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
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: