Chapt6 Deciding Experiments in the history of science #18; AtomTotality theory 5th ed.

Deciding Experiments in physics

I think most books on science never talk about the difference between
supporting evidence and an experiment of deciding evidence. A lot of
the junk that is inside of physics today
such as string theory, superstring theory cannot even have just normal
supporting evidence for it, since no-one can even do a simple
experiment for string and superstring, yet this junk has penetrated
into mainstream physics. Other nonsense like black-holes are
experimentally void also. At least the nonsense of neutron stars and
Higgs boson allow for
some experimentation, but in both cases, those objects are more of a
flight of imagination than they are solid physics science.

I am not sure than any encyclopedia, even Wikipedia, has an entry on
the subject of
"Deciding Experiment". But I do know of a great example of a deciding-
experiment that took place in the 20th century and culminated with the
Bell Inequality with the Aspect
Experimental result and which would lead to the concept of
Superdeterminism. It started
with the question of whether you sent a signal to one end of the
Universe and another signal to the opposite end of the Universe and
whether those signals are connected. This
question ended when Bell devised his Inequality and the Aspect did the
Experiment.

Deciding Experiments involve at least two rivalling theories and the
experiment ends up
trash canning one of the theories, leaving only one theory remaining.
One could say that
sometimes both theories are incorporated as one, in the case of the
Double Slit verifying that matter behaves as both particle and wave.

In the case of the Steady State Model of the Universe versus the Big
Bang Model, the
deciding experiment there was the redshift of galaxies, the further
the galaxy was, the more
redshifted its lightwaves were. A Steady State Model could not justify
a redshift but a Big Bang explosion could. But the trouble with the
redshift, is that it was unexplained as to what it really was, even to
this day the redshift is clouded in mystery as to what is actually
going on.

In the case of the Big Bang versus the Atom Totality, a deciding
experiment has already come in and it is a very strong deciding
experiment, much stronger than the redshift disposing the Steady State
and keeping the Big Bang, because, again, we do not know what the
redshift is all about and in this book I offer a new experiment that
goes counter to the redshift. But for the Big Bang and Atom Totality
we have indisputable evidence that the cosmic background microwave
radiation is blackbody radiation. That type of radiation exists only
inside a atom, for it is cavity radiation. Cavity radiation destroys
the Big Bang
as a theory of science.

I see a need to expand this chapter on the history of science and
the history of this
Atom Totality theory in particular. I need a confluence of
Superdeterminism with history.
We normally think of the subject of "history" as the simple faithful
recording of the
facts of the past as to what happened. Trouble is that we often do
not
see or understand
the links of what happened and why things happened in the manner
that
they happened.
Much of history, whether it be general history or specific history
such as the history of
physics has spurious interpretations, disguising as facts. Causes
and
effects are
spuriously given and interpretated as factual. Although the history
of
say physics or
biology would be less spurious than the history of say a country and
its politics and
economics and social web.


Another shortfall of history, whether it be history of physics or
history of a political
country, is that we view history as a "absolute truth", sort of like
a
Newtonian
Absolute Space and Time frame of reference. What I mean by this, is
that given
a date such as 1860s we think that the history of the world should
emphasize that
the USA had a Civil War raging on and the history mostly talks about
wars and
leaders in various countries, whereas a truer reflection of history
of
humanity in
the 1860s is that we were beginning to have photography technology,
radio
technology with the Maxwell Equations, the start of internal
combustion engines,
start of submarines. In other words, technology in history is more
important than
what wars were going on and what leaders were doing in various
countries.


This Hierarchy or Levels of Engineering is more telling of history
than is what
country politics and economics was occurring. In the next two
decades
from
2010 to 2030, it is more important in history as to solving energy
technology
than to solving squabbles and wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and other
places.


A theory of Science itself, such as the Big Bang theory or the Atom
Totality theory
can be seen as a Level of Engineering. Theories are thus-- Models of
Engineering--
and how good they work as a model, the more truth value they have.
So
the Big Bang could not exist as a Model, as a theory, unless it had
some supporting evidence, like
the Microwave background or the redshift of galaxies. But when the
Microwave
and redshift turn out to be against the Big Bang then the theory
does
not work and
is dismissed.


In the past, science used philosophy to talk about the "history of
science" and this
unfortunately led to this Newtonian Absolutism of the history of
physics or other
sciences. There was obnoxious talk of "paradigm shift". But in an
Atom
Totality
with Superdeterminism, then theories of science and the history of
science becomes
more like Engineering Models where the models work, or are surpassed
by other
models that work better. So we have a sort of Pragmatism of history.
If a model
of a history is formulated which fits the facts as alleged facts or
otherwise, fits them
better than another model, then we use the superior model.


