CellWell1 & 2; how water gets concentrated on astro bodies #160; 3rded; Atom Totality (Atom Universe) theory

I probably should have talked some more about the
inclination of planets to the Sun's ecliptic plane. Noting that
Mercury is the second highest deviation
and Venus the third highest deviation after Pluto's
17 degrees and Mercury's 7 degrees. The mechanism for the deviation of
Mercury and Venus
would be the constant barrage of solar particle pressure such as
photons and the Solar Wind on
Mercury and Venus. In other words, they would not
have that large deviation of the ecliptic plane if not
for the solar particle emission pressure. In the case of Pluto and the
objects beyond such as Eris, they are too far away from the Sun and
their tilt from the
plane of ecliptic requires perhaps billions of years
to align Pluto and Eris.

Now I need to get this book in order and organized. I
do not function well unless there is plenty of order
and organization. And already in this edition I have
the chapters mixed up where I started with distribution of galaxies,
and MECO, as earlier chapters but have now placed them in later
positions:

Chapters:
(4) Dirac's new-radioactivities and Dirac's multiplicative-creation;
CellWell 1 and CellWell2

(5) Cores of the Solar System destroys both the Big Bang theory and
Nebular Dust Cloud theory and what replaces them is the Atom
Totality theory and Growing Solar System via Dirac new-
radioactivities.

(6) density and distribution of galaxies

(7) Tifft quantized galaxy speeds

(8) MECO theory to explain high energy sources and
removes black-hole theory from science

So in the 4th edition of this book I can unscramble
those chapters.

And I need to finish this chapter 4 with CellWell. So
most of the below is a copy paste out of the 2nd edition.

The understanding of Earth geology and Moon geology is best
understood with Earth being about 7.5 billion years old as per my
CellWell1 and CellWell2 and Sun 10 billion years old rather
than the Hartmann model of Earth Moon collision
of approximately the same time of collision as
the creation of Earth from planetesimals of the
Nebular Dust Cloud theory, as too close together
and as too catastrophic.That it was a
collision of a smaller scale with a third object.
It is difficult to see the physics of the Hartmann
model as a splintered Moon surviving. Actually, I
do not know which is the less plausible, the
event of occurrence so close to the creation of
Earth and Moon as per Nebular Dust Cloud theory
although NDC is false to my theory. Or the collision
itself? To me both are implausible.

In CellWell theory much must be said about the
water and where it is found and how much in our
Solar System.

Water on Earth and salt on Earth is anomalous, except when we analyze
the water content of CellWell2 of the outer planets of Jupiter and
beyond,
where there is plenty of water on Europa and the
Rings of Saturn are ice. And ice seems abundant
in the comets and essentially the bodies from
Jupiter and beyond.

So what can explain why water appears overabundant on Earth and then
somewhat abundant
from Jupiter and beyond?

The explanation is that Earth has a huge magnetosphere that protects
its water supply that it
does not get pushed out into outer space by the
Sun's particle emission pressure.

So why does Earth have so much? Well with its
magnetosphere it saves and protects the water it
had and then it also captured as infalling water from the water that
Mercury Venus, and perhaps Mars
and our Moon once had water. And captured the
periodic water of comets traversing. So what water
Mercury, Venus, Moon, perhaps Mars had in the past, it was shuttled
out to Earth from the Solar
emission pressure and eventually fell into Earth.

In the Hartmann model of a Earth Moon collision some 4.4 billion years
ago, would it not make better sense of the data and facts at present
now if we consider that the Earth was 7.5 billion years old and that
the collision that occurred 4.4 billion years
ago was not the Earth with Moon but the Earth with a satellite of the
Moon. So there
were 3 astro bodies involved in that collision. I say this because the
physics of a
Earth Moon collision would not give us what we currently see as the
Earth Moon.
Such a collision would have been so violent that the Moon should not
exist and the
Earth tilt on axis and spin suggest a collision with a object the size
of a object the
fraction of the size of the ancient Moon. So, physics, points to the
likely Earth Moon
collision of a system that involved 3 objects-- Earth, Moon, and some
third object
wherein this third object caused the Earth tilt and spin and was
incorporated into
Earth. And Earth capturing the Moon in its orbit. The Hartmann Model
is too unlikely
whereas the 3rd object in the Collision is more likely given our
present day Earth Moon circumstances.
In one of these editions I need to calculate some
details of a three body collision where the Moon was
not involved but rather its satellite, and provide some scope.

Someday, scientists here on Earth will find a experiment that dates
Earth and which
those dates imply not a 4.5 billion year old Earth but rather a 7.5
billion year old Earth.
Experiments such as those conducted in Australia for decades now on
zirconium
crystals which peg the crust as 4.4 billion years old. What if
zirconium crystals can
date back to 10 billion years old? What if zircon was found in the
mantle or zircon
found in meteorites which gives a date of 10 billion years old? I do
not know where it
will come from, whether from zircon research, but whereever it comes
from will be
immediately dismissed by nearly all scientists having grown up with
4.5 billion years.
And this new data will be fiercely suppressed, but eventually it will
be accepted as
the truth. That Earth is really 7.5 billion years old and that the age
of the Sun is about 10 billion years old and is about double the age
of the Outer Gas Giant Planets.

So that the Freedman Sandage contentious and fierce debates over the
age of the
Cosmos versus age of the oldest stars will become settled not from any
of their
astronomical measurements but closer to home, from the layered ages of
the Sun
and Inner Planets compared to the Outer Planets. If our Solar System
has a
layered age structure, then obviously, Freedman and Sandage have to
have layered
ages for Cosmos and oldest stars.

Now as for why Earth has so much water, there is a Comet theory that
comets brought
us all this water. Trouble with that theory is that the composition of
comet water is high
in heavy (deuterium) water whereas the ocean water is not high in
heavy-water. This fact is in support of Dirac
new-radioactivities with its multiplicative-creation
in that newly created matter occurs where existing
matter is presently situated. So when a light water
is abundant then a cosmic ray will increase molecules of light water
into becoming heavy water.

So here is a possible supporting evidence that the
age of comets must be older than the age of Earth
with its light water. But also, it maybe the case that
Earth has too much light water versus Comets because much of Earth's
water was garnered from
Mercury, Venus, and Mars which were also light
water.

Call it a Solar System Water cycle with the Solar Winds as the main
dynamic of
moving the water to some special astro body. This dynamic also
explains why
Earth has overabundant salt.

Comets older than Earth?

Since the water in comets is much more concentrated in heavy-water, is
a case in point
of the Dirac new-radioactivities with multiplicative-creation. As time
goes by from 10 billion years
to present, where water was concentrated, it is
made more heavy water in proportion to light-water.

So one argument is that the Comets were here
some 10 billion years ago as well as our Sun was
borne 10 billion years ago and kept growing due
to Dirac's new-radioactivities and thus the water
became more deuterium-water relative to the youngster planets of Earth
and their moons.


Local: Wed, Aug 15 2007 11:06 am
Subject: #5 the heavy water ratio found in the Outer Planets,
Earth is a...

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; 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 has 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.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies