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: