chapt11 missing mass, dark matter, dark energy solved by nucleus #66Atom Totality theory 5th ed.

After quite a pause there, let me continue with this book. The last
time I wrote on
this book was 20 October and now it is 9 November. The last writing
was on the
Shadow Effect of chapter 10 and now let me proceed to chapter 11.


Chapt10: Dark Night sky problem, Olber's Paradox fully answered;
recent Shadow Effect reports
Chapt11 missing mass with its solid-body-rotation conundrum solved

The thing about the Atom Totality theory is that it never has any
problems with an
observation of missing mass, dark matter nor dark energy, because in a
Big Bang
those items will come up and be inexplicable, whereas in an Atom
Totality, when
the items of missing mass, dark matter, or dark energy arises, they
are all easily
explained and then summarily dismissed since most of the mass, more
than 99 percent of the mass of the Cosmos is in an exclusive
neighborhood called the nucleus of the atom.

Now the reason we know the Cosmos has missing mass is our observations
of
solid-body-rotation.

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

Now I need to make a single post on the immensity and enormity of the
data, of the fact
of observation that when Solid Body Rotation was discovered.

Cosmic Missing Mass Conundrum starts with astronomers
*of the 20th century observing and recording the motion of
*globular clusters and other astronomical objects in that they
*possessed Solid Body Rotation.

Now I need to find specific dates of that discovery and what specific
solid-body-rotation
was found.

The enormity of that discovery is that only in electricity and
magnetism of a force can
you have solid-body-rotation. You cannot have solid body rotation with
gravity.

So when solid body rotation was discovered in the 20th century the
best and brightest in
physics, on the day of that discovery should have made this cascade of
logic implications:

(1) Solid Body Rotation on a cosmic scale means the force of
electricity/magnetism and not gravity

(2) Since the Cosmos major force is electricity/magnetism and not
gravity means the Cosmos is an atom

(3) What causes a solid-body-rotation on a cosmic scale is the nucleus
of this cosmic atom

Of course, the 20th century was just falling in love with the Big Bang
theory and so, no-one
with a good physics logical mind would emerge to put the correct
implications together. Not even
my two heroes of Dirac and Bell. But maybe in private they did make
the logical implications but
were too shy to state them publicly.

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 9, 1:39*am, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:

Now the reason we know the Cosmos has missing mass is our observations
of
solid-body-rotation.


Was that Yoggy Berra who said: You can observe a lot by watching?

PPJ.

Most scientist agree that logic is the scientific method and that the
power of
logic on facts and data is the scientific method at its best. But the
sad situation
of science is that only few scientists have enough logic to actually
pursue
and succeed in science understanding and discovery. For instance,
tonight on
PBS NOVA was another episode of science fiction by Brian Greene
talking about
"concept of time". He never defines time and thus is able to ramble on
and on
without actually doing true science. In this book, time is easily
defined to
mean, the arrangement of all the atoms and their associated energy. So
that if
there is no change in the arrangement then no time exists. Picture a
room in
which all the atoms relative to one another are the same, frozen in
place, so that
no dust falls, no atom of the air moves and we sitting in the room are
frozen
in place so that the distance between any two atoms, z and w, that
distance remains
constant. Brian Greene ineptly alluded to such a definition with his
snapshot of a
"now moment" and one of the lady commentors spoke of this idea of "all
objects
frozen in place". But Brian Greene makes the huge error of talking
about space without
ever mentioning that space is atoms and never mentions that atoms can
define time. Of
course, Greene had a slice of measuring time by the "ticks of cesium",
but Greene fails
to incorporate atoms and the atomic theory into a definition of time
itself. If Greene were
a mathematician, he would be making oodles and oodles of mistakes in
math because he
fails to consider that division by zero is undefined, but that time in
physics must be
defined.

In the Atom Totality theory, time is defined as the arrangement of all
the atoms in the cosmos,
and their associated energy.

With that definition we can see that never is there ever going to be
time travel. And with that
definition the arrow of time is apparent, in that the Universe itself
is a atom progressed to element
94 for with it is not going to go backwards to element 93 but forward
to element 96. Because the
Cosmos is an atom, a big atom, it is the arrow of time, and this
explains Boltzmann's entropy as discussed in the program.

So when Brian Greene has no definition of time and bases his idea of
the Cosmos on a Big Bang, then
the entire show is going to end up as nothing more then a science
fiction, no better nor worse than another episode of Doctor Who in his
blue box tardis with all sorts of imagination.

Also, a suggestion for Brian Greene and NOVA, please, why subject us
to a science fiction pandering that has Einstein mentioned in about
every other paragraph, for is this science or a religion propaganda
stunt? In the previous program by Greene of the fabric of Cosmos, he
goes so far as to say
that Einstein was great and right and correct that even his "blunders"
of the cosmological constant
is to be accepted. What Brian fails to understand is the topic of this
post, that if you really had
logic, and were in the 20th century when it was reported that astro
bodies possessed Solid-Body-Rotation, then the scientist with a
logical mind would come to the conclusions that gravity cannot ever
give solid body rotation and that the Cosmos is governed by
electricity and magnetism, which means the Cosmos is an Atom Totality.
What Greene fails to recognize, now, is that in the next century when
television is doing a science series on the Universe, that the names
of Newton, Dirac and Bell and Debroglie and AP will be mentioned
often, but that Einstein will not be mentioned even once. Nothing that
Einstein did in science is of any large meaning for which others had
already discovered before Einstein. Einstein's only original work
other than the photoelectric effect was General Relativity, but
General Relativity is utterly wrong in light of Dirac's ocean of
positron space. So to
have Brian Greene on NOVA PBS talking physics in the 21st century is
akin to having a voodoo witchdoctor of Africa on NOVA talking about
modern medicine and virus infections. But I stray here.

Let me get back to this idea, that as soon as it was reported in
astronomy that we have large scale
Solid Body Rotation, means just one thing and one thing only-- the
Cosmos is ruled by electricity and
magnetism and not by gravity. So it means that the Cosmos can only be
a gigantic atom since only atoms
are electricity and magnetism.


Now I need to expand on the history of Solid Body Rotation observed in
the Cosmos. I still do not have
solid dates (sorry for the pun) on the observations of this motion in
the history. The dates are important, for if nothing else, it
indicates how poor in logic were the physicists and cosmologists
of the 20th century. And when we couple that poor and lacking of logic
with the report of a
blackbody microwave background radiation, we are smitten with not just
failure of one key observation
of solid-body-rotation but of a blackbody radiation which both imply
Atom Totality.


I need to expand on this solid body rotation that is often seen in
astronomy, whether galactic rotation of several galaxies or whether
globular-clusters of stars within a galaxy.
I do not think any physicist or astronomer ever considered the idea
that if galactic solid body rotation shows up as true data, that it
means the end of the Big Bang theory, for it cannot 
support such
motion.
The idea here is that if the universe is a result of a Big Bang
explosion, that solid body rotation is a contradiction, and that no
such motion should appear in a Big Bang explosion.
On the other hand, inside an atom we constantly run into concepts of
"spin" and spin angular momentum.
And so if the greatest single prediction of the Atom Totality versus
Big Bang theory were put up for question, the Atom Totality would
predict that 99.99% of the Cosmic mass is concentrated in a Cosmic
Nucleus, out of view of life living on pieces of the electron dot
cloud and that there would be solid body rotation of the electron dot
cloud. The Big Bang theory would never have 
missing mass, nor the
reality of solid body rotation. If we had a shot- 
gun and fired it,
we would never witness those BBs doing a solid body 
rotation dance..
So I need to greatly expand the chapter of missing mass and solid
body 
rotation and get myself more informed on this topic.
Here are some first Google hits on galactic solid body rotation:

rotation curves - Astronomy Notes 
Jun 9, 2010 ... A rigid body
rotation is seen close to the center (as 
if the ... The highest solid
line in the left plot below is for all of 
the galactic ...
www.astronomynotes.com/ismnotes/s7.htm - Cached -

Similar 
Oort constants - Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia 
where V0 and R0 are the rotational velocity and distance
to the 
Galactic .... Solid body rotation assumes that the entire
system is 
moving as a ridged body ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oort_constants - Cached - Similar 
Rotation
Curves of Spiral Galaxies - Y. Sofue & V. Rubin 
Logarithmic rotation
curves of the Milky Way (thick line), NGC 4258 
(thin ... was found to
be in solid body rotation of the order of 100 
km s-1 (Izumiura et
al. .... Simulation of galactic-shock accretion of 
nuclear gas disk
in an oval ... 
nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept05/Sofue/
Sofue4.html - Cached


The Astrophysics Spectator: The Local Motion of the Milky Way Galaxy
Aug 22, 2007 ... The stars in the Galactic disk move as a fluid. ...
and the Galactic disk would rotate like a solid body, with the
rotation velocity of the ... 
http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com...LocalFlow.html
- Cached -


Similar 
Lecture 21 - Galactic Dynamics (4/6/99) 
Apr 6, 1999 ...
What is a rotation curve? What are Keplerian and solid 
body rotation
profiles? What is the LSR velocity around the galaxy? 
Galactic
Dynamics ... 
www.nrao.edu/~smyers/courses/astro12/L21.html - Cached
-

Similar 
[PDF] The Disk Rotation of the Milky Way Galaxy Kinematics
of 
Galactic ... 
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View 
rapid
increase in rotation speed over the first few hundred parsecs 
from
the galactic center (as for solid body rotation) to a maximum of
about 260 km/s, ... 
www.csupomona.edu/~jis/1999/kong.pdf - Similar


[PDF] Rotation in the Galactic Disk Differential Rotation The Center
of ... 
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML 
Physics 216 –
Introduction to Astrophysics. 34. Chapter 16. Rotation 
in the
Galactic Disk. Differential Rotation. Solid-Body. Rotation ...
www.physics.queensu.ca/~phys216/ch16C.pdf -

Similar 
Rotation Curves 
Most galaxies have rotation curves that show
solid body rotation in 
the very center, following by a slowly rising
or constant velocity 
rotation in the outer ...
http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academi...ion_curves.htm - Cached -
Similar

[PDF] String theory explanation of galactic rotation. 
File Format:
PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View 
by MD Roberts - 2010 - Related
articles 
Apr 13, 2010 ... Galactic rotation curves often exhibit
speeds which 
are a ... expected from solid body rotation where the
rotation speed 
increases with ... 
arxiv.org/pdf/1003.1309 - Similar

[PPT] The Milky Way Galaxy 
File Format: Microsoft Powerpoint - Quick
View 
Bulge – a thick distribution of warm gas and stars around the
galactic 
center. ... Solid Body Rotation Curve Example: Merry-Go-
Rounds ... 
faculty.mwsu.edu/physics/jackie.dunn/phys1533/
astro_lec13.ppt - 
Similar


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 10, 1:20*am, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:

(snipped)

Most scientist agree that logic is the scientific method and that the
power of
logic on facts and data is the scientific method at its best. But the
sad situation
of science is that only few scientists have enough logic to actually
pursue
and succeed in science understanding and discovery. For instance,
tonight on
PBS NOVA was another episode of science fiction by Brian Greene
talking about
"concept of time". He never defines time and thus is able to ramble on
and on
without actually doing true science. In this book, time is easily
defined to
mean, the arrangement of all the atoms and their associated energy. So
that if
there is no change in the arrangement then no time exists. Picture a
room in
which all the atoms relative to one another are the same, frozen in
place, so that
no dust falls, no atom of the air moves and we sitting in the room are
frozen
in place so that the distance between any two atoms, z and w, that
distance remains
constant. Brian Greene ineptly alluded to such a definition with his
snapshot of a
"now moment" and one of the lady commentors spoke of this idea of "all
objects
frozen in place". But Brian Greene makes the huge error of talking
about space without
ever mentioning that space is atoms and never mentions that atoms can
define time. Of
course, Greene had a slice of measuring time by the "ticks of cesium",
but Greene fails
to incorporate atoms and the atomic theory into a definition of time
itself. If Greene were
a mathematician, he would be making oodles and oodles of mistakes in
math because he
fails to consider that division by zero is undefined, but that time in
physics must be
defined.

In the Atom Totality theory, time is defined as the arrangement of all
the atoms in the cosmos,
and their associated energy.

With that definition we can see that never is there ever going to be
time travel. And with that
definition the arrow of time is apparent, in that the Universe itself
is a atom progressed to element
94 for with it is not going to go backwards to element 93 but forward
to element 96. Because the
Cosmos is an atom, a big atom, it is the arrow of time, and this
explains Boltzmann's entropy as discussed in the program.

So when Brian Greene has no definition of time and bases his idea of
the Cosmos on a Big Bang, then
the entire show is going to end up as nothing more then a science
fiction, no better nor worse than another episode of Doctor Who in his
blue box tardis with all sorts of imagination.

Also, a suggestion for Brian Greene and NOVA, please, why subject us
to a science fiction pandering that has Einstein mentioned in about
every other paragraph, for is this science or a religion propaganda
stunt? In the previous program by Greene of the fabric of Cosmos, he
goes so far as to say
that Einstein was great and right and correct that even his "blunders"
of the cosmological constant
is to be accepted. What Brian fails to understand is the topic of this
post, that if you really had
logic, and were in the 20th century when it was reported that astro
bodies possessed Solid-Body-Rotation, then the scientist with a
logical mind would come to the conclusions that gravity cannot ever
give solid body rotation and that the Cosmos is governed by
electricity and magnetism, which means the Cosmos is an Atom Totality.
What Greene fails to recognize, now, is that in the next century when
television is doing a science series on the Universe, that the names
of Newton, Dirac and Bell and Debroglie and AP will be mentioned
often, but that Einstein will not be mentioned even once. Nothing that
Einstein did in science is of any large meaning for which others had
already discovered before Einstein. Einstein's only original work
other than the photoelectric effect was General Relativity, but
General Relativity is utterly wrong in light of Dirac's ocean of
positron space. So to
have Brian Greene on NOVA PBS talking physics in the 21st century is
akin to having a voodoo witchdoctor of Africa on NOVA talking about
modern medicine and virus infections. But I stray here.


In my opinion, Brian Greene is the poorest of poor physicist because
he lacks Logic
in his thinking, and thus ends up being a parrot of bandwagon physics,
not true physics.

I am able to stomach two of these episodes of PBS NOVA on the Fabric
of the Cosmos, and
the concept of Time, but already in these two episodes I see a hidden
second agenda that
Brian Greene is doing more of propaganda than doing actual true
physics. Count how many
times Greene mentions Einstein, and so this Greene series looks more
like a religion
worship than it looks like the intent is to do true physics. Now on
sci.physics and sci.math
newsgroups we certainly have what I call the "screaming crazies" like
Pentcho Valev (excuse the
spelling if wrong) who constantly screams that Einstein is wrong in
everything, but then
we have the potentially worse and awful case of Brian Greene telling
the public that Einstein was
some "god of physics" and even his blunders were correct. It is easy
to filter or block Valev
as a screaming-crazy, but how do we block Greene as a TV screaming-
crazy pandering more to
religion than to physics?

Now I could only stomach two of Greene's episodes for string theory is
beyond the pale for science
and I will not watch or comment on that. But I have commented on these
two episodes.

