4th ed. book, preface #1; ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) theory;replaces Big Bang theory

What is the theory of the Atom Totality? One way to explore the
question
is to compare the Atom Totality theory to its rival the Big Bang.

I should say alot more about the remarkable deficiency of the stating
of what the Big Bang theory is. Given the most active advocate of the
Big Bang theory and asked
to write a chapter about "What is the Big Bang theory" that it would
be hard to write beyond one paragraph explaining the Big Bang theory
for
about all that can be said is "there was an explosion." And I would
suppose
the advocate would then refer to some book about the Big Bang which
talks
about what happened after 3 minutes, after 4 minutes, etc etc.

When flawed science exists in the world of science, it is hard to
explain or
detail it and it becomes very vague, like the Big Bang theory. And it
leaves
more questions than any answers. What caused the Big Bang and what
was the material of matter/energy of the Big Bang and what is time in
a Big Bang? And why are all the Quantum Mechanics laws and rules
violated by the Big Bang and when does the laws or rules of
Quantum Mechanics come into existence for the Big Bang.

So that if any scientist in the world at present were to write a book
on the
Big Bang theory with similar chapters as this book on the Atom
Totality theory
that the book would be horribly short in any detail.

In fact I could write a whole book on just this chapter alone for the
Atom
Totality theory because it can include all that is known about the
chemical
elements and Atomic theory and Quantum Mechanics.

But the Big Bang book writer faced with a chapter on "What is this Big
Bang theory"
can say only about a sentence or paragraph -- It was a Cosmic
Explosion which
created the Universe" What made it explode? What was it in the first
place? And why does the Big Bang offer no clues as to the future,
or the purpose of life?

You see, when science has theories that cannot explain things, then
you should and
must distrust the theory. When the theory does not connect with other
science and
when the theory violates other physics theories such as Quantum
Mechanics, then
the sensible person should not buy the theory.

In the past history of physics there have been other theories
that were false
and which followed a similar deficiency of unable to detail what the
theory is. The
phlogiston theory for heat and the fluidia theory for electricity are
examples of
old theories in physics which could not detail or explain the basic
foundations of
the theory. So you say heat is a fluid or you say that electricity is
a fluid, but that
never gives you any details of either heat or electricity.

So I invite the most enamored lover of the Big Bang theory to write a
chapter on
the Big Bang of "What this Big Bang theory is" since I cannot see how
they
can say anything more than "there was a big explosion." In fact the
name Big
Bang theory suggests it is incapable of detailing the theory because
if it had
been named Big Explosion theory then the explanation may have said
"in the beginning was a big-bang."

On the other hand, the Atom Totality theory is so immensely rich of a
science theory,
that I could write a thousand pages alone on this one chapter.

And a counterpart who loves the Big Bang theory writing about the
supporting
evidence for the Big Bang theory would have only one chapter of
supporting evidence
in the observation of a red shift expansion of the universe. So other
than that
observation, the Big Bang theory has no other supporting evidence. Not
even the
Cosmic Microwave Radiation supports the Big Bang because it is a
quantized
radiation at 2.71 K and utterly uniform with no fluctuations. The
alleged fluctuations
in recent past years were due to the fact that the precision of the
measuring instruments
had been surpassed. So for the past decades of the Big Bang theory,
they have only
one evidence that supports the Big Bang, whereas this book has more
than 20 different categories and subcategories of evidence to support
the Atom Totality theory.

What is the theme or message of this inability or deficiency of
explaining in detail what a
theory of science is? The theme is that if a theory of science has a
difficult time of
explaining its foundations, then it is likely to not be a theory of
science but a fakery.

However, I do want to leave on a good note for the Big Bang theory.
The Big Bang
can be incorporated inside the Atom Totality theory given some
modifications.
In that when the Atom Totality went from a Uranium Atom Totality to
that of a
Plutonium Atom Totality via what I am guessing was a act of
Spontaneous
Fission that we can consider that act as a Mini Bang.

But the reverse is not possible of fitting the Atom Totality theory
inside of the
Big Bang theory. And when LeMaitre first wrote about the Big Bang
theory, 1920s
or 1930s he called it the "Primeval Atom". So the explanation was the
explosion of a primeval-atom.

I should make some comments on the features of true science. That when
science gets
caught up in a debate between two rival competing theories, is there a
logical testing
procedure which can indicate, not prove mind you, which of the two
theories is more
true than the other? I believe the above two paragraphs may have
uncovered a test of
validity for rival theories.

The test is that if theory A can incorporate theory B, given
some modifications of B, but where theory B
can never incorporate theory A given some modifications of
A. Then theory A is likely to be the true theory.

Now the underlying Logic of that test is the idea that a true theory
cannot be modified to
accomodate a false theory and thus be incorporated inside the false
theory. Whereas a
false theory can be modified and then fit inside the true theory.


Now can we go back in science history and see if such a test would
have worked or helped
in the unraveling of which of two rival theories was more true than
the other? How about
Continental Drift and its rival of Convection Currents? How about
Darwin Evolution and its
rival of Lamarckian traits? Or Darwin Evolution and its rival of
Biblical Genesis? Or how about
in astronomy the competing theories of geocentric and heliocentric
solar system? Or how about
the rival theories of light as particle or light as wave?

About the best example of rival competing theories where the test
works well is the Newtonian
Mechanics versus Quantum Mechanics. Best example because we still
consider Newtonian Mechanics
as a subset of QM for slow moving and massive objects.

But is the test useful only for physics?

I do not think so, because in biology I have a recent theory of metal
causation for five diseases of
Alzheimer Autism Parkinson Prion and Schizophrenia. And where the test
applies in that a rival
Prion theory of rogue proteins is modified to fit inside the metal
theory but where the Metal theory
cannot be modified to fit inside the rogue protein only theory. So
here is a case example of
two rival theories being put to this test and where the Metal theory
is conferred more truth value than
the rival prion theory.

I am not going to spend time here on this test but just thought I
should comment on it since it stuck
out in my above writing.

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

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:


And a counterpart who loves the Big Bang theory writing about the
supporting
evidence for the Big Bang theory would have only one chapter of
supporting evidence
in the observation of a red shift expansion of the universe. So other
than that
observation, the Big Bang theory has no other supporting evidence. Not
even the
Cosmic Microwave Radiation supports the Big Bang because it is a
quantized
radiation at 2.71 K and utterly uniform with no fluctuations. The
alleged fluctuations
in recent past years were due to the fact that the precision of the
measuring instruments
had been surpassed. So for the past decades of the Big Bang theory,
they have only
one evidence that supports the Big Bang, whereas this book has more
than 20 different categories and subcategories of evidence to support
the Atom Totality theory.


In the 1990s, it was seen that the Cosmic Microwave Background
Radiation had
become a poisoned piece of evidence for the Big Bang, in that the
radiation had
been verified as quantized blackbody radiation. Blackbody radiation
means the
Microwave is on the inside of a cavity, the inside of a big atom of
plutonium. Yet
the Big Bang people ignored the fact that the CMBR was blackbody
quantized
radiation of 2.71 degrees K. This is science fraud, when you know the
evidence
no longer is supportive of the Big Bang yet you count it as
supportive. So then
there was a huge chase to try to reveal fluctuations in CMBR in the
1990s and
2000s, hoping that such a lure would assuage the fraud of the CMBR. It
was
announced there were "fluctuations" but in the announcement, it was
not
announced that the precision of their measuring devices had been
reached and
surpassed. So when the physicists said "there are fluctuations" they
were liaring
because they should have said "there are no fluctuations and that we
had
surpassed the precision of our instruments to measure fluctuations."

So the CMBR evidence supports the Atom Totality theory, that we are on
the
inside of a big atom of plutonium whose 5f6 cavity is blackbody and
has a
microwave temperature of 2.71 K.

That leaves only one other piece of evidence for the Big Bang theory,
the redshift
of galaxies. Here, the Big Bang people almost always point out this
analogy when
talking about the redshift. They say that a approaching train whistle
of given speed is Doppler
shifted to a blueshift or a shortening of the wavelength. And the
train moving
away has a redshift of the whistle or a stretching out of the
wavelength.

The trouble with the train analogy is that it does not take into
account the geometry
of the situation. And that the Doppler redshift is only useful in very
limited circumstances
but is not a Cosmic or astronomical measure.

Here is a alternative analogy that applies to stars and star speeds
and humans
measuring those speeds.

Analogy of straw in glass of water. In an earlier post I talked about
a coin in a
pond, a deep pond and how the refraction of light would alter what we
think of
as the position of the coin. This refraction of position is equivalent
to a redshift.
But let me use the straw in a glass analogy and since the light is
refracted and bent upon entering the water, this refraction shifts the
position of the straw and this is
equivalent to redshift.

Analogy of a corrigated peice of transparent plastic such as the
roofing sheets of
corrigated plastic or the greenhouse corrigated plastic. Here I have
some in my
own house and if you hang a sheet up against a window with a view of
oncoming
traffic from the road with their white headlights. What happens is
that instead of
a blueshift of the car white headlights, the plastic corrigated always
delivers a
redshift.

So the Cosmic Redshift of galaxies was never that of a speeding away
from
us, but was merely a measure of the Cosmic Overall Geometry. That our
Cosmos
is highly bent the further away we are (corrigated sheet). And those
far distant
galaxies are not moving near the speed of light to cause such a
redshift. The redshift
is caused by the geometry of the Cosmos as a highly spherical geometry
such as the
shape of a cigar surface or a sausage surface or a elongated balloon
surface which
is called an ellipsoid. So the redshift of galaxies was never a
measure of the speed
involved with the galaxies, because they were all slow moving speeds
just like the
Milky Way and local galaxies of 100 km/sec, and nowhere near 299,792
km/sec.
Big Bangers actually believe these faraway galaxies are moving nearly
299,792 km/sec to cause the redshift.

The cause of these redshifts is that as light travels through the bent
curvature
of space (through my corrigated plastic), the light is redshifted. The
redshift
says nothing about the speed of the galaxy but says alot about how far
away
that galaxy is from Earth.

So, here, we have a case of a theory of physics, that was borne and
lived on
two pieces of evidence. The Redshift of galaxies and the Microwave
Radiation.
Both pieces of evidence have turned against the Big Bang and are now
evidences that destroy the Big Bang theory.

A Cosmic atom is highly bent and curved into spherical or ellipsoid
geometry
and that light travelling far away is going to have to be highly
refracted or
redshifted, and the small speeds that these faraway galaxies possess,
makes
no difference upon the redshift affect.

Now I also have a argument against the Big Bang redshift based upon
the
theory of Special Relativity. That in order to have Special Relativity
true, that
you need nearly every speed that is higher than 5% of the speed of
light to be
that of either light slowed down or light itself. That due to
resonance and Special
Relativity, that there are no rest mass objects moving at more than 5%
of the
speed of light. So you have the occasional or rare alpha particle
moving at 5%
the speed of light or a beta particle moving at 50% the speed of light
but those
are rare cases. In order for Special Relativity to be true, that
99.99% of the
objects in the Cosmos that are moving at more than 5% of the speed of
light
is light itself. If there exists one galaxy moving with a speed near
that of light
it would destroy the theory of Special Relativity and the theory of
resonance
in physics. Because, really, honestly, do you think any galaxy can
actually
have a speed near that of light and not have disintegrated due to
resonance.
Does anyone actually think that a car can be moving at the speed of
light
and not have disintegrated? I often wonder whether physicists who love
their
Big Bang ever really think about what they have accepted.

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

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(snipped)

Sorry to my foreign friends as readers for the spelling of corrugated
not corrigated. I pronounce it as that but it is spelled otherwise.


Analogy of a corrigated peice of transparent plastic such as the
roofing sheets of
corrigated plastic or the greenhouse corrigated plastic. Here I have
some in my
own house and if you hang a sheet up against a window with a view of
oncoming
traffic from the road with their white headlights. What happens is
that instead of
a blueshift of the car white headlights, the plastic corrigated always
delivers a
redshift.


Some may find it odd for me to have an experiment, smack in the first
chapter,
but I find experiments are welcomed no matter where they are. And
especially
an experiment that defeats the Big Bang theory all in one experiment.

It is corrugated fiberglass and I bought a "greenhouse type of metal
and fiberglass
building". It was a small building of about 3 meters by 4 meters, but
it was not stiff
enough for South Dakota winds, and one day I just took out my
reciprocating saw
and sawed the four sides off. I cannot remember why I did not unscrew
the building
but rather ended up sawing the four walls off. I think it was saving
of time, not out
of frustration anger over the winds. And what I did next was to use
those wall panels
in my house up against windows so that light would always come in yet
still have
privacy.

But what I soon discovered with the panels with a view of the west to
east highway
in view that the oncoming cars and trucks with their white lights, all
were redshifted.

So let me detail these corrugated panels of fiberglass. They are about
182 cm high
and 116 cm long. Each corrugation is about 1.5 cm wide and 1.5 cm
deep. The corrugations
are spaced about 10 cm apart and in those 10 cm is somewhat flat but
with a slight small
angle.

Now I looked through the fiberglass tonight and through the plain
glass window and I focused
on the most distant white headlight and it was redshifted by 35 cm or
slightly more than
three full panels of fiberglass (a panel is 10cm + 1.5 cm). And as
that vehicle came closer
to the house, the redshift had been reduced to that of less than one
panel as that of 9 cm.
So I suspect over a distance of 1 km of the road that the redshift
started with 35 cm
and at the closest approach had diminished to 9cm redshift.

So now, what is the geometry of the corrugations equivalent to for a
ellipsoid surface? Is
it spherical or ellipsoid?

Anyone can repeat the above, for I described the materials and the
measurements.

And the above tells us that speed of the object is of no importance
for the redshift.
The redshift is totally a geometrical consequence, of white light
traveling through a
bent medium of fiberglass. And the redshift tells us only the distance
away of the
object. The further away, the more the redshift, and the closer, the
less of the redshift.

About the only blueshift that can ever be expected in astronomy are
the local galaxies
moving towards us, but those would be rare and a small and tiny
blueshift. There would
not be any large blueshifts.

So the geometry of the Cosmos as the 5f6 of 231Pu Atom Totality with
its electrons in
a lobe shaped geometry of high curvature would easily cause these
redshifts of slow
moving galaxies. It is not that these galaxies are travelling at
nearly the speed of light,
but rather they are white light galaxies travelling at say 30 km/sec
or 100 km/sec
and as their light travels through that curved space like the
corrugated fiberglass, that
white light is redshifted immensely.

So here we have a situation where the redshift discovered in the 20th
century, has
become not a support of the Big Bang but an actual invalidator of the
Big Bang.

Now I do not think the Schrodinger Equation is able to unlock the
curvature of the
lobes of the 5f6 of plutonium. But if it can, then the curvature of
these lobes should
agree with the redshift of galaxies.

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

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(snipped)

Some may find it odd for me to have an experiment, smack in the first
chapter,
but I find experiments are welcomed no matter where they are. And
especially
an experiment that defeats the Big Bang theory all in one experiment.

