A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

age of Moon compared to Io and Europa Chapt21 layered ages of theSolar System #1611 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 20th 13, 11:15 PM posted to sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 291
Default age of Moon compared to Io and Europa Chapt21 layered ages of theSolar System #1611 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed




In April 2011, I wrote:

Is Sun-Earth approx 10 billion years old and Jupiter-Saturn 5 
billion?
The below was extracted from the 2nd edition almost Â*word for word.
What I am going to have to start doing is add into this book the
Â*mounting evidence of 
geology which points to a Earth age of about 10 to 8 billion years 
old and 
Â*where our SunÂ*and other inner planets are about 10 to 8 billion years old while 
the 
Â*outer-Â*planets are a 
Â*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 
Â*overall book 
Â*for the first time. But with every new edition, I can then add 
details. And the Sandage 
Â*Freedman debates as to age of cosmos and age of oldest stars is an 
astronomy 
Â*debate that is ridden full of inaccurate measurement and nonprecise 
measurement 
Â*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 
Â*out both 
Â*astronomical ages and geological ages.
You see, in the Hartmann model of a Earth Moon collision some 4.4 
Â*billion years ago, 
Â*would it not make better sense of the data and facts at present now 
if 
Â*we consider that 
Â*the Earth was 10 to 8 billion years old and that the collision that 
Â*occurred 4.4 billion years 
Â*ago was not the Earth with Moon but the Earth with a satellite of 
the 
Â*Moon. So there 
Â*were 3 astro bodies involved in that collision. I say this because 
the 
Â*physics of a 
Â*Earth Moon collision would not give us what we currently see as the 
Â*Earth Moon. 
Â*Such a collision would have been so violent that the Moon should not 
Â*exist and the 
Â*Earth tilt on axis and spin suggest a collision with a object a 
Â*fraction of the size of the ancient Moon. So, physics, points to the 
Â*likely Earth Moon 
Â*collision of a system that involved 3 objects-- Earth, Moon, and 
some 
third object 
Â*wherein this third object caused the Earth tilt and spin and wasÂ*incorporated into 
Â*Earth and captured the Moon in its orbit. So there never was a Earth Moon collision of the Hartmann Model is too 
Â*unlikely 
Â*whereas the 3rd object in the Collision is more likely given our 
Â*present day 
Â*Earth Moon circumstances.
Someday, scientists here on Earth will find a experiment that dates 
Earth and whichÂ*those dates imply not a 4.5 billion year old Earth but rather a 10 to 
8 
Â*billion year old Earth. 
Â*Experiments such as those conducted in Australia for decades now on 
Â*zirconium 
Â*crystals which peg the crust as 4..4 billion years old. What if 
Â*zirconium crystals can 
Â*date back to 10 billion years old? What if zircon was found in the 
mantle or zircon 
Â*found in meteorites which gives a date of 10 to 8 billion years old? 
I do 
Â*not know where it 
Â*will come from, whether from zircon research, but whereever it comes 
from will be 
immediately dismissed by nearly all scientists having grown up with 
Â*4.5 billion years. 
Â*And this new data will be fiercely suppressed, but eventually it 
will 
Â*be accepted as 
Â*the truth. That Earth is really 10 to 8 billion years old and that 
the age 
Â*of the Sun and 
Â*Inner Planets is about double the age of the Outer Planets.
So that the Freedman Sandage contentious and fierce debates over the 
Â*age of the 
Â*Cosmos versus age of the oldest stars will become settled not from 
any 
Â*of theirÂ*astronomical measurements but closer to home, from the layered ages 
of 
Â*the Sun 
Â*and Inner Planets compared to the Outer Planets. If our Solar System 
Â*has a 
Â*layered age structure, then obviously, Freedman and Sandage have to 
Â*have layered 
Â*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 
Â*comet water is high 
Â*in heavy (deuterium) water whereas the ocean water is not high in 
Â*heavy-water. What 
Â*easily solves and answers the question of where Earth got all of its 
Â*water is a look 
Â*at the Outer Planets and their satellites. We see Europa almost a 
Â*smaller Earth covered 
Â*with water. And we see water abundant in the Outer Planets and their 
Satellites. Now 
Â*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 theÂ*movement of all the water from Mercury, Venus, Mars and bodies of 
the 
Â*Inner Planets.
Call it a Solar System Water cycle with the Solar Winds as the main 
Â*dynamic of 
Â*moving the water to some special astro body. This dynamic also 
Â*explains why 
Â*Earth has overabundant salt.
So envision CellWell2 of the outer planets as a system that 
eventually 
Â*forms Jupiter into 
Â*a star. And as Jupiter becomes a star, that much of the mass of the 
Â*other outer planets 
Â*are swallowed up by Jupiter leaving only a few outer planets which 
are 
Â*highly rich in 
Â*iron cores. And these few bodies remaining when Jupiter becomes a 
star 
Â*will have 
Â*migrated the water content of CellWell2 to some special distanced 
Â*planet that escaped 
Â*being swallowed by Jupiter and which has the proper distance that it 
can collect this 
Â*water lost by the other bodies.
Now I wonder, if the scientists working on measuring the ratio of 
Â*heavy-water for comets 
Â*could spend just a fraction of their time on finding out what is the 
Â*ratio of heavy water for 
all the water found in the Outer Planets. Is the ratio of heavy 
water 
Â*to light water on Europa 
match that of Earth?
So what I am logically saying is that if the ratio of heavy water to 
Â*light water for the Outer 
Â*Planets matches the ratio found here on Earth, then thatÂ*would be 
Â*strong evidence 
Â*of how Earth got its huge amount of water in the dynamics of what I 
Â*call CellWell1 and 
Â*CellWell2 migration.
And I would guess that measuring the ratio of heavy water to light 
Â*water for the Outer Planets 
Â*and their satellites is much easier than measuring Cometary water. 
And 
Â*perhaps such was 
Â*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 
Â*mechanism and explanation 
Â*not only for how Earth got its huge amount of water which is 
anomalous 
Â*compared to the other 
Â*Inner Planets, but could also explain why Earth has a huge amount of 
Â*salt and its salty oceans. 
Â*So did the salt migrate to Earth as well as the water migrating from 
Â*the Inner planets? So here 
Â*also, we can look to the amount of salt in the Outer Planets and see 
Â*if the water migration would 
Â*entail a salt migration.

John Savage wrote:

Â* a_plutonium writes:
Â* Now as for why Earth has so much water, there is a Comet theory
that
Â* comets brought
Â* us all this water. Trouble with that theory is that the
composition of
Â* comet water is high
Â* in heavy (deuterium) water whereas the ocean water is not high
in
Â* heavy-water. What
Â* Call it a Solar System Water cycle with the Solar Winds as the
main
Â* dynamic of
Â* moving the water to some special astro body. This dynamic also
Â* explains why
Â* Earth has overabundant salt.
Â* The speed with which earth acquired its oceans might give a clue
to
Â* whether earth scooped up water molecule by molecule from space or
was
Â* watered in short time by swarms of meteorites from the outer
asteroid
Â* belt.
Â* Isn't the thinking that earth's water was delivered by a rain of
Â* asteroids dislodged from the outer asteroid belt by Jupiter's
gravity?
Â* And I would guess that measuring the ratio of heavy water to
light
Â* water for the Outer Planets
Â* and their satellites is much easier than measuring Cometary water.
And
Â* If there is water trapped inside those meteorites that today don't
break
Â* up scientists could measure that. I expect they have.
Â* Inner Planets, but could also explain why Earth has a huge amount
of
Â* salt and its salty oceans.
Â* --
Â* John Savage Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* (my news address is not valid for
email)
As far as I have been able to search out the data, John, the outer 
planets 
Â*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 
Â*satellites than what is now seen but they got swallowed up by the 
Sun 
Â*leaving only Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars and Asteroid belt of the 
Â*rubbles of the swallowing and colliding. And thus in those 10 to 8 
billion 
Â*years all the water available migrated to Earth. What did not 
migrate 
Â*to Earth was lost into outer space or to the Sun.
The reason the Comets have a high ratio of heavy water is the DiracÂ*radioactivity (outlined in his book Directions in Physics). Where 
all 
Â*the planets and stars are created and grow due to this Dirac 
radioactivity. And so the radioactivity new mass on comets yields 
Â*more heavy water than it yields light water.
All I need to do to prove these above ideas is find a way of better 
Â*measuring 
the age of Earth. If it is 10 to 8 billion years old then the Nebular 
Dust 
Â*Cloud theory is 
Â*out the window along with the notion that Earth's oceans come from 
Â*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 
Â*to be a 
Â*twin star to Sun and that most of the outer planets and satellites 
Â*will be swallowed 
Â*up by Jupiter and that about 4 of the satellites will escape the 
Â*Jupiter swallowing 
Â*and these 4 will be akin to Mercury Venus Earth and Mars. And these 
4 
Â*will have 
Â*one which is different from the others to allow for water to migrate 
Â*there and have 
Â*oceans.
I am looking into zircon crystals for I am reading that they can 
Â*accurately date back 
Â*to 10 billion years age, something to do with hafnium atoms ratio. 
So 
Â*if some 
Â*researcher finds zircon crystals in meteorites or possibly the 
Â*Hawaiian basalts 
Â*or from some mantle rocks that have surfaced. So if a zircon crystal 
Â*can be found 
Â*which dates back not just 4.6 billion years but approaching 10 
billion 
Â*years, well, 
Â*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 
Â*zircon crystal. 
Â*I am talking about a possible meteorite find close to my home of 
about 
Â*50 kilograms 
Â*of rock material. It is all magnetic and shows fusion crusts.. 
Whether 
Â*they contain 
Â*any zircons is doubtful. I suspect they are eucrites and they look 
Â*like Millbillie eucrite 
Â*found in Australia and in the Australia website collection. I am 
Â*having a quartz testing 
Â*of one specimen to see if it is meteoric or hematite from the last 
Ice 
Â*Ages. The numbers 
are staggeringly high that my rocks are not meteorite that contains 
Â*zircons from the asteroid 
Vesta and dates back 10 billion years old. Think of the staggering 
Â*improbability that 
Â*a person living on the East Coast in New Hampshire in the 1990s who 
Â*comes up with a 
Â*theory of how the Solar System was created and who then relocates 
his 
Â*home in the 
MidWest where in his backyard finds a meteorite with zircon crystals 
Â*that date Earth 
Â*as 10 billion years old. Staggeringly improbable.
New information: In the above I have a conundrum to 
Â*solve. The conundrum is why would Dirac Radioactivities create more 
Â*heavy water in water of the 
Â*Comets rather than in water elsewhere in the Solar System? In other 
Â*words, why is Dirac Radioactivities 
Â*increasing the nuclear content of water in Comets? I have to have 
some 
Â*mechanism as to why Dirac 
Â*Radioactivities makes Comet water special. I do not 
Â*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.
--

More than 90 percent of AP's posts are missing in the Google
newsgroups author search archive from May 2012 to May 2013. Drexel
University's Math Forum has done a far better job and many of those
missing Google posts can be seen he

http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986


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
  #2  
Old June 22nd 13, 08:40 AM
David Levy David Levy is offline
Junior Member
 
First recorded activity by SpaceBanter: May 2012
Posts: 23
Default

Hi
Quote:
Someday, scientists here on Earth will find a experiment that dates 
Earth and whichÂ*those dates imply not a 4.5 billion year old Earth but rather a 10 to 
8 
Â*billion year old Earth.
Yes, I agree with you that the Earth age is much older the current expected age of 4.5 Billion years.

Please see the following thread of Star Creation by Spiral Galaxy:
http://www.spacebanter.com/showthread.php?t=196879
As it is stated at Wiki: "The bar may be surrounded by a ring called the 5-kpc ring that contains a large fraction of the molecular hydrogen present in the galaxy, as well as most of the Milky Way's star formation activity."
Our Sun and all solar planets had been born with a similar matter.
As I have stated in that thread: "Gradually, a hot new star will appear. If it's a high-mass star then it will keep all the light gases (due to gravity) and become a giant gas star. If the mass is significantly larger there is a chance for a nuclear burning activity than it might become a sun star. But when it is relatively small, than the gases might emitted into space and therefore, it becomes a rocky planet like Earth and Mars."
That matter includes all the variety of Atoms (Hydrogen Helium, Oxygen, carbon, Nitrogen, Iron…) and moleculars (water, carbon dioxide, silicates…) that we see today on Earth and all the other planets and Sun.
It is quite clear that the majority of the matter on each planet were Hydrogen & Helium (over 98% of the total mass). Never the less, a small planet couldn't keep those light gases due to lake of enough gravity force. Therefore, the Earth, which was born as a relatively small hot ball Gas, lost most of its gas to the space. As it lost its gas it also started to cool down. What we see today is only the 2% of the leftover of Earth. The 4.5 Billion years is based on the first solid rocks that had been created on the Earth surface.
But, the Earth was there long, long before. It was a hot gas Star. We need to calculate how long it took for the earth to convert to solid rock star. This will give us the real age of the Earth!!!
  #3  
Old June 23rd 13, 06:25 AM posted to sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 291
Default age of Moon compared to Io and Europa Chapt21 layered ages oftheSolar System #1611 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

On Saturday, June 22, 2013 2:40:04 AM UTC-5, David Levy wrote:
Hi

- Someday, scientists here on Earth will find a experiment that dates



Earth and whichÂ*those dates imply not a 4.5 billion year old Earth


but rather a 10 to 
8 
Â*billion year old Earth. -




Yes, I agree with you that the Earth age is much older the current

expected age of 4.5 Billion years.



Please see the following thread of Star Creation by Spiral Galaxy:

http://www.spacebanter.com/showthread.php?t=196879

As it is stated at Wiki: "The bar may be surrounded by a ring called

the 5-kpc ring that contains a large fraction of the molecular hydrogen

present in the galaxy, as well as most of the Milky Way's star formation

activity."

Our Sun and all solar planets had been born with a similar matter.

As I have stated in that thread: "Gradually, a hot new star will appear.

If it's a high-mass star then it will keep all the light gases (due to

gravity) and become a giant gas star. If the mass is significantly

larger there is a chance for a nuclear burning activity than it might

become a sun star. But when it is relatively small, than the gases might

emitted into space and therefore, it becomes a rocky planet like Earth

and Mars."

That matter includes all the variety of Atoms (Hydrogen Helium, Oxygen,

carbon, Nitrogen, Iron…) and moleculars (water, carbon dioxide,

silicates…) that we see today on Earth and all the other planets and

Sun.

It is quite clear that the majority of the matter on each planet were

Hydrogen & Helium (over 98% of the total mass). Never the less, a small

planet couldn't keep those light gases due to lake of enough gravity

force. Therefore, the Earth, which was born as a relatively small hot

ball Gas, lost most of its gas to the space. As it lost its gas it also

started to cool down. What we see today is only the 2% of the leftover

of Earth. The 4.5 Billion years is based on the first solid rocks that

had been created on the Earth surface.

But, the Earth was there long, long before. It was a hot gas Star. We

need to calculate how long it took for the earth to convert to solid

rock star. This will give us the real age of the Earth!!!









--

David Levy


Hi, I did not see anything much different in yours, from a Nebular Dust Cloud with a typical Newton gravity.

What I am hollering about, is EM-gravity and the formation of stars and solar systems by Dirac New Radioactivities. Have you read Dirac's book Directions in Physics? Probably not for you would not have made this reply. His new radioactivities dismisses these silly ideas of dust clouds forming solar systems. And as a seed in the Galaxy receives more cosmic rays and gamma ray bursts, the seed grows.

We all know about radioactive elements decaying. Here we have a seed that grows into higher atomic elements.

AP
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
We have Layered ages of Cosmos from 6.5 to 20.2 billion years old;#1604 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 1 June 14th 13 08:59 PM
Chapt20 Layered ages of Cosmos from 6.5 to 20.2 billion years old#1601 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 0 June 13th 13 06:20 PM
Chapt23 Earth Moon collision; Layered ages of the Cosmos and SolarSystem #395 Atom Totality 4th ed Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 0 April 20th 11 07:26 AM
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.