#1 new monograph-book; "How Earth got most of its water and howComets get water"

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

According to Michael Mumma in a PBS NOVA show, Comets contain twice as
much heavy water
as does water on Earth and so comets should not be the source of
Earth's water.

But let me apply some logic to this idea of comets and how Earth
gained so much water. If planets were
biological species wanting a name, then Earth should rightfully be
called the watery planet. But applying
logic, which Mumma should have applied since he seems to be stuck on
this idea. We see alot of scientists
who fall in love with an idea but unable to apply logic that would or
should coax them away from the idea because
the logic shows how impractical. It is easy to see how Mumma would
have fallen for this idea that Earth water
source was comets. Fallen because the simplicity of comets as the
source. But here the logic steps into
the picture and makes the idea of Comets as Earth's water source look
rather absurd. Previously the idea
of comets looked like simplicity and a winner, but applying logic
makes the idea of comets look silly and
absurd. The logical question that Mumma should have asked himself
before falling in love with a Comet
Model for Earth's water is how does the Comets gain all their water
and why are they mostly a bag of
flying water in the solar system?

So you see, that Mumma falls in love with a comet model that by its
sheer simplicity would explain
Earths vast watery surface, but then a bit of logic would ask, "well,
if comets are the source of
Earth's water, then what is the source for the comets water?" So the
logic makes the Comet theory
look rather silly, afterall.

So that Mumma should have realized that to answer how Earth got a hold
of all of its water would likely answer
how do comets get a hold of so much water that they are mostly
composed of a flying ball of ice.

So to answer how Earth got its water will likely be the answer as to
how Comets get their water. That is
the pretty thing about logic, it makes us think better and come up
with better answers.

So according to Mumma, the water in comets is about double the heavy
water as found in the water on
Earth.

So let me place a jab of an answer as to how Comets and Earth gained
their waters respectively.

My theory of Solar System Water Gains: I use the Dirac Radioactivities
theory for the creation of our
Solar System, so if you are going to use the old stale and fake theory
of Nebular Dust Cloud you will
not understand much of anything. So Dirac envisioned that our Solar
System started perhaps 10 billion
years ago with seed-matter. Where the Sun and a number of planets were
seeds of matter that weighed
perhaps a milligram. And through Dirac Radioactivities (see his book
"Directions in Physics") these seeds
would collect more mass and matter by this radioactivity. Before too
long the Sun some 10 billion years
ago would be the size of a grapefruit and the planets the size of a
BB. As the years went by they would
grow by this radioactivity. We see it today in the flood of cosmic
rays and gamma ray bursts that constantly
impinge on the bodies in our solar system. Where is the source of the
radioactivity? The nucleus of the
Atom Totality itself. So given 10 billion years time we have our
present day Solar System accreted from
that radioactivity.

Now how does Earth end up with so much water and where the Comets are
mostly ice balls double the
amount of heavy water? Well water is created by Dirac Radioactivities
uniformily per existing mass. So
most of the water created is in the Sun and Jupiter since they are the
most massive but the water created
in the Sun and Mercury, Venus, Mars and other planets does not stay
put on those planets due to solar
radiation and are driven off those bodies except for Earth where there
is a Magnetosphere. So Earth is like
a huge gutter of the water that was created on other astro bodies
nearby and which ends up intersecting
the orbit of Earth and the Magnetosphere keeps the water here.

Now the Comet belt is another Gutter Effect, in that the Comet belt
traps alot of this interplanetary and solar
water. So why is it twice the amount of heavy water than the Earth's
water? That is easy to answer with
Dirac radioactivity which created the water in the first place and is
adding more radioactive newly created
mass to the already existing mass of the water molecules in the
Cometary Belt. So as this water traverses
past Earth and not trapped by Earth makes its long journey out to the
Comet Belt where it is then reformed
into huge ice balls and while it is making this reformulation, that
the Dirac radioactivities has ample time
to add on extra neutrons to the nucleus of the water atoms.

Here is an experiment that some future scientists will perform when
space travel is much easier than
today. Where we take a mass of heavy element such as uranium and we
refine it very pure
so we know the nuclide composition to a very high precision and we
subject this material to a long
trek across the Solar System and wait for it to return. What we should
find from this voyager is that
some of the uranium atoms are now contaminated with atoms of
plutonium. How could this be?
Because in the journey the Dirac radioactivities created some extra
neutrons on some atoms of uranium.

So all I have to do for the above is find out more about the volume of
space that the Comets dwell in
and find out how that volume can act as a Gutter Effect of the water
created in the inner solar system
that gets pushed out into this Cometary belt. For Earth we already
know how it acts as a gutter in that
the Magnetosphere traps the incoming water.


I believe a new theory for a major explanation deserves its own full
book rather than
a chapter in another book.

Internet published monograph-book "How Earth got most of its water and
how Comets get water"
by Archimedes Plutonium, April 2008, posted to
sci.physics,sci.geo.geology,sci.astro.

Did some looking around for the best picture of where the Comets
reside and some geometry
of their orbits and Wikipedia seems to have the best:

--- quoting Wikipedia on Oort Cloud ---

The Oort cloud ... is a spherical cloud of comets believed to lie
roughly 50,000 AU, or
nearly a light-year, from the Sun;[1] this distance places the cloud
at nearly a quarter
of the distance to Proxima Centauri, the nearest star to the Sun. The
Kuiper belt and
scattered disc, the other two known reservoirs of trans-Neptunian
objects, are less
than one thousandth the Oort cloud's distance. The outer extent of the
Oort cloud
defines the boundary of our Solar System.
--- end quoting ---

So here is what I am exploring. The idea that the Solar System creates
new water
from Dirac Radioactivities mostly from the Sun itself and this water
is shot out into
the Oort Cloud via the solar radiation. So the Oort Cloud is a so to
speak reverse roof.
Where the water comes from inside. And once the water reaches the Oort
Cloud
it somehow bunches together to reform into a large ice cube the size
of a Comet.

So our Solar System of the Sun and its planets and where the outer
boundary of the
Solar System is the outer reaches of the Oort Cloud. And where most of
the water is
created by Sun and Jupiter and the gas giants. And much of this water
is shot out
into the Oort Cloud where that water is reformed into Comets. But
there are other
water traps within the Solar System and Earth happens to be one such
trap where
the Magnetosphere traps water from the Sun.

Now there happens to have been a physicist who was very much ignored
but who
will likely become more important than the relativity and gravity
physicists. I speak of
Hannes Alven who had the idea that most of the Cosmos is governed by
magneto-
hydrodynamics.

The reason I bring up Alven at this moment is because of this issue of
water. The issue
of Solar System Water, in that if we suppose most of the water is
created via
Dirac Radioactivities and most of it in the Sun.

So it seems we have two big questions to ask:
(1) water created in the Sun, can it be ejected outwards from the Sun?
(2) and this ejected water that is not trapped by Earth or
other planets but makes its way to the Oort Cloud, can that ice
reformulate
out there in the Oort Cloud so that it becomes a Cometary ice ball?

These two questions are probably easy for Alven to have tackled and
answered.
Does the Sun shot water molecules outward from the Sun and once water
molecules
reach the Oort Cloud, is there a magneto-hydrodynamics to pack
together those
water molecules into a large Cometary ice ball?

P.S. there is a huge weakness in over 95% of our astronomers for it
seems all they come
equipped with in doing astronomy is gravity and when the physics
involves electrodynamics
the astronomers fall silent.

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

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

So it seems we have two big questions to ask:
(1) water created in the Sun, can it be ejected outwards from the Sun?
(2) and this ejected water that is not trapped by Earth or
other planets but makes its way to the Oort Cloud, can that ice
reformulate
out there in the Oort Cloud so that it becomes a Cometary ice ball?

To be a good scientist means that you are forever asking more
questions than
ever getting any answers.

Now perhaps we can devise a way of determining what percentage of
Dirac Radioactivities
goes into creating water compared to all the other molecules created.
In an earlier post
I just threw out a rough guess estimate that 1% of all the molecules
created in a year
by the Sun is water molecules during Dirac Radioactivities. But here I
am offering a
means of making better that estimate. If we compute how much water is
on Earth and
consider that Earth has trapped much of the water that was created on
Mercury and Venus
and alot of the water of the Sun. Of course we subtract the amount of
water created by
Earth itself. And we factor in that amount of water in a cross section
that escapes being
trapped by Earth and thus wanders to Jupiter or gas giant or into the
Oort Cloud.

So we can end up with some numbers of what the Venus water that was
trapped by Earth
and the Mercury water that was trapped by Earth and the Sun's water
that was trapped by
Earth.

So if we can imagine that Sun and Mercury and Venus had Magnetospheres
and where they
lost none of the water that was created and forged by Dirac
Radioactivities, then how much
watery oceans would Mercury and Venus and the Sun possesses if we
ommitted temperature?

Of course Earth would not have its vast and deep Oceans, would it. And
the amount of water
on Mercury and Venus should be roughly the same as Earth. So if we
scooped up 1/3 of all the
water on Earth and placed it on this hypothetical Venus and 1/3 on
hypothetical Mercury, that Earth
would only contain 1/3 of its present day amount of surface water. But
I did not factor in the Sun's
Dirac Radioactivity water amount.

Is there a satellite such as Europa that contains water and would not
be water from outside
sources but water almost totally due to its own Dirac Radioactivity?
So we can use Europa as the
standard measure. And if Europa is 1/2 the age of Earth which is 10
billion years old we need to
multiply the amount of water on Europa by 2 X to give us what should
be a reasonable estimate
of the amount of water on Earth of its own Dirac Radioactivity and no
outside contributions.

Now how much water is twice the amount on Europa? Would it fill the
Atlantic Ocean?

Now if the above is on the true path, then I could use that to compute
how much water the Sun
creates each year via Dirac Radioactivity and calculate how much water
is traversing Earth's path
that comes from the Sun.

I am going to have to go look up how much water is on Europa for I
remember in the 20th century,
many bragging at how much water was on Europa but recently someone
talking about Titan saying
it was the only satellite with water. So I have to get some facts in
order here.

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

I had a look as to the status of our knowledge of Europa's water and
it seems as though most firmly believe it
is a vast ocean on Europa. I am not going to argue with that concensus
but accept it.

However, I am going to have to find out how much water the other
satellites of the gas giants have. For if
my theory is correct that water is transported from the Sun via solar
radiation and accumulates wherever
there is a "trap for water" is where it accumulates in our Solar
System.

Now I cannot say that Europa has a trap like Earth has its
Magnetosphere. But perhaps ice covered
is a trap in itself.

The rings of Saturn are ice pieces and so the origin of them as Solar
thrust water by solar radiation, solar
winds is a good explanation for the origin of Saturn's Rings.

Now if my theory is true in part or whole should also explain the
Asteroid Belt. I hate the word Belt and
would like to replace it with Cloud the same as the Kuiper and Oort
Cloud. The reason being is that I was
unable to find out if the Asteroid zone is spherical or whether it is
2-dimensional. I am suspecting the
Asteroid zone is 3-dimensional and is a Cloud that merges with the
Kuiper Cloud.

So if my theory is true in part or whole, water vapor and water is
thrust into the Solar System radially from
the Sun by the solar radiation and this water is trapped whereever
there are traps in the Solar System such
as Earth or the gas giants gravity trap. And Europa serves as a trap
with its ice outer layer. Perhaps some
of the gas giant satellites have no water because of the tidal pull
from their planets.

But my theory would also thus account for nonwater and account for
other elements and chemicals such as
the Asteroid composition. And since this stuff is more massive than is
water, that the Asteroid Zone becomes
the zone for NonWater Substance.

So my question that needs answering is to what extent the Asteroid
zone is 3-dimensional and not 2-dimensional
for it would have to accommodate Solar Radiation and Solar Winds which
are 3 dimensional.

I suppose somewhere on Earth is a solar system or planetarium that
faithfully tries to reproduce in exacting
details the precise details of the entire Solar System, and what I
need to find out is whether the Asteroid Zone
is strictly 2 dimensional or more precisely 3 dimensional and
spherical just as the Oort Cloud is spherical.

So if the Asteroid Zone is a spherical zone then I would call it a
Asteroid Cloud for it is the concentration of
Solar material by the solar winds and solar radiation. And the Oort
Cloud is the concentration of the water and
ice by the Solar wind and solar radiation. And wherever there is an
unusual concentration of water such as
Earth or Europa or Saturn's Rings we have to do Hannes Alven Magneto-
Hydrodynamic calculations of how
that water and ice became established in these water traps.

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

To prove this new theory of mine of how Earth collected most of its
water and how Europa got its water and how Saturn got its icy rings
and how Comets gain their watery content.

Simple to prove whether this theory is true or not true. Simple because
all it requires is the recognition that a water molecule can ride on
the wavetrain of solar radiation or solar winds.

And if the Asteroid Zone is a spherical zone, then its diameter is
the diameter that iron particles can ride a wavetrain of solar
radiation and solar winds.

That would explain why all the geologists and astronomers and physicists
get a 4.5 to 5 billion year age reckoning of the Solar System, because
the Sun existed 10 billion years ago and had to spend 5 billion years
growing via Dirac Radioactivities before it started to spew enough
matter out to the Asteroid Zone.

So to get a accurate measure of the age of our Solar System we cannot
count on Asteroid material for it only begin to come into existence
when the Sun was already 5 billion years older.

But back to my main point. It is easy to prove or disprove my new
theory. Can a water molecule ride a solar beam? If it can, then we
have the physics of how water is concentrated within our Solar System.
And we can, I suspect, make a tally of how much water exists in our
Solar System and from that tally we can thence see and convince
ourselves that the Sun is at least 10 billion years old in order
to have moved all that water around.

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

So why would water be the best riders of solar radiation? I suppose
the mass of iron allows it to ride out to
about the zone of Mars and Jupiter. But why would H2O be such a good
rider that it can ride out to the
outer boundary of the Oort Cloud?

Perhaps it is not the best rider but that the outer boundary of the
Oort Cloud is concentrated with lithium,
beryllium and boron which is anomolous in our current understanding.
Perhaps there is a concentration of
the lightest elements in the Cosmos at a Oort Cloud distance from a
repective star. So that if anyone
checked the Oort Cloud boundary would find a concentration of lithium,
beryllium and boron and the
same with all the stars in the Universe in that there never was a
deficiency of these light elements but
that they were scooted and transported outward from their stars.

But still, why would water, H2O have a better ability of riding solar
radiation than other molecules?
Is it because of the chemistry of the polar bond of water that it is
able to ride radiation so well?

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

Now I was wondering if there was an analogy to water riding the
wavetrain of solar radiation and solar winds? Whether
we have a common ordinary day experience of water riding a wavetrain
of radiation. Now I am sure physicists
would not describe it as "riding a wavetrain of radiation" and would
call it something more arcane. Perhaps
called it impelled motion. But I am not worried about a proper physics
name for this phenomenon or mechanism
that could possibly answer how Earth got so much water and how the
Asteroids and Comets and Saturn's
Rings and the water of most satellites was formed. So if this
phenomenon or mechanism of Impelled Motion
on Sun's water or Sun's matter is the origin of so many important
features of our Solar System, could this
phenomenon be obvious and apparent in our everyday lives? I believe I
have a example of Impelled Motion.

I have a woodstove that I use to heat in winter time and it has as one
of its sides a huge glass door so
that I can view the fire easily. And it sends out alot of radiation.
Now when I have a average fire going
of a red, orange, yellow flame the glass door begins to collect soot
but when the fire is very hot with
a blue flame apparent, a blue flame of what a torch would have a blue
flame, that the radiation from
the fire cleans off the glass surface. Now I am not certain of how
this cleansing takes place but I
suspect what is happening is that the water molecules in the wood with
the hot flame are impinging
upon the glass surface and these water molecules are acting as steam
and steam cleaning the surface.
That is my guess.

As I said in a previous post. To prove this theory or mechanism is
easy to do in that all that is required
is to show that water can be impelled by radiation of the Sun. If it
can, then we have for sure a way of
moving water from the Sun to Earth and why Earth has so much water.

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

Now my theory of water and other molecules and elements riding
wavetrains of solar radiation and explaining the
origin of Comets and Asteroids may run into some steep difficulty with
the fact that the Asteroid Belt and
Kuiper Belt run fairly close with the Ecliptic Plane. So we cannot say
that solar radiation is strictly confined
to the Ecliptic Plane. We would think solar radiation has a emission
that is spherical and not favoring a
simple plane. The Oort Cloud is spherical and so we have no trouble
with a solar origin. But with the
Asteroids confined to mostly the Ecliptic Plane we run into this
difficulty. Can we say that heavy elements
and molecules are impelled from the Sun strictly in the Ecliptic? No,
that sounds ad hoc. I would think that
iron atoms would be impelled with equal probablity from the Sun in all
directions and not confined to
the ecliptic, but I maybe wrong on that. It maybe the case that the
Ecliptic Plane of the Sun favors
impelled matter from the Sun. Maybe Solar radiation and the Solar
Winds favor the Ecliptic Plane and
so the bulk of the emitted impelled matter such as water or iron
follows the Ecliptic Plane.

Now the old Nebular Dust Cloud theory could easily explain the
Asteroid Belt as a sort of graveyard of
the primordial Solar System. Where the chuncks and pieces of matter
that did not coalesce into the
Sun or planets or moons eventually ended up in this Asteroid
graveyard. So the age of all the Solar System
bodies is the same age for all its bodies.

But my theory would say that Comets and Asteroids and much of the
water of Earth and Europa were
created in the Sun via Dirac Radioactivities and that this water and
other matter was impelled outward
from the Sun to become trapped by Earth or trapped in the Asteroid
region or trapped in the Oort Cloud.

So I am going to have to solve this problem of the fact that the
Asteroid Zone is not Spherical as the Oort
Cloud and thus needs an explanation as to why impelled matter from the
Sun would have a Ecliptic Plane
bias.

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

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Now my theory of water and other molecules and elements riding
wavetrains of solar radiation and explaining the
origin of Comets and Asteroids may run into some steep difficulty with
the fact that the Asteroid Belt and
Kuiper Belt run fairly close with the Ecliptic Plane. So we cannot say
that solar radiation is strictly confined
to the Ecliptic Plane. We would think solar radiation has a emission
that is spherical and not favoring a
simple plane. The Oort Cloud is spherical and so we have no trouble
with a solar origin. But with the
Asteroids confined to mostly the Ecliptic Plane we run into this
difficulty. Can we say that heavy elements
and molecules are impelled from the Sun strictly in the Ecliptic? No,
that sounds ad hoc. I would think that
iron atoms would be impelled with equal probablity from the Sun in all
directions and not confined to
the ecliptic, but I maybe wrong on that. It maybe the case that the
Ecliptic Plane of the Sun favors
impelled matter from the Sun. Maybe Solar radiation and the Solar
Winds favor the Ecliptic Plane and
so the bulk of the emitted impelled matter such as water or iron
follows the Ecliptic Plane.

Now the old Nebular Dust Cloud theory could easily explain the
Asteroid Belt as a sort of graveyard of
the primordial Solar System. Where the chuncks and pieces of matter
that did not coalesce into the
Sun or planets or moons eventually ended up in this Asteroid
graveyard. So the age of all the Solar System
bodies is the same age for all its bodies.

But my theory would say that Comets and Asteroids and much of the
water of Earth and Europa were
created in the Sun via Dirac Radioactivities and that this water and
other matter was impelled outward
from the Sun to become trapped by Earth or trapped in the Asteroid
region or trapped in the Oort Cloud.

So I am going to have to solve this problem of the fact that the
Asteroid Zone is not Spherical as the Oort
Cloud and thus needs an explanation as to why impelled matter from the
Sun would have a Ecliptic Plane
bias.

Alright, I think I have the leads I need. What I am doing is some math
as to working out
how the Asteroid belt is a Ring of Jupiter.

So the Ring of Saturn is created by water vapor that is Impelled
Motion by solar radiation of
water created in the Sun and pushed by the Solar Radiation out to
Saturn. Due to the gravitational
pull of Saturn these water molecules eventually all become positioned
into a disc or ring which we
now see. I believe Maxwell in the 1860s did math computations on the
gravity pull of Saturn and that
the ring material had to be uniform in size.

So what I am proposing is that the Sun creates other atoms and
molecules via Dirac Radioactivities
which are blasted by the solar radiation and ends up in the Asteroid
Belt region and due to the
force of gravity of Jupiter, that those molecules and atoms reform and
then are placed in a ring type
orbit that we now see as the Asteroid Belt.

In other words, the asteroids are to Jupiter what the ring of Saturn
is to Saturn.

Now because the mass of the material in the asteroid belt is so much
heavier than water or ice is the
reason the Asteroids form a different type of Ring before Jupiter. And
why Saturn has ice rings whereas
Jupiter has the Asteroid ring.

So I need to delve into the math of this. That the Ring of Saturn is
another form of the Asteroid Belt to Jupiter.

Now why does not Uranus and Neptune have large ice rings? Well, it
maybe that Saturn is so good at
collecting the solar radiation carried water molecules from the Sun
that Saturn blocks the water from
reaching Uranus and Neptune.

So maybe the math can also explain why most of the solar radiation
carried material ends up in the
Plane of the Ecliptic in that the gravitational pull of the planets
forces that matter to migrate into the
Ecliptic Plane, just as the gravity of Saturn forces any ice particles
that is not in the Ring to eventually
migrate into the Ring structure itself.

This would also explain why the Asteroid Belt is that much more rough
as having alot of particles degrees
off of the ecliptic whereas the Rings of Saturn have few ice particles
off the norm.

By the way, has anyone seen a report of where alot of lithium,
beryllium and boron are found at the
edge of the outermost boundary of the Oort Cloud? I suppose one cannot
see them unless in the close
vicinity of a star, but maybe somehow has a way of detecting large
amounts of these lightest elements.

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

Let me backpedal a little here as I seem to have plunged forward way
too much, and resulting in speculation
more than a thoughtful pacing forward progress.

Saturn Ring structure is spaced as Saturn then D ring then C ring then
B ring then A ring
where the B is the most dense and the A is second most dense.

Now here we can see a close comparison of the Sun with Mercury Venus
Earth and Mars.

Earth is the most dense and if we say that Saturn and its Rings of D,
C, B, A are to the
Sun as Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars.

So in other words, all the underlying mathematics of gravity of Sun,
Mercury Venus Earth and Mars
is the same underlying mathematics of orbital mechanics that Saturn is
with its D, C, B, and A rings.
Where we can say the mathematics of orbital mechanics of gravity for
the B ring of Saturn is the
same mathematics as Earth with the Sun.

The densest rings of Saturn are the rings further away from Saturn.
And the densest planet of the
inner planet is Earth which is almost the furthest away from the Sun
of the inner planets. So there is
alot of qualitative similarity here of Saturns third Ring of B and
Sun's third planet of Earth.

So now, the least dense Ring of Saturn is the F ring beyond the A ring
and the least dense formation
of the Inner Planets to the Sun is the Asteroid belt. So here we can
consider as an analogy that the F ring
of Saturn is to the inner solar system what the asteroid belt is.

