Chapt13 Experiment: Dirac's new-radioactivities , multiplicativecreation #82 Atom Totality theory 5th ed.

The bulk of this book is going to be Dirac's new radioactivities
because if I were
writing the book on Continental Drift in 1950, the bulk of that book
would be how
the sea floor spreading causes the continental plates to drift apart.
In this book
I need to show how the constant barrage of cosmic rays and cosmic
gamma rays
and other particles originating from the Nucleus of the Atom Totality
builds up and creates galaxies, stars and solar systems. In the Big
Bang theory their creation
mechanism is that all matter and energy comes from "nowhere" and then
is recycled by "dust clouds", which is rather childish and
preposterous.

Subject: Dirac New Radioactivities

Chapter 13 
Subject: recalibrating whether Cosmic incoming rays equals
flow rate 
of Amazon river discharge

Below is an old post of mine dating back to 2007 for 
the 2nd edition
of this book. This is a post in which 
I am trying to link Dirac's new
radioactivity to create 
the Solar System and in particular the planet
Earth 
by saying that the Cosmic Rays and Cosmic Gamma Ray Bursts is
what is 
actually creating Earth.
Dirac sought supporting evidence by a receding Moon of 2cm/year. I
seek supporting evidence 
by the rate of Cosmic incoming rays as equal
or 
near equal to a flow rate of the Amazon River 
discharge. So if
those two rates are nearly equal, 
then it is not a coincidence they
are so much the 
same rate of flow.

--- quoting old post of mine about flow rates ---
Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.math, sci.chem 
From: a_plutonium

Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 09:06:31 -0700
Local: Sun, Sep 2 2007 11:06 am 
Subject: the flow of 1/6 Amazon River
in Cosmic Rays to create 
Earth over 5 billion years ATOM TOTALITY
(Atom Universe) THEORY 
REPLACES BIG BANG THEORY IN PHYSICS

- Hide quoted text -
a_plutonium wrote:
Gladly I was mistaken. Looking through this website:
http://www.int.washington.edu/PHYS55...hapter8_04.pdf
They give a figure for Cosmic Ray Intensity at 1/cm^2 sec ,or, 1 ev/
cm^3
They say that most Cosmic Rays, or 90%, are protons and about 9% are
helium nuclei. I saw no Intensity figure for Cosmic Gamma Ray Bursts
on that website.
But I think I can get 2.5 x 10^12 grams per minute from the figure 1/
cm^2 sec and then some.
So what we see here, is how to create and build Earth from purely
just
the Cosmic Rays and Cosmic Gamma Rays that impact Earth every minute
of
over day and year. So we never needed a Nebular Dust Cloud to create
our Solar System when it can be created purely from the Cosmic rays
impacting on the astro bodies of our Solar System.

So what I need to create and then build Earth over 5 billion years is
a flow rate
of Cosmic Rays plus Cosmic Gamma Ray Bursts of about 2.5 x 10^12
grams
per minute which is the same as 2.5 billion kilograms per minute.
The Amazon River has a flow rate of 12 billion liters per minute, and
keeping in mind 
that a liter of water is a kilogram of water. So we
can have a mental 
comparison of 
what we need to replace the Nebular
Dust Cloud theory.
So is the flow rate of Cosmic Rays plus Cosmic Gamma Ray Bursts about
on the 
average of 2.5 billion kilograms per minute, roughly 1/6 of
the flow 
rate of the Amazon 
River?
I would think so, because every lightning bolt that strikes Earth is
accompanied or created 
from a "Cosmic Ray leader strike". So Cosmic
Rays are very abundant. 
And the Amazon 
River is tiny compared to all
of the surface of Earth. So if you want 
to spread the mouth of the
Amazon River over all the surface of Earth then it is rather easy to
see that Cosmic Rays 
plus Cosmic Gamma Ray Bursts could easily
provide the mass of Earth 
over 5 billion years.
--- end quoting old post of mine ---

So I need to see how close together is the 
flow rates of the Amazon
River versus the 
incoming Cosmic Rays.
Subject: recalibrating whether Cosmic incoming rays equals flow
rate of 
Â* Â* Â* Â* Amazon river discharge

- Hide quoted text -
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Below is an old post of mine dating back to 2007 for
the 2nd edition of this book. This is a post in which
I am trying to link Dirac's new radioactivity to create
the Solar System and in particular the planet Earth
by saying that the Cosmic Rays and Cosmic Gamma Ray Bursts is what is
actually creating Earth.
Dirac sought supporting evidence by a receding Moon of 2cm/year. I 
 seek supporting evidence 
 by the rate of Cosmic incoming rays as equal or 
 near equal to a flow rate of the Amazon River 
 discharge. So if those two rates are nearly equal, 
 then it is not a coincidence they are so much the 
 same rate of flow.
--- quoting old post of mine about flow rates ---
A flow rate of 2.5x10^12 grams of water per minute translates into
4 x 10^10 grams of water per second
A proton rest mass is 1.67 x 10^-24 grams
So I have 2 x 10^34 protons per second.
The cosmic rays (protons) as given is estimated as 1/cm^2 sec
Now if the Earth volume is used at 4/3(pi)(r^3) with a radius of 6.3
x 
10^8 cm, 
we are talking about 10^24
So I am caught short by a factor of 10^10. However, if we consider
that 
neutrinos have a tiny rest mass. And if we consider the
contribution 
of 
Cosmic gamma ray bursts, I think we can reach a flow
rate that matches 
2x10^34 protons per second.
I do not know the cosmic contribution of gamma rays is in the above
calculations.
And looking in Wikipedia on neutrino rest mass I find data of
0.0027eV^2. Also 
I find that cosmic-background-neutrinos as 56 per
cubic centimeter.
I believe the shortfall above of 10^10 is made up with the neutrino
flow. Although 
some cosmic gamma ray bursts are the equivalent in
energy of entire 
galaxies. 
So I may have a difficult time of
suggesting that the entire shortfall 
of 10^10 protons 
per cm^2 sec
is due to a gamma-ray event. Seems too "ad hoc", but then if someone
has measured the average Cosmic Gamma Ray event flow, it may just
make 
up for 
that 10^10 shortfall without ever needing to look into
neutrino rest 
mass. I wish Dirac 
were here, right now, for he would
probably instantly straighten the 
above out. That is 
why he was the
most preeminent physicist of the 20th century because 
within those
pages of his book Directions in Physics, pages 74 to 81 are the most
important messages 
of physics that carries physics from the 20th
century into the 21st 
century. Only two 
physicists of the 20th
century are the vanguards of where physics is 
going in the 21st
century and they are Dirac with his "new radioactivities" and John
Bell with his 
"superdeterminism". And all other physics was either
dead end or 
misguided such as 
general-relativity.
Dirac looked for his new radioactivity in the recession of the Moon
by 
2cm/year. I am 
looking for Dirac's new-radioactivity by how Earth
was created via the 
steady flow of 
Cosmic rays and gamma ray bursts
(possibly neutrino contribution).
Correct me if wrong but I remember reading that the 2cm/year Moon
recession was already 
verified in the 1990s. Remarkable that not only
is Dirac's book 
ignored, his vanguard future 
vision of physics
ignored but even when his 2cm/year Moon recession is 
verified as
true, it 
is also ignored.

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

Subject: Dirac's new radioactivities and how it created Earth and
stars

Subject: Dirac's multiplicative creation as neutrinos coming to rest
in 
existing matter

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

A flow rate of 2.5x10^12 grams of water per minute translates into
4 x 10^10 grams of water per second
A proton rest mass is 1.67 x 10^-24 grams
So I have 2 x 10^34 protons per second.
The cosmic rays (protons) as given is estimated as 1/cm^2 sec
Now if the Earth volume is used at 4/3(pi)(r^3) with a radius of 6.3 x
10^8 cm,

we are talking about 10^24
So I am caught short by a factor of 10^10. However, if we consider
that 
neutrinos have a tiny rest mass. And if we consider the
contribution 
of Cosmic
gamma ray bursts, I think we can reach a flow rate that matches
2x10^34 protons per second.
I do not know the cosmic contribution of gamma rays is in the above
calculations.

And looking in Wikipedia on neutrino rest mass I find data of
0.0027eV^2. Also 
I find that cosmic-background-neutrinos as 56 per
cubic centimeter.
I am fascinated by the above possibility of neutrinos coming to rest
with their small tiny rest 
mass where preexisting matter already is
present 
and thus a multiplicative effect.
I have a shortfall above in my calculations as about 10^10 protons/
sec.
Now I could make up for that shortfall if we had 
evidence that a
cosmic gamma ray burst of about 
10^14 landed on Earth each year. So I
need just one big gamma ray 
burst coupled with the steady 
stream of
cosmic-rays and then I have the creation and building of 
Earth from
Dirac's new 
radioactivities (where the source is obviously the
nucleus of the Atom Totality).
But I wonder if neutrinos coming to rest is the best 
source of all?
They are so numerous. And they would build a planet 
both inside and
outside whereas EM waves are more outside or surface 
builders.
So how many neutrinos per second exist inside of 
planet Earth? And
can we expect a fraction of them coming to rest and 
thus building the
matter 
of Earth?
I like this idea better than the Cosmic Rays and 
Cosmic Gamma Rays
because as recently reported that the Moon has 
uranium atoms. So 
if
we had a building of a planet or any other astro 
body via neutrinos
coming to rest that they would 
favor the heavier elements and thus
make them 
even more heavy.
So how many neutrinos exist in Earth at any instant of time? Probably
more than the number of 
protons in Earth.

