Chapt23 CellWell1 and CellWell2 of Solar System #1614 ATOM TOTALITY5th ed

Chapt23 CellWell1 and CellWell2 of Solar System #1614 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

CellWell theory

What is CellWell1 and CellWell2? Sun and inner planets comprise CellWell1 and Jupiter and gas giants comprise CellWell2.

The Nebular Dust Cloud theory has contradictions and so the CellWell theory arises to address those contradictions.
Let me discuss plainly about CellWell theory for a few minutes. 
I am not as sure of CellWell theory as I am of Dirac's 
new-radioactivities. And being sure of Dirac's new-radioactivities 
means that the Nebular Dust Cloud origin of our Solar System 
is a fake theory.
And as you can surmise, whether the CellWell theory is true or 
false is not directly tied to Dirac new-radioactivities. 
It could end up that all the planets and their moons and the Sun are 
all the same age and that the Solar System is not compartmentalized 
into two cells of different evolving ages.
So it may turn out that Dirac's new-radioactivities is true 
with Nebular Dust Cloud theory as false and with CellWell 
theory as false.
I proposed the CellWell theory in the mid 1990s because I could 
sense a large scale texture difference between the inner planets 
and Sun and the outer gas giants. I saw this difference mostly 
in the cores, that the Nebular Dust Cloud theory would have a 
horrible time of trying to explain why dense cores for the first 3 or 
4 planets and lightweight densities thereafter, although 
Io, a moon of Jupiter is relatively dense core. Io and other gas giant satellites may have been a asteroid seed which thence grew from Dirac New Radioactivities.
So the Atom Totality theory with its Dirac new-radioactivities is 
not dependent on CellWell theory. CellWell theory is an "iffy" 
theory which maybe true or false. But if CellWell theory is true 
it provides a means of expediting the truth of the Dirac new- 
radioactivities along with the Atom Totality theory. The truth 
of the CellWell theory, if it turns out to be true would mean that 
someone found evidence that the age of the Sun and Earth and 
inner planets are twice as old as the outer gas giants and that would 
rock the boat on the Nebular Dust Cloud theory as well as the Big Bang 
theory and speed up everyone to the conclusion that the Big Bang and 
Nebular Dust Cloud are fake 
theories.
So do I have any new evidence since the mid 1990s when I first 
proposed the CellWell theory? Well, yes I do seem to have new 
evidence that bolsters the CellWell theory. I speak of the exoplanets 
discovery from about the late 1990s to present time. 
The data and information coming in on those exoplanets seems to convey 
a picture that the evolution of Solar Systems is one tending towards 
twin stars or companion stars or binaries where a large gas giant planet orbits in 
close to a solo star and turns into a twin star. And all the planets 
in between the star and the evolving new companion star are either 
swallowed up or pushed 
out beyond the two large bodies. So in a brief summary, the 
exoplanet data portrays a far different evolution of a solar system 
than what we think of as a Nebular Dust Cloud scenario 
of a evolution.
And I forgotten the statistics of stars, whether the majority are 
twin stars and the minority are solo stars like our Sun. I suspect 
the majority of sighted stars are in a combination and not solo.
And one of the data information crucial to this sort of study of 
whether our Solar System has two ages involved is the data on 
the cores of these bodies and only recently have we been able 
to give some reliable data as to the core density and the core 
size. It is hard in science to argue a position when the data is 
mostly unclear and doubtful. Only recently have we sent up 
spacecraft that actually measures these data.
Now I suspect that no-one in astronomy or physics has done a 
analysis of whether the Nebular Dust Cloud theory can arrive 
at a situation that we presently are in, with the data of our Solar 
System. I doubt that the Nebular Dust Cloud (NDC) theory can produce 
the 4 inner planets with those dense cores. I doubt that a NDC can 
produce hydrogen and helium gas giants such as Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus 
and in between them and the Sun 
produce the dense inner planets.. Recently on TV was a report 
of plastics floating around in the oceans and drifting to far flung 
oceans. That offers a good analogy to the NDC theory that in 
the opening scene of such a theory, that why would the lightest 
elements of hydrogen and helium stay around where the Sun 
is going to form and then stay around where Jupiter, Saturn 
and Uranus forms but mostly absent elsewhere?
The trouble with the Nebular Dust Cloud theory of science was 
that it never had any rival competition. But with Dirac's new- 
radioactivities the NDC is now under close scrutiny and it is 
failing many tests.
One of those tests is the concentration of water. Why is Earth 
having too much water and yet Jupiter could have a huge supply of 
water but it does not? So Dirac's new-radioactivities 
can better explain the why and where water is in our solar system.
But the obvious test of the NDC is this iron metal cores of 
planets and moons. So the data and facts contradict the 
Nebular Dust Cloud theory on this specific issue. The core 
of the Sun does not agree with the cores of the first four 
planets, if our Solar System were created from a Nebular 
Dust Cloud. And to make things worse is that the cores 
of the gas giants contradicts the cores of the inner planets.
About the only data agreement is that the cores of the moons of 
Jupiter follow a pattern that is very much similar to the pattern 
of the first four planets beyond the Sun. In other words, Io is a 
miniature Mercury, Europa a miniature Earth, Ganymede a miniature 
Venus and Callisto a miniature Mars with respect to 
their core density and composition.
So we see in the evolution of our Solar System that the cores 
of the first four planets beyond the Sun follows a similar pattern 
as the four big moon cores of Jupiter. So whatever the driving 
mechanism of Solar System evolution is, that mechanism has to 
explain those cores, and the Nebular Dust Cloud theory cannot explain 
that situation. Dirac's new radioactivities would explain that similar 
pattern in the idea that whereever there is dense matter, 
multiplicative creation increases the density. So the 
new-radioactivities of Dirac would change a nitrogen atom 
into a oxygen atom by the addition of a proton and electron 
to a specific nitrogen atom, but in the Sun or Jupiter the new- 
radioactivites would simply create a singular hydrogen atom. 
This would also explain why so much heavy metals are found 
in the inner planets even our Moon and why heavy elements 
are much more scarce in the Sun and gas giants.
A side note about water: Dirac's new radioactivities 
as a multiplicative creation process and especially where dense 
matter already exists would have a greater chance of making 
water H2O than in the Sun or a gas giant. Say you had a carbon atom or 
a nitrogen atom on Earth and the Dirac new 
radioactivities zapped the carbon atom with two protons or the 
nitrogen atom with one proton converting each to a oxygen 
atom and thence binding with hydrogen to form water. So the 
Dirac new-radioactivities would explain why the abundance and 
scarcity of elements were patterned on the inner planets versus 
the Sun and outer planets, something the Nebular Dust Cloud theory 
would be incapable.

