Physics does not explain why astro bodies spin or rotate which points out the fakeness of Big Bang and General Relativity; the Atom Totality theory however does explain the origins of rotation

"John C. Polasek" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 20:17:40 -0800, "FrediFizzx"
wrote:

"John C. Polasek" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 13:28:23 -0800, "FrediFizzx"
wrote:

"John C. Polasek" wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 18:21:34 -0800, "FrediFizzx"
wrote:

choppo
Do a
googlegroup search on my handle and your name. You should be able
to
figure it out from the vacuum expectation value of about 246 GeV.

"The vacuum expectation value" is defined how?

From the Fermi Coupling Constant,

G_F/(hbar*c)^3 = 1.16637 ×10^-5 GeV^-2

Your theory so far totally ignores this constant. It can't be
ignored
in any sensible theory that deals with the "vacuum". There is more
to
the "vacuum" than just eps0 and mu0. The Fermi Coupling Constant is
proof of that.

Fredi I gave it a shot, looked up Fermis CC and find no substantive
description of its function. Of course first I had to find out what
Gf
was and could not find it so I solved for it:
Gf = 1.378e-62 J m^3= 8.6*10^-53 m^3 GeV
What do you make of this?
Always something interesting going on in QED, but unfortunately not
science. .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi's_interaction

If you had yourself a good particle physics book, you would know what
to
make of it. But since you might be trying, here it is. You will have
to swallow the cgs pill as I am not going to convert it to SI. You
can
do that on your own. If you get stuck, ask for help.

G_F is pretty much obtainable from the decay of a muon and muon mass
and
lifetime. The muon lifetime equation is,

tau = 192*pi^3*hbar^7/(G_F^2*m_u^5*c^4)

Where tau is the muon lifetime and m_u is muon mass. The rest are
obvious. Since the muon's mass and lifetime are determined
experimentally, we can plug those values in and obtain a value for
Fermi's constant, G_F. The Wiki page is in natural units and has left
out the (hbar*c)^3. In cgs it is,

G_F = sqrt(2)/8 (g_w/M_W*c^2)^2 (hbar*c)^3 ~= 1.28E-52 m^3 GeV

You must have made a mistake in your calc above. Since the mass of
the
W boson is known, then the weak coupling constant can be computed from
the above expression. It comes out that g_w ~= 0.66. But anywise,
what
does this all have to do with the "vacuum"? Well, it is easy to see
in
the expression above that we have (hbar*c)^3 which is quantum "vacuum"
charge, sqrt(hbar*c), to the sixth power! So it must be related to
the
quantum "vacuum". The "vacuum" is not just electromagnetic. It is
"electroweak". If you really have the gumption, you could get
corresponding "vacuum" constant values for the electroweak "vacuum"
for
what eps0 and mu0 would be in SI units. Then after you do that, the
QCD
sector should also have corresponding "vacuum" constants also. Then
you
will have a more complete picture of the quantum "vacuum".

Your lesson for today: Now see if you can find out how G_F is related
to the vev = 246 GeV. It is posted online in quite a few places. I
will continue with it tomorrow if you get stuck.


Thanks Fredi, I worked your
tau = 192*pi^3*hbar^7/(G_F^2*m_u^5*c^4)
as tau = 2.9us vs 2.2us using my bogus value for GF. I didn't want
you to go through all that work. I like to work from scratch and I'm
danged if I would continue if I started wading into terms like pi^3,
hb^7, mu^5 and c^4. I'd be too suspicious.
I like the 192 though. We could maybe salvage something there.

Oops, sorry. Your value was right. I had 1.6637 instead of 1.16637.
Dropped a one there. What can I tell you? The decay of the muon is
worked out *from scratch* using QM and the Standard Model in any good
particle physics textbook and that expression is the result and matches
experimental evidence. You should do yourself a favor and take a look
to see where all the terms come from. ;-) It is only about 3 1/2 pages
long. Not too bad.

OK, guess you got stuck on finding out how G_F is related to vev ~= 246
GeV. It is very simple. Here it is,

G_F/(hbar*c)^3 = 1/(sqrt(2)(vev)^2)

Solve and get vev ~= 246.22 GeV

FrediFizzx

Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...uum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...cuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com

Physics of the Atom Totality gives the most exquisite example wherein
an electron can contain galaxies, stars and planets and Earth. And this
is the most profound difference between Atom Totality theory and Big
Bang. There really is nothing controversial about the Big Bang theory
and it will lead to its trashcanning.

In mathematics there is this nested function in that the numbers are
all nested into the number 1.

Now I am told that in physics there is another nested function in
holograms. I am told that if you have a hologram and cut a tiny piece
off, that this tiny piece has the entire whole hologram within it. At
least that is what I am told but have never witnessed this.

Now does life or biology have a nested function? I think it does, only
not as exquisite as the Atom Totality but a subdued nested function. I
speak of the fact that animal and plant bodies are composed of cells.
And can we think of the entire body as a gigantic cell. So that if we
were to pluck a few cells off the whole body, it is a smaller body in
and of itself, and can grow to be the larger whole body.

It is good that I spend some time on this topic of nested function
because I did not spend much time during the 1990s. And it is the most
profound feature of the Atom Totality theory. In the 1990s I had a
discussion with a Stanford physicist who believed the resolution scale
difference between quantum mechanics and astro physics was the heart of
solving both. And the Atom Totality theory addresses the scale
difference. And it is the heart of the theory, in that an atom held in
a hand is the same as the entire Universe itself. That is both bizarre
and profound. And causes the scale problems.

But as I said in an earlier post today, if you can accept the fact that
Experimental Physics of the 20th century already proved that the vacuum
of Space is teeming full of energy and of positrons, then you can
easily accept the idea that a proton or electron or quark is teeming
full of atoms.

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

I mentioned many times on the Internet in the 1990s what I thought of
philosophy and religion compared to science. I thought that philosophy
and religion are pre-science. Subjects that address issues when no
science exists on those issues. Sort of like explorers for the truth.
Once science gets into a subject it reveals the truth of the subject
and philosophy and religion are first explorers whose findings seldom
attain real truth.

Now I called this feature of the Atom Totality theory a nested function
of where the whole universe is one big atom the same as a atom of 231Pu
held in the hand. And the feature that a electron is composed of many
atoms. I called it nested function but I do not like that label. Better
yet is to call it part-whole identity.

So I am on the very foundation of Quantum Mechanics by asking whether
this feature of part-whole identity is equivalent to a well known
feature of Quantum Mechanics -- particle wave duality? So I am like a
philosopher of Quantum Mechanics at this moment by asking whether I can
derive part-whole identity from particle-wave duality? I am exploring
the most basic and fundamental ideas of Quantum Mechanics-- particle
wave duality and wondering if it yields part-whole identity?

In 20th century physics, particle wave duality was the most basic and
fundamental idea in Quantum Mechanics. But with the Atom Totality
theory, there is a new fundamental idea. The idea that the entire
observable Universe of night sky with galaxies and stars and planets
are all bits and pieces of the last 6 electrons of 231Pu. So how can an
electron be composed of atoms? This is part-whole identity.

Does it come from particle wave duality or is it independent? And which
is the more basic and fundamental? Does particle wave duality arise
from part-whole identity?

In the 1990s I also emphasized in many posts to the Internet that I
thought of particle wave duality as the existence function of Quantum
Mechanics. That you need two items in order for either one to exist.
You need something in order to talk about nothing. You need nothing in
order to talk about something. You need wave in order to see a particle
and you need a particle in order to make out a wave.

So if particle wave duality is the existence function for Quantum
Mechanics, what is the whole-part identity? If it is another existence
function, then those two (particle-wave and whole-part) are equivalent.
But if it is a different serving function then they are not equivalent.

To me, whole-part identity is a building block of the Universe. If I
built a concrete block house, then the building block are individual
concrete block. To build a Universe, atoms are the building block, but
why should the entire Universe itself be the same as a number of its
parts? And why should a subatomic particle consist of atoms?

I can say this much with some assurance, that if I were some God with
the task of building a Universe from scratch, and I was a God with
simplicity in mind, then the most simple Universe to construct would be
one in which the Whole was the same as its parts. I mean you cannot
make a more simple design than that, for every other Universe would
have to be markedly more complex and complicated.

I think perhaps the answer my lie within the Maxwell Equations. Notice
that 2 of the equations are static and 2 are in motion or dynamic. And
look at the particle-wave duality, is it not a static principle telling
us that existence occurs when things come in complementary pairs. And
look at the whole-part-identity, for is that a dynamic feature. Is that
not a feature telling us how the Universe is built and constructed.

Now of course in building a concrete house, the house will not be or
look like a individual block when finished. But it could look and be a
big block if one had a mind of building a big block from smaller
blocks.

What I am trying to get at, or probe or penetrate is the idea that a
Quantum Mechanics principle or feature of part-whole-identity is a
dynamic mechanism for which to grow or build the universe. If its Whole
is the same as some of its parts, then its reason for existence is to
grow and build some more.

Now I am well aware that the above is philosophical ramblings by me,
but once an experiment or reference to older experiments relates to any
of the above, then the above quickly becomes science and no longer
philosophical ramblings.

And let us bring into the conversation that of life. Is not the idea
that the human body is composed of cells while the whole body, although
it does not look like a cell, could be construed as a cell. And so what
would be the "benefit" to life to have such a system where the parts of
the whole resemble one another? Is it because whenever parts and whole
resemble one another that the system has the maximum growth or maximum
increase?

I need to explore more.


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

Now I am not sure if all of Space as a Sea of Positrons is considered a
monopole of + charge, I am not sure that the Universe needs a second
monopole existing somewhere. Whether all the electrons of the Atom
Totality would constitute a second monopole as - charged.

You see, the theory that Dirac spells out on his page 46 Directions in
Physics enunciates the existence of at least one monopole in all the
Universe. Whether 2 monopoles are required is not elucidated by Dirac.

I suppose I can look upon the observational data as for any clue. If
there is some vast matter to antimatter annihilation taking place in
the Cosmos would point to the existence of 2 monopoles. Perhaps this is
what is occurring in the case of quasar energies. That quasars are so
gravitationally dense stars that they begin to envelope the Space in
which they occupy and thus bring into contact positrons of the Space in
annihilation with electrons of mass of the quasar star. So the energy
of quasars are likely to be matter-antimatter annihilation due to
strong gravity. If that is true, then the Cosmos has at least 2
monopoles-- Sea of Positrons that constitues Space itself and secondly
all the mass and matter we see is part of another monopole.

I would hazard to guess that there must exist at least 2 monopoles.

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

a_plutonium wrote:


I read further on where Dirac describes a Price experiment with Lexan
etchings to see if monopole trail can be discovered. And Dirac called
Alvarez over this Price experiment but Alvarez was skeptical. Perhaps
Alvarez at that moment in his life was more focused on meteors
extincting dinosaurs than on fundamental physics. I do not know how the
Price Lexan experiment ever turned out.


--- quoting http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v35/i17/p1167_1 ---
Phys. Rev. Lett. 35, 1167 - 1169 (1975)
[Issue 17 - October 1975]
Comments on the Reported Observation of a Monopole

M. W. Friedlander
McDonnell Center for Space Sciences and Department of Physics,
Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri 63130
Received 25 August 1975

It is shown that the cosmic-ray event recently interpreted as the track
of a Dirac monopole can instead be plausibly described in terms of the
interaction of an ultraheavy cosmic-ray nucleus, having Z~96 and
velocity ~0.72c.

Original: P. B. Price, E. K. Shirk, W. Z. Osborne, and L. S. Pinsky,
Evidence for Detection of a Moving Magnetic Monopole, Phys. Rev. Lett.
35, 487 (1975)

--- end quoting http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v35/i17/p1167_1 ---

Funny, Dirac did not give the full name of Price in his book so had to
search it up.

I wonder if Price is still alive. I know Dirac is deceased.

But if Price is still alive and in good thinking condition, whether
someone can put the question to him--- suppose Space is the Dirac Sea
of Positrons and would that Space being all + charged, constitute a
magnetic monopole?

Then put this question to Price, given an Atom Totality theory where
all mass and matter that we see in stars and galaxies and planets is
all parts and pieces of the electron mass of the Atom Totality, and
would that constitute another magnetic monopole, that is a negative
charged magnetic monopole?

It is best to ask the old guard of physics who actually worked and had
history on the subject. And I suppose Alvarez is also deceased. But the
book also mentions a professor George in Syndey. Are all these people
deceased?

Surely there must be someone alive who is carrying on the search for
magnetic monopoles. Because according to the Atom Totality theory, a
magnetic monopole is not to be found amoung the stars and galaxies but
is to be found as a cosmic phenomenon, and involving the vastness of
Space itself. That Space is a magnetic monopole.

