Chapt23 Layered ages of the Cosmos and Solar System #394 AtomTotality 4th ed

Subject: Further evidence of a youthful universe,
SCIENCE NEWS, 9Sep95
Date: 30 Dec 1995 23:18:31 GMT


*SCIENCE NEWS, Vol. 148, Sept 9, 1995 page 166 titled
FURTHER EVIDENCE OF A
*YOUTHFUL UNIVERSE


--- start of quoting SN in part ---


The conundrum continues. Yet another set of
observations indicates that the universe-- as described by a
popular cosmological model-- appears to be younger than its
oldest stars. The new study puts the age of the cosmos at 8.4
billion to 10.6 billion years, younger than the 13 billion
to 16 billion years estimated for elderly stars.
Like the findings that made headlines a year ago,
the new work relied on the Hubble Space Telescope to
obtain the distance to a faraway cluster of galaxies.
Combining that distance with the speed at which this cluster
recedes from Earth, researchers determined the Hubble
constant, which measures the expansion rate and age of
the cosmos (SN: 10/8/94,p.232).
A team led by Nial R. Tanvir of the University of
Cambridge in England used a two-step method to
estimate the constant. First, they observed a type of
"standard candle"--stars known as Cepheid variables--
to find the distance to the spiral galaxy M96 in the
Leo cluster of galaxies. Even at 37 million light years,
M96 lies too close to the Milky Way for its velocity to
reflect cosmic expansion unadulterated by the gravitational
tug of other galaxies. But the team used the Leo distance
as a stepping-stone to the more remote Coma cluster.
To obtain the Coma distance, the researchers relied on
a unique property of elliptical galaxies, they report
in the Sept. 7 NATURE. Astronomers have long known that the
bigger an elliptical galaxy, the greater its spread of
stellar velocities. But the exact relationship between the two
remained uncertain. Previous observations had hinted that
the spiral galaxy M96 lies near the center of the Leo
cluster, where the ellipticals gather. This coincidence enabled
the team to use the distance to M96 to calibrate for the
first time the relationship between the size of elliptical
galaxies and their velocity spreads.
Applying this calibration to the elliptical galaxies in
the Coma cluster, the team found a distance of about 345
million light years and a Hubble constant between 61 and
77 kilometers per second per megaparsec (1 parsec is
3.26 light years). In models in which the universe has just
enough matter to keep from expanding forever, this
corresponds to an age of about 9.5 billion years.
The discrepancy between this age and the age of old
stars suggests that astronomers have come to a
crossroads. . . .
--- end of quoting SN in part ---


Only in an Atom Totality can you have
a younger universe within its older stars.


--- quoting SN in part ---
. . .
Some astronomers who question Sandage's results say
that la supernovas may come in more than one wattage
and thus cannot function as a single
standard candle.


.. . .
* *For example, he notes, a high value for the
constant
would seem to make the age of the universe half that
of the oldest stars in it, . . .


--- end quoting of SN in part ---


*The theoretical solution for the younger universe
than its oldest stars is the realization that the
universe is an atom itself. The space of an atom is
the electron space. Our observable universe is the
masses and spaces of the 5f6 electrons
of 231PU. Electrons share orbitals. Thus the oldest
stars are mass bits of the six 5f6 electrons and the
Hubble constant expansion is the Uranium Atom Totality
expanding into our present Plutonium Atom Totality.


-----------
From: Archimedes Plutonium
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics
Subject: Freedman age will converge on 6.5 bill yr;
*Sandage 20.2 bill yr
Date: 28 Jul 1996 22:41:31 GMT



In 3AUG96 what is the "Age of the Universe
Controversy".


* *Above I have used the best age of the alpha
* *decay modes of Thorium and
Uranium. There is no problem of thorium with
20.2 billion years
matching the oldest stars and that is exactly
where Sandage was going.
Going for the 20 billion year mark for the
oldest stars.
* *However there is a problem with Uranium in
* *that its alpha decay mode
is 4.5 bill years half-life which gives a mean
life age for Uranium at
6.5 billion years. Freedman and teams have
reported an age as low as 8
billion years. That suggests either the 4.5
bill yrs given to uranium
half-life is in need of refinement, which I
highly doubt. On the other
hand the Freedman measurements of 8 billion
years are due to come down
lower in figure, from that of 8 billion
years to closer to 6.5 billion
years. This coming down is highly likely
and as we come more
sophisticated in making the Hubble
expansion age measurements, we
will come closer to the 6.5 billion
year age.


Time in the Atom Totality is different from time in the Big Bang.
In the Atom Totality theory, time is not a 4th
dimension as it is in the Big Bang which gets its cues from General
Relativity which is a fake theory of physics.

