Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: Chapt21 layered ages of the Solar System where Sun is likely to be
twice as old as Jupiter, 10 billion years versus 5 billion years #1605 ATOM
TOTALITY 5th ed

Replies: 0  

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List  
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com

Posts: 9,542
Registered: 3/31/08
Chapt21 layered ages of the Solar System where Sun is likely to be
twice as old as Jupiter, 10 billion years versus 5 billion years #1605 ATOM
TOTALITY 5th ed

Posted: Jun 15, 2013 6:29 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Before I discuss this new chapter, let me talk about a general review
of the science of astronomy and cosmology. It has a lot of weaknesses
and horrible faults, but not horrible if we recognize those weaknesses
and faults. One thing that present day and current day astronomers and
physicists do that does not help the science is that they make no
attempt in recognizing these faults and thus tempering their
conclusions. Their major weakness is one of "ten assumptions goes into
each of their single conclusions", and that is not a healthy science
program. Not healthy because if one of those assumptions is false,
then the conclusion is false.

One of the largest and gravest errors is having the redshift be
Doppler redshift and assuming it is an acceleration and assuming it is
a expansion, and assuming the further away means older age. A chain of
horrible assumptions that astronomers routinely accept full heartedly.

Ask yourself as to how much of present day astronomy and cosmology is
based on the Doppler redshift? Horribly much is the correct answer.
What if we removed the Doppler redshift altogether out of astronomy,
and what conclusions would survive a removal of the Doppler redshift?
Well, the age of the Cosmos, galaxies would not survive a Doppler
redshift removal because that is the only age reckoning in place at
this time.

Astronomers, and scientists in general should have realized and
recognized that if a science is heavily dependent on one tool--
Doppler redshift, that it is likely to be a false tool and cause
tremendous upheaval in that science when it is thrown out. And that is
where we are in 2013, ready to throw out Doppler redshift, because the
redshift has nothing to do with a Big Bang or motion away from an
observer. The redshift is Refraction-redshift due to light passing
near or by a massive object, since the object has a gravity EM-cell
surrounding the object and light that is passing by is refraction
redshifted.

So, the ages of galaxies and the Cosmos cannot use the redshift to
measure age.

We have to go back to a time in which we measured age by other means
than a redshift.

I am trying to think of a good age measuring tool, now that the
redshift is thrown out.

But I think the best place to start is with the Solar System rather
than with beyond the solar system of galaxies and stars in other
galaxies. In the Atom Totality theory, we should find that the Solar
System has layered ages of planets and the Sun, so that the Sun and
the inner planets are likely to be about 10 billion years old whereas
the outer gas giant planets are only 5 billion years old. So do we
have any means of measuring that?




--- quoting http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2007-05-11-ancient-star_N.htm

Long before our solar system formed and even before the Milky Way
assumed its final spiral shape, a star slightly smaller than the Sun
blazed into life in our galaxy, formed from the newly scattered
remains of the first stars in the universe. ?Employing techniques
similar to those used to date archeological remains here on Earth,
scientists have learned that a metal-poor star?in our Milky Way called
HE 1523 is 13.2 billion years old-just slightly younger than 13.7
billion year ?age of the universe. Our solar system is estimated to be
only about 4.6 billion years old. The findings are detailed in the May
10 issue of Astrophysical Journal.

--- end quoting http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2007-05-11-ancient-star_N.htm

I am excited by this discovery but will be even more excited because
the Atom Totality theory predicts stars in our Milky Way Galaxy that
are older than the alleged age of the Cosmos 13.7 billion years. ?In
the Atom Totality theory ages of stars and galaxies are layered. ?Some
ages are from the Plutonium Atom Era, some from the previous ?Uranium
Atom Era, some from the prior Thorium Atom Era. So that the ?age of
13.7 billion years was merely the Plutonium Atom extension onto a
prior older cosmos of the Uranium Atom Totality. ?So what does this
mean for the oldest stars in our galaxy? It means ?that in the future,
there will be found a star that is 15 billion ?years old, and in the
future a star that clocks up an age of 19 to 20 ?billion years will be
found. Such discoveries will bring crisis to the ?Big Bang believers
and they will be robustly adamant that the ?researchers made mistakes.
But they did not make mistakes. The trouble ?is that the Big Bang
theory is a fake. ?And closer to home, according to the Atom Totality
theory, our own ?Solar System displays this same layering of ages in
that the Sun and ?inner planets date back to the prior Uranium Atom
Totality and can be ?as old as ?20 billion years, whereas the outer
planets of Jupiter and beyond are ?of the recent Plutonium Atom Era
and are only 4-5 billion years old. ?So when experimentalists can
accurately date the Sun and inner planets ?compared ?to the outer
planets, be not surprized when the data says that the Sun ?and Earth
are closer to 10 billion years old and Jupiter and Saturn ?are only 5
billion years old. But can I claim this layering truth now ?from the
given 13.2 billion ?years? Can I claim victory for the Atom Totality
theory, right here, ?and right now? I think so. Because in the Big
Bang theory requires ?billions of years for the ?explosion to have
coalesced the material to form a star and not just a ?mere 0.5 billion
years. In other words, our present understanding of ?solar dynamics
does not allow for a star forming in 0.5 billion years ?immediately
after the Big Bang explosion. That picture conjures up the image that
the explosion had pre-made stars. So I think I can count victory
right ?here and right now. And the icing on the cake will be when
researchers ?report a star that is 20 billion years old in our
galaxy.

--

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



Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.