Chapt26 MECO theory to explain high energy sources and dispelblack-hole theory as science-fiction #1626 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

The below is an old post of mine in a previous edition of this book. When physics has fake physics theories like Big Bang or Black Holes, it is only a matter of time where true physics emerges from the rotten fakeries. MECO theory is an example of emerging true physics over that of the rotten old fake physics.

Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.math
From: Archimedes Plutonium
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 20:52:48 -0800 (PST)
Local: Tues, Nov 16 2010 10:52Â*pm
Subject: 4th ed. Â*MECO theory to replace black-hole theory ...


My memory is very good, still, so keep my fingers crossed. But shame I 
did not remember MECO for then I would have instantly found the reference and it was Harvard, and the name was Schild.
--- quoting from NEW SCIENTIST --- 
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...uasar-casts-do... 
Â*Mysterious quasar casts doubt on black holes
Â* Â* * 18:21 27 July 2006 by David Shiga
A controversial alternative to black hole theory has been bolstered by 
observations of an object in the distant universe, researchers say. If 
their interpretation is correct, it might mean black holes do not 
exist and are in fact bizarre and compact balls of plasma called 
MECOs.
Rudolph Schild of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in 
Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, led a team that observed a quasar 
situated 9 billion light years from Earth. A quasar is a very bright, 
compact object, whose radiation is usually thought to be generated by 
a giant black hole devouring its surrounding matter. 
--- end quoting from New Scientist ---

And really rather remarkable how deep the looney-tune black-holes 
became in modern day science to the point where we have people talking about micro-black-holes in their backyards to that of some quack recently publishing that of "roaming black holes in the Milky Way".
So what we can carry away from this experience of when a science runs 
amok in fiction, is that the fiction goes so far overboard, that the science of astronomy becomes an insane-science.
And only luckily do we have any rational good thinkers remaining such 
as Schild with MECO to pull the looneys away from the abyss.
One by one, measurements can be made to show that wherever a black- 
hole is postulated to exist, that the MECO people can go in there and show 
that the data support a MECO, and not a black-hole.
And finally, when it is shown that the Milky Way cannot have a black- 
hole, then everyone in astronomy will abandon the looney tune ship of black-hole theory.
The only reason that black-hole idiocy went to such enormous prevalency is because of its "laziness" feature. You receive a signal from a galaxy and the most lazy reaction is to say a black-hole is the cause of that signal, stop work and go out and have a gourmet lunch. But the true scientists, say to themselves, we never bought into black-holes for they violate all of physics laws, and so we look for a answer that sticks within the laws of physics as we know them to be.
So, centimeter by centimeter and millimeter by millimeter, astronomers 
like Schild will help to right the ship of astronomy.
--

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 he

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

Chapt26 MECO theory to explain high energy sources and dispel
black-hole theory as science-fiction #1627 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed


Now the below two old posts were written in 2010 and it is now 2013 and much has changed as far as mechanisms of energy with the Maxwell Equations as axioms over all of physics. There are no black holes in New Physics and quasars are normal stars or galaxies nearby Earth and that the Doppler redshift is fakery, so we need no explanation of quasars.

Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.math
From: Archimedes Plutonium
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 21:13:24 -0800 (PST)
Local: Tues, Nov 16 2010 11:13Â*pm
Subject: ... MECO theory replacing black-holes ... ATOM TOTALITY, ONE-ATOM-UNIVERSE theory

Subject: MECO theory to replace black-hole theory; book: ATOM TOTALITY 
(Atom Universe) THEORY

I don't know why sometimes I make it hard on myself. There 
I was trying to conjure up a 
mechanism for why the quasars when in the last edition of this 
book I had read about this MECO theory which offers to 
replace all black-holes and offers to explain any large 
amount of radiation in the cosmos.
Do you ever get yourself in that situation, where you look and 
look for a explanation, and yet it is sitting there in front of you 
just inviting you by saying "here I am."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...uasar-casts-do... 
Â*Mysterious quasar casts doubt on black holes

Now I have to check into that MECO theory but it appears to be a Dirac Radioactivities theory where the particles slip in and out of the Dirac ocean of positrons or antimatter.
I am going to expand Dirac's Ocean from that of only positrons 
to that of being just simply Antimatter.
So when MECO theory posits the slipping in and out of particles 
it becomes a matter to antimatter conversion into energy and 
thus any high energy is emitted.
So this MECO theory is even better than the old black-hole 
theory because it is matter to antimatter conversion whereas 
the black-hole theory had to rely upon the stripping away of 
matter and for that matter to so to speak "fall into the black-hole 
to derive energy out of the falling matter". So that MECO is 
even stronger of a energy source than black-hole theory.


Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.math
From: Archimedes Plutonium
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 23:24:59 -0800 (PST)
Local: Thurs, Nov 18 2010 1:24Â*am
Subject: ... MECO theory to replace black-hole theory ... ATOM TOTALITY

(snipped)
--- Quoting in parts from NEW SCIENTIST --- 


http://www.newscientist.com/article/...uasar-casts-do... 
Mysterious quasar casts doubt on black holes

The researchers found that the disc of material surrounding the central object has a hole in it with a width of about 4000 Astronomical Units (1 AU is the distance between the Earth and the Sun). This gap suggests that material has been swept out by magnetic forces from the central object, the researchers say, and must therefore be a MECO, not a black hole. 
(snipped)
According to the MECO theory, objects in our universe can never actually collapse to form black holes. When an object gets very dense and hot, subatomic particles start popping in and out of existence inside it in huge numbers, producing copious amounts of radiation. Outward pressure from this radiation halts the collapse so the object remains a hot ball of plasma rather than becoming a black hole. 
(snipped)

Journal reference: The Astronomical Journal (vol 132, p 420)

--- end quoting from NEW SCIENTIST ---

The researchers were Schild and Leiter of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center of Astrophysics.
The term MECO is derived from "magnetospheric eternally collapsing object" and the physics involved is that whereever these high energy sources 
in astronomy come from, seem to have a magnetic field around them, something that a black-hole cannot have a magnetic field.
So the new challenge to astronomy is to examine high energy sources of stars or galaxies and determine if they have a magnetic field via gravitational lensing.
So, one by one, all the previous proclaimed and acclaimed black-hole objects are going to be swept under the rug of shame in science. Simply re- 
examine all those old proclaimed black-holes and find out their "magnetic 
field".
Now the MECO theory appears to be a version of the Dirac Radioactivities 
where particles slip in and out of the Dirac Ocean of Antimatter.
You can only have a Ocean of Antimatter sitting alongside a Cosmos of Matter in an Atom Totality theory, not a Big Bang.
--

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 he

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

The Math Forum at Drexel
Date: Jul 8, 2013 12:43 AM
Author:
Subject: MECO theory #1628 Atom Totality 5th ed

Chapt26 MECO theory to explain high energy sources and dispel black-hole theory as science-fiction #1628 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Now the below is an old post of the 4th edition of this textbook.

Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.math
From: Archimedes Plutonium
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 22:18:31 -0800 (PST)
Local: Sat, Jan 15 2011 12:18Â*am
Subject: ...MECO theory ... Atom Totality Theory

Subject: Anyone checked Sagittarius A as a MECO??
--- quoting ---
Sagittarius A* has a mass estimated at 3.7 million solar masses. [Ghez, A..M. et al. "The
First Measurement of Spectral Lines in a Short-Period Star Bound to the Galaxy's Central
Black Hole: A Paradox of Youth." "The Astrophysical Journal," 586, L127-L131, (2003)]
Given that this mass is confined inside a 44 million km diameter sphere, this yields a
density ten times higher then previous estimates. "This density…would rule out most
alternatives to a black hole for Sgr A* because other concentrations of matter would have
collapsed or evaporated on timescales that are short compared with the age of the Milky
Way."

--- end quoting ---
Is Sagittarius A amenable to a MECO study with its gravitational 
lensing?
Because the sooner and faster that we get a series of magnetic fields 
on these 
hitherto proclaimed black-holes and find them with a magnetic field 
that the faster 
we can throw out all black-holes as purely a 20th century gaggle of 
nonsense.
Subject: speed of stars near Sagittarius A as a MECO??
Maybe it is too dusty in the region of Sagittarius to conduct a MECO 
study.
Maybe, though there is another method of determining a magnetic field 
other than using gravitational lensing.
--- Wikipedia says this: --- 
Astronomers now have evidence there is a supermassive black hole at 
the center of the galaxy. Sagittarius A* (abbreviated Sgr A*) is 
agreed to be the most plausible candidate for the location of this 
supermassive black hole. The Very Large Telescope and Keck Telescope 
detected stars orbiting Sgr A* at speeds greater than that of any 
other stars in our galaxy. One star, designated S2, was calculated to 
orbit Sgr A* at speeds of over 5000 kilometers per second. 
--- end quote ---
Perhaps we can infer a magnetic field due to speed? Because if we see 
stars moving 
in opposite directions with a high speed would indicate this speed is 
due to a 
magnetic field and not a gravitational pull.
--

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 he

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

Lenz's law is MECO theory Chapt26 MECO theory #1629 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Now the below is a very interesting old post of the 4th edition of 2011, which starts off with an interesting question, because in 2011, I had not made the Maxwell Equations as axioms over all of physics. So the question that I asked in this old post, is basically, whether electricity and magnetism of electron and proton can produce a MECO inside a hydrogen atom. Are MECO's part of the Maxwell Equations?

