|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
4th ed. book, Chapt.1 What is this Theory? ; #8; ATOM TOTALITY(Atom Universe) theory; replaces Big Bang theory
What is the theory of the Atom Totality? One way to explore the
question is to compare the Atom Totality theory to its rival the Big Bang. I should say alot more about the remarkable deficiency of the stating of what the Big Bang theory is. Given the most active advocate of the Big Bang theory and asked to write a chapter about "What is the Big Bang theory" that it would be hard to write beyond one paragraph explaining the Big Bang theory for about all that can be said is "there was an explosion." And I would suppose the advocate would then refer to some book about the Big Bang which talks about what happened after 3 minutes, after 4 minutes, etc etc. When flawed science exists in the world of science, it is hard to explain or detail it and it becomes very vague, like the Big Bang theory. And it leaves more questions than any answers. What caused the Big Bang and what was the material of matter/energy of the Big Bang and what is time in a Big Bang? And why are all the Quantum Mechanics laws and rules violated by the Big Bang and when does the laws or rules of Quantum Mechanics come into existence for the Big Bang. So that if any scientist in the world at present were to write a book on the Big Bang theory with similar chapters as this book on the Atom Totality theory that the book would be horribly short in any detail. In fact I could write a whole book on just this chapter alone for the Atom Totality theory because it can include all that is known about the chemical elements and Atomic theory and Quantum Mechanics. But the Big Bang book writer faced with a chapter on "What is this Big Bang theory" can say only about a sentence or paragraph -- It was a Cosmic Explosion which created the Universe" What made it explode? What was it in the first place? And why does the Big Bang offer no clues as to the future, or the purpose of life? You see, when science has theories that cannot explain things, then you should and must distrust the theory. When the theory does not connect with other science and when the theory violates other physics theories such as Quantum Mechanics, then the sensible person should not buy the theory. In the past history of physics there have been other theories that were false and which followed a similar deficiency of unable to detail what the theory is. The phlogiston theory for heat and the fluidia theory for electricity are examples of old theories in physics which could not detail or explain the basic foundations of the theory. So you say heat is a fluid or you say that electricity is a fluid, but that never gives you any details of either heat or electricity. So I invite the most enamored lover of the Big Bang theory to write a chapter on the Big Bang of "What this Big Bang theory is" since I cannot see how they can say anything more than "there was a big explosion." In fact the name Big Bang theory suggests it is incapable of detailing the theory because if it had been named Big Explosion theory then the explanation may have said "in the beginning was a big-bang." On the other hand, the Atom Totality theory is so immensely rich of a science theory, that I could write a thousand pages alone on this one chapter. And a counterpart who loves the Big Bang theory writing about the supporting evidence for the Big Bang theory would have only one chapter of supporting evidence in the observation of a red shift expansion of the universe. So other than that observation, the Big Bang theory has no other supporting evidence. Not even the Cosmic Microwave Radiation supports the Big Bang because it is a quantized radiation at 2.71 K and utterly uniform with no fluctuations. The alleged fluctuations in recent past years were due to the fact that the precision of the measuring instruments had been surpassed. So for the past decades of the Big Bang theory, they have only one evidence that supports the Big Bang, whereas this book has more than 20 different categories and subcategories of evidence to support the Atom Totality theory. What is the theme or message of this inability or deficiency of explaining in detail what a theory of science is? The theme is that if a theory of science has a difficult time of explaining its foundations, then it is likely to not be a theory of science but a fakery. However, I do want to leave on a good note for the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang can be incorporated inside the Atom Totality theory given some modifications. In that when the Atom Totality went from a Uranium Atom Totality to that of a Plutonium Atom Totality via what I am guessing was a act of Spontaneous Fission that we can consider that act as a Mini Bang. But the reverse is not possible of fitting the Atom Totality theory inside of the Big Bang theory. And when LeMaitre first wrote about the Big Bang theory, 1920s or 1930s he called it the "Primeval Atom". So the explanation was the explosion of a primeval-atom. I should make some comments on the features of true science. That when science gets caught up in a debate between two rival competing theories, is there a logical testing procedure which can indicate, not prove mind you, which of the two theories is more true than the other? I believe the above two paragraphs may have uncovered a test of validity for rival theories. The test is that if theory A can incorporate theory B, given some modifications of B, but where theory B can never incorporate theory A given some modifications of A. Then theory A is likely to be the true theory. Now the underlying Logic of that test is the idea that a true theory cannot be modified to accomodate a false theory and thus be incorporated inside the false theory. Whereas a false theory can be modified and then fit inside the true theory. Now can we go back in science history and see if such a test would have worked or helped in the unraveling of which of two rival theories was more true than the other? How about Continental Drift and its rival of Convection Currents? How about Darwin Evolution and its rival of Lamarckian traits? Or Darwin Evolution and its rival of Biblical Genesis? Or how about in astronomy the competing theories of geocentric and heliocentric solar system? Or how about the rival theories of light as particle or light as wave? About the best example of rival competing theories where the test works well is the Newtonian Mechanics versus Quantum Mechanics. Best example because we still consider Newtonian Mechanics as a subset of QM for slow moving and massive objects. But is the test useful only for physics? I do not think so, because in biology I have a recent theory of metal causation for five diseases of Alzheimer Autism Parkinson Prion and Schizophrenia. And where the test applies in that a rival Prion theory of rogue proteins is modified to fit inside the metal theory but where the Metal theory cannot be modified to fit inside the rogue protein only theory. So here is a case example of two rival theories being put to this test and where the Metal theory is conferred more truth value than the rival prion theory. I am not going to spend time here on this test but just thought I should comment on it since it stuck out in my above writing. 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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Redshift and Microwave Radiation supports Atom Totality and not theBig Bang ; #9; ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) theory; replaces Big Bang theory
Archimedes Plutonium wrote: And a counterpart who loves the Big Bang theory writing about the supporting evidence for the Big Bang theory would have only one chapter of supporting evidence in the observation of a red shift expansion of the universe. So other than that observation, the Big Bang theory has no other supporting evidence. Not even the Cosmic Microwave Radiation supports the Big Bang because it is a quantized radiation at 2.71 K and utterly uniform with no fluctuations. The alleged fluctuations in recent past years were due to the fact that the precision of the measuring instruments had been surpassed. So for the past decades of the Big Bang theory, they have only one evidence that supports the Big Bang, whereas this book has more than 20 different categories and subcategories of evidence to support the Atom Totality theory. In the 1990s, it was seen that the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation had become a poisoned piece of evidence for the Big Bang, in that the radiation had been verified as quantized blackbody radiation. Blackbody radiation means the Microwave is on the inside of a cavity, the inside of a big atom of plutonium. Yet the Big Bang people ignored the fact that the CMBR was blackbody quantized radiation of 2.71 degrees K. This is science fraud, when you know the evidence no longer is supportive of the Big Bang yet you count it as supportive. So then there was a huge chase to try to reveal fluctuations in CMBR in the 1990s and 2000s, hoping that such a lure would assuage the fraud of the CMBR. It was announced there were "fluctuations" but in the announcement, it was not announced that the precision of their measuring devices had been reached and surpassed. So when the physicists said "there are fluctuations" they were liaring because they should have said "there are no fluctuations and that we had surpassed the precision of our instruments to measure fluctuations." So the CMBR evidence supports the Atom Totality theory, that we are on the inside of a big atom of plutonium whose 5f6 cavity is blackbody and has a microwave temperature of 2.71 K. That leaves only one other piece of evidence for the Big Bang theory, the redshift of galaxies. Here, the Big Bang people almost always point out this analogy when talking about the redshift. They say that a approaching train whistle of given speed is Doppler shifted to a blueshift or a shortening of the wavelength. And the train moving away has a redshift of the whistle or a stretching out of the wavelength. The trouble with the train analogy is that it does not take into account the geometry of the situation. And that the Doppler redshift is only useful in very limited circumstances but is not a Cosmic or astronomical measure. Here is a alternative analogy that applies to stars and star speeds and humans measuring those speeds. Analogy of straw in glass of water. In an earlier post I talked about a coin in a pond, a deep pond and how the refraction of light would alter what we think of as the position of the coin. This refraction of position is equivalent to a redshift. But let me use the straw in a glass analogy and since the light is refracted and bent upon entering the water, this refraction shifts the position of the straw and this is equivalent to redshift. Analogy of a corrigated peice of transparent plastic such as the roofing sheets of corrigated plastic or the greenhouse corrigated plastic. Here I have some in my own house and if you hang a sheet up against a window with a view of oncoming traffic from the road with their white headlights. What happens is that instead of a blueshift of the car white headlights, the plastic corrigated always delivers a redshift. So the Cosmic Redshift of galaxies was never that of a speeding away from us, but was merely a measure of the Cosmic Overall Geometry. That our Cosmos is highly bent the further away we are (corrigated sheet). And those far distant galaxies are not moving near the speed of light to cause such a redshift. The redshift is caused by the geometry of the Cosmos as a highly spherical geometry such as the shape of a cigar surface or a sausage surface or a elongated balloon surface which is called an ellipsoid. So the redshift of galaxies was never a measure of the speed involved with the galaxies, because they were all slow moving speeds just like the Milky Way and local galaxies of 100 km/sec, and nowhere near 299,792 km/sec. Big Bangers actually believe these faraway galaxies are moving nearly 299,792 km/sec to cause the redshift. The cause of these redshifts is that as light travels through the bent curvature of space (through my corrigated plastic), the light is redshifted. The redshift says nothing about the speed of the galaxy but says alot about how far away that galaxy is from Earth. So, here, we have a case of a theory of physics, that was borne and lived on two pieces of evidence. The Redshift of galaxies and the Microwave Radiation. Both pieces of evidence have turned against the Big Bang and are now evidences that destroy the Big Bang theory. A Cosmic atom is highly bent and curved into spherical or ellipsoid geometry and that light travelling far away is going to have to be highly refracted or redshifted, and the small speeds that these faraway galaxies possess, makes no difference upon the redshift affect. Now I also have a argument against the Big Bang redshift