Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

body #1609 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Replies: 5   Last Post: Jun 17, 2013 6:03 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 archimede plutanium Posts: 101 Registered: 5/9/12
astro body #1609 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Posted: Jun 17, 2013 6:02 PM

On Monday, June 17, 2013 5:31:45 PM UTC-4:30, plutanium....@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, June 17, 2013 3:33:33 PM UTC-4:30, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>

> > Google new format does not allow me to reply-post to the same
>
> >
>
> > newsgroups I started with, so then that means my replies are new
>
> >
>
> > replies.
>
>
>
> Good. Go kill yourself you complete waste of a fucking life.
>
>
>
> Your replies are verbal diarrhea; they are useless, just like
>
>
>
> _everything_ you do, you sorry fuck.
>

> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Previously in #1608, I wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > So that when we
>
> >
>
> > > find a sample of U238 with half life of 4.5 billion years and find
>
> >
>
> > > half the sample is U238 and the other half is lead, we jump to the
>
> >
>
> > > false conclusion of 4.5 billion years old, whereas in fact, it was
>
> >
>
> > > likely to be 6 billion years old since some of the lead turned into
>
> >
>
> > > U238 and some of the thallium and mercury turned into lead.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Now that is a gross error on my part for what I should have said is
>
> >
>
> > that if a sample of half U238 and half lead is found, does not imply
>
> >
>
> > 4.5 billion years when Dirac's New Radioactivities is factored in.
>
> >
>
> > More than likely, when such a sample is found, the age is at least 10
>
> >
>
> > billion years old.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > In Old Physics and Old Astronomy and Old Geology, they had radioactive
>
> >
>
> > decay, but they never had radioactive growth due to Dirac's new
>
> >
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Now we are beginning to see cosmology ages from gamma ray
>
> >
>
> > spectroscopy, and finding that some of the nearby stars to the Sun are
>
> >
>
> > 12 to 13 billion years old. And even yet, those estimates do not
>
> >
>
> > factor in Dirac's new radioactivities which would make those old stars
>
> >
>
> > even older to perhaps 15 to 20 billion years old. The Milky Way galaxy
>
> >
>
> > is likely to have an age of 20 billion years old. Our Sun is probably
>
> >
>
> > 10 billion years old and Jupiter is probably 5 billion years old.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Physicists have worked out the pathways of radioactive decay, but they
>
> >
>
> > need to start working out the pathway of radioactive growth, starting
>
> >
>
> > with hydrogen, and how it builds the rest of the elements. One
>
> >
>
> > interesting pathway is why radioactive growth favors heavy water for
>
> >
>
> > comets while it favors regular water for Earth.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > More than 90 percent of AP's posts are missing in the Google
>
> >
>
> > newsgroups author search archive from May 2012 to May 2013. Drexel
>
> >
>
> > University's Math Forum has done a far better job and many of those
>
> >
>
> > missing Google posts can be seen here:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 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