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unpublished.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.

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

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

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

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