|
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#2
July 3rd 13, 06:10 PM
posted to sci.astro
|
|||
|
|||
Chapt24 the cosmic abundance and distribution of chemical elements#1620 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
Chapt24 the cosmic abundance and distribution of chemical elements #1620 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
Now in the old below post of 2010 I talked about additive creation versus multiplicative creation of Dirac's New Radioactivities. This is now 2013 and a lot has changed in understanding. When we take the Maxwell Equations as the axioms over all of physics, we have to ask if the Maxwell Equations are all multiplicative and never a combination of additive and multiplicative? We find the answer immediate, in that the Ampere/Maxwell law is both multiplicative but with an additive term of the displacement current. In the Faraday law with magnetic monopoles we have an additive term of magnetic current density. So the Maxwell Equations demands that Dirac's New Radioactivities be both additive and multiplicative creation. Now I think that makes better sense to have both because some of the chemical elements of lower atomic number are more scarce than those of higher atomic number and if we had just one form, either additive or multiplicative, we should not see such discrepancies. sci.math, sci.astro, sci.physics Â*Jun 20, 2:29Â*am Date: Jun 20, 2010 3:29 AM Author: Subject: combinations of additive and multiplicative creation: Dirac's new Â* Â* Â*radioactivities Â*Now on page 92 of Dirac's book, Directions in Physics, I never really Â*read it until recently where a person asks Dirac a question: Â*--- quoting from Directions in Physics --- Question: I was wondering if a suitable combination of additive creation and multiplicative creation could give any answer you'd like? Professor Dirac: That is so! But it would be rather unreasonable, I think. I don't suppose anybody would believe in a combination of both additive and multiplicative creation. Â*--- end quoting --- I want to remark about mine own history on this topic of additive versus multiplicative. Of course, Dirac did not have the Atom Totality theory. So I think, to Dirac, that he was looking at a exclusion of either, or. Either one or the other with exclusion. And I suspect that during Dirac's life, he was expecting the answer to end up as multiplicative creation. I sense that in his book he was expecting the Moon to recede at 2cm/year. And that sense of expectation by Dirac for multiplicative creation rubbed off onto me and that I was expecting multiplicative to be true as one can see that it was in my first three editions of this book. But I do remember quite well that I remarked several times that I thought it could be both a multiplicative with additive creation. Where the creation is not a exclusive either, or, but an inclusive either or or both.. Now let me remark on some of the astronomy evidence since Dirac. There is the evidence that Neptune is moving off its track and heading to a approach of the Uranus track. So one can almost picture the orbit of Neptune as a huge, a mega Dirac additive creation. Then there is another astro news of exoplanets and their tight close orbits around their parent stars. Here again we can depict these orbits as Dirac mega-additive creation orbits. Now one may ask why has Mercury still been able to escape being swallowed by the Sun if Dirac additive creation was true? And I would answer that the outward pressure of the Solar rays is enough to counterbalance the additive creation. But if the planet were very big and gaseous so that the outward pressure of solar rays had not much to "push against" that the approachement would be in order. So I think Dirac expected multiplicative creation, or at least favored that. And that Dirac was not aware of Neptune's off track orbit, nor aware of exoplanets approacing their parent stars. And lastly, since Dirac did not have an Atom Totality to base his new radioactivities, he would only see a exclusive either or for multiplicative versus additive. But in quantum mechanics we have duality and I sense that the question of either or exlusive is not what QM would answer. I sense that there is a mix of the two, but mostly additive is what is going on. I sense the universe needs a touch of multiplicative, because how does a new solar system come into being if it is all additive creation? Multiplicative creation starts a new solar system, or a new galaxy. So I think we can have both Additive and Multiplicative creation but the predominant one is Additive. -- 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 
|
|
#3
July 3rd 13, 11:44 PM
posted to sci.astro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chapt24 the cosmic abundance and distribution of chemical elements#1622 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
The below post, I wrote in May of 2011 and now it is July 2013, and there is a new method of age reckoning that may revolutionize our understanding of the Solar System. It is called gamma ray spectroscopy and is a science just beginning to make measurements. If we can measure Pluto and the satellites of the gas giants, perhaps the gas giants themselves for the relative abundance of elements, we are likely to see this 2 times age difference between inner planets and outer gas giants.
Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.math From: Archimedes Plutonium Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 23:11:51 -0700 (PDT) Local: Thurs, May 5 2011 1:11Â*am Subject: Chapt24 Cosmic abundance and distribution of the chemical elements Chapter 24 Subject: chap 24, cosmic distribution and abundance of chemical elements COSMIC ABUNDANCE OF THE CHEMICAL ELEMENTS Â* Â* Â* Â* The cosmic abundance of the elements suggested 
Â*by the Big Bang would predict 
Â*a lower abundance of hydrogen coupled with the age 
Â*prediction of the observable 
Â*universe. In the Big Bang model, all the other 
Â*elements were derived from 
Â*hydrogen nucleosynthesis.. Â*Considering the average 
Â*lifespan of a large star which 
Â*will terminate in a supernova explosion and the 
Â*maximum age of the observable 
Â*universe according to the Big Bang then it is math-wise 
Â*impossible to have the 
Â*uniformity and homogeneity spread of the elements 
Â*throughout the observable 
Â*universe and still maintain the cosmic abundance of 
Â*hydrogen. Â*The three facts of 
Â*(1) the homogenous dispersal of the elements from 
Â*carbon on up (2) the prevalent 
Â*abundance of hydrogen (3) the maximum age of the 
Â*observable universe as 
Â*calculated by the Big Bang model of around 14 to 15 billion years 
age, are mathwise 
Â*impossible for the chemistry of the Cosmos to be so uniform. Â* Â* Â* Â* The Big Bang model would predict a gradual 
Â*decline in abundance of the 
Â*elements concomitant with increase in atomic number. 
Â*What needs explanation in 
Â*the Big Bang model is the fact of increase in atomic 
Â*number with an increase in 
Â*abundance but with less stability than its neighboring 
Â*elements. Â*The element 
Â*thorium and uranium are such elements. Â*A Pu Atom Totality model 
Â*would require Â*differential 
Â*abundances of elements even though these elements have 
Â*a higher atomic number. 
Â*The reason-- the differential abundance of the 
Â*elements are required for 
Â*stability of successive atom totality and the case for 
Â*a purposeful-atom- 
Â*totality going towards a heavier element atom 
Â*totality. Biological evolution 
Â*which is nucleosynthesis is a purposeful process. Â*We 
Â*would not be here now to 
Â*discuss a Plutonium Atom Totality if it was not for 
Â*the prevalence of thorium 
Â*and uranium inside the Earth heating-up the interior 
Â*and having caused mutation 
Â*of genetic material in the past. Â*The abundance of the 
Â*radioactive elements is 
Â*required in the future for us to obtain huge supplies 
Â*of energy required for 
Â*heavy element nucleosynthesis. Â* Â* Â* Â* The Big Bang model of the observable universe 
Â*predicts that the element 
Â*technetium with atomic number 43 by laws of math 
Â*probability must be more 
Â*abundant in the observable universe than the higher 
Â*odd numbered atomic elements 
Â*such as rhenium atomic number 75. Â* A Big Bang model 
Â*would show at least one 
Â*nuclide of each mass number stable to radioactive beta 
Â*decay modes. Yet 
Â*technetium and promethium are counterexamples. Â*An 
Â*Atom Totality would 
Â*explain the abundance of thorium 90 and uranium 92 and 
Â*the depletion of 
Â*technetium 43 and promethium 61 in the observable 
Â*universe, because of a 
Â*purposeful-atom-totality. We have a mystery as to their rarity of the lighter elements in our 
Solar 
Â*System. A fact that the Big Bang theory has never 
Â*been able to wrestle with. The Atom Totality theory 
Â*has begun to wrestle with why the Comets have twice 
Â*as much deuterium as does Earth, saying that Earth 
Â*is twice as old at 10 billion years than the Comets and 
Â*due to this age that the radioactive elements in 10 
Â*billion years of Dirac radioactivities loses about 1/2 of 
Â*its deuterium density. Earth and the inner planets are 
Â*soaked full of radioactive elements whereas the outer gas giants and 
Â*the comets have missed out on 5 billion years of Dirac 
Radioactivities 
Â*creating radioactive elements that depletes the deuterium density. Probably the same explanation goes for the lighter elements such as 
Â*lithium, beryllium, boron et al. One method for proving Earth and Sun and terrestrial planets are 
Â*twice as old as the 
Â*gas giant planets is the core data.. Cores of planets are somewhat 
Â*analogous to tree-rings 
Â*because the older an astro body is, the more it has iron nickel, 
Â*especially old stars. So a 
Â*comparison of Solar System cores should indicate dense iron cores 
for 
Â*Inner Planets compared 
Â*to Outer-Planets. But the mathematics of cores would not be a linear 
Â*relationship but rather 
Â*a logarithmic relationship tying into the Dirac Radioactivities. For 
Â*the Solar System 
Â*was created and grew from particles shot from the nucleus of the 
Atom 
Â*Totality which landed 
Â*and ended up on one of the planets or Sun, such as what is daily 
seen 
Â*as gamma ray bursts 
Â*or cosmic-rays. Why am I so keen about proving Earth is twice as old as Jupiter? 