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

I wrote a few minutes ago:
(huge snips)
So you can kind of see where I am going. That you need a tiny bit less
energy to build a new atom of higher atomic number, say hydrogen going
into helium, and quite a bit more energy when we want to split apart an
atom into smaller atomic numbered atoms, say helium into hydrogen
atoms. The more or less energy is to compensate for the force of
gravity (if it exists in the nucleus).

Our modern day physics devices should be amply refined to be able to
distinguish whether this tiny bit more or less energy is involved in
building or breaking up of nuclei.
I am not aware of any numbers data but I suspect the above experiment
has already been performed and no attention paid to the fact that a
tiny amount of energy was never accounted for. It was sweep under the
carpet and said that it was within "experimental error". But if a good
team of experimental physicists would reopen this issue of whether
gravity exists inside the nucleus or does not exist, then I think some
great new physics will be opened.

I reposted to sci.astro because the Sun already is a huge experiment
that would prove one way or the other. Previous post I included
sci.physics.particle thinking that a particle accelerator or even
fusion tokamak machines may be able to pinpoint the small amount of
less or greater than energy accounting.

But I think the Sun itself in a simple observational physics test can
provide the answer.

You see, if gravity does not exist in the nucleus of atoms, then the
amount of helium in our Sun is biased in favor of more helium than in
hydrogen given the time of the Sun's fusion process. If gravity does
not exist in nuclei of atoms would favor the larger buildup of helium
rather than the reverse of breakup of helium into hydrogen atoms. For
it is easier and less energy for hydrogen atoms to buildup into a
helium atom than for a helium atom to split apart into hydrogen atoms.

If gravity exists in the nuclei of atoms then there is no favoritism,
but if gravity does not exist then there is a slight favoritism to
buildup heavier nuclei than for there is to split apart.

So by careful examination of the Sun or Stars what we should find is a
tiny slight increase of helium atoms for which all the other theories
cannot account for, except this idea that gravity does not exist in the
nuclei of atoms.

And there is another experiment involving uranium. The amount of
uranium in the Universe is a large amount compared to the preceding
elements. The cosmic abundance of uranium is a conundrum. However, if
one considers the amount of cosmic abundance of Ac before thorium and
of Pa before uranium would suggest that if no gravity exists in the
nuclear region of atoms then these abundances make sense.

But I think the Sun is our best lab, and to find out if there is a
small number of more helium atoms than that accounted for by stellar
dynamics.

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

In other words, if gravity exists in the nucleus of atoms, then the
proportion of helium to hydrogen should be largely in favor of an
increased amount of helium nuclei over that of hydrogen nuclei. The
reason being very obvious that gravity is a ancillary sideshow
phenomenon that Space is a Sea of Positrons. And since a sea of
positrons does not exist in the nuclei of atoms, there is no gravity
there.

Gravity only exists as a force in electron-space-regions of atoms and
because our observable universe is the electron space region of the
Atom Totality we see gravity.

So a careful analysis of the proportion of helium to hydrogen in our
Sun or other stars should reveal the fact that there is no "surplus of
helium". If gravity existed in nuclei of atoms, the Sun should have a
surplus of helium versus hydrogen.

And we should be able to perform an experiment where we turn hydrogen
into helium and the reverse of where we turn helium into hydrogen. And
if, a big if, gravity exists then it should be a tiny bit easier to
turn hydrogen into helium and a tiny bit more difficult to turn helium
into hydrogen. The difference in energy would be the accounting of
gravity.

But as far as I know there is no such difference and because there is
no difference in energy means that the nuclei of atoms does not have a
force of gravity. Gravity does not exist in the nuclei of atoms.

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

a_plutonium wrote:
In other words, the piece of paper that holds iron filings with the bar
magnet placed below and where we see the nice round outline of the
Coulomb force upon the iron filings.

What we see on that sheet of paper of its iron filings is 10-40 of the
Coulomb force that the bar magnet actually produces.


Correction: 10^-40


So any intelligent life form throughout the Cosmos, as they see and
observe the force of gravity, are seeing only 1/10^40 of the Sea of
Positrons as Space that forms the force of gravity.

A close approximation of the volume of the Universe with our present
knowledge is about 10^80 m^3

My point of the previous message is that if you look at the iron
filings on a sheet of paper with the bar magnet held below then one can
envision that the iron filings is only 10^40 of the full strength of
the bar magnet. In other words the iron filings is a cross section of
the magnetic force of the bar magnet, in which 10^40 other cross
sections added would include all the magnetic force of the bar magnet.

In a similar argument, when we put the Sea of Positrons that
constitutes Space at the nucleus of the Atom Totality and where Sun and
planets comprise one cross section of the entire Cosmos, then there are
10^40 more cross sections to comprise the entire Universe.

And it may mean that the force of gravity varies with distance in the
cosmos at large, just as the iron filings on a sheet of paper vary in
magnetic intensity depending on how far away the bar magnet is held to
the sheet of paper.

So that in the late 1990s when astronomers reported an acceleration of
the Cosmic expansion in distant stars, may not be the case, but rather
we are seeing a different gravitational intensity in the region of
those stars.

And if it is found that gravity varies with distance across the Cosmos,
may be a help to the mapping of the stars and galaxies in the Universe.
At present we have alot of voids and alot of clustering of galaxies
(Great Wall), but if gravity intensity varies, then a review of the
Cosmic distribution of galaxies my reveal a quantization such that
almost every galaxy is arranged in a perfect pattern spaced
equidistant. I forget the names of the lead researchers mapping the
galaxies of the Cosmos (Huchra comes to mind but memory is not good on
this). Anyway, alot of voids and clustering is now seen, but if gravity
varies with distance, then a recalibration of all the galaxies may turn
out that they are equidistantly spaced with mass as a factor.

And so the case maybe that the Earth and Sun and Milky Way galaxy lie
in a region of the Cosmos where the cross section of gravity is a 10^40
weaker than EM force and the length of the Cosmos in terms of total
number of cross sections is 10^40 and thus the volume of the Cosmos is
10^80.

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

a_plutonium wrote:
(snipped)

Maybe our science equipment or instruments are still too primitive to
find the alleged gravitational energy residing inside the nuclear
region. But that only postpones these experiments until the day we are
more advanced in technology. Because the question at stake here, is
that all of the science community believes and expects there to be a
force of gravity of protons to neutrons or neutrons to neutrons or
protons to other protons. But I believe there is no force of gravity in
the nucleus of atoms.

Just as the StrongNuclear force resides only inside the nuclear region,
I surmized from the Atom Totality theory that gravity only resides
outside the nuclear region of atoms, and specifically -- in the space
where the electron dot cloud resides. So if StrongNuclear force is
restricted to only nuclear regions, then we need the experimental proof
that gravity either does not reside in the nuclear region or does.

Now here is a ascii art work of what the 231Pu Atom Totality looks
like. It has 6 lobes represented by the 6 lines and the galaxies would
be uniformly spaced but would be more dense and concentrated towards
the nucleus and would be sparsed and thinned out as you go a distance
from the nucleus.

::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::


Now here is a picture from the work of Huchra and Geller of the
galactic distribution.

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~huchra/zcat/

If you look carefully you can see that it is 3 lobes because it is only
the northern hemisphere. If the southern hemisphere were mapped then
you would probably (not sure) see the continuation of the 3 lobes. The
voids, in other words are the demarking of the lobes of the Atom
Totality.

Now what would be fun to do, is to enter the Huchra & Geller mapping
into a supercomputer which is asked to apply a mathematical function.
The function being that what would the Huchra & Geller mapping end up
as if every galaxy is equidistant with a distance from the nucleus
function.

You see what I am saying. That the Huchra & Geller mapping is a version
of my diagram above. You remember the old puzzles we used to get as
young kids when we had dots on a page and once we connected the dots
then the outline of the "object" was revealed. Same thing with the
Huchra & Geller map above, in that the Universe is a uniform structure
because it is an Atom Totality and that the pattern is 6 lobes with
galaxies evenly spaced with a distance function.

On the subject of StrongNuclear Force with its confinement to the
nuclear region. We do not expect to see the StrongNuclear Force outside
the nucleus of atoms. Why is this? Because the StrongNuclear force
occurrs only when the nuclear-electrons spill out of the neutrons
inside the nucleus of atoms and these nuclear-electrons run around
holding together all the protons in the nucleus. Nuclear-Electrons are
different from the electrons that surround outside the nucleus of
atoms, and let me call them Regular-electrons. Regular-Electrons are
held to atoms by the Coulomb force and these electrons have a SPACE.
And that space is a sea-of-positrons which yields the force we know of
as gravity.

