|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Chapt1 What is this theory #11 Atom Totality Theory replacing BigBang theory
What is the theory of the Atom Totality? One way to explore the question is to compare the Atom Totality theory to its rival the Big Bang. I should say a lot more about the remarkable deficiency of the stating of what the Big Bang theory is. Given the most active advocate of the Big Bang theory and asked to write a chapter about "What is the Big Bang theory" that it would be hard to write beyond one paragraph explaining the Big Bang theory for about all that can be said is "there was an explosion." And I would suppose the advocate would then refer to some book about the Big Bang which talks about what happened after 3 minutes, after 4 minutes, etc etc. When flawed science exists in the world of science, it is hard to explain or detail it and it becomes very vague, like the Big Bang theory. And it leaves more questions than any answers. What caused the Big Bang and what was the material of matter/energy of the Big Bang and what is time in a Big Bang? And why are all the Quantum Mechanics laws and rules violated by the Big Bang and when does the laws or rules of Quantum Mechanics come into existence for the Big Bang. So that if any scientist in the world at present were to write a book on the Big Bang theory with similar chapters as this book on the Atom Totality theory that the book would be horribly short in any detail. In fact I could write a whole book on just this chapter alone for the Atom Totality theory because it can include all that is known about the chemical elements and Atomic theory and Quantum Mechanics. But the Big Bang book writer faced with a chapter on "What is this Big Bang theory" can say only about a sentence or paragraph -- It was a Cosmic Explosion which created the Universe" What made it explode? What was it in the first place? And why does the Big Bang offer no clues as to the future, or the purpose of life? You see, when science has theories that cannot explain things, then you should and must distrust the theory. When the theory does not connect with other science and when the theory violates other physics theories such as Quantum Mechanics, then the sensible person should not buy the theory. In the past history of physics there have been other theories that were false and which followed a similar deficiency of unable to detail what the theory is. The phlogiston theory for heat and the fluidia theory for electricity are examples of old theories in physics which could not detail or explain the basic foundations of the theory. So you say heat is a fluid or you say that electricity is a fluid, but that never gives you any details of either heat or electricity. So I invite the most enamored lover of the Big Bang theory to write a chapter on the Big Bang of "What this Big Bang theory is" since I cannot see how they can say anything more than "there was a big explosion." In fact the name Big Bang theory suggests it is incapable of detailing the theory because if it had been named Big Explosion theory then the explanation may have said "in the beginning was a big-bang." On the other hand, the Atom Totality theory is so immensely rich of a science theory, that I could write a thousand pages alone on this one chapter. And a counterpart who loves the Big Bang theory writing about the supporting evidence for the Big Bang theory would have only one chapter of supporting evidence in the observation of a red shift expansion of the universe. So other than that observation, the Big Bang theory has no other supporting evidence. Not even the Cosmic Microwave Radiation supports the Big Bang because it is a quantized radiation at 2.71 K and utterly uniform with no fluctuations. The alleged fluctuations in recent past years were due to the fact that the precision of the measuring instruments had been surpassed. So for the past decades of the Big Bang theory, they have only one evidence that supports the Big Bang, whereas this book has more than 20 different categories and subcategories of evidence to support the Atom Totality theory. And this book gives an alternative explanation of the red shift, an alternative that does not even support the Big Bang and thus it has no supporting evidence. What is the theme or message of this inability or deficiency of explaining in detail what a theory of science is? The theme is that if a theory of science has a difficult time of explaining its foundations, then it is likely to not be a theory of science but a fakery. However, I do want to leave on a good note for the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang can be incorporated inside the Atom Totality theory given some modifications. In that when the Atom Totality went from a Uranium Atom Totality to that of a Plutonium Atom Totality via what I am guessing was a act of Spontaneous Fission that we can consider that act as a Mini Bang. An explosion like that of a gigantic cosmic gamma ray burst. But the reverse is not possible of fitting the Atom Totality theory inside of the Big Bang theory. And when LeMaitre first wrote about the Big Bang theory, 1920s or 1930s he called it the "Primeval Atom". So the explanation was the explosion of a primeval-atom. I should make some comments on the features of true science. That when science gets caught up in a debate between two rival competing theories, is there a logical testing procedure which can indicate, not prove mind you, which of the two theories is more true than the other? I believe the above two paragraphs may have uncovered a test of validity for rival theories. The test is that if theory A can incorporate theory B, given some modifications of B, but where theory B can never incorporate theory A given some modifications of A. Then theory A is likely to be the true theory. Now the underlying Logic of that test is the idea that a true theory cannot be modified to accomodate a false theory and thus be incorporated inside the false theory. Whereas a false theory can be modified and then fit inside the true theory. Now can we go back in science history and see if such a test would have worked or helped in the unraveling of which of two rival theories was more true than the other? How about Continental Drift and its rival of static-earth, and convection currents? How about Darwin Evolution and its rival of Lamarckian traits? Or Darwin Evolution and its rival of Biblical Genesis? Or how about in astronomy the competing theories of geocentric and heliocentric solar system? Or how about the rival theories of light as particle or light as wave? About the best example of rival competing theories where the test works well is the Newtonian Mechanics versus Quantum Mechanics. Best example because we still consider Newtonian Mechanics as a subset of QM for slow moving and massive objects. But is the test useful only for physics? I do not think so, because in biology I have a recent theory of metal causation for five diseases of Alzheimer Autism Parkinson Prion and Schizophrenia. And where the test applies in that a rival Prion theory of rogue proteins is modified to fit inside the metal theory but where the Metal theory cannot be modified to fit inside the rogue protein only theory. So here is a case example of two rival theories being put to this test and where the Metal theory is conferred more truth value than the rival prion theory. I am not going to spend time here on this test but just thought I should comment on it since it stuck out in my above writing. Just some food for thought. 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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Chapt1 What is this theory #11 Atom Totality Theory replacingBig Bang theory
On 9/29/2011 8:37 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
What is the theory of the Atom Totality? And why did you not crosspost to alt.sci.physics.plutonium ? One way to explore the question is to compare the Atom Totality theory to its rival the Big Bang. Yes Archie! And I would say that alt.sci.physics.plutonium is ideally suited for that! -- Jos |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Chapt1 What is this theory #11 Atom Totality Theory replacingBig Bang theory
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Given the most active advocate of the Big Bang theory and asked to write a chapter about "What is the Big Bang theory" that it would be hard to write beyond one paragraph explaining the Big Bang theory for about all that can be said is "there was an explosion." Nonsense. There are no explosions in the Big Bang model. -s |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
importance of Dirac to Atom Totality theory Chapt1 What is thistheory #12 Atom Totality Theory replacing Big Bang theory
Now I went to see how many times Dirac even mentions Big Bang theory
to sort of gauge whether Dirac was lukewarm about the Big Bang or whether he was disgusted with the Big Bang. Perhaps a accurate historian can fill in some details, for I perceive Dirac as somewhat hostile towards the Big Bang, although I have no evidence of that. In Dirac's book "Directions in Physics" 1978 he mentions the Big Bang but not a connotation of approval but only in a tone where Dirac needs to say what the present community beliefs lay in as a backdrop to his deriving his "new radioactivities". Dirac later goes on to say that his new-radioactivities is contradictory or above and beyond the establishment view of physics. In this book, Atom Totality Theory, Dirac has a major chapter with new- radioactivities as to how the Solar System and the Cosmos at large were formed. Dirac's new- radioactivities destroys the Nebular Dust Cloud theory and also the Big Bang itself. So maybe, early on in this book, I should mention the fact that Archimedes Plutonium is a continuation of the best of physicists that came before, John Bell and Paul Dirac. That the Atom Totality theory is not clear out of the blue theory, but a continuation of the most brightest of all physicists before. The two giants of 20th century physics, for which our present day blind physics community does not yet perceive were Dirac and Bell. So the reader should not think that Archimedes Plutonium discovered and built the Atom Totality theory in a vaccuum but rather, this theory is a further continuation of what Dirac and Bell came to conclude near the end of the 20th century. If one were to evaluate the feeling of Dirac towards the Big Bang theory, my impression from "Directions in Physics" is that he was not in acceptance of the Big Bang, because you cannot have favored new- radioactivities and still cling on to the Big Bang theory. Archimedes Plutonium http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Chapt1 What is this theory #10 Atom Totality Theory replacing BigBang theory | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | September 26th 11 07:20 PM |
Chapt 15 MECO theory replacing black-holes #307 ATOM TOTALITY,ONE-ATOM-UNIVERSE theory | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | November 17th 10 05:13 AM |
4th ed. book, preface #1; ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) theory;replaces Big Bang theory | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 176 | June 9th 10 05:43 AM |
Redshift and Microwave radiation favor Atom Totality and disfavorBig Bang #9; ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) theory; replaces Big Bang theory | Net-Teams, | Astronomy Misc | 1 | May 31st 10 05:19 PM |
MECO theory reinforced by Atom Totality theory #48 ;3rd edition book:ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 2 | May 21st 09 07:51 PM |