Chapt31 CellWell1 & CellWell2 #380 Atom Totality 4th ed

Chapter 31 Solar System evidence such as CellWell1 and CellWell2

The heavy water ratio found in the Outer Planets

According to the Atom Totality theory coupled with CellWell1 and
CellWell2 Growing Solar System
theory (Dirac new-radioactivities). The Sun should
be about 10 billion years old; inner planets about 7.5;
in a Cosmos that is 22 billion years old. The Outer Planets would
be only 5 billion years old.
Whether the Comets are older than Earth is possible since the
Cosmos is 22 billion
years old. There is alot we have to learn about Dirac new-
radioactivities.

But I am rather confident that some scientist in the past has done a
age measurement of perhaps
zircon crystals and found his measurement to be 8 to 10 billion years
old and said to himself "This
cannot be right, and for the sake of my career to dismiss it as a
flubb-up" Perhaps several incidents
of this have already happened and where the researchers never
published
it because it was far from
the 4 to 5 billion years age everyone else was getting.

So I would not be surprized at all that one or two or several people
in the past, who were measuring the
age of Earth, whether via zircon crystals or some other route, that
they may have landed on a
8 to 10 billion age but since the rest of the world was landing on 4
to 5 billion years, they quietly
discarded their work.

But the truth will come out and there are other zircon crystals or
other methods, and this time when
someone finds a 10 billion age for Sun or 8 billion for
Earth, they will not throw it out
but have it published, and have it
the center of attention.

The idea I want to underscore, is that data and information of a
closer distance
from the observer is the information which is most convincing. Call it
a paradigm of convincing. But the rationale behind this paradigm of
convincing is that the closer the observations, the more observations
on a specific data can be carried
out and the broader range of techniques for data gathering. Take for
instance the age of Earth has a vast range of techniques to
engage with the age, whereas some distant galaxy age reckoning maybe
only one technique at our disposal-- redshift inferences.

So to me, the quality of the evidence is more convincing than whether
we can take thousands of measurements of the age of distant stars or
galaxies.
If we have stars with quantized speeds (Tifft), to me, means we
cannot have a Big Bang theory. If we have 99% of the mass in the
Cosmos missing, and since an atom nucleus is 99% of the mass of an
atom, is not a coincidental fact, but support that the Universe must
be an atom.

I like the quality of evidence, more than the quantity of evidence.
And the ease of measuring data nearby the observer.

But quantity and quality of evidence aside, what is true is that the
the physics going on with Earth, with the Solar System
must be the physics of either the Atom Totality theory or the Big Bang
theory (if those are the only two contenders). So if the Atom Totality
theory is true and the Big Bang is false then the physics of Earth and
Solar System must have a different physics to distinguish the Atom
Totality versus Big Bang. Big Bang says the Solar System follows a
Nebular Dust Cloud theory, and Atom Totality says the Solar System
follows Dirac new-radioactivities.

So, which is the winner? Is it the Nebular Dust Cloud that formed our
Solar System some 4.5 billion years ago? Or is it the Dirac new-
radioactivities that formed Sun some 10 billion years ago and the
inner planets some 7.5 billion years ago and the outer gas giants
some 5 billion years ago?

Is the precession of Mercury of 0.43 arcseconds/year due to Solar
particle emission pressure, and the obeyance of almost all the planets
in a orbit of the plane of the ecliptic due to Positron-Space-gravity
points to the Atom Totality theory as true.

So even if I prefer quality evidence over quantity evidence, the fact
still
remains that within any distance range of measuring, that one theory
is
true and the other is false. So there is some physics measuring on
Earth that decides whether Atom Totality or Big Bang is true or false.
And then the same for the Solar System, and the same for the distance
of the exoplanets, and the same for the stars in our Milky Way and the
same for the galaxies beyond the Milky Way.

So no matter what distance range you like to make measurement and
observations, the Atom Totality theory will predict a different set of
measures than the Big Bang for a particular class of measurement at
that distance.

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