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

Topic: 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

Replies: 2   Last Post: Jun 17, 2013 4:28 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com

Posts: 9,914
Registered: 3/31/08
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

Posted: Jun 17, 2013 3:06 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

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.

And that is likely the history of Earth's moon was a captured tiny
asteroid which through 10 billion years of Dirac new radioactivities
grew into our present day moon. Now I recall other satellites are
larger than the Moon, for example Jupiter's Ganymede, but the Moon is
richer in iron than the silicates of Ganymede, and if you hypothesize
the Moon is twice as old as Ganymede would resolve their iron
differences.


--

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.