|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
4th ed. book, preface #1; ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) theory;replaces Big Bang theory
Alright, this is the 4th edition of this book. In the first
three editions, I have not been able to make the book flow coherently, since I had all the posts rather mixed up and not following the chapters. So this edition, essentially is the organizing of this book so that the sequence of posts follows this chapter layout. And so that the reading of these posts, is a graceful flow of reading. Plutonium Atom Totality theory Chapters of this book: I. the theory *(1) what is this theory? *(2) pictures of the Atom Totality theory *(3) history of the theory and precursor hints II. Observational and experimental support *(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 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
|
|||
|
|||
4th ed. book, preface #1; ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) theory;replaces Big Bang theory
On Apr 16, 2:53*am, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote: Alright, this is the 4th edition of this book. In the first three editions, I have not been able to make the book flow coherently, since I had all the posts rather mixed up and not following the chapters. So this edition, essentially is the organizing of this book so that the sequence of posts follows this chapter layout. And so that the reading of these posts, is a graceful flow of reading. **(20) Purpose and meaning of life You mean "the meaning of liff", don't you? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
rethink of redshift 4th ed. book, preface #2; ATOM TOTALITYtheory
In the prior editions I tried to list the evidence that is the
strongest in favor of the Atom Totality and the most damaging to the Big Bang. I still believe the density and distribution of galaxies is the "seeing is believing" supportive evidence. That you cannot have a interference diffraction pattern such as the double-slit experiment on the Cosmos of galaxies, yet that is what we see in the density and distribution of galaxies. What I want to do is talk about the most immediate and highly supportive evidence that the Atom Totality theory is the true theory and that the Big Bang is a fake theory. I believe what will happen is that the astronomy and cosmology physics will highly support and indicate the truth of the Atom Totality theory but since the distances are so far away, that the pattern and distribution of galaxies that is equal to the distribution of the electron-dots of the electron-dot-cloud of a Plutonium Atom is not enough evidence for the weak minded physicist. And that the overwhelming evidence that even the weak minded physicist cannot dismiss will be evidence in our own backyard-- our Solar System. So the day in which it is announced that say the Earth and Sun are twice as old as Jupiter and Saturn, is the day in which the Atom Totality theory will remove the Big Bang theory. Or the day in which it is found a chemical substance that dates the Solar System at 10 billion years of age. That the acceptance of one theory over an old theory takes place if the evidence is nearby. It is sad that science and physics rely on closeness or nearby evidence even though faraway evidence becomes overwhelming. As for my own journey with the Atom Totality theory, it was never that of supporting data or supporting evidence. It was from the start in November of 1990, that the beauty of symmetry or harmony that the Universe had to be an atom just as all matter is of atoms, that the Atom Totality theory was borne. The logical symmetry and beauty allowed me to discover it, much like the discoveries by Dirac in the early 1900s with quantum mechanics, that the logical symmetry demands it to be true. And then afterwards mount the supporting data. So the above listed chapters are what I consider the best available evidence that the Atom Totality theory is the true theory and that the Big Bang is a fake theory. Now I am going to do something that maybe a first in book writing. I am going to add post-scripts to the page, in which I write about something important in science but which is out of place in the book and will have to pick up that post-script at a future moment in the book. This was the problem I was having in writing the 1st through 3rd editions in that I was having too many new ideas that the book was not flowing nor organized. So here, in this edition, I strive for organization but can add new ideas that are out of place by calling them a "Post-script." Post-script: I just recently finished a book called "Correcting Math" and the last pages talked about the speed of light and how there is a desert between slow moving objects and the speed of light. Top speeds of galaxies is about 200 to 500 km/sec. The earth moves at 30 km/sec, and the sun at 20 km/sec. Alpha particles move at 15,000 