Date: Jun 17, 2013 3:40 AM
Author: David Bernier
Subject: Re: Sun likely to be 10 billion years old while Jupiter only 5; Chapt22<br> a new age measuring tool in astronomy: density of actinides & iron in a body<br> #1607 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

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
> 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
> 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 ...

David Bernier

On Hypnos,