Chapt23 CellWell1 and CellWell2 of Solar System #1614 ATOM TOTALITY5th ed

Chapt23 CellWell1 and CellWell2 of Solar System #1614 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

CellWell theory

What is CellWell1 and CellWell2? Sun and inner planets comprise CellWell1 and Jupiter and gas giants comprise CellWell2.

The Nebular Dust Cloud theory has contradictions and so the CellWell theory arises to address those contradictions.
Let me discuss plainly about CellWell theory for a few minutes. 
I am not as sure of CellWell theory as I am of Dirac's 
new-radioactivities. And being sure of Dirac's new-radioactivities 
means that the Nebular Dust Cloud origin of our Solar System 
is a fake theory.
And as you can surmise, whether the CellWell theory is true or 
false is not directly tied to Dirac new-radioactivities. 
It could end up that all the planets and their moons and the Sun are 
all the same age and that the Solar System is not compartmentalized 
into two cells of different evolving ages.
So it may turn out that Dirac's new-radioactivities is true 
with Nebular Dust Cloud theory as false and with CellWell 
theory as false.
I proposed the CellWell theory in the mid 1990s because I could 
sense a large scale texture difference between the inner planets 
and Sun and the outer gas giants. I saw this difference mostly 
in the cores, that the Nebular Dust Cloud theory would have a 
horrible time of trying to explain why dense cores for the first 3 or 
4 planets and lightweight densities thereafter, although 
Io, a moon of Jupiter is relatively dense core. Io and other gas giant satellites may have been a asteroid seed which thence grew from Dirac New Radioactivities.
So the Atom Totality theory with its Dirac new-radioactivities is 
not dependent on CellWell theory. CellWell theory is an "iffy" 
theory which maybe true or false. But if CellWell theory is true 
it provides a means of expediting the truth of the Dirac new- 
radioactivities along with the Atom Totality theory. The truth 
of the CellWell theory, if it turns out to be true would mean that 
someone found evidence that the age of the Sun and Earth and 
inner planets are twice as old as the outer gas giants and that would 
rock the boat on the Nebular Dust Cloud theory as well as the Big Bang 
theory and speed up everyone to the conclusion that the Big Bang and 
Nebular Dust Cloud are fake 
theories.
So do I have any new evidence since the mid 1990s when I first 
proposed the CellWell theory? Well, yes I do seem to have new 
evidence that bolsters the CellWell theory. I speak of the exoplanets 
discovery from about the late 1990s to present time. 
The data and information coming in on those exoplanets seems to convey 
a picture that the evolution of Solar Systems is one tending towards 
twin stars or companion stars or binaries where a large gas giant planet orbits in 
close to a solo star and turns into a twin star. And all the planets 
in between the star and the evolving new companion star are either 
swallowed up or pushed 
out beyond the two large bodies. So in a brief summary, the 
exoplanet data portrays a far different evolution of a solar system 
than what we think of as a Nebular Dust Cloud scenario 
of a evolution.
And I forgotten the statistics of stars, whether the majority are 
twin stars and the minority are solo stars like our Sun. I suspect 
the majority of sighted stars are in a combination and not solo.
And one of the data information crucial to this sort of study of 
whether our Solar System has two ages involved is the data on 
the cores of these bodies and only recently have we been able 
to give some reliable data as to the core density and the core 
size. It is hard in science to argue a position when the data is 
mostly unclear and doubtful. Only recently have we sent up 
spacecraft that actually measures these data.
Now I suspect that no-one in astronomy or physics has done a 
analysis of whether the Nebular Dust Cloud theory can arrive 
at a situation that we presently are in, with the data of our Solar 
System. I doubt that the Nebular Dust Cloud (NDC) theory can produce 
the 4 inner planets with those dense cores. I doubt that a NDC can 
produce hydrogen and helium gas giants such as Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus 
and in between them and the Sun 
produce the dense inner planets.. Recently on TV was a report 
of plastics floating around in the oceans and drifting to far flung 
oceans. That offers a good analogy to the NDC theory that in 
the opening scene of such a theory, that why would the lightest 
elements of hydrogen and helium stay around where the Sun 
is going to form and then stay around where Jupiter, Saturn 
and Uranus forms but mostly absent elsewhere?
The trouble with the Nebular Dust Cloud theory of science was 
that it never had any rival competition. But with Dirac's new- 
radioactivities the NDC is now under close scrutiny and it is 
failing many tests.
One of those tests is the concentration of water. Why is Earth 
having too much water and yet Jupiter could have a huge supply of 
water but it does not? So Dirac's new-radioactivities 
can better explain the why and where water is in our solar system.
But the obvious test of the NDC is this iron metal cores of 
planets and moons. So the data and facts contradict the 
Nebular Dust Cloud theory on this specific issue. The core 
of the Sun does not agree with the cores of the first four 
planets, if our Solar System were created from a Nebular 
Dust Cloud. And to make things worse is that the cores 
of the gas giants contradicts the cores of the inner planets.
About the only data agreement is that the cores of the moons of 
Jupiter follow a pattern that is very much similar to the pattern 
of the first four planets beyond the Sun. In other words, Io is a 
miniature Mercury, Europa a miniature Earth, Ganymede a miniature 
Venus and Callisto a miniature Mars with respect to 
their core density and composition.
So we see in the evolution of our Solar System that the cores 
of the first four planets beyond the Sun follows a similar pattern 
as the four big moon cores of Jupiter. So whatever the driving 
mechanism of Solar System evolution is, that mechanism has to 
explain those cores, and the Nebular Dust Cloud theory cannot explain 
that situation. Dirac's new radioactivities would explain that similar 
pattern in the idea that whereever there is dense matter, 
multiplicative creation increases the density. So the 
new-radioactivities of Dirac would change a nitrogen atom 
into a oxygen atom by the addition of a proton and electron 
to a specific nitrogen atom, but in the Sun or Jupiter the new- 
radioactivites would simply create a singular hydrogen atom. 
This would also explain why so much heavy metals are found 
in the inner planets even our Moon and why heavy elements 
are much more scarce in the Sun and gas giants.
A side note about water: Dirac's new radioactivities 
as a multiplicative creation process and especially where dense 
matter already exists would have a greater chance of making 
water H2O than in the Sun or a gas giant. Say you had a carbon atom or 
a nitrogen atom on Earth and the Dirac new 
radioactivities zapped the carbon atom with two protons or the 
nitrogen atom with one proton converting each to a oxygen 
atom and thence binding with hydrogen to form water. So the 
Dirac new-radioactivities would explain why the abundance and 
scarcity of elements were patterned on the inner planets versus 
the Sun and outer planets, something the Nebular Dust Cloud theory 
would be incapable.

