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

I have a picture of the 5f6 of Plutonium in the book
THE ELEMENTS BEYOND URANIUM, Seaborg & Loveland, 1990, and page 73.

Shape of the Cosmos is more important than the color of the Cosmos.
And ever since I published and broadcast the Atom Totality theory
starting in 1991 in newspaper and magazines and on the Internet in
1993, that I have stated many times that the 5f6 Observable Universe
is the shape of 6 lobes. This can be seen quite clearly in the book
"The Elements Beyond Uranium" Seaborg & Loveland 1990, page
73 the General Set of nonrelativistic f orbital shapes. Now that
same
page shows the Cubic Set and the reader must realize that although
the lobes look like 8 lobes, that keep in mind that they are the
inside of a CUBE and a cube is a 6 faced regular-polyhedra.

This book has a chapter devoted to just the space of the Universe
and it was found in the 2000s decade by the Luminet team of
researchers that the Microwave radiation of the Cosmos fits a
Poincare Dodecahedral Space as the best shape of the Cosmos.
A dodecahedron is 12 faces. I find this as not alarming because
as mentioned earlier, that the nonrelativistic energy is 1/2 mv^2
and relativistic energy is mc^2, where one equation has a factor
of 1/2. And that 6 is 1/2 of that of 12.

The Seaborg and Loveland book on page 73 shows the 5f6 and the
lobes of that subshell. I often mention the word "lobes" as elongated
ellipsoids and this page of the book shows those lobes.

Postscript to Chapter 1 on redshift: Last night, luckily, I resolved
the redshift issue
for the Big Bang versus the Atom Totality. I need not have pursued on
whether the
blueshift or redshift data favors either the Big Bang or the Atom
Totality. I need
not have looked to see what each theory predicts for a blueshift or to
what
magnitude of a redshift occurs. The issue of redshift and blueshift
with the
Big Bang versus Atom Totality is all resolved by whether each theory
can have
a viable physics to promote their redshift and blueshift. The Big Bang
fails.

As I was looking at Hubble's law, it was graphed to where it had
increments of the
speed of light. Not only does the Big Bang reach the speed of light
but exceeds it
for one graph had from 0 to c to 2c to 3c to 4c to 5c and beyond. I
suppose these
people who believe in the Big Bang would also believe that a ship on
ocean tides
travelling at the speed of light, that the ship would stay in tact and
not disintegrate.

The Big Bang theory explains redshift as that of Space moving and
carrying along
with Space the galaxies. So Big Bangers impart a speed to galaxies
with the speed
of light and beyond. These Big Bangers have to explain these
questions:
(a) How is Space so independent of the Cosmos itself, when Space is
never independent
in normal physics?
(b) How can Space be moving at the speed of light and not have the
galaxies moving
with the speed of light?
(c) Why should Space in the Big Bang theory be treated differently in
physics, whereas
in all other physics, space is treated as if it is a medium that is
motionless?
(d) Had Big Bang believers ever heard of "resonance energy" and that
if you have a galaxy
nested inside a space moving at the speed of light, how in the world
would that galaxy
not bust and break apart due to resonance.

The Atom Totality theory rests on a simple experiment that anyone can
do in their homes
if they have a view of a road with car headlights. Simply buy a sheet
of opaque fiberglass and tilt it slightly in the the window. The sheet
I have comes from a greenhouse and has some
corrugations, but a flat sheet tilted would do. Anyway, the oncoming
white light headlights of
cars are all redshifted. The further away the car is, the more the
redshift. So the speed is
irrelevant and the concern of whether the car is moving towards the
window or away from
the window is irrelevant. The redshift is caused by the refraction of
light as it passes through
the fiberglass. So what this experiment tells us of the Cosmic
Redshift of galaxies is that
it is caused by the geometry of Space, and not a Doppler Redshift of
galaxies in a expanding
universe. In fact the Universe is probably pretty much stationary or
at rest.

So the redshift is due to white light travelling large distances in a
bent and curved space ends
up being redshifted.

So one needs not have to figure out the predictions of the Big Bang
theory as per what to
expect of redshift and blueshift. Nor does one have to figure out the
predictions of the
Atom Totality with respect to blueshift and redshift. All one has to
do is realize that the
Big Bang imposes anti-physics or non-physics upon that of physics. The
Big Bang expects
you to believe we can have a Space that is independent of the rest of
the Universe and that
this space can carry galaxies with the speed of light. So the Big Bang
is anti-physics.

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

In the next edition of this book, I should combine chapter 2, and 3
into one chapter since they
are not long enough as independent chapters.


There is going to be a point in my life where I no longer am able to
think
back and tell the history of the Atom Totality theory, where I forget
the
succession of events and where my mind is too old or for whatever
reason
unable to tell this story accurately. So it is good that this history
account
is told in every one of these editions before I reach that inability
stage.
And I want to make each edition
better reading than the previous one. This 4th edition is going to be
shorter.
I can cut out alot of the details and sort of skip to major points. I
am
going to start this history by accounting the history of the discovery
of the
Atom Totality theory, 7 November 1990. I am going to start the story
from
1975 when I was 25 years old and teaching math in Australia and
reading this
book on Pragmatism. Earlier editions give a larger version of this
history,
but I want a abbreviated one now. And this history is going to use
books
as the succession of events.

History of discovery of Atom Totality Theory as per books read:

(1) I read a pretty idea from the mathematician C.S.
Peirce who wrote "The Architecture of Theories" in 1891
that the universe is crystallizing-out.

--- quoting FOUR PRAGMATISTS by I. Scheffler, 1974
---
Peirce's The Architecture of Theories...
...would be a Cosmogonic Philosophy. It would
suppose
that in the beginning - infinitely remote - there was
a chaos
of unpersonalized feeling, which being without
connection or
regularity would properly be without existence. This
feeling,
sporting here and there in pure arbitrariness, would
have
started the germ of a generalizing tendency. Its other
sportings would be evanescent, but this would have a
growing
virtue. Thus, the tendency to habit would be started;
and
from this, with the other principles of evolution, all
the
regularities of the universe would be evolved. At any
time,
however, an element of pure chance survives and will
remain
until the world becomes an absolutely perfect,
rational,
and symmetrical system, in which mind is at last
crystallized in the infinitely distant future.
--- end quoting FOUR PRAGMATISTS ---

The first time I read this was in 1975, and I was so impressed
with that paragraph that I remembered it clearly by 1989
when it would come to me in a torrent of creativity.

I remember in 1989 in my apartment flat in New Hampshire
of this Peirce Cosmology coming into my mind. Almost
out of the blue, for it just came to me where I asked a
question. I had remembered this crystallizing out that
Peirce had written and asked the question, what in the
world is worthy of crystallizing out *into*? Is there anything
in existence worthy of crystallizing-into? And the answer
was, for me in 1989, yes, crystallizing out into becoming
an atom. That atoms were nearly perfect entities and the
only thing near to perfect as far as the world understands
perfect.

And now that I look back from 2010 to 1989 which was more than
20 years ago (my, time does fly), one would think that
I should have had the Atom Totality theory right then and
there. But actual discovery takes twists and turns and pauses.
The 1989 event for me was the setting-up of the discovery
of the Atom Totality theory. I gave this 1989 event a special
name since it occurred during the Autumn Equinox and called
it the Autumnal Electronox or Electronox for short. This 1989
event set the stage for the discovery of the Atom Totality
theory of 7 November 1990.

Before I get to 1990, I need to talk about another book that
was pivotal in the discovery. It was a book, but also a TV
series called COSMOS by Sagan. And I specifically remember
this segment from the TV series with its beautiful Vangelis
music that accompanied this verse:

(2) I had watched on TV the series COSMOS , and
remembered
a paragraph which I looked-up in the book COSMOS
on pages 265-267.

--- quoting from book COSMOS ---

[pages 265-267] There is an idea--strange, haunting,
evocative- one of the most exquisite conjectures in
science or religion. It is entirely undemonstrated;
it may never be proved. But it stirs the blood.
There
is , we are told, an infinite hierarchy of universes,
so that an elementary particle, such as an electron,
in our universe would, if penetrated, reveal itself to
be an entire closed universe. Within it, organized
into the local equivalent of galaxies and smaller
structures, are an immense number of other, much
tinier elementary particles, which are themselves
universe at the next level, and so on forever- an
infinite downward regression, universes within
universes, endlessly. And upward as well. Our
familiar universe of galaxies and stars, planets
and people, would be a single elementary particle
in the next universe up, the first step of another
infinite regress.

--- end quoting COSMOS ---

Actually it was the music that made me tape record
it from the TV while I was in the Navy in the early
1980s and taped it over repeatedly so that for
1/2 hour of tape I would hear the above words
and the Vangelis music over and over again. I no
longer know what exact year that was, perhaps
1983.

So there I was, 1989 with the Peirce crystallizing out
of the Cosmos and with Sagan's Elementary Particle Cosmos
going into the year 1990.

Let me repeat, for more details, anyone can read my earlier
edition of the 2nd edition or possibly my 1991 copyrighted
manuscript that I sent to the Library of Congress and I posted
in the timeframe of 1993 and beyond to the sci newsgroups.

So here is the beginning of 1990, the year 1990 with me
set-up in my mind the Four Pragmatist paragraph of
crystallizing out, and with Sagan's paragraph
in Cosmos TV show of a "elementary particle universe".

So there I was with those two ideas mixing and turning
in my mind in 1989 and 1990, and then a third book that
finally tips the scales and sends me into a major discovery.

(3) This book was the textbook:
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.

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.

So in 1989 I had the Cosmos as crystallizing out in the future and
the only near perfect thing is an atom. And I had the nested
elementary
particle universe in Sagan's COSMOS tv show. Then on the
morning of 7 November 1990, and putting the Halliday Resnick
physics textbook picture of an Electron-Dot-Cloud to the night
sky of stars and galaxies. Eureka, I had put together that the
Universe was already an Atom and had always been an Atom
and that the night-sky of stars and galaxies were pieces of the
last electrons of an Atom Totality.

Looking back now, here in 2010, it does not look like it had
to be a huge step forward in logic to go from:
(1) Universe crystallizing out in the future as an atom
(2) Universe as nested elementary-particles

going from (1) and (2) to that of the Night Sky of galaxies are
the dots in the electron-dot-cloud and therefore the Universe
is already an Atom Totality. That the Universe had always
been an Atom Totality.

Reflection back now, it seems as though I should have discovered
the Atom Totality in 1989, but a new discovery often takes a
windy journey rather than a straightline to discovery.

So I quickly went to the library in New Hampshire to find out
what atomic element
would fit best the present day Cosmos? At that moment I
was not looking for exacting detailed evidence of a chemical
element such as the Fine Structure Constant or the Proton to
Electron mass ratio. I was looking for something much more simple
and immediate. I was looking for what element would have a
radius expansion from previous element to give a red shift in
galaxies. And to my delight, it was
the element plutonium. Later I would find out that 231Pu gives the
fine-structure-constant the best, along with the mass ratio of
proton to electron.

And as this 4th edition opens up with a refuting of the redshift,
shows
how much alot of what we think is true is rather in flux. The redshift
would not be something I would pin a decision on whether it is a
Uranium Atom Totality or a Plutonium Atom Totality, but rather
something
like the fine-structure constant in tandem with the proton to electron
mass ratio. Let me also add, that on 7 November 1990, my first fact
seeking of plutonium was not whether it had a larger radius than the
previous
element of neptunium for a redshift, but rather was to see if
plutonium
occurs naturally in Nature, and that was verified to be true, that
plutonium
atoms exist naturally in uranium ore deposits.

The above is a brief summary of the chain of events, and anyone
wanting more details can read my earlier editions or posts to the
sci newsgroups. As I get older, I run the risk of inaccurate memory,
but with age, also, I tend to want to summarize more than prior
renditions.

In my next post I want to recall the Atomic theory history with the
Atom Totality theory history. Especially a report that Democritus
may have believed in a SuperAtom that was the entire Cosmos itself.
It is likely to have been true, with the only hindrance that the
ancients
did not have a chemical table of the periodic elements.

