|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
(use in 4th) Earth about 10 billion yrs old? Age of solar systemneeds a fresh look
Sam Wormley wrote: Age of solar system needs a fresh look http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gene...s_a_fresh_look Honed measurements show age overshot by amount significant to earliest stage of formation. Keep up the good work Sam, for that caught my eye. Took a look at that report and it makes only a difference of 1 million years. But it set me to thinking about why I cannot find a zircon crystal or uranium that gives an age of Earth as 10 billion years old? Not only the assumption of constant amount of uranium in certain meteorites. But what if the age reckoning had a undue hidden assumption? Dirac new radioactivities is the growth of the Solar System from dot- seeds and where uranium comes into existence by the conglomeration of cosmic rays and cosmic gamma ray bursts. So that if we started not with the assumption of a Nebular Dust Cloud theory but rather with the assumption that the Solar System began 10 billion years ago and through that time period grew, like crystals the elements on Earth. So would it take 10 billion years of Dirac Radioactivities to create atoms of uranium in meteorites that we would then go to measure and mistakenly believe those meteorites are only 4.6 billion years old when in fact it required 10 billion years to create that uranium-lead complex of crystals? So maybe, not just one bad assumption of the constancy of uranium but a walloping huge bad assumption that these uranium atoms existed from a Nebular Dust Cloud origin. When in fact, due to Dirac new radioactivities, these uranium atoms are 10 billion years old? So could that be true? Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
best way to trashcan Nebular-dust-cloud is **neighborhood star ages**
Archimedes Plutonium wrote: Sam Wormley wrote: Age of solar system needs a fresh look http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gene...s_a_fresh_look Honed measurements show age overshot by amount significant to earliest stage of formation. Keep up the good work Sam, for that caught my eye. Took a look at that report and it makes only a difference of 1 million years. But it set me to thinking about why I cannot find a zircon crystal or uranium that gives an age of Earth as 10 billion years old? Not only the assumption of constant amount of uranium in certain meteorites. But what if the age reckoning had a undue hidden assumption? Dirac new radioactivities is the growth of the Solar System from dot- seeds and where uranium comes into existence by the conglomeration of cosmic rays and cosmic gamma ray bursts. So that if we started not with the assumption of a Nebular Dust Cloud theory but rather with the assumption that the Solar System began 10 billion years ago and through that time period grew, like crystals the elements on Earth. So would it take 10 billion years of Dirac Radioactivities to create atoms of uranium in meteorites that we would then go to measure and mistakenly believe those meteorites are only 4.6 billion years old when in fact it required 10 billion years to create that uranium-lead complex of crystals? So maybe, not just one bad assumption of the constancy of uranium but a walloping huge bad assumption that these uranium atoms existed from a Nebular Dust Cloud origin. When in fact, due to Dirac new radioactivities, these uranium atoms are 10 billion years old? So could that be true? In the 3rd edition I was calling for a relook at all the zircon and other aged crystals for a lone crystal that was 10 billion years old. But up along comes Sam with a news-flash about a bogus-assumption in radioactive-dating. So, then what followed was that "Why not all of radioactive dating as false assumption" If Dirac is correct, and Dirac was the preminent giant of physics of the 20th century, far ahead of any rivals such as the midget Einstein. Well, Dirac proposed New Radioactivities to logically fill in the Large Numbers of Cosmos. You see, Einstein never had the scientific logic that Dirac had. Only Dirac could have done a Relativistic Schrodinger Equation of the 20th century because only Dirac had that superb physics-math-logic. And the giant of physics of the 20th century was Dirac and all the others were students to Dirac. So if the Cosmos is governed of the creation of matter and new planets and stars by Dirac New Radioactivities. Well, kiddoes and kiddies, we cannot use radioactivity for any kind of reliable age parameter. The creation of the uranium and lead and zircon crystals was created by Dirac New Radioactivities. So if the planet Jupiter in the far distant future starts to shine like a star and be a companion star to the Sun, are we still going to say that Jupiter in that distant future is only several million years old? No. For Jupiter was in existence for at least 4.6 billion years before it started to become a star. AGE reckoning by NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS: Here is a new way of age reckoning of stars: We measure the age of a neighborhood of stars. Alpha Centauri A which is 6 billion years old Alpha Centauri B which is 6 billion years old Alpha Centauri C which is far older than 6 billion years old and can remain in its current stated to 4 trillion years old Barnard's Star 10 billion years old Lalande 21185 Star 10 billion years old Sirius A Sirius B binary stars of different ages What the above shows the science of astronomy how silly it is for anyone to believe and accept a Nebular Dust Cloud theory for the origins of stars. The 99.9% of star origins are by Dirac New Radioactivities. The Nebular Dust Cloud people expect everyone else to believe that a Nebular Dust Cloud that would form our Solar System danced and waltzed and threaded through the above star systems to make its cozy home in the Solar System and then proceed to coalesce out into our Sun and its planets. Does anyone expect Nebular Dust Clouds to have the flexibility of making a Solar System that is 4.5 billion years old and surrounding it to have stars systems of 10 billion years old. Honestly, the most ardent Nebular Dust Cloud believer, how does he manage to get of that silly predicament he is in? Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
new test for the Nebular Dust Cloud theory of star formation
Archimedes Plutonium wrote: Archimedes Plutonium wrote: Sam Wormley wrote: Age of solar system needs a fresh look http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gene...s_a_fresh_look Honed measurements show age overshot by amount significant to earliest stage of formation. Obviously the Nebular Dust Cloud theory needs a fresh look and a whole new methodology of testing. Show me any group of stars in a region of the cosmos that all bear nearly identical ages, in order for the Nebular Dust Cloud theory to pass a "commonsense test". If the neighborhood of most stars are not of similar ages, indicates the Nebular Dust Cloud theory is a fake theory. For certainly the Sun is not surrounded by similar-aged stars and that the fact that several of Sun's neighboring stars are 10 billion years old indicates that the age of the Sun and Earth is probably 10 billion years due to the true mechanism of the birth and growth of stars and solar-systems as that of Dirac new radioactivities such as the accumulation of cosmic rays and gamma ray bursts. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Nebular Dust Cloud where all the stars are "blue stars"; (use in 4th)
Now I am not saying that Nebular Dust Clouds never form stars. I am
saying that 99% of the creation of stars and planets are formed by Dirac new radioactivities. Our own Solar System was formed by Dirac new radioactivities. There is a picture of a Nebular Dust Cloud which I had seen many years back in which it showed about 6 blue shining stars all about the same size and same luminosity. I do not recall much else. (Perhaps it was the Horsehead Nebula??). So I am enforcing or applying a commonsense criteria for the Nebular Dust Cloud theory. A criteria that other scientists and astronomers of the past century should have voiced, or should have thought of before me. It is odd to me that astronomers for about a century of collecting data on stars never asked how the Nebular Dust Cloud theory could ever hold up when the neighborhood of star's ages always seem to drastically vary. That if the Nebular Dust Cloud theory has any credence, it would say that stars in a neighborhood should be typically of the same age. This is commonsense. But if you look at most every star in the Milky Way Galaxy and then inspect the neighbors of that star, we usually find that the neighborhood has vastly differing ages of stars in close proximity. And if we inspect binary stars, we usually find that they are of different ages. So, immediately we see that the Nebular Dust Cloud theory fails even a commonsense test. The fact that our Sun is surrounded by 10 billion year old stars in its immediate neighborhood, tells us by commonsense, that the Sun is likely to be 10 billion years old and not the formerly thought age of 4.5 billion years old. So the idea that there was a bogus assumption of radioactive decay dating of uranium that adds on a mere 1 million years, that rather instead, we throw out all radioactive dating to determine the age of the Solar System. Throw it all out because our Solar System came into being via radioactivities of Dirac's outline. 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 |
deuterium in Comets as proof of a 10 billion year old Earth? #183Atom Totality Theory | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 3 | November 26th 09 07:20 AM |
Scientists' Good News: Earth May Survive Sun's Demise in 5 Billion Years? | Jan Panteltje | Astronomy Misc | 0 | September 13th 07 11:18 AM |
Earth is more than 10 billion years old & evidence from TV show ORIGINS | Archimedes Plutonium | Astronomy Misc | 2 | September 30th 04 05:26 PM |
Another solar storm reaches Earth; largest flare on record/It's official:the biggest solar X-ray flare ever is classified as X28 (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | November 7th 03 02:09 PM |