only gammaray bursts & proton ray bursts???

Seems like I asked Andrew Yee too tough of a question that he is unable
to answer as to what the MeV range of gammaraybursts are.

But there is a larger question that is probably more important. Why do
these
bursts come in only two kinds?? Why only Gammaray and Protonray bursts.
I like the word Protonray bursts rather than the old name of
Cosmicrayburst.

Why call something in physics that is nondescriptive of its actuality
when you can give it a name that is descriptive of its actuality. That
is, why call Protonray
bursts as Cosmic-ray-bursts when they are energetic protons. So, from
now on
I am going to call Cosmic ray bursts as what they truly are
Proton-ray-bursts and
dispense with the silliness of physics nomenclature, of a case where
physicists cannot clean up their table or house.

Getting back to the questions at hand:

Question (1) : Since protonraybursts come in sizes from proton to that
of
10^15 MeV what sizes of energy do gammaraybursts come in?? Do they
also range all the way up to 10^15 MeV??

Question (2) : Are these two types of bursts the only types of bursts??
Or are
there more and different types of bursts other than Protonrayburst and
Gammarayburst?

What is interesting here is that an AtomTotality theory would predict
two types of radioactive decay modes shot from the Nucleus. It would
predict Protonray
bursts as Alpha particles and it would predict Gamma radiation. That is
a Plutonium Atom Totality of 231Pu would predict protonray and gamma ray

emissions from the nucleus as an alpha emitter. A Neptunium AtomTotality
would predict a Beta particle emitter instead of a Alpha particle
emitter.

In either case whether a Neptunium Atom Totality or a Plutonium Atom
Totality or even Uranium Atom Totality or Thorium Atom Totality, a
galaxy
such as the Milky Way would observe only 2 types of naturally occuring
Bursts.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(all else snipped)


Now I remember that someone recently verified the existence of the isotope
231Pu, Laue the name and the year was what 1999??? And was able to decipher
the rate of decay and mode of decay of 231Pu.


--- quoting in order to respond line for line from website:
http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache...hl=en&ie=UTF-8

---


New Plutonium Isotope, 231Pu C.A. Laue, K.E. Gregorich, R. Sudowe, M.B.
Hendricks, J.L. Adams, M.R. Lane, D.M. Lee, C.A. McGrath, D.A.

Shaughnessy, D.A. Strellis, E.R. Sylwester, P.A. Wilk, and D.C. Hoffman

Research on the production and identification of new neutron-deficient
actinides is of continuing interest. Information gained by identifying new
isotopes, their decay properties, and measuring excitation functions for their
production adds substantially to our knowledge of the systematics of
nuclear stability and production reaction mechanisms. In the early `90s, a
Russian team identified the plutonium isotopes with mass numbers 228,
229 and 230 [1], leaving a blank spot in the Chart of the Nuclides between the
isotopes 230Pu and 232Pu.

During the last few years, the 233U ( 3He, xn ) reaction was intensively
explored. The cross section for the 5n-product, 231Pu, was expected to
be 20 Pb [2]. The expected half-life of 231Pu ranged from 3 to 30 min. In
addition, to efficiently investigate the reaction products of the
xnchannel, plutonium had to be separated from the other actinide reaction
products within a very limited time frame. The chemical procedure
developed is described in further detail in [3].

The new plutonium isotope, 231Pu, was produced by the 233U ( 3He, 5n ) 231Pu
reaction. A set of eleven 233U targets arranged in our LIM
target system [4] was irradiated with a 48-MeV3He2+ beam, produced by the
88-Inch Cyclotron. The beam intensity averaged 9 e PA. The
recoiling reaction products were stopped in helium, attached to aerosols, and
transported to the collection site by a helium-jet system. The collected
aerosol samples, bearing the reaction products, were chemically processed as
described in [3]. The purified plutonium samples were analyzed
using D-spectrometry. The isotope, 231Pu, was unequivocally identified by the
D-decay of the chain members from its D- and electroncapture
daughters using the D-D-correlation technique, resulting in a half-life of
(8.6 +- 0.5) min. The figure shows the D-decay chain from the 231Pu
D-branch. Although the 231Pu

D-branch is only ~10%, it can be easily identified. The remaining 90% of the
231Pu decay is by electron capture. An D-group with an energy of
(6.720 +- 0.030) MeV was assigned to 231Pu. Assuming that 231Pu decays to the
3/

2

+ [631]

ground state in 227U, the QD-value is 6.838 +- 0.030 MeV and the mass excess
is 38.270 +- 0.035 MeV. The ground state of 231Pu is most
likely 3/

2

+ [631]. [5]

5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 0

20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Energy (MeV)

215Rn219Ra223Th227U231Pu Co unt s/1 0 m

--- end quoting ---

Now according to the above, it appears that most of the decay channels of
231Pu is via electroncapture. And it says that 90% of one branch is
electron capture.

Now shifting to the night sky cosmos. Can we say that of the 2 and only 2
types of bursts whether they be Protonraybursts (cosmicray) or Gammaraybursts.
Can we say that Gammaraybursts are 90% of all the bursts?

Can we say that Electroncapture is to microparticle physics what
Gammaraybursts are to the cosmos night sky? And that the other type of
bursts-- Protonraybursts such as studied by Utah research come about because
of the other channel of decay of 231Pu as alpha particle decay.

Is there any evidence in the night sky cosmos that Gammaraybursts outnumber
Protonraybursts by about 90 to 10???

In the report above it says the expected halflife of 231Pu was about 3 to 30
minutes. This rate would be important in an AtomTotality in that the rate
of Gammaraybursts lumped together with Protonraybursts would be
on the same magnitude of rate. Such that we should expect to observe a new
gammaray or new protonray in the cosmic night sky of about 3 to 30 minutes
apart. Such that given any random selected part of the night sky there should
be
a gammaray burst visible every 3 to 30 minutes.

And as the precision of the halflife of 231Pu is further made, then that
precise
halflife should correspond directly to the rate of observing new gammarays
in the night sky.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Apparently the more precise figure for the halflife of 231Pu is (8.6 +- 0.5) min.

So the question becomes, in an AtomTotality of 231Pu do we observe new
gammaraybursts apart in an interval of about 8.6 minutes apart.

And then there is the issue of the energy of D-group decay in 231Pu.
This website lists the energy at (6.720 +- 0.030) MeV.

http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache...hl=en&ie=UTF-8

So the natural next question would be whether most Protonraybursts
(cosmicraybursts) observed, are most of them about 6.7 MeV
magnitude?????? And what would be the average magnitude MeV of electroncapture or their counterpart in the night sky cosmos
of Gammaraybursts??? Perhaps the average magnitude of Gammaraybursts
is of the order of 6.7 MeV.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Thu, 17 Jul 2003 12:54:42 -0500 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Apparently the more precise figure for the halflife of 231Pu is (8.6
+- 0.5) min.

So the question becomes, in an AtomTotality of 231Pu do we observe
new
gammaraybursts apart in an interval of about 8.6 minutes apart.

And then there is the issue of the energy of D-group decay in 231Pu.

This website lists the energy at (6.720 +- 0.030) MeV.

http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:FW4L2NNHSuIJ:www-
sd.lbl.gov/nsd/annual/rbf/nsd1998/nsr/lau_1.ps+231Pu&hl=en&ie=UTF-8



Someone emailed me arguing that pulsars and quasars have a signature
of 8.6 minute intervals and that they also have a signature of approx
6.7 MeV.

I am not sure and not familar enough with the data to argue for or
against.

I do know that the theory of quasars is very weak and the understanding
is
very poor.

But the idea that V838 was a gammarayburst of such huge MeV that it
simulates
a supernova is my first choice. And that perhaps quasars are other forms
of
gammarayburst materializations.

It is about time that the sciences of astronomy and physics dispense
with their
silly stupid notions that most astro bodies were created from cosmic
dust clouds.

Most astro bodies were created from gammaraybursts and protonraybursts
that keep on materializing at some specific place in the cosmos such as
the locus
of galaxies and stars and planets.

