Prev: 9-11 was, of course, an inside job. (kookery)
Next: Proving ranges of force
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 17 Jun 2010 14:49
As I said before, in the 3rd edition of this book, I used the fact
that the Earth ocean water
was 160 ppm heavy water whereas on comets it is 320ppm. So that factor
of 2X, I used
as a age reckoning difference between the age of Earth versus the age
of Comets.
In the 3rd edition, I was arguing for a multiplicative creation of
Dirac new radioactivities,
and in this edition I am arguing that the creation process is
additive, not multiplicative.

So this experiment is a rather good one, replacing Dirac's
astronomical experiments
that the Moon should approach Earth by 2cm/year if additive and recede
by 2cm/year
if multiplicative. In my experiment I get rid of astronomical
measurement because the
motion of planets and the Moon are far to complex and complicated to
retrieve any
small motion. Instead, in this experiment, we imitate additive
creation and then depending
on what we learn from the imitation, see if the same effect occurred
somewhere in
Nature. We get a container of Earth ocean water that is not quite
ocean salinity nor the
160ppm of heavy water and we bombard it with cosmic rays
(protons) and we see if we thence approach the identical contents of
present day ocean
water. Then we get water that is pre-Comet conditions of not quite
320ppm heavy water
and have somewhat the salinity of Comet water. Bombard it with cosmic
rays (protons)
and see if the outcome is that approaching what Comet water is.

So it seems safe to say that if we set up experiments that imitates
Dirac's additive creation
and find that the outcome is a approach of what the actual present day
conditions of the Earth's ocean waters and the waters in Comets. That
such a result would validate the Dirac
new radioactivities.

Dirac's attempts via Shapiro and Van Flandern (Directions in Physics,
1978) were simply
not aggressive enough of experiments that used the Moon and planets to
eke out a
tiny motion of 2cm/year for the Moon. Just not aggressive enough of
experiments and
hard to unravel the complicated motions of the Moon that would mask
the 2cm/year.

So my experiment is far more aggressive in questioning the existence
of Dirac's New
Radioactivities. My experiment simulates new-radioactivities should it
exist. By bombarding
a container with protons (cosmic rays) I simulate additive creation of
new radioactivities.
I bombard a closed container with protons and see if I can turn a
160ppm or a 320ppm
of heavy water versus heavy-salt.

My other experiment is to simply wait, having counted out precisely
100 atoms of uranium,
and wait for one or two of them to convert into plutonium.

I think the aggressive experiment of imitating new radioactivities is
a far better experiment
in terms of time. And instead of say the heavy water and salinity of
Earth and Comets, I can
focus on other chemistry such as the Jupiters chemistry with Europa's
chemistry. Or say
the chemistry of Mars with that of Earth.

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: 9-11 was, of course, an inside job. (kookery)
Next: Proving ranges of force