4th ed. book, preface #1; ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) theory;replaces Big Bang theory

Alright, this is the 4th edition of this book. In the first
three editions, I have not been able to make the book
flow coherently, since I had all the posts rather mixed up and not
following the chapters. So this edition, essentially is the organizing
of this book so that the sequence of posts follows this chapter
layout. And so
that the reading of these posts, is a graceful flow of
reading.

Plutonium Atom Totality theory


Chapters of this book:


I. the theory
*(1) what is this theory?
*(2) pictures of the Atom Totality theory
*(3) history of the theory and precursor hints


II. Observational and experimental support
*(4) density and distribution of all galaxies
*(5) Tifft quantized galaxy speeds
*(6) Dirac's new-radioactivities and Dirac's multiplicative-creation
*(7) Earth itself; age; zirconium crystal dating
*(8) Solar System: CellWell 1 and CellWell2 ; planet cores ; plane of
ecliptic
*(9) Milky Way: Exoplanets and exosolarsystems; Binary Stars
*(10) MECO theory to explain high energy sources and
*black-hole theory as science-fiction


III. Cosmic characteristics and features; support
*(11) layered age of Cosmos with 6.5 billion years new Cosmos yet old
galaxies of the Uranium Atom Totality 20.2 billion years old; the data
including discussion over the layered ages of the Solar System
*where Sun is likely to be twice as old as Jupiter.
*(12) uniform blackbody 2.71 K cosmic microwave background radiation
*(13) Dark Night sky: Olber's Paradox fully answered
*(14) missing mass conundrum solved
*(15) the cosmic distribution of chemical elements
*(16) shape of the Cosmos as 6 lobes of 5f6 as nonrelativistic as
Cubic, or as relativistic Dodecahedron
*(17) color of the cosmos as plutonium off-white


IV. Mathematical and logic beauty support
*(18) "pi" and "e" and "i" explained; inverse fine structure constant
and proton to electron mass
*ratio, all linked and explained
*(19) Bell Inequality with Superdeterminism fits only in an Atom
Totality theory
*(20) Purpose and meaning of life
*(21) Atomic theory Syllogism
*(22) Future News and Research Reports supporting the Atom Totality
theory and future news and research reports commentary

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 Apr 16, 2:53*am, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
Alright, this is the 4th edition of this book. In the first
three editions, I have not been able to make the book
flow coherently, since I had all the posts rather mixed up and not
following the chapters. So this edition, essentially is the organizing
of this book so that the sequence of posts follows this chapter
layout. And so
that the reading of these posts, is a graceful flow of
reading.
**(20) Purpose and meaning of life

You mean "the meaning of liff", don't you?

In the prior editions I tried to list the evidence that is the
strongest in
favor of the Atom Totality and the most damaging to the Big Bang.
I still believe the density and distribution of galaxies is the
"seeing
is believing" supportive evidence. That you cannot have a interference
diffraction pattern such as the double-slit experiment on the Cosmos
of galaxies, yet that is what we see in the density and distribution
of
galaxies.

What I want to do is talk about the most immediate and highly
supportive evidence that the Atom Totality theory is the true theory
and that the
Big Bang is a fake theory.

I believe what will happen is that the astronomy and cosmology physics
will highly support and indicate the truth of the Atom Totality theory
but since the distances are so far away, that the pattern and
distribution
of galaxies that is equal to the distribution of the electron-dots of
the
electron-dot-cloud of a Plutonium Atom is not enough evidence for the
weak
minded physicist. And that the overwhelming evidence that even the
weak
minded physicist cannot dismiss will be evidence in our own backyard--
our
Solar System.

So the day in which it is announced that say the Earth and Sun are
twice as old as Jupiter and Saturn, is the day in which the Atom
Totality
theory will remove the Big Bang theory. Or the day in which it is
found a
chemical substance that dates the Solar System at 10 billion years of
age.

That the acceptance of one theory over an old theory takes place if
the evidence is nearby. It is sad that science and physics rely on
closeness or nearby evidence even though faraway evidence becomes
overwhelming.

As for my own journey with the Atom Totality theory, it was never that
of supporting data or supporting evidence. It was from the start in
November of 1990, that the beauty of symmetry or harmony that the
Universe had
to be an atom just as all matter is of atoms, that the Atom Totality
theory was borne. The logical symmetry and beauty allowed me to
discover it, much
like the discoveries by Dirac in the early 1900s with quantum
mechanics, that the logical symmetry demands it to be true. And then
afterwards
mount the supporting data.

