#1 new book; ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY REPLACES BIG BANGTHEORY IN PHYSICS

#1 new book; ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY REPLACES BIG BANG
THEORY IN PHYSICS


The last time I wrote on this book was the 2nd edition starting in
August of 2007. This is April of 2009 and the start of the
3rd edition. One of the things I want to get rid of, from the
2nd edition was the poor numbering schemata. Where I
found out that numbering each post is the most efficient
means.

This book is probably the most important single book
to ever be written and stands alongside the Ancient
Greek theory of the Atomic theory. This book is the
completion of the Ancient Greek theory that the matter
of the Universe is composed of atoms, and the completion
of that idea is the Universe itself is one big atom.

When I departed the 2nd edition I vowed to myself
to return to this book and make the next edition whenever
a major new discovery that supports the Atom Totality theory.
The 2nd edition was spurred by the Sloan Great Wall.

There has been no great new evidence supporting the
Atom Totality since the 2nd edition, that I am aware of,
but I need to do this 3rd edition to organize better and to
make that numbering.

I find writing these books not a tedium but rather comforting
and relaxing. I believe happiness in life is that of "order" and so
to instill order into this Atom Totality book gives me great
pleasure and happiness. Order is synonymous with happiness.

The Chapters of this book, I want to list the chapters as to
the most convincing evidence that proves the Atom Totality
theory starting with chapter 3, and saving chapters 1 & 2
to explain the theory and provide ascii art pictures of the
Plutonium Atom Totality.

Chapters of this book:

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

Observational and experimental support

(3) density and distribution of galaxies
(4) Tifft quantized galaxy speeds
(5) layered age of Cosmos with 6.5 billion years old 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 Earth and Sun are likely to be twice as old as Jupiter.

(6) Cores of the Solar System destroys both the Big Bang theory and
Nebular Dust Cloud theory and what replaces them is the Atom
Totality theory and Growing Solar System via Dirac Radioactivities.

(7) uniform blackbody 2.71 K cosmic microwave background radiation
and the Dark Night sky: Olber's Paradox
(8) missing mass conundrum and the cosmic distribution of chemical
elements
(9) shape of the Cosmos as 6 lobes of 5f6 as nonrelativistic as Cubic
or as
relativistic Dodecahedron
(10) color of the cosmos as plutonium off-white

Mathematical and logic beauty support
(11) inverse fine structure constant and proton to electron mass ratio
explained
(12) "pi" and "e" explained
(13) Atomic Theory as the foundation of science universal laws and the
Atomic theory Syllogism
(14) Future News and Research Reports supporting the
Atom Totality Theory and future news and research reports commentary

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

wrote:
#1 new book; ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY REPLACES BIG BANG
THEORY IN PHYSICS


The last time I wrote on this book was the 2nd edition starting in
August of 2007. This is April of 2009 and the start of the
3rd edition. One of the things I want to get rid of, from the
2nd edition was the poor numbering schemata. Where I
found out that numbering each post is the most efficient
means.

This book is probably the most important single book
to ever be written and stands alongside the Ancient
Greek theory of the Atomic theory. This book is the
completion of the Ancient Greek theory that the matter
of the Universe is composed of atoms, and the completion
of that idea is the Universe itself is one big atom.

When I departed the 2nd edition I vowed to myself
to return to this book and make the next edition whenever
a major new discovery that supports the Atom Totality theory.
The 2nd edition was spurred by the Sloan Great Wall.

There has been no great new evidence supporting the
Atom Totality since the 2nd edition, that I am aware of,
but I need to do this 3rd edition to organize better and to
make that numbering.

I find writing these books not a tedium but rather comforting
and relaxing. I believe happiness in life is that of "order" and so
to instill order into this Atom Totality book gives me great
pleasure and happiness. Order is synonymous with happiness.

The Chapters of this book, I want to list the chapters as to
the most convincing evidence that proves the Atom Totality
theory starting with chapter 3, and saving chapters 1 & 2
to explain the theory and provide ascii art pictures of the
Plutonium Atom Totality.

Chapters of this book:

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

Observational and experimental support

(3) density and distribution of galaxies
(4) Tifft quantized galaxy speeds
(5) layered age of Cosmos with 6.5 billion years old 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 Earth and Sun are likely to be twice as old as Jupiter.

(6) Cores of the Solar System destroys both the Big Bang theory and
Nebular Dust Cloud theory and what replaces them is the Atom
Totality theory and Growing Solar System via Dirac Radioactivities.

(7) uniform blackbody 2.71 K cosmic microwave background radiation
and the Dark Night sky: Olber's Paradox
(8) missing mass conundrum and the cosmic distribution of chemical
elements
(9) shape of the Cosmos as 6 lobes of 5f6 as nonrelativistic as Cubic
or as
relativistic Dodecahedron
(10) color of the cosmos as plutonium off-white

Mathematical and logic beauty support
(11) inverse fine structure constant and proton to electron mass ratio
explained
(12) Bell Inequality with Superdeterminism fits only in an Atom
Totality theory
(13) "pi" and "e" explained
(14) Unification of Forces of Physics to that of one force-- Coulomb
force
makes sense only in an Atom Totality
(15) Gravity becomes the Dirac Ocean of positron-space in a Coulomb
Unification
(16) Atomic Theory as the foundation of science universal laws such
as the Maxwell Equations
(17) Physics due to Atom Totality makes all the other sciences,
especially
mathematics as tiny subsets inside of physics
(18) Atomic theory Syllogism
(19) Future News and Research Reports supporting the
Atom Totality Theory and future news and research reports commentary

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

From here on out I shorten the title;
#1 new book; ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY REPLACES BIG BANG
THEORY IN PHYSICS


And I do not need a preface or introduction for the chapter 1 :
What is this Theory? dispenses the need for a preface and
introduction.

A serious and important book does not need blabbering blubber
but can dive right into the action. And should dive into the action.



Chapters of this book:

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

Observational and experimental support

(3) density and distribution of galaxies
(4) Tifft quantized galaxy speeds
(5) layered age of Cosmos with 6.5 billion years old 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 Earth and Sun are likely to be twice as old as Jupiter.

(6) Cores of the Solar System destroys both the Big Bang theory and
Nebular Dust Cloud theory and what replaces them is the Atom
Totality theory and Growing Solar System via Dirac Radioactivities.

(7) uniform blackbody 2.71 K cosmic microwave background radiation
and the Dark Night sky: Olber's Paradox
(8) missing mass conundrum and the cosmic distribution of chemical
elements
(9) shape of the Cosmos as 6 lobes of 5f6 as nonrelativistic as Cubic
or as
relativistic Dodecahedron
(10) color of the cosmos as plutonium off-white

Mathematical and logic beauty support
(11) inverse fine structure constant and proton to electron mass ratio
explained
(12) Bell Inequality with Superdeterminism fits only in an Atom
Totality theory
(13) "pi" and "e" explained
(14) Unification of Forces of Physics to that of one force-- Coulomb
force
makes sense only in an Atom Totality
(15) Gravity becomes the Dirac Ocean of positron-space in a Coulomb
Unification
(16) Atomic Theory as the foundation of science universal laws such
as the Maxwell Equations
(17) Physics due to Atom Totality makes all the other sciences,
especially
mathematics as tiny subsets inside of physics
(18) Atomic theory Syllogism
(19) Future News and Research Reports supporting the
Atom Totality Theory and future news and research reports commentary


Now probably that chapter list will change frequently but it gives me
a order guidance.

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.

Archimedes Plutonium
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.

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
this:

(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 the
Atom Totality will decay away and poof!!-out-goes-the-Universe. Here
one minute and gone the next type of mistake.

So how do I answer those two most often 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, 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.

P.S. Today I spent some considerable time searching my own mind
of the past. Searching for when it was in my youth that I realized and
understood the Atomic theory of Democritus that all matter is composed
of atoms. Now the 5th and 6th grade schools is when I was 11 and 12
years old. And I remember reading comic books titled "Metal Men"
and that was the 5th grade and I remember in 5th or 6th grade a
fellow student brought a glass tube of mercury and watching him
play with it on the desktop. From the comic books, I can thus remember
that I knew the Atomic theory was already in my mind and whether
I had read about the Atomic theory from another book, I do not recall.
I am trying to remember when I saw the chemical periodic table for the
first time. I do not remember whether in grade school or later. So if
I were to have to put a date time on when I knew and understood the
Atomic theory of Ancient Greeks, I would say I was 11 years old.

Now is 11 years of age a common time for youngsters to be cognizant
of the fact that all matter consists of chemical elements and only
those
elements on the periodic table? And whether most youngsters, like
myself
probably realized the Atomic theory without ever having it lectured to
them or read about it in some book. That the Atomic theory is easy
enough
of a idea that our minds can come to its concept by its own effort.
And then
later, perhaps age 13 or 14 or 15, I was lectured about the Atomic
theory
or read it in a book. I do recall reading something about how
Democritus
would explain water as a fluid because the atoms were round and
rolling
and that "hot or heat" was atoms pointed and sharp, so that
characteristics
of materials would be due to geometry of the atoms composing the
materials.

But I just wanted to discuss this history of mine own learning of the
Atomic
theory in that I seemed to have had it all along and at the age of
about
11 years old, I was fully cognizant that all matter was composed of
atoms
that were listed on a periodic chart. I wanted to talk about this to
point out
how simple of an idea the Atomic theory is and that people can come to
it
in their own minds without ever having been lectured or read about it.
At
least that was my case. But also, how simple it is to go that one step
further
and to realize that if all matter consists of the atoms listed in a
table, that a
small step further would complete the logic of how the world works, in
that
the Universe itself is an atom. But of course, for me that would be
when I
was 40 years old. So when I was 11 years old, I realized the Atomic
theory
from my mind's eye and then from 11 to age 40, I would put those two
together that if all Matter is made up of atoms, and surely the
Universe is
matter, that it be an atom.

The Atom Totality theory is easy and simple to explain, and I would
guess
that if other people, like me, can come to know the Atomic Theory
independently
of books or lectured to at age 11, that they too, can come to the Atom
Totality theory easily, independently in a older age. Few theories of
science
can it be said that you can arrive at the theory by age 11,
independent of book
learning or lectured to. So a Hallmark of the Atom Totality theory is
that
it is simplicity itself. For once a person realizes the Atomic theory,
then to
lecture the person a tiny bit more by saying the Cosmos is itself an
atom.
Well, that is supreme simplicity.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

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 one theory can incorporate the other theory given
some modifications
of the other theory then it is more likely true and the second false.
And where the second
theory is never able to incorporate the first theory given
modifications of the first 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.

An analogy for the layperson is a crime mystery murder investigation
such as the CSI
movies. Where two witnesses one telling the full truth and the second
telling a story
riddled with lies. So the true story cannot be modified to fit into
the liar's story, but the
liar's story can be modified to fit into the true story. Anyway, you
get a flavor of where
I am going with this Test of Rival competing theories.

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
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

wrote:


The test is that if one theory can incorporate the other theory given
some modifications
of the other theory then it is more likely true and the second false.
And where the second
theory is never able to incorporate the first theory given
modifications of the first theory.

The above is garbled. I should do better.

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.

I am taking the liberty of replacing that entire paragraph in the
original.


Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

On Apr 24, 9:43*pm, wrote:
Now is 11 years of age a common time for youngsters to be cognizant
of the fact that all matter consists of chemical elements and only
those elements on the periodic table?

Yes.

Here in California, as it is in many states in the U.S, here's
something called Content Standards, which determine what the
students are expected to learn in each grade. And so we read:

"Grade Five:
Physical Sciences:

1. Elements and their combinations account for all the varied
types of matter in the world. As a basis for understanding this
concept:

a. Students know that during chemical reactions the atoms in
the reactants rearrange to form products with different
properties.

b. Students know all matter is made of atoms, which may combine
to form molecules.

c. Students know metals have properties in common, such as high
electrical and thermal conductivity. Some metals, such as
aluminum (Al), iron (Fe), Nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), silver
(Ag), and gold (Au), are pure elements; others, such as steel
and brass, are composed of a combination of elemental metals.

d. Students know that each element is made of one type of atom
and that the elements are organized in the periodic table by
their chemical properties.

And so on. Indeed, at the following link:

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/docum...5scirefcma.pdf

there is a periodic table. Notice that right at the top, it
reads, "Grade Five Science Reference Sheet."

I don't know about other states, but a quick Google search
for "periodic table fifth grade" reveals a number of other
states, mostly in the South (GA, LA, SD, VA) that also give
the periodic table as a fifth grade Content Standard.

Therefore, there's nothing extraordinary about AP learning
about the periodic table and the atomic theory in the fifth
grade, because that's the normal age for students to hear
about it for the first time.

wrote:
On Apr 24, 9:43 pm, wrote:
Now is 11 years of age a common time for youngsters to be cognizant
of the fact that all matter consists of chemical elements and only
those elements on the periodic table?

Yes.

Here in California, as it is in many states in the U.S, here's
something called Content Standards, which determine what the
students are expected to learn in each grade. And so we read:

"Grade Five:
Physical Sciences:

1. Elements and their combinations account for all the varied
types of matter in the world. As a basis for understanding this
concept:

a. Students know that during chemical reactions the atoms in
the reactants rearrange to form products with different
properties.

b. Students know all matter is made of atoms, which may combine
to form molecules.

c. Students know metals have properties in common, such as high
electrical and thermal conductivity. Some metals, such as
aluminum (Al), iron (Fe), Nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), silver
(Ag), and gold (Au), are pure elements; others, such as steel
and brass, are composed of a combination of elemental metals.

d. Students know that each element is made of one type of atom
and that the elements are organized in the periodic table by
their chemical properties.

And so on. Indeed, at the following link:

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/docum...5scirefcma.pdf

there is a periodic table. Notice that right at the top, it
reads, "Grade Five Science Reference Sheet."

I don't know about other states, but a quick Google search
for "periodic table fifth grade" reveals a number of other
states, mostly in the South (GA, LA, SD, VA) that also give
the periodic table as a fifth grade Content Standard.

Therefore, there's nothing extraordinary about AP learning
about the periodic table and the atomic theory in the fifth
grade, because that's the normal age for students to hear
about it for the first time.

Alright, thank you very much. If it is taught as standard in 5th
grade in California, I would expect that Anderson High School
near Cincinnati Ohio would have taught the Atomic Theory in
5th grade also. That would have been 1960 and I was 10 years
old.

So my memory was not that good. That the classroom books
and lecture probably was where I learned the Atomic theory
and that I had not independently rediscovered the Atomic theory.

Not to say that I had no predilection, no precognition for the
theory before I was formally introduced to the theory. I may
have had some preformed notions of the theory. And then
when lectured or read the theory that I had it fully in tow.

I suppose we can easily experiment socially on this. That we can
in a pleasant manner sort of question a group of 9 year olds
to see if any of them have a pre Atomic Theory already in their
minds. They say there are musical savants at age 5. So can we
somehow talk about the chemical elements around a group of
5 year olds without ever saying the Atomic theory, and can we
expect any of them "knows the Atomic theory?" Trouble here is
the lack of vocabulary for these youngsters to communicate.

And the Atomic Theory should resemble the learning of "how
to tell time" from a clock. That we mature to an age where our
mind can read the clock without having any supervision or training
on how to read the clock. So I suspect the learning of the Atomic
Theory should follow a similar path. That we learn there are chemical
elements and then we put together the pieces of the puzzle and
realize the Atomic theory. So that would mean that everyone who
never went to school would have likely come upon the Atomic theory
in their own minds, just as they understood how to read the clock.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Before I start, I like to comment on some very, very interesting
research
coming out of the "Dust collected of Comets" near Earth. In that a
National Geographic report that some of this dust is older than 4.5
billion years.

When it is reported of some dust that is 8 billion or 9 or 10 billion
years
old. Well, there goes the Nebular Dust Cloud theory along with the Big
Bang theory and in comes the Dirac Radioactivity theory with the
Atom Totality.

As I said earlier, science news that is close to home is the most
compelling
rather than any other news since the faraway distances always conjures
up the idea that something was unaccounted for in the observations.

The most compelling evidence that the Atom Totality is true and the
Big Bang is a fake, is the pattern of the galaxies in the Great Wall
and Sloan Great Wall. Such a pattern is what is found for the electron-
dot-
cloud of plutonium. Such a pattern is not in agreement with a Big
Bang.

----------------------

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. 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.


Simple version of what a plutonium atom looks like
with its 5f6 as that of 12 lobes or as a dodecahedron:

. \ . . | . /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
--------------- -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
--------------- --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / . . | . \ .


Archimedes Plutonium
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:
Before I start, I like to comment on some very, very interesting
research
coming out of the "Dust collected of Comets" near Earth. In that a
National Geographic report that some of this dust is older than 4.5
billion years.

When it is reported of some dust that is 8 billion or 9 or 10 billion
years
old. Well, there goes the Nebular Dust Cloud theory along with the Big
Bang theory and in comes the Dirac Radioactivity theory with the
Atom Totality.

You're talking about interstellar dust particles that were
created from first and second generation supernovae
predating, and providing the raw material for, the formation
of our solar system.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presolar_grains
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_dust