Prev: Age of solar system needs a fresh look
Next: Our 0.1<1% hollow moon, and near infinite vacuum of Selene L1 / Brad Guth
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 1 Jan 2010 15:34


Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Sam Wormley wrote:
> > Age of solar system needs a fresh look
> > http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/52306/title/Age_of_solar_system_needs_a_fresh_look
> > Honed measurements show age overshot by amount significant to earliest
> > stage of formation.
>
> Keep up the good work Sam, for that caught my eye.
>
> Took a look at that report and it makes only a difference of 1 million
> years.
>
> But it set me to thinking about why I cannot find a zircon crystal or
> uranium
> that gives an age of Earth as 10 billion years old?
>
> Not only the assumption of constant amount of uranium in certain
> meteorites.
>
> But what if the age reckoning had a undue hidden assumption?
>
> Dirac new radioactivities is the growth of the Solar System from dot-
> seeds and
> where uranium comes into existence by the conglomeration of cosmic
> rays and
> cosmic gamma ray bursts.
>
> So that if we started not with the assumption of a Nebular Dust Cloud
> theory but rather with the assumption that the Solar System began 10
> billion years ago and through that time period
> grew, like crystals the elements on Earth.
>
> So would it take 10 billion years of Dirac Radioactivities to create
> atoms of uranium in
> meteorites that we would then go to measure and mistakenly believe
> those meteorites are
> only 4.6 billion years old when in fact it required 10 billion years
> to create that uranium-lead
> complex of crystals?
>
> So maybe, not just one bad assumption of the constancy of uranium but
> a walloping huge bad
> assumption that these uranium atoms existed from a Nebular Dust Cloud
> origin. When in fact,
> due to Dirac new radioactivities, these uranium atoms are 10 billion
> years old?
>
> So could that be true?
>

In the 3rd edition I was calling for a relook at all the zircon and
other aged crystals for
a lone crystal that was 10 billion years old.

But up along comes Sam with a news-flash about a bogus-assumption in
radioactive-dating.

So, then what followed was that "Why not all of radioactive dating as
false assumption"

If Dirac is correct, and Dirac was the preminent giant of physics of
the 20th century, far
ahead of any rivals such as the midget Einstein. Well, Dirac proposed
New Radioactivities
to logically fill in the Large Numbers of Cosmos. You see, Einstein
never had the scientific
logic that Dirac had. Only Dirac could have done a Relativistic
Schrodinger Equation of the
20th century because only Dirac had that superb physics-math-logic.

And the giant of physics of the 20th century was Dirac and all the
others were students to
Dirac.

So if the Cosmos is governed of the creation of matter and new planets
and stars by
Dirac New Radioactivities. Well, kiddoes and kiddies, we cannot use
radioactivity for any
kind of reliable age parameter.

The creation of the uranium and lead and zircon crystals was created
by Dirac New Radioactivities.

So if the planet Jupiter in the far distant future starts to shine
like a star and be a companion
star to the Sun, are we still going to say that Jupiter in that
distant future is only several million
years old? No. For Jupiter was in existence for at least 4.6 billion
years before it started to
become a star.

AGE reckoning by NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS:

Here is a new way of age reckoning of stars: We measure the age of
a neighborhood of stars.

Alpha Centauri A which is 6 billion years old
Alpha Centauri B which is 6 billion years old
Alpha Centauri C which is far older than 6 billion years old and can
remain
in its current stated to 4 trillion years old

Barnard's Star 10 billion years old

Lalande 21185 Star 10 billion years old

Sirius A
Sirius B binary stars of different ages

What the above shows the science of astronomy how silly it is for
anyone to believe
and accept a Nebular Dust Cloud theory for the origins of stars. The
99.9% of star
origins are by Dirac New Radioactivities.

The Nebular Dust Cloud people expect everyone else to believe that a
Nebular Dust Cloud that would form our Solar System danced and waltzed
and threaded through the above star systems to make its cozy home in
the Solar System and then proceed to coalesce out into
our Sun and its planets.

Does anyone expect Nebular Dust Clouds to have the flexibility of
making a Solar System that is 4.5 billion years old and surrounding it
to have stars systems of 10 billion years old.

Honestly, the most ardent Nebular Dust Cloud believer, how does he
manage to get of that
silly predicament he is in?

Archimedes Plutonium
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: Age of solar system needs a fresh look
Next: Our 0.1<1% hollow moon, and near infinite vacuum of Selene L1 / Brad Guth