km/sec and beta particles about half the speed of light. I gave a outline of why the neutrino rest mass is zero. That would leave the fastest rest mass particle to be the beta-particle. And the desert of no rest mass speed is from 1/2(c) to the speed of light c. This means that astronomers and physicists have it all wrong about galaxies moving with nearly the speed of light. It means that the most faraway galaxy of huge redshift is probably moving at a speed of between 20 km/sec to less than 500 km/sec. And that we need a huge rethink of redshift. In fact, I outlined that Special theory of Relativity works, only if the speed of light covers most of the range of speeds possible. This means that the fastest rest mass speed should be the beta particle at 1/2(c) and that all other speeds from 1/2(c) to c itself is covered only by light speed, or light slowed down. It means that Special Relativity exists only when the speed of light is the top speed and where the majority range of speeds is covered only by light slowed down. Doppler redshift occurs but on a tiny scale in astronomy because the galaxies are not moving away at such speeds. Rather instead what causes the huge redshifts is a geometry effect. Consider the cosmos as a large ellipsoid or a sphere surface and as the light from distant galaxies eventually reach us that light has been bent to the curvature of the cosmos. A good analog is a coin in a pond where the light is bent distorting where the coin actually is. It is redshifted. Now suppose the pond is made deeper and deeper and as the coin falls deeper and deeper, it is distorted or redshifted even more. So in this viewpoint, almost all galaxies have the same intrinsic speeds. And the reason for the huge redshift of faraway galaxies is not due to intrinsic speed, but rather, due to the fact that the light travelling from these distant galaxies was so drastically bent due to the geometry curvature of the Cosmos, that by the time it reaches us, it is redshifted. So the redshift tells us nothing about the speeds of those faraway galaxies, but tells us how much of a curvature the cosmos has. (chapter 16: shape of Cosmos) About the only supporting evidence of the Big Bang is the redshift, but the redshift is more about geometry of the cosmos, rather than some ancient explosion that ushered in a Big Bang. Redshift as a geometry effect can occur in a nonexplosion universe and is simply a measure of the degree of curvature of space. P.P.S. Now I can do postscripts if I promise not to do too many in a book, otherwise it is disorganized again. 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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Special Relativity requires "speed zones, and a speed desert" what is
Archimedes Plutonium wrote: (some snipping) Plutonium Atom Totality theory Chapters of this book: I. the theory *(1) what is this theory? Actually the theory is easier to explain than is the Big Bang, because everyone in science has to learn the atomic theory. And so a final step of the Atomic theory is to say the Cosmos is a big atom. And this is how we get quantum strangeness in that the Cosmos is the same item as what it is composed of. *(2) pictures of the Atom Totality theory *(3) history of the theory and precursor hints I wanted to spend some time on the observation and experiment support. I do not know how the Big Bang will finally be swept away into the garbage of shame. What observation or experiment will discard the fake theory. But we do have clues of past theories, especially geology as to how a old decrepit theory gets displaced. In the Continental Drift or Plate Tectonic theory which replaced the Stationary Continents, it finally took the observation of MidAtlantic seafloor spreading to win the Continental Drift theory. There was mounting evidence all along, but when the mechanism for drift of continents by the seafloor spreading, the rift and the movement apart of the seafloor, when this mechanism was observed to be true, then the Continental Drift theory won. So it is likely that the Atom Totality theory will follow a similar pattern of acceptance. That not until a "mechanism" of the atom totality is observed or experimented with, that the Big Bang will linger. And the perfect mechanism of the Atom Totality theory is the Dirac new radioactivities which in this book is chapter 6. If we notice that new atoms or new matter is how the planets grow or the Sun grows from Dirac new radioactivities, and we can notice this here in our own Solar System, measure it and experiment with it. So once we show this mechanism of Dirac new radioactivities, which I called a long time ago in the 1990s as spontaneous neutron/proton/electron materialization and coming via Cosmic Rays or Cosmic Gamma Ray bursts. So once this Dirac new radioactivities is well known and established, then there is no further need for a Big Bang, because the Cosmos