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: 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 ]
archimede plutanium

Posts: 101
Registered: 5/9/12
Re: radioactive growth in Dirac's New Radioactivity Chapt22 Age of
astro body #1609 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Posted: Jun 17, 2013 6:03 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Monday, June 17, 2013 3:33:33 PM UTC-4:30, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 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.