rings in Jarrett's mapping Chapt14 Dirac's Ocean of Positrons =Space = gravity #110 Atom Totality theory 5th ed.

The ring I spoke of in the previous post was in this website:

--- quoting from ---
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff...tt/papers/LSS/

The third layer (0.01 z 0.02) is dominated by the P-P supercluster
(left side of image) and the P-I supercluster extending up into the
ZoA terminating as the Great Attractor region (notably Abell 3627)
disappears behind a wall of Milky Way stars. An intriguing "ring" or
chain of galaxies seems to circle/extend from the northern to the
southern Galactic hemisphere (see also Figure 1). It is unknown
whether this ring-like structure is physically associated with the
cosmic web or an artifact of projection.
--- end quoting ---

But if one looks closely at the second layer, we also see a ring
structure only not as pronounced.

So what I am wondering is whether the Ring structure is actually Solid
Body Rotation of galaxies.

And whether these ring structures are the furthest distance we can
see, and that anything further was an error of the redshift assumption
of distance. So that the fourth layer and succeeding layers are
actually much closer to Earth than the third layer.

Since our telescopes, whether radio or light telescopes can see a lot
of matter
in the Great Wall and Sloan Great Wall, that one has to suspect that
these structures are not the most distant structures but rather are
closer and nearer
to Earth than is the third layer.

So that if we were to reexamine the mappings by Jarrett and Juric and
fit the galaxies so as to maximize "ring structure" could we end up
with six rings?
And thus, distance is measured by rings rather than by redshift?

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

Chapt14 Dirac's Ocean of Positrons = Space (and tells us what gravity
is)
Subject: : and GR is replaced by ocean-of-positrons


And momentarily talking about 
the precession of Mercury as well as a
new experiment to prove Dirac's 
new-radioactivities. The 
new
experiment is curiously fascinating. Compelling 
fascinating may be a
better description. I propose 
that when a Fly's Eye observatory built
in Adelaide 
Australia called Cangaroo, and since it is pointed 
in
the opposite direction of the Cosmic skies than 
is the Utah Flys Eye,
that when a event is recorded 
in Australia it will simultaneously
match the event 
by Utah. So in other words, the majority of Cosmic
Rays and Gamma Ray Bursts are coming from the 
Nucleus of the Atom
Totality and not from distant 
stars or galaxies.
Now I wonder how I got sidetracked with Mercury's 
precession in a
chapter devoted to Dirac's Ocean of Positrons? I 
suppose that if any
scientists starts 
out assuming Dirac's new-radioactivities is true
with 
its multiplicative-creation process, that if you assume that to
be 
true, then you also would have 
to say that General Relativity is
false. Now that may 
be a tricky proof that you cannot have a physics
where you have Dirac new-radioactivities and have 
General Relativity
both true. Seems as though the 
two are independent of one another.
But I doubt they are independent, in that General 
Relativity, in its
basic essence is that mass bends 
space and matter follows the
trajectory of that 
bent space.
Trouble with that, is that in the Atom Totality theory, 
gravity
becomes not the idea of mass bending space, but rather the 
idea that
Space is a ocean of 
positrons that is attracted by a *weakest
Coulomb* 
to any matter that resides in this Space. Keeping in 
mind
that matter is the electrons or negative charged 
matter and positrons
are positive charged matter.
So what is gravity in the Atom Totality using the Solar System? Well
the Sun has the most positron 
space of our Solar System and thus with
the most 
positrons it attracts the most matter of Sun and planets
and 
satellites. It is a Coulomb attraction but 
one of 10^-39 weaker
than the regular Coulomb attraction of proton to 
electron due to the
fact that we need far less amounts
of positron antimatter for the matter.

So in the Atom Totality theory all forces are a Coulomb force, where
gravity is just the weaker Coulomb force. And where Space is Dirac's
ocean of positrons. 
Space is these positrons and 
where matter is
concentrated such as Sun or Jupiter 
or Earth, those positrons are
concentrated towards 
the center of those objects. And here I give new
meaning to what 
confounded Sir Isaac Newton as to why gravity can be
all focused as 
the center of Earth-- in that positron as gravity
causes that 
center of focus. So one can say that 
the Center of
planet Earth if we could visit it and 
observe it in full, what we
would see is that the Positrons of Dirac's 
ocean of positrons resides
at the 
center of Earth, ditto for the Sun and Jupiter and all other
objects 
of mass in our Solar System.
In Quantum Physics, what I am speaking of is usually referred to as
the "vacuum energy" that 
you play around with a vacuum in space and
you 
tease out of it energy-- positrons and an infinite supply of
positrons. So in other words, you can 
never have a perfect vacuum for
there is always 
energy coming out of a vacuum.
So, can we have the old General Relativity theory 
of the 20th century
with a Atom Totality theory with 
its Dirac new-radioactivities?
Obviously not, because the essence of GR is that 
matter follows the
curvature of the bent space. That 
no longer holds true.
In the Atom Totality theory, gravity is merely a weakest form of the
Coulomb Force, so in other 
words, gravity is a Coulomb Force between
Space 
as positrons and ordinary matter as Electron-Matter 
of the
Atom Totality.

So we have Dirac with new-radioactivities but also 
with ocean of
positrons as space and thus showing 
us how gravity is a Coulomb
force.
The only thing Dirac missed, (as well as John Bell 
with
superdeterminism) is a structure that could 
house their brilliant
insights. That structure is the 
Atom Totality. So in the 20th century
with Dirac and 
Bell pulled backwards and pulled downwards by the Big
Bang, they had 
no structure of the Cosmos to 
pin or give life to (1)
new-radioactivities (2) gravity = 
ocean positrons (3)
superdeterminism.
If Dirac and Bell had had Atom Totality, they could 
have immediately
housed their theories.
But getting back to the precession of Mercury. Why 
did I sidetrack on
Mercury's precession? I sidetracked because Dirac's 
proof of
multiplicative 
creation was a 2cm/yr recession of Moon from Earth,
and the observed recession is 3.8cm/yr. So I say it 
is proof that
Dirac was correct in that 2 of the 3.8 is 
due to multiplicative-
creation and the remainder to 
tidal friction. So we break down the
components. But 
when it came to Mercury precession we had a breakdown
of components 
and a referral of 0.43 arcseconds/yr to that of GR.
So the scientists of the science community play a 
dirty trick, when
it comes to some numbers, they 
want to break it down to suit their
pet theory, but other numbers are 
not broken down to suit a biased
theory.
And also, the Atom Totality theory is antithesis to the 
old General
Relativity theory. GR is nothing but geometrical hocus 
pocus. The
precession of Mercury 
is amply explained not as a geometrical aspect
but as Solar Emission 
Pressure from the Sun. I suspect that if the
Messenger Spacecraft that 
had 
circled around Mercury and the Sun, if
it were present in the early 
20th century so that all would 
witness
the enormous pressure emitted by particles 
of the Sun that actually
guides and propells the spacecraft, I doubt 
that General Relativity,
being a fake theory, would have ever gained 
traction in the 
20th
century.


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 Dec 5, 3:23Â*am, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
guides and propells the spacecraft, I doubt 
that General Relativity,
being a fake theory, would have ever gained 
traction in the 
20th
century.


General Relativity, Archie, is just another Jewish plot to deprive you
from your rightfully deserved Nobel prize.

PPJ.