Chapt. 3; shadow-effect threatens the Big Bang theory #311 AtomTotality theory

I decided to put this Univ. Alabama news item into chapter 3,
regrettably
because that chapter is already overflowing.

Â*(3) uniform Blackbody 2.71 K cosmic microwave background radiation
Â* and Dark Night sky: Olber's Paradox fully answered

Now here is a website that discusses the shadow-effect of the cosmic
microwave radiation.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0905104549.htm
And this shadow-effect is perhaps the easiest disproof of the Big
Bang 
theory and 
the easiest proof of the Atom Totality theory.

It maybe more difficult, because from reading that site, if I
remember, it is going to be difficult the separate out whether the
galaxy is producing its own microwave radiation from the Big Bang
alleged radiation.

And the researchers found a 3/4 missing shadow effect. They found only
1/4 of the shadow that the Big Bang would predict.

So how does the Atom Totality theory respond to the Shadow Effect?
Initially I would say that the microwave radiation is blackbody and
thus there are no ripples and that the radiation is from Dirac's new
radioactivities, meaning that the galaxies uniformly produce their
own microwave. So the Atom Totality would have 3/4 or more missing.


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

On Nov 21, 12:11Â*am, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
I decided to put this Univ. Alabama news item into chapter 3,
regrettably
because that chapter is already overflowing.

Â*Â*(3) uniform Blackbody 2.71 K cosmic microwave background radiation
Â*Â* and Dark Night sky: Olber's Paradox fully answered


Perhaps the better chapter is Dirac New Radioactivities but that
chapter is far too overflowing.

Now here is a website that discusses the shadow-effect of the cosmic
microwave radiation.http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0905104549.htm
And this shadow-effect is perhaps the easiest disproof of the Big
Bang 
theory and 
the easiest proof of the Atom Totality theory.

It maybe more difficult, because from reading that site, if I
remember, it is going to be difficult the separate out whether the
galaxy is producing its own microwave radiation from the Big Bang
alleged radiation.

And the researchers found a 3/4 missing shadow effect. They found only
1/4 of the shadow that the Big Bang would predict.

So how does the Atom Totality theory respond to the Shadow Effect?
Initially I would say that the microwave radiation is blackbody and
thus there are no ripples and that the radiation is from Dirac's new
radioactivities, meaning that the galaxies uniformly produce their
own microwave. So the Atom Totality would have 3/4 or more missing.


Now I would have to know the quantity basis of how much shadow effect
the
Big Bang would deliver, rather than relying on 1/4 and 3/4 relative
numerics.

But this entire shadow-effect reminds me alot about the solar
neutrinos missing
in observation. There a resolution was found with a flipping or
conversion of one
type of neutrino into a different type of neutrino. For microwave
missings, we cannot
expect a flipping.

But that suggests a new explanation for both neutrino flipping and
missing microwave
shadow effect. Suppose there is no neutrino flipping at all but rather
it is explained by
Dirac New Radioactivities and also explaining missing microwaves of
the shadow effect.

If my memory is correct, the missing solar neutrinos was a 2/3 missing
count. And the missing
microwave of shadow effect is 3/4. Now my arguement would appear to be
better if it was 2/3 missing
neutrinos and 2/3 missing microwave.

But what I am trying to say is that the numerics are all out of line
with some scale that relates to true
physics mechanisms going on. The only reason we think there is a 2/3
missing solar neutrinos is because
we have a "faulty physics theory of how many neutrinos we should be
seeing." So if we had the correct physics
theory of Dirac New Radioactivities, we see the proper amount of solar
neutrinoes with none of them flipping or converting. Likewise, with
Dirac New Radioactivities as the main engine of matter creation in the
Cosmos, we have no missing shadow effect.

Maybe I should include this in the chapter of Dirac New
Radioactivities afterall.

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

On Dec 7, 1:46Â*am, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:


Now here is a website that discusses the shadow-effect of the cosmic
microwave radiation.http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0905104549.htm
And this shadow-effect is perhaps the easiest disproof of the Big
Bang 
theory and 
the easiest proof of the Atom Totality theory.


The University of Alabama is doing excellent science work on the
shadow effect, and from
reading that above site, I would reckon that the observations and
measurements of the
shadow-effect are thousands of times easier to do than to be observing
and measuring solar
neutrinoes. Am I correct on that assessement?

When Physics finds itself in a position where its theory predicted
something that was counter to
what the observations yielded, it is usually the case that the theory
was incorrect and the
observation stood the test of time. One of the earlier such cases was
that light waves had to travel in "aether" or a medium. And the final
story on that was the aether of the theory was demolished and
thrown out. So with the case of neutrinoes converting or flipping, it
is far more likely to be a repeat
of the aether experience that our theory was out of whack with the
true physics, and that the neutrinoes
do not flip or convert. That the true physics of solar neutrinos is a
2/3 missing, just as the true physics
of microwave shadow effect is not a Big Bang theory, but rather a Atom
Totality theory where only 1/4
of the shadow effect is observed. And the observation of solar
neutrinos, aether, and microwave shadow effect
are all a result of Dirac New Radioactivities inside an Atom Totality.

It is unfortunate that Physicists, often do not learn lessons from
history and seem to repeat past mistakes.
So that when a observation comes in as to missing solar neutrinos,
like that of missing aether, the physics community seems to want to
say, let us keep the flawed theory and then add on extra nonsense such
as neutrino conversion in order to hold all the fakery together.

Whereas, if physicists had really learned from the aether story, is to
toss out the theory, first, and start anew. And in the case of aether,
the new theory was special-relativity. So physicists often have very
short memories.

And now with the solar neutrinoes and with the microwave shadow
effect, let us toss out those theories as defective, and start with
Dirac New Radioactivities in an Atom Totality.

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

"Archimedes Plutonium" wrote in message
...
On Dec 7, 1:46 am, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:


Now here is a website that discusses the shadow-effect of the cosmic
microwave
radiation.http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0905104549.htm
And this shadow-effect is perhaps the easiest disproof of the Big
Bang 
theory and 
the easiest proof of the Atom Totality theory.


The University of Alabama is doing excellent science work on the
shadow effect,

itym excellent football playing

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Â*(3) uniform Blackbody 2.71 K cosmic microwave background radiation
Â* and Dark Night sky: Olber's Paradox fully answered

Now here is a website that discusses the shadow-effect of the cosmic
microwave radiation.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0905104549.htm
And this shadow-effect is perhaps the easiest disproof of the Big
Bang 
theory and 
the easiest proof of the Atom Totality theory.

So how does the Atom Totality theory respond to the Shadow Effect?
Initially I would say that the microwave radiation is blackbody and
thus there are no ripples and that the radiation is from Dirac's new
radioactivities, meaning that the galaxies uniformly produce their
own microwave. So the Atom Totality would have 3/4 or more missing.

Except that the article says that the galaxies producing their
own microwave radiation at exactly the right frequency is highly
unlikely:

"One possibility is to say the clusters themselves are microwave
emitting sources, either from an embedded point source or from
a halo of microwave-emitting material that is part of the cluster
environment. Based on all that we know about radiation sources
and halos around clusters, however, you wouldn't expect to see
this kind of emission. And it would be implausible to suggest that
several clusters could all emit microwaves at just the right
frequency and intensity to match the cosmic background radiation."

On Dec 20, 11:16Â*pm, David R Tribble wrote:
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Â*Â*(3) uniform Blackbody 2.71 K cosmic microwave background radiation
Â*Â* and Dark Night sky: Olber's Paradox fully answered

Now here is a website that discusses the shadow-effect of the cosmic
microwave radiation.
Â*http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0905104549.htm
And this shadow-effect is perhaps the easiest disproof of the Big
Bang 
theory and 
the easiest proof of the Atom Totality theory.

So how does the Atom Totality theory respond to the Shadow Effect?
Initially I would say that the microwave radiation is blackbody and
thus there are no ripples and that the radiation is from Dirac's new
radioactivities, meaning that the galaxies uniformly produce their
own microwave. So the Atom Totality would have 3/4 or more missing.

Except that the article says that the galaxies producing their
own microwave radiation at exactly the right frequency is highly
unlikely:

Â* "One possibility is to say the clusters themselves are microwave
Â* emitting sources, either from an embedded point source or from
Â* a halo of microwave-emitting material that is part of the cluster
Â* environment. Based on all that we know about radiation sources
Â* and halos around clusters, however, you wouldn't expect to see
Â* this kind of emission. And it would be implausible to suggest that
Â* several clusters could all emit microwaves at just the right
Â* frequency and intensity to match the cosmic background radiation."

David-- read the sentence by those Alabama researchers saying:
"Based on all that we know about radiation sources.."

Those Alabama researchers probably never heard of Dirac's new
radioactivities
as written in his book "Directions in Physics"

But if the Alabama researchers would take the time to explore Dirac's
new
radioactivites, then they could easily see how every galaxy and every
halo
would produce that "right frequency and intensity to match.."

When a researcher is immersed and embedded in a fake theory like the
Big Bang,
they have the tendency to use Big Bang criteria and so they end up
with
"..implausible to suggest that several clusters could all emit
microwaves at just the right
frequency and intensity to match.."

On the other hand, if the Alabama researchers dismissed the Big Bang
from the start, and read
Dirac new radioactivities, and realized that the galaxies were built
slowly by a continual
accretion of new radioactivities such as the constant bombardment of
gamma rays and cosmic
rays in our Solar System which produces "microwave radiation".

So when you use a fake theory like Big Bang, you can never correctly
see that the microwaves are produced by the galaxies and haloes
themselves.

I hope the Alabama researches are reading this post, because they
should toss out their Big Bang assumptions because it is impeding
their progress towards real science truth.

Now earlier today I posted in sci.math and sci.physics about the
discrepancy of the Big Bang theory of its explosion and the fact that
galaxies and stars emit so much energy yet the temperature of deep
space is about 1 to 3 degrees kelvin.

Now I believe the temperature of deep space should be a far easier
means of trashcanning the Big Bang theory over a "shadow effect"
analysis.

I believe that with the Big Bang theory, the deep space should have a
temperature of somewhere between 20 degrees Kelvin to 50 degrees
Kelvin and not 3 degrees Kelvin.

And I believe, from DeBroglie's book about thermodynamics inside an
atom, that the temperature inside a hydrogen atom using the electron-
dot-cloud as the thermodynamic, that
the atomic interior temperature of hydrogen is between 1 to 3 degrees
Kelvin.

Now this is important and should make a separate post for this
temperature.

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

On Dec 21, 1:29Â*am, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
(snipped)


Now earlier today I posted in sci.math and sci.physics about the
discrepancy of the Big Bang theory of its explosion and the fact that
galaxies and stars emit so much energy yet the temperature of deep
space is about 1 to 3 degrees kelvin.

Now I believe the temperature of deep space should be a far easier
means of trashcanning the Big Bang theory over a "shadow effect"
analysis.

I believe that with the Big Bang theory, the deep space should have a
temperature of somewhere between 20 degrees Kelvin to 50 degrees
Kelvin and not 3 degrees Kelvin.

And I believe, from DeBroglie's book about thermodynamics inside an
atom, that the temperature inside a hydrogen atom using the electron-
dot-cloud as the thermodynamic, that
the atomic interior temperature of hydrogen is between 1 to 3 degrees
Kelvin.

Now this is important and should make a separate post for this
temperature.


Actually I do not know exactly what the Big Bang predicts is the
temperature of Deep Space.
This temperature is about 3 degrees Kelvin, some reports are 1 degree
Kelvin if memory serves me.

And I suspect no-one in the physics community has ever tried to
calculate what the Big Bang
predicts should be the temperature of Deep Space. It is probably to
hard and complicated.

But the problems of the Big Bang and the temperature of Deep Space is
that the Universe is
full and loaded with alot of galaxies and stars and clusters and walls
and where Deep Space
is drenched with radiation of all types, especially gamma rays.

In such a Cosmic Environment the temperature of Deep Space should not
be what is experimentally observed at 1 to 3 degrees Kelvin. In my
opinion, the Big Bang probably predicts a Cosmic Deep Space
temperature of about 20 to 50 degrees Kelvin due to the amount
of gamma and Xrays uniform throughout the cosmos.

In the physics literature, I am certain that one physicist worked on
the temperature of the interior of an atom. That was Prince Louis
DeBroglie, the genius Frenchman, who wrote a whole book on the subject
of the temperature inside an atom. Within that book, one can insert
the
Electron Dot Cloud of a hydrogen atom as the cause of the temperature
inside an atom. And I believe that temperature comes out to be about 1
degree Kelvin.

In this book Atom Totality, I have strived for two things. Explaining
the theory as easily
as possible so that anyone can understand it, and secondly, I have
strived to find that
"Deciding Experiment" that trashcans the Big Bang and leaves remaining
the Atom Totality theory. Temperature may not be the most compelling
of deciding-experiments. Not as compelling as say the quantum
blackbody microwave radiation which exists only inside a container--
hence
an atom. But temperature is another pillar of supporting evidence that
dooms the Big Bang
and leaves only the Atom Totality standing.

No-one in the physics community that is a Big Bang advocate has ever
calculated what the temperature of Deep Space should be. This is
probably because the Big Bang theory never had
a true rival theory. But that rival is here and it says the Deep Space
temperature of
1 to 3 degrees Kelvin matches the inside interior temperature of a
plutonium atom or hydrogen atom. And that the stars and galaxies and
the wash of gamma and X rays in the Deep Space
would peg the Deep Space temperature by a Big Bang at somewhere far
higher than 3 degrees kelvin, especially when you consider that the
Big Bang was a explosion of energy.

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom

where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Actually I do not know exactly what the Big Bang predicts is the
temperature of Deep Space.

Then you should read about how Gamow, Alpher, and Herman
predicted the CBR temperature. It's derived from the Hubble
constant (expansion of the Universe), the decoupling temperature
of atoms (3,000 K), and general relativity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_...iation#History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Ban...ound_radiation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model


This temperature is about 3 degrees Kelvin, some reports are 1 degree
Kelvin if memory serves me.

2.7 K. Read the history.


And I suspect no-one in the physics community has ever tried to
calculate what the Big Bang
predicts should be the temperature of Deep Space. It is probably to
hard and complicated.

You suspect wrong. Read the history.

On Dec 21, 11:40Â*am, David R Tribble wrote:
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Actually I do not know exactly what the Big Bang predicts is the
temperature of Deep Space.

Then you should read about how Gamow, Alpher, and Herman
predicted the CBR temperature. It's derived from the Hubble
constant (expansion of the Universe), the decoupling temperature
of atoms (3,000 K), and general relativity.


It is fun to watch a person who knows little to no physics, pretend as
though he does.

There never was an accurate Hubble Constant, and that what was the
recent
program of many astrophysicists to reckon an age, and even that was a
huge brouhaha with a Hubble Constant that delivered an age of 8
Billion years old
with the oldest stars at 20 billion years. But of course, Tribble,
neither a physicist
nor a mathematician is never daunted by opening his mouth where it
should not belong.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_...mbda-CDM_model

This temperature is about 3 degrees Kelvin, some reports are 1 degree
Kelvin if memory serves me.

2.7 K. Read the history.


Have you ever read a physics book? Have your read Debroglie's
LA THERMODYNAMIQUE DE LA PARTICULE ISOLEE
Â*(OU THERMODYNAMIQUE CACHEE DES PARTICULES)

You see, a page of that book derives the 2.71 Kelvin that is Deep
Space temperature

You see, the current physics community stole and thieveried-away the
Cosmic
Deep Space temperature from Quantum Mechanics and pretend to apply
that
2.71 Kelvin to a Non Quantum Cosmos of the Big Bang. An explosion is
not Quantum
Mechanics. A Cavity with blackbody radiation that is 2.71 Kelvin is a
cavity
radiation of an Atom Totality.



And I suspect no-one in the physics community has ever tried to
calculate what the Big Bang
predicts should be the temperature of Deep Space. It is probably to
hard and complicated.

You suspect wrong. Read the history.

Tribble, the ultimate unknowing of physics and the final last defender
of fake physics.

The Cosmic Deep Space temperature that the Big Bang must explain is
why we have a cubic
kilometer of Deep Space with given number of atoms inside that cubic
kilometer. And given
number of neutrinos on the order of what? of 10^20 neutrinos? and how
many gamma rays, X
rays, inside that cubic kilometer.

The neutrinos alone inside that cubic kilometer should raise the
temperature from 0 Kelvin
to that of 20 Kelvin.

So open your mouth, Tribble on a patch of Deep Space, a cubic
kilometer patch and how many
atoms, ions in this cubic kilometer and how many
neutrinos, how many X rays and light rays and gamma rays in this cubic
kilometer and then use
physics to calculate what the temperature of a cubic kilometer is,
from the present true facts of what is seen out there in the Cosmos.

In other words, what we see out there of all that light radiation and
matter, that we should not have a temperature of 2.71 Kelvin in Deep
Space because we have too much matter and energy adrift in the Cosmos.
And the only reasonable explanation for why the temperature of Deep
Space is not 20 Kelvin to 50 Kelvin, but only 2.71 Kelvin is because
the Cosmos is the inside cavity of an Atom Totality.

Archimedes Plutonium

http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/

whole entire Universe is just one big atom

where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
The Cosmic Deep Space temperature that the Big Bang must explain is
why we have a cubic
kilometer of Deep Space with given number of atoms inside that cubic
kilometer. And given
number of neutrinos on the order of what? of 10^20 neutrinos? and how
many gamma rays, X
rays, inside that cubic kilometer.

The neutrinos alone inside that cubic kilometer should raise the
temperature from 0 Kelvin
to that of 20 Kelvin.

So open your mouth, Tribble on a patch of Deep Space, a cubic
kilometer patch and how many
atoms, ions in this cubic kilometer and how many
neutrinos, how many X rays and light rays and gamma rays in this cubic
kilometer and then use
physics to calculate what the temperature of a cubic kilometer is,
from the present true facts of what is seen out there in the Cosmos.

Yes, we'd love to see your calculations of this.