|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Chapt11 Solid Body Rotation caused by EM, and Dirac's PositronSpace #77 Atom Totality theory 5th ed.
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Chapt11 and 12 Solid Body Rotation caused by EM, and Dirac's PositronSpace #78 Atom Totality theory 5th ed.
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Chapt11 Missing Mass, Dark Matter&Energy; Solid Body Rotation #73Atom Totality theory 5th ed. | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 2 | November 13th 11 08:00 PM |
Chapter 12 Solid Body Rotation for galaxies only in Atom Totality,not Big Bang #433 Atom Totality 4th ed | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | May 18th 11 08:00 AM |
Chapter 11 Solid Body Rotation for galaxies only in Atom Totality,not Big Bang #430 Atom Totality 4th ed | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 2 | May 17th 11 07:58 PM |
chapt 14 missing mass, solid body rotation inside an atom of itselectrons? #205 Atom Totality Theory | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 1 | December 16th 09 05:26 AM |
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 |