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: radioactive growth in Dirac's New Radioactivity Chapt22 Age of astro
body #1609 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

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

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: 8,744
Registered: 3/31/08
radioactive growth in Dirac's New Radioactivity Chapt22 Age of astro
body #1609 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Posted: Jun 17, 2013 4:03 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

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.

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
radioactivities.

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



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.