exists due to not a cosmic explosion with supernova spreading the matter to and fro, but rather, the materials in the cosmos were slowly built up from new radioactivities. The Sun, Earth and planets, the Milky Way and other galaxies came into existence not from a Big Bang with assistance of supernovae to spread around the matter and with Nebular Dust Clouds coalescing, instead, these structures were built up after billions of years, more than 20 billion years by the steady Dirac new-radioactivities such as Cosmic rays and gamma ray bursts. As soon as the MidAtlantic rift and seafloor spreading was seen and reported, marked the end of the Stationary Earth theory and Continental Drift won. As soon as it is observed and experimented and reported that the planets and satellites grow via Dirac new-radioactivities, marks the end of the Big Bang. II. Observational and experimental support *(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 So I am going to use a new trick in book writing. So that I can print new ideas and not have to wait for the proper chapter to reveal those new ideas. I simply add a Postscript and then when I reach that chapter, I repeat and elaborate those ideas. Postscript for chapter 16: The theory of Special Relativity is all true and well, but it was never really elucidated as to its full details and meaning. Only a small fraction of its implications have been revealed and cited in physics. One of the great implications of SR was never realized until now. That energy in SR is far more important than speeds of matter in SR. In the last postscript I mentioned a "speed desert" in physics of where the beta particle at 1/2(c) to that of (c) is occupied only by photonic speeds and nothing of rest mass objects. In order to have SR, in the first place, is that the speeds of everything in the Universe is either the slow speeds such as objects on Earth or the motion of planets or the motion of galaxies, a speed desert, and finally the speed of light. In order for physics to have SR, that the dominant speed is the speed of light and only with photons and that a "desert" must exist in order for SR to be true. This fact or idea was never mentioned or discovered in physics, and it lead to a false chase for looking for neutrinos to have a tiny rest mass, based on their ability to switch forms. But the reason that SR must be slow speeds, a speed-desert, and then predominantly photon speeds with a slowed down photon speeds. The reason this must be the case is because the Universe has a set given amount of total energy at any one given time. Call that total Cosmic energy X. In order to have SR true and with a given X, then you must have most every speed that has rest mass of 500 km/sec or less, the majority at about 30 km/sec. From 500 km/sec to that of (c) must be predominantly occupied by only photons or slowed down light waves. So for a speed of 3/4(c) there are few if no rest mass objects with that speed, but alot of slowed down light waves moving at 3/4(c). Now you can have a few beta particles in all the Cosmos, moving at 3/4(c), but you cannot have alot of them moving at that speed. And of course you cannot have any galaxies moving at faster than a upper limit of about 500 km/sec. In order to have Special Relativity correct as a law of physics, means that the Cosmos has a given finite energy, which means that all mass objects have to have a slow speed, and that you have a speed desert, and finally you have photon speeds. What this implies is that the interpretation of galactic redshift of galaxies, has to be rethought. It is false to think any galaxies in the Universe are moving with a speed faster than the Milky Way is moving. There are no galaxies approaching the speed of light. This means the redshift is a geometry effect. No rest mass object ever gets close to the speed of light, and the beta particle gets the closest, but very few of them do. The Cosmic energy X has to be preserved, and so we have this speed zone of the Cosmos. Through the years after the redshift was discovered, we had other mechanisms at play such as gravitational lensing. So one begins to wonder whether redshift was ever on firm conceptual grounds. What is to say that redshift is not gravitational lensing. Another explanation of redshift which I think should be better than the analogy of the moving train whistle, is the coin in a pond. The position of the coin is distorted because of the way light moves in water. That distortion is the same as redshift. So if the Cosmos is a big atom, it is going to be like the surface of a sphere or the surface of a ellipsoid, and as light travels on this highly curved surface, it becomes distorted to a redshift. Not that the galaxy which sent off that light beam is moving fastly away from us, but rather, because that galaxy is so far away, that the curvature of the Cosmos, distorts that light when it finally reaches us, it is hugely redshifted. The redshift of a distant galaxy tells us it is far away, but it gives us no information as to the speed of that galaxy, and the speed is probably around the speed of our own Milky Way. Now what I am saying makes far more sense than the old way with the Big Bang, because some galaxies are blue-shifted. And the Big Bang would say it is because they are moving towards us at a huge speed. But the known cases of blueshift do not reconcile with a speed coming towards us. The Big Bang should have rare cases of blueshift. The Atom Totality should have frequent cases of blue shift. 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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
4th ed. book, Chapt.1 What is this Theory? ; #4; ATOM TOTALITY (AtomUniverse) theory; replaces Big Bang theory
Chapter 1: What Is This Theory In as few of words as possible to describe this theory is my signature block for my posts to the Internet: The whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies. If you look in a chemistry textbook of what an electron looks like, it is not a ball shaped object but a whole lot of little dots that form a cloud. So the Atom Totality theory is basically the idea that the dots of the electron-cloud are galaxies in the night sky. So as you look up in the night sky and see shiny white dots as galaxies and as stars, those white dots are mass-pieces of the last six electrons of 231Plutonium. To describe the rival theory of the Big Bang theory would go like this: The universe arose from a big explosion. That is the sum total to the Big Bang theory. It is simplistic and does not have much information. It does not tell us why it exploded and the Big Bang theory is not Quantum Mechanics. The Atom Totality theory is all Quantum Mechanics for it posits that only atoms, including the Universe itself, exist. And the Atom Totality theory is a consistent theory since it posits that only atoms exist. All matter is composed of atoms but science neglected to complete the picture of logic by realizing that the whole entire universe must also be an atom. The Big Bang theory places all of its information into an "explosion", and the Universe is not an entity, a "whole thing" in the Big Bang but some amorphous nonentity. The Big Bang is structureless. Whereas the Atom Totality has all the richness of atomic physics to lean on. We can talk about size, about shape, about structures such as a nucleus, and Cosmic protons and cosmic electrons. We can talk about a evolution or transformation of atoms. With the Big Bang we are left speechless and questionless, because there is nothing to talk about other than some explosion allegedly happened. Laypersons and nonscientists and even a large proportion of alleged scientists have two major problems and errors with the Atom Totality theory and these two errors are : (1) They cannot envision how the universe we see is the inside of one big atom (2) They mistakenly think that since plutonium is radioactive that this hinders the theory. They mistakenly think the Plutonium Atom Totality will decay away and -out-goes-the-Universe. Here one minute and gone the next, type of mistake. So how do I answer those two most recurring errors that both laypersons and even most trained scientists make as listed in (1) and (2) above? I answer them by saying look at a chemistry textbook of the electron- dot-cloud of atoms. Their mistake is that they think the electron is a single ball that goes moving around the nucleus of an atom. It maybe a ball when the atom is collapsed wavefunction such as the moving of electricity in a wire. But an atom that is Uncollapsed wavefunction has its electrons as dot-clouds. The electron is a large cloud around the nucleus of the atom and is a huge number of dots. Each one of those dots is a tiny hunk or piece of the electron. So that if all the dots were put together then the electron would be a ball. So now we begin to understand how a plutonium atom of its electrons is the galaxies of the night sky. That each galaxy we see in the night sky is a tiny piece of an electron of the Atom Totality. If you examine a chemistry textbook of the 5f6 or the s, or the p or the d or the f orbital of a electron you will see a electron-dot-cloud. That the electron is not a ball but those huge number of dots. So now we can easily envision the Atom Totality theory. We look at the night sky of all those dots of light. Some of those dots of light are stars and some are galaxies. And now we look at the chemistry textbook of what an electron looks like and it is a bunch of dots around a nucleus. So that is the crux of the Atom Totality theory, that galaxies and stars (galaxies are just a concentration of stars) are dots of the electron dot cloud and so we are living inside one big atom. And the chemical element that fits the numbers of physics and mathematics the very best is the chemical element