oldest planet 13 billion years old in M-4

Sorry, this should have been posted last night when I heard the news
fresh from the TV == Lehrer Newshour. The problem with that news is they
do not do enough science reporting and they do too much poetry and that
silly-essay
segments of regular essayists. Science and technology is what created
the human
species (Stonethrowing created humans out of apes) and science and
technology
is the number one driving force of human society. So why does the Lehrer
Newshour spend a meagre average of about 2 seconds of news time for
science?????? Lehrer Newshour should replace their poetry and their
essay
segments with a regular Science & technology segment and give poetry and

essays that average of 2 seconds per week.

Last night the electric power went out and unable to post this about a
oldest
planet.

I am writing this from memory and not fresh and perhaps some errors. If
I remember correctly a large planet of 2.5 mass of Jupiter found in
Messier 4
globular cluster of the Milky Way galaxy.

Here immediately we have a problem with the age of the Milky Way itself
compared to this planet age. I do not recall any scientist pegging the
age of
the Milky Way as old as 13 billion years.

Anyway, according to the AtomTotality theory this news of an old planet
is
all par for the course. In fact, in the AtomTotality theory, here in our
own
SolarSystem the age of the inner planets of Mercury, Venus, Earth and
Mars
is that these inner planets are much older than the outer gas giant
planets.

In an AtomTotality, the age of Earth is of the Uranium AtomTotality and
our
Earth is perhaps 20 billion years old. Having been pummelled and
stripped of
its outer layers. Having been party to collisions and retaining the
heavy metal
cores (Moon). The outer gas giant planets are recent in age of perhaps 8
billion
years old and belong to the Plutonium AtomTotality minibang. However,
the
outer gas giants are accreting mass much faster than the inner planets
via
cosmicray-burst-materializations.

This news of an old planet of 13 billion years in M-4 will make more
sense
once it is found out and accepted that the planet Earth itself is at
least 13 billion
years old and that both are probably 20 billion years old for they
belong to
the age of the Uranium AtomTotality and not the age of the newest layer
of the
cosmos of the Plutonium AtomTotality.

I forgotten the name of the interviewed scientist Dr. Gross??? who made
mention
of the fact that M-4 planet had a different composition than our Jupiter
in that
it had more heavy metals and or ice. Anyway, if M-4 planet has a heavy
metal
composition approaching that of Earth, Venus, Mars, Mercury would
indicate
that these planets were of the Uranium AtomTotality age stretching back
as far
as 20 billion years.

In an AtomTotality of the observable universe being the 5f6 with its
last 6
electrons where galaxies are dots of the electron-dot-cloud then the
ages
of some stars and planets in the observable universe stretch back as far
as
the Thorium AtomTotality which can be as old as 30 billion years old.

Who knows, perhaps the Milky Way and Earth were born in the Thorium
AtomTotality and that their ages go back to 30 billion years. Perhaps
the
key to the age of any astro body is the composition and if a object has
alot of heavy elements such as uranium indicates the object is at least
30 billion years old.

That would be a nice thing for astronomy to have age reckoning based on
just one simply attribute-- relative abundance of heavy metal elements
in their composition. You see, although supernova do create heavy
elements
they are rare and they do not spread those new nucleosynthesized
elements
throughout the cosmos in any degree of efficiency. That means most
heavy elements that exist such as in Earth or Mercury were due to the
cosmic ray materialization of large amounts of energy over 30 billion
years.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

someone wrote:
(snipped)


The silly thing about all this is that they've found out that heavier
elements formed much quicker in stars than they imagined. So things as
heavy as iron actually existed quite early in the universe. Which
makes sense, if things were hotter back then in the universe, and even
if they weren't as hot I could see how that was possible.

Then there's no real anomoly in the planet, since they misgauged its
age, or perhaps just didn't realize some other thing about the
universe.

There's also a chance that the universe is much older than they
originally thought it was.


I did not catch the amount of heavy elements in planet M-4 system. I am
guessing that astronomers reckon the age to be the same as the age of the
twin stars M-4 which would be the way the BigBang and NebularDust
Cloud theories would dictate.

The AtomTotality theory however may say that this planet is not 13 billion
years old but perhaps 20 or 30 billion years old just as the inner planets
of Mercury Venus Earth Mars are older than the gas giant outer planets
by many billions of years. For the AtomTotality creation of planets
is via cosmicray and gammaray bursts that materialize where planets
are.

However, if the heavy metals in planet M-4 are sparse compared to the
density in Earth then there is a good chance that this planet is not
even 13 billion years old but perhaps a mere 8 billion years old.

In the AtomTotality theory there is a direct correlation to the density
and quantity of heavy elements to the age. Not counting collided
acquisitions such as the core of the Moon subsumed by Earth in an
ancient collision, or the acquisition of asteroids of heavy elements.

So, if M-4 planet does have a high density of heavy metals then it
is anywhere from 13 to 30 billion years old. But if M-4 planet is
sparse density of heavy elements somewhere in between that of
say Jupiter and Earth, then M-4 planet is probably about 8 billion
years old.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Starblade Darksquall wrote:
There's also a chance that the universe is much older than they
originally thought it was.

Or they are measuring the age of the universe with seconds now that
are a different length than the seconds were back then.
--
Cheers, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp
"One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured
against reality, is primitive and childlike ..." Albert Einstein



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

W5DXP wrote:

Starblade Darksquall wrote:
There's also a chance that the universe is much older than they
originally thought it was.

In an AtomTotality, not a BigBang, the cosmos has layerings of age
where you can have stars older, much older than the newest recent
minibigbang. Stars of the Uranium AtomTotality and stars of the
Thorium AtomTotality are much older than the newest minibigbang
of the Plutonium AtomTotality. In fact, you need not have minibigbangs
but rather instead it is the cosmicray and gammaray bursts that materialize

that creates the newest layer of the cosmos, going from the 5f2 to the
5f4 to the 5f6.

This layering was what the teams of scientists of Wendy Freedman
and Alan Sandage were discovering but since both of those teams are
laboring under the false theory of BigBang, they cannot do honest science
but are having to fudge their data to come up with one age.



Or they are measuring the age of the universe with seconds now that
are a different length than the seconds were back then.

Three ways to go on that --

(1) In an AtomTotality theory, time is not absolute but time is
Radioactivity
itself. In the last AtomTotality of a Uranium AtomTotality some 20
billion years ago, the time span of a second was much different than the
current time span of a second in a Plutonium AtomTotality. And time
spans were much different in each of the AtomTotality layerings and
the reason for this is because say we were transported back in time
(time travel is impossible to do in AtomTotality theory) to the Helium Atom
Totality there would not be any atoms in existence beyond the first 3 or 4
elements and that the composition of the Universe in a Helium AtomTotality
would be mostly hydrogen with some helium and thus since **time
itself** is a measure of the presence of atoms with their radioactive
decay that a second in this universe would be very much different from
a second as measured in a future AtomTotality such as Plutonium
AtomTotality.

(2) The speed of light is a constant, never changing and thus the time
duration of radioactive decay for a radioactive isotope of hydrogen
is also constant no matter what the composition of the Universe is
whether a Helium AtomTotality that has no elements beyond lithium
or a Plutonium AtomTotality of present. Such that the time duration
of a second is the same no matter what the AtomTotality is and that
the decay rate of any isotope is a constant also just as the speed of
light is a constant.

(3) Compromise-- speed of light is a constant and that stable
elements are a constant but what changes is the radioactive isotopes.


--
Cheers, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp
"One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured
against reality, is primitive and childlike ..." Albert Einstein


Einstein should have completed his half-truth with an additional sentence:

"All of our science is our number #1 best picture of reality because
God is Science and Science is God." Anything else that claims to be
truth and reality and is not science is just a feeling or perception by
individual/s.

Einstein was confused by Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum
Mechanics and dropped out of science. But if he had pushed
QM to its limits that the Universe itself was an Atom, then he could
have made the logical leap forward of a Spinozan pantheism that
God is Science, and Science is God.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Note to readers in sci.physics.electromag and sci.physics:
anything posted by "Dr. David Tholen" originating from
news.astraweb.com is not really from Dr. David Tholen.

Cypherpunk writes:

137 Message-ID:
137 From: "Dr. David Tholen"

137 Gee, perhaps if you actually *read* this newsgroup you would
137 have seen the recent post: "Planets from Early Stars."

138 Message-ID:
138 From: "Dr. David Tholen"

138 I'm not an imposter.

138 It just so happens my real name is 'Dr. David Tholen.'

138 Deal.

139 Message-ID:
139 From: "Dr. David Tholen"

139 What do your off-topic posts have to do with astronomy,
139 my evil doppleganger?

140 Message-ID:
140 From: "Dr. David Tholen"

140 Bzzzt! Wrong. Not a forgery.

140 I'd say he does. Hello!

140 BWAWAWAWAWA!!!

140 I asked before signing up about you specifically.

140 It'll be a cold day in hell before you get me bumped.

140 In the mean time, stop posting as Dr. David Tholen.

140 That's me.

140 I discovered Pluto *and* Plutonium. And Goofy!

140 Pluto was humping Goofy and Archimedes Plutonium.

140 My middle initial 'J' stands for Jayzus.

140 I am Dr. David Jayzus Tholen. All bow before me!

140 The *real* Dr. David Tholen would not be making thousands
140 of off-topic posts to complain about off-topic posts.

140 Obviously, you're a fake Tholen.

140 Your reputation is dirt.

141 Message-ID:
141 From: "Dr. David Tholen"

141 I resemble that remark.

142 Message-ID:
142 From: "Dr. David Tholen"

142 Hi! Excitement!

142 How DARE you make fun of me!

142 It's ILLEGAL to make fun of me!

142 I will send complaints to your provider declaring
142 that you have BROKEN MY LAWS.

142 I can make up laws at will, dontcha know.

142 Including the laws of physics!

142 I am God Tholen, bow before me! Poop in your pants!

142 Laugh yerselves to death! Wait, that didn't come out right...

143 Message-ID:
143 From: "Dr. David Tholen"

143 Hi! Excitement!

143 I love Yanni!

143 And I'm a real musician: I play a bass clarinet.

143 Yanni is one of the most sophisticated composers around.

143 He's a misunderstood genius, like me!

What do your forgeries have to do with physics and astronomy, Cypherpunk?

"How ironic, coming from the person who makes the
most such posts."
--Cypherpunk

One hundred forty three such postings in just thirty seven days. Fifteen
in just one day. You've underestimated yourself, Cypherpunk.

"Grow up."
--Cypherpunk

"So, how about it: try not to post off-topic."
--Cypherpunk

I see that you still haven't practiced what you preached, Cypherpunk.

On 14 Jul 2003 15:04:56 GMT, "Dr. David Tholen"
wrote:

Here's a picture of me: http://members.aol.com/hccb1/tholen.html

I like the middle-bottom picture. The guy on the right is saying
something, and the guy on the left looks to be thinking "Sheesh, what
a kook!"