Now on this issue of twin stars or binary stars, where the data is mostly opinion and not really
dependable. For a very long time it was considered that most stars
were
in a multiple star system and that solo stars were the minority.
But recently, according to this report:
--- quoting --- 
Release No.: 2006-11 
For Release: Monday, January 30, 2006
Most Milky Way Stars Are Single
Cambridge, MA - Common wisdom among astronomers holds that most star 
systems in the Milky Way are multiple, consisting of two or more stars 
in orbit around each other. Common wisdom is wrong. A new study by 
Charles Lada of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) 
demonstrates that most star systems are made up of single stars. Since 
planets probably are easier to form around single stars, planets also 
may be more common than previously suspected.
--- end quoting ---
And where the conclusion of that report is that 1/3 of the Milky Way 
stars are multiple and 2/3 are solo stars.
So it is data like this that you just cannot use to tell whether one 
theory is true and another is false, because the data is based on too 
many assumptions. A great fault of astronomy as a science is that most every conclusion in astronomy is based upon a large list of assumptions, for which if a single one of those assumptions is not true, that all the conclusions can be false. Now it is not so much the fault of the astronomers, for they would like to find out the truth, but fault is in the science itself, that the objects of observation are so very far away that we try to render a true picture by using assumptions in our research. If we were able to travel to these distant objects and check them out, we would not need those vast quantities of assumptions.

--

More than 90 percent of AP's posts are missing in the Google 
newsgroups author search archive from May 2012 to May 2013. Drexel 
University's Math Forum has done a far better job and many of those 
missing Google posts can be seen he

http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986

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