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

Chapt24 Cosmic abundance and distribution of the chemical elements#411 Atom Totality 4th ed



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 5th 11, 07:11 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.math
Archimedes Plutonium[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 858
Default Chapt24 Cosmic abundance and distribution of the chemical elements#411 Atom Totality 4th ed

Chapter 24
Subject: chap 24, cosmic distribution and abundance of chemical
elements


COSMIC ABUNDANCE OF THE CHEMICAL ELEMENTS


* * * * The cosmic abundance of the elements suggested
by the Big Bang would predict
a lower abundance of hydrogen coupled with the age
prediction of the observable
universe. In the Big Bang model, all the other
elements were derived from
hydrogen nucleosynthesis. *Considering the average
lifespan of a large star which
will terminate in a supernova explosion and the
maximum age of the observable
universe according to the Big Bang then it is math-wise
impossible to have the
uniformity and homogeneity spread of the elements
throughout the observable
universe and still maintain the cosmic abundance of
hydrogen. *The three facts of
(1) the homogenous dispersal of the elements from
carbon on up (2) the prevalent
abundance of hydrogen (3) the maximum age of the
observable universe as
calculated by the Big Bang model of around 14 to 15 billion years
age, are mathwise
impossible for the chemistry of the Cosmos to be so uniform.


* * * * The Big Bang model would predict a gradual
decline in abundance of the
elements concomitant with increase in atomic number.
What needs explanation in
the Big Bang model is the fact of increase in atomic
number with an increase in
abundance but with less stability than its neighboring
elements. *The element
thorium and uranium are such elements. *A Pu Atom Totality model
would require *differential
abundances of elements even though these elements have
a higher atomic number.
The reason-- the differential abundance of the
elements are required for
stability of successive atom totality and the case for
a purposeful-atom-
totality going towards a heavier element atom
totality. Biological evolution
which is nucleosynthesis is a purposeful process. *We
would not be here now to
discuss a Plutonium Atom Totality if it was not for
the prevalence of thorium
and uranium inside the Earth heating-up the interior
and having caused mutation
of genetic material in the past. *The abundance of the
radioactive elements is
required in the future for us to obtain huge supplies
of energy required for
heavy element nucleosynthesis.


* * * * The Big Bang model of the observable universe
predicts that the element
technetium with atomic number 43 by laws of math
probability must be more
abundant in the observable universe than the higher
odd numbered atomic elements
such as rhenium atomic number 75. * A Big Bang model
would show at least one
nuclide of each mass number stable to radioactive beta
decay modes. Yet
technetium and promethium are counterexamples. *An
Atom Totality would
explain the abundance of thorium 90 and uranium 92 and
the depletion of
technetium 43 and promethium 61 in the observable
universe, because of a
purposeful-atom-totality.

We have a mystery as to their rarity of the lighter elements in our
Solar
System. A fact that the Big Bang theory has never
been able to wrestle with. The Atom Totality theory
has begun to wrestle with why the Comets have twice
as much deuterium as does Earth, saying that Earth
is twice as old at 10 billion years than the Comets and
due to this age that the radioactive elements in 10
billion years of Dirac radioactivities loses about 1/2 of
its deuterium density. Earth and the inner planets are
soaked full of radioactive elements whereas the outer gas giants and
the comets have missed out on 5 billion years of Dirac
Radioactivities
creating radioactive elements that depletes the deuterium density.


Probably the same explanation goes for the lighter elements such as
lithium, beryllium, boron et al.


One method for proving Earth and Sun and terrestrial planets are
twice as old as the
gas giant planets is the core data. Cores of planets are somewhat
analogous to tree-rings
because the older an astro body is, the more it has iron nickel,
especially old stars. So a
comparison of Solar System cores should indicate dense iron cores
for
Inner Planets compared
to Outer-Planets. But the mathematics of cores would not be a linear
relationship but rather
a logarithmic relationship tying into the Dirac Radioactivities. For
the Solar System
was created and grew from particles shot from the nucleus of the
Atom
Totality which landed
and ended up on one of the planets or Sun, such as what is daily
seen
as gamma ray bursts
or cosmic-rays.


Why am I so keen about proving Earth is twice as old as Jupiter?
Because if this is true, then
not only is the Solar System a layered age system but the entire
Cosmos is layered in age.
A layered age Cosmos and Solar System would destroy both the Big
Bang
theory
and the Nebular Dust Cloud theory. So if I can prove that Earth is
twice as old
as Jupiter, would lay to rest the contentious debate between
Freedman
and Sandage
of older stars in a younger Cosmos. And the Solar System is a better
data
collection than stars that are light years away and surrounded by
assumptions and
presumptions.


So I had zircon crystals and cores as methods to prove the claim that
Earth is twice
as old as Jupiter and I used the cores of the satellites of Jupiter
and Saturn to
compare which does not accord with the Nebular Dust Cloud theory. So
in the core
method of proving, I use the cores of the Sun and Inner planets and
compare them
with the Outer Planets and their satellites. I was able to find a
table from this
website on the cores of the solar system or inferred cores:


--- quoting from
*http://www.indiana.edu/~g302/planets.pdf.
---
Solar System Composition
Metals
Oxides
Mass
Diameter
Fe, Ni
SiO
2
,MgO,FeO
Name
(10
27
g)
(10
3
km)
%
(10
27
g)
%
(10
27
g)
Sun
1,990,000
0.1
0.2
Mercury
0.33
4.88
50
0.16
50
0.17
Venus
4.87
12.11
30
1.46
69
3.36
Earth
5.97
12.76
29
1.73
69
4.12
Mars
0.64
6.79
10
0.06
90
Asteroids 0.0002
15
3x10
-5
85
1.7x10
-4
Jupiter
1900
143.2
4
80
9
170
Saturn
570
120
7
40
14
80
Uranus
88
51.8
8
7
17
15
Neptune
103
49.5
6
6
14
14
--- end quoting from
*http://www.indiana.edu/~g302/planets.pdf.
---


But let me give a third method of proving Earth is 2X as old as
Jupiter. The idea
here is that if the Inner Planets and Sun have double the abundance
of
elements
like Rubidium and Strontium and Thorium and Uranium, these
radioactive
clocks,
than the Outer Planets, would imply that Earth is 2X as old as
Jupiter. So I was
looking for any reports on the relative abundance of the radioactive
elements for
the Inner Planets compared to the Outer Planets.


About the only website I found indicated that the recent robot flyby
of Saturn's Titan
indicated alot more thorium and uranium in parts per billion than on
Saturn. So just
as the iron cores of Io, Europa, Titan are incongruent to Jupiter
and
Saturn, that it
appears as though the relative abundance of radioactive elements is
also
incongruent.


So I have these three methods to attempt to prove that Earth is 2X as
old as Jupiter:
(a) Zircon crystal
(b) cores of iron and nickel, relative size and mass
(c) relative abundance of radioactive elements such as rubidium,
strontium,
thorium, uranium


If this claim of mine is true that Earth is twice as old as Jupiter,
then there will not
be much of a contentious debate over such a report because it is
relatively easy
to follow-up and since it is in our backyard of the Solar System,
that
skeptical
scientists cannot deny such a report whereas they can easily deny
the
ages of
stars light years away. So, if my claim is true and once a report is
filed indicating
the age of Earth is 2X as old as Jupiter, is a day in which two
widely
accepted theories
are destroyed and thrown into the trashcan-- the Big Bang theory and
Nebular Dust Cloud theory.



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
Chapt29 density and distribution of galaxies #385 Atom Totality 4th ed Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 0 March 29th 11 08:50 PM
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
chap 15, cosmic distribution of chemical elements #207 Atom Totalitytheory Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 0 December 17th 09 09:05 AM
distribution of galaxies implies a cosmic atom; Chapt.10; #181; 3rded; Atom Totality theory Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 0 November 15th 09 06:44 AM
distribution of galaxies points to Atom Totality not Big Bang #176 ;3rd ed; Atom Totality (Atom Universe) theory Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 0 November 6th 09 09:29 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:32 AM.


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.