So, my point is this, we well know that the StrongNuclear force is
confined to the nuclear region of atoms due to the characteristics of
the Nuclear-Electron. And thus, the Regular-Electron that is outside
the nucleus and floats around in a Space outside the nucleus and gives
rise to the force of gravity--- that gravity does not exist in the
nucleus but only exists where this sea-of-positron Space exists.

So we have a completed symmetry of our forces of physics. That the
StrongNuclear is confined to only the nucleus and has no gravity within
the nucleus, whereas the force of Gravity is confined to only outside
the nucleus.

Now, when a supercomputer verifies that the above Huchra mapping is a 3
lobed pattern of the northern hemisphere with galaxies equidistant
spacings, then the supercomputer would turn around and act as a
predictor of where the next unmapped galaxy in fact exists before the
observers actually see the galaxy.

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

Mr Plutonium,

Please can you add my email address to your list of contacts -



I'm very interested in getting a copy of your biography and reading
more about your career.

Regards

Cassius.
a_plutonium wrote:
a_plutonium wrote:
(snipped)

Maybe our science equipment or instruments are still too primitive to
find the alleged gravitational energy residing inside the nuclear
region. But that only postpones these experiments until the day we are
more advanced in technology. Because the question at stake here, is
that all of the science community believes and expects there to be a
force of gravity of protons to neutrons or neutrons to neutrons or
protons to other protons. But I believe there is no force of gravity in
the nucleus of atoms.

Just as the StrongNuclear force resides only inside the nuclear region,
I surmized from the Atom Totality theory that gravity only resides
outside the nuclear region of atoms, and specifically -- in the space
where the electron dot cloud resides. So if StrongNuclear force is
restricted to only nuclear regions, then we need the experimental proof
that gravity either does not reside in the nuclear region or does.

Now here is a ascii art work of what the 231Pu Atom Totality looks
like. It has 6 lobes represented by the 6 lines and the galaxies would
be uniformly spaced but would be more dense and concentrated towards
the nucleus and would be sparsed and thinned out as you go a distance
from the nucleus.

::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::


Now here is a picture from the work of Huchra and Geller of the
galactic distribution.

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~huchra/zcat/

If you look carefully you can see that it is 3 lobes because it is only
the northern hemisphere. If the southern hemisphere were mapped then
you would probably (not sure) see the continuation of the 3 lobes. The
voids, in other words are the demarking of the lobes of the Atom
Totality.

Now what would be fun to do, is to enter the Huchra & Geller mapping
into a supercomputer which is asked to apply a mathematical function.
The function being that what would the Huchra & Geller mapping end up
as if every galaxy is equidistant with a distance from the nucleus
function.

You see what I am saying. That the Huchra & Geller mapping is a version
of my diagram above. You remember the old puzzles we used to get as
young kids when we had dots on a page and once we connected the dots
then the outline of the "object" was revealed. Same thing with the
Huchra & Geller map above, in that the Universe is a uniform structure
because it is an Atom Totality and that the pattern is 6 lobes with
galaxies evenly spaced with a distance function.

On the subject of StrongNuclear Force with its confinement to the
nuclear region. We do not expect to see the StrongNuclear Force outside
the nucleus of atoms. Why is this? Because the StrongNuclear force
occurrs only when the nuclear-electrons spill out of the neutrons
inside the nucleus of atoms and these nuclear-electrons run around
holding together all the protons in the nucleus. Nuclear-Electrons are
different from the electrons that surround outside the nucleus of
atoms, and let me call them Regular-electrons. Regular-Electrons are
held to atoms by the Coulomb force and these electrons have a SPACE.
And that space is a sea-of-positrons which yields the force we know of
as gravity.

So, my point is this, we well know that the StrongNuclear force is
confined to the nuclear region of atoms due to the characteristics of
the Nuclear-Electron. And thus, the Regular-Electron that is outside
the nucleus and floats around in a Space outside the nucleus and gives
rise to the force of gravity--- that gravity does not exist in the
nucleus but only exists where this sea-of-positron Space exists.

So we have a completed symmetry of our forces of physics. That the
StrongNuclear is confined to only the nucleus and has no gravity within
the nucleus, whereas the force of Gravity is confined to only outside
the nucleus.

Now, when a supercomputer verifies that the above Huchra mapping is a 3
lobed pattern of the northern hemisphere with galaxies equidistant
spacings, then the supercomputer would turn around and act as a
predictor of where the next unmapped galaxy in fact exists before the
observers actually see the galaxy.

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