Prev: Quantum Gravity 403.9: Does the Universe Have a Time Sense, A Pain Sense, a Spatial Sense, a Memory Sense?
Next: Al Gore's key constituency was felons
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 25 Jul 2010 01:42

Chapter 11
Subject: basics-- what is "time" in an Atom Totality and the Plutonium
Atom Totality layer as 6.5 billion years old versus the Uranium Atom
Totality layer at 20 billion years old
book: ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY


PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY Universe theory:
physics characteristics; age of the Universe is a
layered nested ages of recent galaxies of the
Plutonium Atom Universe approx 6.5 billion years old
and the older galaxies of the Uranium Atom Universe
approx 20.2 billion years old

Thorium Atom Totality -> Uranium Atom Totality ->
Plutonium Atom Totality

Explains a 6.5 billion year young universe amongst an
older
20.2 billion year stars

How can you have a younger universe than its oldest
stars?
Easy in an Atom Totality. The observable universe is
the space of the
last 6 electrons of 231Pu which is the 5f6 space.
Electrons share orbitals, with the 93rd electron spin
down and the
94th electron with spin up. The 89th & 90th
electrons form one age ; 91st & 92nd form a different
age ;
the 93rd & 94th form the newest age of the 5f6
electron mass and space.
The previous Uranium Atom Totality so to speak
little-big-banged
6.5 billion years ago, a alpha decay little-big-bang
and accreted
the space and mass of the 93rd & 94th electrons. When
we
look out onto the night sky we are seeing the space
and mass
of the last 6 electrons of 231PU, the 5f6.

-----------
From: Archimedes Plutonium
Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics
Subject: Freedman age will converge on 6.5 bill yr;
Sandage 20.2 bill yr
Date: 28 Jul 1996 22:41:31 GMT

On 10 Jan 1996 01:27:47 GMT
In article (4cmg44$...@news.acns.nwu.edu)
"Todd K. Pedlar" (t...(a)numep1.phys.nwu.edu) writes:

> Not really - the figures which you have quoted are
first of all the
> probabilities at N half-lives that the atom has not
yet decayed.
> Secondly, all you've done is shown an approximation
to the MAXIMUM life
> of an atom, not really its "full life."

Technically, the maximum lifetime

> for a given atom would be infinite. What is the

meaning of "full life",

> anyway? If you were to choose a single atom to

observe until it decays, you

> might find that it "lives" 30 seconds or 30 billion
years. Is its full
> life 30 seconds or 30 billion years? In my opinion,
the most meaningful
> statistic for a single atom is probably the "mean

life", which is simply

> the average lifetime of a given atom. This is equal
to the half-life
> divided by log(2), or 0.693. There is a simple

derivation of this, which

> can be found in any nuclear physics text, such as

Introductory Nuclear

> Physics ...
> Todd

It is nice to review old gem books. NUCLEAR
PHYSICS W. Heisenberg 1953 pp45-46

--- quoting NUCLEAR PHYSICS W. Heisenberg 1953 pp45-46
---

The various radioactive substances show great
differences
in their respective speeds of transmutation. Some of
these
substances are very short-lived, whilst others last
very
long and show no noticeable lessening in radioactivity
over
long periods of time. Obviously, for the atoms of
every
radioactive substance there exists a probability,
capable of
being expressed numerically, of their radioactive
decay. The
reciprocal of this probability is the average life of
the
substance. The decay probability, and hence also the
average
life, is independent of the number of atoms already
decayed.
This means that the same percentage of the number of
atoms
still intact will decay per unit time. This law is
expressed
by the following equation:

dN = -A N dt

with the following solution for N:

N = N_0 e^(-At)

where N_0 is the number of the intact atoms present at
the
time t=0, N is their number at the time t, e is the
base of
natural logarithms, and A is the decay probability,
and
hence 1/A is the average life. Instead of the latter,
the half-life period, T (that period of time during
which exactly one-half of the original number of atoms

decays) is frequently used. The half-life is slightly
less
than the average life; it differs from the latter by
the
factor log nat 2, the natural logarithm of 2. (If we
write
t = 1/A x (Log nat 2), then N = N_0 x e
^(-log nat 2) = 1/2 N_0). This law applies to both
alpha and beta radiation.
Thus the radioactive properties of a homogeneous
substance are determined principally by two factors:
the nature of the emitted particles and the average
life
or half-life of the substance.
The gamma rays play a somewhat different part.
We must point out, first of all, that in natural
radioactivity gamma rays do not appear alone, but only

in combination with one of the other two types of
radiation.
--- end quoting NUCLEAR PHYSICS W. Heisenberg 1953
pp45-46 ---

All the elements after bismuth are radioactive and the

longest half-life to alpha decay modes of the
radioactive element isotopes after bismuth is thorium
232(a)90 with a half-life of 1.4 x10^10 years.

The longest lived half-life for uranium is 238(a)92
which
has a half-life of 4.5 x10^9 years.

The longest lived half-life for plutonium in the mode
of
alpha and negative beta decay is the isotope 244(a)94 at

8.2 x10^7 years.

Astro ages :

89th + 90th electrons

Oldest group of stars (probably quasars) these
are so old that their age is a measure of their
red shift and one only needs check the difference
in radius of thorium compared to U and Pu to
correlate red shift with atom radius and age

91st + 92nd electrons

Old stars as what Sandage et al are measuring
as 1.4 x10^10 years/.693 = 20.2 bill yrs old.
This is the age of our Sun and inner planets

93rd + 94th electrons

This is our current big bang of a alpha particle
space and our Jupiter and gas giants outward were
started as Schroedinger seed dots and grew.
This is the age Freedman et al is measuring in
their big bang expansion of 4.5 x10^9 / .693 years
which is equal to 6.5 billion years

Recently Freedman and Sandage groups have tried to
meet
each other in age. This is science fraud and cheating.

The old logic mindset that the universe can have one
and
only one age is too prevalent in those old circles.
Sooner
or later scientists will come to admit that the
universe can have more ages because we live in an Atom

Totality Universe. So you can see that Freedman et al
at
8 billion years and future researchers will not go up
in
age but will come down in age to that of 6.5 billion
years.
And Sandage et al instead of their 12-15 billion and
future researchers will go up in age to 20.2 bill for
the
oldest in the sky. But really the most oldest for
there
are the quasars which are the oldest, the 89th and
90th
electrons space and age in the 5f6.
----

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
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Quantum Gravity 403.9: Does the Universe Have a Time Sense, A Pain Sense, a Spatial Sense, a Memory Sense?
Next: Al Gore's key constituency was felons