It is corrugated fiberglass and I bought a "greenhouse type of metal
and fiberglass
building". It was a small building of about 3 meters by 4 meters, but
it was not stiff
enough for South Dakota winds, and one day I just took out my
reciprocating saw
and sawed the four sides off. I cannot remember why I did not unscrew
the building
but rather ended up sawing the four walls off. I think it was saving
of time, not out
of frustration anger over the winds. And what I did next was to use
those wall panels
in my house up against windows so that light would always come in yet
still have
privacy.

But what I soon discovered with the panels with a view of the west to
east highway
in view that the oncoming cars and trucks with their white lights, all
were redshifted.

So let me detail these corrugated panels of fiberglass. They are about
182 cm high
and 116 cm long. Each corrugation is about 1.5 cm wide and 1.5 cm
deep. The corrugations
are spaced about 10 cm apart and in those 10 cm is somewhat flat but
with a slight small
angle.

Now I looked through the fiberglass tonight and through the plain
glass window and I focused
on the most distant white headlight and it was redshifted by 35 cm or
slightly more than
three full panels of fiberglass (a panel is 10cm + 1.5 cm). And as
that vehicle came closer
to the house, the redshift had been reduced to that of less than one
panel as that of 9 cm.
So I suspect over a distance of 1 km of the road that the redshift
started with 35 cm
and at the closest approach had diminished to 9cm redshift.

So now, what is the geometry of the corrugations equivalent to for a
ellipsoid surface? Is
it spherical or ellipsoid?

Anyone can repeat the above, for I described the materials and the
measurements.

And the above tells us that speed of the object is of no importance
for the redshift.
The redshift is totally a geometrical consequence, of white light
traveling through a
bent medium of fiberglass. And the redshift tells us only the distance
away of the
object. The further away, the more the redshift, and the closer, the
less of the redshift.

About the only blueshift that can ever be expected in astronomy are
the local galaxies
moving towards us, but those would be rare and a small and tiny
blueshift. There would
not be any large blueshifts.

So the geometry of the Cosmos as the 5f6 of 231Pu Atom Totality with
its electrons in
a lobe shaped geometry of high curvature would easily cause these
redshifts of slow
moving galaxies. It is not that these galaxies are travelling at
nearly the speed of light,
but rather they are white light galaxies travelling at say 30 km/sec
or 100 km/sec
and as their light travels through that curved space like the
corrugated fiberglass, that
white light is redshifted immensely.

So here we have a situation where the redshift discovered in the 20th
century, has
become not a support of the Big Bang but an actual invalidator of the
Big Bang.

Now I do not think the Schrodinger Equation is able to unlock the
curvature of the
lobes of the 5f6 of plutonium. But if it can, then the curvature of
these lobes should
agree with the redshift of galaxies.


In fact I do not need the corrugations but only a flat sheet of
fiberglass
and the more of angle I tilt it from perpendicular the more of a
redshift I get.

And in fact, I need no motion in the white light that comes through
the
fiberglass. Just a stationary white light from the distance gives a
redshift.
So the motion of a white light whether coming towards or going away
is irrelevant to producing a redshift. The redshift is caused totally
by
refraction and the distance away of the white light source and the
power
of that white light.

Here is a entry by Wikipedia on refraction and showing redshift:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction

Now scroll down to the pictu "refraction in Perspex (acrylic)
block"

Notice the redshift of that initial white light beam.

So how does this affect the Big Bang theory? Well, it was assumed that
when
the redshift of galaxies was discovered, that it meant the Universe
originated in
a Big Bang explosion and that these galaxies are moving away causing a
Doppler
redshift and thus they are moving at nearly the speed of light.

With this experiment we have a better explanation of redshift in an
Atom Totality.
The curvature of Space of the 5f6 of the 231Pu Atom Totality is highly
curved
lobes, ellipsoids, and as white light travels from distant galaxies it
is bent since
Space is bent and it thus refracts the white light. Depending on
distance and
power of that white light source yields a redshift.

So in the Big Bang, the redshift is an explosion effect with speeds
causing a
redshift. In the Atom Totality, the speeds of galaxies are immaterial,
and whether
they are going towards us or away from us. The redshift is caused
solely by the
extreme curvature of Space over long distances. There can be a Doppler
shift
but it is only a tiny contribution and only for local galaxies.

The favorite explanation is the Atom Totality because it dismisses the
nonsense
that galaxies can have speeds nearly that of light, when anyone knows
that
it takes infinite energy to get a heavy object moving near the speed
of light.
And that Special Relativity theory is violated by having galaxies
speeding with
nearly that of light. And Resonance energy comes into play whenever
speeds
of astro bodies exceed that of about 500 km/sec. Galaxies just ripp
apart or
disintegrate with speeds higher than 500 km/sec.

So it is not that the Big Bang is supported and vouched for with the
redshift. But
rather instead the redshift shows how much the Big Bang is a fake
theory of
science. And the only reason any astronomer or physicist still
believes in the Big
Bang, is the same reason that they could not accept Quantum Mechanics
in the
early 1900s, because a mind reaches an age in which it is never able
to change
and adapt to the new truths. There are still people who deny that the
earth is round
not flat and that deny that atoms exist. And we should not assume that
scientists
are immune to denial-phases in history.

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

I wish every chapter of this book had an experiment with it, and such
an easy experiment
that anyone can do in their homes with little material and even High
School students can
perform. Use a flat piece of fiberglass rather than a corrugated piece
for the corrugation
only gets in the way.

I had to look up a date for Hubble's redshift and it seems to be about
1929. Now I need
to refresh myself on the date of Lemaitres Big Bang with a "primeval
atom". It must have
been earlier than 1929, but not much earlier.

Now the idea and the experiment that the redshift is the geometry of
space and has
nothing to do with speed of galaxies or the speed of cosmic expansion,
but simply
the idea that as white light travels in highly curved space over long
distances causes
a refractive redshift.

So that the redshift of faraway galaxies was never due to a explosion
and expansion
of the Cosmos, but merely a result of white light traveling far
distances in a curved
space.

So this brings me to the logical conclusion that 3 dimensional
Elliptic geometry
needs to be detailed or discussed or made progress on. We know the
sphere
surface is a model of Elliptic geometry but that is 2 dimensional
Elliptic geometry.
Here we need 3rd dimensional Elliptic geometry, because the lobes of
the 5f6
of the 231 Plutonium Atom Totality is 3rd dimensional Elliptic
geometry. And we
need this 3rd dimensional elliptic geometry in order to see or
understand how
white light travelling in this bent space becomes redshifted. We
cannot expect
white light from a galaxy on the pole when it reaches the equator with
a galaxy
there to see a redshift because that is a two dimensional medium.

So I am going to take the most obvious suggestion of a solution since
we
cannot visualize 3rd dimensional elliptic geometry. I am going to say
that
3rd dimensional Elliptic geometry is the surface of the sphere and is
a layer
of the sphere above and below the surface. Now how thick this layer
is,
is not clear to me as yet and am hoping that by the chapter 16 on the
shape of the Cosmos, that this suggestion is good.

Now how thick that 3rd dimension layer is, would be governed by the
Dirac positron space that gives the force of gravity. So is this layer
about the
thickness of a galaxy? Seems kind of arbitrary.

Now here I am sort of guided by the astronomy of Earth in that we have
a
huge magnetic field surrounding Earth. So let me be guided by that
image
and to say that the 3rd dimension is a layer that is the thickness of
the magnetic
field surrounding a galaxy and that as we get into space where there
are no
galaxies the layer is the thinnest but still a layer.

So my image of 3rd dimensional Elliptic geometry of the Universe is a
sphere surface
covered by "lenses" where one lense is contiguous to other lenses and
the thickness
of these lenses is the thickness of the magnetic field surround
galaxies. So that when
a white light wave leaves a distant galaxy it travels through these
lenses and when
it reaches Earth is redshifted.

The idea of lenses as the 3rd dimension of elliptic, sort of reminds
me of Leibniz's monads.
He called them monads but I call them lenses.

And the idea of lenses reminds me of the Luminet team's research into
the Poincare
Dodecahedral Space where traveling in one of the 12 faces ends up in
travelling down
an identical face. So the face is just repeated in the next face.
Likewise when in
a lense of Elliptic geometry, you can just go round and round inside
that lense.

So basically this post is about how a light wave travels in Elliptic
geometry and is redshifted,
just as the light is redshifted from oncoming cars by the fiberglass
panel. I need a
3 dimension for the light wave to be refracted and redshifted.

The easiest solution is to think of a lenses as the 3rd dimension of
elliptic geometry.

Now if this holds up by the time I reach chapter 16, then all the
better.

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

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
I wish every chapter of this book had an experiment with it, and such
an easy experiment
that anyone can do in their homes with little material and even High
School students can
perform. Use a flat piece of fiberglass rather than a corrugated piece
for the corrugation
only gets in the way.

I had to look up a date for Hubble's redshift and it seems to be about
1929. Now I need
to refresh myself on the date of Lemaitres Big Bang with a "primeval
atom". It must have
been earlier than 1929, but not much earlier.


Surprize to me, for it looks as though the Big Bang theory arose
afterwards
of the Hubble redshift announcement that the distance to faraway
galaxies
was proportional to the redshift.

For it looks as though Lemaitre announced the Big Bang "primeval atom
explosion" after 1929, in the 1930s.

So the history has to be rechecked on the sequence of events. I had
thought
that the Big Bang idea was extant before Hubble's redshift
announcement, but
it looks as though the Big Bang was not extant.

The history of the Atom Totality theory is very clear. It was borne on
7 November,
1990 with the announcement that the Universe is a big atom of
Plutonium.


Now the idea and the experiment that the redshift is the geometry of
space and has
nothing to do with speed of galaxies or the speed of cosmic expansion,
but simply
the idea that as white light travels in highly curved space over long
distances causes
a refractive redshift.

So that the redshift of faraway galaxies was never due to a explosion
and expansion
of the Cosmos, but merely a result of white light traveling far
distances in a curved
space.

So this brings me to the logical conclusion that 3 dimensional
Elliptic geometry
needs to be detailed or discussed or made progress on. We know the
sphere
surface is a model of Elliptic geometry but that is 2 dimensional
Elliptic geometry.
Here we need 3rd dimensional Elliptic geometry, because the lobes of
the 5f6
of the 231 Plutonium Atom Totality is 3rd dimensional Elliptic
geometry. And we
need this 3rd dimensional elliptic geometry in order to see or
understand how
white light travelling in this bent space becomes redshifted. We
cannot expect
white light from a galaxy on the pole when it reaches the equator with
a galaxy
there to see a redshift because that is a two dimensional medium.

So I am going to take the most obvious suggestion of a solution since
we
cannot visualize 3rd dimensional elliptic geometry. I am going to say
that
3rd dimensional Elliptic geometry is the surface of the sphere and is
a layer
of the sphere above and below the surface. Now how thick this layer
is,
is not clear to me as yet and am hoping that by the chapter 16 on the
shape of the Cosmos, that this suggestion is good.

Now how thick that 3rd dimension layer is, would be governed by the
Dirac positron space that gives the force of gravity. So is this layer
about the
thickness of a galaxy? Seems kind of arbitrary.

Now here I am sort of guided by the astronomy of Earth in that we have
a
huge magnetic field surrounding Earth. So let me be guided by that
image
and to say that the 3rd dimension is a layer that is the thickness of
the magnetic
field surrounding a galaxy and that as we get into space where there
are no
galaxies the layer is the thinnest but still a layer.

So my image of 3rd dimensional Elliptic geometry of the Universe is a
sphere surface
covered by "lenses" where one lense is contiguous to other lenses and
the thickness
of these lenses is the thickness of the magnetic field surround
galaxies. So that when
a white light wave leaves a distant galaxy it travels through these
lenses and when
it reaches Earth is redshifted.

The idea of lenses as the 3rd dimension of elliptic, sort of reminds
me of Leibniz's monads.
He called them monads but I call them lenses.

And the idea of lenses reminds me of the Luminet team's research into
the Poincare
Dodecahedral Space where traveling in one of the 12 faces ends up in
travelling down
an identical face. So the face is just repeated in the next face.
Likewise when in
a lense of Elliptic geometry, you can just go round and round inside
that lense.

So basically this post is about how a light wave travels in Elliptic
geometry and is redshifted,
just as the light is redshifted from oncoming cars by the fiberglass
panel. I need a
3 dimension for the light wave to be refracted and redshifted.

The easiest solution is to think of a lenses as the 3rd dimension of
elliptic geometry.

Now if this holds up by the time I reach chapter 16, then all the
better.


If I am not mistaken, I believe the Luminet interpretation of the
Poincare
Dodecahedral Space is a 3rd dimensional Elliptic geometry. What allows
a
3rd dimension is the 12 faces of the dodecahedron return to the
original face.
So that as you travel along one face and meet a second face you are
travelling
back through the first face. In this geometry Space, stars and
galaxies repeat
themselves.

So if I am not mistaken, If I substitute a face with a huge lense and
there
would be 12 lenses altogether in the Poincare Dodecahedral Space. That
such
a model would be 3rd dimensional Elliptic geometry.

And so the travel of light from one galaxy to another galaxy is always
travelling
inside this lense medium and is refracted. The further away two
galaxies are
means that light travels through the thickness portion of the lense.

I am anxious to look up any blueshifted galaxy. Because I feel that
the blueshift
is able to separate the true conjectures from the false conjectures.
If I am correct
about lenses, then the blueshift should conform. In all these years
from 1990 to
2010, I have not focused on what galaxies are blueshifted, and it is
fun to now
have to explore what are blueshifted, if any.

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

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:


If I am not mistaken, I believe the Luminet interpretation of the
Poincare
Dodecahedral Space is a 3rd dimensional Elliptic geometry. What allows
a
3rd dimension is the 12 faces of the dodecahedron return to the
original face.
So that as you travel along one face and meet a second face you are
travelling
back through the first face. In this geometry Space, stars and
galaxies repeat
themselves.

So if I am not mistaken, If I substitute a face with a huge lense and
there
would be 12 lenses altogether in the Poincare Dodecahedral Space. That
such
a model would be 3rd dimensional Elliptic geometry.

And so the travel of light from one galaxy to another galaxy is always
travelling
inside this lense medium and is refracted. The further away two
galaxies are
means that light travels through the thickness portion of the lense.

I am anxious to look up any blueshifted galaxy. Because I feel that
the blueshift
is able to separate the true conjectures from the false conjectures.
If I am correct
about lenses, then the blueshift should conform. In all these years
from 1990 to
2010, I have not focused on what galaxies are blueshifted, and it is
fun to now
have to explore what are blueshifted, if any.