Chapt13 Dirac New Radioactivities
Subject: Dirac's 2cm/year Moon recession, due to neutrino coalescence
in 
new-radioactivities

Well if a new reader catches me in this book at this moment in time
is going to have difficulty in understanding. So let me summarize.
Dirac in his book Directions in Physics 1978 came to the point where
the 
mathematics of the universe yields a new-radioactivity. Of
course, 
Dirac never had an Atom Totality theory to form a foundation
for that 
new-radioactivity as coming from the nucleus of the Atom
Totality. 
But according to the math and numbers and Large Numbers
Hypothesis, 
Dirac was able to speculate a new-radioactivity and which
could be 
tested on the Moon as to whether it recedes or not recedes.
The 
calculation Dirac made was 2cm/year for a Moon recession in
order 
for multiplicative creation to be true and for a new theory of
how 
Solar Systems and galaxies are formed-- new radioactivities.
In the 1990s it was confirmed via a laser that the Moon is receding
from 
Earth at 2cm/year. But that finding along with Dirac's book have
been 
ignored in physics and astronomy.
What I am after in this book is details of Multiplicative Creation. I
have 
three candidates: 
(1) Cosmic Rays such as protons or hydrogen
and helium atoms 
(2) Cosmic Gamma Ray Bursts: such as the recent
burst that is the 
energy of 9,000 supernova combined 
(3) Neutrinos

In the 2nd edition of this Atom Totality book I gave a working
analogy 
of 
the output of 1/6 of the flow of the Amazon River. That
if we had a 
1/6 Amazon 
and given 5 billion years we would have a
analogous planet Earth from 
that 
amount of flow.
So here I am trying to find out what that "flow" is that creates
Earth 
and planets 
and stars from new-radioactivities.
I suspect the best candidate is neutrinos, and since they are so
abundant that 
they are the most likely and plausible candidate.
Also, in the Atom Totality, gravity is the positron Space that
surrounds ordinary matter 
which is in the electron-space. So gravity
is positron-space and 
matter is electron-space. 
So here we have a
chance of reconciling how neutrinos would coalesce, 
in that if you
had a large number of neutrinos in a given ordinary-matter, that the
mechanism that 
would convert neutrinos into their rest mass is
available. The large positron ball in the center of stars or planets
coalesces those neutrinos and
would predict that iron rich cores is due to neutrino coalescence.
Cosmic rays and gamma ray bursts
would not accrue to the center of a star or planet as would neutrinos.

Chapt13 
Subject: missing solar neutrinos ending up as Dirac's new-
radioactivities
--- quoting from Wikipedia in parts, on missing solar neutrinos ---
The solar neutrino number discrepancy problem
Starting in the late 1960s, several experiments found that the number
of electron neutrinos arriving from the sun was between one third and
one half the number predicted by the Standard Solar Model, a
discrepancy which became known as the solar neutrino problem and
remained unresolved for some thirty years.
The Standard Model of particle physics formerly assumed that
neutrinos 
were massless and couldn't change flavor. However, nonzero
neutrino 
mass and accompanying flavor oscillation remained a
possibility.
(some lines deleted)
Although individual experiments, such as the set of solar neutrino
experiments, are consistent with non-oscillatory mechanisms of
neutrino flavor conversion, taken altogether, neutrino experiments
imply the existence of neutrino oscillations. Especially relevant in
this context are the reactor experiment KamLAND and the accelerator
experiments such as MINOS. The KamLAND experiment has indeed
identified oscillations as the neutrino flavor conversion mechanism
involved in the solar electron neutrinos. Similarly MINOS confirms
the 
oscillation of atmospheric neutrinos and gives a better
determination 
of the mass squared splitting.

--- end quoting in parts from Wikipedia ---

Funny how here it is 2011, where I am trying to 
reconcile the flow of
neutrinos from the Sun with 
the flow of 1/6 the Amazon River as
building Earth 
in 5 billion years.
Funny how Dirac reconciled time with that of 
dimensionless numbers on
pages 73 through 75 
obtaining a number 10^39 in his book Directions
in Physics. Dirac obtains a Moon recession of 2 
cm/year to validate
these numbers and we have 
since shown Dirac's claim true. True for
Multiplicative Creation of 
our Solar System.
But where is the source of that "multiplicative creation?" For the
Earth I computed I would need 
a steady flow of matter of about 1/6
the discharge 
of the Amazon River to build Earth from scratch (or I
should say build 
Earth from a quantum seed).
So where is this 1/6 Amazon River. Correct me if 
wrong but I think
the Rhine River discharge is 1/6 
the Amazon.
So where in astronomy do I find a discharge output of something like
a 
Rhine River that would 
build the planets and Sun in 5 billion
years?
So I have three nice possible sources as a "River 
of Matter"
(1) Cosmic rays 
(2) Gamma ray bursts 
(3) Neutrinos
The biggest single source is probably Gamma Ray 
bursts since the
Nucleus of the Atom Totality could radioactively emit 
a Gamma Ray
burst that would be the matter equivalent of our entire 
Solar System
and thus build it in one second as far as 
matter is concerned but not
organized as a solar 
system.
But of that list of three candidates, the one that is 
the most
organized and should I say "disciplined" 
source is neutrinos.
The reason that the Sun is missing 1/3 to 1/2 of 
neutrinos is because
they originate from the Nucleus of the Atom 
Totality and have become
incorporated as "hydrogen atoms" or other ordinary 
matter into the
Sun itself.
I computed, roughly that the Earth needs 1/6 Amazon River over 5
billion years to create Earth, 
but I did not compute what type of
river flow I needed to build Sun 
over 5 billion years. Obviously 
to
build our Sun is going to require far more than an Amazon River
flow.
So in terms of missing neutrinos from the Sun, what quantity of
matter 
does that missing neutrino 
Solar flow entail? Is the missing
solar neutrinos 
when converted to ordinary matter equal to the 
1/6
Amazon River discharge?

Chapter 13 
Subject: solar neutrinos as multiplicative-creation in
Dirac's 
new-radioactivities

Now on pages 77 and 78 of Dirac's Directions in Physics he talks
about 
two 
types of creation of matter into the Universe as that of
additive- 
creation 
and multiplicative creation. The multiplicative
is a creation of new 
matter 
where matter already exists and is a
multiplying upwards of the atoms 
that already exist in Nature. And
Dirac in later page of this book 
then 
announces that the recession
of the Moon from Earth by 2cm/year 
is evidence of multiplicative-
creation. This recession was verified 
by lasers in the last decade or
so. And that should have been the 
front page news of all science
magazines. But since noone cares 
what Dirac, the preeminent physicist
of the 20th century and the 
vanguard physicist for the 21st century
ever said, and because most 
physicist follow a herd instinct of false
physics. Well, of course 
they all ignored Dirac.
The difference between being a true physicist and merely a teacher 
of
physics is who you pay attention to in physics. The two physicists 
to
have paid attention to in the 20th century was Dirac and to some
extent John Bell. Those two lead and are the leaders for the physics
of the 21st century. Everyone who payed attention to Einstein will
only 
lead to a road of fakery.
We have this Solar Neutrino Problem. We recognize it but we have 
no
answers as to where they are going, where they came from.
With Dirac's new-radioactivities we have a opportunity to fully
explain 
cosmic neutrinos. This is physics of big science because it
offers 
to replace the Big Bang theory and the Nebular Dust Cloud
theory, both 
in one stroke replaced by new-radioactivities.
The only thing Dirac had missing in his book Directions in Physics
that 
would lend credence to new-radioactivities is the Atom Totality
theory. 
You do not have a new-radioactivities in a Big Bang theory
and that 
is 
probably the main reason Dirac was ignored. But we now
have the 
Atom Totality theory and the excuse to ignore Dirac no
longer stands 
in 
the way.
And in fact, I see now that Dirac's new radioactivity should be the
heart 
of this book of the Atom Totality. No longer should I make the
most 
compelling evidence whether it is blackbody radiation or
solid body rotation theory or age of cosmos or 
explanation of physics
constants. The most compelling evidence is 
going 
to be how planets,
stars grow and so the most compelling evidence 
is new-
radioactivities.
It is far easier to validate the Moon recession of 2cm/year than it
is 
to validate the magnetic dipole of a galactic nucleus or the MECO
of 
the Milky Way.
So, let us proceed to analyze the Solar Neutrino deficit in terms of
those 
neutrinos becoming ordinary matter within the Sun itself. That
the 1/3 to 
1/2 
deficit of Solar Neutrinos when converted to the mass
of hydrogen 
atoms 
where the antineutrinos becomes a proton and the
neutrinos become 
electrons. So given the data of Missing Solar
Neutrinos and those 
converted into hydrogen atoms, would it build our
Sun from nothing to 
that of our star today given 5 to 10 billion
years of elapsed time? 
I think so.

Also, a Dirac multiplicative creation process would be an expansionary
cosmos and that is what we
generally see in the motion of galaxies away from one another, not
caused by a big-bang-explosion but
caused by the continual-new radioactivities in the multiplicative
mode.

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