Chapt12 Solid Body Rotation: Maxwell Equations applied to thegalaxies #79 Atom Totality theory 5th ed.

Solid Body Rotation means EM cosmic force

Subject: neutrino density flux of cosmos points to an atom totality,
not a
big-bang

Sorry for the repeat of this text since it was under the chapter 11
but should have been in this chapter 12.

I have been playing around with 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, one big spectacular translation
is the fact that the predominant cosmic force is electric-magnetism
and not gravity. So that the moment solid body rotation was observed
was the moment that EM is known to rule the cosmos, and that
implies an Atom Totality.

Now I do not know how the spin of an atom such as the Atom Totality
translates into the EM force. Something like "spin" of an atom. I am
exploring the spin 1/2
of atoms as to what that translates cosmically. 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 a new one tonight. 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.


Now this is a pretty way of proving the Atom Totality versus the Big
Bang: the large neutrino density flux where
a Big Bang would have a tiny neutrino density flux.

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.

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

Subject: Galaxy evidence, pulsars are probably synchrotron radiation
of atom-totality

I happened to spy some old posts of mine in a chemistry forum
archiving some of my old posts:


--- quoting some archived old posts of mine ---
Chemistry


Chemistry Science Synchrotron Radiation intrinsic to atomic
structure? pulsars and quasars


* Synchrotron Radiation intrinsic to atomic structure?
pulsars
and quasars


someone wrote:
Does an isolated single atom of radium display Synchrotron
Radiation? Is it
the luminescence of radium that is synchrotron radiation.


No. All accelerating charges, including changing directions (such as in a
synchrotron) radiate
electromagnetic energy. To get your atom of radium to generate
synchrotron
radiation,
you'll have to ionize it and accelerate the ion.


The luminescence from the old radium watches isn't really from the radium
but from zinc sulfide.
Energetic alpha particles from the radioactive decay of radium
strike the
zinc sulfide (mixed
with the radium) and the zinc sulfide produces light.

I concede to your point about radium, and tonight have looked for
another
isotope that is not compounded or molecularized for yielding the
luminescence.
The best I could do was Cobalt 60 with its blue glow. My question
then
would
be, is this blue glow of Cobalt 60 due to the radioactivity emission
of Cobalt
60 in that it is indeed, genuine synchrotron radiation.


I guess I am not making my question crystal clear enough.


What I want to know is whether Synchrotron Radiation can be a
fundamental
characteristic **inside of atoms**. Or, whether all
synchrotron radiation is
a secondary phenomenon and never a fundamental aspect found inside
of
atoms.


Primary atomic structures are spin, magnetic moment, angular momentum
etc etc.
Is Synchrotron Radiation ever a primary atomic structure?


Radioactivity is a primary atomic structure. Is Synchrotron Radiation
also as
primary and fundamental to a single atom as Radioactivity.


I hope that makes clear of what I seek.


And as a sidenote, this discussion of Synchrotron Radiation reminds
me
so much
of temperature as a fundamental atomic structure. Most every
physicist
today
would say temperature is not a primary structure of a single atom
since they
believe an atom has no internal parts to make a temperature. But
Debroglie
wrote
a entire book on the idea that a atom has internal temperature. And
I
believe
an
atom has internal temperature due to the dots of the electron-dot-
cloud
are the numerous particles that create an internal temperature and
the
internal
temperature of 231Pu is 2.71 Kelvin. So this temperature question
reminds
me of this question of whether a Isolated Atom has internal
SychrotronRadiation
provided it is a radioactive atom.


I would disagree with you, for I believe the Isolated Atom has not
only an
internal temperature created from those numerous dots of the
electron-
dot-cloud


but also if that atom is radioactive that it also has a fundamental
internal
SynchrotronRadiation that can be calculated.


* Synchrotron Radiation intrinsic to atomic structure?
pulsars
and quasars


Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
someone wrote:


Does an isolated single atom of radium display Synchrotron Radiation? Is it
the luminescence of radium that is synchrotron radiation.


No. All accelerating charges, including changing directions (such as in a
synchrotron) radiate
electromagnetic energy. To get your atom of radium to generate

Thinking about this, it seems to me that given the atomic structure
of
any and
all radioactive isotopes that all of them would have some degree of
acceleration
of its radioactive emitted electron or proton particles whether they
be e
emissions
or alpha particles. And because every chemical element has a
different
internal
geometry such as uranium is different from plutonium that this
internal geometry
would also cause an emitting radioactive particle to accelerate once
emitted from
the nucleus.


Thus, it seems to me that every radioactive isotope has internal
SynchrotronRadiation. Taken for granted that the degree of
synchrotron
radiation
by uranium would not be much different from that of plutonium
just as the internal temperature of uranium would be a not much
different
from the 2.71 degrees Kelvin of plutonium.


Every atom has an internal temperature because every atom has dots
of the electron-dot-cloud. By the same sort of reasoning since every
radioactive atom has emission of charged particles is accelerated
and
thus
they all have synchrotronradiation as intrinsic.
--- end quoting old posts of mine ---


Now I was wondering as I was rereading my old posts above as to what
I
was thinking
when I wrote them. Was I thinking that intrinsic synchrotron
radiation
of an atom totality
would be visible or noticeable as a cosmic feature? Was I thinking
that pulsars and quasars
are the side-effect of synchrotron-radiation of an atom totality?


Actually I have not thought-out or made a detailed list of the atomic
characteristics and
tried matching them with cosmic characteristics. Some cosmic
characteristics we are
familar with are galaxy-solar system, color, microwave radiation
quantized at 2.71 K, temperature, geometrical shape of dodecahedron.
But what about other characteristics of atomic structure? Is
synchrotron radiation a atomic feature? If so, how would it show
itself on a cosmic scale? The electron-dot-cloud of atomic structure
appears as the cosmic structure
of galaxies and planetary-systems embedded in space.


So if synchrotron radiation were an instrinsic atomic feature how
would it show itself
in the cosmos? Would it be the quasars, or maybe the pulsars?


I do not know as of yet, even whether synchrotron radiation is a
intrinsic feature of an atom.


I do know that "spin" is an intrinsic feature of an atom, and
designated as spin 1/2. But here, I am not sure how "spin" becomes a
cosmic observable feature. Our first inclination would be to think
of
a spinning toy top, but that is a oversimplification. However, it
maybe the case that
atomic spin does actually turn out to be some cosmic spin of sorts,
where the cosmos is moving about a axis. And evidence of this may
arrive in the form of there being observable
poles in the cosmos. If we find that there is a galactic wall at the
Sloan Great Wall and then another galactic wall on the opposite side
of the cosmos, then we can say the Universe has
two poles, which then implies a cosmic "spin".


--- requoting previous text ---
I am having a hard time in locating good enough pictures of the
*Perseus-Pisces
*supercluster and the Pavo-Indus supercluster. Here is a better
picture
*than
*what Jarrett's mapping shows:


http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/nearsc.html


http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/wnearsc.gif
--- end quoting ---


The reason I bring up the perseus supercluster is that it appears to
be on the opposite
side of the Sloan and Great Wall superclusters. So that perhaps the
cosmos has two polar
regions? And the only explanation for two poles would be a cosmic
spin, and of course that
would be a deciding data or observation and would
immediately trashcan the
Big Bang theory.


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

On Nov 22, 12:02*am, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
Subject: Galaxy evidence, pulsars are probably synchrotron radiation
* of atom-totality

*I happened to spy some old posts of mine in a chemistry forum
*archiving some of my old posts:

--- quoting some archived old posts of mine ---
*Chemistry

Chemistry Science Synchrotron Radiation intrinsic to atomic
*structure? pulsars and quasars

* Synchrotron Radiation intrinsic to atomic structure?
pulsars
*and quasars

someone wrote:

* Does an isolated single atom of radium display Synchrotron
Radiation? Is it
* the luminescence of radium that is synchrotron radiation.

No. All accelerating charges, including changing directions (such as in a

* synchrotron) radiate
* electromagnetic energy. To get your atom of radium to generate
synchrotron
* radiation,
* you'll have to ionize it and accelerate the ion.

The luminescence from the old radium watches isn't really from the radium

* but from zinc sulfide.
* Energetic alpha particles from the radioactive decay of radium
strike the
* zinc sulfide (mixed
* with the radium) and the zinc sulfide produces light.

I concede to your point about radium, and tonight have looked for
*another
*isotope that is not compounded or molecularized for yielding the
*luminescence.
*The best I could do was Cobalt 60 with its blue glow. My question
then
*would
*be, is this blue glow of Cobalt 60 due to the radioactivity emission
*of Cobalt
*60 in that it is indeed, genuine synchrotron radiation.

I guess I am not making my question crystal clear enough.

What I want to know is whether Synchrotron Radiation can be a
*fundamental
*characteristic **inside of atoms**. Or, whether all
*synchrotron radiation is
*a secondary phenomenon and never a fundamental aspect found inside
of
*atoms.

Primary atomic structures are spin, magnetic moment, angular momentum
*etc etc.
*Is Synchrotron Radiation ever a primary atomic structure?

Radioactivity is a primary atomic structure. Is Synchrotron Radiation
*also as
*primary and fundamental to a single atom as Radioactivity.

I hope that makes clear of what I seek.