So the above listed chapters are what I consider the best available
evidence that the Atom Totality theory is the true theory and that the
Big Bang is a fake theory.


Now I am going to do something that maybe a first in book writing. I
am
going to add post-scripts to the page, in which I write about
something
important in science but which is out of place in the book and will
have
to pick up that post-script at a future moment in the book. This was
the
problem I was having in writing the 1st through 3rd editions in that I
was
having too many new ideas that the book was not flowing nor organized.
So here, in this edition, I strive for organization but can add new
ideas
that are out of place by calling them a "Post-script."

Post-script: I just recently finished a book called "Correcting Math"
and the last pages talked about the speed of light and how there is a
desert between slow moving objects and the speed of light.
Top speeds of galaxies is about 200 to 500 km/sec. The earth moves
at 30 km/sec, and the sun at 20 km/sec. Alpha particles move at
15,000 km/sec and beta particles about half the speed of light. I gave
a outline of why the neutrino rest mass is zero. That would leave
the fastest rest mass particle to be the beta-particle. And the desert
of no rest mass speed is from 1/2(c) to the speed of light c. This
means
that astronomers and physicists have it all wrong about galaxies
moving
with nearly the speed of light. It means that the most faraway galaxy
of
huge redshift is probably moving at a speed of between 20 km/sec
to less than 500 km/sec. And that we need a huge rethink of redshift.

In fact, I outlined that Special theory of Relativity works, only if
the speed
of light covers most of the range of speeds possible. This means that
the
fastest rest mass speed should be the beta particle at 1/2(c) and that
all
other speeds from 1/2(c) to c itself is covered only by light speed,
or light
slowed down. It means that Special Relativity exists only when the
speed of
light is the top speed and where the majority range of speeds is
covered only by
light slowed down.

Doppler redshift occurs but on a tiny scale in astronomy
because the galaxies are not moving away at such speeds. Rather
instead
what causes the huge redshifts is a geometry effect. Consider the
cosmos
as a large ellipsoid or a sphere surface and as the light from distant
galaxies
eventually reach us that light has been bent to the curvature of the
cosmos.
A good analog is a coin in a pond where the light is bent distorting
where the
coin actually is. It is redshifted. Now suppose the pond is made
deeper and
deeper and as the coin falls deeper and deeper, it is distorted or
redshifted
even more. So in this viewpoint, almost all galaxies have the same
intrinsic
speeds. And the reason for the huge redshift of faraway galaxies is
not due
to intrinsic speed, but rather, due to the fact that the light
travelling from these
distant galaxies was so drastically bent due to the geometry curvature
of the Cosmos, that by the time it reaches us, it is redshifted. So
the redshift
tells us nothing about the speeds of those faraway galaxies, but tells
us
how much of a curvature the cosmos has. (chapter 16: shape of Cosmos)

About the only supporting evidence of the Big Bang is the redshift,
but the
redshift is more about geometry of the cosmos, rather than some
ancient explosion
that ushered in a Big Bang. Redshift as a geometry effect can occur in
a nonexplosion
universe and is simply a measure of the degree of curvature of space.

P.P.S. Now I can do postscripts if I promise not to do too many in a
book, otherwise
it is disorganized again.

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

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(some snipping)


Plutonium Atom Totality theory


Chapters of this book:


I. the theory
*(1) what is this theory?

Actually the theory is easier to explain than is the Big Bang, because
everyone in
science has to learn the atomic theory. And so a final step of the
Atomic theory
is to say the Cosmos is a big atom. And this is how we get quantum
strangeness
in that the Cosmos is the same item as what it is composed of.


*(2) pictures of the Atom Totality theory
*(3) history of the theory and precursor hints


I wanted to spend some time on the observation and experiment support.
I do not know how the Big Bang will finally be swept away into the
garbage
of shame. What observation or experiment will discard the fake theory.
But we do have clues of past theories, especially geology as to how a
old decrepit theory gets displaced. In the Continental Drift or Plate
Tectonic
theory which replaced the Stationary Continents, it finally took the
observation of MidAtlantic seafloor spreading to win the Continental
Drift
theory. There was mounting evidence all along, but when the mechanism
for drift of continents by the seafloor spreading, the rift and the
movement
apart of the seafloor, when this mechanism was observed to be true,
then
the Continental Drift theory won.

So it is likely that the Atom Totality theory will follow a similar
pattern of
acceptance. That not until a "mechanism" of the atom totality is
observed
or experimented with, that the Big Bang will linger. And the perfect
mechanism
of the Atom Totality theory is the Dirac new radioactivities which in
this book
is chapter 6. If we notice that new atoms or new matter is how the
planets grow
or the Sun grows from Dirac new radioactivities, and we can notice
this here in
our own Solar System, measure it and experiment with it. So once we
show
this mechanism of Dirac new radioactivities, which I called a long
time ago
in the 1990s as spontaneous neutron/proton/electron materialization
and coming
via Cosmic Rays or Cosmic Gamma Ray bursts. So once this Dirac new
radioactivities is well known and established, then there is no
further need for a
Big Bang, because the Cosmos exists due to not a cosmic explosion with
supernova
spreading the matter to and fro, but rather, the materials in the
cosmos were slowly
built up from new radioactivities. The Sun, Earth and planets, the
Milky Way and
other galaxies came into existence not from a Big Bang with assistance
of supernovae
to spread around the matter and with Nebular Dust Clouds coalescing,
instead, these
structures were built up after billions of years, more than 20 billion
years by the steady
Dirac new-radioactivities such as Cosmic rays and gamma ray bursts.

As soon as the MidAtlantic rift and seafloor spreading was seen and
reported, marked
the end of the Stationary Earth theory and Continental Drift won. As
soon as it is observed
and experimented and reported that the planets and satellites grow via
Dirac new-radioactivities, marks the end of the Big Bang.



II. Observational and experimental support
*(4) density and distribution of all galaxies
*(5) Tifft quantized galaxy speeds
*(6) Dirac's new-radioactivities and Dirac's multiplicative-creation
*(7) Earth itself; age; zirconium crystal dating
*(8) Solar System: CellWell 1 and CellWell2 ; planet cores ; plane of
ecliptic
*(9) Milky Way: Exoplanets and exosolarsystems; Binary Stars
*(10) MECO theory to explain high energy sources and
*black-hole theory as science-fiction


III. Cosmic characteristics and features; support
*(11) layered age of Cosmos with 6.5 billion years new Cosmos yet old
galaxies of the Uranium Atom Totality 20.2 billion years old; the data
including discussion over the layered ages of the Solar System
*where Sun is likely to be twice as old as Jupiter.
*(12) uniform blackbody 2.71 K cosmic microwave background radiation
*(13) Dark Night sky: Olber's Paradox fully answered
*(14) missing mass conundrum solved
*(15) the cosmic distribution of chemical elements
*(16) shape of the Cosmos as 6 lobes of 5f6 as nonrelativistic as
Cubic, or as relativistic Dodecahedron
*(17) color of the cosmos as plutonium off-white


IV. Mathematical and logic beauty support
*(18) "pi" and "e" and "i" explained; inverse fine structure constant
and proton to electron mass
*ratio, all linked and explained
*(19) Bell Inequality with Superdeterminism fits only in an Atom
Totality theory
*(20) Purpose and meaning of life
*(21) Atomic theory Syllogism
*(22) Future News and Research Reports supporting the Atom Totality
theory and future news and research reports commentary


So I am going to use a new trick in book writing. So that I can print
new ideas
and not have to wait for the proper chapter to reveal those new ideas.
I simply
add a Postscript and then when I reach that chapter, I repeat and
elaborate
those ideas.

Postscript for chapter 16:
The theory of Special Relativity is all true and well, but it was
never really
elucidated as to its full details and meaning. Only a small fraction
of its implications
have been revealed and cited in physics. One of the great implications
of SR was
never realized until now. That energy in SR is far more important than
speeds of
matter in SR. In the last postscript I mentioned a "speed desert" in
physics of where
the beta particle at 1/2(c) to that of (c) is occupied only by
photonic speeds and nothing
of rest mass objects. In order to have SR, in the first place, is that
the speeds of everything
in the Universe is either the slow speeds such as objects on Earth or
the motion of
planets or the motion of galaxies, a speed desert, and finally the
speed of light. In order for
physics to have SR, that the dominant speed is the speed of light and
only with photons and
that a "desert" must exist in order for SR to be true. This fact or
idea was never mentioned
or discovered in physics, and it lead to a false chase for looking for
neutrinos to have a tiny
rest mass, based on their ability to switch forms.

But the reason that SR must be slow speeds, a speed-desert, and then
predominantly
photon speeds with a slowed down photon speeds. The reason this must
be the case
is because the Universe has a set given amount of total energy at any
one given time.
Call that total Cosmic energy X. In order to have SR true and with a
given X, then you
must have most every speed that has rest mass of 500 km/sec or less,
the majority
at about 30 km/sec. From 500 km/sec to that of (c) must be
predominantly occupied by
only photons or slowed down light waves. So for a speed of 3/4(c)
there are few if no
rest mass objects with that speed, but alot of slowed down light waves
moving at
3/4(c). Now you can have a few beta particles in all the Cosmos,
moving at 3/4(c), but
you cannot have alot of them moving at that speed. And of course you
cannot have
any galaxies moving at faster than a upper limit of about 500 km/sec.

In order to have Special Relativity correct as a law of physics, means
that the Cosmos
has a given finite energy, which means that all mass objects have to
have a slow speed,
and that you have a speed desert, and finally you have photon speeds.

What this implies is that the interpretation of galactic redshift of
galaxies, has to be
rethought. It is false to think any galaxies in the Universe are
moving with a speed
faster than the Milky Way is moving. There are no galaxies approaching
the speed of
light. This means the redshift is a geometry effect. No rest mass
object ever gets
close to the speed of light, and the beta particle gets the closest,
but very few of them
do. The Cosmic energy X has to be preserved, and so we have this speed
zone
of the Cosmos.

Through the years after the redshift was discovered, we had other
mechanisms at
play such as gravitational lensing. So one begins to wonder whether
redshift was ever
on firm conceptual grounds. What is to say that redshift is not
gravitational lensing.

Another explanation of redshift which I think should be better than
the analogy of
the moving train whistle, is the coin in a pond. The position of the
coin is distorted
because of the way light moves in water. That distortion is the same
as redshift.
So if the Cosmos is a big atom, it is going to be like the surface of
a sphere or the
surface of a ellipsoid, and as light travels on this highly curved
surface, it becomes
distorted to a redshift. Not that the galaxy which sent off that light
beam is moving
fastly away from us, but rather, because that galaxy is so far away,
that the curvature
of the Cosmos, distorts that light when it finally reaches us, it is
hugely redshifted.

The redshift of a distant galaxy tells us it is far away, but it gives
us no information
as to the speed of that galaxy, and the speed is probably around the
speed of our
own Milky Way.

Now what I am saying makes far more sense than the old way with the
Big Bang,
because some galaxies are blue-shifted. And the Big Bang would say it
is because
they are moving towards us at a huge speed. But the known cases of
blueshift
do not reconcile with a speed coming towards us. The Big Bang should
have rare
cases of blueshift. The Atom Totality should have frequent cases of
blue shift.


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

Chapter 1: What Is This Theory

In as few of words as possible to describe this theory is my signature
block for my posts to the Internet:

The whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies.

If you look in a chemistry textbook of what an electron looks like,
it is not a ball shaped object but a whole lot of little dots that
form a cloud. So the Atom Totality theory is basically the idea that
the dots of the electron-cloud are galaxies in the night sky.

So as you look up in the night sky and see shiny white dots as
galaxies and as stars, those white dots are mass-pieces of the
last six electrons of 231Plutonium.

To describe the rival theory of the Big Bang theory would go like
this:

The universe arose from a big explosion.

That is the sum total to the Big Bang theory. It is simplistic and
does not have much information. It does not tell us why it
exploded and the Big Bang theory is not Quantum Mechanics.

The Atom Totality theory is all Quantum Mechanics for it posits that
only atoms,
including the Universe itself, exist. And the Atom Totality theory is
a consistent theory
since it posits that only atoms exist. All matter is composed of atoms
but science
neglected to complete the picture of logic by realizing that the whole
entire universe
must also be an atom.

The Big Bang theory places all of its information into an "explosion",
and
the Universe is not an entity, a "whole thing" in the Big Bang but
some
amorphous nonentity. The Big Bang is structureless. Whereas the Atom
Totality
has all the richness of atomic physics to lean on. We can talk about
size, about
shape, about structures such as a nucleus, and Cosmic protons and
cosmic
electrons. We can talk about a evolution or transformation of atoms.
With the
Big Bang we are left speechless and questionless, because there is
nothing
to talk about other than some explosion allegedly happened.