Â*Because if this is true, then 
Â*not only is the Solar System a layered age system but the entire 
Â*Cosmos is layered in age. 
Â*A layered age Cosmos and Solar System would destroy both the Big 
Bang 
Â*theory 
Â*and the Nebular Dust Cloud theory. So if I can prove that Earth is 
Â*twice as old 
Â*as Jupiter, would lay to rest the contentious debate between 
Freedman 
Â*and Sandage 
Â*of older stars in a younger Cosmos. And the Solar System is a better 
Â*data 
Â*collection than stars that are light years away and surrounded by 
Â*assumptions and 
Â*presumptions. So I had zircon crystals and cores as methods to prove the claim that 
Â*Earth is twice 
Â*as old as Jupiter and I used the cores of the satellites of Jupiter 
Â*and Saturn to 
Â*compare which does not accord with the Nebular Dust Cloud theory. So 
Â*in the core 
Â*method of proving, I use the cores of the Sun and Inner planets and 
Â*compare them 
Â*with the Outer Planets and their satellites. I was able to find a 
Â*table from this 
Â*website on the cores of the solar system or inferred cores: --- quoting from 
Â*Â*http://www.indiana.edu/~g302/planets.pdf. 
Â*--- 
Â*Solar System Composition 
Â*Metals 
Â*Oxides 
Â*Mass 
Â*Diameter 
Â*Fe, Ni 
Â*SiO 
Â*2 
Â*,MgO,FeO 
Â*Name 
Â*(10 
Â*27 
Â*g) 
Â*(10 
Â*3 
Â*km) 
Â*% 
Â*(10 
Â*27 
Â*g) 
Â*% 
Â*(10 
Â*27 
Â*g) 
Â*Sun 
Â*1,990,000 
Â*0.1 
Â*0.2 
Â*Mercury 
Â*0.33 
Â*4.88 
Â*50 
Â*0.16 
Â*50 
Â*0.17 
Â*Venus 
Â*4.87 
Â*12.11 
Â*30 
Â*1.46 
Â*69 
Â*3.36 
Â*Earth 
Â*5.97 
Â*12.76 
Â*29 
Â*1..73 
Â*69 
Â*4.12 
Â*Mars 
Â*0.64 
Â*6.79 
Â*10 
Â*0.06 
Â*90 
Â*Asteroids 0.0002 
Â*15 
Â*3x10 
Â*-5 
Â*85 
Â*1.7x10 
Â*-4 
Â*Jupiter 
Â*1900 
Â*143.2 
Â*4 
Â*80 
Â*9 
Â*170 
Â*Saturn 
Â*570 
Â*120 
Â*7 
Â*40 
Â*14 
Â*80 
Â*Uranus 
Â*88 
Â*51.8 
Â*8 
Â*7 
Â*17 
Â*15 
Â*Neptune 
Â*103 
Â*49.5 
Â*6 
Â*6 
Â*14 
Â*14 
Â*--- end quoting from 
Â*Â*http://www.indiana.edu/~g302/planets.pdf. 
