Age of solar system needs a fresh look
Sam Wormley
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.
Archimedes Plutonium
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?
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
Uncle Al
"Historical estimates place the age at about 4.5 billion years"
"recent calculations place the age at more like 4.5672 billion years"
"this difference is important in understanding the infant solar
system"
A 1.5% relative increase overturning our "understanding" of anything
composed of conjecture is bullshit.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
Archimedes Plutonium
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?
BradGuth
> Age of solar system needs a fresh lookhttp://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/52306/title/Age_of_solar_s...
> Honed measurements show age overshot by amount significant to earliest
> stage of formation.
Too bad my paramagnetic basalt moon rocks don't agree with NASA's moon
rocks.
Wonder why our moon(Selene) is so much more radioactive than Earth.
Of course anything derived from the Sirius(B) nova would be newer and
thus more radioactive.
~ BG
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 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.
Obviously the Nebular Dust Cloud theory needs a fresh look and a whole
new
methodology of testing.
Show me any group of stars in a region of the cosmos that all bear
nearly identical
ages, in order for the Nebular Dust Cloud theory to pass a
"commonsense test".
If the neighborhood of most stars are not of similar ages, indicates
the Nebular
Dust Cloud theory is a fake theory. For certainly the Sun is not
surrounded by
similar-aged stars and that the fact that several of Sun's neighboring
stars are
10 billion years old indicates that the age of the Sun and Earth is
probably 10 billion
years due to the true mechanism of the birth and growth of stars and
solar-systems
as that of Dirac new radioactivities such as the accumulation of
cosmic rays and
gamma ray bursts.
Archimedes Plutonium
saying that
99% of the creation of stars and planets are formed by Dirac new
radioactivities.
Our own Solar System was formed by Dirac new radioactivities.
There is a picture of a Nebular Dust Cloud which I had seen many years
back
in which it showed about 6 blue shining stars all about the same size
and
same luminosity. I do not recall much else. (Perhaps it was the
Horsehead
Nebula??).
So I am enforcing or applying a commonsense criteria for the Nebular
Dust
Cloud theory. A criteria that other scientists and astronomers of the
past
century should have voiced, or should have thought of before me. It is
odd to me that astronomers for about a century of collecting data on
stars
never asked how the Nebular Dust Cloud theory could ever hold up when
the
neighborhood of star's ages always seem to drastically vary.
That if the Nebular Dust Cloud theory has any credence, it would say
that
stars in a neighborhood should be typically of the same age. This is
commonsense.
But if you look at most every star in the Milky Way Galaxy and then
inspect
the neighbors of that star, we usually find that the neighborhood has
vastly
differing ages of stars in close proximity.
And if we inspect binary stars, we usually find that they are of
different ages.
So, immediately we see that the Nebular Dust Cloud theory fails even
a
commonsense test.
The fact that our Sun is surrounded by 10 billion year old stars in
its immediate
neighborhood, tells us by commonsense, that the Sun is likely to be 10
billion years
old and not the formerly thought age of 4.5 billion years old.
So the idea that there was a bogus assumption of radioactive decay
dating of
uranium that adds on a mere 1 million years, that rather instead, we
throw out
all radioactive dating to determine the age of the Solar System. Throw
it all
out because our Solar System came into being via radioactivities of
Dirac's
outline.