And as a sidenote, this discussion of Synchrotron Radiation reminds
me
*so much
*of temperature as a fundamental atomic structure. Most every
physicist
*today
*would say temperature is not a primary structure of a single atom
*since they
*believe an atom has no internal parts to make a temperature. But
*Debroglie
*wrote
*a entire book on the idea that a atom has internal temperature. And
I
*believe
*an
*atom has internal temperature due to the dots of the electron-dot-
*cloud
*are the numerous particles that create an internal temperature and
the
*internal
*temperature of 231Pu is 2.71 Kelvin. So this temperature question
*reminds
*me of this question of whether a Isolated Atom has internal
*SychrotronRadiation
*provided it is a radioactive atom.

I would disagree with you, for I believe the Isolated Atom has not
*only an
*internal temperature created from those numerous dots of the
electron-
*dot-cloud

but also if that atom is radioactive that it also has a fundamental
*internal
*SynchrotronRadiation that can be calculated.

* Synchrotron Radiation intrinsic to atomic structure?
pulsars
*and quasars

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
* someone wrote:
Does an isolated single atom of radium display Synchrotron Radiation? Is it

* the luminescence of radium that is synchrotron radiation.

No. All accelerating charges, including changing directions (such as in a

* synchrotron) radiate
* electromagnetic energy. To get your atom of radium to generate

Thinking about this, it seems to me that given the atomic structure
of
*any and
*all radioactive isotopes that all of them would have some degree of
*acceleration
*of its radioactive emitted electron or proton particles whether they
*be e
*emissions
*or alpha particles. And because every chemical element has a
different
*internal
*geometry such as uranium is different from plutonium that this
*internal geometry
*would also cause an emitting radioactive particle to accelerate once
*emitted from
*the nucleus.

Thus, it seems to me that every radioactive isotope has internal
*SynchrotronRadiation. Taken for granted that the degree of
synchrotron
*radiation
*by uranium would not be much different from that of plutonium
*just as the internal temperature of uranium would be a not much
*different
*from the 2.71 degrees Kelvin of plutonium.

Every atom has an internal temperature because every atom has dots
*of the electron-dot-cloud. By the same sort of reasoning since every
*radioactive atom has emission of charged particles is accelerated
and
*thus
*they all have synchrotronradiation as intrinsic.
*--- end quoting old posts of mine ---

Now I was wondering as I was rereading my old posts above as to what
I
*was thinking
*when I wrote them. Was I thinking that intrinsic synchrotron
radiation
*of an atom totality
*would be visible or noticeable as a cosmic feature? Was I thinking
*that pulsars and quasars
*are the side-effect of synchrotron-radiation of an atom totality?

Actually I have not thought-out or made a detailed list of the atomic
*characteristics and
*tried matching them with cosmic characteristics. Some cosmic
*characteristics we are
*familar with are galaxy-solar system, color, microwave radiation
*quantized at 2.71 K, temperature, geometrical shape of dodecahedron.
*But what about other characteristics of atomic structure? Is
*synchrotron radiation a atomic feature? If so, how would it show
*itself on a cosmic scale? The electron-dot-cloud of atomic structure
*appears as the cosmic structure
*of galaxies and planetary-systems embedded in space.

So if synchrotron radiation were an instrinsic atomic feature how
*would it show itself
*in the cosmos? Would it be the quasars, or maybe the pulsars?

I do not know as of yet, even whether synchrotron radiation is a
*intrinsic feature of an atom.

I do know that "spin" is an intrinsic feature of an atom, and
*designated as spin 1/2. But here, I am not sure how "spin" becomes a
*cosmic observable feature. Our first inclination would be to think
of
*a spinning toy top, but that is a oversimplification. However, it
*maybe the case that
*atomic spin does actually turn out to be some cosmic spin of sorts,
*where the cosmos is moving about a axis. And evidence of this may
*arrive in the form of there being observable
*poles in the cosmos. If we find that there is a galactic wall at the
*Sloan Great Wall and then another galactic wall on the opposite side
*of the cosmos, then we can say the Universe has
*two poles, which then implies a cosmic "spin".

--- requoting previous text ---
*I am having a hard time in locating good enough pictures of the
**Perseus-Pisces
**supercluster and the Pavo-Indus supercluster. Here is a better
*picture
**than
**what Jarrett's mapping shows:

http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/nearsc.html

http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/wnearsc.gif
*--- end quoting ---

The reason I bring up the perseus supercluster is that it appears to
*be on the opposite
*side of the Sloan and Great Wall superclusters. So that perhaps the
*cosmos has two polar
*regions? And the only explanation for two poles would be a cosmic
*spin, and of course that
*would be a deciding data or observation and would
*immediately trashcan the
*Big Bang theory.

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

THIS IS OUR MATH FORUM NOT YOUR PHYSICS FORUM

Ludovicus writes:

THIS IS OUR MATH FORUM NOT YOUR PHYSICS FORUM

This? No; sci.physics, sci.astro and sci.math are Usenet newsgroups,
not your yelling at people who crosspost off-topic stuff forum.

--
Aatu Koskensilta )

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen."
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus