|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Chapt23 Earth Moon collision; Layered ages of the Cosmos and SolarSystem #395 Atom Totality 4th ed
Subject: layered age of Cosmos and Solar System Is Sun-Earth approx 10 billion years old and Jupiter-Saturn 5 billion? The below was extracted from the 2nd edition almost word for word. What I am going to have to start doing is add into this book the mounting evidence of geology which points to a Earth age of about 10 to 8 billion years old and where our Sun and other inner planets are about 10 to 8 billion years old while the outer- planets are a mere 5 billion years old (or the usual touted 4.5 billion years old). I did not bring in this geology research in the first edition of because I was focused on assimilating or amassing or compiled the overall book for the first time. But with every new edition, I can then add details. And the Sandage Freedman debates as to age of cosmos and age of oldest stars is an astronomy debate that is ridden full of inaccurate measurement and nonprecise measurement and riddled full of assumptions. But when geology of Earth and Sun and outer-planet ages is added to the debate of Age, then we can begin to straighten out both astronomical ages and geological ages. You see, in the Hartmann model of a Earth Moon collision some 4.4 billion years ago, would it not make better sense of the data and facts at present now if we consider that the Earth was 10 to 8 billion years old and that the collision that occurred 4.4 billion years ago was not the Earth with Moon but the Earth with a satellite of the Moon. So there were 3 astro bodies involved in that collision. I say this because the physics of a Earth Moon collision would not give us what we currently see as the Earth Moon. Such a collision would have been so violent that the Moon should not exist and the Earth tilt on axis and spin suggest a collision with a object the size of a object the fraction of the size of the ancient Moon. So, physics, points to the likely Earth Moon collision of a system that involved 3 objects-- Earth, Moon, and some third object wherein this third object caused the Earth tilt and spin and was incorporated into Earth and captured the Moon in its orbit. The Hartmann Model is too unlikely whereas the 3rd object in the Collision is more likely given our present day Earth Moon circumstances. Someday, scientists here on Earth will find a experiment that dates Earth and which those dates imply not a 4.5 billion year old Earth but rather a 10 to 8 billion year old Earth. Experiments such as those conducted in Australia for decades now on zirconium crystals which peg the crust as 4.4 billion years old. What if zirconium crystals can date back to 10 billion years old? What if zircon was found in the mantle or zircon found in meteorites which gives a date of 10 to 8 billion years old? I do not know where it will come from, whether from zircon research, but whereever it comes from will be immediately dismissed by nearly all scientists having grown up with 4.5 billion years. And this new data will be fiercely suppressed, but eventually it will be accepted as the truth. That Earth is really 10 to 8 billion years old and that the age of the Sun and Inner Planets is about double the age of the Outer Planets. So that the Freedman Sandage contentious and fierce debates over the age of the Cosmos versus age of the oldest stars will become settled not from any of their astronomical measurements but closer to home, from the layered ages of the Sun and Inner Planets compared to the Outer Planets. If our Solar System has a layered age structure, then obviously, Freedman and Sandage have to have layered ages for Cosmos and oldest stars. Now as for why Earth has so much water, there is a Comet theory that comets brought us all this water. Trouble with that theory is that the composition of comet water is high in heavy (deuterium) water whereas the ocean water is not high in heavy-water. What easily solves and answers the question of where Earth got all of its water is a look at the Outer Planets and their satellites. We see Europa almost a smaller Earth covered with water. And we see water abundant in the Outer Planets and their Satellites. Now envision a dynamic where the water migrates from the outer Planets to one special body. In that manner can we envision why Earth is covered in water since it was the movement of all the water from Mercury, Venus, Mars and bodies of the Inner Planets. Call it a Solar System Water cycle with the Solar Winds as the main dynamic of moving the water to some special astro body. This dynamic also explains why Earth has overabundant salt. So envision CellWell2 of the outer planets as a system that eventually forms Jupiter into a star. And as Jupiter becomes a star, that much of the mass of the other outer planets are swallowed up by Jupiter leaving only a few outer planets which are highly rich in iron cores. And these few bodies remaining when Jupiter becomes a star will have migrated the water content of CellWell2 to some special distanced planet that escaped being swallowed by Jupiter and which has the proper distance that it can collect this water lost by the other bodies. Now I wonder, if the scientists working on measuring the ratio of heavy-water for comets could spend just a fraction of their time on finding out what is the ratio of heavy water for all the water found in the Outer Planets. Is the ratio of heavy water to light water on Europa match that of Earth? So what I am logically saying is that if the ratio of heavy water to light water for the Outer Planets matches the ratio found here on Earth, then that *would be strong evidence of how Earth got its huge amount of water in the dynamics of what I call CellWell1 and CellWell2. And I would guess that measuring the ratio of heavy water to light water for the Outer Planets and their satellites is much easier than measuring Cometary water. And perhaps such was already done but no-one paid much attention to the reported data. And also, if my above is correct in part or in whole, would provide a mechanism and explanation not only for how Earth got its huge amount of water which is anomalous compared to the other Inner Planets, but could also explain why Earth has a huge amount of salt and its salty oceans. So did the salt migrate to Earth as well as the water migrating from the Inner planets? So here also, we can look to the amount of salt in the Outer Planets and see if the water migration would entail a salt migration. John Savage wrote: a_plutonium writes: Now as for why Earth has so much water, there is a Comet theory that comets brought us all this water. Trouble with that theory is that the composition of comet water is high in heavy (deuterium) water whereas the ocean water is not high in heavy-water. What Call it a Solar System Water cycle with the Solar Winds as the main dynamic of moving the water to some special astro body. This dynamic also explains why Earth has overabundant salt. The speed with which earth acquired its oceans might give a clue to whether earth scooped up water molecule by molecule from space or was watered in short time by swarms of meteorites from the outer asteroid belt. Isn't the thinking that earth's water was delivered by a rain of asteroids dislodged from the outer asteroid belt by Jupiter's gravity? And I would guess that measuring the ratio of heavy water to light water for the Outer Planets and their satellites is much easier than measuring Cometary water. And If there is water trapped inside those meteorites that today don't break up scientists could measure that. I expect they have. Inner Planets, but could also explain why Earth has a huge amount of salt and its salty oceans. -- John Savage * * * * * * * * * (my news address is not valid for email) As far as I have been able to search out the data, John, the outer planets have the same proportion of heavy water to light water as does Earth. So that indicates to me that the inner planets had alot of water some 10 to 8 billion years ago and that the inner planets had more planets and satellites than what is now seen but they got swallowed up by the Sun leaving only Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars and Asteroid belt of the rubbles of the swallowing and colliding. And thus in those 10 to 8 billion years all the water available migrated to Earth. What did not migrate to Earth was lost into outer space or to the Sun. The reason the Comets have a high ratio of heavy water is the Dirac radioactivity (outlined in his book Directions in Physics). Where all the planets and stars are created and grow due to this Dirac radioactivity. And so the radioactivity new mass on comets yields more heavy water than it yields light water. All I need to do to prove these above ideas is find a way of better measuring the age of Earth. If it is 10 to 8 billion years old then the Nebular Dust Cloud theory is out the window along with the notion that Earth's oceans come from comets some 4 billion years ago. So the fact that the Outer Planets have the same ratio of heavy to light water as does Earth is a strong indication that some day Jupiter is destined to be a twin star to Sun and that most of the outer planets and satellites will be swallowed up by Jupiter and that about 4 of the satellites will escape the Jupiter swallowing and these 4 will be akin to Mercury Venus Earth and Mars. And these 4 will have one which is different from the others to allow for water to migrate there and have oceans. I am looking into zircon crystals for I am reading that they can accurately date back to 10 billion years age, something to do with hafnium atoms ratio. So if some researcher finds zircon crystals in meteorites or possibly the Hawaiian basalts or from some mantle rocks that have surfaced. So if a zircon crystal can be found which dates back not just 4.6 billion years but approaching 10 billion years, well, we have a brand new day in astronomy and geology and physics. P.S. I doubt it but I may have been fortuitously blessed with such a zircon crystal. I am talking about a possible meteorite find close to my home of about 50 kilograms of rock material. It is all magnetic and shows fusion crusts. Whether they contain any zircons is doubtful. I suspect they are eucrites and they look like Millbillie eucrite found in Australia and in the Australia website collection. I am having a quartz testing of one specimen to see if it is meteoric or hematite from the last Ice Ages. The numbers are staggeringly high that my rocks are not meteorite that contains zircons from the asteroid Vesta and dates back 10 billion years old. Think of the staggering improbability that a person living on the East Coast in New Hampshire in the 1990s who comes up with a theory of how the Solar System was created and who then relocates his home in the MidWest where in his backyard finds a meteorite with zircon crystals that date Earth as 10 billion years old. Staggeringly improbable. New information: In the above I have a conundrum to solve. The conundrum is why would Dirac Radioactivities create more heavy water in water of the Comets rather than in water elsewhere in the Solar System? In other words, why is Dirac Radioactivities increasing the nuclear content of water in Comets? I have to have some mechanism as to why Dirac Radioactivities makes Comet water special. I do not have that mechanism. This is year 2011, and I still do not have that mechanism. Perhaps there is some chemical pathway that water built by Dirac new radioactivities favors the pathway of making more heavy water than of making light-water. I note such examples as during a lightning storm that ozone is created from the energy of lightning bolts. So in some akin chemical pathway, the Dirac New Radioactivities maybe a favoritism shown for heavy water rather than with light-water. Now would that not be a nice ironic outcome in the history of Physics that Dirac's new radioactivities is proven true, not by the motion of the Moon going further away or coming closer to Earth, but rather, the proof of Dirac New Radioactivities is the presence of more heavy water on younger astro bodies. So that would be a nice ironic surprize, not only for me, but for Dirac if he were still alive. 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 |
Chapt23 Layered ages of the Cosmos and Solar System #394 AtomTotality 4th ed | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | April 18th 11 05:38 AM |
Chapt22 Classical-layered ages of the Cosmos, like an onion or treerings #391 Atom Totality 4th ed | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | April 2nd 11 09:32 PM |
Chapt22 layered ages of the Cosmos #387 Atom Totality 4th ed | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | March 30th 11 09:33 PM |
Chapt22 layered ages of the Cosmos #386 Atom Totality 4th ed | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | March 30th 11 07:13 AM |
MECO and layered ages #66 ;3rd edition book: ATOM TOTALITY (AtomUniverse) THEORY | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 2 | July 11th 09 08:24 AM |