Postscript to Chapter 2: consider in the 5th edition to combine these
two chapters
into one, of the pictures and the 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

Rather than wait for the 5th edition, I took the bull by the horns and
made the changes
in this post and throughout the book.

Here is the revised chapters of this 4th edition book:



Plutonium Atom Totality theory


Chapters of this book:


I. the theory
**(1) what is this theory?
**(2) pictures of the Atom Totality theory, and history of the theory
and precursor hints


II. Observational and experimental support
(3) experiment that shows us what the redshift truly is-- curvature
of the lobes of
an Atom Totality
**(4) density and distribution of all galaxies
**(5) Tifft quantized galaxy speeds
**(6) Dirac's new-radioactivities and Dirac's multiplicative-
creation
**(7) Earth itself; age; zirconium crystal dating
**(8) Solar System: CellWell 1 and CellWell2 ; planet cores ; plane
of
ecliptic
**(9) Milky Way: Exoplanets and exosolarsystems; Binary Stars
**(10) MECO theory to explain high energy sources and
**black-hole theory as science-fiction


III. Cosmic characteristics and features; support
**(11) layered age of Cosmos with 6.5 billion years new Cosmos yet
old
galaxies of the Uranium Atom Totality 20.2 billion years old; the
data
including discussion over the layered ages of the Solar System
**where Sun is likely to be twice as old as Jupiter.
**(12) uniform blackbody 2.71 K cosmic microwave background
radiation
**(13) Dark Night sky: Olber's Paradox fully answered
**(14) missing mass conundrum solved
**(15) the cosmic distribution of chemical elements
**(16) shape of the Cosmos as 6 lobes of 5f6 as nonrelativistic as
Cubic, or as relativistic Dodecahedron
**(17) color of the cosmos as plutonium off-white


IV. Mathematical and logic beauty support
**(18) "pi" and "e" and "i" explained; inverse fine structure
constant
and proton to electron mass
**ratio, all linked and explained
**(19) Bell Inequality with Superdeterminism fits only in an Atom
Totality theory
**(20) Purpose and meaning of life
**(21) Atomic theory Syllogism
**(22) Future News and Research Reports supporting the Atom Totality
theory and future news and research reports commentary

Let me explain what I did in this chapter revision in the postscript
below.

And let me continue with the history, starting where I left-off from
the previous
post.

In my next post I want to recall the Atomic theory history with the
Atom Totality theory history. Especially a report that Democritus
may have believed in a SuperAtom that was the entire Cosmos itself.
It is likely to have been true, with the only hindrance that the
ancients
did not have a chemical table of the periodic elements.

I am not going to talk about the Ancient Greeks with the Atomic
Theory.
There is plenty of literature on them. From Thales of Miletus with
amber
and lodestone of (-550 De Rerum Natura). To Leucippus as the founder
of the Atomic Theory and his most famous student Democritus (-400
De Rerum Natura) to Epicurus to Titus Lucretius who wrote De Rerum
Natura (0000 date time).

Notice that I use a system of date time that places the calendar as
the
year in which De Rerum Natura was widespread. So I link Science to
the calendar. So when I think of the year 2009, to me it means two
thousand nine years since De Rerum Natura was widespread and the
Atomic
Theory was extant on Earth.

I am not going to dwell on the Ancient Greeks and the Atomic Theory
for it is
easily accessible to anyone wanting as much information as they so
desire.

But I will talk about two other books before the Atom Totality theory
that
existed before I was born and which have a link to the Atom Totality
theory.

To keep my numbering in order this should be the book number (4).

--- start of quote from Encyclopedia Britannica 1992
---
Lemaitre, Georges (b. July 17, 1894, Charleroi,
Belg.--d.
June 20, 1966, Louvain), Belgian astronomer and
cosmologist who formulated the modern big-bang theory,

which holds that the universe began in a cataclysmic
explosion of a small, primeval "super-atom."
.... His works
include Discussion sur l'evolution de l'univers
(1933; "Discussion on the Evolution of the Universe")
and L'Hypothese de l'atome primitif
(1946; "Hypothesis of the Primeval Atom")
--- end of quote from Encyclopedia Britannica 1992 ---

The reason I bring up Lemaitre is that several
times in
his writings he refers to his Big Bang as the
"Primeval Atom"
as a description of the initial Big Bang in its
point-singularity, the universe as a point-complex of
matter radiation. Obviously Lemaitre used "primeval
atom"
as a purely descriptive term never claiming that the
present universe was an atom itself. Anyone whoever
claims to have had the Atom Totality theory would
have to make the obvious next step that they in fact
originated the theory by giving details as to what
chemical element the present universe actually is.
Sagan never had the Atom Totality or else he would
have specified a chemical element. Lemaitre never
had the Atom Totality or he would have specified
a chemical element.

Lemaitre's primeval atom had no effect on my
journey to discovery of that Atom Totality theory.
But just the idea of "primeval atom" as the start of the
Big Bang should have ignited the imagination of
many scientists into the next exciting question--
could the Cosmos be an atom itself? And can we
make a different Born Interpretation of the electron-dot-cloud
to accomodate a Atom Totality with the night sky of
stars and galaxies as tiny pieces of the last electrons
of an Atom Universe? Luckily for me, anyway, there
was no spark of imagination by anyone when learning
of a primeval atom. But I wonder if the French translation
above is really "primeval" or whether it means more of
"primitive". If it means more of "primitive" then there was
likely a less of a tendency to spark any imagination.

Science is pragmatic and practical and all great
theories have long
past previous suggestions or hints or forerunners or
one can sort
of "read more into past works" or, someone can
exaggerate past
works to hint of recent discoveries. It is fun to
trace past
histories for strands of thought that hinted of, or
suggested of
the Atom Totality and that is what this article
attempts to do. In
one of the listings, I show where Charles S.
Peirce,
the famous USA pragmatist hinted of Quantum Mechanics
long before
QM was discovered. And that is not to say that Peirce
is the
discoverer of QM but it shows how new important
discoveries have
had past hints. Some past hints have actually been the
catalyst
or booster in the forming of a new discovery.