Where I think this is going is that the force of gravity pulls
together matter in a region into a Ecliptic Plane.
The Sun and Inner Planets is a single system. Saturn and its Rings is
a single system where the Rings
form this plane. So when I can identify a "single astronomical system"
the force of gravity has a spherical
shaped region center and where the force of gravity places the
remainder of the mass of the system in a
Ecliptic Plane of that system.

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

The theory that solar radiation impelled water molecules from the Sun
to travel out to Saturn and become
part of the Saturn Ring, likewise the origin of the ice for Comets is
a good theory. As well as the oversupply
of water on Earth. Given the data, also that the rings of Saturn are
relatively new since not contaminated by
meteorite dusts. So this theory of water created in the Sun by Dirac
Radioactivities and then impelled motion
of that water outwards from the Sun by solar radiation is a good
theory for the spreading of water in our
Solar System.

So where is the theoretical problem?

It stems from my other theory of CellWell 1 and CellWell 2 where Sun
and inner planets is CellWell 1 and is
10 billion years old and Jupiter and gas giants is CellWell 2 and only
5 billion years old. The trouble here is
how to reconcile the Water Distribution theory with this CellWell
theory. If the Rings of Saturn is a classic
model of how gravity orders the mass around a planet, it should be the
model of how the planets around
a star look like. My trouble here is that the Sun to Mercury out to
Neptune fit the same model as the
Sun out to Mars.

So I may have the CellWell theory is a fake theory.

So I need some data, some evidence to support the CellWell theory and
which would kill the Nebular Dust Cloud
theory. Outright proving the Dirac Radioactivities, there is another
avenue of supporting the CellWell theory
and killing the Nebular Dust Cloud theory. That evidence is the data
of Binary Stars.

It used to be in the 1990s where alot of information can be gleaned
from Internet searches but these days
it seems as though only Wikipedia is available, and probably soon it
will be sold off to some commercial advertizing
barker.

--- quoting from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_stars

Formation

While it is not impossible that some binaries might be created through
gravitational capture between two
single stars, given the very low likelihood of such an event (three
objects are actually required, as
conservation of energy rules out a single gravitating body capturing
another) and the high number of
binaries, this cannot be the primary formation process. Also, the
observation of binaries consisting of
pre main sequence stars, supports the theory that binaries are already
formed during star formation.
Fragmentation of the molecular cloud during the formation of
protostars is an acceptable explanation for
the formation of a binary or multiple star system.[22][23]

The outcome of the three body problem, where the three stars are of
comparable mass, is that eventually
one of the three stars will be ejected from the system and, assuming
no significant further perturbations,
the remaining two will form a stable binary system.

--- end quoting ---

What I need to know is whether binary stars are relatively the same
age, and thus we can call them
Twin stars such as in biology that twins are of the same age.

Now on that website was mentioned that around 50% of known stars are
in a binary formation. And the
key information I was looking for was whether any binary stars have
older pairs. Sirius A which is a
main sequence and Sirius B which is a white dwarf.

So, with that evidence that there are many binary stars where one star
is twice as old as its companion
indicates the fate and future formation of our own Solar System. That
Jupiter in CellWell2 is fated to be
a binary star to the Sun. Sun will become a white dwarf and Jupiter
will be the main sequence star.
Where Saturn, Uranus and Neptune will be swallowed up by Jupiter and
the inner planets will probably
be swallowed up. And the satellites of the Gas Giants such as
Ganymede, Titan, Europa, Io those will become
the new Mercury, new Venus, new Earth and new Mars.

So the evidence for both my theories is holding on. The evidence that
Saturn's Rings are relatively new
ice implies a Solar impelled motion of water from the Sun. The
evidence that most stars are binary
stars where one companion is twice as old as its other implies the
CellWell theory.

And of course, the creme delicious with cherry on top, is the data
that the Moon is separating from
Earth by more than 2 cm per year implies Dirac Radioactivities of
multiplicative creation of new matter
where there is existing matter. So where has the oversupply of water
for Earth come from? You guessed
it, the Sun creates new water and the solar radiation wavetrains it
out to Earth and our Magnetosphere
traps it.

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