|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
what is "time" in an Atom Totality and the Plutonium Atom Totalitylayer as 6.5 billion years old versus the Uranium Atom Totality layer at 20
PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY Universe theory: physics characteristics; age of the Universe is a layered nested ages of recent galaxies of the Plutonium Atom Universe approx 6.5 billion years old and the older galaxies of the Uranium Atom Universe approx 20.2 billion years old Thorium Atom Totality - Uranium Atom Totality - Plutonium Atom Totality Explains a 6.5 billion year young universe amongst an older 20.2 billion year stars How can you have a younger universe than its oldest stars? Easy in an Atom Totality. The observable universe is the space of the last 6 electrons of 231Pu which is the 5f6 space. Electrons share orbitals, with the 93rd electron spin down and the 94th electron with spin up. The 89th & 90th electrons form one age ; 91st & 92nd form a different age ; the 93rd & 94th form the newest age of the 5f6 electron mass and space. The previous Uranium Atom Totality so to speak little-big-banged 6.5 billion years ago, a alpha decay little-big-bang and accreted the space and mass of the 93rd & 94th electrons. When we look out onto the night sky we are seeing the space and mass of the last 6 electrons of 231PU, the 5f6. ----------- From: Archimedes Plutonium Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics Subject: Freedman age will converge on 6.5 bill yr; Sandage 20.2 bill yr Date: 28 Jul 1996 22:41:31 GMT On 10 Jan 1996 01:27:47 GMT In article ) "Todd K. Pedlar" ) writes: Not really - the figures which you have quoted are first of all the probabilities at N half-lives that the atom has not yet decayed. Secondly, all you've done is shown an approximation to the MAXIMUM life of an atom, not really its "full life." Technically, the maximum lifetime for a given atom would be infinite. What is the meaning of "full life", anyway? If you were to choose a single atom to observe until it decays, you might find that it "lives" 30 seconds or 30 billion years. Is its full life 30 seconds or 30 billion years? In my opinion, the most meaningful statistic for a single atom is probably the "mean life", which is simply the average lifetime of a given atom. This is equal to the half-life divided by log(2), or 0.693. There is a simple derivation of this, which can be found in any nuclear physics text, such as Introductory Nuclear Physics ... Todd It is nice to review old gem books. NUCLEAR PHYSICS W. Heisenberg 1953 pp45-46 --- quoting NUCLEAR PHYSICS W. Heisenberg 1953 pp45-46 --- The various radioactive substances show great differences in their respective speeds of transmutation. Some of these substances are very short-lived, whilst others last very long and show no noticeable lessening in radioactivity over long periods of time. Obviously, for the atoms of every radioactive substance there exists a probability, capable of being expressed numerically, of their radioactive decay. The reciprocal of this probability is the average life of the substance. The decay probability, and hence also the average life, is independent of the number of atoms already decayed. This means that the same percentage of the number of atoms still intact will decay per unit time. This law is expressed by the following equation: dN = -A N dt with the following solution for N: N = N_0 e^(-At) where N_0 is the number of the intact atoms present at the time t=0, N is their number at the time t, e is the base of natural logarithms, and A is the decay probability, and hence 1/A is the average life. Instead of the latter, the half-life period, T (that period of time during which exactly one-half of the original number of atoms decays) is frequently used. The half-life is slightly less than the average life; it differs from the latter by the factor log nat 2, the natural logarithm of 2. (If we write t = 1/A x (Log nat 2), then N = N_0 x e ^(-log nat 2) = 1/2 N_0). This law applies to both alpha and beta radiation. Thus the radioactive properties of a homogeneous substance are determined principally by two factors: the nature of the emitted particles and the average life or half-life of the substance. The gamma rays play a somewhat different part. We must point out, first of all, that in natural radioactivity gamma rays do not appear alone, but only in combination with one of the other two types of radiation. --- end quoting NUCLEAR PHYSICS W. Heisenberg 1953 pp45-46 --- All the elements after bismuth are radioactive and the longest half-life to alpha decay modes of the radioactive element isotopes after bismuth is thorium 232@90 with a half-life of 1.4 x10^10 years. The longest lived half-life for uranium is 238@92 which has a half-life of 4.5 x10^9 years. The longest lived half-life for plutonium in the mode of alpha and negative beta decay is the isotope 244@94 at 8.2 x10^7 years. Astro ages : 89th + 90th electrons Oldest group of stars (probably quasars) these are so old that their age is a measure of their red shift and one only needs check the difference in radius of thorium compared to U and Pu to correlate red shift with atom radius and age 91st + 92nd electrons Old stars as what Sandage et al are measuring as 1.4 x10^10 years/.693 = 20.2 bill yrs old. This is the age of our Sun and inner planets 93rd + 94th electrons This is our current big bang of a alpha particle space and our Jupiter and gas giants outward were started as Schroedinger seed dots and grew. This is the age Freedman et al is measuring in their big bang expansion of 4.5 x10^9 / .693 years which is equal to 6.5 billion years Recently Freedman and Sandage groups have tried to meet each other in age. This is science fraud and cheating. The old logic mindset that the universe can have one and only one age is too prevalent in those old circles. Sooner or later scientists will come to admit that the universe can have more ages because we live in an Atom Totality Universe. So you can see that Freedman et al at 8 billion years and future researchers will not go up in age but will come down in age to that of 6.5 billion years. And Sandage et al instead of their 12-15 billion and future researchers will go up in age to 20.2 bill for the oldest in the sky. But really the most oldest for there are the quasars which are the oldest, the 89th and 90th electrons space and age in the 5f6. ---- In 3AUG96 what is the "Age of the Universe Controversy". Above I have used the best age of the alpha decay modes of Thorium and Uranium. There is no problem of thorium with 20.2 billion years matching the oldest stars and that is exactly where Sandage was going. Going for the 20 billion year mark for the oldest stars. However there is a problem with Uranium in that its alpha decay mode is 4.5 bill years half-life which gives a mean life age for Uranium at 6.5 billion years. Freedman and teams have reported an age as low as 8 billion years. That suggests either the 4.5 bill yrs given to uranium half-life is in need of refinement, which I highly doubt. On the other hand the Freedman measurements of 8 billion years are due to come down lower in figure, from that of 8 billion years to closer to 6.5 billion years. This coming down is highly likely and as we come more sophisticated in making the Hubble expansion age measurements, we will come closer to the 6.5 billion year age. This no doubt is going to be the longest chapter in this book. But then again, the concept of Time is very important. And time in the Atom Totality is different from time in the Big Bang. In the Atom Totality theory, time is not a 4th dimension as it is in the Big Bang which gets its cues from General Relativity which is a fake theory of physics. Time in that Atom Totality is the arrangement of all the atoms and the subsequent rearrangement of all the atoms. So if all the atoms in the Cosmos became stationary, then time ceases to exist. And thus, in the Atom Totality there is no "time travel". For in order to time travel, you have to get every atom in the cosmos into a arrangement that existed in the past and it is impossible to make such a rearrangement. And another feature I need to discuss in elaboration is the idea that because the Universe is one big atom of a radioactive element of 231Plutonium strengthens the theory, not dimishing the theory. Most novices when they first hear of the Atom Totality theory think that 231Pu will radioactive decay away. But because the Universe is this highly radioactive element gives rise to the feature of "time in the Cosmos" since the decay is strong and steady gives rise to a undercurrent of time flow in the cosmos. We see this by the steady flow of Cosmic rays and gamma ray bursts. If the Atom Totality were a stable element such as iron or neon or helium then the Cosmos would be very boring and almost at a standstill. But because we live in a 231Pu Atom Totality we live in a dynamic and rapidly changing Cosmos because this element gives rise to a fast and fluid and changing parameter of time. So I need to discuss in length and detail the feature of "time" in an Atom Totality. --- end quoting what I wrote in the 2nd edition of this book --- Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
basics-- what is "time" in an Atom Totality and the Plutonium AtomTotality layer as 6.5 billion years old versus the Uranium Atom Totality | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 2 | June 16th 09 09:16 PM |
MECO theory reinforced by Atom Totality theory #48 ;3rd edition book:ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 2 | May 21st 09 07:51 PM |
Quasars as Gamma Ray Bursts near the Nucleus of Atom Totality and whythe Cosmos is "not dead cold" and quasars as gamma-ray bursts of Atom | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 1 | May 13th 09 06:16 PM |
Tifft quantized galaxy speeds #22 ;3rd edition book: ATOM TOTALITY(Atom Universe) THEORY | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 1 | May 9th 09 11:01 PM |
#1 new book; ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY REPLACES BIG BANGTHEORY IN PHYSICS | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 13 | May 1st 09 06:25 AM |