Prev: Why can no one in sci.math understand my simple point?
Next: How Can ZFC/PA do much of Math - it Can't Even Prove PA is Consistent (EASY PROOF)
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 15 Jun 2010 01:52


Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

>
> Perhaps we need whole galaxies to make the measurement of Dirac new
> radioactivities.
> So what would Dirac have calculated for Andromeda moving towards Earth
> to have
> been, if it were additive creation? Would it have been something like
> 2 light years/year??

Sorry about that typing error.

Maybe this book should have a joke in it, one or two. Obviously you
cannot
have 2 light years per year.

That was a typing error, or a rather funny joke of 2 light years
per year. A joke like that would get one fired or failed out of any
physics classroom.

What I should have typed was 100 kilometers/year between galaxies
keeping
in line with the figure of Wikipedia on the approaching speed of
Andromeda, rather
than 2cm/year between Moon and Earth.

What I am asking, basically, is whether it is easier to make a Dirac
new-radioactivity measurement on Andromeda with Milky Way rather
than on Moon and Earth?

After thinking about it, the Moon to Earth is probably better. Too
many
unknowns about galaxies. Although the yearly coming closer of galaxies
would be much larger than 2cm/year, the sheer size and distance and
mass
of galaxies is not amenable to precision measure that is required.

Perhaps there is a means of repeating the very old Cavendish
experiment
of gravitational attraction, where Cavendish weighed the planet Earth.
How well fine tuned can we do that Cavendish experiment? Can we,
in a sense measure a Dirac new radioactivities of additive creation
from a modern day precise Cavendish Experiment? Trouble is how do
we subtract out the entering meteor showers and other assorted
incoming,
or how do we add those departing masses of spacecraft and other things
leaking out into space.

No, I rather guess that the only sure test experiment of Dirac new
radioactivities
is something akin to those neutrino experiments where we have the
accurate
mass of a vat of liquid that is enclosed and watch and wait with time
to see
if the vat increases in mass.

Another such type of experiment is to get a accurate sample of a
radioactive element
to know how many atoms are in that sample and to wait over time to see
if any of
those atoms become a higher atomic numbered atom. So if the sample is
uranium
and if Dirac new radioactivities is true then over time, there should
be some plutonium
atoms in the sample, due to additive-creation. I think this is going
to be the very best
means of testing Dirac's new-radioactivities additive creation.

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: Why can no one in sci.math understand my simple point?
Next: How Can ZFC/PA do much of Math - it Can't Even Prove PA is Consistent (EASY PROOF)