Now on this issue of twin stars or binary stars, where the data is mostly opinion and not really
dependable. For a very long time it was considered that most stars
were
in a multiple star system and that solo stars were the minority.
But recently, according to this report:
--- quoting --- 
Release No.: 2006-11 
For Release: Monday, January 30, 2006
Most Milky Way Stars Are Single
Cambridge, MA - Common wisdom among astronomers holds that most star 
systems in the Milky Way are multiple, consisting of two or more stars 
in orbit around each other. Common wisdom is wrong. A new study by 
Charles Lada of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) 
demonstrates that most star systems are made up of single stars. Since 
planets probably are easier to form around single stars, planets also 
may be more common than previously suspected.
--- end quoting ---
And where the conclusion of that report is that 1/3 of the Milky Way 
stars are multiple and 2/3 are solo stars.
So it is data like this that you just cannot use to tell whether one 
theory is true and another is false, because the data is based on too 
many assumptions. A great fault of astronomy as a science is that most every conclusion in astronomy is based upon a large list of assumptions, for which if a single one of those assumptions is not true, that all the conclusions can be false. Now it is not so much the fault of the astronomers, for they would like to find out the truth, but fault is in the science itself, that the objects of observation are so very far away that we try to render a true picture by using assumptions in our research. If we were able to travel to these distant objects and check them out, we would not need those vast quantities of assumptions.

--

More than 90 percent of AP's posts are missing in the Google 
newsgroups author search archive from May 2012 to May 2013. Drexel 
University's Math Forum has done a far better job and many of those 
missing Google posts can be seen he

http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986

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

Chapt23 CellWell1 and CellWell2 of Solar System #1615 ATOM TOTALITY
5th ed

Now the below was written in March of 2011 and we are now in June 2013, and some of the ideas have changed, because of EM gravity cells.

Subject: CellWell1 & 2; how water gets concentrated on astro bodies

I probably should have talked some more about the 
inclination of planets to the Sun's ecliptic plane. Noting that 
Mercury is the second highest deviation 
and Venus the third highest deviation after Pluto's 
17 degrees and Mercury's 7 degrees. The mechanism for the deviation of 
Mercury and Venus 
would be the constant barrage of solar particle pressure such as 
photons and the Solar Wind on 
Mercury and Venus. In other words, they would not 
have that large deviation of the ecliptic plane if not 
for the solar particle emission pressure. In the case of Pluto and the 
objects beyond such as Eris, they are too far away from the Sun and 
their tilt from the plane of ecliptic requires perhaps billions of 
years 
to align Pluto and Eris.
The understanding of Earth geology and Moon geology is best 
understood with Earth being about 7.5 billion years old as per my 
CellWell1 and CellWell2 and Sun 10 billion years old rather 
than the Hartmann model of Earth Moon collision 
of approximately the same time of collision as 
the creation of Earth from planetesimals of the 
Nebular Dust Cloud theory, as too close together 
and as too catastrophic.That it was a 
collision of a smaller scale with a third object. 
It is difficult to see the physics of the Hartmann 
model as a splintered Moon surviving. Actually, I 
do not know which is the less plausible, the 
event of occurrence so close to the creation of 
Earth and Moon as per Nebular Dust Cloud theory 
although NDC is false to my theory. Or the collision 
itself? To me both are implausible.
In CellWell theory much must be said about the 
water and where it is found and how much in our 
Solar System.
Water on Earth and salt on Earth is anomalous, except when we analyze 
the water content of CellWell2 of the outer planets of Jupiter and 
beyond, where there is plenty of water on Europa and the 
Rings of Saturn are ice. And ice seems abundant 
in the comets and essentially the bodies from 
Jupiter and beyond.
So what can explain why water appears overabundant on Earth and then 
somewhat abundant from Jupiter and beyond?
The explanation is that Earth has a huge magnetosphere that protects 
its water supply that it 
does not get pushed out into outer space by the 
Sun's particle emission pressure.
So why does Earth have so much? Well with its 
magnetosphere it saves and protects the water it 
had and then it also captured as in-falling water from the water that 
Mercury Venus, and perhaps Mars 
and our Moon once had water. And captured the 
periodic water of comets traversing. So what water 
Mercury, Venus, Moon, perhaps Mars had in the past, it was shuttled 
out to Earth from the Solar 
emission pressure and eventually fell into Earth.
In the Hartmann model of a Earth Moon collision some 4.4 billion years 
ago, would it not make better sense of the data and facts at present 
now if we consider that the Earth was 7.5 billion years old and that 
the collision that occurred 4.4 billion years 
ago was not the Earth with Moon but the Earth with a satellite of the 
Moon.. So there 
were 3 astro bodies involved in that collision. I say this because the 
physics of a 
Earth Moon collision would not give us what we currently see as the 
Earth Moon. 
Such a collision would have been so violent that the Moon should not 
exist and the 
Earth tilt on axis and spin suggest a collision with a object the size 
of a object the 
fraction of the size of the ancient Moon. So, physics, points to the 
likely Earth Moon 
collision of a system that involved 3 objects-- Earth, Moon, and some 
third object 
wherein this third object caused the Earth tilt and spin and was 
incorporated into 
Earth. And Earth capturing the Moon in its orbit. The Hartmann Model 
is too unlikely 
whereas the 3rd object in the Collision is more likely given our 
present day Earth Moon circumstances. 
In one of these editions I need to calculate some 
details of a three body collision where the Moon was 
not involved but rather its satellite, and provide some scope.
Someday, scientists here on Earth will find a experiment that dates 
Earth and which 
those dates imply not a 4.5 billion year old Earth but rather a 7.5 
billion year old Earth. 
Experiments such as those conducted in Australia for decades now on 
zirconium 
crystals which peg the crust as 4.4 billion years old. What if 
zirconium crystals can 
date back to 10 billion years old? What if zircon was found in the 
mantle or zircon 
found in meteorites which gives a date of 10 billion years old? I do 
not know where it 
will come from, whether from zircon research, but whereever it comes 
from will be 
immediately dismissed by nearly all scientists having grown up with 
4.5 billion years. 
And this new data will be fiercely suppressed, but eventually it will 
be accepted as 
the truth. That Earth is really 7.5 billion years old and that the age 
of the Sun is about 10 billion years old and is about double the age 
of the Outer Gas Giant Planets.
So that the contentious and fierce debates over the age of the 
Cosmos versus age of the oldest stars will become settled not from any 
star measurements but closer to home, from the layered ages of 
the Sun and Inner Planets compared to the Outer Planets. If our Solar 
System has a layered age structure, then obviously, the Cosmos is 
a layered age structure.
Now as for why Earth has so much water, there is a Comet theory that 
comets brought 
us all this water. Trouble with that theory is that the composition of 
comet water is high 
in heavy (deuterium) water whereas the ocean water is not high in 
heavy-water. This fact is in support of Dirac 
new-radioactivities with its multiplicative-creation 
in that newly created matter occurs where existing 
matter is presently situated. So when a light water 
is abundant then a cosmic ray will increase molecules of light water 
into becoming heavy water.
So here is a possible supporting evidence that the 
age of comets must be older than the age of Earth 
with its light water. But also, it maybe the case that 
Earth has too much light water versus Comets because much of Earth's 
water was garnered from 
Mercury, Venus, and Mars which were also light 
water. In other words, the lighter water would drift to Earth and be 
captured by Earth far more readily than the heavy water which would 
eventually leave our Solar System and get captured in the Comet 
domain.
Call it a Solar System Water cycle with the Solar Winds as the main 
dynamic of moving the water to some special astro body. This dynamic 
also explains why Earth has overabundant salt. That in the breaking up 
and smashing of bodies of our ancient solar system from 10 billion to 
5 billion years ago, that Earth was showered by water and salt from 
other bodies.
Comets older than Earth?
Since the water in comets is much more concentrated in heavy-water, is 
a case in point 
of the Dirac new-radioactivities with multiplicative-creation. As time 
goes by from 10 billion years 
to present, where water was concentrated, it is 
made more heavy water in proportion to light-water.
So one argument is that the Comets were here 
some 10 billion years ago as well as our Sun was 
borne 10 billion years ago and kept growing due 
to Dirac's new-radioactivities and thus the water 
became more deuterium-water relative to the youngster planets of Earth 
and their moons. But here I believe the Comets are of the 
same age as Jupiter and the outer-planets of only 5 billion years old.
There is a lot to be worked out with a CellWell theory, but the 
instant 
that someone finds a 7 billion year age or a 10 billion year age of 
some 
zircon, is the moment that all of astronomy and cosmology is changed 
for the better.

