Gravity = mass-gravity + positron-space-gravity #370 Atom Totality4th ed

Subject: magnetic fields of planets explained by Positron-Space-
gravity


I was able to cobble together the latest information as to the
size of the magnetic field of the following planets and moon:

Mercury magnetic field strength 1% of Earth or 300 nT

Venus magnetic field strength is 10^-5 times Earth

Earth magnetic field strength 3x10^4nT to 6x10^4nT

Moon magnetic field strength is 1 to 100 nT

Mars magnetic field strength is 10^-4 times Earth

Perhaps the easiest supporting evidence for the Positron-Space-gravity
versus the mass-gravity is the magnetic
field of planets and astro bodies. In the mass-gravity theory
some objects should have zero magnetic field and not a
tiny magnetic field such as the Moon and Venus. And some
objects with massive iron cores such as Mercury should not have that
huge magnetic field. What can explain this anomaly
is the Positron-Space-gravity theory since a Coulomb force
charge creates a magnetic field. In essence, every round
astro body has a magnetic field because it has a pseudosphere of
positrons, albeit a tiny amount of positrons but it only takes a tiny
amount since EM is 10^39 stronger than gravity.


Subject: correlation between magnetic field and spin speed due to
Positron-Space-gravity



I should include the spin of these astro bodies as equatorial rotation
velocity:

Mercury 11km/h
Venus 6km/h
Earth 1,674 km/h
Moon 18 km/h
Mars 868 km/h


I am looking for a correlation between spin speed and magnetic field
due to Positron-Space-gravity.


Subject: conservation of angular momentum only in an atom totality
structure


I should include the spin of these astro bodies as equatorial
rotation
velocity:

Mercury 11km/h
Venus 6km/h
Earth 1,674 km/h
Moon 18 km/h
Mars 868 km/h

Hope those data numbers are correct. I spent the last two days
thinking about those numbers. There is no pattern there between the
two other than to say they are close to one another
other than Mars's rotation velocity. And why should the huge
rotation velocity of Earth match its huge magnetic field?

There is not a math pattern such as a geometric progression but
the magnetic field and rotation speed are somewhat in agreement.


But before I go, a strange thought occurred to me which physics
never seemed to ask the question nor bothered to give an answer. And
that stands to reason if the question was never asked. So maybe I am
the first one to ever raise this question.
We have linear momentum in physics and angular momentum
and each of them are conserved as far as we know. But the
question is why does the world have both? And since you have
both, can you really differentiate without a doubt the one from
the other, or can the two bleed into one another and become
indistinguishable? Part of this question asks why atoms and
elementary particles have "spin". So can the spin become
linear momentum. So it is not a simpleton question but a profound
question.

I believe the answer is, as far as I can intuit, is that the world
actually has only one type of momentum-- angular, because the
world is a gigantic atom which is spinning and if you go to infinity
you come back to the same spot you started. So linear
momentum is just a "partial angular momentum." The analogy of
walking a straight line on Earth is really a arc-line and that arc-
line is conceived of as linear-momentum.

Now I believe the fact that angular momentum or spin for an
elementary particle is ample proof enough that the world is a
circular or elliptical structure like an atom. So in other words,
the fact that all momentum reduces to angular momentum and
the prevalence of angular momentum throughout physics should
be ample proof that the Universe is a elliptic structure and the only
feasible structure would be an atom itself. Now people with
a real logical physics mind would be convinced of this argument,
but it is rare for any scientist to have a really logical mind. I know
of two highly logical and physics oriented minds of the
20th century-- Dirac and Bell. If Dirac and Bell were alive today,
both would carry my arguement much further. That we have
this predominance of angular momentum, because the Universe
is a overall round structure and the only fitting object that could
be the Universe is an atom.

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