I have wondered whether Democritus himself by pure
math logic
reasoning came to the conclusion that the universe
itself must
be an atom. For clearly, it follows that if all things
are made-up
of atoms (or is the void between atoms) then this
logically implies
that the whole must be an atom itself (or the void and
clearly it cannot be a void since we exist). Did
Democritus have
the idea that since all matter was made up of atoms
that by pure
math logic implied the entirety is an atom itself? Not
knowing
any physics or any science but just good in math
logic, that if
you make the theory that all things are made up of
atoms, by pure
math logic reasoning implies that the whole is also an
atom itself!

I know Democritus was a math genius for Archimedes
recognized his
talents, but still, I did not expect Democritus to
push his Atomic
Theory to its logical conclusion. Perusing the physics
history
literature, years after I discovered the Atom Totality theory,
I came across this gem.
Book number (5):

--- start quoting A SHORT HISTORY OF ATOMISM
by J. Gregory, Univ. Leeds, 1931, page 4 ---
The traditional atom, the genuine atom, is both quite
indestructible and exceedingly minute. Atoms were
indivisible for Leucippus because they were too minute to be
divided, and for Democritus because they were too hard to be
broken.
If sundry traditions are trustworthy, Democritus allowed all
sizes to atoms: a single Democritean atom might even
be, so some said, as big as the world. The gigantic
Democritean atom, if it ever existed, vanished from the atomistic
tradition.
The subsequent Epicurean atom was too hard to be
broken, but
it was also too small to be seen, and only thought
could
discern it. It did not become doubtful, nor even
admittedly
speculative, for Epicurus was as sure of atoms as if
he had
seen them with his eyes.
--- end quoting A SHORT HISTORY OF ATOMISM
by J. Gregory, Univ. Leeds, 1931, page 4 ---

So what am I to make of this fact. A fact I cannot deny since
there is that book and I own a copy now. It is 1931, and Gregory
must have been referring to some evidence when he says "so some
said, as big as the world." Gregory was not making that up out of
nothing.

So let us say there was some evidence of a Democritean SuperAtom.
Then Democritus would have discovered the Atom Totality theory, and
the only thing holding him back from pinpointing what chemical element
it was, was that he had no chemistry and the periodic table of
chemical
elements that we have in modern times.

Now before I leave this history I should include a broad category of
other books that were very influential. Those chemistry and physics
books I used in High School and College which showed pictures of the
electron-dot-cloud. In High School it was PSSC and in College it was
Chemistry by Mortimer and in Physics it was Halliday and Resnick.
Let me just group them all into a category of books (6) and say they
had pictures of the electron-dot-cloud.

The discovery of the Atom Totality theory was to reinterpret the Born
Interpretation of the electron of an atom. Most everyone imagines the
electron as a tiny ball whizzing around the nucleus. When in fact, the
electron
is a dot-cloud-pattern. We have the electron as a ball when collapsed
wavefunction such as electricity in motion. But when the atom is not
collapsed
which is most of the time, it is in a electron-dot-cloud where its
tiny mass is
smashed like a broken windshield of a car and the tiny pieces
scattered all over
the place. Those tiny pieces, are each a galaxy.

So the discovery of the Atom Totality theory was to discover that the
electron-dot-cloud
is the night-time sky of galaxies.

Postscript to Chapter 2 and 3. I could not wait for the 5th ed., but
wanted to
make this change in this 4th edition. I have combined the "pictures
chapter"
with the "history chapter" as that of chapter 2. For chapter 3, I am
taking all
the discussion and experiment on redshift and placing it into chapter
3, rather
than have it in chapter 1 or in chapter 16 "shape of the Cosmos"

Now let me talk a little bit more about this redshift experiment
discovery using
a sheet of fiberglass for a window and seeing oncoming auto headlights
redshifted.
If one were to compute the refraction of the figerglass and translate
that into a
lens shape that would give the same refraction. And then correlate
what the
cosmic redshift is. Then I suspect one can compute what the Cosmic
Lens is.

Now that is important because noone has ever dared to describe 3
dimensional
Elliptic geometry. The Big Bang is deaf, dumb and silent about 3D
Elliptic geometry,
although it uses 2D Elliptic geometry of a sphere surface.

So what I am saying is that 3D Elliptic geometry is a sphere surface
but is a layered
sphere surface that has a lens as that 3rd dimension. Normally we have
dimensions
as orthogonal to one another. But a sphere surface is 2D Elliptic
geometry. So we
need that 3rd dimension Elliptic geometry and I propose that 3rd
dimension is a lens
type of layer to the 2D surface of a sphere. So 2D Elliptic is the
sphere surface and to
make it 3D Elliptic, a lens is that surface. Now how thick is this
lens? Well, I am thinking
that the experiment of fiberglass correlated with the observed cosmic
redshift can imply
the thickness of the lens layer of 3D Elliptic geometry.

Now I do not know if the Luminet work on the Poincare Dodecahedral
Space is a 3D Elliptic
geometry. I am not that familar or expert enough to evaluate whether
that Space is a
3D Elliptic geometry. I would guess it is since you return back to
your starting point if you
travel far enough. And maybe the 36 degree twist in the Poincare
Dodecahedral Space is
a equivalent to what I am calling a lens as the 3rd dimension of
Elliptic geometry.

So this redshift experiment that falsifies the Big Bang theory
deserves its own full chapter.

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

Plutonium Atom Totality theory


Chapters of this book:


I. the theory
**(1) what is this theory?
**(2) pictures of the Atom Totality theory, and history of the theory
and precursor hints


II. Observational and experimental support
(3) experiment that shows us what the redshift truly is-- curvature
of the lobes of
an Atom Totality
**(4) density and distribution of all galaxies
**(5) Tifft quantized galaxy speeds
**(6) Dirac's new-radioactivities and Dirac's multiplicative-
creation
**(7) Earth itself; age; zirconium crystal dating
**(8) Solar System: CellWell 1 and CellWell2 ; planet cores ; plane
of
ecliptic
**(9) Milky Way: Exoplanets and exosolarsystems; Binary Stars
**(10) MECO theory to explain high energy sources and
**black-hole theory as science-fiction


III. Cosmic characteristics and features; support
**(11) layered age of Cosmos with 6.5 billion years new Cosmos yet
old
galaxies of the Uranium Atom Totality 20.2 billion years old; the
data
including discussion over the layered ages of the Solar System
**where Sun is likely to be twice as old as Jupiter.
**(12) uniform blackbody 2.71 K cosmic microwave background
radiation
**(13) Dark Night sky: Olber's Paradox fully answered
**(14) missing mass conundrum solved
**(15) the cosmic distribution of chemical elements
**(16) shape of the Cosmos as 6 lobes of 5f6 as nonrelativistic as
Cubic, or as relativistic Dodecahedron
**(17) color of the cosmos as plutonium off-white


IV. Mathematical and logic beauty support
**(18) "pi" and "e" and "i" explained; inverse fine structure
constant
and proton to electron mass
**ratio, all linked and explained
**(19) Bell Inequality with Superdeterminism fits only in an Atom
Totality theory
**(20) Purpose and meaning of life
**(21) Atomic theory Syllogism
**(22) Future News and Research Reports supporting the Atom Totality
theory and future news and research reports commentary


Unfortunately, in the history of astronomy, the Hubble Cosmic redshift
was
adopted by a fake theory, the Big Bang theory. Any theory want to
adopt
evidence that supports that theory. When this happens, in science, it
may
take some time before the evidence turns against the fake adopter. But
by
2010, we actually have a homemade experiment that any High School
science
student can do in their homes and thus prove the Big Bang to be false
science.

I am not going to repeat my previous posts of its "postscript" talking
about
the redshift experiment of a sheet of plastic fiberglass window on
auto car
white light oncoming headlights. The fiberglass turns all white light
into a
redshift. And the reason is obvious as a refraction.

The Cosmic redshift of galaxies is not due to a explosion but due to
what can
be called Electromagnetic Lensing produced by the fact that the
nucleus of the
Atom Totality holds the electrons in orbit and thus producing a
geometry of
a sphere surface which is a lens in 3 dimensional Elliptic geometry.

Here is a review of how redshifts are produced from Wikipedia:

--- quoting Wikipedia on redshift ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

Redshifts are attributable to three different physical effects. The
first discovered was the Doppler effect, familiar in the changes in
the apparent pitches of sirens and frequency of the sound waves
emitted by speeding vehicles; an observed redshift due to the Doppler
effect occurs whenever a light source moves away from an observer.
Cosmological redshift is seen due to the expansion of the universe,
and sufficiently distant light sources (generally more than a few
million light years away) show redshift corresponding to the rate of
increase of their distance from Earth. Finally, gravitational
redshifts are a relativistic effect observed in electromagnetic
radiation moving out of gravitational fields. Conversely, a decrease
in wavelength is called blue shift and is generally seen when a light-
emitting object moves toward an observer or when electromagnetic
radiation moves into a gravitational field.

--- end quoting Wikipedia ---

It turns out that Wikipedia is wrong, grossly wrong about saying that
a redshift occurs from
a explosion, the Big Bang expansion of Space. That is a falsehood.

The Cosmic Redshift, as this book with its experiment of fiberglass
window on auto
headlights demonstrates, is similar to gravitational lensing, only the
producer of the
Cosmic Redshift is a force that is 10^40 stronger than gravity, and is
the force of the
Coulomb force that holds electrons to atoms, of their nucleus of
protons. It is
EM force of protons holding the electrons to the atom.

In the 231Pu Atom Totality, the 5f6 of its last 6 electrons, our night
sky are held in place
by the attraction of the Cosmic Nucleus. This EM attraction causes our
Space to be
Elliptic geometry such as a sphere surface. But a sphere surface is
only 2 dimensional.
To make it 3rd dimensional the surface has a thickness of a lens
shape. This lens shape
is recreated by the High School student performing a fiberglass window
upon oncoming
white headlights of autos on the road. It is redshifted, even though
it is counter to the
Doppler effect. The refraction is far greater than the tiny Doppler
effect.

So, Wikipedia is all wrong about their account and the Big Bang theory
is all wrong
about their hijacking of the Cosmic redshift, fraudulently claiming it
supports a
ancient explosion. And it is fitting that High School students
performing the experiment
are wiser than the professors of astronomy and cosmology and physics
who pretend
that there ever was a Big Bang explosion.

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:
(all snipped except this)
--- quoting Wikipedia on redshift ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

Redshifts are attributable to three different physical effects. The
first discovered was the Doppler effect, familiar in the changes in
the apparent pitches of sirens and frequency of the sound waves
emitted by speeding vehicles; an observed redshift due to the Doppler
effect occurs whenever a light source moves away from an observer.
Cosmological redshift is seen due to the expansion of the universe,
and sufficiently distant light sources (generally more than a few
million light years away) show redshift corresponding to the rate of
increase of their distance from Earth. Finally, gravitational
redshifts are a relativistic effect observed in electromagnetic
radiation moving out of gravitational fields. Conversely, a decrease
in wavelength is called blue shift and is generally seen when a light-
emitting object moves toward an observer or when electromagnetic
radiation moves into a gravitational field.

--- end quoting Wikipedia ---

So if we can have a gravitational lensing producing redshifts, why
not have electromagnetic Coulombs force lensing of holding together
a Cosmic atom? EM holding together the electrons to the protons.

With EM lensing there is no need for space to be in rapid motion,
rather
instead, Space is motionless. And there is never a worry or mystery as
to how any physics can have a Space traveling at speed of light, while
its galaxies are traveling at what speed?

If there ever was an Occam's razor of reasoning, surely, it is far
more
plausible to have slow moving galaxies in motionless Space and the
redshift due to a bent Space. Surely that scenario is far easier and
compelling than the scenario of a Space independent of the matter,
travelling upwards and beyond the speed of light, and reliant on 2D
geometry, to give a Doppler redshift.

