A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

conservation of angular momentum only in an atom totality structure#142; 3rd ed; Atom Totality (Atom Universe) theory



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 13th 09, 07:55 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Archimedes Plutonium[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 858
Default 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  
Old August 13th 09, 08:03 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
hdbanannah
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default 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  
Old August 13th 09, 08:52 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Archimedes Plutonium[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 858
Default 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  
Old August 13th 09, 09:54 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
hdbanannah
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default 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  
Old August 13th 09, 10:28 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
hdbanannah
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default 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  
Old August 13th 09, 10:29 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
hdbanannah
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default 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  
Old August 13th 09, 04:00 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Musatov's Meltdown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.