Â*--- But let me give a third method of proving Earth is 2X as old as 
Â*Jupiter. The idea 
Â*here is that if the Inner Planets and Sun have double the abundance 
of 
Â*elements 
Â*like Rubidium and Strontium and Thorium and Uranium, these 
radioactive 
Â*clocks, 
Â*than the Outer Planets, would imply that Earth is 2X as old as 
Â*Jupiter. So I was 
Â*looking for any reports on the relative abundance of the radioactive 
Â*elements for 
Â*the Inner Planets compared to the Outer Planets. About the only website I found indicated that the recent robot flyby 
Â*of Saturn's Titan 
Â*indicated alot more thorium and uranium in parts per billion than on 
Â*Saturn. So just 
Â*as the iron cores of Io, Europa, Titan are incongruent to Jupiter 
and 
Â*Saturn, that it 
Â*appears as though the relative abundance of radioactive elements is 
Â*also 
Â*incongruent. So I have these three methods to attempt to prove that Earth is 2X as 
Â*old as Jupiter: 
Â*(a) Zircon crystal 
Â*(b) cores of iron and nickel, relative size and mass 
Â*(c) relative abundance of radioactive elements such as rubidium, 
Â*strontium, 
Â*thorium, uranium If this claim of mine is true that Earth is twice as old as Jupiter, 
Â*then there will not 
Â*be much of a contentious debate over such a report because it is 
Â*relatively easy 
Â*to follow-up and since it is in our backyard of the Solar System, 
that 
Â*skeptical 
Â*scientists cannot deny such a report whereas they can easily deny 
the 
Â*ages of 
Â*stars light years away. So, if my claim is true and once a report is 
Â*filed indicating 
Â*the age of Earth is 2X as old as Jupiter, is a day in which two 
widely 
Â*accepted theories 
Â*are destroyed and thrown into the trashcan-- the Big Bang theory and 
Â*Nebular Dust Cloud theory. - hide quoted text - -- 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
|
|
#4
July 4th 13, 09:15 AM
posted to sci.astro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chapt24 the cosmic abundance and distribution of chemical elements#1623 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
Chapt24 the cosmic abundance and distribution of chemical elements #1623 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed Alright the below two posts were in 2011 and now is 2013. Not much has changed with Dirac New Radioactivities as the main mechanism of growth throughout the Cosmos. Of course Dirac's New Radioactivities is opposed to the Big Bang theory and the Nebular Dust Cloud theory. It is only a matter of time before Dirac's New Radioactivities is reported and accepted. It probably has already been discovered, only not reported for fear of a backlash by other scientists who would suppress such a report. Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.math From: Archimedes Plutonium Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 22:12:34 -0700 (PDT) Local: Fri, May 6 2011 12:12Â*am Subject: Chapt24 Cosmic abundance and distribution of the chemical elements Chapter 24 
Subject: chapt24 the cosmic distribution of chemical elements as a 
diffraction 
Â*pattern Â*If you look in the book: Halliday & Resnick textbook PHYSICS, Part 2, Extended 
Â*Â*Version , 1986, of page 1138 you see a diffraction 
Â*pattern where you see alternating bands of very 
Â*dense fuzzy dots and voids. If you look at the distribution of galaxies, you again see 
Â*this pattern of very dense bands called clusters or walls of 
galaxies 
Â*and then interspersed are voids where few galaxies reside.. So we have a mathematics pattern of diffraction such as in double 
slit 
Â*and this pattern exists in the distribution of galaxies in the 
Cosmos. But here I want to extend that range of mathematical 
Â*pattern to the idea that the abundance in Nature of the 
Â*Chemical Elements of the Cosmos, also follows that 
Â*diffraction pattern. Where we see a huge abundance of 
Â*hydrogen and helium and then begin to see a gap or void of abundance 
Â*of the elements lithium, berylium, 
Â*boron. And so I am conjecturing that this mathematical 
Â*pattern of diffraction exists in the distribution of galaxies, 
exists 
Â*in the distribution of planets in solar systems and exists in the 
Â*abundance of chemical elements in the cosmos. The pattern is that of 
a 