So for example, the history of geology needed a long period of time
in
which it was
considered that the Continents were static through time and were not
moving, and then
only in the 20th century, could geology move into a theory of
Continental Drift, since
we had the instruments, and levels of organization to make that new
model of
Continental Drift. We actually had sophisticated electronics to
monitor an
entire continental plate and tell if it moved a few centimeters in one
direction or
the other in a year elapsed time. Likewise, the Atom Totality theory
could not have
been borne
in 1920s or 1930s but had to wait to have a Big Bang interloper
until
1990 to be
borne. The Atom Totality theory needed the Big Bang theory, even
though it is a
fake theory, it needed it to move into the true theory of Atom
Totality. Just as the
Big Bang theory needed the Steady State theory of the Universe that
preceded the
Big Bang theory. So the progression of theories-- prior to 1930 was
the Steady State
theory -- then the Big Bang replaced the Steady State and then after
the 1990s
the Atom Totality replaces the Big Bang. That progression was needed
because not until the 1990s, was engineering good enough to
definitively
say that the microwave background radiation is without a doubt
blackbody
radiation.


So these progressions of replacement are similar to Engineering
Models
that replace
old outdated and unusable models. We do not want to return to whale
oil to light
up homes as a energy technology, and we thus progressed into coal/
oil/
natural gas
but now we are faced with those fossil fuels as destroying the
environment and must
be replaced by a renewable clean energy-- volcanoes as geothermal of
tapping into
the interior of Earth of its volcano energy.


Or we can analogize metaphorically to the Wright brothers first
airplanes as the Steady
State Theory which moved to the airplanes of the World War I and II
as
the Big Bang
theory of physics, which has moved to the airplanes and spaceships
of
2011 as the
Atom Totality theory. So a theory of science is a feat of
engineering,
levels of engineering
to put together a model that works best given all the facts and data
available.


The Big Bang no longer has the Microwave Background nor the Doppler
redshift
working in its favor but working against it. Here the Atom Totality
theory has
usurped the Microwave since it is a Blackbody Microwave and has
usurped the
redshift as not even being Doppler, but is something altogether
different than a
measure of speed or distance, and more than likely it is a measure of
the curvature
of space, where an atom is highly curved of its electron lobes of the
plutonium atom
5f6 subshell.


In an Atom Totality theory, since it has superdeterminism, then the
subject of
history, whether a country or nation's history or the history of
science such as
the history of physics, all those histories are changed, because
superdeterminism
alters how we understand history.

I am going to check to see if Wikipedia has a entry for "deciding
experiment" but I doubt it.


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 went to look up whether Wikipedia talked about "deciding
experiments" compared to
run of the mill experiments. It did not.

--- quoting Wikipedia on what is a science experiment ---
Experiment is the step in the scientific method that arbitrates
between competing models or hypotheses.[1][2] Experimentation is also
used to test existing theories or new hypotheses in order to support
them or disprove them.[3][4] An experiment or test can be carried out
using the scientific method to answer a question or investigate a
problem. First an observation is made. Then a question is asked, or a
problem arises. Next, a hypothesis is formed. Then experiment is used
to test that hypothesis. The results are analyzed, a conclusion is
drawn, sometimes a theory is formed, and results are communicated
through research papers.
--- end quote ---

So it looks as though I will have to elaborate. Those in science,
likely already know the difference between
a Deciding-experiment and a run of the mill experiment. Basically, the
difference is that you are testing two
theories, one against the other for the experiment is designed to show
one is true and the other false.

The Bell Inequality with the Aspect Experiment is a case example of a
Deciding Experiment where Quantum Mechanics is true not just for the
small micro scale, but where Quantum Mechanics is true stretching over
the
vast distances of Space. In other words, the Aspect Experiment
interpreted to its full extent is that the Universe itself is an atom
since Quantum Mechanics is large scale.

What makes a deciding experiment stronger than a normal experiment is
that the deciding-experiment encompasses two theories all in one
experiment.

So the Atom Totality theory and Big Bang theory have already been
tested by at least two deciding-experiments
(i) cosmic microwave background radiation is blackbody--hence an atom
interior (ii) Bell Inequality with Aspect Experiment means the
Universe is large scale quantum mechanics, hence an atom.

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