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

explaining cosmic abundance of chemical elements Chapt13 Experimentsfor Dirac's new-radioactivities #98 Atom Totality theory 5th ed.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 28th 11, 09:09 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.math
Archimedes Plutonium[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 858
Default explaining cosmic abundance of chemical elements Chapt13 Experimentsfor Dirac's new-radioactivities #98 Atom Totality theory 5th ed.


Subject: Additive (or Multiplicative) Creation Dirac's new
radioactivities predicts why lithium, beryllium, boron are so rare


Now this topic of the cosmic abundance of chemical elements is going
to be competing for
two different chapters in this book, that of Dirac's new
radioactivities and the chapter on cosmic abundance and distribution
of chemical elements. It is
annoying for me
to have to sort and weigh whether a post is in one chapter or the
other, and I guess that at some edition of this book, that I can
begin
to fine tune even such
a daunting task or organization.


Having discussed the proportion of heavy water in Earth Oceans versus
in Comets, has
made me realize that the Cosmic abundance and distribution of the
chemical elements
is a proof of not only the Atom Totality theory but also a proof
that
Dirac new
radioactivities is at work.


If you study the cosmic abundance of chemical elements, you know
there
is a puzzle
as to why the lighter elements of lithium, beryllium and boron are
so
rare, when they should
not be that rare.


--- quoting Wikipedia on lithium ---
The nuclei of lithium are relatively fragile: the two stable lithium
isotopes found in nature have lower binding energies per nucleon
than
any other stable compound nuclides, save deuterium, and helium-3
(3He).
[1] Though very light in atomic weight, lithium is less common in
the
solar system than 25 of the first 32 chemical elements.[2]
--- end quoting ---


If Dirac's new radioactivities is true of additive creation, then
there are barriers to the creation
or aufbau of these elements for a cosmic abundance.


Now in the Big Bang theory, the abundance and distribution of the
chemical elements hinges
on supernova, creating the elements and distributing them. But
supernova are rare and their
attempts of distribution would be a sloppy distribution to say the
least, and to
think they can be such a perfect creator and distributor of elements
is so farfetched that
these scientists should be ashamed in believing what they believe.


On the other hand, if you accept Dirac's new radioactivities, we
immediately see and can sense a cosmic uniform creation and
distribution of the chemical elements. And because
of additive creation, that the lighter elements would be almost
nonexistent in stars but rather
abundant in the planets that are near the stars. So that we have a
rarity of lithium, beryllium
and boron in stars but an abundance of them in the planets that
revolve around those
stars. The reason being is that Dirac additive creation has barriers
in massive astro bodies
like stars but not a barrier in lighter bodies like planets. So the
additive creation process
is different depending on the mass of the astro body. And we see
this
in the Comets having
heavy water at 320ppm whereas Earth has heavy water at 160ppm.


Now other elements such as technetium at 43 and promethium at 61 are
virtually nonexistent
in the cosmos at large. Now the Big Bang with its supernova
explanation is again deaf, dumb
and silent about elements 43 and 61. But the Dirac new
radioactivities
with additive creation
can explain this glitch of 43 and 61, by saying that the process of
additive creation, regardless
of the mass of the astro body, cannot build or aufbau 43 and 61
since
those are weak points
in the aufbau. But elements of thorium and uranium at 90 and 92 are
apparently overabundant
in the cosmos and that is explained easily by the additive-creation
or perhaps the multiplicative-creation
that 90 and 92 are energy wells that attract the cosmic rays in
aufbau
regardless of whether a massive star or a tiny planet.


So we see here a union or a link between the Dirac new
radioactivities
with the abundance and
distribution of the chemical elements in the cosmos. In fact, I
envision that if someone were to
make a Cosmic mapping of every atom in the entire Universe that it
would match the mapping of what Jarrett and Juric are doing for the
galaxies and stars of the Universe. Both of them
were created from the same source of creation process-- Dirac's new
radioactivites additive form or multiplicative form.

Subject: Dirac's New Radioactivities predicts that iron is
stable to fission & fusion


Now the Big Bang theory is very cloudy and obfuse with the cosmic
abundance
and creation of the chemical elements. The Big Bang has one isolated
process
to explain the abundance and process-- supernova. But we all know
that
supernova
are rare events. So how does our Universe have such a fine tuned
cosmic abundance
of elements and so evenly distributed? The answer lies with the Atom
Totality theory
with its mechanism of creation of Dirac's New-Radioactivities in
Additive Creation or in Multiplicative Creation (perhaps both
together).
That the Nucleus of the Atom Totality constantly spews out more
energy
and matter
in the form of constant daily barrage of cosmic rays (protons) and
cosmic gamma ray
bursts and in neutrinos that come to rest in matter or in space.
These three forms of spewing out are vastly uniform in the
cosmos whereever
there is existing matter in place.


