triggers of nova and supernova Chapt14 Dirac's Ocean of Positrons =Space = gravity #112 Atom Totality theory 5th ed.

Well, I am stuck in this chapter, because it is a difficult problem.
It has never been resolved and I reckon I am going to resolve it.
Already I have unified gravity to EM, with being Space as an Ocean of
Positrons, but what I have not resolved
is the details of how that space = gravity.

Here I have several options of which I have voiced the first option
already:

Option 1: Whereever there is normal matter (matter of the last six
electrons of
231Pu Atom Totality) that the positrons form balls at the center of
astro bodies,
such as a tiny ball of positrons in the center of Sun that then
attracts the normal
matter of the other Solar System bodies. So in this option, space is
positrons and
the centers of matter bodies have tiny positron balls.

Option 2: In EM we know that charge resides on the surface, so that we
have
no center of the Sun ball of positrons but that Space is positrons and
that the
surface of a normal matter body has more positrons. I do not like this
option, but have to keep an open mind.

Option 3: Forget about center of the Sun tiny balls of positrons and
focus purely on Space as positrons. Focus on Space as if it were water
and that
the Sun and Earth were tiny ships on water. Now this is an imperfect
analogy,
but it is a good starting point. The idea is that Space is like Matter
itself. Certainly water is matter and a ship is matter. So that we
picture the Sun as a heavier ship and requiring more water to displace
to keep it afloat, and that
displacement then means more positrons near the Sun rather than Earth.
So the Sun in our Solar System would have the most dense space
surrounding the Sun which means the most dense positron-space. And
that further means the
most attraction for the other normal matter in the Solar System.

So let me try to state gravity in terms of General Relativity and then
this third option. In GR, mass bends space and then other mass follows
the curvature of that bent space in its motion. In Option-3, the world
consists of a giant Atom and we live on a piece of the last 6
electrons, for which it is composed of matter of those electrons (we
call normal matter) and the space of that electron matter. The space
is a positron ocean, and so were ever there is a lot of normal matter
there is a lot more positron-space and thus normal matter appears to
attract other normal matter in proportion to the positron density
between the two.

I guess what resolution is coming out of this is the idea that in
Newton's gravity, he was dealing with mass body A versus mass body B.
What AP
does is deal with mass body A and B and then with the positron-space
of
A and positron-space of B. So Newton had 2 variables, and AP has at
least
4 variables, and in the end, AP has a force equation of gravity that
is an inverse square because it is EM force of positron antimatter
versus normal matter.

Newton's mass gravity is seen as only a partial force for it omits the
Space.

I think I am getting terribly close to a complete resolution.

Of course, in Positron Space gravity, you cannot have a black-hole
because
the positrons cannot be squeezed closely together before they blow
apart in a
nova or supernova, and perhaps that is the clue to proving AP gravity,
by studying what triggers a nova or supernova explosion. If my memory
is good, the causes of a nova or supernova explosion are modern
mysteries and have
not been resolved. So here is a opportunity to see if the AP gravity
is true, and that the trigger of a nova or supernova is due to a limit
of positron space too
densely crowded together. This maybe an easy proof, in that if nova's
and supernova's explode from their surface first, rather than from
their interiors, would suggest that Positron Gravity is the root cause
of the explosion.

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 6, 12:30*am, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
Well, I am stuck in this chapter, because it is a difficult problem.
It has never been resolved and I reckon I am going to resolve it.
Already I have unified gravity *to EM, with being Space as an Ocean of
Positrons, but what I have not resolved
is the details of how that space = gravity.

Here I have several options of which I have voiced the first option
already:

Option 1: Whereever there is normal matter (matter of the last six
electrons of
231Pu Atom Totality) that the positrons form balls at the center of
astro bodies,
such as a tiny ball of positrons in the center of Sun that then
attracts the normal
matter of the other Solar System bodies. So in this option, space is
positrons and
the centers of matter bodies have tiny positron balls.

Option 2: In EM we know that charge resides on the surface, so that we
have
no center of the Sun ball of positrons but that Space is positrons and
that the
surface of a normal matter body has more positrons. I do not like this
option, but have to keep an open mind.