There is a good reason that Big Bang theorists never discuss 3D
elliptic geometry.
Because their theory fails. They only talk about 2D elliptic geometry
where Space
has no edges and no center and where every point on the surface of the
sphere is
moving away from all other points.

But everyone knows that Space is not 2D. Everyone knows Space is 3D.
The
Big Bang does not work in 3D Euclidean nor does it work in 3D
Elliptic.

But the Atom Totality theory explanation of the redshift works in all
geometries.
In 3D Elliptic there is an edge and a center to the Universe. But
matter is confined
in 3D Elliptic.

The 3rd dimension in 3D Elliptic is a lens that covers 12 faces of a
dodecahedron.
Whether there are 12 lens for the Poincare Dodecahedral Space I am not
sure of.
Instead of the face being a flat pentagon, the face is a lens. And the
galaxies reside
in these lens. So as the light from one galaxy travels through this
lens to reach
another galaxy, it is refracted and thus redshifted.

The pros and cons of the Big Bang redshift :
Pros
(a) does predict a redshift since everything is moving away from each
other
Cons
(a) is stuck with only a 2D explanation, yet space is definitely 3D
(b) separates Space from Matter as independent entities
(c) must impart galaxies with speeds up to and surpassing that of
light
(d) resonance theory says that galaxies whether imparted with speed of
light or are carried by Space with speed of light, that these galaxies
would disintegrate.


Pros and cons of the Atom Totality redshift :
Pros
(a) natural offshoot of gravitational lensing is a EM lensing of the
atom held together by a nucleus
(b) offers a 3D explanation as a lens on the surface of a sphere
(c) makes Space and time a continuum and not separate entities
(d) has all galaxies with slow speeds and with Space as motionless
Cons
(a) there are no cons since it fits the data


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:
(all snipped except for this with its typo error)
(c) makes Space and time a continuum and not separate entities
(d) has all galaxies with slow speeds and with Space as motionless
Cons
(a) there are no cons since it fits the data

It is probably good that I made that typo error of saying Space and
time a continuum.
It is already known that Space and Time are a continuum. What I am
trying to focus
attention on is the idea of a Space-Time/Matter continuum. Special
Relativity already
has Space and time a continuum. But the important new concept is how
matter fits into
a Space Time continuum.

If the Big Bang with its explosion and redshifts of Space moving
faster than the speed of
light is to be believed in, then it implies that Space is separate
from Matter. And Physics
does not really allow such a concept of Space being independent of the
Matter that resides
in that Space.

Space-time-Matter continuum is what Quantum Mechanics has in its
duality of time and energy since mass and matter are parts of energy.

So the Big Bang theory of redshift, fails, just on the issue of how
matter within Space-time
are separated.

In that Atom Totality theory, Matter is dependent on Space-time, not
independent. And that
you can never have a situation of a Space moving at the speed of
light, whilst it carries
galaxies as if they were ships on a water floating along with the
rapid moving Space.

So the Big Bang believers never really focused on this issue that is a
utter contradiction to
Physics we know. Again, when you have the only theory on the corner or
block grocery store,
you tend to overlook these huge flaws and gaps of reasoning and
understanding.

---

Let me also address a question raised about the experiment with the
fiberglass to prove
that curvature of space causes redshift, and not a explosion of a Big
Bang. The question
was whether the greenhouse fiberglass panels were tinted to a certain
color like green tint
and which would then see all car headlights as red. Whether a tinted
panel forces all
white light to be red. That is a good question. But I tend to think
that even if a tinted
panel were used, that a clear, untinted panel can be found that
matches the redshift
of a tinted panel. In other words, redshifting occurrs in all these
panels due to refraction,
only that the tinted panel has a booster headstart in redshifting.

My greenhouse fiberglass panels are not clear, they are opaque and
they are somewhat
tinted, whether it is a green tint or a blue tint, I am not sure.
Regardless, a clear panel
can be made that matches the redshifting of the tinted ones, only it
is probably much
thicker of a panel to compensate for the refraction.

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

Let me first start off by saying that neither the Big Bang nor the
Atom Totality theories
are comfortable with reported large blueshifts from distant galaxies.
Both theories predict a predominance of
redshifts, especially the Atom Totality theory. Both are comfortable
with a few blueshifts
in nearby local galaxies. Blueshifts of rotation are expected. And
blueshifts of Andromeda
and Barnard star is acceptable, for they are tiny blueshifts and
nearby. But as for this report:


--- quoting about a quasar blueshift ---
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...=2005ApJ...618...

*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 ---

Both theories are uncomfortable with that report. Could it be a report
in error?

Or, could it be what the Wikipedia says about a gravitational lens
blueshift
only in this situation a EM lens blueshift?

--- quoting Wikipedia on redshift ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

Finally, gravitational
redshifts are a relativistic effect observed in electromagnetic
radiation moving out of gravitational fields. Conversely, a decrease
in wavelength is called blue shift and is generally seen when a
light-
emitting object moves toward an observer or when electromagnetic
radiation moves into a gravitational field.

--- end quoting Wikipedia ---

So that maybe, just maybe, the EM lens of a Atom Totality has a band
of blueshifted
galaxies at a special distance from Earth. Just like in that survey
where a "ring structure"
appears and not knowing if it is an intrinsic ring.

So maybe, just maybe, the Atom Totality theory with a predominance of
redshift has
a lens, such that a optical affect occurrs so that a Cosmic ring of
blueshifts occurrs
at a special distance from earth.

In summary, essentially the Big Bang and the Atom Totality predict
vast and
widespread and the overwhelming majority of shifts to be redshift, and
a rarity
of blueshifts.

Just as the fiberglass window panel sees every white light redshifted,
that only
the local galaxies and stars have a chance of a blueshift.

But because the EM lens of the Atom Totality is a lens of a optical
affect, that
there is a possibility that at a certain distance, the white light
becomes blueshifted
in a halo ring affect.