--

More than 90 percent of AP's posts are missing in the Google 
newsgroups author search archive from May 2012 to May 2013. Drexel 
University's Math Forum has done a far better job and many of those 
missing Google posts can be seen he

http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986

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

Much of the below was written March 2011
Chapter 23 zircon crystals: Solar System evidence such as CellWell1 
and CellWell2
Subject: zircon crystals measuring the Earth at 7.5- 8 billion years
I am looking into zircon crystals for I am reading that they can 
accurately date back to 10 billion years age, something to do with 
hafnium atoms ratio. So if some researcher finds zircon crystals in 
meteorites or possibly the Hawaiian basalts 
or from some mantle rocks that have surfaced. So if a zircon crystal 
can be found which dates back not just 4.6 billion years but 
approaching 10 billion years, well, we have a brand new day in 
astronomy and geology and physics.
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 09:48:44 -0700
The point of this post is a question to the custodians of the zircon 
crystal that dates Earth to 4.4 billion years old crust.
http://www.news.wisc.edu/newsphotos/zircon.html
The question is whether the dating is a one-time experiment and 
whether the dating can be many times repeated? Can we repeat 
experiment and verify the 4.4 billion year age. Or do we ruin the 
crystal after one run of dating?
I am hoping that these zircon crystals can be repeat-dated and that we 
do not ruin the crystal after dating it. So can someone provide the 
answer?
And a second question. Where in the inner planets would one easily 
find zircon crystals laying about? Would Mars have zircon crystals? 
Would the asteroids such as Vesta and 
meteorites have zircon crystals? So where in the inner planets are 
zircon crystals to be found and where in the outer planets 
would we likely find zircon crystals?
Do the comets have zircon crystals?
It is funny that we may best prove the Big Bang is false here in our 
own backyard of the Cosmos by finding that the Earth is 7.5 billion 
years old and Jupiter is only 5 billion years old.
Also, I suspect some scientist has already found a zircon that is much 
older than 5 billion years. They may have found one that reads 8 
billion years old but were so shocked at this finding that they 
figured it must have been wrong and never did anything about it. So I 
would not be surprized they tucked it away 
in some cabinet feeling it was a flubbed experiment. I hope they are 
reading this post and retrieving their anomaly.
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 08:29:10 -0700

David Bernier wrote:
I think they could be repeat-dated at least once or twice. Â*According to:
http://www.geology.wisc.edu/%7Evalle...2001Nature.pdf,
Wilde, Valley, Peck & Graham:
``Evidence from detrital zircons for the existence of continental
Â* Â* crust and oceans on the Earth 4.4 Gyr ago", Letters to Nature,
Â* Â* Nature, v. 409, 11 Jan. 2001,
analyses of isotope ratios were done in two sessions.
After the first session, approximately 20 micrometers
were ground off the surface of the zircon. Â*In each measurement
session, about eight tiny pits were made in the surface of the
zircon. Â*Their zircon measured about 220 by 160
micrometers. Â*It seems sensible to me that another
20 microns could be ground off so as to obtain a third
dataset of isotope ratios.

Thanks for the answer. I was hoping that verification of a date would
not be a once or twice session. Perhaps there is a consolation, in
that a rock which has a zircon crystal has thousands of zircon
crystals of the same age-reckoning.
So that if we find a Vesta-meteorite and a zircon thereof measuring 8 
to 10 billion years old, that there are thousands of those zircon 
crystals of that age-reckoning.
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 08:57:28 -0700
I made a Google search with these key words: 
zircon anomaly solar system age
What I am looking for is whether any zircon research came up with a 
age that was far beyond the usual of 4 to 5 billion years of age? And 
where the researchers would then exclaim "oops, a big mistake and toss 
their work away". Of course such a finding would not have been 
published. But what may be published is where alot of researchers get 
zircons which 
seem to date greater than the expected 4.4 or 4.5 or 4.6 billion years 
but consistently date say 5.1 or 5.2 or 5.3 billion years. So that the 
researchers would not have thrown away those "higher aged zircons" but 
not have published.
I guess what I really need is whether a symposium of this field of 
experts on zircons ever took place where the talk focused on whether 
anyone ran across higher aged zircons stretching anywhere from 5 to 10 
billion years age. 
I don't imagine this field of experts as a large crowd and so if any 
"high age" was found that the experts could easily recount or 
reassemble those incidents.
This below is the best I could find on anomalies:
--- begin quoting in parts this website --- 
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=3Dcac...p.anu.edu.au/p...
The oldest zircons in the solar system 
T.R. Ireland a and F. Wlotzka b 
Research School of Earth Sciences, The Australian National University, 
Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia 
b Abteilung Kosmochemie, Mco:-Planck-lnstitut fiir Chemie, D-6500 
Mainz, Germany 
Received September 27, 1991; revision accepted December 19, 1991 
ABSTRACT 
Here we report the occurrence, chemistry, and U-Th-Pb isotopic 
systematics of three meteoritic zircon assemblages, two
(snipped)
Pb concentration. The mean of the two analyses made on VM-2 zircon is 
concordant with 
a 
2=B07pb/2=B06pb age of 4563 _+ 15 
Ma (2r). The Simmern zircon has an exceptionally low U concentration 
of around 180 ppb and only a poorly constrained 
2=B07pb/2=B06Pb age of 4100 _+ 700 Ma could be obtained. 
1. Introduction 
Zircons have found widespread application in 
geochronology because of their often high con- 
centrations of U and Th and low inherent con- 
centrations of Pb, and their high resistance to 
chronological resetting in geological processes. 
However, while zircons are common constituents 
of a wide range of terrestrial rocks, meteoritic 
zircons are quite rare. The main reason for their 
lack is related to the unsuitable bulk composi- 
tions of the majority of meteorite types; the chon- 
dritic abundance of Zr is less than 4 ppm [1]. 
However, differentiated meteorites, and in partic- 
ular eucrites, can have much higher Zr concen- 
trations (up to 70 ppm in eucrites, e.g. [2,3]) and 
therefore the possibility of finding zircon is much 
greater. Indeed it is from meteorites of the eu- 
crite-howardite-diogenite-mesosiderite associa- 
tion, that the majority of zircons have been re- 
ported.
--- end quoting the website listed above ---
That is bad news that meteorites have few zircons 
but hopefully if a meteorite is found to have a zircon 
aged 10 billion years old that it has perhaps 100 such 
zircons of that same age.
Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 20:19:40 -0700
I did a Google search for zircon crystal Hawaii mantle and received 
these hits:
Multi-Stage Modification of the Northern Slave Mantle Lithosphere ... 
Zircon crystals isolated from Jericho eclogites generally have low 
uranium ...... high-MgO Group A (e.g. eclogite xenoliths from Salt 
Lake crater, Hawaii; ... 