Now in the New Scientist quote below, the MECO mechanism appears to be a form of the Lenz's law which is part of Faraday's law that says a magnetic field will appear that is opposite in direction and opposing the bar magnet that produced the induced current.

So when reading the below about MECOs, one gets the sense, immediately that the MECO is just Lenz's law of Faraday's law.


Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.math
From: Archimedes Plutonium
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 22:26:54 -0800 (PST)
Local: Sun, Jan 16 2011 12:26Â*am
Subject: ...MECO theory ... Atom Totality Theory

Subject: pretty question: can a MECO be found inside an atom? or can a 
black-hole?
The answer to this question is not going to prove the Universe is an 
Atom Totality and is not a Big Bang with black-holes. But the answer 
to this question ought to give any believers of the Big Bang and black- 
holes, a moment to pause and reflect that they have probably been on the 
wrong side of the truth of science.
The MECO theory as far as I can tell ends up as the force law of 
radioactivity with the Maxwell Equations so the inside of an atom 
would definitely be a place in which MECO interactions occur. On the other hand, the inside of an atom would not have any instances of a black-hole.
That does not prove the Atom Totality theory but it sure gives pause for alarm to anyone who believes in the Big Bang with its black-holes.
Subject: Q0957+561 with the Milky Ways galactic nucleus in Sagittarius 
A have a Magnetic Moment?
MECO theory is borne of Dirac Radioactivities where Space itself is the Dirac Ocean of Positrons. Schild, Robertson and Leiter did it with quasar Q0957+561 and found it to have a magnetic moment to dispell the 
black-hole fakery. Now all we need is a Magnetic Moment for Sgr A and dispell the folly of the Milky Way having a black hole.
In other words, these brilliant scientists are going to get rid of the black-hole fakery that has crippled astronomy for the last century. To clean up astronomy and the physics that has fostered this fakery and folly over the past century.
--- quoting from this website --- 
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603746 
Does Sgr A* Have an Intrinsic Magnetic Moment Instead of an Event 
Horizon? 
Authors: Stanley L. Robertson, Darryl J. Leiter
Additional future tests for the presence of an intrinsic magnetic 
moment for Sgr A* will require global solutions for electron density 
and magnetic field distributions in a Bondi accretion flow into a 
compact, rotating magnetic dipole. These will provide for definitive 
tests in the form of detailed calculations of spectral and spatial 
luminosity distributions and polarization maps for direct comparison 
with high resolution images of Sgr A*. 
--- end quoting ---
We have three brilliant scientists working on Sgr A, but because Sgr A is in the zone of avoidance of the Milky Way center that is hard to observe, we do not yet have the conclusive data as we have of quasar Â*Q0957+561, but I am confident the data of Sagittarius A will be the same conclusions that were for quasarÂ*Q0957+561, both of them MECO objects.
There was good news that the Hubble space telescope in orbit was repaired 
and good for another 5 years of operation. I hope what they do with that 5 years is focus the telescope on Sagittarius A and find out its Magnetic 
Moment and thus revealing that it is not a black-hole and thereby ridding ourselves of the fake theory of black-holes.
Let the special mission of the Hubble telescope be to that of collecting the data of Magnetic Moments to any and all suspected black-holes, and one by one dismissing them as MECO objects.
(snipped for irrelevant now)

Subject: MECO theory reinforced by Atom Totality theory
--- Quoting in parts from NEW SCIENTIST --- 
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...uasar-casts-do... 
Mysterious quasar casts doubt on black holes
According to the MECO theory, objects in our universe can never 
actually collapse to form black holes. When an object gets very dense 
and hot, subatomic particles start popping in and out of existence 
inside it in huge numbers, producing copious amounts of radiation. 
Outward pressure from this radiation halts the collapse so the object 
remains a hot ball of plasma rather than becoming a black hole.. 
(snipped)
Journal reference: The Astronomical Journal (vol 132, p 420)
--- end quoting from NEW SCIENTIST ---
This sentence of the MECO theory is rather weak in explanation "...subatomic particles start popping in and out of 
existence inside it in huge numbers, producing copious amounts of radiation."
But is very much reinforced and strengthened by the Atom Totality 
theory with the Dirac New Radioactivites and Dirac's Space as an Ocean of 
Positrons.
(snipped)

AP

Chapt26 MECO theory #1630 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed


The below was written in 2011 for the 4th edition of this book and now it is 2013 with the 5th. Much has changed since 2011, in that for instance, quasars are now seen as ordinary stars or galactic nuclei that are rather close and nearby to Earth and not far far away.

Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.math
From: Archimedes Plutonium
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 12:37:07 -0800 (PST)
Local: Sun, Jan 16 2011 2:37Â*pm
Subject: ...more MECO theory ... Atom Totality Theory

Subject: MECO theory would have a quantization of quasars per distance 
from Nucleus of Atom Totality
Journal reference: The Astronomical Journal (vol 132, p 420)
I had a read of that journal, and alot of the terminology is unfamilar 
to me and can only assume things. What I was looking for 
was more specifics on "...popping in and out of existence" 
and some clues as to the type of radiation and variations. 
The article suggested that "planetoids mass" was swallowed 
by the MECO and resulted in a 30% increase in UV radiation.
I had a look at quasars in Wikipedia for some information on 
whether brightness of quasars were correlated with distance.
--- quoting Wikipedia on quasars energy --- 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar
The emission of large amounts of power from a small region requires a 
power source far more efficient than the nuclear fusion which powers 
stars. The release of gravitational energy[citation needed] by matter 
falling towards a massive black hole is the only process known that 
can produce such high power continuously. (Stellar explosions - 
Supernovas and gamma-ray bursts - can do so, but only for a few 
weeks.)
Since quasars exhibit properties common to all active galaxies, the 
emissions from quasars can be readily compared to those of small 
active galaxies powered by supermassive black holes. To create a 
luminosity of 10^40 W ,or Joules per second, (the typical brightness 
of a quasar), a super-massive black hole would have to consume the 
material equivalent of 10 stars per year. The brightest known quasars 
devour 1000 solar masses of material every year. The largest known is 
estimated to consume matter equivalent to 600 Earths per hour. Quasars 
'turn on' and off depending on their surroundings, and since quasars 
cannot continue to feed at high rates for 10 billion years, after a 
quasar finishes accreting the surrounding gas and dust, it becomes an 
ordinary galaxy. 
--- end quoting ---

The Big Bang theory with its black-hole explanations cannot 
make sense of the fact that quasars are most abundant beyond 
the Sloan Great Wall and the most luminous beyond the Sloan.
But the Atom Totality predicts that to be the case because the 
most matter is dense around the Nucleus and sparse the further 
away.
And, the mistake made by the Wikipedia authors of the above 
is that they neglected "matter to antimatter annihilation" as the 
source of radiation. So that as a MECO swallows up a 
planetoid or a star, it in a sense converts the entire mass into 
energy. Only in an Atom Totality can you have matter to 
antimatter annihilation explaining quasars, because Space 
is the Dirac Ocean of Positrons and matter is of the "Atom 
Totality's electrons" So the two meeting in a MECO results 
in a quasar.
Subject: another proof of MECO theory would be the heavier elements 
like iron found in distant quasars
Easier evidence that the MECO theory is correct and the 
black-hole theory phony and also that the Atom Totality 
theory is correct and the Big Bang phony is the increasing 
data and observations of heavier elements beyond hydrogen 
and helium found in distant quasars..
If the Big Bang and black-hole was correct then the Universe 
is too young in its explosion to have created these heavier 
elements such as iron. But some of these quasars that are 
reputed to be from the Big Bang explosion are coming in with 
data that they have heavier elements beyond helium all the way 
up to and including iron.
So heavy elements for quasars spells the ruination of Big 
Bang and black-holes.
I will check the references to see the latest details 
of heavy elements.
Subject: Big Bang with black-holes on their last days in astronomy

Lofty Goat wrote:
On Fri, 22 May 2009 12:16:52 -0700, plutonium.archimedes wrote:

(snipped)

BTW, is there a good reason not to expect to find some iron around
distant quasars? Â*Not enough novas (novae?) before that era for much
nucleosynthesys, but at the temperatures within the accretion disc around
the black hole it might happen.
Anyone actually know? Â*I'm a little hazy about that (and about many other
things), but it seems like real physics might explain it.
-- RLW

In a Big Bang-- black-hole Cosmos, the further in distance means the
closer to the explosion event and the moment of creation when there
was
no heavier elements beyond hydrogen. So we expect to see
only lighter elements in the quasars. Also, there were no black-holes
after
the explosion, and this is where the Big Bang has alot of
contradictions
in that when does a black-hole form in a Big Bang theory.
In an Atom Totality, before the Plutonium Atom Totality there was a 
Uranium Atom Totality so the Cosmos is in layers of age. So we can 
expect elements of hydrogen all the way up to plutonium in quasars 
because the quasars were there 15 billion years ago and 20 billion 
years ago. And the name MECO is a pretty good term. Instead of 
tearing a hole in the fabric of Space that a black-hole purports, a 
MECO exchanges the antimatter from Space and uses the antimatter 
to annihilate ordinary matter. So a black-hole is a tear into Space, 
whereas a MECO is a protrusion of Space via a matter to antimatter 
annihilation.
To a reasonable person, it makes more sense that as you compress 
matter, it should not disappear into Space, but rather join up with 
Space 
and create a matter to antimatter MECO driven phenomenon.
Yes, I would like to hear how the Big Bangers waltz their way 
out of the contradictions of quasars at the birth of the Cosmos yet 
having 
black-holes fire them and having heavy elements when the Cosmos was 
so infant in birth. Â*I do not think the Big Bangers and black-holes 
can 
waltz and tiptoe out of their contradictions.

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

Chapt26 MECO theory #1630 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed


The below was written in 2011 for the 4th edition of this book and now it is 2013 with the 5th. Much has changed since 2011, in that for instance, quasars are now seen as ordinary stars or galactic nuclei that are rather close and nearby to Earth and not far far away.

Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.math
From: Archimedes Plutonium
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 12:37:07 -0800 (PST)
Local: Sun, Jan 16 2011 2:37Â*pm
Subject: ...more MECO theory ... Atom Totality Theory

Subject: MECO theory would have a quantization of quasars per distance 
from Nucleus of Atom Totality
Journal reference: The Astronomical Journal (vol 132, p 420)
I had a read of that journal, and alot of the terminology is unfamilar 
to me and can only assume things. What I was looking for 
was more specifics on "...popping in and out of existence" 
and some clues as to the type of radiation and variations. 
The article suggested that "planetoids mass" was swallowed 
by the MECO and resulted in a 30% increase in UV radiation.
I had a look at quasars in Wikipedia for some information on 
whether brightness of quasars were correlated with distance.
--- quoting Wikipedia on quasars energy --- 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar
The emission of large amounts of power from a small region requires a 
power source far more efficient than the nuclear fusion which powers 
stars. The release of gravitational energy[citation needed] by matter 
falling towards a massive black hole is the only process known that 
can produce such high power continuously. (Stellar explosions - 
Supernovas and gamma-ray bursts - can do so, but only for a few 
weeks.)
Since quasars exhibit properties common to all active galaxies, the 
emissions from quasars can be readily compared to those of small 
active galaxies powered by supermassive black holes. To create a 
luminosity of 10^40 W ,or Joules per second, (the typical brightness 
of a quasar), a super-massive black hole would have to consume the 
material equivalent of 10 stars per year. The brightest known quasars 
devour 1000 solar masses of material every year. The largest known is 
estimated to consume matter equivalent to 600 Earths per hour. Quasars 
'turn on' and off depending on their surroundings, and since quasars 
cannot continue to feed at high rates for 10 billion years, after a 
quasar finishes accreting the surrounding gas and dust, it becomes an 
ordinary galaxy. 
--- end quoting ---

The Big Bang theory with its black-hole explanations cannot 
make sense of the fact that quasars are most abundant beyond 
the Sloan Great Wall and the most luminous beyond the Sloan.
But the Atom Totality predicts that to be the case because the 
most matter is dense around the Nucleus and sparse the further 
away.
And, the mistake made by the Wikipedia authors of the above 
is that they neglected "matter to antimatter annihilation" as the 
source of radiation. So that as a MECO swallows up a 
planetoid or a star, it in a sense converts the entire mass into 
energy. Only in an Atom Totality can you have matter to 
antimatter annihilation explaining quasars, because Space 
is the Dirac Ocean of Positrons and matter is of the "Atom 
Totality's electrons" So the two meeting in a MECO results 
in a quasar.
Subject: another proof of MECO theory would be the heavier elements 
like iron found in distant quasars
Easier evidence that the MECO theory is correct and the 
black-hole theory phony and also that the Atom Totality 
theory is correct and the Big Bang phony is the increasing 
data and observations of heavier elements beyond hydrogen 
and helium found in distant quasars..
If the Big Bang and black-hole was correct then the Universe 
is too young in its explosion to have created these heavier 
elements such as iron. But some of these quasars that are 
reputed to be from the Big Bang explosion are coming in with 
data that they have heavier elements beyond helium all the way 
up to and including iron.
So heavy elements for quasars spells the ruination of Big 
Bang and black-holes.
I will check the references to see the latest details 
of heavy elements.
Subject: Big Bang with black-holes on their last days in astronomy

Lofty Goat wrote:
On Fri, 22 May 2009 12:16:52 -0700, plutonium.archimedes wrote:

(snipped)

BTW, is there a good reason not to expect to find some iron around
distant quasars? Â*Not enough novas (novae?) before that era for much
nucleosynthesys, but at the temperatures within the accretion disc around
the black hole it might happen.
Anyone actually know? Â*I'm a little hazy about that (and about many other
things), but it seems like real physics might explain it.
-- RLW

In a Big Bang-- black-hole Cosmos, the further in distance means the
closer to the explosion event and the moment of creation when there
was
no heavier elements beyond hydrogen. So we expect to see
only lighter elements in the quasars. Also, there were no black-holes
after
the explosion, and this is where the Big Bang has alot of
contradictions
in that when does a black-hole form in a Big Bang theory.
In an Atom Totality, before the Plutonium Atom Totality there was a 
Uranium Atom Totality so the Cosmos is in layers of age. So we can 
expect elements of hydrogen all the way up to plutonium in quasars 
because the quasars were there 15 billion years ago and 20 billion 
years ago. And the name MECO is a pretty good term. Instead of 
tearing a hole in the fabric of Space that a black-hole purports, a 
MECO exchanges the antimatter from Space and uses the antimatter 
to annihilate ordinary matter. So a black-hole is a tear into Space, 
whereas a MECO is a protrusion of Space via a matter to antimatter 
annihilation.
To a reasonable person, it makes more sense that as you compress 
matter, it should not disappear into Space, but rather join up with 
Space 
and create a matter to antimatter MECO driven phenomenon.
Yes, I would like to hear how the Big Bangers waltz their way 
out of the contradictions of quasars at the birth of the Cosmos yet 
having 
black-holes fire them and having heavy elements when the Cosmos was 
so infant in birth. Â*I do not think the Big Bangers and black-holes 
can 
waltz and tiptoe out of their contradictions.

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

Chapt26 MECO theory #1631 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Now the below is an old post of the 4th edition of this book talking about MECO and Tifft quantized galaxy speeds. In this 5th edition, much of the Tifft quantized galaxy speeds is thrown out, because it relies on Doppler redshift, and we learned in the 5th edition that all Doppler redshift is rather meaningless in terms of distance or motion of the object in question, since Doppler redshift is caused by light traveling through bent Space of the Cosmos, and is a Refraction Redshift, not a Doppler redshift.

Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.math
From: Archimedes Plutonium
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 20:26:52 -0800 (PST)
Local: Sun, Jan 16 2011 10:26Â*pm
Subject: MECO theory ... Atom Totality Theory

....Subject: which is easier for astronomers to analyze a MECO or Tifft 
quantized galaxy ?
Well, I said to myself that whenever a new important chapter 
of this book comes along in research findings that I should drop 
everything else I am doing and write a new edition of this book. 
When I started the 3rd edition, there was no new science 
information but then I realized there was great new information 
of the MECO theory which threatens to replace all black-holes 
with a MECO as the source of energy.
MECO was recently discovered and can be read about from 
this reference source:
--- Â*NEW SCIENTIST --- 
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...uasar-casts-do... 
Mysterious quasar casts doubt on black holes
So I need to rearrange the chapters as to this listing priority. 
Question: is it easier to determine a MECO from a astro object 
or is it easier to determine if a astro object has a Tifft 
quantization?
I am asking for which takes the most time and effort in analysis? 
A MECO or a Tifft quantization? I would hazard to guess that 
the Tifft quantization is easier to perform and takes less time 
from start to finish. Am I correct on that claim?
Subject: which is easier for astronomers to analyze a MECO or 
Tifft quantized galaxy ?

wrote:
I am asking for which takes the most time and effort in analysis?
A MECO or a Tifft quantization? I would hazard to guess that
the Tifft quantization is easier to perform and takes less time
from start to finish. Am I correct on that claim?

