Chapt11 Solid Body Rotation caused by EM, and Dirac's Positron Space#76 Atom Totality theory 5th ed.

I seem to be falling behind in this text writing, but that is rather
good in that the pauses
seem to refresh me, like in a work day to take some moments of rest
and think about
what is coming up.

When I last wrote on Solid Body Rotation and the Missing Mass, I had
found myself in a self-conundrum of not only solving the missing mass
conundrum but a self-conundrum. What I mean is that in all the years
of writing this book I was focused on the Nucleus of the Atom Totality
solving the Missing Mass because 99.99 percent of the mass of an atom
resides in the Nucleus, but Solid Body Rotation is a electromagnetism
phenomenon, not a gravity phenomenon. So the Nucleus solves the
Missing Mass, but it does not solve the fact that we have prevalent
solid-body-rotation
throughout the Cosmos. In the Big Bang theory, they look at solid-body-
rotation and they do not say, "oops, we no longer have gravity causing
this, but that the Cosmos is
a electric-magnetism Cosmos." And in the Big Bang, they then conjure
up dark-matter
and dark-energy, whereas if they were thinking straight, they would
realize that no longer is gravity the answer for anything but that the
Cosmos is electric-magnetism driven on the large scale of globular
clusters and groups of galaxies that display solid body rotation.

So the reader can begin to see my self-conundrum, for all these years,
I too was wandering down the wrong path about Missing Mass. I too saw
that solid-body rotation requires "something more" but I did not
realize that gravity was out of the picture and that electricity
magnetism was the central answer.

And in a sense, we see the unification of EM with gravity as a Dirac
positron space, so that the solid body rotation has a positron-object
that is attracting the nearby globular clusters or the nearby group of
galaxies. So that our own Solar System, the Sun has a positron
grapefruit-sized positrons as its center and those positrons attract
the antimatter of our planets, and where each of the planets has a
smaller sized positron object as its centers. The Earth has something
of a positron object the size of a cherry as its center. So that
Gravity is merely the interplay of positron Space and the antimatter
of galaxies, stars and planets and astro bodies.

So the mistake I made in the past editions of this book was to think
that solid body rotation solves the missing mass via gravity, when in
fact it solves the solid body via electricity and magnetism and that
the mass of the Nucleus of the Atom Totality
does not cause solid body rotation.


Subject: third layer (0.01 z 0.02); solid-body-
rotation?


--- quoting from ---
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff...tt/papers/LSS/


The third layer (0.01 z 0.02) is dominated by the P-P
supercluster
*(left side of image) and the P-I supercluster extending up into the
*ZoA terminating as the Great Attractor region (notably Abell 3627)
*disappears behind a wall of Milky Way stars. An intriguing "ring"
or
*chain of galaxies seems to circle/extend from the northern to the
*southern Galactic hemisphere (see also *Figure 1). It is unknown
*whether this ring-like structure is physically associated with the
*cosmic web or an artifact of projection.
*--- end quoting ---


So is the above ring an example of solid-body-rotation?


The globular clusters wherein solid-body-rotation was discovered,
*where they found
*in that ring above?


If so, I would imagine that in future mappings of the galaxies that
*each picture frame would
*have ring structures.


Subject: is the Great Wall or Sloan have solid body rotation?


I do not know if the Great Wall or Sloan Great Wall are some of those
globular clusters.
If they are in those Walls, would pretty much indicate closeness or
nearness to the
Nucleus of the Atom Totality.


Subject: atomic characteristics appearing as cosmic
characteristics

Well of course, the easiest atomic characteristic to translate into
a
cosmic feature is the
Nucleus of an atom would be 99% of the mass of the atom and that
would
translate into a
cosmic characteristic of a nucleus of density, but however, not solid
body rotation.
The fact of Solid Body Rotation suggests that the forces to create it
are the EM force. The Big Bang theory would only have gravity as a
cosmic force and not EM.

So in the Big Bang theory, they saw solid body rotation and mistakenly
then inferred that there must be missing mass. What they should have
inferred if they were thinking more clearly physics, they should have
inferred that the EM force was a cosmic force and that gravity was
left behind. Because gravity cannot create solid
body rotation.


So that is one of the reasons I should make a detailed list of
*atomic
characteristics*
and then try to determine what *cosmic characteristic* would accrue
from that atomic
feature.


I already mentioned "spin" as atomically intrinsic, and raised the
question of what if spin
were translated into cosmic features? What can we expect to observe?

Perhaps spin is solid body rotation of all the galaxies about a
nucleus.

And another feature that is worth looking into in detail is
synchrotron radiation and as to whether the quasars, pulsars or the
red-shift are the result of a cosmic-synchrotron radiation.
What is so nice about this feature, unlike the missing mass, is that
it is directly observable
as witnessed by the existence of (a) quasars (b) pulsars (c)
redshift.


So in summary, what I am looking for is a characteristic of any atom
which would have
to translate into a characteristic of the observable Universe, and
if
I find a characteristic that
is easy to identify in the cosmos, would almost immediately elevate
the Atom Totality theory
and trashcan the Big Bang. The solid body rotation as EM of the Atom
Totality should do it.


So would atomic-spin be observable? Does atomic structure have
synchrotron radiation?
And if so, does it translate into having quasars and pulsars and
redshift?


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

So this is a big surprize to me for astronomy and cosmology and
physics. In that the Missing Mass
conundrum is solved not by finding a huge concentration of mass in the
cosmos but rather, in the
realization that the Cosmos is driven by Electricity and Magnetism in
large part, and not by gravity.

So that when astronomers observe solid-body-rotation, they fail in
logic when they next make the
inference of missing mass and gravity driven phenomenon. When
astronomers see solid-body-rotation,
their correct and proper next inference should be "we lost gravity as
an explanation, and now
we need electricity and magnetism to explain solid body rotation" and
hence the Atom Totality theory.

So I am going to wrap up this chapter with a few other thoughts:

Subject: atomic characteristics show up as cosmic characteristics


Translating
atomic characteristics into that of what would be cosmic
characteristics if an Atom Totality were true and the Big
Bang as false. For instance, the most spectacular translation is the
solid body rotation driven by EM.


Now there is another atomic characteristic that could explain solid
body
rotation and it is the fact of a atomic spin 1/2. So I do not know at
this
moment how the EM driven atom and the atomic spin of an atom plays the
role
of solid body rotation. Perhaps by the next edition of this book I can
penetrate
into that question.

I am
exploring the spin 1/2
of atoms as to what that translates on a Cosmic scale. Does it
translate into
a north pole and south pole of the Cosmos and where the Cosmos spins
on that axis? I have mixed feelings about that. For I know that
quantum mechanics of spin 1/2 is not the spinning of a toy top on
its
axis
as seen in the photograph of Pauli and Bohr spinning a toy top on
the
floor. But an atom does have a intrinsic spin 1/2. So what would
that
translate into on a Universe scale? I do not know.
Maybe it is a toy like feature with poles and a axis of spin. Or
maybe
it is more like that of Dirac's ocean of positrons as space and
where
space is of two items-- (i) ocean of positrons
and (ii) electrons of the 231Pu Atom Totality. So that Space is
composed of two items and this
is the spin of 1/2. But I am not sure of either of those
explanations
of spin.


But let me try out another thought. I have talked about atom
characteristics of mass, color,
geometry shape such as dodecahedron, and intrinsic temperature of
microwave radiation at
2.71 Kelvin, and possibly synchrotron radiation inside an atom as
accounting for quasars and
pulsars. But let me try out a new one. One with energy involved. The
radioactive elements such as plutonium emit neutrinos. Neutrino
emission is a fundamental intrinsic feature of atoms. So is the
neutrinos observed in the Universe at large more characteristic of a
Big Bang
or of a Atom Totality? It has been reported that neutrinos zip
through
our human bodies at a rate of a trillion neutrinos per second. Now I
am sure physicists can make that flux more precise. And with the
most
precise calculation of the density flux of neutrinos per volume of
space, we ask whether the Big Bang or Atom Totality best fits that
neutrino density flux.


So we have a good idea of the neutrino density flux of the Universe
and then we estimate what the density flux of neutrinos would be
inside an atom of 231Pu isotope. We can estimate the interior volume
of a 231Pu atom and then what the neutrino emission rate is in an
atom
of 231Pu and arrive at a neutrino density flux.


For the Big Bang, the neutrino density flux has to be all accounted
for by the acts of supernova explosions which are fairly rare events
and given the volume of the Cosmos,
the Big Bang fails to account for a trillion neutrinos zipping
through
a human body per second.


What does account for the neutrino density flux is the Atom Totality.


Subject: neutrino density flux


Now this is a pretty way of proving the Atom Totality versus the Big
Bang. And when we put the two together of the solid body rotation
and the large neutrino density flux where
a Big Bang would have a tiny neutrino density flux, we find fault
with
the Big Bang on two sides undersized rotation and oversized energy.





So what is the neutrino density flux inside a single atom of 231Pu?
It
should be terrifically large
inside a single 231Pu atom because the half life is so short. Keep
in
mind that the half-life for the Atom Totality is not a measure of
decay but a measure of time itself. The Atom Totality must be a
radioactive atom so that we have "time existing". If the Atom
Totality
were a stable
element, there would not be "time", or "not much time" as in a
radioactive atom.




On May 16, 1:27Â*am, Ian wrote:

That is what I like about Atom Totality Theory, it embodies multiple

 concepts in one entity, background radiation, i, e, pi, fine
structure

 constant,... if ever there has been the purpose of science it is
to

 embody everything in one concept. Because as such you reduce the

 difficulty of holding the myriad aspects of the universe in the
mind.

 This is what Jacob Bronowski called, finding hidden likenesses.

Now I used to answer a question like that with the predictive power of
the Atom Totality
theory saying that solid body rotation predicts missing mass which
predicts a nucleus of the
Atom Totality. In this edition, I learned I was logically wrong on
that reasoning, in that
the solid body rotation does not predict missing mass, but rather
predicts the Cosmos
is EM driven and not gravity driven. Still, it proves the Atom
Totality as the true 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

Alright, in this edition, I finally learned that astronomy and
cosmology actually do
not have a Missing Mass problem since Solid-Body-Rotation is not a
consequence of gravity
but is a consequence of a cosmic electromagnetic force at play in the
whole entire cosmos.

When we see a phonograph vinyl record spinning we do not ask how much
mass of the phonograph
in order to spin the record, but we simply ask how many revolutions
per second is the electric
motor using to spin the record player.

So in the 20th century, and I should look this up more carefully for
dates and time and place,
probably 1968 when it happened that astronomers found Solid Body
Rotation and then the theorists
made the huge mistake of thinking that the data means "missing mass"
when in fact the data means
the Cosmos is on a large scale governed by the EM force and that
gravity is a minor force in astronomy. What causes Solid Body Rotation
is electricity and magnetism inside an Atom Totality.

So now I have to reword the chapter and make clear it is not "missing
mass" but it is EM.

Chapter 11 solid-body-rotation is caused by EM and there is no missing
mass, dark matter, dark energy
Chapter 12 Solid Body Rotation: Maxwell Equations applied to the
galaxies

Now I am finished with Chapter 11 for this edition, but I think the
last several posts that contained
information on Neutrino density flux, and synchrotron radiation
belongs in Chapter 12 and not 11.

Also, the idea that the cosmos is governed mostly by EM would thence
easily explain strange energy
phenomenon such as quasars and pulsars in that pulsars are this fastly
rotating star, not due to gravity but due to the star as a electric
motor. So that once we drop our childish notions that gravity is the
sole force on the Cosmic scale but rather that EM is the dominant
force at play on the Cosmic scale, we then open the door to a better
and easier understanding of quasars and pulsars.

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