Astronomers, before the Atom Totality theory were frantically and
constantly running around
looking for where Cosmic Rays and Cosmic Gamma Ray Bursts had their
source? Where
they were coming from? They were so uniform and so constant. Well
they
never did find
the source in the Big Bang theory because Cosmic Rays and Cosmic
Gamma
Ray Bursts
were coming from a Nucleus of an Atom Totality and their spew is so
uniformly constant
that they build the chemical elements on planets and stars and astro
bodies so precisely
to a Dirac Additive/Multiplicative Creation that the aufbau principle
in Quantum
Mechanics is one and the
same as the Dirac New Radioactivities.


The Big Bang with supernova cannot answer why the element iron is
stable to both
fission and fusion. The Atom Totality with its Dirac new
radioactivities tells us why iron
element 26 must be the element stable to both fission and fusion.
Tells us why hydrogen
and helium must be 99% of the chemical elements in the universe and
why the other
elements must be in a proportional abundance that they have.


Basically, the answer is that Dirac New Radioactivities
is one and the same as the Aufbau Principle in Quantum
Mechanics. When a Cosmic Ray (proton) is shot
from the Nucleus of the Atom Totality and "appears" on the Sun, it
is
going to be counted as
a hydrogen atom for the Sun. When a Cosmic Ray shot from the Nucleus
of the Atom Totality
appears on Earth inside the Earth, it has a good chance of landing
on
a lead atom and increasing its atomic number to that of 83 becoming
a
bismuth atom.


Now many of us were taught in schools (brainwashed) into thinking
that
gold or uranium was
crafted only in some faraway supernova a long time ago and
eventually
became part of Earth's elements. In reality though, the gold or
uranium that we find on Earth never came from
any supernova, but was gradually built up from smaller atomic
numbered
elements, proton by proton via Dirac new-radioactivities such as
cosmic rays. Now some may find this hard to believe, until most
everyone learns that the Cosmos has Cosmic Gamma Ray Bursts that
also
comes from a Atom Totality Nucleus and some of these bursts can wipe
out an entire
galaxy. Yes, you heard me correctly. In past years some gamma ray
bursts are the most
powerful single events in the Cosmos, having more energy than an
entire galaxy has
energy.


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 November 29th 11, 06:42 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.math
Archimedes Plutonium[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 858
Default explaining cosmic abundance of chemical elements Chapt13Experiments for Dirac's new-radioactivities #99 Atom Totality theory 5th ed.


Subjectirac's New Radioactivities and Gamma Ray Bursts

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

(all else snipped)


- Show quoted text -
Well, I want to qualify that thought of "more energy than an entire
galaxy"
More electromagnetic energy than an entire galaxy of its
electromagnetic energy.


--- quoting Wikipedia on a energetic gamma ray burst ---
GRB 080916C is a gamma-ray burst (GRB) that occurred on September
16,
2008 in the Carina constellation and detected by NASA's Fermi Gamma-
ray Space Telescope. It is the most powerful gamma-ray burst ever
recorded. The explosion had more power than 9,000 supernovae, and
the
gas jets emitting the initial gamma rays moved at a minimum velocity
of 99.9999 percent the speed of light, making this blast the most
extreme recorded to date.[1][2]
--- end quoting ---


These powerful gamma ray bursts are true and undeniable. They exist.
What does not
exist are black-holes, Big Bang which cannot explain something like
GRB 080916C.


There is no debate, no argument as to the existence of these powerful
Gamma Ray Bursts.
And the only reasonable explanation is that the Cosmos has a
powerful
Emitter to create
such a burst. That Emitter is a Nucleus of an Atom Totality. Black
holes are no emitters
of such a event. The Big Bang is no emitter except if you want to
count its initial explosion as
an emission.


So there is nothing in the physics of a Big Bang with black-holes to
account for a Cosmos
that has frequent and periodic Gamma Ray Bursts of such a huge
magnitude. The only
reasonable accounting for these huge bursts is a Nucleus of an Atom
Totality. It is radioactivity of an Atom Totality.


A Nucleus of an Atom Totality would account for the building of the
Universe via
Dirac new radioactivities of a constant spew of cosmic rays and
cosmic
gamma ray bursts. Whether it is a additive or a multiplicative
creation.
A Nucleus would also account for Solid Body Rotation of galaxies,
since that
type of rotation requires the force of Electricity-Magnetism and rules
out
gravity as the cause of solid-body-rotation. No
scientist, with any
sort of reasoning or logic could accept a Big Bang with black holes
when they see
a Cosmic Gamma Ray Burst of that magnitude. The Universe is not
driven
by gravity
with black holes swallowing up things, but rather, the Universe is
driven by an EM nucleus of a giant cosmic atom and that nucleus is
also
an emitter. A huge emitter such as a Nucleus that can routinely emit
huge
gamma ray bursts.

Subject: Comet's 320ppm versus Earth's 160ppm experiment; Dirac's new
radioactivities

Androcles wrote:
"Owen Jacobson" wrote in message
news:2010061900210633875-angrybaldguy@gmailcom...
| On 2010-06-18 02:37:18 -0400, Archimedes Plutonium said:
|
| Then I have experiment (B) where I take a given quantity of

Earth
| simulated ocean water and another sample of a simulated Comet

water
|
| Ocean water is easy, but how do you propose to simulate comet

water?
|
| -o



Buy a fridge from he
* http://www.comet.co.uk/shopcomet/homePage.do?zone_id=13


Well the experiment would have to run through a bombardment test
of protons on ice water versus liquid water in that ice water may
cause
the higher ratio of heavy water formation. I saw no reports of
Antarctica having
a higher density of heavy water compared to liquid ocean water. But
would
have to rule this out.


I am guessing that astronomers know the salinity of Comet water with
some
high degree of accuracy. So what I am guessing the reason that Comet
water is 2X more heavy water than Earth water is that both are
created
via
Dirac new radioactivities additive/multiplicative creation, but that
the Cosmic Rays
(protons)
end up on Earth into making more heavy salt rather than heavy water
since
chlorine has two stable isotopes of CL35 and CL37. Or, perhaps the
protons
go into some other aufbau because of the special environment on Earth
compared
to Comets.


I have not yet confirmed whether astronomers know what the salt
density
in Comets is? My suspicion is that these equations are true:


Earth water + cosmic rays = 160ppm heavy water + 1/4 more CL37
density
than Comet


Comet water + cosmic rays = 320ppm heavy water + miniscule CL37
density increase


Of course, Earth is bombarded with more cosmic rays than a comet.


In summary, the cosmic rays as additive/multiplicative creation
Dirac's new
radioactivities causes
Earth water to use more of the protons in creating heavy salt, or
something
else, whereas
in Comets
those protons go to making 2X more heavy water than Earth.


This is what the experiment hopes to verify. And if it does so, would
be substantial
proof that Dirac's new radioactivities additive/multiplicative
creation is true.


And it leaves the field of astro chemistry wide open to explore other
chemicals on
planets or moons and their density disparity. Why does Earth have
a larger iron density than Mars or Venus? Is it because the larger
magnetic field of
Earth brings in more Cosmic rays than normally?

Subject: additive versus multiplicative creation: Dirac's new
radioactivities


An interesting prospect would be to see whether the planets and
satellites have a
chemical composition more in keeping with a additive creation versus
multiplicative.


In Dirac's book, Directions in Physics, he computes that the Moon
would recede
from Earth if multiplicative creation by 2cm/year and would approach
Earth by
2cm/year if additive creation.


So in this edition of this book, I am wanting a better experiment to
decide between
additive and multiplicative creation because the detection of motion
of 2cm/year is
too messy and complex of a task with something so complicated as the
motion of
the Moon with such a small measure of 2cm/year. So I believe the
chemistry of
New Radioactivities is a far far better proof scheme, such as the
Comet water
is 320ppm versus Earth's 160ppm.


Now in additive creation, the formation of new matter occurs where
matter
already exists, and little to no new matter where there is absence
of
existing
matter. In multiplicative creation, there is new matter arising
everywhere. A mathematical example is the logarithmic spiral or the
fractals that as they become larger, they
keep their same shape. So the logarithmic spiral is multiplicative
creation. An example
of additive creation is the tree rings of a tree or the growth of a
tree.


So, now, let us check what the growth pattern of the chemical
elements
for the planets and
moons have been? We really have access to only one astro body of its
interior composition,
our Earth. And the question would be, has the Earth grown from a
multiplicative creation
or a additive creation of Dirac New Radioactivities?


And here, we also must include what the Big Bang via Nebular Dust
Cloud theory would say
of chemical composition in that the planets were created from a
gravitational lumping together
of planetesimals.