--- quoting ---
Observations Supporting the Existence of an Intrinsic Magnetic Moment
inside the Central Compact Object within the Quasar Q0957+561
Rudolph E. Schild et al 2006 The Astronomical Journal 132 420-432
Rudolph E. Schild1, Darryl J. Leiter2 and Stanley L. Robertson3 
--- end quoting ---
So the question I am asking is something that is usually not printed. 
I am asking 
for how long of a time span was it from the start of analyzing this 
quasar for MECO 
and end of the analysis with the conclusion it was a MECO. Are we 
talking of a 
5 year time span? Does it take that much time?
And suppose a group of scientists wanted to know if a specific galaxy 
has a 
quantized Tifft redshift or speed? Does it take 5 year time span?
I would hazard to guess it is easier to make a Tifft galaxy 
quantization 
analysis than a MECO analysis. I would say a Tifft analysis of a 
galaxy 
takes about 2 years whereas a MECO analysis of a object takes about 
5 years, but that is purely a guess.
I do suspect that each MECO confirmation carries so much more 
priority in astronomy than other confirmations because of its ruinous 
affect 
on black-hole theory. So not only does MECO support the Atom Totality 
theory 
but concomitantly destroys the black-hole and Big Bang theory.
And let me say this also, that the MECO theory has the aspect of 
a science that is very much ruinous of black-hole theory. What I mean 
is the characteristic, that if a MECO is found on just one star which 
was 
hitherto thought of as a black-hole, just one instance of that spells 
that 
all black-holes are really MECOs , just not confirmed as MECOs. Here 
is 
an analogy example. For much of the 20th century, it was believed that 
ulcers were caused by stress, and that stress is similar to the belief 
in 
black-holes. Up until some doctors noted that a special bacteria in 
the gut was noticed on a ulcer victim. Soon it was seen that this 
bacteria was also in other ulcer victims, and then lo and behold, we 
find out that ulcers 
are directly linked to bacteria. Likewise, when astronomy was 
primitive with conjuring up black-holes here there and everywhere, 
then one such case was proved to be a MECO, not a black-hole. So 
someday in the near future, the whole tidal wave of black-holes is all 
washed away because they are all MECOs.
Subject: took 20 years for the first MECO
According to this quoted website, it took 20 years.
--- quoting --- 
http://www.world-science.net/otherne...811_quasar.htm 
...galaxy, said Schild. Schild monitored the quasar’s brightness for 
20 
years, along with an international consortium of observers at 14 
telescopes. 
--- end quoting ---
But I think the 20 years was more than the determination of the 
magnetic 
field. I suspect that a MECO can take as little as two years of 
observation for a determination.
--- quoting Wikipedia on MECO ---
Magnetospheric eternally collapsing object 
Â*From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
Jump to: navigation, search
Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Objects or MECOs are proposed 
alternatives to black holes advocated by Darryl Leiter and Stanley 
Robertson. They are a variant of eternally collapsing objects or ECOs, 
proposed by Abhas Mitra in 1998.[1] Both models were based on 
ostensive 
proofs that black holes cannot form from the spherically symmetric 
gravitational collapse of a star, and that therefore a collapsing star 
must radiate away all its mass. The theories contend that the collapse 
will be slowed to a near halt by the resulting radiation pressure, 
forming a long-lasting dense object without an event horizon. 
--- end quoting ---
A new name to the MECO theory is Mitra, an Indian physicist, who 
apparently started this MECO idea in 1998.
What is needed now is a faster way of reporting that old alleged 
black-holes are simply another MECO, especially the Milky Way 
galactic nucleus.

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

Chapt26 MECO theory #1631 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Now the below is an old post of the 4th edition of this book talking about MECO and Tifft quantized galaxy speeds. In this 5th edition, much of the Tifft quantized galaxy speeds is thrown out, because it relies on Doppler redshift, and we learned in the 5th edition that all Doppler redshift is rather meaningless in terms of distance or motion of the object in question, since Doppler redshift is caused by light traveling through bent Space of the Cosmos, and is a Refraction Redshift, not a Doppler redshift.

Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.math
From: Archimedes Plutonium
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2011 20:26:52 -0800 (PST)
Local: Sun, Jan 16 2011 10:26Â*pm
Subject: MECO theory ... Atom Totality Theory

....Subject: which is easier for astronomers to analyze a MECO or Tifft 
quantized galaxy ?
Well, I said to myself that whenever a new important chapter 
of this book comes along in research findings that I should drop 
everything else I am doing and write a new edition of this book. 
When I started the 3rd edition, there was no new science 
information but then I realized there was great new information 
of the MECO theory which threatens to replace all black-holes 
with a MECO as the source of energy.
MECO was recently discovered and can be read about from 
this reference source:
--- Â*NEW SCIENTIST --- 
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...uasar-casts-do... 
Mysterious quasar casts doubt on black holes
So I need to rearrange the chapters as to this listing priority. 
Question: is it easier to determine a MECO from a astro object 
or is it easier to determine if a astro object has a Tifft 
quantization?
I am asking for which takes the most time and effort in analysis? 
A MECO or a Tifft quantization? I would hazard to guess that 
the Tifft quantization is easier to perform and takes less time 
from start to finish. Am I correct on that claim?
Subject: which is easier for astronomers to analyze a MECO or 
Tifft quantized galaxy ?

wrote:
I am asking for which takes the most time and effort in analysis?
A MECO or a Tifft quantization? I would hazard to guess that
the Tifft quantization is easier to perform and takes less time
from start to finish. Am I correct on that claim?

--- quoting ---
Observations Supporting the Existence of an Intrinsic Magnetic Moment
inside the Central Compact Object within the Quasar Q0957+561
Rudolph E. Schild et al 2006 The Astronomical Journal 132 420-432
Rudolph E. Schild1, Darryl J. Leiter2 and Stanley L. Robertson3 
--- end quoting ---
So the question I am asking is something that is usually not printed. 
I am asking 
for how long of a time span was it from the start of analyzing this 
quasar for MECO 
and end of the analysis with the conclusion it was a MECO. Are we 
talking of a 
5 year time span? Does it take that much time?
And suppose a group of scientists wanted to know if a specific galaxy 
has a 
quantized Tifft redshift or speed? Does it take 5 year time span?
I would hazard to guess it is easier to make a Tifft galaxy 
quantization 
analysis than a MECO analysis. I would say a Tifft analysis of a 
galaxy 
takes about 2 years whereas a MECO analysis of a object takes about 
5 years, but that is purely a guess.
I do suspect that each MECO confirmation carries so much more 
priority in astronomy than other confirmations because of its ruinous 
affect 
on black-hole theory. So not only does MECO support the Atom Totality 
theory 
but concomitantly destroys the black-hole and Big Bang theory.
And let me say this also, that the MECO theory has the aspect of 
a science that is very much ruinous of black-hole theory. What I mean 
is the characteristic, that if a MECO is found on just one star which 
was 
hitherto thought of as a black-hole, just one instance of that spells 
that 
all black-holes are really MECOs , just not confirmed as MECOs. Here 
is 
an analogy example. For much of the 20th century, it was believed that 
ulcers were caused by stress, and that stress is similar to the belief 
in 
black-holes. Up until some doctors noted that a special bacteria in 
the gut was noticed on a ulcer victim. Soon it was seen that this 
bacteria was also in other ulcer victims, and then lo and behold, we 
find out that ulcers 
are directly linked to bacteria. Likewise, when astronomy was 
primitive with conjuring up black-holes here there and everywhere, 
then one such case was proved to be a MECO, not a black-hole. So 
someday in the near future, the whole tidal wave of black-holes is all 
washed away because they are all MECOs.
Subject: took 20 years for the first MECO
According to this quoted website, it took 20 years.
--- quoting --- 
http://www.world-science.net/otherne...811_quasar.htm 
...galaxy, said Schild. Schild monitored the quasar’s brightness for 
20 
years, along with an international consortium of observers at 14 
telescopes. 
--- end quoting ---
But I think the 20 years was more than the determination of the 
magnetic 
field. I suspect that a MECO can take as little as two years of 
observation for a determination.
--- quoting Wikipedia on MECO ---
Magnetospheric eternally collapsing object 
Â*From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
Jump to: navigation, search
Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Objects or MECOs are proposed 
alternatives to black holes advocated by Darryl Leiter and Stanley 
Robertson. They are a variant of eternally collapsing objects or ECOs, 
proposed by Abhas Mitra in 1998.[1] Both models were based on 
ostensive 
proofs that black holes cannot form from the spherically symmetric 
gravitational collapse of a star, and that therefore a collapsing star 
must radiate away all its mass. The theories contend that the collapse 
will be slowed to a near halt by the resulting radiation pressure, 
forming a long-lasting dense object without an event horizon. 
--- end quoting ---
A new name to the MECO theory is Mitra, an Indian physicist, who 
apparently started this MECO idea in 1998.
What is needed now is a faster way of reporting that old alleged 
black-holes are simply another MECO, especially the Milky Way 
galactic nucleus.

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