plutonium. Now to answer the other most often mistake by laypersons and even those who call themselves scientists is the notion that if the Atom Totality was plutonium that it would decay and be gone. The answer I give is that radioactivity is time itself. That our universe, our cosmos would not have time if the Atom Totality were not radioactive, or, at least, it would not have sufficient and ample enough time to run the universe, like a machine that does not run well, or like an animal or plant that does not grow fast enough. Time is merely change of matter in position. If every atom stood still and in place and never changed position relative to all the other atoms, then there would be no time. Life could not exist if every atom were to stand still and not move relative to other atoms. So, to answer why the Atom Totality is a radioactive element is to say that you want the Universe to be a entity that has alot of change going on and radioactivity provides that change. We see this change every day in Cosmic particles of protons appearing uniformly and of Cosmic gamma ray bursts. Radioactivity of the Atom Totality is what makes stars and planets come into existence in that the daily accretion of particles of radioactivity from the Nucleus of the Plutonium Atom Totality is what gives us our Sun and Earth and Solar System and Milky Way Galaxy. Summary: The Atom Totality Theory is easy to state for it simply says that the Universe itself is one big atom and the chemical element that fits the special constants and numbers of physics and mathematics the best is plutonium, specifically 231Pu. When one asks for a similar explanation of the Big Bang theory one gets no description whatsoever other than to say "explosion happened". And the two most often made mistakes about the Atom Totality theory is the error that an electron is a single ball and the error that plutonium radioactivity is incompatible or incongruent with an Atom Totality. Postscript for chapter (16) shape of the Cosmos: I seem to like these postscripts, which allow me to add new ideas whilst organizing the rest of the book. I am still stuck on chapter 16 with the Special Relativity, speed of light and the redshift of galaxies as to the real meaning of redshift. Now I believe these four ideas in physics are closely related, some may even be equivalent or generalizations of the others. (1) Conservation of Energy (2) Special Relativity (3) Least Action Principle (4) Finite Cosmos I believe that the "finite Cosmos" is the most general of those four. With a finite cosmos the other three fallout naturally. Let me set a analog in motion so that by the time I reach chapter 16 I can elaborate or embellish this analogy. Suppose we are the creator of the Cosmos and we are required to obey those four rules above. And let me call a series of Universes possible under those four rules as that of Universe A, Universe B, Universe C, etc etc. And when I reach Universe Z, I start with Universe AA, then BB, etc etc. So I have to obey those four rules always in constructing a Universe. Let me construct a universe in which I am a parsimonious creator, so that I want to maximize the largest number of stars and galaxies. If my memory is correct the Cosmos has 10^11 galaxies and each of them has 10^11 stars on average. So now, a parsimonious creator wanting the most number of galaxies and stars and obeying those four rules would have rest mass objects going at slow speeds as possible such as Earth going at 30 km/ sec and stars at about 20 km/sec and only a few beta particles going at 1/2(c). So in this Universe A, we speeds of 0 to 500 km/sec of all astro bodies, and we have alpha particles going at 15,000 km/sec at maximum, and we have a few, a very small number of beta particles in the entire Cosmos going at 1/2(c). All other speeds in this universe is covered by the speed of photons or slowed down photons. And this is our current present day Cosmos. But now in Universe K for example, the creator there likes energy and so using the four rules creates a cosmos that has just Space, and one planet moving at 9/10 (c). Just one planet moving at nearly the speed of light. To have the planet actually moving at (c) requires infinite energy and that is against the Finite rule coupled with Special Relativity rule. So the difference between Universe A and Universe K, is that in A, we sought for the maximum in numbers of stars and galaxies, and to achieve that maximum we had to have slow moving objects and few if any objects other than photons moving fastly. the fastest we have in A are a few beta particles. In K, however, is a speed freak or energy freak creator, so he puts all his resources of energy, mass into speed and what he is able to achieve is only a planet in all of space that is moving near the speed of light, at 9/10 the speed of light. Now suppose Space itself was a resource, although hard to imagine having a planet without some space to move in. And suppose this speed freak creator converted Space into more speed so that he now has his planet moving at 98% the speed of light. And then there are thousands and thousands of other variations to satisfy the whims of creators, but they all must obey those four rules. The point I am making, if not clear to the reader, is that those four rules are a characteristic or a feature of the Atom Totality itself. That we have a finite Universe because we have a Atom Totality. We have Special Relativity, because we have alot of slow moving stars and galaxies and only light is moving at the speed of light. We have Least Action and Conservation of Energy because those are a consequence of a Atom Totality. Now, by the time I reach chapter 16, perhaps I will have figured out why Universe A, is the only universe allowed by those four rules. I think we need a fifth rule: Least Energy Principle. The universe for a creator that requires the least energy in creating is a universe where there is alot of rest mass around and all of it moving at slow speeds and only a few items such as alpha and beta particles moving at faster than 200 km/sec and where the majority of speeds is taken up by the photons or slowed down photons. So if the Universe has a Least Energy Principle, along with a Least Action Principle, then the universe has to be unique and no other universes allowed. This is just the opposite idea of the Many-Worlds idea, or the parallel universes. The Atom Totality theory dismisses many-worlds and parallel universes, and as seen above, dismisses time travel, because it is impossible to rearrange all the atoms for a past or a future. 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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
4th ed. book, Chapt.1 What is this Theory? ; #4; ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) theory; replaces Big Bang theory
Archimedes Plutonium writes:
Laypersons and nonscientists and even a large proportion of alleged scientists have two major problems and errors with the Atom Totality theory and these two errors are : (1) They cannot envision how the universe we see is the inside of one big atom (2) They mistakenly think that since plutonium is radioactive that this hinders the theory. They mistakenly think the Plutonium Atom Totality will decay away and -out-goes-the-Universe. Here one minute and gone the next, type of mistake. Now, I'm no scientist, but I have a couple of other questions about this otherwise brilliant theory. The galaxies are the electrons, right? (c) What's the nucleus? (d) How come we see somewhat more than 94 galaxies? -- Jesse F. Hughes "I have put all the information that you need at [a Yahoo! group] where you'll notice a significantly better signal to noise ratio, as I'm just about the only person posting." -- James S. Harris on noise |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
4th ed. book, Chapt.1 What is this Theory? ; #5; ATOM TOTALITY(Atom Universe) theory; replaces Big Bang theory
Archimedes Plutonium wrote: Chapter 1: What Is This Theory Laypersons and nonscientists and even a large proportion of alleged scientists have two major problems and errors with the Atom Totality theory and these two errors are : (1) They cannot envision how the universe we see is the inside of one big atom They never saw a chemistry or physics book showing a electron-dot- cloud. Or, they never understood that all those dots is one electron, those 10^60 dots is equal to one electron. They do not understand that those 10^60 dots for an electron is the actual single one electron itself. And so they come into the Atom Totality theory with the false notion that the hydrogen atom electron is one tiny ball or 1 dot and that the uranium atom has 92 tiny balls revolving around it or 92 dots, or that the plutonium atom has 94 tiny balls or 94 dots composing its electron dot cloud. When in fact, each electron of a hydrogen atom or a uranium atom or a Plutonium Atom has 10^60 dots that make-up or compose that specific individual electron. When teaching the electron-dot-cloud in High School or in College, it is perhaps not taught strong enough that all those dots, 10^60 dots are one single distinct electron. Now the night sky of stars and galaxies, it is estimated that there are only 10^11 galaxies and there are only 10^11 stars on average in each galaxy. So that would mean the Cosmos has 10^11 x 10^11, or 10^22 stars, and if we represent each of those stars as a dot we would thence have 10^22 dots. But each star is composed of atoms and a star is typically about 10^30 atoms so that would mean a night sky represented by dots for atoms would have 10^22 x 10^30 = 10^52 dots which is a huge number but a tiny number compared to 10^60 dots. If we included all the other matter in planets and in energy particles we come close to 10^60. Postscript for chapter (16) shape of the Cosmos: Yesterday I talked about four ideas in physics that are important and related (1) Conservation of Energy (2) Special Relativity (3) Least Action Principle (4) Finite Cosmos Yesterday I added one more to that list, making five: (5) Least Energy Principle Least Energy is a generalization of Least Action. Least Action will not require a unique Universe to exist. But Least Energy requires a unique Universe to exist at any instant of time. Let me draw an metaphor-analogy that is easily comprehendible. The history of planet Earth goes back a long time and we do not know details of its early beginnings but we do know somewhat accurately the history of life on Earth, and we know that a billion years ago, there was no electric power station, since there was no advanced intelligent life then. We know that we had to go through many stages of development of materials such as metal engineering in the past before we build a electric power station. Humanity has never built a Volcano electric power station and with the Iceland volcano eruptions as of recently, and although we do have the knowledge and technology to build a power station siphoning off heat energy from the Iceland volcanoes and making electricity, we shall do this in the future, and in fact, we shall do this to nearly all volcanoes on Earth, and thereby making fossil fuels of coal, oil, gas as obsolete. So we are at a threshold moment in time where humanity gets all its daily energy either from the Sun or from the geothermal interior of Earth, and where fossil fuels are rarely ever used again. Now that evolution of technology to Volcano Electric Power Stations is not a progress of Least Action Principle. But it is a progress of Least Energy Principle. 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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
4th ed. book, preface #1; ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) theory;replaces Big Bang theory
On Apr 16, 2:53*am, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote: Chapters of this book: I. the theory **(1) what is this theory? **(2) pictures of the Atom Totality theory Here is the first pictu http://www.codeismylife.com/ascii_bozo/14654.html |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
4th ed. book, Chapt.1 What is this Theory? ; #6; ATOM TOTALITY(Atom Universe) theory; replaces Big Bang theory
Archimedes Plutonium wrote: (most snipped away) The Big Bang theory places all of its information into an "explosion", and the Universe is not an entity, a "whole thing" in the Big Bang but some amorphous nonentity. The Big Bang is structureless. Whereas the Atom Totality has all the richness of atomic physics to lean on. We can talk about size, about shape, about structures such as a nucleus, and Cosmic protons and cosmic electrons. We can talk about a evolution or transformation of atoms. With the Big Bang we are left speechless and questionless, because there is nothing to talk about other than some explosion allegedly happened. I need to talk more about the fact that the Big Bang is so vague about anything. I need to spend alot more time about talking the overall features of the Big Bang versus the Atom Totality. And I am having trouble in finding the appropriate words to describe this inability of the Big Bang. This topic alone, should persuade anyone, whether a trained scientist or a layperson that the Big Bang is a fake theory. The best words to describe the situation so far are these: (1) entity versus nonentity (2) structures versus having no structure (3) patterned versus amorphous or no patterns The Atom Totality is a theory in which the Universe is a single entity, a structured single entity and a patterned single entity. The Big Bang is only one thing -- an explosion. The Big Bang is not an entity, and not a structure, and cannot have a internal pattern. So that when Johns Hopkins in early 2000s reports a color for the Universe, it could not be for a Big Bang since it is not a single entity structure. Or when Luminet team of researchers reported in the early 2000s that the Cosmos fits a Poincare Dodecahedral Space geometry, they could not be referring to the Big Bang because it is not a single entity with structure. What I am looking for are more words and terminology to add to this list. Because the difference between a Big Bang theory and a Atom Totality theory is that the Atom Totality theory insists that the Universe has always and forever will be a structured patterned entity. It is not a huge onion or as the ancient philosophers once thought of a terra firma resting on the back of a elephant. There is only one material object in the Cosmos that can be the Cosmos itself. It is not a piece of cheese for the Moon is not cheese. It is not the onion nor the terra firma elephant. But it is the atom. In all of the Cosmos, only the atom itself can be the entire Cosmos. So the Big Bang never is able, nor is it possible to conceive of the Big Bang as a entity. And that should have eliminated the Big Bang theory as a viable theory of science. For it will always stay submerged in its obfuscation of some "explosion". There is only one term that describes the Big Bang-- "explosion". And that is vagueness, and in the veils of imagination and daydreaming or nightdreaming. So without doing any further work. Without doing any evidence searth or computations or experiments. The Big Bang should be dismissed as a fake theory from the start, because it lacks clarity. It lacks details. The Big Bang goes so far as to even imply that the laws of physics were broken at the explosion or during the explosion and that some time after the explosion, when things settled down, do we even have Physics arising. The Atom Totality theory says that the Universe has always been Quantum Mechanics, and always will be Quantum Mechanics. So any commonsense person, even those that hate doing science, can see the deficiencies and faults of a Big Bang. That it is deceptive and imaginary and vague. It is everything that science should not be-- obfuse and imaginary. I am not happy with the words and concepts of Entity, Structure, Pattern that distinguishes the Atom Totality from the Big Bang. And this is important since the Big Bang is defeated as a fake before the starting block. 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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
4th ed. book, Chapt.1 What is this Theory? ; #7; ATOM TOTALITY(Atom Universe) theory; replaces Big Bang theory
I suppose one can say that the difference between the Big Bang and
Atom Totality theory is that although both are theories for the entire Universe, that the Big Bang is a theory of a "process going on" , while the Atom Totality is a theory of a entity or something, and how that entity existed in the past and will exist in the future. The Big Bang theory is like saying that Nagasaki is an explosion, rather than a city that existed before the explosion and a city that exists after. Whereas the Atom Totality would recognize the city when it first was settled and where a explosion was just one day in the history of the city. So the Big Bang as a theory of Physics is really a paltry piece of imagination rather than a solid thoughtful theory. But the worst reasoning of the Big Bang is that it has to violate all the laws of physics until much later in the explosion that all of a sudden the laws of physics seem to precipitate out of the explosion. So that Quantum Mechanics comes into existence about 5 minutes after the explosion and perhaps Maxwell Equations come into existence some days after the explosion. All of which is random, capricious and piecemeal. So that only a scatterbrained physicist would be tempted to buy into the Big Bang theory for what sense is there in a theory of physics that destroys universal laws of physics and then creates another batch of so called "universal laws" when they were never universal in the first place. On the other hand, the Atom Totality theory sticks and stays with Quantum Mechanics. Atoms are Quantum Mechanics and so in the Atom Totality, never is there a breakdown of the laws of physics and the laws are truly universal. So, in the Big Bang the universe is not a entity, not a something, but rather a amorphous process. In the Atom Totality, the Universe is a atom of which it was borne or risen from previous atoms and the future is a transformation into a higher numbered atom. Where the Universe is an "it" a "something" and it includes processes and transformations. Whereas the Big Bang is only a process. Now probably, the only reason that so many scientist accepted and believed in the Big Bang, is what happens in all fields of study, when there is only one theory and no rival theory to contend or compete with, well, most scientists will then blindly accept a scatterbrained theory. When the only drink in town is bad water, then you drink bad water. But when someone digs a well and runs the water through a purifier, then you have a choice of what to drink. 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 |
distribution of galaxies points to Atom Totality not Big Bang #176 ;3rd ed; Atom Totality (Atom Universe) theory | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | November 6th 09 08:29 AM |
chapters of this book; #163; 3rd ed; Atom Totality (Atom Universe)theory | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 1 | August 21st 09 09:11 AM |
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 |
Tifft quantized galaxy speeds #22 ;3rd edition book: ATOM TOTALITY(Atom Universe) THEORY | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 1 | May 9th 09 11:01 PM |
#1 new book; ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY REPLACES BIG BANGTHEORY IN PHYSICS | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 13 | May 1st 09 06:25 AM |