petrology.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/47/4/821 - Similar pages
Multi-Stage Modification of the Northern Slave Mantle Lithosphere ... 
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat 
10 zircon crystals. The longest zircon crystal in this photo is 2 mm 
in length. ...... eclogite xenoliths from Salt Lake crater, Hawaii; 
Green, 1966) and ... 
petrology.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/egi097v1.pdf - Similar pages
[ More results from petrology.oxfordjournals.org ] 
PSRD:: SaU169 Lunar Meteorite 
Lead-lead ages of 12 zircon crystals from the impact melt portion .... 
A. (2000) Major lunar crustal terranes: Surface expressions and crust- 
mantle origins. ... 
www.psrd.hawaii.edu/Oct04/SaU169.html - 38k - Cached - Similar pages -
Rates and Timescales of Magmatic Processes II - Volcanology ... 
U-series Isotopic Evidence for Remelting of Kilauea Volcano's Mantle 
Source .... Moreover, two zircon crystals from the youngest granite 
overlap in age ... 
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm04/fm0...fm04_V52B.html - 30k - Cached 
- Similar pages -
Lithos : The granite-upper mantle connection in terrestrial ... 
This conclusion is currently questioned, as the zircon crystals 
collected in ..... glass collected in the Alae lava lake of Hawaii 
(Wright and Peck, 1978). ... 
linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0024493704002865 - Similar pages
Helium isotopic evidence for episodic mantle melting and crustal ... 
The main zircon age peaks are at 1.2, 1.9, 2.7 and 3.3 Gyr (Fig. 2). 
As the continental crust was extracted from the mantle by partial 
melting3, ... 
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture05691.html - 
Similar pages -
Mantle Samples Included in Volcanic Rocks: Xenoliths and Diamonds 
Crystals typically 0.2 mm with equant or tabular shapes, irregular 
grain boundaries, .... phlogopite and ilmenite most common, zircon and 
olivine rarer. ... 
adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003TrGeo...2..171P - Similar pages -
A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE ERUPTION STYLE AND PRODUCTS OF KILAUEA ... 
Hotspots are the expression of thermal plumes in the mantle which 
may .... with minor constituents of biotite, quartz, zircon, apatite 
and magnetite. ... 
http://www.es.ucl.ac.uk/research/pla...lan/eruption/p... 
- 21k - Cached - Similar pages -
Pacific Museum of the Earth -- Exhibits 
Mantle Plumes: Here a lava lamp serves as a model for how giant bodies 
of hot .... (There is a zircon crystal in Wisconsin which is 4.4 
billion years old, ... 
www.eos.ubc.ca/resources/museum/exhibits.html - 22k - Cached - Similar 
pages -
What I am thinking is that the best way to prove the Sun is about 2X 
older than the Outer planets is via zircon crystals and from my 
understanding that Hawaii has the best batches of zircon crystals from 
the mantle of Earth. So I am guessing that this is perhaps the best 
place to find a zircon that is 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 billion years 
old. But perhaps some other geological location on the globe my offer 
some very old zircon crystals such as 
Australia.
But it struck me as to what if we do find a zircon crystal which dates 
to say 10 billion years old, and how are we going to find a zircon 
crystal in any of the Outer Planets to compare? So we 
are in a jam here. So we find a zircon that dates Earth to 10 billion 
years old and never able to find a zircon on the Outer Planets. This 
is where we compare cores and the relative abundance of radioactive 
elements from Earth compared to the Outer Planets.
It is the finding of a zircon crystal from Earth's mantle that is 7.5 
billion years old that proves the Earth is much older than the usual 
cited age of 4.6 to 5 billion years. Once we prove Earth is 
much older then we use the "core data" and "abundance of radioactive 
elements data" to prove that Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune are 1/2 
as old as the Sun.
At least that is what my plan of logic scheme of things to work out.
--