Laypersons and nonscientists and even a large proportion of alleged
scientists have
two major problems and errors with the Atom Totality theory and these
two errors are :

(1) They cannot envision how the universe we see is the inside of one
big atom

(2) They mistakenly think that since plutonium is radioactive that
this
hinders the theory. They mistakenly think the Plutonium
Atom Totality will decay away and -out-goes-the-Universe. Here
one minute and gone the next, type of mistake.

So how do I answer those two most recurring errors that both
laypersons
and even most
trained scientists make as listed in (1) and (2) above?

I answer them by saying look at a chemistry textbook of the electron-
dot-cloud of atoms.
Their mistake is that they think the electron is a single ball that
goes moving around the
nucleus of an atom. It maybe a ball when the atom is collapsed
wavefunction such as the
moving of electricity in a wire. But an atom that is Uncollapsed
wavefunction has its
electrons as dot-clouds. The electron is a large cloud around the
nucleus of the atom and
is a huge number of dots. Each one of those dots is a tiny hunk or
piece of the electron.
So that if all the dots were put together then the electron would be a
ball. So now we begin
to understand how a plutonium atom of its electrons is the galaxies of
the night sky. That
each galaxy we see in the night sky is a tiny piece of an electron of
the Atom Totality.

If you examine a chemistry textbook of the 5f6 or the s, or the p or
the d or the f orbital of
a electron you will see a electron-dot-cloud. That the electron is not
a ball but those huge
number of dots.

So now we can easily envision the Atom Totality theory. We look at the
night sky of all
those dots of light. Some of those dots of light are stars and some
are galaxies. And now
we look at the chemistry textbook of what an electron looks like and
it is a bunch of
dots around a nucleus. So that is the crux of the Atom Totality
theory, that galaxies
and stars (galaxies are just a concentration of stars) are dots of the
electron dot cloud
and so we are living inside one big atom. And the chemical element
that fits the numbers
of physics and mathematics the very best is the chemical element
plutonium.

Now to answer the other most often mistake by laypersons and even
those who call themselves
scientists is the notion that if the Atom Totality was plutonium that
it would decay and be gone.
The answer I give is that radioactivity is time itself. That our
universe, our cosmos would not have
time if the Atom Totality were not radioactive, or, at least, it would
not have sufficient and ample enough
time to run the universe, like a machine that does not run well, or
like an animal or plant that does not
grow fast enough. Time is merely change of matter in position. If
every atom stood still and in place
and never changed position relative to all the other atoms,
then there would be no time. Life could
not exist if every atom were to stand
still and not move relative to other atoms. So, to answer why the Atom
Totality is a radioactive element
is to say that you want the Universe to be a entity that has alot of
change going on and radioactivity
provides that change. We see this change every day in Cosmic particles
of protons appearing uniformly
and of Cosmic gamma ray bursts. Radioactivity of the Atom Totality is
what makes stars and planets
come into existence in that the daily accretion of particles of
radioactivity from the Nucleus of the Plutonium
Atom Totality is what gives us our Sun and Earth and Solar System and
Milky Way Galaxy.

Summary: The Atom Totality Theory is easy to state for it simply says
that the Universe itself is one big
atom and the chemical element that fits the special constants and
numbers of physics and mathematics
the best is plutonium, specifically 231Pu. When one asks for a similar
explanation of the Big Bang theory
one gets no description whatsoever other than to say "explosion
happened". And the two most often
made mistakes about the Atom Totality theory is the error that an
electron is a single ball and the error
that plutonium radioactivity is incompatible or incongruent with an
Atom Totality.

Postscript for chapter (16) shape of the Cosmos:
I seem to like these postscripts, which allow me to add new ideas
whilst organizing the rest of the book. I am still stuck on chapter 16
with
the Special Relativity, speed of light and the redshift of galaxies as
to the
real meaning of redshift. Now I believe these four ideas in physics
are
closely related, some may even be equivalent or generalizations of the
others.
(1) Conservation of Energy
(2) Special Relativity
(3) Least Action Principle
(4) Finite Cosmos

I believe that the "finite Cosmos" is the most general of those four.
With a finite
cosmos the other three fallout naturally.

Let me set a analog in motion so that by the time I reach chapter 16 I
can elaborate
or embellish this analogy. Suppose we are the creator of the Cosmos
and we are
required to obey those four rules above. And let me call a series of
Universes possible
under those four rules as that of Universe A, Universe B, Universe C,
etc etc. And when I
reach Universe Z, I start with Universe AA, then BB, etc etc.

So I have to obey those four rules always in constructing a Universe.
Let me construct
a universe in which I am a parsimonious creator, so that I want to
maximize the largest
number of stars and galaxies. If my memory is correct the Cosmos has
10^11 galaxies
and each of them has 10^11 stars on average. So now, a parsimonious
creator wanting
the most number of galaxies and stars and obeying those four rules
would have rest mass
objects going at slow speeds as possible such as Earth going at 30 km/
sec and stars at
about 20 km/sec and only a few beta particles going at 1/2(c). So in
this Universe A, we
speeds of 0 to 500 km/sec of all astro bodies, and we have alpha
particles going at
15,000 km/sec at maximum, and we have a few, a very small number of
beta particles
in the entire Cosmos going at 1/2(c). All other speeds in this
universe is covered by the
speed of photons or slowed down photons. And this is our current
present day Cosmos.

But now in Universe K for example, the creator there likes energy and
so using the four
rules creates a cosmos that has just Space, and one planet moving at
9/10 (c). Just one
planet moving at nearly the speed of light. To have the planet
actually moving at (c)
requires infinite energy and that is against the Finite rule coupled
with Special Relativity
rule.

So the difference between Universe A and Universe K, is that in A, we
sought for the
maximum in numbers of stars and galaxies, and to achieve that maximum
we had
to have slow moving objects and few if any objects other than photons
moving fastly.
the fastest we have in A are a few beta particles. In K, however, is a
speed freak or
energy freak creator, so he puts all his resources of energy, mass
into speed and what
he is able to achieve is only a planet in all of space that is moving
near the speed of
light, at 9/10 the speed of light. Now suppose Space itself was a
resource, although hard
to imagine having a planet without some space to move in. And suppose
this
speed freak creator converted Space into more speed so that he now has
his planet
moving at 98% the speed of light.

And then there are thousands and thousands of other variations to
satisfy the whims
of creators, but they all must obey those four rules.

The point I am making, if not clear to the reader, is that those four
rules are a characteristic
or a feature of the Atom Totality itself. That we have a finite
Universe because we have
a Atom Totality. We have Special Relativity, because we have alot of
slow moving stars
and galaxies and only light is moving at the speed of light. We have
Least Action and
Conservation of Energy because those are a consequence of a Atom
Totality.

Now, by the time I reach chapter 16, perhaps I will have figured out
why Universe A, is
the only universe allowed by those four rules. I think we need a fifth
rule: Least Energy
Principle. The universe for a creator that requires the least energy
in creating is a universe
where there is alot of rest mass around and all of it moving at slow
speeds and only a
few items such as alpha and beta particles moving at faster than 200
km/sec and where
the majority of speeds is taken up by the photons or slowed down
photons.

So if the Universe has a Least Energy Principle, along with a Least
Action Principle,
then the universe has to be unique and no other universes allowed.
This is just the opposite
idea of the Many-Worlds idea, or the parallel universes. The Atom
Totality theory
dismisses many-worlds and parallel universes, and as seen above,
dismisses time
travel, because it is impossible to rearrange all the atoms for a past
or a future.


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

Archimedes Plutonium writes:

Laypersons and nonscientists and even a large proportion of alleged
scientists have
two major problems and errors with the Atom Totality theory and these
two errors are :

(1) They cannot envision how the universe we see is the inside of one
big atom

(2) They mistakenly think that since plutonium is radioactive that
this
hinders the theory. They mistakenly think the Plutonium
Atom Totality will decay away and -out-goes-the-Universe. Here
one minute and gone the next, type of mistake.

Now, I'm no scientist, but I have a couple of other questions about
this otherwise brilliant theory. The galaxies are the electrons,
right?

(c) What's the nucleus?

(d) How come we see somewhat more than 94 galaxies?

--
Jesse F. Hughes
"I have put all the information that you need at [a Yahoo! group] where
you'll notice a significantly better signal to noise ratio, as I'm
just about the only person posting." -- James S. Harris on noise

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Chapter 1: What Is This Theory


Laypersons and nonscientists and even a large proportion of alleged
scientists have
two major problems and errors with the Atom Totality theory and these
two errors are :

(1) They cannot envision how the universe we see is the inside of one
big atom


They never saw a chemistry or physics book showing a electron-dot-
cloud.

Or, they never understood that all those dots is one electron, those
10^60 dots
is equal to one electron.

They do not understand that those 10^60 dots for an electron is the
actual
single one electron itself.

And so they come into the Atom Totality theory with the false notion
that the hydrogen
atom electron is one tiny ball or 1 dot and that the uranium atom has
92 tiny balls
revolving around it or 92 dots, or that the plutonium atom has 94 tiny
balls or
94 dots composing its electron dot cloud. When in fact, each electron
of a hydrogen atom or a uranium atom or a Plutonium Atom has 10^60
dots that make-up or compose that specific individual electron.

When teaching the electron-dot-cloud in High School or in College, it
is perhaps not
taught strong enough that all those dots, 10^60 dots are one single
distinct electron.

Now the night sky of stars and galaxies, it is estimated that there
are only 10^11 galaxies
and there are only 10^11 stars on average in each galaxy. So that
would mean the
Cosmos has 10^11 x 10^11, or 10^22 stars, and if we represent each of
those stars as a dot we would thence have 10^22 dots. But each star is
composed of
atoms and a star is typically about 10^30 atoms so that would mean a
night sky
represented by dots for atoms would have 10^22 x 10^30 = 10^52 dots
which is a huge
number but a tiny number compared to 10^60 dots. If we included all
the other matter
in planets and in energy particles we come close to 10^60.

Postscript for chapter (16) shape of the Cosmos:
Yesterday I talked about four ideas in physics that are important and
related
(1) Conservation of Energy
(2) Special Relativity
(3) Least Action Principle
(4) Finite Cosmos
Yesterday I added one more to that list, making five:
(5) Least Energy Principle

Least Energy is a generalization of Least Action. Least Action will
not require
a unique Universe to exist. But Least Energy requires a unique
Universe to
exist at any instant of time.

Let me draw an metaphor-analogy that is easily comprehendible. The
history of planet
Earth goes back a long time and we do not know details of its early
beginnings
but we do know somewhat accurately the history of life on Earth, and
we know that
a billion years ago, there was no electric power station, since there
was no
advanced intelligent life then. We know that we had to go through many
stages of development
of materials such as metal engineering in the past before we build a
electric
power station. Humanity has never built a Volcano electric power
station and
with the Iceland volcano eruptions as of recently, and although we do
have the
knowledge and technology to build a power station siphoning off heat
energy from
the Iceland volcanoes and making electricity, we shall do this in the
future, and
in fact, we shall do this to nearly all volcanoes on Earth, and
thereby making
fossil fuels of coal, oil, gas as obsolete. So we are at a threshold
moment in time
where humanity gets all its daily energy either from the Sun or from
the geothermal
interior of Earth, and where fossil fuels are rarely ever used again.

Now that evolution of technology to Volcano Electric Power Stations is
not a progress
of Least Action Principle. But it is a progress of Least Energy
Principle.

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 Apr 16, 2:53*am, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:

Chapters of this book:

I. the theory
**(1) what is this theory?
**(2) pictures of the Atom Totality theory

Here is the first pictu

http://www.codeismylife.com/ascii_bozo/14654.html

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(most snipped away)

The Big Bang theory places all of its information into an "explosion",
and
the Universe is not an entity, a "whole thing" in the Big Bang but
some
amorphous nonentity. The Big Bang is structureless. Whereas the Atom
Totality
has all the richness of atomic physics to lean on. We can talk about
size, about
shape, about structures such as a nucleus, and Cosmic protons and
cosmic
electrons. We can talk about a evolution or transformation of atoms.
With the
Big Bang we are left speechless and questionless, because there is
nothing
to talk about other than some explosion allegedly happened.


I need to talk more about the fact that the Big Bang is so vague about
anything.

I need to spend alot more time about talking the overall features of
the
Big Bang versus the Atom Totality. And I am having trouble in finding
the
appropriate words to describe this inability of the Big Bang.

This topic alone, should persuade anyone, whether a trained scientist
or
a layperson that the Big Bang is a fake theory.

The best words to describe the situation so far are these:

(1) entity versus nonentity
(2) structures versus having no structure
(3) patterned versus amorphous or no patterns


The Atom Totality is a theory in which the Universe is a single
entity, a structured
single entity and a patterned single entity.

The Big Bang is only one thing -- an explosion. The Big Bang is not
an entity, and not a structure, and cannot have a internal pattern.

So that when Johns Hopkins in early 2000s reports a color for the
Universe, it could not be for a Big Bang since it is not a single
entity structure.

Or when Luminet team of researchers reported in the early 2000s that
the Cosmos fits a Poincare Dodecahedral Space geometry, they
could not be referring to the Big Bang because it is not a single
entity
with structure.

What I am looking for are more words and terminology to add to this
list.

Because the difference between a Big Bang theory and a Atom Totality
theory is that the Atom Totality theory insists that the Universe has
always and forever will be a structured patterned entity. It is not a
huge
onion or as the ancient philosophers once thought of a terra firma
resting
on the back of a elephant.

There is only one material object in the Cosmos that can be the Cosmos
itself. It is not a piece of cheese for the Moon is not cheese. It is
not the
onion nor the terra firma elephant. But it is the atom. In all of the
Cosmos,
only the atom itself can be the entire Cosmos.

So the Big Bang never is able, nor is it possible to conceive of the
Big
Bang as a entity. And that should have eliminated the Big Bang theory
as a viable theory of science. For it will always stay submerged in
its
obfuscation of some "explosion".

There is only one term that describes the Big Bang-- "explosion".
And that is vagueness, and in the veils of imagination and daydreaming
or nightdreaming.

So without doing any further work. Without doing any evidence searth
or computations or experiments. The Big Bang should be dismissed as
a fake theory from the start, because it lacks clarity. It lacks
details.

The Big Bang goes so far as to even imply that the laws of physics
were broken at the explosion or during the explosion and that some
time
after the explosion, when things settled down, do we even have Physics
arising.

The Atom Totality theory says that the Universe has always been
Quantum
Mechanics, and always will be Quantum Mechanics.

So any commonsense person, even those that hate doing science, can see
the deficiencies and faults of a Big Bang. That it is deceptive and
imaginary
and vague. It is everything that science should not be-- obfuse and
imaginary.

I am not happy with the words and concepts of Entity, Structure,
Pattern that
distinguishes the Atom Totality from the Big Bang. And this is
important since
the Big Bang is defeated as a fake before the starting block.

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

I suppose one can say that the difference between the Big Bang and
Atom Totality
theory is that although both are theories for the entire Universe,
that the Big Bang
is a theory of a "process going on" , while the Atom Totality is a
theory of a
entity or something, and how that entity existed in the past and will
exist in the
future.

The Big Bang theory is like saying that Nagasaki is an explosion,
rather than a city
that existed before the explosion and a city that exists after.
Whereas the
Atom Totality would recognize the city when it first was settled and
where a
explosion was just one day in the history of the city.

So the Big Bang as a theory of Physics is really a paltry piece of
imagination
rather than a solid thoughtful theory.

But the worst reasoning of the Big Bang is that it has to violate all
the laws of
physics until much later in the explosion that all of a sudden the
laws of physics
seem to precipitate out of the explosion. So that Quantum Mechanics
comes into
existence about 5 minutes after the explosion and perhaps Maxwell
Equations come
into existence some days after the explosion. All of which is random,
capricious
and piecemeal. So that only a scatterbrained physicist would be
tempted to buy
into the Big Bang theory for what sense is there in a theory of
physics that destroys
universal laws of physics and then creates another batch of so called
"universal
laws" when they were never universal in the first place.

On the other hand, the Atom Totality theory sticks and stays with
Quantum Mechanics.
Atoms are Quantum Mechanics and so in the Atom Totality, never is
there a breakdown
of the laws of physics and the laws are truly universal.

So, in the Big Bang the universe is not a entity, not a something, but
rather a amorphous
process.

In the Atom Totality, the Universe is a atom of which it was borne or
risen from previous
atoms and the future is a transformation into a higher numbered atom.
Where the Universe
is an "it" a "something" and it includes processes and
transformations. Whereas the Big
Bang is only a process.

Now probably, the only reason that so many scientist accepted and
believed in the Big Bang,
is what happens in all fields of study, when there is only one theory
and no rival theory to
contend or compete with, well, most scientists will then blindly
accept a scatterbrained theory.
When the only drink in town is bad water, then you drink bad water.
But when someone digs
a well and runs the water through a purifier, then you have a choice
of what to drink.

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