Just the other day I see some report that Earth is older by some tens or
hundreds
of millions of years. The AtomTotality theory would say that Earth is
over
10 billion years old as well as the other inner planets and that Jupiter
and the
gas giants are a mere 5 billion years old. Because the creation of most
astro
bodies is performed and conducted by rays shot from the Nucleus of the
AtomTotality and they materialize at locus points.

The Nebular Dust Cloud theory of star creation is as stupid and silly of
a
science theory as the old Earth theory of a flat Earth with 4 corners.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

One way for quasars to have to be the radioactive emissions of 231Pu
with its
6.7 MeV electron-capture emissions and its 8.6 minute halflife rate of
decay,
would be for the locations of quasars. If they are patterned in the
cosmic skys
means they are locus points in the AtomTotality where radioactive
emissions from the Nucleus materialize on a regular basis.

There is talk that quasars are Synchrotron Radiation. And we can
conceptualize
that various radioactive compounds are synchrotron radiation such as
luminescence of radioactive compounds such as in watch or clock dials.
And
in this manner we conceive of quasars as cosmic counterparts to
luminescence
of radioactive elements.

So, that if quasars form a cosmic pattern of location in that they are
situated
in some geometric pattern would thence say that quasars are locations of

the cosmos where electroncapture of the AtomTotality of 231Pu spews out
radioactivity of regular intervals and they materialize in this
locations which
we call quasars.

The location of quasars, thus, would demark the boundaries of lobes of
the
231Pu AtomTotality. Such that if we graph the location of quasars a lobe
like
pattern may emerge and that would be the lobe in which the Milky Way
galaxy resides. This would be one of the 6 lobes of the 5f6.

If the above is true then the explanation of quasars would be that they
are
locus points of the boundary of a lobe of the 5f6 and where radioactive
electroncapture emission from the Nucleus of 231Pu is shot and where
each
emission materializes we call a quasar.

In analogy terms, quasars are to the cosmic skys what luminescence of
radioactive atoms such as watchdials of green light here on Earth would
be.

As for pulsars, they may also be radioactive emissions materialized in
regular
parts of the cosmic skys from the AtomTotality Nucleus, however, long
time
ago I argued that pulsars in large part are advanced intelligent life
communication
systems because of the Fusion Barrier Principle, the only means of
communicating at large distance is via pulsing. Some pulsars maybe
Nucleus emissions but I suspect most pulsars are intelligent life
communication systems.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(snipped)

One way for quasars to have to be the radioactive emissions of 231Pu
with its
6.7 MeV electron-capture emissions and its 8.6 minute halflife rate of
decay,
would be for the locations of quasars. If they are patterned in the
cosmic skys
means they are locus points in the AtomTotality where radioactive
emissions from the Nucleus materialize on a regular basis.


I get the impression that all quasars to date are located very far from
Earth. No nearby quasars. That in itself is a patterning.

In the past several years we have been entertained by Johns Hopkins
University with their report of a "whitish color Universe". They first
reported a "greenish color" erroring on not applying a factor.

The color of plutonium is whitish as are most metals are of a silvery
white.

But radioactive elements sometimes have not only a color but a
luminescence.
They glow. Some have a green glow such as radium as we see in dials of
watches and clocks.

Quasars would fit that physical attribute as locus points of the 6 lobes
of the 5f6 where the Nucleus of 231Pu with its halflife of 8.6 minutes
and its predominant emission of electroncapture of 6.7 MeV would be
emitting bursts of energy to locus points which we see as quasars.
Can we call the glow of radium as greenish glow in the dark as
a form of synchrotron radiation? And thus synchrotron radiation of
quasars is due to the fact of emission of rays from the AtomTotality
Nucleus. These quasars would demark the lobes themselves.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Plonkonium wrote:

One way for quasars to have to be the radioactive emissions of 231Pu
with its
6.7 MeV electron-capture emissions and its 8.6 minute halflife rate of
decay,
would be for the locations of quasars. If they are patterned in the
cosmic skys
means they are locus points in the AtomTotality where radioactive
emissions from the Nucleus materialize on a regular basis.

flush

An excellent way for idiots to be infamous net.kooks is to post huge
amounts of crap...