|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
precession of Jupiter Chapt13 Experiments for Dirac'snew-radioactivities #93 Atom Totality theory 5th ed.
Subject: Dirac's new radioactivities
Subject: so why is it so difficult to fill out this table of the observed 
Â* Â* Â* Â* precession of Jupiter? Here is another webpage that ran into difficulty of 
filling out the table of all the precessions of planets in our Solar 
System: Possible correlation between sun's spin and precession of orbit of ... 
30 posts=A0-=A08 authors=A0-=A0Last post:=A0Aug 21, 2006 
So I've been trying to fit the precession of the planets with the time gravity would take to ... since that link only gave the observed precession for those three compared to GR. ... Venus .. 8.6 ...............8.4+-4.8 ................ 9.00649 ... Jupiter.................. .0623............. .06496 ... http://www.bautforum.com/.../45728-p...een-suns-spin- precession-orbit-planets.html - Cached - Similar So what I want should be readily available on the 
Internet, but it is not. And the reason it is not, is because 
commercialization has become the dominant feature of the Internet. I want this table filled out, and back in the 1990s 
a Internet search would have quickly done the job: Mercury 43 GR predicted; 43 observed precession in arcseconds/century Venus 8.6 GR predicted; 8.4 observed precession 
Earth 3.8 GR predicted; 5.0 observed precession 
Mars 
Jupiter 
Io 
Europa 
Saturn Titan 
Uranus Subject: discrepancy of Jupiter, Io orbital precessions with GR predictions Finally making a little bit of progress on the observed versus GR predicted orbital precessions 
of Solar System objects, and the discrepancy 
between observed versus predicted. As far as I could discern this website is 1999 vintage, as the reference table indicates and is 
unpublished. The author/s have a theme of tidal 
effects as explaining the missing component of orbital precession and go so far as to cite binary 
stars where GR fails completely in prediction. My theme are the affects of Solar Emission Pressure on planets and their magnetospheres. And I am interested only in Solar System objects 
where GR fails, not binary stars. And although this site does not list 
the "observed orbital precession," it does indicate what GR predicts. And Io was cited which I suspect, not sure of, an 
actual observed orbital precession of 270 arcseconds/century which 
from what I gather is 
2700 times larger than what GR predicts for Io. --- taking notes of this website: http://www.gsanctuary.com/general_relativity.html Mercury 43.15 Â*43.09 Â*43.09 
Venus Â* Â*8.66 Â*8.78 Â*17.09 
Earth Â* Â* Â*3.85 Â*3.89 Â* 3.54 
Mars Â* Â* Â* 1.35 Â* 1.37 Â* 0.04 
Jupiter Â*0.06 Â* Â* 0.06 Â* 0.12 
--- end taking some notes --- So all I need is a update of the above with the 
actual observed precessions. I do not know why the authors of the above had 
to go to binary stars to emphasize the discrepancy 
of GR, when so many of the planets and satellites 
easily reveal the disparity between predicted and actual. Subject: Cangaroo Cosmic (gamma) Ray project for southern hemisphere I believe this project being built near Woomera 
north of Adelaide for the Univ of Adelaide and 
Univ Tokyo will enhance the Fly's Eye telescope 
in Utah that tracks Cosmic Rays and Cosmic 
Gamma Ray Bursts. I believe this southern hemisphere telescope 
will prove Dirac's new- radioactivities with its 
multiplicative-creation far better and far faster than 
any other proof. I believe what will happen in the science news media when Cangaroo starts up and running and 
measuring and tracking Cosmic Rays is that they 
will find a puzzle of Rays that are simultaneous with 
the Rays reported in the northern hemisphere. In other words, if the 
Fly's Eye reports a shower of rays on Monday at 10pm time, that the 
Cangaroo observatory will also report a shower of rays at that same 
time. Even though both telescopes are pointing in opposite directions 
of the Cosmic sky. I believe that report will cause a terrific puzzlement to the science community because no-one ever expected that the Cosmic Rays are linked, 
and that they are not coming from some distant star or galaxy, but 
rather 
instead are coming from the Nucleus of the Atom Totality and is what 
Dirac called new-radioactivities. So the faster that we can get Cangaroo up and running, the faster that 
Dirac will be proven correct 
on his new-radioactivities with multiplicative-creation. Subject: Dirac's new radioactivities Subject: thanks Utexas some progress on table of precessions Some progress with this website: 
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...s/node128.html So we should have 
every college and university contribute their lectures to the 
Internet. So that a university that is strong in astronomy may have lectures over the precession of planets such as U. Texas. In this sense, the Internet and world wide web can 
be a strong and dominant force in education, where 
someone can depend on University lecture notes. So 
that we can rely on at least 
these stalwarts of gathering information and data. And it would be 
nice if Google reset its priorities in a search so that if a searcher 
puts "edu" into the search that the hits end up with University 
lectures on the subject. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Chapt13 Experiments for Dirac's new-radioactivities #94 Atom Totalitytheory 5th ed.
Subject: Dirac's new radioactivities 
Subject: ESO telescopes, VLT in southern hemisphere, but we need a Fly's Eye in Australia Actually we need a gigantic Fly's Eye in Australia 
to be the antipodal opposite of northern hemisphere Fly's Eye in Utah 
for Cosmic Rays and Cosmic Gamma Ray Bursts. I was thinking for a moment that no-one ever measured Cosmic Rays or Cosmic Gamma Rays 
in the Southern Hemisphere and then I remembered there are telescopes in Chile. So I found out they are called ESO telescopes of 
VLT, located in Chile and operated by European 
countries. Flys Eye type telescopes are cheap and not expensive, so we really need a southern hemisphere 
station where we can correlate Cosmic Rays and 
Cosmic Gamma Ray Bursts. Cangaroo is proposed 
for Australia to do this task. How long it will take to 
set up and start operating is unknown. I hope this 
is done in my lifetime and done soon. I suspect what will happen early on in the gathering 
of data about Cosmic Rays and Gamma Ray Bursts 
is that they are connected or linked simultaneously 
with events in the Northern Hemisphere. So that for example, if a high energy Cosmic Ray event or Gamma Ray Bursts occurr in the Southern 
Hemisphere at a specific time 10pm on Wednesday 
August 5, 2009 that the same type of event will 
occurr in the Northern Hemisphere at that same time. 
Even though the telescopes were pointed in opposite 
directions in the Cosmic skies. What this means is that the majority 
of Cosmic Rays and Gamma Ray 
Bursts were originated from the Nucleus of the Atom 
Totality and not originated from any star or galaxy. So I am hopeful that they can get Cangaroo up and 
running as quick as possible. Subject: Messenger Spacecraft shows us that Mercury's precession is all accounted by SEP and not GR If the Messenger Spacecraft can be completely 
operated into and out of orbit from Mercury, solely powered by Solar 
Emission Pressure, and given the size and mass of Messenger, then 
scaling up, 
gives more than a 0.43 arcseconds/year precession. I do not have the facts or data to calculate the Solar Emission Pressure on Mercury. This is a equation which someone working in that field of 
expertise has to do. But we already have a nice experiment research in progress with the Messenger Spacecraft itself. We can measure the precession rate of the 
Spacecraft as it orbits around Mercury. We can use the Spacecraft as 
a 
measuring tool for Solar Emission Pressure. I am confident that some 
scientists connected with the Messenger Spacecraft realizes this 
goldmine 
of data about Solar Emission Pressure. And I would hazard to guess that if the Messenger Spacecraft does not collide with Mercury that it could remain in orbit and provide valuable data 
as to precession. I had a look in Wikipedia for the local group of galaxies: --- quoting Wikipedia --- Future collision of the Milky Way with Andromeda Main article: Andromeda–Milky Way collision The Andromeda Galaxy is approaching the Sun at about 100 to 140 kilometres per second (62 to 87 mi/s),[59] so it is one of the few blue shifted galaxies. The Andromeda Galaxy and the Milky Way are thus expected to collide in perhaps 4.5Â*billion years, although the details are uncertain since Andromeda's tangential velocity with respect to the Milky Way is only known to within about a factor of two.[60] A likely outcome of the collision is that the galaxies will merge to form a giant elliptical galaxy.[61] Such events are frequent among the galaxies in galaxy groups. The fate of the Earth and the Solar System in the event of a collision are currently unknown. If the galaxies do not merge, there is a small chance that the Solar System could be ejected from the Milky Way or join Andromeda.[62] --- end quoting Wikipedia --- Notice that Andromeda is on a collision course with the Milky Way. (Although I would not hold any verity in the doppler blue shift claim.) Now maybe, just maybe, it was rather impossible for any science experiment to measure the Dirac NEW RADIOACTIVITIES for the Moon or any experiment here on Earth. Maybe the technical accuracy is far demanding of precision. But perhaps the mass of an entire galaxy of the local group can make Dirac's new radioactivities a easier measurement. If additive creation is the true Dirac new radioactivities, and if the Solar System is just not big enough to measure this additive creation due to the interference of so many other things going on such as the incoming cosmic dust and debris to the Moon to mess up the 2cm/ year measure. Perhaps we need whole galaxies to make the measurement of Dirac new radioactivities. So what would Dirac have calculated for Andromeda moving towards Earth to have been, if it were additive creation? Would it have been something like 2 light years/year?? Come to think of it, would not the fact that galaxies cluster together is caused by this Additive Creation process of Dirac new radioactivities? Or at least a factor along with say magnetohydrodyamics that causes clustering of galaxies. 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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Chapt13 Experiments for Dirac's new-radioactivities #95 Atom Totalitytheory 5th ed.
Subject: best way of testing Dirac's new radioactivities additive creation Archimedes Plutonium wrote: Perhaps we need whole galaxies to make the measurement of Dirac new radioactivities. So what would Dirac have calculated for Andromeda moving towards Earth to have been, if it were additive creation? Would it have been something like 2 light years/year?? Sorry about that typing error. Maybe this book should have a joke in it, one or two. Obviously you cannot have 2 light years per year. That was a typing error, or a rather funny joke of 2 light years per year. What I should have typed was 100 kilometers/year between galaxies keeping in line with the figure of Wikipedia on the approaching speed of Andromeda, rather than 2cm/year between Moon and Earth. What I am asking, basically, is whether it is easier to make a Dirac new-radioactivity measurement on Andromeda with Milky Way rather than on Moon and Earth? After thinking about it, the Moon to Earth is probably better. Too many unknowns about galaxies. Although the yearly coming closer of galaxies would be much larger than 2cm/year, the sheer size and distance and mass of galaxies is not amenable to precision measure that is required. Perhaps there is a means of repeating the very old Cavendish experiment of gravitational attraction, where Cavendish weighed the planet Earth. How well fine tuned can we do that Cavendish experiment? Can we, in a sense measure a Dirac new radioactivities of additive creation from a modern day precise Cavendish Experiment? Trouble is how do we subtract out the entering meteor showers and other assorted incoming, or how do we add those departing masses of spacecraft and other things leaking out into space. No, I rather guess that the test experiment of Dirac new radioactivities is something akin to those neutrino experiments where we have the accurate mass of a vat of liquid that is enclosed and watch and wait with time to see if the vat increases in mass. Another such type of experiment is to get a accurate sample of a radioactive element to know how many atoms are in that sample and to wait over time to see if any of those atoms become a higher atomic numbered atom. So if the sample is uranium and if Dirac new radioactivities is true then over time, there should be some plutonium atoms in the sample, due to additive-creation. I think this is going to be the very best means of testing Dirac's new-radioactivities additive creation. Subject: best way of testing Dirac's new radioactivities additive creation Archimedes Plutonium wrote: Another such type of experiment is to get a accurate sample of a radioactive element to know how many atoms are in that sample and to wait over time to see if any of those atoms become a higher atomic numbered atom. So if the sample is uranium and if Dirac new radioactivities is true then over time, there should be some plutonium atoms in the sample, due to additive-creation. I think this is going to be the very best means of testing Dirac's new-radioactivities additive creation. On page 92 of Dirac's Directions in Physics, Dirac was asked a question about his new-radioactivities and he responds by saying "which occurs too seldom to show up in ordinary laboratory experiments." A few posts back I wrote that a science theory in any science is good only depending on how advanced the technology and engineering of the time is, in order to test and experiment that theory. Apparently the Dirac new radioactivities was far ahead of its time since there was nothing of precision to test Dirac's ideas on new radioactivity. The moon and planets are not good testing because their motions are so complicated. But I believe there is one test and experiment that we can now do to see if Dirac's new radioactivities additive creation is true or false. It involves the new tunnelling microscope that allows scientists to count the atoms of a sample. So we take a isotope that is easy to monitor and we count out say 100 of those atoms. Then we wait some period of time to see if any new atoms appear. That would be proof of new-radioactivities. And to make it easier we chose a isotope that can possibly grow into a higher atomic number and easy to detect. For example if we chose uranium atoms and counted out 100 of them and waited 3 months and in that time period 2 of the 100 uranium atoms became plutonium atoms, is proof of Dirac's new radioactivities. P.S. recently the recognition has dawned on me, that like Wegener, it is important to provide a mechanism for a new theory to prosper over the old fake theory Big Bang. So I should spend a lot of time in facilating the experiments to prove Dirac's new radioactivities is true. In other words, there never was a Big Bang that created the Cosmos, but rather a constant steady flow of new atoms from the nucleus of the Atom Totality built the Universe. I have slowly realized that the Blackbody Microwave and the Solid Body Rotation are the proofs of the Atom Totality, but that the Dirac new-radioactivities is the mechanism that needs the Experimental proof. For me, just the Blackbody Microwave is sufficient proof of Atom Totality, but not to others who need the New-Radioactivities before they dispel the Big Bang theory. 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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Chapt13 Experiments for Dirac's new-radioactivities #96 AtomTotality theory 5th ed.
Subject: Experiment to prove Dirac's new-radioactivities additive- creation Experiment: I believe the best setup is the very microscope, even though Dirac himself was pushing for a astronomical proof setup with using the Moon to Earth 2cm/year approach for additive creation, and receding for multiplicative creation. Dirac mentions work by Shapiro and Van Flandern on page 84 of his book "Directions in Physics". Trouble with an astronomy proof is that the motion of the Moon and planets is far to complicated and complex for such a tiny measurement. As I wrote earlier, a theory of science is only acceptable as true if the technology and engineering of deciding-experiments is available. I suspect the engineering and technology for making a Dirac new-radioactivities experiment is now available, but not when Dirac was alive. I think the key or crucial component is the scanning tunnel microscope, or the precision used in the neutrino flipping experiment of large underground vats of a solution to test for neutrinos. I believe we have the precision to test Dirac's new radioactivities by using the tunnelling microscope to actually count the atoms. So if we counted out 100 atoms which we plan to watch over a extended period of time, and for which we expect newer atoms to appear within that isolated container of 100 original starting atoms or which we expect a higher atomic number atom to have grown from one of the 100 starting original atoms. Most people will balk because they realize this is breaking of the conservation laws since we have more than what we started with. But that is a fact of an Atom Totality. Subject: Additive Creation; Dirac's new radioactivities Now I am wondering if there is a chemical element, say francium, or say a radioactive isotope that we can track if there was a single atom of that element? An element that is very easy to monitor and track if there was a singular atom of it in an experiment. I understand we can make diamonds with a high degree of purity. But I suspect that purity is not sufficient for a Dirac new radioactivities experiment, unless we can engineer that pure diamond with a counted number of radioactive atoms, say ten atoms of uranium fitted inside a highly pure diamond. But better yet, I am thinking of a radioactive isotope that is easy to monitor if we had just a single atom of it. And hopefully it is a carbon isotope, or perhaps a gold isotope or silver isotope or a platinum isotope. So the question for the experiment is if there is a isotope that is easy to monitor for a single atom of that isotope. Then in the experiment, measure for the prescence of that isotope. If gold has a isotope that is easy to measure then we can enlist the gold bars or coins minted of old age. If not, then we go with the straightforward experiment. We find what atom is easiest to monitor. We then chose a atomic number lower from the monitoring atom. For example if plutonium atom is the easiest to monitor then we chose uranium or neptunium atoms as the base of the experiment. We then enlist the help of the scanning tunnel microscope that can count out the base atoms. Suppose we count out 100 of these base atoms, say for example neptunium atoms. So we isolate those 100 atoms and we watch them over a period of time. On a day in which we come to look at our 100 atoms and find that there are only 99 neptunium atoms and 1 plutonium atom, is the day we have proven Dirac's new radioactivities additive creation is true. Is our state of technology and engineering up to par for such an experiment? I believe so. Subject: heavy water in comets is already proof Additive Creation; Dirac's new radioactivities - Show quoted text - There probably already have been experiments that have witnessed the odd higher atomic element or isotope appear, and then counted it as a glitch in their experiment not thinking any further upon it. But I do recall that the comets water content is very much different from that of the heavy water found in comets versus Earth's oceans. To me this is a fine example of Dirac's new radioactivities, that the comets have undergone a different new-radioactivities from that of the Earth's ocean water. So I beleive we already have the experiment performed and only have to interpret correctly the Dirac new radioactivity of additive creation upon the Comet water versus the Earth ocean water. So here is a case where the experiment was already performed, or we can repeat it here on Earth. And that we only need to marshall the correct sequence of events as to how the heavy water got into the Comets. 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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
heavy water and heavy salt in Earth oceans Chapt13 Experiments forDirac's new-radioactivities #97 Atom Totality theory 5th ed.
Subject: Heavy water Experiment; 160 ppm deuterium Additive Creation; Dirac's new radioactivities In a prior edition of this book I found out that 160 ppm of heavy water for Earth's oceans and 320 ppm of heavy water for Comets. I do not know of the veracity of those numbers but going with them, let me suggest an experiment as to how they came about. Of course, in that prior edition I was using those numbers of 2X, as an argument that the Earth was 2X as old in age as the Comets and was using Dirac's multiplicative creation of new radioactivities. But let me suggest an experiment that may resolve the 160 versus 320 ppm issue. Suppose Dirac new radioactivities Additive Creation is correct and telling from the Nucleus of the Atom Totality in the form of cosmic rays and cosmic gamma ray bursts. Now the proportion of salt in Earth oceans versus salt in Cometary water is very much different. Is it a 2X ratio? Probably not. But I propose an experiment where we take average ocean water of earth with its average salt content and we bombard it with a measured amount of gamma rays and cosmic rays (being protons). And it is a closed system. We do the same for a representative of Comet water in a closed system bombarded. The question is, does the bombardment increase the heavy water amount in the Comet system and not so much in the Earth system? Where the cosmic rays (protons) goes to increasing the salinity of the Earth water? Is there such a thing as "heavy salt"? And is there such a thing as a likely building principle to make salt, starting with hydrogen through carbon, an aufbau of building atomic elements that prefers increasing salt rather than increasing the density of deuterium water? So that on a planet the size of Earth with its huge supply of water, that the Dirac additive creation is locked into increasing the salt content density rather than on comets aufbau, increasing the heavy water density. So in this experiment, we have two closed systems bombarded by cosmic rays (protons) and want to see if for some reason, heavy water is preferred in Comet system. Subject: Comet heavy water due to salt counterbalance? Additive Creation; Dirac's new radioactivities I was looking up salt of its sodium and chlorine atoms as to whether we can have "heavy salt" when normal salt is bombarded with cosmic rays (protons). Interestingly, sodium has only one stable isotope of Na23. However, chlorine has two stable isotopes of CL35 and CL37. Odd that CL36 should not be stable, if its neighbors are stable. Anyway, I am guessing or speculating that perhaps the Dirac New Radioactivities of Additive Creation of a constant steady influx of cosmic rays (protons) shot from the Nucleus of the Atom Totality and ending up on a Comet or on Earth ocean. That the proton would increase the heavy water in Comets to a 320 ppm but would on Earth oceans increase the ratio of the salt into "heavy salt". So my speculation is that comets have 2X the heavy water density than does Earth but if you take into account the salt on Earth oceans would be compensation of the 160 ppm heavy water going into the increased proportion of heavy salt. So that the Dirac New Radioactivities of adding protons to Earth and to a Comet are in equal amounts relative to existing matter, but that the heavy water plus heavy salt on Earth matches the proportion of heavy water on a Comet. So has anyone studied and found out if the heavy salt on Earth is 2X the density of heavy salt on a Comet? And is a chemist prepared to say that when bombarding ocean water with protons that a large proportion of the salt molecules absorb the proton, whereas on comet water that has little salt at all, the protons are absorbed as heavy water. *As I wrote before, I am using the fact *that the Earth ocean water *was 160 ppm heavy water whereas on comets it is 320ppm. So that factor *of 2X, I used that fact as a age reckoning *difference between the age of Earth versus the age *of Comets. Also, I am using that fact of 2X heavy water the 160 ppm versus 320ppm for a supporting proof of Dirac's new radioactivities-additive or multiplicative creation. The difference in heavy water on Earth versus Comets, maybe, just maybe the evidential proof of Dirac's new radioactivities. And of course, if it turns out to be a proof, there are other chemicals on various planets and comets which would also be in a proportional difference to further prove Dirac's new radioactivities additive creation or multiplicative creation. So I have two different experiments to help prove Dirac's new radioactivities. I have the experiment (A) where I count out 100 uranium atoms; isolate them in a special container; wait and then hope to find 99 uranium atoms with 1 plutonium atom. Then I have experiment (B) where I take a given quantity of Earth simulated ocean water and another sample of a simulated Comet water and I bombard both with cosmic rays (protons) and expect to find a 160ppm versus 320ppm heavy water end result, where 1/2X the protons go into making heavy salt in the Ocean water. Both these experiments are experiments to prove Dirac new radioactivities. So this experiment (B) is a rather good one, replacing Dirac's *astronomical experiments *that the Moon should approach Earth by 2cm/year if additive and recede *by 2cm/year *if multiplicative. In my experiment I get rid of astronomical motion *measurement because the *motion of planets and the Moon are far to complex and complicated to *retrieve any reliable *small motion. Anyone can raise a fuss and claim tidal effects or numerous other astronomical effects. I need a experiment where no-one can raise fussess. In experiment B, we imitate additive *creation by bombarding with protons, and then depending *on what we learn from the imitation, see if the same effect occurred *somewhere in *Nature. In our case, see if Ocean water and Comet water end up with the 160ppm and 320ppm. We get a container of Earth ocean water that is not quite *ocean salinity nor the *160ppm of heavy water and we bombard it with cosmic rays *(protons) and we see if we thence approach the identical contents of *present day ocean *water. Then we get water that is pre-Comet conditions of not quite *320ppm heavy water *and have somewhat the salinity of Comet water. Bombard it with cosmic *rays (protons) *and see if the outcome is that approaching what Comet water actually is. So it seems safe to say that if we set up experiments that imitates *Dirac's additive or multiplicative creation *and find that the outcome is a approach of what the actual present day *conditions of the Earth's ocean waters and the waters in Comets. That *such a result would validate the Dirac *new radioactivities. This is easier to do rather than be observing water for actual cosmic rays to strike that water and thence build up the 160ppm. In Experiment A, we actually do wait around for a cosmic ray or whatever else involves the Additive Creation in New Radioactivities to enter the isolated chamber where the 100 uranium atoms are counted and observed and to change one of them into a plutonium atom. So experiment A is an actual watch and wait to verify Additive Creation. In experiment B, we are impatient in waiting and so we simulate cosmic rays by bombarding two samples imitating Earth ocean and Comet water, and by bombarding, we expect the trend of 160ppm and 320ppm to continue. Dirac's attempts to prove his new radioactivities via Shapiro and Van Flandern (Directions in Physics, 1978) were simply *not aggressive enough of experiments that used the Moon and planets to *eke out a *tiny motion of 2cm/year for the Moon. Just not aggressive enough of *experiments and *hard to unravel the complicated motions of the Moon that would mask *the 2cm/year. I think we have far better luck of proving Dirac's new radioactivities- additive or multiplicative creation by the slow buildup of chemical differences between different astro bodies such as Comets versus Earth. Or such as Sun versus Earth as per the lighter elements such as the elements before we reach carbon. And another good place to look for Dirac's new radioactivities is Jupiter and its satellites or Saturn and its satellites. The disparity in the abundance of chemical elements would be very noticeable if Dirac's new radioactivities is true. So my experiments are far more aggressive in questioning the existence *of Dirac's New *Radioactivities. My experiment simulates new-radioactivities should it *exist. By bombarding *a container with protons (cosmic rays) I simulate additive creation of *new radioactivities. *I bombard a closed container with protons and see if I can turn a pre- *160ppm and a pre 320ppm *of heavy water versus heavy-salt. My other experiment is to simply wait, having counted out precisely *100 atoms of uranium, *and wait for one or two of them to convert into plutonium. I think the aggressive experiment of imitating new radioactivities is *a far better experiment *in terms of time. And instead of say the heavy water and salinity of *Earth and Comets, I can *focus on other chemistry such as the Jupiters chemistry with Europa's *chemistry. Or say *the chemistry of Mars with that of Earth since Earth is more massive and dense, that it should have a different aufbau of chemical elements if additive or multiplicative creation are true. 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Chapt13 Experiment: Dirac's new-radioactivities , multiplicativecreation #82 Atom Totality theory 5th ed. | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 1 | November 24th 11 06:39 AM |
chapt13 Experiment: Dirac's new-radioactivities and Dirac's additiveand multiplicative creation #81 Atom Totality theory 5th ed. | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | November 22nd 11 08:03 PM |
Jupiter's precession as per solar-radiation-pressure, instead of GR#110; 3rd ed. ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) theory | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 9 | August 7th 09 07:06 AM |