Â*dense band followed by a void then another lesser dense band. Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.math From: Archimedes Plutonium Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 00:11:42 -0700 (PDT) Local: Sun, May 8 2011 2:11Â*am Subject: Â*planet & Sun cores - show quoted text - Notice in the above Indiana EDU website that the core of the Sun 
Â*is approx 1,990,000 times 0.1% which is 1,990 while the whole of Jupiter is 1,900 in units of 10^27 grams. Some may say that is mere coincidence that the core of the Sun is 
Â*almost exactly 
Â*the size of all of Jupiter in terms of mass. But I say it is because 
Â*the Growing Solar System 
Â*Theory with Dirac Radioactivity is a precisely measured out 
Â*phenomenon. Just as Â*Titius-Bode found precise 
Â*distance spacing 
Â*within our Solar System that the mass of the Sun in iron and nickel 
is 
Â*equal to all of the 
Â*mass of Jupiter. Now it used to be thought that 70 percent of stars were binary, but 
recently 
that has turned around to say that 30 percent are binary. Which only 
really 
goes to show how unreliable binary star data really is with so many 
assumptions 
for any calculations. However, if we can find a large number of stars that are twin stars 
and find 
Â*that one of the star 
Â*partners is twice as old as the other partner such as perhaps one of 
Â*the stars has twice 
Â*as much thorium or uranium or radioactive strontium or rubidium. In 
Â*other words, if one 
Â*twin star partner has 2X the amount of a radioactive element would 
Â*imply that the star 
Â*is twice as old as its twin partner. For if it is found that twin stars are usually partners of 2X 
Â*older would obviously 
Â*indicate that Alien Solar Systems or ExoSolar-Systems were never 
Â*created by a Nebular 
Â*Dust Cloud theory but that they were created the same as our own 
Solar 
Â*System by means 
Â*of Dirac New Radioactivity. And that our Jupiter is thus slated to 
become 
Â*a twin star to the Sun 
Â*some 5 billion years into the future. AP
|
|
#5
July 5th 13, 07:14 PM
posted to sci.astro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chapt25 planet cores evidence #1624 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
Chapt25 planet cores evidence #1624 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed Some developments have occurred since this old post of 2011. We are now starting to measure gamma ray spectroscopy of planets and their satellites. Already we see the Moon is far different in abundance of uranium than expected. We should be able to date the ages of the outer gas giant planets and their satellites with gamma ray spectroscopy and put to a conclusion that our Solar System has layered ages due to Dirac New Radioactivities. Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.math From: Archimedes Plutonium Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 23:34:26 -0700 (PDT) Local: Fri, Apr 29 2011 1:34Â*am Subject: ... Planet Core Evidence Â*Cores of planets and satellites tells us their ages and that Earth 
is 
Â*twice as old as Jupiter or Io or Europa. I took a brief false turn in the roadway for evidence that inner- 
Â*planets are 10 billion years old versus 5 billion 
Â*years for outer-planets. A bad turn in the road because atmospheric 
Â*science of the Solar System is not going 
Â*to tell me much if anything about age. Instead of atmospheres, I 
need 
Â*to get to the cores of these objects. Because 
Â*the difference between a Nebular Dust Cloud theory versus Dirac 
Â*Radioactivity as the creation of the Solar System 
Â*would be registered in the core composition. It has been known for a 
Â*very long time that the inner planets have 
Â*dense cores and the outer planets have lighter cores. This is 
because 
Â*Earth is 10 billion years old and 
Â*Jupiter is a young object of 5 billion years old. Mars probably had a dense core as Earth but some collision, much like 
Â*the Earth and Moon collision 
Â*separated the core of Mars and we see it as the Asteroid belt. I was googling for evidence and data on the outer planetary cores: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001Icar..151..204K Unless I am reading that harvard report wrong, it says the cores of 
Â*the satellites of the outer-planets 
Â*are similar to the core of the Moon and about 1/2 the density of the 
Â*core of Earth. So that Europa, Titan, 
Â*Io and others are about 1/2 the core density of Earth core. So, backtracking, I should focus purely on cores of planets as the 
age 
Â*reckoning of planets. What is the age of our Sun? Is it 10 billion or 5 billion years old? 
Â*Well what is its core composition? Does 
Â*it have a dense core and does it have alot of thorium and uranium? I am going to need to have to reconcile the idea that many Solar 
Â*Systems have binary stars. So that most 
Â*Solar Systems have to be at least 10 billion years old, so that 5 
Â*billion to give birth to one of the stars 
Â*and another 5 billion for the binary star. What is the age of the 
Milky 
Â*Way Galaxy? Is it 10 billion or 
Â*15 billion years old? The key is to measure core abundance for 
thorium 
Â*and uranium. Zircon crystals 
Â*can be a very excellent measure also. So, here, it is ironic that the present day astronomy community uses 
radioactive elements 
to date things, but that I use not these radioactive dates but rather 
use the abundance to date things. So where the typical astronomer 
takes a radioactive sample to the lab to date the specimen, I rebuke 
that dating and say that the astronomer should have collected data as 
to the abundance or lack of abundance of radioactive substances. So the present day astronomer is mistaken to think that dating of a 
sample by means of radioactivity gives a reliable date, whereas I 
contend that if the sample is of a large density of radioactive 
substances tells us more about the age of the object. Just knowing that Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars+Asteroids have twice 
Â*the density of their cores 
Â*compared to the Outer Planets and their satellites tells us that 
Earth 
Â*is 10 billion years old and Jupiter 
Â*is 5 billion years old. The Cosmos has layered ages where some stars are older than the 
recent 
Â*Plutonium Atom Mini-Bang Accretion, so that where the oldest stars 
of 
Â*20 billion years old are of the Uranium Atom Totality and the newest 
Â*accretion layer is only 8 billion years old (the Freedman vs. 
Sandage 
Â*debate). Perhaps the best way of determining the age of Sun and 
Â*planets and satellites in our Solar System-- their cores. Cores of 
Â*stars become 
Â*dense in iron as they age. So if you see a star with a large iron 
Â*core, it is an 
Â*old star.. Likewise we can age Earth and Jupiter and Io if we know 
Â*their core 
Â*data. Now I am using this website for information on cores: 
http://www.nineplanets.org/sol.html And from the Harvard source which says that Jupiter's satellites are 
Â*about 40% the size of Earth's core. Io core is huge compared to Earth. From that information I figured out that the Sun core compared to 
Â*Earth core is a factor of 300,000 in size whereas Jupiter core (even 
Â*though much is unknown and says about 10-15 Earth masses) is only a 
Â*factor of 30 in size to Io. What that tells me is the Nebular Dust Cloud theory cannot cope with 
Â*those figures. 
Â*That if the Nebular Dust Cloud theory were true then the ratios of 
Â*cores of Earth with 
Â*Sun and Jupiter with Io should have been in somewhat agreement. About the only agreement we see in cores of the Solar System is that 
Â*the Inner-planets 
Â*cores are relatively the same, and that the Outer-planet cores are 
Â*relatively 
Â*the same amoung one another, and that the cores of the Outer-planet 
Â*satellites are 
Â*approx 40% the size of Earth's Core. So what the core data suggests is the age of the Inner planets and 
Sun 
Â*are of 
Â*the same age and twice the age of the Outer Planets and their 
Â*satellites. That 
Â*Sun and Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars are 8 - 10 billion years old 
and 
Â*Jupiter, 
Â*Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and their satellites are only 5 billion 
years 
Â*old. Also, I want to say something that is pretty neat about the Growing 
Â*Solar System 
Â*theory in that it allows for the Sun to be younger, say 5 billion 
Â*years old, yet 
Â*Earth being 10 billion years old. That is a remarkable feature of 
that 
Â*theory 
Â*and where the Nebular Dust Cloud could never have accomodated. The reason Growing Solar System can have such a feature is because of 
Â*Dirac Radioactivity. And I do not remember if I called the concept 
as 
Â*"seed-dot" 
Â*of the electron-dot-cloud. How our Solar System started was that Sun 
Â*and Mercury 
Â*and the other planets and their satellites were borne of a "seed- 
dot" 
Â*which taps 
Â*directly into the Nucleus of the Atom Totality and from which cosmic 
Â*rays or gamma 
Â*bursts from the Nucleus end up at this "seed-dot" making it grow. So 
Â*it starts growing 
Â*from a few rays and bursts and more are added to that seed dot. I 
Â*called this 
Â*concept in the 1990s as "neutron materialization" and later called 
it 
Â*"dirac radioactive materialization". Our planet Earth, every day is bombarded from cosmic rays and gamma 
Â*ray bursts. 
Â*These are particles that came from the Nucleus of the Atom Totality 
Â*and created our 
Â*planet and continues to grow our planet. But some planets like Jupiter seem to have a fountain of growth where 
Â*Jupiter receives 
Â*even more Dirac radioactivity and grows Jupiter faster than even the 
Â*Sun. So in this 
Â*vision of solar system dynamics, one planet can accelerate in growth 
Â*while another 
Â*has tiny growth. So one can envision how in this theory, Earth could be twice as old 
as 
Â*the Sun, and 
Â*where Jupiter could be growing exponentially faster than the Sun. Summary: Yes! indeed! the pattern of the cores of the Sun and Inner 
Â*Planets compared 
Â*to the cores of the Outer-Planets and their satellites suggests that 
Â*the Inner Planets 
Â*are twice as old as the Outer-Planets, so that Sun and Earth are 
8-10 
Â*billion 
Â*years old and Jupiter and Europa are 4-5 billion years old. Also, 
the 
Â*cores should 
Â*trashcan the Nebular Dust Cloud theory because proto-Jupiter as it 
was 
Â*sweeping 
Â*up the gases of the primordial Dust Cloud would not have a physics 
Â*that allows 
Â*for Europa and Io to have such a huge sized metal core. The metal in 
Â*the dust-swath of the 
Â*proto-Jupiter would have sunk into Jupiter, leaving any satellites 
Â*that formed as 
Â*impoverished of a dense core. And the Nebular Dust Cloud theory has never explained the obvious fact 
of the 
dense cores of the inner planets. -- 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
|
|
#6
July 6th 13, 04:48 AM
posted to sci.astro
|
|||
|
|||
|
Chapt25 planet cores evidence #1625 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
Chapt25 planet cores evidence #1625 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed Now in the below old post, I still seem to have trouble accounting for the denser cores of satellites of the gas giants versus the gas giants. Perhaps those can be reconciled with the idea that the satellites were captured asteroid objects by Jupiter and grew via Dirac new radioactivities. So the satellite will have the same age as Jupiter, but since it started with a dense core, it maintains a dense core. Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.math From: Archimedes Plutonium Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2011 12:21:13 -0700 (PDT) Local: Sat, Apr 30 2011 2:21Â*pm Subject: ... Planet and Star Core Evidence Sometimes you really have to be awfully lucky to find a single piece 
Â*of evidence that destroys not just one 
Â*heavily touted theory that is widely accepted but two theories. The 
Â*evidence I speak of is the cores of the 
Â*Sun and the planets and their satellites and the cores of stars. The 
two theories that are 
Â*destroyed by these cores is the 
Â*Big Bang and the Nebular Dust Cloud theories. Evidence: The iron core of the Sun is huge, but not as huge as the 
Â*cores of Mercury and Earth in terms of relative density. Earth has 
the 
Â*most dense mass in our Solar System followed by Mercury. Mercury is 
Â*essentially one big core with a small 
Â*mantle and crust. The core of the Sun is very hot and is not a 
Â*solid. The cores of Jupiter and Saturn satellites 
Â*such as Io, and Europa and Titan are what this issue is all about 
for 
Â*they are anomalous to the cores of their parent 
Â*Outer Planets. The cores of Io and Europa closely match the core of 
Â*Earth and Mercury relative to the rest 
Â*of the body. So one cannot have a Io or Europa develop from a 
Nebular 
Â*Dust Cloud. 
Â*The cores of Jupiter and Saturn are small relative to their own 
Â*satellites and relative 
Â*to Earth and Mercury. I dare any physicist to run a computer simulation where you start the 
Â*Solar System 
Â*with a Nebular Dust Cloud theory and end up with the cores of the 
Â*present situation. 
Â*There is no physics that I know of that can give us a Io and a 
Europa 
Â*that is 
Â*so anomalous. And the cores of the Solar System is a dating or age reckoning 
Â*measure. Just 
Â*as stars that are old have a large iron core. So the Sun and Inner- 
Â*planets because 
Â*of their large cores are twice as old as the Outer-planets and their 
Â*satellites. So because our Solar System has two layered ages of 5 billion and 10 
Â*billion years 
Â*old, means that the Big Bang theory cannot be true with its single 
age 
Â*but must have 
Â*different layered ages. So here we have a obvious measurable fact of cores for the Solar 
Â*System and those 
Â*data do not support either the Big Bang theory or Nebular Dust Cloud 
Â*theory. 
Â*What the core data supports is the Atom Totality theory and the 
Â*Growing Solar 
Â*System from Dirac new-radioactivity theory. I think this is a very valuable and precious evidence, 
Â*for we cannot have a broad and wide and consistent understanding of 
Â*the Cosmos 
Â*if we do not understand the most important features of our own Solar 
Â*System that 
Â*is directly related to the Cosmos. And the basic feature is the 
cores 
Â*of Sun, of 
Â*planets and of satellites. The issue of cores is so important for Cosmology as it is for 
geology. For one, it is more believable of an issue than are many astronomical measures and observations because it is our own backyard so to speak. And because of the enormous hidden assumptions that goes into all measuring and observing outside our solar system. Most binary star claims have enormous hidden assumptions that goes into their reckoning of whether two stars are binary or not binary. The Freedman vs. Sandage debate over age of stars and age of Cosmos is a contentious and fudging debate where many "excuses" can enter and so logic and science is debauched. But when we have our own Solar System measurements come into the 
picture as to whether Big Bang or Atom Totality is true, it is much more difficult to have hidden assumptions and to deny the data andÂ*evidence. Alright, Schools still do not teach students "how to think" but mostly how to be a parrot of the text and lecturer. Now think for a moment as to how much iron is in the Sun if it were 
0.01% of the total 
Sun's composition? Would that iron be greater than the iron found in 
Earth or in 
Jupiter? Would that iron be anomalous to what the Nebular Dust Cloud would 
predict? If the Nebular Dust Cloud theory was correct, then the amount of 
overall iron found 
in Jupiter should be far greater than any of its satellites and the 
iron found in Jupiter 
should be on par in overall amount to that found in the Sun. But the 
iron overall amount 
is far different between Sun and Jupiter. 
 Granted, I probably overstated that by saying iron core of the Sun. I should have said something to the effect of a overall-iron composition is larger than the total mass of Earth. 
 There maybe a iron layer in the Sun and the Sun maybe a core of dense heavy elements. Maybe our detection instruments have not yet evolved to such a delicate measuring of the Sun center. Anyway, in overall summary, the Solar System simply does not agree of 
its chemistry composition of the interiors of the bodies as per iron 
with the Nebular Dust Cloud theory. Why the inner planets are so dense 
of cores is contradictory to a Solar System built by a Nebular Dust 
Cloud. Instead of a iron core, I mean something more to the effect of "overall iron composition" within the entire body. So that concept of Overall 
Iron Composition is anomalous with the Nebular Dust Cloud theory, but 
not anomalous with Dirac's new-radioactivities. In Dirac's new 
radioactivities, we multiply the atoms upward with age of the body. So 
that Earth is twice the overall-iron-composition than Jupiter because 
it is twice as old. Now I am not saying that Europa is older than 
Jupiter because of overall iron composition, but that Jupiter has the 
same overall-iron-composition as does 
Europa, and the problem is that the astronomers have never measured or 
able to accurately measure the iron within Jupiter to verify. And the overall-iron-composition of the Sun is on par with the Earth's 
overall iron composition, indicating that Earth and Sun are of the 
same age-- 8 to 10 billion years old. AP
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| explaining cosmic abundance of chemical elements Chapt13 Experimentsfor Dirac's new-radioactivities #98 Atom Totality theory 5th ed. | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 2 | November 29th 11 07:20 AM |
| Chapt24 Cosmic abundance and distribution of the chemical elements#411 Atom Totality 4th ed | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | May 5th 11 07:11 AM |
| chapt15 the cosmic distribution of chemical elements as a diffractionpattern #218 Atom Totality theory | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | December 26th 09 06:03 AM |
| chap 15, cosmic distribution of chemical elements #207 Atom Totalitytheory | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | December 17th 09 08:05 AM |
| distribution of galaxies implies a cosmic atom; Chapt.10; #181; 3rded; Atom Totality theory | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | November 15th 09 05:44 AM |
Linear Mode
