still on chapter 4: and GR is replaced by ocean-of-positrons #126 :3rd ed; Atom Totality (Atom Universe) theory

Much of this edition of this Atom Totality Theory book is about
organizing the book. The first two
editions were highly disorganized. I know when a
book is organized when I can take the previous
edition and correct a chapter and then expand it,
something I am not able to do with the 2nd to 3rd editions.
But I reckon that the 4th edition I can do that feat.

Here are chapter titles of 4 through 6 of this 3rd
edition:

--- chapters ---
Observational and experimental support

(4) Dirac's new-radioactivities and Dirac's multiplicative-creation;
CellWell 1 and CellWell2

(5) 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 new-
radioactivities.

(6) density and distribution of galaxies
--- end chapters ---

I am still on chapter 4, 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 new-radioactivities? 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.

So in the Atom Totality theory all forces are a Coulomb force, where
gravity is just the weakest
of Coulomb forces. 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 "vaccuum energy" that
you play around with a vaccuum 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 vaccuum for there is always
energy coming out of a vaccuum.

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.

Not only was Dirac a giant in physics, and Einstein a
midget in physics, for we begin to see that it was
Dirac that led physics from the 20th century into the
21st and all future centuries of the true physics.

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. This behaviour makes them
nonscientists.

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
is presently
circling 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
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:
(snipped)

Now I wonder how I got sidetracked with Mercury's
precession in a chapter devoted to Dirac's new-radioactivities? 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.

So in the Atom Totality theory all forces are a Coulomb force, where
gravity is just the weakest
of Coulomb forces. 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 "vaccuum energy" that
you play around with a vaccuum 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 vaccuum for there is always
energy coming out of a vaccuum.

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.

Not only was Dirac a giant in physics, and Einstein a
midget in physics, for we begin to see that it was
Dirac that led physics from the 20th century into the
21st and all future centuries of the true physics.

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.


Speaking of housing gravity as a weakened Coulomb force, where instead
of
have mass attract mass, we have Positron-Space attracted Electron-
Matter.

Actually what I am discussing here is in my other book of the
unification of the
forces of physics where gravity is a 10^-40 weaker Coulomb force.

So the question immediately arises as to why are there only two
Coulomb forces
in the world? Why is there the classic Coulomb and then the 10^-40
Coulomb as
gravity? Should there be a large number of other Coulombs such as a
10^-20 Coulomb force?

Well the answer comes from studying the atomic structure of a single
atom such
as plutonium. Say we had a single plutonium atom and we made our
bodies micro
and dived into this atom to study its inside structure. We study only
the electron
shells and not the nucleus. We know the electrons are fragmented into
pieces called
the electron-dot-cloud and each of those dots is a galaxy. Now we know
that a electron
plus all of its space that it occupies such as the 90% of the
Schrodinger probability
distribution that we have this:

proton total energy = electron + space of electron total energy

So in other words the charges are equal only opposite and thus the
total energy
of a proton is also equal to the total energy of an electron.

In simple words, an electron is a proton only most of the mass is
given up in order
to have Space. So the mass of a proton is 99.9% larger than an
electron because
that amount of mass is exchanged for Space for the electron to occupy.

So, now, here, in this logic we can quickly understand why there are
no Coulomb
forces between that of Coulomb-gravity and Coulomb-EM. Why there is no
Coulomb force between EM and 10^-40 EM. It is because gravity as a
Coulomb
force has to have positrons concentrated in the Space where normal
matter
occupies and is restricted by that proton mass of 99.9%.

So how many positrons exist at the center of the Sun in order for them
to act
as the force of gravity pulling in all the atoms of the Sun and
pulling on all the
astro bodies of our Solar System? Keep in mind that the matter of our
solar
system is Electron-matter.

So the number of positrons sitting at the center of our Sun, to
replicate the force
of gravity is how many positrons? So here we are beginning to be able
to see our
Solar System not as neutral uncharged matter attracted by gravity but
our
solar system as a bunch of round magnets orbiting one another.

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