--- quoting from Wikipedia on blueshift ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueshift

The Andromeda Galaxy is moving towards our own Milky Way Galaxy
within the Local Group; thus, when observed from earth, its light is
undergoing a blue shift.
When observing spiral galaxies, the side spinning towards us will
have a slight blue shift (see Tully-Fisher relation).
Also, Blazars are known to propel relativistic jets towards us,
emitting synchrotron radiation and Bremsstrahlung that appears blue
shifted.
Nearby stars such as Barnard's Star are moving towards us, resulting
in a very small blue shift.
--- end quoting from Wikipedia blueshift ---

--- quoting about a quasar blueshift ---
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...2ca922c9c07726

We have obtained optical intermediate-resolution spectra (R=3000) of
the narrow-line quasars DMS 0059-0055 and PG 1543+489. The [O III]
emission line in DMS 0059-0055 is blueshifted by 880 km s-1 relative
to Hbeta. We also confirm that the [O III] emission line in PG
1543+489 has a relative blueshift of 1150 km s-1. These two narrow-
line quasars show the largest [O III] blueshifts known to date among
type 1 active galactic nuclei (AGNs).
--- end quoting ---

I need to look into these reported blueshifts. I think most of them
are due to rotational
speeds such as the quasar report above, and that most of them are so
tiny and small of a blueshift as to be insignificant.

I am unsure as to what the Big Bang theory predicts according to the
occurrence of
blueshifts and what the Atom Totality predicts according to the
blueshift occurrence. Whether the Big Bang predicts more occurrences
of blueshifts than the Atom Totality. According
to the fiberglass window on approaching white light auto headlamps,
all of them were
redshifted. So does the Atom Totality predict no blueshifts? And
should the Big Bang
theory predict alot more blueshifts considering there would be half
the galaxies heading
or approaching in our direction so that 1/2 of the galaxies be
blueshifted rather than a
rare occurrence?

If the Big Bang predicts about 1/2 or even 1/4 of the galaxies be
blueshifted, then
the Big Bang is falsified since nearly all the shifts are redshifted.

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

Blueshift is not an easy topic to find out information.

Anyway, let me summarize the types of redshift commonly bantered
about. There
are three such types:
(a) Doppler redshift -- relative motion or speeding away of two
objects, causing
an elongation of the wavelength
(b) Cosmological redshift-- due to expansion of Space itself from a
Big Bang
(c) Gravitational redshift-- pull of a gravitational field.

We can leave out gravitational redshift. The Atom Totality theory
would argue
that since speeds of all galaxies are so tiny of speeds that we would
not
see any redshift cosmic wide. And the Atom Totality would argue that
the
Cosmological redshift is not due to a explosion, because Space is not
moving or expanding but rather standing still, and the Cosmic redshift
is due to light traveling through a highly curved Space.

So the Atom Totality theory would say on the issue of Cosmic redshift,
that
we can exlude Doppler redshift since the speeds of galaxies are so
small of
speeds that they have little to no contribution.

And as the experiment of a fiberglass window with oncoming headlights
of autos
shows that the redshift is all about refraction of Space.

Redshift as the curvature of Space is what the Atom Totality
prescribes, and it
is a relationship dependent on distance, similar to the Hubble law,
only the cause
is not an expansion but a geometry effect.

So, the question is, can the blueshift tell whether the Big Bang is
true or false?
And can the blueshift tell of the Atom Totality is true or false?

I think it can.

There should be alot more blueshifts occurring if the Big Bang is
true. In fact,
blueshifts are rare.

This indicates that the curvature of space causing redshifts goes into
action at a
relatively small distance away from Earth. Beyond the Andromeda galaxy
there
is hardly any blueshift seen. What blueshift occurrs is rotational
speeds and this
is a very tiny blueshift.

I think the data supports the Atom Totality. Because if blueshifts
disappear at relatively
small distance from Earth, indicates that the geometry of Space is the
cause, not
the motion or expansion of Space.

The Big Bang would predict a large number of cases of blueshift for
distant galaxies.
The Atom Totality would predict no cases of blueshift for distant
galaxies. As far as
I can see in the reports, there are no blueshifts, unless you want to
call the rotational
motion as blueshifts.

In a debate of the Big Bang versus Atom Totality over redshift and
blueshift, I want to
draw attention on a weakness of the Big Bang theory that is
exploitative. The Big Bang
says there are no edges to the Cosmos and there is no center of the
Cosmos. So they
are saying that the Big Bang is 2D Elliptic geometry as a sphere
surface to account for
an explosion and that this explosion gives a redshift since all
galaxies are moving away
from one another. But they are in trouble with that notion because we
know that Space is 3 dimensional.

The Atom Totality understands that space is 3 dimensional and tries to
show a 3rd
dimension to the surface of a sphere. It is this 3rd dimension that
light from distant
galaxies has to travel through and is thus refracted and redshifted.
This 3rd dimension
is sort of like a ** lens** and as white light travels through that
lens, it is redshifted.

So where the Big Bang explains redshift as a 2D explosion for a sphere
surface, the
Atom Totality explains the redshift as the 3rd Dimension of the sphere
surface with a
lens as the third that causes the redshift.

So the Big Bang people have been derelict in not coming up with the
3rd dimension
of Space. I do not think they want everyone to believe that the Cosmos
is only
two dimensional, just so their theory can pass.

Through the years someone should have composed a compendium of all the
blueshifts,
for I believe such a focused study on just blueshifts alone can decide
whether the
Big Bang theory is a fake or has a fighting chance.

Since blueshifts are rare and only local. Discounting all the
blueshifts due to rotations.
We can almost announce the end of the Big Bang theory.


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

Relativistic Physics has the energy of light at E = mc^2

NonRelativistic Physics has the kinetic energy at E = 1/2mv^2

Notice that one is 1/2 and the other is 1. That is important as
to the shape of the Atom Totality whether it is 6 sided or 12 sided.

Simple version of what a plutonium atom looks like:

. \ . . | . /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
_ _

(:Y
_ _
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / . . | . \ .

There are six lobes and those lines represent those 6 lobes and all
the dots represent the
last 6 electrons as a electron dot cloud. Each dot is a galaxy in the
night sky. There are about 10^60 dots to each electron and that would
account for all the atoms in the observable Cosmos. So when
we look up in the nighttime at the Night Sky and see all those stars
and galaxies we are
looking at pieces of the last six electrons of one gigantic big atom
of plutonium. The isotope of plutonium is 231Pu, because that isotope
fits the special numbers of physics and math. Such special numbers
as the fine-structure constant or "pi and e".

Simple version of what a plutonium atom looks like
with its 5f6 as that of 12 lobes or as a dodecahedron:

. \ . . | . /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
--------------- -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
--------------- --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / . . | . \ .


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

For a picture of the electron-dot-cloud, although it is not going to
show
you 10^60 dots, although we can start to see 10^60 dots by looking at
the Night Sky of galaxies. Of course, the dots in the Night Sky are
concentrated
in stars and galaxies and not effused and spread out.

This textbook which I have owned for a long time and perhaps the
best College textbook on physics, even though it is 1986 vintage,
for the newest physics textbooks are cluttered up with fake physics
such as black holes, neutron stars, Big Bang and other untrue exotica.

Halliday & Resnick textbook PHYSICS, Part 2, Extended
Version , 1986, of page
572. This is a large electron cloud dot picture for
which I quote the caption.
--- quoting ---
CHAP.26 CHARGE AND MATTER.
Figure 26-5
An atom, suggesting the electron
cloud and, above, an enlarged view
of the nucleus.
--- end quoting ---

If you happen to have the book and look at the picture, the dots
are vastly too dense. But it was this picture that connected the dots
(sorry for the pun) for my mind on the morning of 7 November 1990.
And thus the Atom Totality theory was borne.

You see, the dots of the electron cloud are the
galaxies of the night sky.
The dots of the electron cloud are actual mass chunks
or pieces of the last 6
electrons, the 5f6 of 231PU.

Postscript: Chapter 1 on the topic of redshift. I departed chapter 1,
way to early.
And thank goodness for this device of a postscript so that I can
continue to
organize this book whilst adding ideas that are out of place.

If the Big Bang were true, then it is extremely hard to believe that
the redshift is the
expansion of Space itself. That is a new physics altogether and
contradicts other physics. The next question would
be to ask if the galaxies that are riding a space that is travelling
as fast or even faster
than the speed of light, would that also make the velocity of galaxies
be the speed of
light. So in the Big Bang theory explanation of redshift, we have a
whole new physics that
has never been tried before, because we have galaxies riding in Space
that is moving close to
or faster than the speed of light.

How do Big Bang people reconcile their theory with the implications
that Space is moving,
and would that not also make the galaxies move at the speed of light?

Whereas the Atom Totality theory explains the redshift as simply a
Space that is motionless
but highly curved as a lens is curved and that white light traveling
far distances is refracted
in this curved and bent space yielding a redshift.

So I ask the commonsense physicist or the commonsense layperson. Which
makes the easier explanation? The Big Bang which asks you to believe
that Space is in motion and
travelling beyond the speed of light and carrying galaxies along in
that motion to yield
a redshift? Or is the explanation that Space is motionless but highly
curved like the surface
of a sphere and that this curvature over large distances causes light
to be refracted and thus
redshifted?

Clearly the Atom Totality theory is the better commonsense
explanation. The Big Bang involves new physics that has never been
seen or heard of before, where you have
Space in motion, where you have Space as a separate entity, yet never
defining what Space is, and you have Space carrying galaxies
along in that motion. Sounds really farfetched and preposterous. But
then in the time
frame of 1930 to 1990, the Big Bang was the only theory on the block
and so any farfetched
and preposterous and ludicrous notions would pass, since there was no
other theory to
compete with.

I departed Chapter 1 without really resolving the issue of redshift
and blueshift in Big Bang
and Atom Totality. Here, I have resolved it. Because it comes down to
a choice between
Space travelling at the speed of light and thus the galaxies would be
travelling at the speed of
light, or a whole new physics. Or, the choice that Space is
motionless, and that galaxies are
travelling at slow speeds like that of 70 km/sec, and that the
redshift is caused by the
curvature of space that refracts white light and redshifts that light.
This is standard common
physics and nothing new. So on that account alone, where we do not
need to have to
compare redshifts and blueshifts, the Big Bang is a fake and only the
Atom Totality can reasonably explain the redshift. The Big Bang asks
us to accept new
and untried and farfetched physics-- that Space is separate from
matter and that Space
is in motion and that Space carries galaxies at upwards the speed of
light.

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