Option 3: Forget about center of the Sun tiny balls of positrons and
focus purely on Space as positrons. Focus on Space as if it were water
and that
the Sun and Earth were tiny ships on water. Now this is an imperfect
analogy,
but it is a good starting point. The idea is that Space is like Matter
itself. Certainly water is matter and a ship is matter. So that we
picture the Sun as a heavier ship and requiring more water to displace
to keep it afloat, and that
displacement then means more positrons near the Sun rather than Earth.
So the Sun in our Solar System would have the most dense space
surrounding the Sun which means the most dense positron-space. And
that further means the
most attraction for the other normal matter in the Solar System.

So let me try to state gravity in terms of General Relativity and then
this third option. In GR, mass bends space and then other mass follows
the curvature of that bent space in its motion. In Option-3, the world
consists of a giant Atom and we live on a piece of the last 6
electrons, for which it is composed of matter of those electrons (we
call normal matter) and the space of that electron matter. The space
is a positron ocean, and so were ever there is a lot of normal matter
there is a lot more positron-space and thus normal matter appears to
attract other normal matter in proportion to the positron density
between the two.

I guess what resolution is coming out of this is the idea that in
Newton's gravity, he was dealing with mass body A versus mass body B.
What AP
does is deal with mass body A and B and then with the positron-space
of
A and positron-space of B. So Newton had 2 variables, and AP has at
least
4 variables, and in the end, AP has a force equation of gravity that
is an inverse square because it is EM force of positron antimatter
versus normal matter.

Newton's mass gravity is seen as only a partial force for it omits the
Space.

I think I am getting terribly close to a complete resolution.

Of course, in Positron Space gravity, you cannot have a black-hole
because
the positrons cannot be squeezed closely together before they blow
apart in a
nova or supernova, and perhaps that is the clue to proving AP gravity,
by studying what triggers a nova or supernova explosion. If my memory
is good, the causes of a nova or supernova explosion are modern
mysteries and have
not been resolved. So here is a opportunity to see if the AP gravity
is true, and that the trigger of a nova or supernova is due to a limit
of positron space too
densely crowded together. This maybe an easy proof, in that if nova's
and supernova's explode from their surface first, rather than from
their interiors, would suggest that Positron Gravity is the root cause
of the explosion.


In the last post, above, I suggested that the triggers of nova and
supernova
explosions were caused by positron-space becoming too dense or too
unstable
and act as a trigger for the explosion. A proof would be that Nova and
Supernova
explosions originate near the surface of the star and not the
interior.
However, I am not an expert on novas and supernovas and may have that
turned around
and backwards. It maybe the case that Supernovas and Novas explode
from there
centers outward, and that the positron space density is maximal in the
center and
where the explosion initiates, whereas in GR gravity, the star center
or near center
is clogged up with heavier elements that it is contradictory for the
explosion to
be initiated near the center. I do not know for I am not expert and
not enough data.

But what I do want to discuss here, is the fact of our Solar System
and its plane of
ecliptic, much like resembling Saturn and its rings, and resembling
Spherical galaxies
that evolve into spiral flat planed galaxies. In Cosmology we see the
phenomenon of "planes
of revolution" whether it is Saturn and its rings or the Sun and its
planets forming the
plane of ecliptic or whether it is a spherical galaxy turning into a
flat planed spiral
galaxy.

So the question is, can Newton's gravity or GR explain why this
evolving towards a flat plane
around a central body mass, as exemplified by Saturn and its rings?
Can Newton's gravity or
GR really tackle and resolve this pattern of evolution of astro
bodies?

Many think it can, in that Maxwell himself used Newton's gravity to
explain Saturn's rings.
But we must pause for a moment and ask whether that was a true
explanation? Because we know that Newton's equation of inverse square
law is the same form of equation of EM of an inverse
square law. So, what I am saying is that if Maxwell had used a EM
equation, he would have
made the same conclusion. Both are of the same mathematical form.

However, does Newton's gravity or GR predict that all Spherical
revolving entities end up looking like a Saturn with its rings? That
is the important question.

With Newton's gravity and GR, there are only two variables, body A and
body B, and in
AP gravity there are four variables, body A, body B, positron-space A,
positron-space B.

There should be a small variance in that the repulsion of positron-
space A to that of
positron-space B has a lasting effect on the bodies of A and B, and
the repulsion of
body A to body B since they are both matter.

But the greatest difference is that in AP-gravity, there is a
directional preference to end
up in a "Planar Shape". With 4 variables in AP-gravity, the end result
of the revolution of
bodies around a central body is that EM force is planar and not 3rd
dimensional spherical.

So I think the proof of AP-gravity is going to be an easy proof, in
that AP-gravity has all
spherical revolutions evolving into planar ecliptic revolutions.


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 6, 1:16*am, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
On Dec 6, 12:30*am, Archimedes Plutonium

(snipped)

So I think the proof of AP-gravity is going to be an easy proof, in
that AP-gravity has all
spherical revolutions evolving into planar ecliptic revolutions.


Now many of us in science have seen the display alleged by General
Relativity. The
display as shown in books and on TV shows of physics. The display I
refer to is
the display where you have some fabric of space with the Sun in the
middle, depressing
the fabric of space causing a curved space around the Sun, and then
where a Earth-ball
is rolled into that curvature to pretend as though Earth is revolving
around the Sun.

That is the analogy of GR, General Relativity, where mass bends space
and other mass follows
the curvature of that bent space.

The trouble with GR and with Newton's gravity is that in astronomy,
most bodies end up with
looking like Saturn and its rings, or, the Solar System with its
ecliptic plane, or a spherical
galaxy that evolves eventually into a ecliptic-planar galaxy.

So does the mathematics of GR or Newton's gravity give us ecliptic-
planar structures? The answer is no. The answer is that we need 4
variables in an inverse square law in order to
achieve a gravity that ends up looking like Saturn and its ring or
ecliptic-planar structures.

Newton's gravity and GR have only two variables, mass A and mass B.
That does not give us what
dynamic systems evolve into such as Saturn and ring, nor Sun and plane
of ecliptic, nor ecliptic planar galaxies (spiral galaxies).

In order for the inverse square law to give us what eventually these
systems evolve into we need at least 4 variables: mass A, mass B,
positron space A, positron space B.

Now the mathematics are complicated and difficult, but basically with
only two variable in GR,
then the cute example of a fabric depressed as shown on TV will not
work because that is Space
is 3 dimensional, and so we need 4 variables to have a dynamic system
collapse into a ECLIPTIC shaped orbit of revolution.

P.S. I make an important note to myself here. In this book of previous
editions I have been looking for a means of dating the ages of the Sun
and inner planets versus the outer planets, thinking that the Sun is
at least twice as old as Jupiter or Saturn. But I think I finally
found the easiest dating technique of our Solar System. Younger
planets will be more of a variance to the ecliptic, whereas older
planets will be obeying the ecliptic.

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 just wrote a few minutes ago:


P.S. I make an important note to myself here. In this book of previous
editions I have been looking for a means of dating the ages of the Sun
and inner planets versus the outer planets, thinking that the Sun is
at least twice as old as Jupiter or Saturn. But I think I finally
found the easiest dating technique of our Solar System. Younger
planets will be more of a variance to the ecliptic, whereas older
planets will be obeying the ecliptic.

And in fact, the astro bodies of Pluto and beyond are very much
younger than the
Sun and inner planets and then the outer planets. So we have three
tiers of ages
for our Solar System, we have the Sun, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars as
the oldest
astro bodies of the Solar System, then we have Jupiter and the gas
giants about
1/2 the age of the Sun and then we have the youngest group of all, the
bodies
of Pluto and beyond.

The Plane of Ecliptic of the Solar System is going to be our very best
age dating
device.

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

Alright, I spent the last several hours reviewing calculus for that of
starting
out with a Coulomb force as a ball and shrinking the ball
simultaneously forming
a disc.

GR gravity and Newton gravity is just a sphere in 3rd dimension. What
I want is
a sphere and the shrinking of that sphere into a center and surrounded
by a disc.

Think of Saturn and its ring, or think of the Sun and its planets in
the plane of
ecliptic. Think of a huge sphere say the size of Jupiter that shrinks
to the size
of Saturn and the extra mass becomes the saturn-ring. Or think of a
larger sphere
than the Sun, and then shrink that larger Sun-sphere to the present
size of the Sun
and what is left over of mass of the larger sphere becomes a planetary
disc of plane
of ecliptic.

So I spent some hours trying to figure out what sort of mathematics
encapsulates that
chain of evolutionary events. It starts with a large sphere which
shrinks to a tiny sphere
and a disc of planar-ecliptic.

So what I want to do is apply Coulomb law with four variables of mass
A, mass B, positron space A, positron space B and as time goes by,
that spherical mass shrinks into a smaller central sphere with a
planar disc around that central sphere.

If I can get that time elapsed evolution by 4 variables with the
Coulomb force, then the job is
done.

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