Is Sun-Earth approx 10 billion years old and Jupiter-Saturn 5 billion?

The below was extracted from the 2nd edition almost
word for word. The last paragraph is new.

What I am going to have to start doing is add into this book the
mounting evidence of
geology which points to a Earth age of about 10 billion years old and
where our Sun
and other inner planets are about 10 billion years old while the
outer-
planets are a
mere 5 billion years old (or the usual touted 4.5 billion years old).

I did not bring in this geology research in the first edition of
January to February 2007
because I was focused on assimilating or amassing or compiled the
overall book
for the first time. But with every new edition, I can then add
details. And the Sandage
Freedman debates as to age of cosmos and age of oldest stars is an
astronomy
debate that is ridden full of inaccurate measurement and nonprecise
measurement
and riddled full of assumptions. But when geology of Earth and Sun and
outer-planet
ages is added to the debate of Age, then we can begin to straighten
out both
astronomical ages and geological ages.

You see, in the Hartmann model of a Earth Moon collision some 4.4
billion years ago,
would it not make better sense of the data and facts at present now if
we consider that
the Earth was 10 billion years old and that the collision that
occurred 4.4 billion years
ago was not the Earth with Moon but the Earth with a satellite of the
Moon. So there
were 3 astro bodies involved in that collision. I say this because the
physics of a
Earth Moon collision would not give us what we currently see as the
Earth Moon.
Such a collision would have been so violent that the Moon should not
exist and the
Earth tilt on axis and spin suggest a collision with a object the size
of a object the
fraction of the size of the ancient Moon. So, physics, points to the
likely Earth Moon
collision of a system that involved 3 objects-- Earth, Moon, and some
third object
wherein this third object caused the Earth tilt and spin and was
incorporated into
Earth and captured the Moon in its orbit. The Hartmann Model is too
unlikely
whereas the 3rd object in the Collision is more likely given our
present day
Earth Moon circumstances.

Someday, scientists here on Earth will find a experiment that dates
Earth and which
those dates imply not a 4.5 billion year old Earth but rather a 10
billion year old Earth.
Experiments such as those conducted in Australia for decades now on
zirconium
crystals which peg the crust as 4.4 billion years old. What if
zirconium crystals can
date back to 10 billion years old? What if zircon was found in the
mantle or zircon
found in meteorites which gives a date of 10 billion years old? I do
not know where it
will come from, whether from zircon research, but whereever it comes
from will be
immediately dismissed by nearly all scientists having grown up with
4.5 billion years.
And this new data will be fiercely suppressed, but eventually it will
be accepted as
the truth. That Earth is really 10 billion years old and that the age
of the Sun and
Inner Planets is about double the age of the Outer Planets.

So that the Freedman Sandage contentious and fierce debates over the
age of the
Cosmos versus age of the oldest stars will become settled not from any
of their
astronomical measurements but closer to home, from the layered ages of
the Sun
and Inner Planets compared to the Outer Planets. If our Solar System
has a
layered age structure, then obviously, Freedman and Sandage have to
have layered
ages for Cosmos and oldest stars.

Now as for why Earth has so much water, there is a Comet theory that
comets brought
us all this water. Trouble with that theory is that the composition of
comet water is high
in heavy (deuterium) water whereas the ocean water is not high in
heavy-water. What
easily solves and answers the question of where Earth got all of its
water is a look
at the Outer Planets and their satellites. We see Europa almost a
smaller Earth covered
with water. And we see water abundant in the Outer Planets and their
Satellites. Now
envision a dynamic where the water migrates from the outer Planets to
one special
body. In that manner can we envision why Earth is covered in water
since it was the
movement of all the water from Mercury, Venus, Mars and bodies of the
Inner Planets.

Call it a Solar System Water cycle with the Solar Winds as the main
dynamic of
moving the water to some special astro body. This dynamic also
explains why
Earth has overabundant salt.

So envision CellWell2 of the outer planets as a system that eventually
forms Jupiter into
a star. And as Jupiter becomes a star, that much of the mass of the
other outer planets
are swallowed up by Jupiter leaving only a few outer planets which are
highly rich in
iron cores. And these few bodies remaining when Jupiter becomes a star
will have
migrated the water content of CellWell2 to some special distanced
planet that escaped
being swallowed by Jupiter and which has the proper distance that it
can collect this
water lost by the other bodies.