Time in the Atom Totality is the arrangement of all the atoms and the
subsequent rearrangement of all the atoms.
So if all the atoms in the Cosmos became stationary, then time
ceases
to exist. And thus, in the Atom Totality
there is no "time travel". For in order to time travel, you have to
get every atom in the cosmos into a arrangement
that existed in the past and it is impossible to make such a
rearrangement.


And another feature I need to discuss in elaboration is the idea that
because the Universe is one big atom
of a radioactive element of 231Plutonium strengthens the theory, not
dimishing the theory. Most novices when
they first hear of the Atom Totality theory think that 231Pu will
radioactive decay away. But because the
Universe is this highly radioactive element gives rise to the
feature
of "time in the Cosmos" since the decay is
strong and steady gives rise to a undercurrent of time flow in the
cosmos. We see this by the steady flow of
Cosmic rays and gamma ray bursts. If the Atom Totality were a stable
element such as iron or neon or helium
then the Cosmos would be very boring and almost at a standstill. But
because we live in a 231Pu Atom Totality
we live in a dynamic and rapidly changing Cosmos because this
element
gives rise to a fast and fluid and
changing parameter of time. So I need to discuss in length and
detail
the feature of "time" in an Atom Totality.


--- quoting http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science...ent-star_N.htm
Long before our solar system formed and even before the Milky Way
assumed its final spiral shape, a star slightly smaller than the Sun
blazed into life in our galaxy, formed from the newly scattered
remains of the first stars in the universe.
Employing techniques similar to those used to date archeological
remains here on Earth, scientists have learned that a metal-poor star
in our Milky Way called HE 1523 is
13.2 billion years old-just slightly younger than 13.7 billion year
age of the universe. Our solar system is estimated to be only about
4.6 billion years old. The findings are detailed in the May 10 issue
of Astrophysical Journal.
--- end quoting http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science...ent-star_N.htm

I am excited by this discovery but will be even more excited because
the Atom Totality theory predicts stars in our Milky Way Galaxy that
are older than the alleged age of the Cosmos 13.7 billion years.
In the Atom Totality theory ages of stars and galaxies are layered.
Some ages are from the Plutonium Atom Era, some from the previous
Uranium Atom Era, some from the prior Thorium Atom Era. So that the
age of
13.7 billion years was merely the Plutonium Atom extension onto a
prior older cosmos of the Uranium Atom Totality.
So what does this mean for the oldest stars in our galaxy? It means
that in the future, there will be found a star that is 15 billion
years old, and in the future a star that clocks up an age of 19 to 20
billion years will be found. Such discoveries will bring crisis to the
Big Bang believers and they will be robustly adamant that the
researchers made mistakes. But they did not make mistakes. The trouble
is that the Big Bang theory is a fake.
And closer to home, according to the Atom Totality theory, our own
Solar System displays this same layering of ages in that the Sun and
inner planets date back to the prior Uranium Atom Totality and can be
as old as
20 billion years, whereas the outer planets of Jupiter and beyond are
of the recent Plutonium Atom Era and are only 4-5 billion years old.
So when experimentalists can accurately date the Sun and inner planets
compared
to the outer planets, be not surprized when the data says that the Sun
and Earth are closer to 10 billion years old and Jupiter and Saturn
are only 5 billion years old. But can I claim this layering truth now
from the given 13.2 billion
years? Can I claim victory for the Atom Totality theory, right here,
and right now? I think so. Because in the Big Bang theory requires
billions of years for the
explosion to have coalesced the material to form a star and not just a
mere 0.5 billion years. In other words, our present understanding of
solar dynamics does not allow for a star forming in 0.5 billion years
immediately
after the Big Bang explosion. That picture conjures up the image that
the explosion had pre-made stars. So I think I can count victory right
here and right now. And the icing on the cake will be when researchers
report a star that is 20 billion years old in our galaxy.

In August of 2007 I added to this chapter that of the layered age
evidence for the Solar System. That I forecast someday someone will
find a
zircon crystal that will register an age far beyond the 4 to 5 billion
years
for Inner planets and asteroids but will measure 8-10 billion years
old.


Also the cores of Sun and Inner planets compared to Outer planets and
their satellites do not concur with the Nebular Dust Cloud theory for
it
cannot explain the huge cores of Io, Europa. What explains those huge
cores is the
Dirac new radioactivity of the growing of the solar system from
material
shot from the Nucleus of the Atom Totality, such as cosmic rays and
gamma ray
bursts.

So instead of Freedman and Sandage fudging their age measurements,
what will revitalize the debate and dismiss that fudging is when Earth
is
found to be twice as old as Jupiter.

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