Correct me if wrong, but I understand of the data and facts of
chemical composition of Earth
and stars is that the elements of thorium, uranium are seemingly
overabundant for what they
should be compared to neighboring elements on the periodic chart.
That
for some reason
of creation process, the elements of thorium and uranium are
overabundant once we go
beyond bismuth as the last stable isotope of the periodic chart. And
this thorium and uranium
overabundance can be seen on Earth chemistry and in stars where we
can
check spectroscopically.


In an earlier edition of this book I relied on a publication of the
1980s on the cosmic
abundance of the chemical elements and it seems as though no-one in
the
science
community is making that data up to date. If I remember correctly,
someone in Europe,
Holland? was keeping the data of cosmic abundance of elements. But
whether anyone
is making that data an ongoing up to date event is worrisome. Some
physics data should
be a recurring up to date report and the cosmic abundance of
elements
is one of those
important needed reports. I have to search through my previous
editions to find that reference. But basically, what I recall is
that
the abundance of
chemical elements decreases the higher the atomic number. And that
after lead
and bismuth, there are few atoms of any elements except for thorium
and uranium
and these two are just as abundant as many of the elements lower in
atomic number
than bismuth. This seems to be a astronomical truth and fact and
data
that is
highly reliable. That thorium and uranium are as abundant as a
nonradioactive
element of lower atomic number.


This fact or data disproves the multiplicative creation process, for
you cannot have
a overabundant thorium and uranium in that process. This fact and
data
also
disproves the Nebular Dust Cloud creation process of gravity as the
creator of our
planets, and also, the abundance of uranium and thorium on the
surface
of Earth
is contradictory to gravity and Nebular Dust Cloud.


The cosmic abundance and distribution of thorium and uranium support
only one
creation process-- Dirac's new radioactivities of additive creation.
As I started with
analogies of a tree ring growth or a tree in general, that the rings
are rather uniform
and so the amount of thorium and uranium as overabundant is uniform
in
each layer
of a star or layer of Earth. So we can expect overabundant thorium
and
uranium atoms
given any layer of Earth or a star.


If multiplicative creation and Nebular Dust Cloud creation were true,
we could expect that
the center of Earth is not a iron core but rather a thorium uranium
core center. And especially
Jupiter. But we see none of that.


The chemical composition and abundance point to Additive Creation as
the true process.

I wrote most of the above years back in earlier editions of this book.
I do not
like additive creation, as a hunch I do not like it. So what I am
going to do
is waver on the issue and say that both Dirac's additive and
multiplicative
creation are in action, and that it is not a either or but rather,
both are
in action. And that in some circumstances such as measuring whether
Moon is
+2cm/year or -2cm/year then it is multiplicative creation that is
predominant,
but in other circumstances
such as abundance of elements it is additive creation that is
predominant.

I want to keep my mind open as to which of the two, or both, are in
play.


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

  #3  
Old November 29th 11, 08:20 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.math
Archimedes Plutonium[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 858
Default explaining cosmic abundance of chemical elements Chapt13Experiments for Dirac's new-radioactivities #100 Atom Totality theory 5th ed.


Subject: Anders, Ebihara additive versus multiplicative creation:
Dirac's
new radioactivities Chapt 5 #179; ATOM TOTALITY

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

(snipped)


In an earlier edition of this book I relied on a publication of the
1980s on the cosmic
abundance of the chemical elements and it seems as though noone in

the
science
community is making that data up to date. If I remember correctly,
someone in Europe,



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


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


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


Subject: Anders, Ebihara additive versus multiplicative
creation:
Dirac's new radioactivities


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


Archimedes Plutonium wrote circa 2003 and 2006:


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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
Chapt13 Experiment: Dirac's new-radioactivities , multiplicativecreation #82 Atom Totality theory 5th ed. Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 1 November 24th 11 07:39 AM
chapt13 Experiment: Dirac's new-radioactivities and Dirac's additiveand multiplicative creation #81 Atom Totality theory 5th ed. Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 0 November 22nd 11 09:03 PM
Chapt24 Cosmic abundance and distribution of the chemical elements#411 Atom Totality 4th ed Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 0 May 5th 11 07:11 AM
chapt15 the cosmic distribution of chemical elements as a diffractionpattern #218 Atom Totality theory Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 0 December 26th 09 07:03 AM
chapt4 Dirac's new-radioactivities and Dirac's multiplicative-creation#212 Atom Totality theory Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 0 December 21st 09 03:43 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:05 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.