Chapt32 Planet and Star Core Evidence #405 Atom Totality 4th ed

Subject: Chapt32 planet cores and star core evidence
ATOM TOTALITY (Atom
Universe) THEORY REPLACES BIG BANG THEORY IN PHYSICS


Sometimes you really have to be awfully lucky to find a single piece
of evidence that destroys not just one
heavily touted theory that is widely accepted but two theories. The
evidence I speak of is the cores of the
Sun and the planets and their satellites and the cores of stars. The
two theories that are
destroyed by these cores is the
Big Bang and the Nebular Dust Cloud theories.


Evidence: The iron core of the Sun is huge, but not as huge as the
cores of Mercury and Earth in terms of relative density. Earth has
the
most dense mass in our Solar System followed by Mercury. Mercury is
essentially one big core with a small
mantle and crust. The core of the Sun is very hot and is not a
solid. The cores of Jupiter and Saturn satellites
such as Io, and Europa and Titan are what this issue is all about
for
they are anomalous to the cores of their parent
Outer Planets. The cores of Io and Europa closely match the core of
Earth and Mercury relative to the rest
of the body. So one cannot have a Io or Europa develop from a
Nebular
Dust Cloud.
The cores of Jupiter and Saturn are small relative to their own
satellites and relative
to Earth and Mercury.


I dare any physicist to run a computer simulation where you start the
Solar System
with a Nebular Dust Cloud theory and end up with the cores of the
present situation.
There is no physics that I know of that can give us a Io and a
Europa
that is
so anomalous.


And the cores of the Solar System is a dating or age reckoning
measure. Just
as stars that are old have a large iron core. So the Sun and Inner-
planets because
of their large cores are twice as old as the Outer-planets and their
satellites.


So because our Solar System has two layered ages of 5 billion and 10
billion years
old, means that the Big Bang theory cannot be true with its single
age
but must have
different layered ages.


So here we have a obvious measurable fact of cores for the Solar
System and those
data do not support either the Big Bang theory or Nebular Dust Cloud
theory.
What the core data supports is the Atom Totality theory and the
Growing Solar
System from Dirac new-radioactivity theory.


I think this is a very valuable and precious evidence,
for we cannot have a broad and wide and consistent understanding of
the Cosmos
if we do not understand the most important features of our own Solar
System that
is directly related to the Cosmos. And the basic feature is the
cores
of Sun, of
planets and of satellites.


The issue of cores is so important for Cosmology as it is for
geology.
For
one, it is more believable of an issue than are many astronomical
measures and
observations because it is our own backyard so to speak. And because
of the enormous hidden assumptions that goes into all measuring and
observing
outside our solar system. Most binary star claims have enormous hidden
assumptions that goes into their reckoning of whether two stars are
binary or not binary. The Freedman
vs. Sandage debate over age of stars and age of Cosmos is a
contentious and
fudging debate where many "excuses" can enter and so logic and
science is debauched.
But when we have our own Solar System measurements come into the
picture as to
whether Big Bang or Atom Totality is true, it is much more difficult
to have hidden
assumptions and to deny the data and
evidence.


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

Le 30/04/11 21:21, Archimedes Plutonium a écrit :


Subject: Chapt32 planet cores and star core evidence
ATOM TOTALITY (Atom
Universe) THEORY REPLACES BIG BANG THEORY IN PHYSICS


Sometimes you really have to be awfully lucky to find a single piece
of evidence that destroys not just one
heavily touted theory that is widely accepted but two theories. The
evidence I speak of is the cores of the
Sun and the planets and their satellites and the cores of stars. The
two theories that are
destroyed by these cores is the
Big Bang and the Nebular Dust Cloud theories.


Evidence: The iron core of the Sun is huge,

Evidence:
The sun has no iron core.

The initial composition of the sun by mass was 72 percent hydrogen, 26
percent helium and 2 percent heavier elements. The fusion reaction that
occurs in the core has changed its chemical composition. Today there is
about 35 percent hydrogen by mass in the center of the core and 65
percent hydrogen by mass at the edge of the core

Before you start making theories about the universe please
read an elementary text of astronomy.

On Apr 30, 5:07*pm, jacob navia wrote:
Le 30/04/11 21:21,ArchimedesPlutoniuma écrit :





Subject: Chapt32 planet cores and star core evidence
* ATOM TOTALITY (Atom
* Universe) THEORY REPLACES BIG BANG THEORY IN PHYSICS

Sometimes you really have to be awfully lucky to find a single piece
* of evidence that destroys not just one
* heavily touted theory that is widely accepted but two theories. The
* evidence I speak of is the cores of the
* Sun and the planets and their satellites and the cores of stars. The
two theories that are
* destroyed by these cores is the
* Big Bang and the Nebular Dust Cloud theories.

Evidence: The iron core of the Sun is huge,

Evidence:
The sun has no iron core.

The initial composition of the sun by mass was 72 percent hydrogen, 26
percent helium and 2 percent heavier elements. The fusion reaction that
occurs in the core has changed its chemical composition. Today there is
about 35 percent hydrogen by mass in the center of the core and 65
percent hydrogen by mass at the edge of the core

Before you start making theories about the universe please
read an elementary text of astronomy.

I suppose schools never teach people how "to think". For example, the
above
thinks the Sun has no atoms of iron within the Sun. Nor does most
texts on
astronomy ever consider that the Sun has iron atoms. And the number of
those
atoms of iron are concentrated in the core of the Sun. And the size of
the Sun is
so enormous compared to Earth, that how much of the core of the Sun
would be
iron atoms compared to the iron atoms in the Earth core.

So it is sad that schools seem to never teach students-- how to think,
rather expects
them to be parrots of textbooks.

AP

Le 01/05/11 05:10, Archimedes Plutonium a écrit :
On Apr 30, 5:07 pm, jacob wrote:
Le 30/04/11 21:21,ArchimedesPlutoniuma écrit :

Evidence: The iron core of the Sun is huge,

Evidence:
The sun has no iron core.

The initial composition of the sun by mass was 72 percent hydrogen, 26
percent helium and 2 percent heavier elements. The fusion reaction that
occurs in the core has changed its chemical composition. Today there is
about 35 percent hydrogen by mass in the center of the core and 65
percent hydrogen by mass at the edge of the core

Before you start making theories about the universe please
read an elementary text of astronomy.

I suppose schools never teach people how "to think". For example, the
above
thinks the Sun has no atoms of iron within the Sun.

Of course there are atoms of iron in the Sun. There is a difference
between having "some atoms of iron" and having "an iron core". But you
do not see the difference because you know how to think :-)

The Sun is mostly made up of hydrogen (about 92.1% of the number of
atoms, 75% of the mass). Helium can also be found in the Sun (7.8% of
the number of atoms and 25% of the mass). The other 0.1% is made up of
heavier elements, mainly carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, neon, magnesium,
silicon and iron.
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/classroom/sun101.html

Nor does most
texts on
astronomy ever consider that the Sun has iron atoms.

Fact: Most texts of astronomy will tell that the composition of the sun
has some iron in small quantities since it was present in the gas and
dust cloud from which the solar system evolved.

And the number of
those
atoms of iron are concentrated in the core of the Sun.

No. You see them also in the surface. Go to the SOHO site and see
the magnetographs of the Sun in the light of iron.

And the size of
the Sun is
so enormous compared to Earth, that how much of the core of the Sun
would be
iron atoms compared to the iron atoms in the Earth core.


Now you are saying
"The sun has more iron than the earth", what is completely different to
saying:
"The sun has an iron core".

Now, the mass of the sun is 1.98892 × 10^30 kg
The mass of the earth is 5.9742 × 10^24 Kg

If 0.1% of the mass of the sun is in heavy elements (The seven elements
mentioned above) we have a mass of 1.98892 x 10 ^ 27Kg in heavy
elements. We divide by 7 assuming all heavy elements are in equal
quantities: 2.84 x 10 ^ 26 Kg of iron, i.e. 0.0142% of the mass of
the sun. This is surely not an iron CORE.

What experimental or observational evidence you have to
support your claim?

Has any researcher detected this iron core in the seismic waves that
go periodically through all the sun?

On May 1, 1:11*am, jacob navia wrote:
Le 01/05/11 05:10,ArchimedesPlutoniuma écrit :



On Apr 30, 5:07 pm, jacob *wrote:
Le 30/04/11 21:21,ArchimedesPlutoniuma écrit :

Evidence: The iron core of the Sun is huge,

Evidence:
The sun has no iron core.

The initial composition of the sun by mass was 72 percent hydrogen, 26
percent helium and 2 percent heavier elements. The fusion reaction that

Alright, Schools still do not teach students "how to think" but mostly
how to be
a parrot of the text and lecturer.

Now think for a moment as to how much iron is in the Sun if it were
0.01% of the total
Sun's composition? Would that iron be greater than the iron found in
Earth or in
Jupiter?

Would that iron be anomalous to what the Nebular Dust Cloud would
predict?

If the Nebular Dust Cloud theory was correct, then the amount of
overall iron found
in Jupiter should be far greater than any of its satellites and the
iron found in Jupiter
should be on par in overall amount to that found in the Sun. But the
iron overall amount
is far different between Sun and Jupiter.


occurs in the core has changed its chemical composition. Today there is
about 35 percent hydrogen by mass in the center of the core and 65
percent hydrogen by mass at the edge of the core


Do you honestly think those numbers have any accuracy? Do you think
those
numbers are only someone's best wild guess, with an accuracy of error
of 5% for
hydrogen, helium and all the other elements? And with that error of
5%, do you not
think it ridiculous to use Sun's composition to uphold any theory?


Before you start making theories about the universe please
read an elementary text of astronomy.


I have read plenty of them, but I never want to be a parrot to any
book.


I suppose schools never teach people how "to think". For example, the
above
thinks the Sun has no atoms of iron within the Sun.

Of course there are atoms of iron in the Sun. There is a difference
between having "some atoms of iron" and having "an iron core". But you
do not see the difference because you know how to think :-)

Granted, I probably overstated that by saying iron core. I should have
said something
to the effect of a overall-iron composition is larger than the total
mass of Earth.



The Sun is mostly made up of hydrogen (about 92.1% of the number of
atoms, 75% of the mass). Helium can also be found in the Sun (7.8% of
the number of atoms and 25% of the mass). The other 0.1% is made up of
heavier elements, mainly carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, neon, magnesium,
silicon and iron.http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/classroom/sun101.html

Nor does most
texts on
astronomy ever consider that the Sun has iron atoms.

Fact: Most texts of astronomy will tell that the composition of the sun
has some iron in small quantities since it was present in the gas and
dust cloud from which the solar system evolved.


Well, when you start with a fake theory-- Nebular Dust Cloud, you
would want to
reconcile why Jupiter satellites are so iron rich, and which would
trashcan the Nebular Dust Cloud theory.


And the number of
those
atoms of iron are concentrated in the core of the Sun.

No. You see them also in the surface. Go to the SOHO site and see
the magnetographs of the Sun in the light of iron.


For once, instead of going to thousands of sites; stop and think for
yourself, and
rely on commonsense and logic, not on what so and so says.

And the size of

the Sun is
so enormous compared to Earth, that how much of the core of the Sun
would be
iron atoms compared to the iron atoms in the Earth core.

Now you are saying
"The sun has more iron than the earth", what is completely different to
saying:
"The sun has an iron core".

Now, the mass of the sun is 1.98892 × 10^30 kg
The mass of the earth is 5.9742 × 10^24 Kg

If 0.1% of the mass of the sun is in heavy elements (The seven elements
mentioned above) we have a mass of 1.98892 x 10 ^ 27Kg in heavy
elements. We divide by 7 assuming all heavy elements are in equal
quantities: 2.84 x 10 ^ 26 Kg of iron, i.e. 0.0142% of the mass of
the sun. This is surely not an iron CORE.


Alright, I agree I misused "core concept". I should have used "overall
iron composition"

So the Nebular Dust Cloud theory fails in overall iron composition
data of the solar system bodies.
Fails because the satellites of Jupiter should not have that much iron
and that Jupiter should have
gravitationally scavenged that iron in the Dust Cloud of the proto-
Jupiter.

What experimental or observational evidence *you have to
support your claim?

Has any researcher detected this iron core in the seismic waves that
go periodically through all the sun?

There maybe a iron layer in the Sun and the Sun maybe a core of dense
heavy elements. Maybe our detection
instruments have not yet evolved to such a delicate measuring of the
Sun center.

Anyway, in overall summary, the Solar System simply does not agree of
its chemistry composition of the interiors of the bodies as per iron
with the Nebular Dust Cloud theory. Why the inner planets are so dense
of cores is contradictory to a Solar System built by a Nebular Dust
Cloud.

And it is high time for people to stop being parrots of astronomy
texts and lectures, and use their own commonsense and logic.

Now I thank the above poster for forcing me to clarify about cores
because I have used that term too loosely. I meant something more to
the effect of "overall iron composition" within the entire body. So
that concept of Overall
Iron Composition is anomalous with the Nebular Dust Cloud theory, but
not anomalous with Dirac's new-radioactivities. In Dirac's new
radioactivities, we multiply the atoms upward with age of the body. So
that Earth is twice the overall-iron-composition than Jupiter because
it is twice as old. Now I am not saying that Europa is older than
Jupiter because of overall iron composition, but that Jupiter has the
same overall-iron-composition as does
Europa, and the problem is that the astronomers have never measured or
able to accurately measure the iron within Jupiter to verify.

And the overall-iron-composition of the Sun is on par with the Earth's
overall iron composition, indicating that Earth and Sun are of the
same age-- 8 to 10 billion years old.

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

On May 1, 2:46Â*am, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
On May 1, 1:11Â*am, jacob navia wrote:

Le 01/05/11 05:10,ArchimedesPlutoniuma écrit :

On Apr 30, 5:07 pm, jacob Â*wrote:
Le 30/04/11 21:21,ArchimedesPlutoniuma écrit :

Well, now, here is something worthwhile for Jacob to look into and
investigate
in a manner of science.

To look into how astronomers "think they know" whether the Sun has a
iron core or does
not have an iron core. For Earth, this question is simply answered
because we send
and probe with radio waves into the interior of Earth.

But as for the chemical composition of the Sun and whether it has a
iron core or not, is
perhaps only someone's best wild guess as to whether the Sun has or
has not an iron core.

So Jacob, instead of reading another book or website that only
reinforces a poor and false
notion of the Sun's interior and chemical composition, why not track
down how those books
end up with their likely false conclusions of a Sun iron core.

Find out the techniques involved when an astronomer claims the Sun has
no iron core. Find out how
astronomers claim that only 0.1% of the Sun is iron or heavier
elements? Could it be also, that
the claim of 0.1% is mostly begot from Cosmic abundance and then that
general abundance is spuriously assigned to the Sun's interior
chemical element abundance?

So you see Jacob, being a scientist means more about checking into and
judging the means of testing, rather than science being that of
reading a textbook or how many websites all agree of no Sun iron core.

Use and rely more on commonsense and logic, Jacob, then relying on
what ten textbooks and websites
agree upon.

So, commonsense, Jacob, tells us that their is more iron in the Sun
than there is the entire Earth mass.
So, now, if we took all that iron in the Sun, where would it likely be
situated? Would that iron be diffuse
throughout the Sun, or would it form a core in the Sun? If a core, it
would be like a iron ball the size of
Earth at the center of the Sun. Or would it take on a hollow sphere
like iron hollow sphere?

So, being a Scientist, Jacob, means reading the texts, and even though
all agree no Sun iron core, being a true scientist means that you use
commonsense and logic rather than consensus agreement as the search
for truth.
And in this search for the truth, means then, to check into how those
consensus scientist arrived at their pitiful consensus conclusion.
Pitiful because they lacked using commonsense and logic.

So, Jacob, do not shovel people more websites and more texts, but
begin to use the most valuable science tool
possible, commonsense, logic and a desire to dive deeper into the
unknown.

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

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