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:
Let me first start off by saying that neither the Big Bang nor the
Atom Totality theories
are comfortable with reported large blueshifts from distant galaxies.
Both theories predict a predominance of
redshifts, especially the Atom Totality theory. Both are comfortable
with a few blueshifts
in nearby local galaxies. Blueshifts of rotation are expected. And
blueshifts of Andromeda
and Barnard star is acceptable, for they are tiny blueshifts and
nearby. But as for this report:


--- quoting about a quasar blueshift ---
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...=2005ApJ...618....

*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 ---

Both theories are uncomfortable with that report. Could it be a report
in error?

Or, could it be what the Wikipedia says about a gravitational lens
blueshift
only in this situation a EM lens blueshift?

--- quoting Wikipedia on redshift ---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

Finally, gravitational
redshifts are a relativistic effect observed in electromagnetic
radiation moving out of gravitational fields. Conversely, a decrease
in wavelength is called blue shift and is generally seen when a
light-
emitting object moves toward an observer or when electromagnetic
radiation moves into a gravitational field.

--- end quoting Wikipedia ---

So that maybe, just maybe, the EM lens of a Atom Totality has a band
of blueshifted
galaxies at a special distance from Earth. Just like in that survey
where a "ring structure"
appears and not knowing if it is an intrinsic ring.

So maybe, just maybe, the Atom Totality theory with a predominance of
redshift has
a lens, such that a optical affect occurrs so that a Cosmic ring of
blueshifts occurrs
at a special distance from earth.

In summary, essentially the Big Bang and the Atom Totality predict
vast and
widespread and the overwhelming majority of shifts to be redshift, and
a rarity
of blueshifts.

Just as the fiberglass window panel sees every white light redshifted,
that only
the local galaxies and stars have a chance of a blueshift.

But because the EM lens of the Atom Totality is a lens of a optical
affect, that
there is a possibility that at a certain distance, the white light
becomes blueshifted
in a halo ring affect.


Sorry, I should have referenced this "survey" and the "halo ring of
the survey".

In this survey a curious ring is found, and whether it is intrinsic or
not?

--- quoting ---
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff...tt/papers/LSS/

The third layer (0.01 z 0.02) is dominated by the P-P supercluster
(left side of image) and the P-I supercluster extending up into the
ZoA terminating as the Great Attractor region (notably Abell 3627)
disappears behind a wall of Milky Way stars. An intriguing "ring" or
chain of galaxies seems to circle/extend from the northern to the
southern Galactic hemisphere (see also Figure 1). It is unknown
whether this ring-like structure is physically associated with the
cosmic web or an artifact of projection.

--- end quoting ---

So I ask the question whether the above Harvard furthest distant
blueshift
is a galaxy member belonging to this ring?

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...=2005ApJ...618...


So if the Harvard quasar blueshift is a member of the Caltech survey
reported
ring structure, then we may have solved a troublesome report. The
solution is
that the Cosmos has ring structure which is due to a EM lens of the
Atom
Totality.

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 am in the chapter of this book that I love the most, just
cannot wait to get here. It is the strongest single evidence
that the Universe is a Plutonium Atom Totality. It is the
observation of the position of all the galaxies and
the density of all the galaxies in the Universe.

In the Big Bang theory, we expect no ordering or organization
or pattern of the galaxies due to its explosion. But in the
Atom Totality theory, we expect a total pattern of where galaxies
are and how many in a region of Space.

The position of the galaxies matches the position of the
dots of the electron-dot-cloud of a plutonium atom. Galaxies
are very dense near the nucleus and decreases in density
trigonometrically the further away. If you ever studied the
Double Slit Experiment there are bands of density and
bands of voids and the proportion of dots is trigonometrically
distributed.

I have no reference to the 5f6 of Plutonium electron-dot-cloud
picture. I do have a picture in the book
THE ELEMENTS BEYOND URANIUM, Seaborg & Loveland, 1990 and page 73.

I do have several references of the distribution of galaxies:

Referring to this mapp of the cosmos of galaxies and especially the
Sloan Great Wall and the other Great Wall

http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~mjur...rse/all100.gif

Here is another good website:

http://www.astro.princeton.edu/universe/

And here is another good website:

http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff...tt/papers/LSS/

The point of this chapter is that it is the best and most
valuable evidence to date that the Big Bang theory is a fake
and that the Atom Totality theory is the true theory.

The position of galaxies follows the position of dots in the
electron-dot-cloud of the Schrodinger and Dirac Equations.
Especially its concentration in the Great Wall and Sloan
Great Wall with its Voids spaced regularly outwards.

So the Atom Totality theory predicts great walls of galaxies
near by where the Nucleus of the Atom Totality is, and between
the great walls are voids. And throughout the cosmic sky we
have intermittent walls with great density of galaxies and
then voids. This is a classical diffraction pattern as seen in
physics books.

Halliday & Resnick textbook PHYSICS, Part 2, Extended
Version , 1986. A picture of the Double Slit experiment diffraction
pattern is seen in this textbook on page
1138. The diffraction pattern is what the Great Wall
and Sloan Great Walls become in astronomy.

sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.math
Jan 13, 1:22*am
Date: Jan 13, 2010 2:22 AM
Author:
Subject: ascii art of a Physics Diffraction pattern (use in 4th)

For reference one can look at this page of 1138 in
Halliday & Resnick:
Halliday & Resnick textbook PHYSICS, Part 2, Extended Version ,
1986,
of page 1138.


And I am sure most every college physics textbook
has a picture of a diffraction pattern. What I want is to
resemble the diffraction pattern with an ascii art.

Each block represents a Wall of galaxies and the
intermediate space with no galaxies is a void.


|;;;;| *|;;;;;| * |;;;;;;| * *|;;;;;;;| * |;;;;;| * |;;;;;| *|;;;;;|
|;;;;| *|;;;;;| * |;;;;;;| * *|;;;;;;;| * |;;;;;| * |;;;;;| *|;;;;;|
|;;;;| *|;;;;;| * |;;;;;;| * *|;;;;;;;| * |;;;;;| * |;;;;;| *|;;;;;|
|;;;;| *|;;;;;| * |;;;;;;| * *|;;;;;;;| * |;;;;;| * |;;;;;| *|;;;;;|

So far in astronomy we have seen two Great Walls,
the Great Wall and the Sloan Great Wall and the
Atom Totality theory predicts more great walls beyond the
Sloan.

