Poehlmann for the Unabomber Surprise.

Seconds?

Oops! Forgot to format Subject line corrrectly for a Nomination poast.
F1X0R3D.

As a result, I believe I am eligible to offer this nom of pluto-breath
a hearty second.

May this be the first of more nominations to fill in Element 94's
resume!

The Custer also comes to mind, although I'd like to see something
approaching a declaration of victory first. I'd also have to see which
of Element 94's weird science ideas have already been recognized before
entertaining another VVFWS nomination for an ostensibly "new" idea, such
as the subject of the book that is being posted to USENET in this
thread.

He don't reply much to stimulus, IIRC.

[cbfgrq gb fpv.culfvpf, Obo Pnva jvyy yvxryl abg nccebir]

--
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads for alt.astronomy
Wee Davie Tholen is a grade-school lamer
Trainer and leash holder of:
Honest "Clockbrain" John
nightbat "fro0tbat" of alt.astronomy
Tom "TommY Crackpotter" Potter
http://www.caballista.org/auk/kookle.php?search=deco

"Classic erroneous presupposition. Others developed websites
so that they could have the Last Word, Deco. In the newsgroups,
I could counter their lies."
--David Tholen