Chapt24 the cosmic abundance and distribution of chemical elements#1619 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

In June of 2010 in an earlier edition of this textbook I wrote the below two posts.
Things have changed drastically since 2010, in that I have axiomatized all of physics with the Maxwell Equations and that places a tremendous burden on the concept of the abundance and distribution of the chemical elements in the Cosmos. No longer can physics or astronomy believe or accept in the silly and vapid notion that the predominant mechanism that elements are created in supernova and distributed so uniformily throughout the Cosmos by such rare events as supernova. The commonsense logical person must shuck themselves of supernova silliness and start to realize that Dirac New Radioactivities Mechanism is the cause of the uniform abundance and distribution of the chemical elements throughout the Cosmos.

sci.math, sci.astro, sci.physics
Â*Jun 19, 2:05Â*pm
Date: Jun 19, 2010 3:05 PM
Author:
Subject: Anders, Ebihara additive versus multiplicative creation: Dirac's
Â* new radioactivities

Â*Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

(snipped)


In an earlier edition of this book I relied on a publication of the
Â* 1980s on the cosmic
Â* abundance of the chemical elements and it seems as though noone in the
Â* science
Â* community is making that data up to date. If I remember correctly,
Â* someone in Europe,
Â* Holland? was keeping the data of cosmic abundance of elements. But
Â* whether anyone
Â* is making that data an ongoing up to date event is worrisome. Some
Â* physics data should
Â* be a recurring up to date report and the cosmic abundance of elements
Â* is one of those
Â* important needed reports. I have to search through my previous
Â* editions to find that reference. But basically, what I recall is that

An easy and quick search in Wikipedia found my old source:


Anders, E; Ebihara, M (1982). "Solar-system abundances of the
Â*elements". Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 46: 2363. doi:
Â*10.1016/0016-7037(82)90208-3.


But that is the problem that I harkened to in the 1990s, was that
Â*important data such as
Â*the chemical composition of the Universe is data that needs constant
Â*revision and reporting.
Â*It is one of the most important data for telling us whether the Atom
Â*Totality is true and
Â*the Big Bang false. For it tells us that the elements of thorium and
Â*uranium are too overabundant for a Big Bang theory to be true, and
Â*that the overabundance of thorium
Â*and uranium support the truth of Dirac's new radioactivities Additive
Â*Creation.



sci.math, sci.astro, sci.physics
Â*Jun 20, 1:48Â*am
Date: Jun 20, 2010 2:48 AM
Author:
Subject: Anders, Ebihara additive versus multiplicative creation:
Â* Â* Â* Dirac's new radioactivities

Â*Now if I am smart, as soon as I finish this 4th edition , I should
Â*start the 5th edition by
Â*culling all the posts into organized chapters and at least on the road
Â*to a flowing reading.


Tonight I looked into my past posts, reaching into 2003 and 2006 for
Â*this gem:


Archimedes Plutonium wrote circa 2003 and 2006:


--- quoting in parts Sources: Anders and Ebihara, 1982 Solar-system
Â*abundances of the
Â*elements Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta Vol. 46, pages 2363-2380.
Â*The above table is the abundance compilation Anders and Grevesse,
Â*1988,
Â*Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta.


atomic number relative cosmic abundances of the elements
Â*based on meteors and analysis of the Sun


Atoms/10^6 Si
Â*1 hydrogen H 2.79 x 10^10
Â*2 helium He 2.72 x 10^9
Â*3 lithium Li 57.1
Â*4 beryllium Be 0.73
Â*5 boron B 21.2
Â*6 carbon C 1.01 x 10^7
Â*7 nitrogen N 3.13 x 10^6
Â*8 oxygen O 2.38 x 10^7
Â*9 fluorine F 843
Â*10 neon Ne 3.44 x 10^6
Â*11 sodium Na 5.74 x 10^4
Â*12 magnesium Mg 1.074 x 10^6
Â*13 aluminum Al 8.49 x 10^4
Â*14 silicon Si 1.00 x 10^6
Â*15 phosphorus P 1.04 x 10^4
Â*16 sulfur S 5.15 x 10^5
Â*17 chlorine Cl 5240
Â*18 argon Ar 1.01 x 10^5
Â*19 potassium K 3770
Â*20 calcium Ca 6.11 x 10^4
Â*21 scandium Sc 34.2
Â*22 titanium Ti 2400
Â*23 vanadium V 293
Â*24 chromium Cr 1.35 x 10^4
Â*25 manganese Mn 9550
Â*26 iron Fe 9.00 x 10^5
Â*27 cobalt Co 2250
Â*28 nickel N 4.93 x 10^4
Â*29 copper Cu 522
Â*30 zinc Zn 1260
Â*31 gallium Ga 37.8
Â*32 germanium Ge 119
Â*33 arsenic As 6.56
Â*34 selenium Se 62.1
Â*35 bromine Br 11.8
Â*36 krypton Kr 45
Â*37 rubidium Rb 7.09
Â*38 strontium Sr 23.5
Â*39 yttrium Y 4.64
Â*40 zirconium Zr 11.4
Â*41 niobium Nb 0.698
Â*42 molybdenum Mo 2.55
Â*43 technetium Tc
Â*44 ruthenium Ru 1.86
Â*45 rhodium Rh 0.344
Â*46 palladium Pd 1.39
Â*47 silver Ag 0.486
Â*48 cadmium Cd 1.61
Â*49 indium In 0.184
Â*50 tin Sn 3.82
Â*51 antimony Sb 0.309
Â*52 tellurium Te 4.81
Â*53 iodine I 0.90
Â*54 xenon Xe 4.7
Â*55 cesium Cs 0.372
Â*56 barium Ba 4.49
Â*57 lanthanum La 0.4460
Â*58 cerium Ce 1.136
Â*59 praseodymium Pr 0.1669
Â*60 neodymium Nd 0.8279
Â*61 promethium Pm
Â*62 samarium Sm 0.2582
Â*63 europium Eu 0.0973
Â*64 gadolinium Gd 0.3300
Â*65 terbium Tb 0.0603
Â*66 dysprosium Dy 0.3942
Â*67 holmium Ho 0.0889
Â*68 erbium Er 0.2508
Â*69 thulium Tm 0.0378
Â*70 ytterbium Yb 0.2479
Â*71 lutetium Lu 0.0367
Â*72 hafnium Hf 0.154
Â*73 tantalum Ta 0.0207
Â*74 tungsten W 0.133
Â*75 rhenium Re 0.0517
Â*76 osmium Os 0.675
Â*77 iridium Ir 0.661
Â*78 platinum Pt 1.34
Â*79 gold Au 0.187
Â*80 mercury Hg 0.34
Â*81 thallium TL 0.184
Â*82 lead Pb 3.15
Â*83 bismuth Bi 0.144
Â*84 polonium Po
Â*85 astatine At
Â*86 radon Rn
Â*87 francium Fr
Â*88 radium Ra
Â*89 actinium Ac
Â*90 thorium Th 0.0335
Â*91 protoactinium Pa
Â*92 uranium U 0.0090
Â*93 neptunium Np
Â*94 plutonium Pu


--- quoting in part Sources: Anders and Ebihara, 1982 Solar-system
Â*abundances of the
Â*elements Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta Vol. 46, pages 2363-2380.
Â*The above table is the abundance compilation Anders and Grevesse,
Â*1988,
Â*Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta.


I suspect that if one examines and analyzes the above data, can make
Â*the assertion
Â*that Dirac's New Radioactivities Additive Creation must be true and at
Â*work in having
Â*those number data of abundances.


In a Atom Totality where atoms are created by New Radioactivities
Â*Additive Creation
Â*can you have thorium element 90 at 0.0335 and more abundant than
Â*elements
Â*84,85,86,87,88, 89 and tantalum at 73 and of course elements 61 and
Â*43.


Now going in the opposite direction of the abundance of beryllium
Â*element 4 at
Â*0.73, we have to wait until element 41, niobium of 0.698 to start to
Â*see that range
Â*of abundance.


So in my suggested Experiment of taking some liquid water and
Â*bombarding it with
Â*protons to simulate Cosmic Ray bombardment and afterwards see where
Â*the protons
Â*went into making newer elements. And then repeating the experiment
Â*with say other
Â*atoms, we begin to see why the elements are as abundant as found in
Â*Nature.


The Big Bang theory would all hinge on luck as to whether there was a
Â*Supernova
Â*in the vicinity of our Solar System a long time ago before we had a
Â*solar system and
Â*that supernova brought a Nebular Dust Cloud which would congeal into
Â*our Solar System
Â*and have those numbers of abundance as reported by Anders et al,
Â*above. So alot of
Â*probability, happenstance and luck with the Big Bang and its
Â*accompanying Supernova
Â*and Nebular Dust Cloud.


Contrast that happenstance with the Atom Totality that says our Solar
Â*System was
Â*built as Dirac describes New Radioactivities of a constant and steady
Â*additive creation
Â*such as cosmic rays landing where atoms already exist and building the
Â*lighter atoms
Â*into heavier atoms. Contrast this constant steady construction of
Â*heavier elements from
Â*lighter elements via Dirac new radioactivities with the throw of the
Â*dice in the Big Bang
Â*that a supernova is nearby in the distant past and spews out heavy
Â*elements in such
Â*an exacting proportion as what the Cosmic abundance listed above.


Extremely difficult to believe a supernova can generate thorium atoms
Â*with so much
Â*abundance. But very easy to see and understand that additive creation
Â*by cosmic
Â*rays would bypass elements 84 to 89 and then be in a quantum well of
Â*stability with
Â*thorium at 90 that the protons would be in this quantum well of
Â*stability and thus
Â*make abundant thorium atoms.


Likewise on the other end of the periodic table of elements that
Â*beryllium is so rare
Â*when it should not be rare if supernova and star interiors created the
Â*elements. In
Â*the case of beryllium it is a quantum leakage, not a quantum well,
Â*that you add
Â*protons to elements 1,2,3, and they do not want to stay put for
Â*element 4, but rather
Â*the next stable quantum well is carbon of element 6.


Notice also, that apparently the quantum well of stability for
Â*creating oxygen atoms
Â*via Dirac new radioactivities is far more stable for oxygen than it is
Â*for carbon. It is
Â*this levels of quantum stability that the Atom Totality with Dirac new
Â*radioactivities
Â*is far better able to explain the abundance of elements rather than
Â*the willy-nilly explanation
Â*that a Big Bang with supernova and Nebular Dust Clouds attempts.


The above data is a harmonic sequence of creation of elements that a
Â*Additive
Â*process is the driving mechanism. So that the Aufbau principle in
Â*physics of
Â*building atoms, is tantamount to Dirac's new radioactivities of the
Â*additions of
Â*protons such as cosmic rays.


--

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