Now I wonder, if the scientists working on measuring the ratio of
heavy-water for comets
could spend just a fraction of their time on finding out what is the
ratio of heavy water for
all the water found in the Outer Planets. Is the ratio of heavy water
to light water on Europa
match that of Earth?

So what I am logically saying is that if the ratio of heavy water to
light water for the Outer
Planets matches the ratio found here on Earth, then that  would be
strong evidence
of how Earth got its huge amount of water in the dynamics of what I
call CellWell1 and
CellWell2.

And I would guess that measuring the ratio of heavy water to light
water for the Outer Planets
and their satellites is much easier than measuring Cometary water. And
perhaps such was
already done but noone paid much attention to the reported data.

And also, if my above is correct in part or in whole, would provide a
mechanism and explanation
not only for how Earth got its huge amount of water which is anomalous
compared to the other
Inner Planets, but could also explain why Earth has a huge amount of
salt and its salty oceans.
So did the salt migrate to Earth as well as the water migrating from
the Inner planets? So here
also, we can look to the amount of salt in the Outer Planets and see
if the water migration would
entail a salt migration.

So that indicates to me that the inner planets had alot of water some
10 billion years ago and that the inner planets had more planets and
satellites than what is now seen but they got swallowed up by the Sun
leaving only Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars and Asteroid belt of the
rubbles of the swallowing and colliding. And thus in those 10 billion
years all the water available migrated to Earth. What did not migrate
to Earth was lost into outer space or to the Sun.

The reason the Comets have a high ratio of heavy water is the Dirac
radioactivity (outlined in his book Directions in Physics). Where all
the planets and stars are created and grow due to this Dirac
radioactivity. And so the radioactivity new mass on comets yields
more heavy water than it yields light water.

All I need to do to prove these above ideas is find a way of better
measuring
the age of Earth. If it is 10 billion years old then the Nebular Dust
Cloud theory is
out the window along with the notion that Earth's oceans come from
comets
some 4 billion years ago.

So the fact that the Outer Planets have the same ratio of heavy to
light water
as does Earth is a strong indication that some day Jupiter is destined
to be a
twin star to Sun and that most of the outer planets and satellites
will be swallowed
up by Jupiter and that about 4 of the satellites will escape the
Jupiter swallowing
and these 4 will be akin to Mercury Venus Earth and Mars. And these 4
will have
one which is different from the others to allow for water to migrate
there and have
oceans.

I am looking into zircon crystals for I am reading that they can
accurately date back
to 10 billion years age, something to do with hafnium atoms ratio. So
if some
researcher finds zircon crystals in meteorites or possibly the
Hawaiian basalts
or from some mantle rocks that have surfaced. So if a zircon crystal
can be found
which dates back not just 4.6 billion years but approaching 10 billion
years, well,
we have a brand new day in astronomy and geology and physics.

P.S. I doubt it but I may have been fortuitously blessed with such a
zircon crystal.
I am talking about a possible meteorite find close to my home of about
50 kilograms
of rock material. It is all magnetic and shows fusion crusts. Whether
they contain
any zircons is doubtful. I suspect they are eucrites and they look
like Millbillie eucrite
found in Australia and in the Australia website collection. I am
having a quartz testing
of one specimen to see if it is meteoric or hematite from the last Ice
Ages. The numbers
are staggeringly high that mine is not a meteorite that contains
zircons from the asteroid
Vesta and dates back 10 billion years old. Think of the staggering
improbability that
a person living on the East Coast in New Hampshire in the 1990s who
comes up with a
theory of how the Solar System was created and who then relocates his
home in the
MidWest where in his backyard finds a meteorite with zircon crystals
that date Earth
as 10 billion years old. Staggeringly improbable.

New information: In the above I have a conundrum to
solve. The conundrum is why would Dirac Radioactivities create more
heavy water in water of the
Comets rather than in water elsewhere in the Solar System? In other
words, why is Dirac Radioactivities
increasing the nuclear content of water in Comets? I have to have some
mechanism as to why Dirac
Radioactivities makes Comet water special. I do not
have that mechanism.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies