|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
conservation of angular momentum only in an atom totality structure#142; 3rd ed; Atom Totality (Atom Universe) theory
I wrote previously:
size of the magnetic field of the following planets and moon: Mercury magnetic field strength 1% of Earth or 300 nT Venus magnetic field strength is 10^-5 times Earth Earth magnetic field strength 3x10^4nT to 6x10^4nT Moon magnetic field strength is 1 to 100 nT Mars magnetic field strength is 10^-4 times Earth I should include the spin of these astro bodies as equatorial rotation velocity: Mercury 11km/h Venus 6km/h Earth 1,674 km/h Moon 18 km/h Mars 868 km/h Hope those data numbers are correct. I spent the last two days thinking about those numbers. There is no pattern there between the two other than to say they are close to one another other than Mars's rotation velocity. And why should the huge rotation velocity of Earth match its huge magnetic field? There is not a math pattern such as a geometric progression but the magnetic field and rotation speed are somewhat in agreement. I should keep in mind at moments like this of the focus of the chapter. This is still chapter 4: 4) Dirac's new-radioactivities and Dirac's multiplicative-creation; CellWell1 and CellWell2. So I should move on to discussing CellWell 1 & 2. But before I go, a strange thought occurred to me which physics never seemed to ask the question nor bothered to give an answer. And that stands to reason if the question was never asked. So maybe I am the first one to ever raise this question. We have linear momentum in physics and angular momentum and each of them are conserved as far as we know. But the question is why does the world have both? And since you have both, can you really differentiate without a doubt the one from the other, or can the two bleed into one another and become indistinguishable? Part of this question asks why atoms and elementary particles have "spin". So can the spin become linear momentum. So it is not a simpleton question but a profound question. I believe the answer is, as far as I can intuit, is that the world actually has only one type of momentum-- angular, because the world is a gigantic atom which is spinning and if you go to infinity you come back to the same spot you started. So linear momentum is just a "partial angular momentum." The analogy of walking a straight line on Earth is really a arc-line and that arc- line is conceived of as linear-momentum. Now I believe the fact that angular momentum or spin for an elementary particle is ample proof enough that the world is a circular or elliptical structure like an atom. So in other words, the fact that all momentum reduces to angular momentum and the prevalence of angular momentum throughout physics should be ample proof that the Universe is a elliptic structure and the only feasible structure would be an atom itself. Now people with a real logical physics mind would be convinced of this argument, but it is rare for any scientist to have a really logical mind. I know of two highly logical and physics oriented minds of the 20th century-- Dirac and Bell. If Dirac and Bell were alive today, both would carry my arguement much further. That we have this predominance of angular momentum, because the Universe is a overall round structure and the only fitting object that could be the Universe is an atom. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
conservation of angular momentum only in an atom totalitystructure #142; 3rd ed; Atom Totality (Atom Universe) theory
It is common in physics for structural components to assume the most
energy-efficient shape and properties possible. Any discrepancies are momentarily corrected over a lapse of time. I therefore find it reasonable for the universe to also be similar in shape and structure to an atom. But to insist that the universe IS an atom is quite a different story. I disagree with such a claim because it defies so many elements of physics that it just seems ridiculous to me. The mathematical and scientific proof is not quite there yet. To say the universe is comparable to an atom might be more accurate. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
logical argument for the universe to be a structure and thus an atom#144; 3rd ed; Atom Totality (Atom Universe) theory
On Aug 13, 2:03*am, hdbanannah wrote:
It is common in physics for structural components to assume the most energy-efficient shape and properties possible. Any discrepancies are momentarily corrected over a lapse of time. I therefore find it reasonable for the universe to also be similar in shape and structure to an atom. That is not a logical argument going to the foundations. The last chapters of this book go to that logical foundation argument. But to insist that the universe IS an atom is quite a different story. I disagree with such a claim because it defies so many elements of physics that it just seems ridiculous to me. The mathematical and scientific proof is not quite there yet. To say the universe is comparable to an atom might be more accurate. That is why I said I knew of probably only two physicists of the 20th century who had a combination of both powerful logic and a scientific mind to handle this question. The question goes like this: Either the Universe is a structure or is not a structure. The most likely case is the Universe is a structure, because a nonstructure requires more explanation than a structure. So if the Universe is a structure, what is it? The ancients at one time said it was a gigantic turtle holding up Earth. Other ancients said it was a gigantic onion. Well, we laugh at those structures nowadays. But there is one structure that noone can laugh at. There is a structure that is "perfect." In the sense that the energy inside it never runs down, but only shifts from one orbit to the next. I am talking of the Atom. So in all of human experience, there exists one structure that is perfect for it is run by photons which never rest. The atomic structure is the only perfect structure. So if the Universe is a structure, then the only thing that it could possibly be is an Atom Totality. I am at a place where the above responder was when Galileo said the Earth was round. Most of the naysayers were scientists themselves and their argument was why did not the people and things on the other side of the globe fall off? This is what I mean when I say that I know of only 2 persons in the 20th century who had both physics knowledge and enough logic to wrestle with an Atom Totality theory. P.S. this post belongs at the end of this book, not here where I am still on chapter 4 of Dirac's new-radioactivities. So I will not respond to any more of the above type responses. Archimedes Plutonium www.iw.net/~a_plutonium whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
logical argument for the universe to be a structure and thus anatom #144; 3rd ed; Atom Totality (Atom Universe) theory
I was not speaking of the logical foundations argument specifically,
especially with regard to the universe in its entirety. To insist that the atom is a "perfect" structure is quite extreme, especially considering just how little we know about it. When I say "we", as before, I am talking about mankind as a whole, which includes both you and the scientists you referred to. If they are so perfectly logically minded, then they will see the many faults in your logic as I do. For example: "Either the Universe is a structure or is not a structure. The most likely case is the Universe is a structure, because a nonstructure requires more explanation than a structure. " What evidence do you have to support this claim? Why does the fact that something requires more explanation decrease the likelihood of its existence? The pure and simple proof is rarely pure and almost never simple. "So if the Universe is a structure, then the only thing that it could possibly be is an Atom Totality. " Untrue. Let's say the atom is a "perfect" structure. This does not mean the universe has to be as well. As a matter of fact, there is evidence that the universe is changing, expanding, and that entropy is constantly increasing, breaking down the physical laws and systems of nature as we know them over time. Is this "perfect"? If perfect means self-sustaining (in part), I think not. Now, no matter what you say, your Atom Totality is subject to this happenstance as well, because one atomic universe means one isolated system. Finally, it is also illogical to state that only two people (presumably three, if you include yourself?) of over 6 billion in the entire world who were alive during the time you said are able to even "wrestle with", meaning to comprehend and debate this theory, is completely absurd. Your argument, based on what is here, has many more holes in it than mine. I'll give you some leeway though considering I don't know this theory inside and out, as you are obviously unfamiliar with the mainstream views of science and cosmology, but ultimately it comes down to the fact that a small child could wrestle with the amazing Atom Totality Theory. It's crackpot science, and I have it pinned, regardless of whether or not you agree. I know you don't, and I know you won't change your mind and probably won't reply to this response, so I will finish my rambling right here and now. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
logical argument for the universe to be a structure and thus anatom #144; 3rd ed; Atom Totality (Atom Universe) theory
I was not speaking of the logical foundations argument specifically,
especially with regard to the universe in its entirety. To insist that the atom is a "perfect" structure is quite extreme, especially considering just how little we know about it. When I say "we", as before, I am talking about mankind as a whole, which includes both you and the scientists you referred to. If they are so perfectly logically minded, then they will see the many faults in your logic as I do. For example: "Either the Universe is a structure or is not a structure. The most likely case is the Universe is a structure, because a nonstructure requires more explanation than a structure. " What evidence do you have to support this claim? Why does the fact that something requires more explanation decrease the likelihood of its existence? The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and almost never simple. "So if the Universe is a structure, then the only thing that it could possibly be is an Atom Totality. " Untrue. Let's say the atom is a "perfect" structure. This does not mean the universe has to be as well. As a matter of fact, there is evidence that the universe is changing, expanding, and that entropy is constantly increasing, breaking down the physical laws and systems of nature as we know them over time. Is this "perfect"? If perfect means self-sustaining (in part), I think not. Now, no matter what you say, your Atom Totality is subject to this happenstance as well, because one atomic universe means one isolated system. Finally, it is also illogical to state that only two people (presumably three, if you include yourself?) of over 6 billion in the entire world who were alive during the time you said are able to even "wrestle with", meaning to comprehend and debate this theory, is completely absurd. Your argument, based on what is here, has many more holes in it than mine. I'll give you some leeway though considering I don't know this theory inside and out, as you are obviously unfamiliar with the mainstream views of science and cosmology, but ultimately it comes down to the fact that a small child could wrestle with the amazing Atom Totality Theory. It's crackpot science, and I have it pinned, regardless of whether or not you agree. I know you don't, and I know you won't change your mind and probably won't reply to this response, so I will finish my rambling right here and now. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
illogical argument for the universe to be a structure and thus anatom #144; 3rd ed; Atom Totality (Atom Universe) theory
I was not speaking of the logical foundations argument specifically,
especially with regard to the universe in its entirety. To insist that the atom is a "perfect" structure is quite extreme, especially considering just how little we know about it. When I say "we", as before, I am talking about mankind as a whole, which includes both you and the scientists you referred to. If they are so perfectly logically minded, then they will see the many faults in your logic as I do. For example: "Either the Universe is a structure or is not a structure. The most likely case is the Universe is a structure, because a nonstructure requires more explanation than a structure. " What evidence do you have to support this claim? Why does the fact that something requires more explanation decrease the likelihood of its existence? The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and almost never simple. "So if the Universe is a structure, then the only thing that it could possibly be is an Atom Totality. " Untrue. Let's say the atom is a "perfect" structure. This does not mean the universe has to be as well. As a matter of fact, there is evidence that the universe is changing, expanding, and that entropy is constantly increasing, breaking down the physical laws and systems of nature as we know them over time. Is this "perfect"? If perfect means self-sustaining (in part), I think not. Now, no matter what you say, your Atom Totality is subject to this happenstance as well, because one atomic universe means one isolated system. Finally, it is also illogical to state that only two people (presumably three, if you include yourself?) of over 6 billion in the entire world who were alive during the time you said are able to even "wrestle with", meaning to comprehend and debate this theory, is completely absurd. Your argument, based on what is here, has many more holes in it than mine. I'll give you some leeway though considering I don't know this theory inside and out, as you are obviously unfamiliar with the mainstream views of science and cosmology, but ultimately it comes down to the fact that a small child could wrestle with the amazing Atom Totality Theory. It's crackpot science, and I have it pinned, regardless of whether or not you agree. I know you don't, and I know you won't change your mind and probably won't reply to this response, so I will finish my rambling right here and now. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
illogical argument for the universe to be a structure and thus an atom #144; 3rd ed; Atom Totality (Atom Universe) theory
POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT
AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! POST IT AGAIN! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
how many positrons at center of Sun to imitate gravity; #133; 3rd ed;Atom Totality (Atom Universe) theory | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 13 | August 13th 09 10:53 PM |
can solid-body rotation alone prove the Universe is an atom? #131;3rd ed; Atom Totality (Atom Universe) theory | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 1 | August 9th 09 05:57 AM |
where is the dark-matter, obviously, the Nucleus of the Atom Totality#127 ; 3rd ed; Atom Totality (Atom Universe) theory | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 1 | August 7th 09 07:32 PM |
what is "time" in an Atom Totality and the Plutonium Atom Totalitylayer as 6.5 billion years old versus the Uranium Atom Totality layer at 20 | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 8th 09 05:57 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 |