More than 90 percent of AP's posts are missing in the Google 
newsgroups author search archive from May 2012 to May 2013. Drexel 
University's Math Forum has done a far better job and many of those 
missing Google posts can be seen he

http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986

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

Chapt23 CellWell1 and CellWell2 of Solar System #1617 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

I suspect the new tool of gamma ray spectroscopy can determine the age of Sun, inner planets of CellWell1 versus the outer planets. So far this gamma ray spectroscopy has measured the density of actinides in the Sun, Moon, and Mars, and Venus. But perhaps given some decades we will measure Jupiter and the gas giants for density of actinides.

Such a tool would be a perfect fit for ages based on Dirac New Radioactivities.

Now we do have some asteroid material that we can do a gamma ray spectroscopy upon. Now unlike the age determined by decay products, in Dirac New Radioactivities, the more we have uranium, the older it is. So if we find a lot of uranium in the Moon, Venus, Mars, asteroids, and Sun, it is not because of a Nebular Dust Cloud gave the Sun and inner planets that uranium, but rather, they grew from lower atomic numbered elements.

So to get a gamma ray spectroscope to the gas giants and their satellites should take top priority for NASA space missions.

In fact, I have the hunch that gamma ray spectroscopy will turn out to be our supreme method of Age determination of astro bodies. It just so happens we are getting started with this new method, but I hope I need not wait too long before a report tells us the Sun and inner planets are near to 10 billion years old.

--

More than 90 percent of AP's posts are missing in the Google 
newsgroups author search archive from May 2012 to May 2013. Drexel 
University's Math Forum has done a far better job and many of those 
missing Google posts can be seen he

http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986

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