|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |