Sun likely to be 10 billion years old while Jupiter only 5; Chapt22 a new age measuring tool in astronomy: density of actinides & iron in a body #1607 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
Jun 17, 2013 4:28 AM
Re: Sun likely to be 10 billion years old while Jupiter only 5; Chapt22 a new age measuring tool in astronomy: density of actinides & iron in a body #1607 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
Jun 17, 2013 3:40 AM
On 06/17/2013 03:06 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > It is good to see that astronomy has a new method of telling the age > of astro bodies that is not a fakery method such as the Doppler > redshift. > > --- quoting from > http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007PASJ...59L..15A > > The thorium abundance of the red giant COS 82 in the Ursa Minor dwarf > spheroidal galaxy was determined based on the high-resolution > spectrum. This is the first detection of actinides in an extragalactic > object. > --- end quoting --- > > It makes commonsense that the best means of age reckoning in geology > is via radioactive decay, and that should then be the best means for > astronomy also. It is just that astronomers have only now begun using > this age method. And it is good to see that they can measure the age > of other galaxies. > > I predict that as more and more of these radioactive decay ages for > stars and galaxies are reported, that an upheaval in all the old > methods will occur and the old methods will be tossed out as phony or > inadequate. > > > --- quoting in part from > http://kencroswell.com/ThoriumUrsaMinor.html > When Aoki and colleagues compare the star's thorium level with that of > stable r-process elements, such as europium, they find a lower thorium- > to-europium ratio than in the Sun. Thus, more of the star's original > thorium has decayed, so the star must be older than the Sun. > Aoki's team derives an age for COS 82 which matches that of an r- > process-enhanced star in the Milky Way's halo named CS 22892-052, > which is 12 or 13 billion years old. This, in turn, suggests the Ursa > Minor dwarf is as old as the Galactic halo. > --- end quoting --- > > Now I am going to argue contrary to both Aoki and Croswell above, in > that their argument or reasoning is not based on Dirac's new > radioactivities, and when we apply Dirac's new radioactivities, we get > a very surprising end result, that the Sun has an age of about 10 > billion years old. > > What Aoki and Croswell are debating is how our Sun has its iron > abundance delivered to the Sun by supernovas. Well, in the Dirac new > radioactivities theory, you see, the universe itself creates the > elements inside the astro body, and they are not created by random > supernovas. Just as Earth and Sun, everyday have cosmic rays and > cosmic gamma ray bursts that buildup the elements inside of Sun and > Earth, each and every day, and not due to some ancient supernova dust > collecting to make the Sun or Earth. > > So, the fact that these stars are of the order of 12 or 13 billion > years old and have a iron depletion relative to the Sun's iron, that > the Sun is at least 10 billion years old. > > Now the age of Earth is measured by radioactive decay such as U238 > which has half life of about 4.5 billion years and that samples of > U238 found on Earth and meteorites is about half U238 and half lead, > indicating it is 4.5 billion years old. Now that is under the > presumption of those elements in existence without Dirac new > radioactivities. Dirac would say that Earth and Sun started out as a > ball of hydrogen and with the accretion of more cosmic rays and gamma > ray bursts that ball will increase in numbers and size and in elements > of higher atomic number. So after a billion years of Dirac new > radioactivities, you have more mass and higher atomic numbered > elements. After a billion years you would have elements from hydrogen > up to iron, and after 5 billion years you would start to see elements > forming of lead, thorium, uranium. After 10 billion years you would > have planets like Earth that are rich in thorium and uranium. > So in this viewpoint of astronomy we throw out the quant and silly > notion that elements beyond iron, all had to come from supernova. I > would pack up all astronomy professors and send them to a summer > school logic camp, since they think that the rare events of supernova > have caused a cosmic blender of the elements to reside in all the > galaxies, stars and planets. > > The uniformity and blended mixture of the elements that reside in > planets, stars and galaxies is not due to rare events of supernova, > but due to the daily Dirac new radioactivities. > > So the fact that the Sun is iron rich, and that the star COS 82 in the > Ursa Minor galaxy dating it to be 12 or 13 billion years old, is > strong evidence that the Sun is at least 10 billion years old. > > Previously I wrote that the density of the actinides tells us the age > of an astro body, but after reading these two above reports, I can > refine my logic, in that the density of iron per the lightweight > elements-- hydrogen, helium in a astro body is a quick determinant of > age. > > So looks favorable to the idea that the Sun and inner planets are > about 10 billion years old whereas Jupiter and the gas giant outer > planets are 5 billion years old. > > Now critics would point out that the moons of Jupiter and Saturn > appear to be dense in iron, but if you research that density, it is > not so dense. And those satellites were likely to have been asteroids > captured and then by Dirac new radioactivities, growing into moons.
Archimedes, you mention: "Dirac's new radioactivities". Which Dirac do you mean? Paul Dirac, the pioneer of quantum mechanics, is no longer with us ...