The thing about Brian Greene and that plagues most scientists, is that
most scientists rarely
have enough Logical abilities to be doing science, other than to teach
what the real-scientist have
delivered. For example, when the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
of 2.71 K was reported in the
20th century, if Greene had a milligram of Logic would have said to
himself "wow, it is Blackbody" and
then the logic would have carried that thought some steps forward by
recognizing that only blackbody
radiation exists inside a cavity, so that means the Universe is a
cavity and the only cavity that can produce blackbody radiation is the
Atom. Instead, Greene parroted the usual nonsense of the 20th century
of black-holes and Big Bang. But Greene could have also noticed
another great discovery of the
20th century of solid-body-rotation in galaxies and the stars of
galaxies. And when that report came in, Greene could have said to
himself "wow, solid-body-rotation is not gravity but has to be
electricity and magnetism". And carrying that thought logically
forward means that the Cosmos must be
dominated by electricity and magnetism which implies the Cosmos is an
Atom since electricity and magnetism is atomic characteristics.

So why is NOVA and PBS hiring Brian Greene to disseminate, not true
physics, but a propaganda of physics slanted to praise a religion? Why
not have Pentcho Valev for a series on NOVA screaming how
Einstein was wrong everywhere?

If one watches the first Brian Greene show on Fabric of the Cosmos and
inserts the Atom Totality theory throughout every topic discussed in
that program, then one sees how the Atom Totality theory
solves and vanquishes every question raised such as dark matter, dark
energy, the unification of quantum mechanics with gravity. Every
question and problem is solved in that first episode if we start out
with the Atom Totality theory. But instead, what Greene ends up with
is a "Hologram Universe of
two dimensional holograms." Now if we asked Brian Greene would he
believe the Cosmos is a giant turtle that has the solar system resting
on its back (which the Ancients believed), we would likely see Brian
deny that turtle theory, and likely deny other silly theories such as
the Universe is a giant onion. But the question here is that of Logic,
and does Brian Greene have sufficient logic to actually be doing
physics? And here the question is, why would any physicist today even
consider a Hologram Universe, yet dismiss a Atomic Totality Universe?
Cannot Brian Greene see that his talk and consideration of a Hologram
Universe is like that of pushing a turtle or onion universe when the
true physics of a Atom Totality Universe is right there in front view.

The measure of a true scientist, is not one that can parrot what past
scientists have said, like
Brian Greene, but the measure of a true physicist is one who hears the
report that Microwave radiation is blackbody and who hears that
globular clusters have solid body rotation, then applies logic to
ascertain that only electricity and magnetism and blackbody atom
cavity is the Cosmos, thus an Atom
Totality.

It is pathetic and a crying shame that PBS NOVA has stooped to making
science a pandering box for
religion.

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: missing mass with its solid-body-rotation conundrum solved

** * *MISSING MASS Solved


Now I used to rate the Missing Mass Problem much higher than
*the blackbody cosmic background radiation. I did this because the
mass
*of the Universe is more important of a physical overall feature
*than the cosmic temperature. How much mass the Cosmos
*has is more important to the future of the Cosmos than its
*characteristic feature of temperature.


But now I rate this Missing Mass Problem lower because of the
*precision and our precision measurement of the cosmic
*temperature versus the imprecision we obtain with cosmic
*mass measurements of solid-body-rotation.

But both, the blackbody radiation and solid-body-rotation imply the
inside of a gigantic
atom since one is a cavity radiation and the other is electricity and
magnetism rotation.
We are all familiar with a phonograph record turned by electricity,
not gravity.


Cosmic Missing Mass Conundrum starts with astronomers
*of the 20th century observing and recording the motion of
*globular clusters and other astronomical objects in that they
*possessed Solid Body Rotation. But this Solid Body Rotation
*can have a Missing Mass Problem of anywhere from 70%
*missing mass to that of 99% missing mass.


We all know that in an atom and thus an Atom Totality that
*over 99% of the mass resides in the nucleus of the atom.


In the first 11 years of the 21st century, astronomers are
*caught busy by looking for goofy and silly things such as "brown
*dwarf stars" and then "dark matter" and then "dark
*energy" to explain why so much of the mass of the Cosmos
*is missing. The Atom Totality simply says over 99
*percent of the Cosmic mass resides in the Nucleus of the
*Atom Totality. And the Nucleus is the Great Attractor
*near the Great Wall of galaxies directional to the Sloan
*Great Wall of galaxies.


I suppose when astronomers of the 21st century confirm
*that the rotational speed of Solid Body Rotation of
*the Great Wall and Sloan Great Wall is so much slower
*of a speed than say the Milky Way and neighboring galaxies
*would be conclusive evidence that the Sloan Great Wall
*is very close and nearby to the Nucleus of the 231Pu
*Atom Totality. (The familar analogy is that a vinyl record
*player of a point near the center travels a slower speed around
*than does a point on the edge of the record since it travels
*so much more distance to make one revolution.)


So we live in exciting times where the astronomers could
*easily report the above.


Let me add to the above. I choose to put the
Blackbody CMBR ahead of Missing Mass because the CMBR is
so very precise of a measuring and it is blackbody. From that
singular
evidence of blackbody CMBR we can dismiss the Big Bang theory
as a fakery theory. If the CMBR had not been blackbody, then the Big
Bang would still be alive as a theory.


The trouble with the Missing Mass evidence is that a biased
researcher
who favors the Big Bang can report a missing mass of 70% missing
based
on some solid-body-rotation analysis. So we can see reports vary
from
one group claiming 70% missing mass and some group reporting 99%
missing mass. Until the day we get precision measuring of the amount
of
Missing Mass of the Cosmos, is the day that we combine the blackbody
CMBR with the Missing Mass data. And surely with the two of those
data in, we trashcan the Big Bang. But since the
Atom Totality is the only theory that has a blackbody CMBR, logic
expects
that the true data of Missing Mass is 99% of the Cosmic mass is
missing because
it is in the Nucleus of the Atom Totality.


Now maybe someday, we can make precision measurements of the arc of
rotation of galaxies further from the Nucleus. So that the Milky Way
galaxy
arc of rotation is a faster speed than a galaxy close to the
Nucleus.
And this
is probably why the Great Wall and Sloan Great Walls are so dense
with
galaxies is because they are so close and near the Nucleus of the
Atom
Totality.


I am confident that within this 21st century we pinpoint the Nucleus
of the Plutonium
Atom Totality.

Subject: Why blackbody Cosmic microwave radiation is more compelling
evidence
than Missing Mass


The trouble with missing-mass MM is that there is no science
concensus as to
how much
is missing. When some look at solid body rotation of strange
galaxies,
they
come up with a low end estimate of 70% of Cosmic mass is missing,
whereas
on the other end of the spectrum, solid body rotation is seen as 99%
of Cosmic
mass is missing.


Mass is more important than a cosmic feature of background radiation,
but when
the evidence has no science concensus, it is difficult to use the
missing mass as
the most compelling evidence. In the Big Bang theory there never was
any missing
mass prediction. In the Atom Totality theory, there is a spectacular
prediction, for
it predicts that the Cosmic mass, over 99% resides in a Cosmic
Nucleus, and we
cannot directly see it for it lies in a Atom Totality space node of
plutonium 231Pu.


If there was a concensus, a concensus as to how much
of MM is
missing. If the astrophysics community ever agreed that 99% or more
of
the Cosmic
mass is missing, then I would rate this evidence as high as the
Blackbody CMBR.
The reason that Blackbody CMBR is the highest evidence to date, is
because it
not only dismisses the Big Bang, for only atoms have blackbody
radiation, but that
the precision required to arrive at blackbody, is a precision very
much lacking in the
spread of missing mass anywhere from 70% to 99%. This inaccuracy of
spread of how
much is missing, keeps me from elevating the Missing Mass as a high
piece of evidence.


So we all have a view and understanding of an atom
*of plutonium. We know its dot-cloud-pattern of the
*electrons of the 5f6 of plutonium are dodecahedron
*in shape. We know from Double-Slit where the Nucleus
*would be the double-slit that we have patterns of
*dense dots as great walls or clusters of galaxies interspersed by
*voids. And so far so good since that is
*exactly what we see in the distribution of galaxies.
*And the temperature as blackbody microwave at 2.71K
*is also confirming a Plutonium Atom Totality. And the
*Schrodinger Wave Equation gives a nonrelativistic 6-sided and a
*relativistic dodecahedron shape for the 5f6
*of plutonium.


So can I put all those three together. I think I can because they fit
*as consistency. *If any one of them
*were different, then the three would be inconsistent. So
*the argument is of consistency.


I think my best proof that the Universe is a plutonium atom is the
*blackbody CMBR and then the missing mass with solid-body-rotation.


But I need to try to join the temperature with dodecahedron shape to
*that of the mass distribution of alternating walls with voids. I
need to begin to join evidences so
that the
consistency of the evidences makes for the inescapable conclusion 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

This is a subject of astronomy and cosmology that needs a skilled
person to
write the history of Solid Body Rotation and thus providing accurate
dates
for important discoveries specific to the phenomenon of Solid Body
Rotation.

This is as important as knowing that the Cosmic Microwave Background
Radiation is
blackbody radiation, hence proving the Atom Totality theory and
discarding the
Big Bang.

Solid Body Rotation, to any physicist with a modicum of logic in their
minds, knows that Solid Body Rotation means the forces involved cannot
be
gravity but rather, must be electricity and magnetism to create solid
body
rotation of astro bodies. For globular clusters to have solid-body-
rotation
means that the cosmos at large is a electricity/magnetism cosmos,
hence an
Atom Totality.

I am having a hard time of finding a history narrative on solid body
rotation
with globular clusters.

--- quoting from ---

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1988IAUS..126..521C

1) 19 clusters with Fe/H -0.8 have a solid-body rotation in
the direct sense.

--- end quoting ---

I had to
research what the available data in the astro literature was for solid
body rotation. There
are two forms of
solid body rotation of astro bodies. There is the globular clusters of
stars inside a single galaxy and nearby the center of that galaxy. And
then there is the more rare form of observed solid body rotation of
clusters of galaxies. So the common form of solid body rotation is
that of stars in a single galaxy. But we do have the accounts of solid
body rotation of several galaxies around a center of those galaxies.

--- quoting in part ---
The Astrophysical Journal, 1980
On the Rotation of Clusters of Galaxies, Thomas W. Noonan, 1979

"The transverse velocity of a cluster of galaxies perpendicular to the
line of sight produces an effect which is indistinguishable from
solid-
body rotation of the cluster,. ."
--- end quoting in part ---


--- quoting in part ---
Royal Astronomical Society

Rotation of the cluster of galaxies A2107
Kalinkov et al, 2005

"Velocity gradients suggestive of galaxy cluster rotation have been
found in several studies (e.g. Kalinkov 1968; Gregory 1975; Gregory &
Tifft 1976; . . "

"We consider a flat, disc-like galaxy cluster with regions of nearly
solid-body rotation."

--- end quoting in part ---

Apparently there exists solid body rotation of galaxies about a
galactic center of mass and a history of observations going back to
Kalinkov in
1968.

But the evidence of solid body rotation for galaxy clusters is rather
skimpy, and so I would not find fault with Dirac never responding to
solid body rotation reports from galaxy clusters.

And although the evidence appears skimpy, I believe there is enough
of galaxy cluster solid body rotation to accept it as true. And that
galaxy-cluster solid body rotation is only going to increase in
confirmation by future reports.

