#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