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

Alright, this is a diffraction pattern of light waves
on a straightedge


|;;;;| *|;;;;;| * |;;;;;;| * *|;;;;;;;| * |;;;;;| * |;;;;;| *|;;;;;|
|;;;;| *|;;;;;| * |;;;;;;| * *|;;;;;;;| * |;;;;;| * |;;;;;| *|;;;;;|
|;;;;| *|;;;;;| * |;;;;;;| * *|;;;;;;;| * |;;;;;| * |;;;;;| *|;;;;;|
|;;;;| *|;;;;;| * |;;;;;;| * *|;;;;;;;| * |;;;;;| * |;;;;;| *|;;;;;|


Now looking at these pictures of the galaxies
of the Universe, one sees that they form a
diffraction pattern of walls or clusters and then
voids intervening. So we have dense strips of
galaxies and then voids in between.


Below is a list of pictures showing the mapp of
galaxies. These pictures are probably the finest
set of pictures in all of astronomy for they are like
the mapp of what the Cosmos is. Same as an atlas
is indispensible for geography.


http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~mjur...rse/all100.gif


http://www.astro.princeton.edu/universe/


http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff...tt/papers/LSS/


http://www.astro.princeton.edu/universe/greatwalls.gif


So what is this evidence in favor of which theory? The Big Bang or
the
Atom Totality. Obviously you have
no diffraction pattern of galaxies in a Big Bang explosion. But in a
Atom Totality theory wherein Dirac's
New Radioactivities that emits from the nucleus of the
atom totality in the form of cosmic rays and gamma ray bursts, which
experience a "diffraction" and so in some swaths of the cosmic skys
there is little to no
new radioactivities growing astro bodies such as stars and galaxies
and you have a "void region".

Then we couple that supporting evidence with another
supporting evidence. In a Big Bang, it makes no sense that given a
galaxy that its surrounding neighborhood of
galaxies would be of a wide range of ages where some are 2X older
than
others. In the Atom Totality theory,
you have a wide assortment of ages of neighboring galaxies because
the
mechanism that creates galaxies and stars is via Dirac New
Radioactivities.

So the Big Bang is found to be a fake because it can not explain a
diffraction pattern of galaxies nor can it explain why neighboring
galaxies vary in ages.

Now recently a team of astronomers claimed that they have found three
galaxies that are the oldest known galaxies dating back to about
13.1
billion years.


http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1001/11hubble/


But the trouble with their reporting and with some other 20 or more
galaxies with a 10 redshift as the oldest galaxies, is that none of
these astronomers is reporting whether these galaxies are old or
young
galaxies. So that of the 3 galaxies that were recently in the news,
that two of them were old elliptic shaped galaxies whilst the other
was a young spherical or irregular galaxy. This is contradictory
evidence as well as the
variance in ages of the 20 or more other alleged 10-
redshifted reported.


When scientists take their theory (Big Bang) for granted, they never
seem to focus on the contradictions of their reports or analysis.
They
only
report what bolsters their failing theory. And other astronomers,
more
level headed, have claimed that
none of these were distant galaxies but rather nearby
galaxies that were awash of some energetic glow of a
nearby galaxy.

Some suspect that this type of news is only political
news to get the Webb Space Telescope launched. And that the news of
these distant galaxies is only a prop, or false prop.

I am in favor of getting the Webb launched, but in the meantime, we
should have far better reporting than this
mere opinionated hocus pocus.

Postscript: Chapter 18: "pi" and "e" and "i" explained; inverse fine
structure
constant and proton to electron mass ratio, speed of light, all linked
and explained.

I certainly like this device of a postscript to where I can write
ideas before I reach
the chapter they belong in.

I want to include my recent discovery of the speed of light as a
purely mathematical
derivation. The derivation comes out of geometry in that Euclidean
geometry is symmetry
broken into Elliptic and Hyperbolic geometries. This symmetry breaking
is the summation
of great circles in Elliptic divided by the Hyperbolic logarithmic
spiral.

I am still awe struck by that discovery. That without knowing any
physics, one can discover
what the speed of light must be for physics. What I did was take
strips or stripes as great-circles. For instance, for Earth I take
kilometer strips as great circles.

Here is how I did it for kilometer strips:

Let me use the Earth as a sphere (not its oblate sphere) and using
Earth's circumference as
40,000 km. So the width of the meridian stripes is in km wide. So for
one meridian I have a
distance of 4 x 10^4 km and since there are 4 x 10^4 such meridians
the total distance of all
these meridian stripes is 16 x 10^8 km. Now the distance of the
Logarithmic spiral as time is
about 5 x 10^3 km from 70 degree north to 70degree south latitude.

So we have for the speed of light 16x10^8 km/ 5x10^3 sec = 3 x 10^5 km/
sec
And whether we use meters or centimeters or other units, we end up
with
the speed of light, since the width compensates for the different
units.

So what I am awe struck about, is that geometry of a sphere surface
and
a logarithmic spiral, innately or intrinsically, or natively has the
speed of light
contained within being a sphere surface. That the distance of the
strips or
stripes of meridians divided by the log-spiral gives you the speed of
light.

No matter what size of sphere, the units are made irrelevant because
the width
of the strips. Of course one cannot compute the speed of light on a
tiny sphere
surface using km strip width but one can compute the speed of light on
a small
sphere like that of the globe in one's house by using strips of
millimeters or smaller.

What does this all mean? It means that Physics and Math are not
separate subjects
and that Physics dominates math. Physics tells us why pi and "e" have
the numeric
value they have and that the speed of light forms sphere surfaces.

We know that pi = circumference/diameter. Likewise, we can write that
speed of light = distance of summation of meridian strips/ log-spiral
strip

It is an amazing and awestruck discovery. That the speed of light
represents
the meridians of Elliptic geometry and how fast the Hyperbolic
geometry log-spiral
can cover them. It is purely geometrical, for the width gets rid of
all units. It is related
to the fact that pi is 22/7 whilst "e" is 19/7 so a difference of 3.

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