So with the two pieces of evidence of CMBR as blackbody microwave
radiation and that solid body rotation of globular-clusters and
galaxy-
clusters which comes from a electromagnetic force (not gravity) is
proof that the Cosmos is a Atom Totality.

The reason blackbody proves the Atom Totality is that it exists only
in a quantum box-- an atom. And the reason solid body rotation proves
the Atom Totality is that solid body is a EM force, where every
electric
motor is a fine example of solid body rotation. As to how stars have
solid body rotation is explained by positron-space of which those
positrons are concentrated at a galaxy center and thus the stars near
the center are forced into solid body rotation. These two evidences as
proofs are incontrovertible evidences.

Perhaps in future editions I can make better the history sources and
the actual years in which CMBR was known to be blackbody, and the
years in which galaxy solid body rotation was known true.

But really, any physicist of the 20th century, at the moment, the very
instant that Solid Body Rotation of astro bodies was reported, whether
in the 1960s, the alarm bells in the minds of those physicists should
have gone off in ringing. A number of the best physicists on the
reports
of solid-body-rotation should have indicated to them that the Cosmos
is
not ruled or governed by gravity at large, but rather is ruled and
governed
by electricity/magnetism.


Dirac died in 1984, a time in which CMBR was not known to be blackbody
radiation
and a time in which solid body rotation was sketchy for galaxy
clusters and
sketchy for globular star clusters. Only by the middle of the 1990s
would blackbody
CMBR and solid body rotation be settled evidence of astronomy. So we
could not
have expected Dirac to weigh in on that of the fake theory of Big Bang
with blackbody
CMBR and solid body rotation.

But Dirac weighed in heavily on Cosmology, afterall, with his new
radioactivities begot
from large-numbers hypothesis and his positron-space concept. It is
that the rest of the
little fishes of the physics and astronomy community never realized
that Dirac had
lead physics and cosmology to the truth of cosmology, and all they had
to do was read
his book "Directions in Physics", while they sorted out the evidence
that was against
the Big Bang theory.

One of the big lessons of the Big Bang theory and its fakery, is that
in a fake theory,
the evidence that the fake theory depends most upon, is the evidence
that seems to turn against
it in a big way. If you recall the history of the Big Bang theory, it
relied upon redshift
and the microwave radiation as the remnant of the explosion. That
microwave radiation has now
become the Big Bang's greatest single evidence of fakery. And when
coupled
with solid-body-rotation, a physicist has to have a vacuum for a mind,
not
to discard the Big Bang theory.

The redshift of galaxies has also turned against the Big Bang.
This book starts to expose the fakery of the redshift by
doing hands on experiments showing
that plastic corrugated material redshifts light and surprizingly
redshifts from oncoming auto lights.
So when we can do experiments that delivers redshift of light from
oncoming vehicles, means that astronomy
Doppler redshift is a totally inadequate evidence of anything in
astronomy. We know redshift exists but have
no clue as to why and what it tells us exactly. I cannot tell if the
automobile headlights are coming towards
me or going away, because both directions are redshifted.

I doubt that Doppler shift even exists in the electromagnetic spectrum
since it is governed by Special Relativity. I suspect Doppler shift
exists only in sound waves, but not EM waves. Since my experiment of
the
greenhouse plastic lexan material or fiberglass plastic material
produces a redshift of both white light going
towards or away from the observer, means that Doppler shift of any
light is nonexistent.

This means that distance in cosmology is probably going to end up as
being a measure of telescopic-method. If we can still see a galaxy in
the telescope, means the distance of the telescope is the limit of
distance. That probably means that the Great Wall and Sloan Great Wall
are not that far away since we can still see them in the
telescopes. That means the furthest reach of galaxies is likely to be
only 400 million light years. When we eliminate Doppler redshift out
of astronomy, we immediately cut the distances in half or more than
1/2.

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