based upon the theory of Special Relativity. That in order to have Special Relativity true, that you need nearly every speed that is higher than 5% of the speed of light to be that of either light slowed down or light itself. That due to resonance and Special Relativity, that there are no rest mass objects moving at more than 5% of the speed of light. So you have the occasional or rare alpha particle moving at 5% the speed of light or a beta particle moving at 50% the speed of light but those are rare cases. In order for Special Relativity to be true, that 99.99% of the objects in the Cosmos that are moving at more than 5% of the speed of light is light itself. If there exists one galaxy moving with a speed near that of light it would destroy the theory of Special Relativity and the theory of resonance in physics. Because, really, honestly, do you think any galaxy can actually have a speed near that of light and not have disintegrated due to resonance. Does anyone actually think that a car can be moving at the speed of light and not have disintegrated? I often wonder whether physicists who love their Big Bang ever really think about what they have accepted. 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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
experiment that redshift is about geometry, not speed ; #10; ATOMTOTALITY (Atom Universe) theory; replaces Big Bang theory
Archimedes Plutonium wrote: (snipped) Sorry to my foreign friends as readers for the spelling of corrugated not corrigated. I pronounce it as that but it is spelled otherwise. Analogy of a corrigated peice of transparent plastic such as the roofing sheets of corrigated plastic or the greenhouse corrigated plastic. Here I have some in my own house and if you hang a sheet up against a window with a view of oncoming traffic from the road with their white headlights. What happens is that instead of a blueshift of the car white headlights, the plastic corrigated always delivers a redshift. Some may find it odd for me to have an experiment, smack in the first chapter, but I find experiments are welcomed no matter where they are. And especially an experiment that defeats the Big Bang theory all in one experiment. It is corrugated fiberglass and I bought a "greenhouse type of metal and fiberglass building". It was a small building of about 3 meters by 4 meters, but it was not stiff enough for South Dakota winds, and one day I just took out my reciprocating saw and sawed the four sides off. I cannot remember why I did not unscrew the building but rather ended up sawing the four walls off. I think it was saving of time, not out of frustration anger over the winds. And what I did next was to use those wall panels in my house up against windows so that light would always come in yet still have privacy. But what I soon discovered with the panels with a view of the west to east highway in view that the oncoming cars and trucks with their white lights, all were redshifted. So let me detail these corrugated panels of fiberglass. They are about 182 cm high and 116 cm long. Each corrugation is about 1.5 cm wide and 1.5 cm deep. The corrugations are spaced about 10 cm apart and in those 10 cm is somewhat flat but with a slight small angle. Now I looked through the fiberglass tonight and through the plain glass window and I focused on the most distant white headlight and it was redshifted by 35 cm or slightly more than three full panels of fiberglass (a panel is 10cm + 1.5 cm). And as that vehicle came closer to the house, the redshift had been reduced to that of less than one panel as that of 9 cm. So I suspect over a distance of 1 km of the road that the redshift started with 35 cm and at the closest approach had diminished to 9cm redshift. So now, what is the geometry of the corrugations equivalent to for a ellipsoid surface? Is it spherical or ellipsoid? Anyone can repeat the above, for I described the materials and the measurements. And the above tells us that speed of the object is of no importance for the redshift. The redshift is totally a geometrical consequence, of white light traveling through a bent medium of fiberglass. And the redshift tells us only the distance away of the object. The further away, the more the redshift, and the closer, the less of the redshift. About the only blueshift that can ever be expected in astronomy are the local galaxies moving towards us, but those would be rare and a small and tiny blueshift. There would not be any large blueshifts. So the geometry of the Cosmos as the 5f6 of 231Pu Atom Totality with its electrons in a lobe shaped geometry of high curvature would easily cause these redshifts of slow moving galaxies. It is not that these galaxies are travelling at nearly the speed of light, but rather they are white light galaxies travelling at say 30 km/sec or 100 km/sec and as their light travels through that curved space like the corrugated fiberglass, that white light is redshifted immensely. So here we have a situation where the redshift discovered in the 20th century, has become not a support of the Big Bang but an actual invalidator of the Big Bang. Now I do not think the Schrodinger Equation is able to unlock the curvature of the lobes of the 5f6 of plutonium. But if it can, then the curvature of these lobes should agree with the redshift of galaxies. 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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
experiment that redshift is about geometry, not speed ; #11; ATOMTOTALITY (Atom Universe) theory; replaces Big Bang theory
Archimedes Plutonium wrote: (snipped) Some may find it odd for me to have an experiment, smack in the first chapter, but I find experiments are welcomed no matter where they are. And especially an experiment that defeats the Big Bang theory all in one experiment. It is corrugated fiberglass and I bought a "greenhouse type of metal and fiberglass building". It was a small building of about 3 meters by 4 meters, but it was not stiff enough for South Dakota winds, and one day I just took out my reciprocating saw and sawed the four sides off. I cannot remember why I did not unscrew the building but rather ended up sawing the four walls off. I think it was saving of time, not out of frustration anger over the winds. And what I did next was to use those wall panels in my house up against windows so that light would always come in yet still have privacy. But what I soon discovered with the panels with a view of the west to east highway in view that the oncoming cars and trucks with their white lights, all were redshifted. So let me detail these corrugated panels of fiberglass. They are about 182 cm high and 116 cm long. Each corrugation is about 1.5 cm wide and 1.5 cm deep. The corrugations are spaced about 10 cm apart and in those 10 cm is somewhat flat but with a slight small angle. Now I looked through the fiberglass tonight and through the plain glass window and I focused on the most distant white headlight and it was redshifted by 35 cm or slightly more than three full panels of fiberglass (a panel is 10cm + 1.5 cm). And as that vehicle came closer to the house, the redshift had been reduced to that of less than one panel as that of 9 cm. So I suspect over a distance of 1 km of the road that the redshift started with 35 cm and at the closest approach had diminished to 9cm redshift. So now, what is the geometry of the corrugations equivalent to for a ellipsoid surface? Is it spherical or ellipsoid? Anyone can repeat the above, for I described the materials and the measurements. And the above tells us that speed of the object is of no importance for the redshift. The redshift is totally a geometrical consequence, of white light traveling through a bent medium of fiberglass. And the redshift tells us only the distance away of the object. The further away, the more the redshift, and the closer, the less of the redshift. About the only blueshift that can ever be expected in astronomy are the local galaxies moving towards us, but those would be rare and a small and tiny blueshift. There would not be any large blueshifts. So the geometry of the Cosmos as the 5f6 of 231Pu Atom Totality with its electrons in a lobe shaped geometry of high curvature would easily cause these redshifts of slow moving galaxies. It is not that these galaxies are travelling at nearly the speed of light, but rather they are white light galaxies travelling at say 30 km/sec or 100 km/sec and as their light travels through that curved space like the corrugated fiberglass, that white light is redshifted immensely. So here we have a situation where the redshift discovered in the 20th century, has become not a support of the Big Bang but an actual invalidator of the Big Bang. Now I do not think the Schrodinger Equation is able to unlock the curvature of the lobes of the 5f6 of plutonium. But if it can, then the curvature of these lobes should agree with the redshift of galaxies. In fact I do not need the corrugations but only a flat sheet of fiberglass and the more of angle I tilt it from perpendicular the more of a redshift I get. And in fact, I need no motion in the white light that comes through the fiberglass. Just a stationary white light from the distance gives a redshift. So the motion of a white light whether coming towards or going away is irrelevant to producing a redshift. The redshift is caused totally by refraction and the distance away of the white light source and the power of that white light. Here is a entry by Wikipedia on refraction and showing redshift: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction Now scroll down to the pictu "refraction in Perspex (acrylic) block" Notice the redshift of that initial white light beam. So how does this affect the Big Bang theory? Well, it was assumed that when the redshift of galaxies was discovered, that it meant the Universe originated in a Big Bang explosion and that these galaxies are moving away causing a Doppler redshift and thus they are moving at nearly the speed of light. With this experiment we have a better explanation of redshift in an Atom Totality. The curvature of Space of the 5f6 of the 231Pu Atom Totality is highly curved lobes, ellipsoids, and as white light travels from distant galaxies it is bent since Space is bent and it thus refracts the white light. Depending on distance and power of that white light source yields a redshift. So in the Big Bang, the redshift is an explosion effect with speeds causing a redshift. In the Atom Totality, the speeds of galaxies are immaterial, and whether they are going towards us or away from us. The redshift is caused solely by the extreme curvature of Space over long distances. There can be a Doppler shift but it is only a tiny contribution and only for local galaxies. The favorite explanation is the Atom Totality because it dismisses the nonsense that galaxies can have speeds nearly that of light, when anyone knows that it takes infinite energy to get a heavy object moving near the speed of light. And that Special Relativity theory is violated by having galaxies speeding with nearly that of light. And Resonance energy comes into play whenever speeds of astro bodies exceed that of about 500 km/sec. Galaxies just ripp apart or disintegrate with speeds higher than 500 km/sec. So it is not that the Big Bang is supported and vouched for with the redshift. But rather instead the redshift shows how much the Big Bang is a fake theory of science. And the only reason any astronomer or physicist still believes in the Big Bang, is the same reason that they could not accept Quantum Mechanics in the early 1900s, because a mind reaches an age in which it is never able to change and adapt to the new truths. There are still people who deny that the earth is round not flat and that deny that atoms exist. And we should not assume that scientists are immune to denial-phases in history. 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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
experiment that redshift is about geometry, not speed ; #12; ATOMTOTALITY (Atom Universe) theory; replaces Big Bang theory
I wish every chapter of this book had an experiment with it, and such
an easy experiment that anyone can do in their homes with little material and even High School students can perform. Use a flat piece of fiberglass rather than a corrugated piece for the corrugation only gets in the way. I had to look up a date for Hubble's redshift and it seems to be about 1929. Now I need to refresh myself on the date of Lemaitres Big Bang with a "primeval atom". It must have been earlier than 1929, but not much earlier. Now the idea and the experiment that the redshift is the geometry of space and has nothing to do with speed of galaxies or the speed of cosmic expansion, but simply the idea that as white light travels in highly curved space over long distances causes a refractive redshift. So that the redshift of faraway galaxies was never due to a explosion and expansion of the Cosmos, but merely a result of white light traveling far distances in a curved space. So this brings me to the logical conclusion that 3 dimensional Elliptic geometry needs to be detailed or discussed or made progress on. We know the sphere surface is a model of Elliptic geometry but that is 2 dimensional Elliptic geometry. Here we need 3rd dimensional Elliptic geometry, because the lobes of the 5f6 of the 231 Plutonium Atom Totality is 3rd dimensional Elliptic geometry. And we need this 3rd dimensional elliptic geometry in order to see or understand how white light travelling in this bent space becomes redshifted. We cannot expect white light from a galaxy on the pole when it reaches the equator with a galaxy there to see a redshift because that is a two dimensional medium. So I am going to take the most obvious suggestion of a solution since we cannot visualize 3rd dimensional elliptic geometry. I am going to say that 3rd dimensional Elliptic geometry is the surface of the sphere and is a layer of the sphere above and below the surface. Now how thick this layer is, is not clear to me as yet and am hoping that by the chapter 16 on the shape of the Cosmos, that this suggestion is good. Now how thick that 3rd dimension layer is, would be governed by the Dirac positron space that gives the force of gravity. So is this layer about the thickness of a galaxy? Seems kind of arbitrary. Now here I am sort of guided by the astronomy of Earth in that we have a huge magnetic field surrounding Earth. So let me be guided by that image and to say that the 3rd dimension is a layer that is the thickness of the magnetic field surrounding a galaxy and that as we get into space where there are no galaxies the layer is the thinnest but still a layer. So my image of 3rd dimensional Elliptic geometry of the Universe is a sphere surface covered by "lenses" where one lense is contiguous to other lenses and the thickness of these lenses is the thickness of the magnetic field surround galaxies. So that when a white light wave leaves a distant galaxy it travels through these lenses and when it reaches Earth is redshifted. The idea of lenses as the 3rd dimension of elliptic, sort of reminds me of Leibniz's monads. He called them monads but I call them lenses. And the idea of lenses reminds me of the Luminet team's research into the Poincare Dodecahedral Space where traveling in one of the 12 faces ends up in travelling down an identical face. So the face is just repeated in the next face. Likewise when in a lense of Elliptic geometry, you can just go round and round inside that lense. So basically this post is about how a light wave travels in Elliptic geometry and is redshifted, just as the light is redshifted from oncoming cars by the fiberglass panel. I need a 3 dimension for the light wave to be refracted and redshifted. The easiest solution is to think of a lenses as the 3rd dimension of elliptic geometry. Now if this holds up by the time I reach chapter 16, then all the better. 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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
experiment that redshift is about geometry, not speed ; #13; ATOMTOTALITY (Atom Universe) theory; replaces Big Bang theory
Archimedes Plutonium wrote: I wish every chapter of this book had an experiment with it, and such an easy experiment that anyone can do in their homes with little material and even High School students can perform. Use a flat piece of fiberglass rather than a corrugated piece for the corrugation only gets in the way. I had to look up a date for Hubble's redshift and it seems to be about 1929. Now I need to refresh myself on the date of Lemaitres Big Bang with a "primeval atom". It must have been earlier than 1929, but not much earlier. Surprize to me, for it looks as though the Big Bang theory arose afterwards of the Hubble redshift announcement that the distance to faraway galaxies was proportional to the redshift. For it looks as though Lemaitre announced the Big Bang "primeval atom explosion" after 1929, in the 1930s. So the history has to be rechecked on the sequence of events. I had thought that the Big Bang idea was extant before Hubble's redshift announcement, but it looks as though the Big Bang was not extant. The history of the Atom Totality theory is very clear. It was borne on 7 November, 1990 with the announcement that the Universe is a big atom of Plutonium. Now the idea and the experiment that the redshift is the geometry of space and has nothing to do with speed of galaxies or the speed of cosmic expansion, but simply the idea that as white light travels in highly curved space over long distances causes a refractive redshift. So that the redshift of faraway galaxies was never due to a explosion and expansion of the Cosmos, but merely a result of white light traveling far distances in a curved space. So this brings me to the logical conclusion that 3 dimensional Elliptic geometry needs to be detailed or discussed or made progress on. We know the sphere surface is a model of Elliptic geometry but that is 2 dimensional Elliptic geometry. Here we need 3rd dimensional Elliptic geometry, because the lobes of the 5f6 of the 231 Plutonium Atom Totality is 3rd dimensional Elliptic geometry. And we need this 3rd dimensional elliptic geometry in order to see or understand how white light travelling in this bent space becomes redshifted. We cannot expect white light from a galaxy on the pole when it reaches the equator with a galaxy there to see a redshift because that is a two dimensional medium. So I am going to take the most obvious suggestion of a solution since we cannot visualize 3rd dimensional elliptic geometry. I am going to say that 3rd dimensional Elliptic geometry is the surface of the sphere and is a layer of the sphere above and below the surface. Now how thick this layer is, is not clear to me as yet and am hoping that by the chapter 16 on the shape of the Cosmos, that this suggestion is good. Now how thick that 3rd dimension layer is, would be governed by the Dirac positron space that gives the force of gravity. So is this layer about the thickness of a galaxy? Seems kind of arbitrary. Now here I am sort of guided by the astronomy of Earth in that we have a huge magnetic field surrounding Earth. So let me be guided by that image and to say that the 3rd dimension is a layer that is the thickness of the magnetic field surrounding a galaxy and that as we get into space where there are no galaxies the layer is the thinnest but still a layer. So my image of 3rd dimensional Elliptic geometry of the Universe is a sphere surface covered by "lenses" where one lense is contiguous to other lenses and the thickness of these lenses is the thickness of the magnetic field surround galaxies. So that when a white light wave leaves a distant galaxy it travels through these lenses and when it reaches Earth is redshifted. The idea of lenses as the 3rd dimension of elliptic, sort of reminds me of Leibniz's monads. He called them monads but I call them lenses. And the idea of lenses reminds me of the Luminet team's research into the Poincare Dodecahedral Space where traveling in one of the 12 faces ends up in travelling down an identical face. So the face is just repeated in the next face. Likewise when in a lense of Elliptic geometry, you can just go round and round inside that lense. So basically this post is about how a light wave travels in Elliptic geometry and is redshifted, just as the light is redshifted from oncoming cars by the fiberglass panel. I need a 3 dimension for the light wave to be refracted and redshifted. The easiest solution is to think of a lenses as the 3rd dimension of elliptic geometry. Now if this holds up by the time I reach chapter 16, then all the better. If I am not mistaken, I believe the Luminet interpretation of the Poincare Dodecahedral Space is a 3rd dimensional Elliptic geometry. What allows a 3rd dimension is the 12 faces of the dodecahedron return to the original face. So that as you travel along one face and meet a second face you are travelling back through the first face. In this geometry Space, stars and galaxies repeat themselves. So if I am not mistaken, If I substitute a face with a huge lense and there would be 12 lenses altogether in the Poincare Dodecahedral Space. That such a model would be 3rd dimensional Elliptic geometry. And so the travel of light from one galaxy to another galaxy is always travelling inside this lense medium and is refracted. The further away two galaxies are means that light travels through the thickness portion of the lense. I am anxious to look up any blueshifted galaxy. Because I feel that the blueshift is able to separate the true conjectures from the false conjectures. If I am correct about lenses, then the blueshift should conform. In all these years from 1990 to 2010, I have not focused on what galaxies are blueshifted, and it is fun to now have to explore what are blueshifted, if any. 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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
does the blueshift support the Atom Totality more than the Big Bang?#14; ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) theory; replaces Big Bang theory
Archimedes Plutonium wrote: If I am not mistaken, I believe the Luminet interpretation of the Poincare Dodecahedral Space is a 3rd dimensional Elliptic geometry. What allows a 3rd dimension is the 12 faces of the dodecahedron return to the original face. So that as you travel along one face and meet a second face you are travelling back through the first face. In this geometry Space, stars and galaxies repeat themselves. So if I am not mistaken, If I substitute a face with a huge lense and there would be 12 lenses altogether in the Poincare Dodecahedral Space. That such a model would be 3rd dimensional Elliptic geometry. And so the travel of light from one galaxy to another galaxy is always travelling inside this lense medium and is refracted. The further away two galaxies are means that light travels through the thickness portion of the lense. I am anxious to look up any blueshifted galaxy. Because I feel that the blueshift is able to separate the true conjectures from the false conjectures. If I am correct about lenses, then the blueshift should conform. In all these years from 1990 to 2010, I have not focused on what galaxies are blueshifted, and it is fun to now have to explore what are blueshifted, if any. --- quoting from Wikipedia on blueshift --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueshift The Andromeda Galaxy is moving towards our own Milky Way Galaxy within the Local Group; thus, when observed from earth, its light is undergoing a blue shift. When observing spiral galaxies, the side spinning towards us will have a slight blue shift (see Tully-Fisher relation). Also, Blazars are known to propel relativistic jets towards us, emitting synchrotron radiation and Bremsstrahlung that appears blue shifted. Nearby stars such as Barnard's Star are moving towards us, resulting in a very small blue shift. --- end quoting from Wikipedia blueshift --- --- quoting about a quasar blueshift --- http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...2ca922c9c07726 We have obtained optical intermediate-resolution spectra (R=3000) of the narrow-line quasars DMS 0059-0055 and PG 1543+489. The [O III] emission line in DMS 0059-0055 is blueshifted by 880 km s-1 relative to Hbeta. We also confirm that the [O III] emission line in PG 1543+489 has a relative blueshift of 1150 km s-1. These two narrow- line quasars show the largest [O III] blueshifts known to date among type 1 active galactic nuclei (AGNs). --- end quoting --- I need to look into these reported blueshifts. I think most of them are due to rotational speeds such as the quasar report above, and that most of them are so tiny and small of a blueshift as to be insignificant. I am unsure as to what the Big Bang theory predicts according to the occurrence of blueshifts and what the Atom Totality predicts according to the blueshift occurrence. Whether the Big Bang predicts more occurrences of blueshifts than the Atom Totality. According to the fiberglass window on approaching white light auto headlamps, all of them were redshifted. So does the Atom Totality predict no blueshifts? And should the Big Bang theory predict alot more blueshifts considering there would be half the galaxies heading or approaching in our direction so that 1/2 of the galaxies be blueshifted rather than a rare occurrence? If the Big Bang predicts about 1/2 or even 1/4 of the galaxies be blueshifted, then the Big Bang is falsified since nearly all the shifts are redshifted. 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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
does the blueshift support the Atom Totality more than the BigBang? #15; ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) theory; replaces Big Bang theory
Blueshift is not an easy topic to find out information.
Anyway, let me summarize the types of redshift commonly bantered about. There are three such types: (a) Doppler redshift -- relative motion or speeding away of two objects, causing an elongation of the wavelength (b) Cosmological redshift-- due to expansion of Space itself from a Big Bang (c) Gravitational redshift-- pull of a gravitational field. We can leave out gravitational redshift. The Atom Totality theory would argue that since speeds of all galaxies are so tiny of speeds that we would not see any redshift cosmic wide. And the Atom Totality would argue that the Cosmological redshift is not due to a explosion, because Space is not moving or expanding but rather standing still, and the Cosmic redshift is due to light traveling through a highly curved Space. So the Atom Totality theory would say on the issue of Cosmic redshift, that we can exlude Doppler redshift since the speeds of galaxies are so small of speeds that they have little to no contribution. And as the experiment of a fiberglass window with oncoming headlights of autos shows that the redshift is all about refraction of Space. Redshift as the curvature of Space is what the Atom Totality prescribes, and it is a relationship dependent on distance, similar to the Hubble law, only the cause is not an expansion but a geometry effect. So, the question is, can the blueshift tell whether the Big Bang is true or false? And can the blueshift tell of the Atom Totality is true or false? I think it can. There should be alot more blueshifts occurring if the Big Bang is true. In fact, blueshifts are rare. This indicates that the curvature of space causing redshifts goes into action at a relatively small distance away from Earth. Beyond the Andromeda galaxy there is hardly any blueshift seen. What blueshift occurrs is rotational speeds and this is a very tiny blueshift. I think the data supports the Atom Totality. Because if blueshifts disappear at relatively small distance from Earth, indicates that the geometry of Space is the cause, not the motion or expansion of Space. The Big Bang would predict a large number of cases of blueshift for distant galaxies. The Atom Totality would predict no cases of blueshift for distant galaxies. As far as I can see in the reports, there are no blueshifts, unless you want to call the rotational motion as blueshifts. In a debate of the Big Bang versus Atom Totality over redshift and blueshift, I want to draw attention on a weakness of the Big Bang theory that is exploitative. The Big Bang says there are no edges to the Cosmos and there is no center of the Cosmos. So they are saying that the Big Bang is 2D Elliptic geometry as a sphere surface to account for an explosion and that this explosion gives a redshift since all galaxies are moving away from one another. But they are in trouble with that notion because we know that Space is 3 dimensional. The Atom Totality understands that space is 3 dimensional and tries to show a 3rd dimension to the surface of a sphere. It is this 3rd dimension that light from distant galaxies has to travel through and is thus refracted and redshifted. This 3rd dimension is sort of like a ** lens** and as white light travels through that lens, it is redshifted. So where the Big Bang explains redshift as a 2D explosion for a sphere surface, the Atom Totality explains the redshift as the 3rd Dimension of the sphere surface with a lens as the third that causes the redshift. So the Big Bang people have been derelict in not coming up with the 3rd dimension of Space. I do not think they want everyone to believe that the Cosmos is only two dimensional, just so their theory can pass. Through the years someone should have composed a compendium of all the blueshifts, for I believe such a focused study on just blueshifts alone can decide whether the Big Bang theory is a fake or has a fighting chance. Since blueshifts are rare and only local. Discounting all the blueshifts due to rotations. We can almost announce the end of 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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Chapter 2 Pictures of the Atom Totality #16; ATOM TOTALITY (AtomUniverse) theory; replaces Big Bang theory
Relativistic Physics has the energy of light at E = mc^2 NonRelativistic Physics has the kinetic energy at E = 1/2mv^2 Notice that one is 1/2 and the other is 1. That is important as to the shape of the Atom Totality whether it is 6 sided or 12 sided. Simple version of what a plutonium atom looks like: . \ . . | . /. . . \. . .|. . /. . ..\....|.../... ::\:::|::/:: _ _ (:Y _ _ ::/:::|::\:: ../....|...\... . . /. . .|. . \. . . / . . | . \ . There are six lobes and those lines represent those 6 lobes and all the dots represent the last 6 electrons as a electron dot cloud. Each dot is a galaxy in the night sky. There are about 10^60 dots to each electron and that would account for all the atoms in the observable Cosmos. So when we look up in the nighttime at the Night Sky and see all those stars and galaxies we are looking at pieces of the last six electrons of one gigantic big atom of plutonium. The isotope of plutonium is 231Pu, because that isotope fits the special numbers of physics and math. Such special numbers as the fine-structure constant or "pi and e". Simple version of what a plutonium atom looks like with its 5f6 as that of 12 lobes or as a dodecahedron: . \ . . | . /. . . \. . .|. . /. . ..\....|.../... ::\:::|::/:: --------------- ------------- --------------- (Y) ------------- --------------- -------------- ::/:::|::\:: ../....|...\... . . /. . .|. . \. . . / . . | . \ . 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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Chapter 2 Pictures of the Atom Totality; postscript-- redshiftresolved #17; ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) theory; replaces Big Bang theory
For a picture of the electron-dot-cloud, although it is not going to
show you 10^60 dots, although we can start to see 10^60 dots by looking at the Night Sky of galaxies. Of course, the dots in the Night Sky are concentrated in stars and galaxies and not effused and spread out. This textbook which I have owned for a long time and perhaps the best College textbook on physics, even though it is 1986 vintage, for the newest physics textbooks are cluttered up with fake physics such as black holes, neutron stars, Big Bang and other untrue exotica. Halliday & Resnick textbook PHYSICS, Part 2, Extended Version , 1986, of page 572. This is a large electron cloud dot picture for which I quote the caption. --- quoting --- CHAP.26 CHARGE AND MATTER. Figure 26-5 An atom, suggesting the electron cloud and, above, an enlarged view of the nucleus. --- end quoting --- If you happen to have the book and look at the picture, the dots are vastly too dense. But it was this picture that connected the dots (sorry for the pun) for my mind on the morning of 7 November 1990. And thus the Atom Totality theory was borne. You see, the dots of the electron cloud are the galaxies of the night sky. The dots of the electron cloud are actual mass chunks or pieces of the last 6 electrons, the 5f6 of 231PU. Postscript: Chapter 1 on the topic of redshift. I departed chapter 1, way to early. And thank goodness for this device of a postscript so that I can continue to organize this book whilst adding ideas that are out of place. If the Big Bang were true, then it is extremely hard to believe that the redshift is the expansion of Space itself. That is a new physics altogether and contradicts other physics. The next question would be to ask if the galaxies that are riding a space that is travelling as fast or even faster than the speed of light, would that also make the velocity of galaxies be the speed of light. So in the Big Bang theory explanation of redshift, we have a whole new physics that has never been tried before, because we have galaxies riding in Space that is moving close to or faster than the speed of light. How do Big Bang people reconcile their theory with the implications that Space is moving, and would that not also make the galaxies move at the speed of light? Whereas the Atom Totality theory explains the redshift as simply a Space that is motionless but highly curved as a lens is curved and that white light traveling far distances is refracted in this curved and bent space yielding a redshift. So I ask the commonsense physicist or the commonsense layperson. Which makes the easier explanation? The Big Bang which asks you to believe that Space is in motion and travelling beyond the speed of light and carrying galaxies along in that motion to yield a redshift? Or is the explanation that Space is motionless but highly curved like the surface of a sphere and that this curvature over large distances causes light to be refracted and thus redshifted? Clearly the Atom Totality theory is the better commonsense explanation. The Big Bang involves new physics that has never been seen or heard of before, where you have Space in motion, where you have Space as a separate entity, yet never defining what Space is, and you have Space carrying galaxies along in that motion. Sounds really farfetched and preposterous. But then in the time frame of 1930 to 1990, the Big Bang was the only theory on the block and so any farfetched and preposterous and ludicrous notions would pass, since there was no other theory to compete with. I departed Chapter 1 without really resolving the issue of redshift and blueshift in Big Bang and Atom Totality. Here, I have resolved it. Because it comes down to a choice between Space travelling at the speed of light and thus the galaxies would be travelling at the speed of light, or a whole new physics. Or, the choice that Space is motionless, and that galaxies are travelling at slow speeds like that of 70 km/sec, and that the redshift is caused by the curvature of space that refracts white light and redshifts that light. This is standard common physics and nothing new. So on that account alone, where we do not need to have to compare redshifts and blueshifts, the Big Bang is a fake and only the Atom Totality can reasonably explain the redshift. The Big Bang asks us to accept new and untried and farfetched physics-- that Space is separate from matter and that Space is in motion and that Space carries galaxies at upwards the speed of light. 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 |
distribution of galaxies points to Atom Totality not Big Bang #176 ;3rd ed; Atom Totality (Atom Universe) theory | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | November 6th 09 08:29 AM |
chapters of this book; #163; 3rd ed; Atom Totality (Atom Universe)theory | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 1 | August 21st 09 09:11 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 |
Tifft quantized galaxy speeds #22 ;3rd edition book: ATOM TOTALITY(Atom Universe) THEORY | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 1 | May 9th 09 11:01 PM |
#1 new book; ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY REPLACES BIG BANGTHEORY IN PHYSICS | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 13 | May 1st 09 06:25 AM |