Physics does not explain why astro bodies spin or rotate which points out the fakeness of Big Bang and General Relativity; the Atom Totality theory however does explain the origins of rotation

a_plutonium wrote:
For the Moon should have next to 0 rotation but it has a huge 27 day
rotation.

Two words for your googling pleasu "tidal locking".

- Randy

a_plutonium wrote:
(snipped)

In physics and astronomy before the Atom Totality theory, was based on
Linear Momentum for the Big Bang and General Relativity is all based on
Linear Momentum. But the Universe is all about rotation-- rotation of
planets and stars and galaxies. And revolution is merely another form
of rotation.


Before I make my case, let me review my history for the past 13 years
on the subject of gravity. When I discovered the Atom Totality theory
in 1990, I had alot more other things of science on my mind than to be
trying to make clear what gravity is. And it is good that I did not
spend much time on gravity because it is a difficult issue. Then
somewhere in the mid 1990s I thought gravity would be a union of
gravity with antigravity to cover electron space region of the Atom
Totality. I reasoned this because Strong Nuclear Force was unioned with
Weak Nuclear Force to cover the region of the nucleus of atoms. The
Union would yield a Coulomb force. So that the union of gravity with
antigravity would be a Coulomb force for the electron regions of atoms
and the union of Strongnuclear with Weaknuclear would be a
nuclear-Coulomb. I reasoned that to have a Unification of forces means
all forces are one force even though they are divided into what appears
as two different forces.

And those ideas were spurred along with the discoveries in the 1990s of
what appears as a Cosmic antigravity force.

But in the 2000-2006 time frame I kept coming back to the idea that
gravity is nonexistent and there is no antigravity force, but, and this
is a big but, that gravity was a Coulomb force for which there is no
pairing up to another force. That in a Atom Totality what we think is a
force of gravity is really a Coulomb force.

With the Nuclear Coulomb force of StrongNuclear combined with
WeakNuclear, I could draw a complete picture. The picture is that a
neutron has a nuclear-electron inside itself and this special electron
runs out of the neutron when in the nucleus and runs around holding
together all the protons. So the picture of a nuclear-electron explains
both StrongNuclear and WeakNuclear forces and explains that when you
combine these two forces into one force you have a Nuclear Coulomb
Force.

But I was never really able to give a nice picture of gravity, until
today.

And it has happened to me so very often that as I am discussing and
thinking of a different subject or topic or issue, that I find myself
with an answer to an older problem that I neglected for years. And with
this recent discussion of how Angular Momentum is more important than
Linear Momentum in our Universe was the key issue that now allows me to
give a picture of gravity as a force.

We know gravity and General Relativity have the picture of "mass bends
space and matter follows the path of that bent space". That is the key
idea of gravity and why the planets revolve around the Sun.

But how do I picture that in the Atom Totality theory.

Please indulge with me for a few minutes as to how the Atom Totality
would picture gravity. And picture it as nothing but a very mild and
very weak form of the Coulomb Force.

Picture of gravity in the Atom Totality theory:

Imagine space is nothing but positrons. You remember positrons are
simply the reverse of electrons, so that instead of a negative charge,
positrons have a positive charge. So that when we say "mass bends space
and matter thus follows the path of that bent space" we replace space
with that of positrons. Now this may seem too bold, too daring of a
claim. But it is not really all that bold and daring, for I remember
reading Dirac long time ago who had the brilliant picture that
whereever an electron existed, there exists a positron in that same
location.

And many physicists have made the assertion that the fabric of space is
neutrinos since they are so numerous.

What I am asserting is, let us consider the fabric of space and space
itself as the dual opposite of electrons which is positrons. And this
is especially granted and warranted for the Atom Totality theory, of
course not for the Big Bang which is deaf dumb and silent as to EM and
Maxwell theory and even Quantum Mechanics.

So, now, we have space as positrons and we have our observable universe
which is the mass and matter of the last 6 electrons of 231Pu. So that
every galaxy, star, planet, satellite, asteroid, comet, you name it
astro body, all of which are merely pieces of the 94 electrons of the
Atom Totality. So now we ask what is this force of gravity that
attracts masses to other masses?

We have that picture of General Relativity of gravity as "mass bends
space and matter then follows the path of that bent space"

Now let us replace that picture with the positrons as space and in the
context of the Atom Totality: "mass of the observable universe is the
bits and pieces of the last 6 electrons of 231Pu Atom Totality and that
mass attracts positrons creating a path into space for which matter
thus follows this path"

You see, the trouble with explaining how gravity works when all
observable matter is the last 6 electrons is the trouble I have of how
can electrons attract when they repel. Gravity is only attraction and
never repulsion. But if I include space as positrons, then I overcome
the intellectual hurdle. And I overcome the need to have gravity plus
antigravity is a Coulomb force.

I overcome them because the Sun's electron mass attracts the Earth's
electron mass by bending the positrons between Sun and Earth and the
Earth is attracted to this positron path towards the Sun. There is no
antigravity.

And because electrons are attracted to the positive charge of
positrons, I retain the Coulomb Unification of Forces. Whereas
STrongNuclear + WeakNuclear is a Nuclear-Coulomb, we have
Electron-space + Positron-space is a Coulomb force of the electron
region.

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

The timing of my thread is spectacular because last night on the
Newshour was report of fixing the Hubble telescope to be active for
another 5 years. And an interview with a Hubble scientist who
proclaimed words to the effect " The Hubble telescope gave us pictures
of the center of galaxies and proved the existence of black-holes."

I buy the idea that the Hubble telescope gave us the very best pictures
of galaxies, but I doubt that the center of galaxies harbor
black-holes. And according to Quantum Mechanics, black-holes are
nonexistent. Quantum Mechanics would have supernova as the last outcry
of matter squeezed together. Black-holes violate the Pauli Exclusion
Principle and almost every principle in Quantum Mechanics. Black-holes
were offered in a century, the 20th century when physicists became
exceedingly sloppy in logic and thought. A century where General
Relativity was touted above quantum mechanics and thus chimeras and
fakery physics was borne.

Now the Hubble telescope shows us the center of some galaxies. And let
me offer this as an alternative to galaxies harboring a black-hole in
its center. What if I said that there exists a Hubble picture of where
the center of a galaxy is "empty space" and so empty that one can look
through that center to a far off distant galaxy. Let me explain below.

In the 20th century, gravity was explained in the culmination idea that
"mass bends space and other mass follows the curvature of that bent
space". The trouble with that idea is that space is an entity for which
General Relativity never addressed. And General Relativity is founded
on Linear Momentum that the Earth has Linear Momentum and just wants to
travel off in a straight line to infinity but because the Sun is
massive it bends space around Earth and thus Earth is haplessly caught
up in this bent space and has to move around (revolve around) the Sun.
The trouble as I mentioned is that General Relativity does not address
what is SPACE, for it is an entity if you say that "mass bends space".

Here is where the Atom Totality theory addresses the problem of what is
Space. The ATom Totality theory accepts the idea of gravity that "mass
bends space and other mass follows the curvature of that bent space"
only the Atom Totality says what space is. It says that SPACE is what
Dirac used to call the ocean-of-positrons. In the 20th century it was
found out that space contains an infinite amount of energy. For when we
do experiments to obtain the positron we pluck out of space a hole and
that hole was filled by a positron. So, according to Dirac and 20th
century physics, space is just a vast ocean of POSITRONS.

Now when you combine the two pictures of the Atom Totality with space
being a cosmic-ocean of positrons, we end up with a very nice clear
picture of gravity. Remember that in the Atom Totality theory, Earth
and Sun and stars and galaxies and planets are all pieces of the last 6
electrons of 231Pu. So that our planet Earth was a fragment of the last
6 electrons of 231Pu. All mass and matter that we see in the cosmos are
fragments of the electrons of 231Pu. Now combine that idea with the
idea that "space" is a cosmic ocean of positrons.

So, now, let me repeat the great idea, although flawed, about gravity
of the 20th century modified to the ATom Totality theory: "Mass and
matter of the Observable Universe is fragmented pieces of the last 6
electrons of 231Pu which is immersed in a Cosmic Ocean of positrons
that constitutes SPACE, and for which MASS bends this positron space
because they are opposite charge, and subsequently or consequently
other mass and matter follows the curvature of that bent space."

So, if my above is correct in part or whole, then the interview last
night of a Hubble scientist on the Newshour claiming that the center of
galaxies harbor black-holes would be false. The center of galaxies
harbor empty space, empty positron space and that one should be able to
find a Hubble picture where we look directly through the center of a
galaxy and are able to see a far off distant galaxy.

According to the Atom Totality theory which is based on Quantum
Mechanics, the center of galaxies as a ocean of positrons would funnel
mass and matter directly towards the Nucleus of the Atom Totality and
the nucleus would spit out that energy into the form of cosmic rays.
Sort of a recycling system is our Cosmos. Perhaps like Earth with
volcanoes spewing out interior matter and subduction (if it exists)
transporting back into the interior.

So the question is open, do we have a Hubble picture of a galaxy where
we can see straight through the center and for which we can see some
far away more distant galaxy? Indicating that there is just empty space
in the center of the galaxy.

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

a_plutonium wrote:
(some snipping)

In the 20th century, gravity was explained in the culmination idea that
"mass bends space and other mass follows the curvature of that bent
space". The trouble with that idea is that space is an entity for which
General Relativity never addressed. And General Relativity is founded
on Linear Momentum that the Earth has Linear Momentum and just wants to
travel off in a straight line to infinity but because the Sun is
massive it bends space around Earth and thus Earth is haplessly caught
up in this bent space and has to move around (revolve around) the Sun.
The trouble as I mentioned is that General Relativity does not address
what is SPACE, for it is an entity if you say that "mass bends space".

Here is where the Atom Totality theory addresses the problem of what is
Space. The ATom Totality theory accepts the idea of gravity that "mass
bends space and other mass follows the curvature of that bent space"
only the Atom Totality says what space is. It says that SPACE is what
Dirac used to call the ocean-of-positrons. In the 20th century it was
found out that space contains an infinite amount of energy. For when we
do experiments to obtain the positron we pluck out of space a hole and
that hole was filled by a positron. So, according to Dirac and 20th
century physics, space is just a vast ocean of POSITRONS.


Now today I spent some time figuring what neutrinos would do if they
were counted as Space, since neutrinos flood the Cosmos in huge
numbers. Trouble is that neutrinos could not be the Space for which
mass bends space.

But Positrons as the ingredient that composes Space makes a complete
picture. In that gravity would then be of the very same formula as the
Coulomb force for EM. And so positrons as Space yields a Unification of
gravity with EM.

And it is a satisfying picture because when our Sun travels in space,
it sort of etches out space or we can say it plows a pathway for the
planets to then follow that pathway. When we first learn of the General
Relativity gravity we are given the model of an ashtray in which the
sun is at the center and bending space as the sides of the ashtray and
which the planets then are made to follow the curved edge of the
ashtray. But instead of an ashtray, I assert it is the old Dirac ocean
of Positrons.

Now why positrons? Why not some other particle? Well, the Atom Totality
theory works best with positrons as Space because all the matter and
mass of the Observable (note Observable) Universe are the electrons of
the Atom Totality and gravity is only a attractive force and never
repulsion, so that is why Positrons work the best.

And also, Positrons work the best because as I noted many years ago,
for this quest to fully understand gravity has been ongoing since late
1990 when I discovered the Atom Totality theory and because it so very
difficult that it has taken me until now, some 16 years to finally find
the picture. And as I said so often in those 16 years that the
mathematical formula of Coulomb force matches the formula for gravity
when we replace charge with mass. Only gravity is about 10^40 weaker in
strength than Coulomb.

By making SPACE an ocean of positrons, and as mass moves through this
space it bends the space because the positrons are attracted to the
moving mass. And this attraction is 10^40 weaker than the normal
Coulomb force.

So I have in a sense connected gravity to Electromagnetism. This
picture is a Unification of the force of gravity with that of Coulomb
force in Maxwell theory.

Many people before me have noted that connecting gravity to EM has one
big hurdle in that EM is both attract and repel whereas gravity is only
attract. So I have overcome that one problem by saying all mass that we
see is electron-mass of the Atom Totality which rides over a Space that
is an ocean of positrons. And positrons attract electrons since they
are oppositely charged.

In the Big Bang theory allied with General Relativity, this unification
could never occur because all mass is not electron mass. And the flaw
of General Relativity is of two kinds (1) based on Linear Momentum
whereas most of the motion we observe is Angular Momentum (2) and the
largest flaw of using the concept of Space as an entity and never
really telling what do you mean by "space" such as in the statement
"mass bends space and other objects follow the curvature of that bent
space"

Now there should be future experiments to prove me correct or wrong for
the claim is that Space is an ocean of positrons and that gravity is
merely the bending of positron-space. That idea would have vast
experimental implications and would even have some implications on the
Maxwell Equations. Even though gravity would thence be seen as merely
the weakest form of the Coulomb force.

And I suppose that a massive body that is highly charged would have a
different gravitational pull the the very same amount of mass with net
overall charge of 0. For example, a proton moving in a space of
positrons would have a different gravity than a negative charged ion of
the same mass.

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

a_plutonium wrote:
The timing of my thread is spectacular because last night on the
Newshour was report of fixing the Hubble telescope to be active for
another 5 years. And an interview with a Hubble scientist who
proclaimed words to the effect " The Hubble telescope gave us pictures
of the center of galaxies and proved the existence of black-holes."

I buy the idea that the Hubble telescope gave us the very best pictures
of galaxies, but I doubt that the center of galaxies harbor
black-holes. And according to Quantum Mechanics, black-holes are
nonexistent. Quantum Mechanics would have supernova as the last outcry
of matter squeezed together. Black-holes violate the Pauli Exclusion
Principle and almost every principle in Quantum Mechanics. Black-holes
were offered in a century, the 20th century when physicists became
exceedingly sloppy in logic and thought. A century where General
Relativity was touted above quantum mechanics and thus chimeras and
fakery physics was borne.

Now the Hubble telescope shows us the center of some galaxies. And let
me offer this as an alternative to galaxies harboring a black-hole in
its center. What if I said that there exists a Hubble picture of where
the center of a galaxy is "empty space" and so empty that one can look
through that center to a far off distant galaxy. Let me explain below.

In the 20th century, gravity was explained in the culmination idea that
"mass bends space and other mass follows the curvature of that bent
space". The trouble with that idea is that space is an entity for which
General Relativity never addressed. And General Relativity is founded
on Linear Momentum that the Earth has Linear Momentum and just wants to
travel off in a straight line to infinity but because the Sun is
massive it bends space around Earth and thus Earth is haplessly caught
up in this bent space and has to move around (revolve around) the Sun.
The trouble as I mentioned is that General Relativity does not address
what is SPACE, for it is an entity if you say that "mass bends space".

Here is where the Atom Totality theory addresses the problem of what is
Space. The ATom Totality theory accepts the idea of gravity that "mass
bends space and other mass follows the curvature of that bent space"
only the Atom Totality says what space is. It says that SPACE is what
Dirac used to call the ocean-of-positrons. In the 20th century it was
found out that space contains an infinite amount of energy. For when we
do experiments to obtain the positron we pluck out of space a hole and
that hole was filled by a positron. So, according to Dirac and 20th
century physics, space is just a vast ocean of POSITRONS.

Now when you combine the two pictures of the Atom Totality with space
being a cosmic-ocean of positrons, we end up with a very nice clear
picture of gravity. Remember that in the Atom Totality theory, Earth
and Sun and stars and galaxies and planets are all pieces of the last 6
electrons of 231Pu. So that our planet Earth was a fragment of the last
6 electrons of 231Pu. All mass and matter that we see in the cosmos are
fragments of the electrons of 231Pu. Now combine that idea with the
idea that "space" is a cosmic ocean of positrons.

So, now, let me repeat the great idea, although flawed, about gravity
of the 20th century modified to the ATom Totality theory: "Mass and
matter of the Observable Universe is fragmented pieces of the last 6
electrons of 231Pu which is immersed in a Cosmic Ocean of positrons
that constitutes SPACE, and for which MASS bends this positron space
because they are opposite charge, and subsequently or consequently
other mass and matter follows the curvature of that bent space."

So, if my above is correct in part or whole, then the interview last
night of a Hubble scientist on the Newshour claiming that the center of
galaxies harbor black-holes would be false. The center of galaxies
harbor empty space, empty positron space and that one should be able to
find a Hubble picture where we look directly through the center of a
galaxy and are able to see a far off distant galaxy.

According to the Atom Totality theory which is based on Quantum
Mechanics, the center of galaxies as a ocean of positrons would funnel
mass and matter directly towards the Nucleus of the Atom Totality and
the nucleus would spit out that energy into the form of cosmic rays.
Sort of a recycling system is our Cosmos. Perhaps like Earth with
volcanoes spewing out interior matter and subduction (if it exists)
transporting back into the interior.

So the question is open, do we have a Hubble picture of a galaxy where
we can see straight through the center and for which we can see some
far away more distant galaxy? Indicating that there is just empty space
in the center of the galaxy.



I did some searching on Google to see if the Hubble has already spyed a
galaxy for which its center is nothing but open Space and which it has
stars and no black-hole.

This website about M31 seems to fit the description:
http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/html/heic0512.html

So what will eventually happen, ironically, is that Hubble will prove
that there are no black-holes. And that the center of Galaxies are
either regions of a plethora of stars or a region devoid of all matter.

That black-holes do not exist because if ever a situation occurs where
alot of mass comes together in any one place, what happens is that the
mass converts into energy such as X-rays and/or sinks into the Nucleus
of the Atom Totality to be spewed out in the form of Cosmic rays.

I was not able to find a Hubble picture of a galaxy with an alleged
black-hole for its center, yet which has the appearance of a bright
spot of another different galaxy. Such a picture would be the
death-knell-tomb for black-hole enthusiasts. Because such a picture
would point out that every alleged black-hole is nothing but empty
space.


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

a_plutonium wrote:
a_plutonium wrote:
(Moresome snipping)

-

Many people before me have noted that connecting gravity to EM has one
big hurdle in that EM is both attract and repel whereas gravity is only
attract. So I have overcome that one problem by saying all mass that we
see is electron-mass of the Atom Totality which rides over a Space that
is an ocean of positrons. And positrons attract electrons since they
are oppositely charged.


Attractive only, modes have been demonstrated in simulations that
that consider radiuses out 10 orders of magnitude beyond London
and Van der Waals nearfield effects.

http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html

http://chaos.fullerton.edu/~jimw/gen...rtia/index.htm
http://www.citebase.org/cgi-bin/cita...hysics/0107015
http://www.mypage.bluewin.ch/Bizarre/GRAV.htm
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html

Sue...


[...]

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

there's no way to tell what is antimatter in Universe,
just by analyzing waves or photons therefrom,
according to Dirac et al.

Many people before me have noted that connecting gravity to EM has one
big hurdle in that EM is both attract and repel whereas gravity is only
attract. So I have overcome that one problem by saying all mass that we
see is electron-mass of the Atom Totality which rides over a Space that
is an ocean of positrons. And positrons attract electrons since they
are oppositely charged.

Attractive only, modes have been demonstrated in simulations that
that consider radiuses out 10 orders of magnitude beyond London
and Van der Waals nearfield effects.

http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html

http://chaos.fullerton.edu/~jimw/gen...rtia/index.htm
http://www.citebase.org/cgi-bin/cita...hysics/0107015
http://www.mypage.bluewin.ch/Bizarre/GRAV.htm
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html

the OP is just reading deeper & deeper into reviews,
without even trying to suppose that ST might work,
as a superset of the Standard Model, because he can't think
of a way to accomodate more than 3D in space, hewing
to the "compactified" motif of Kaluza-Klein. thus,
he is confined to "reifying spacetime according to Minkowski,"
who died before he could qualify his silly statement ...
with a lot of wordsoup a la Hemingdingbatway.

Moving D Theory has no verifiable content, as
the words do not "add-up" to a concise metaphor; eh?
(on the other hand, there is Lanscoz's quaternionic treatment
of 3+1 phasespace; sheesh .-)

here is from current experiment (scroll to "conclusion"):
http://horology.jpl.nasa.gov/quantum/pub/SpacePart'03_prestage.pdf

And that is precisely the problem with (string, brane, M) theory. The
theory had become a source for some interesting mathematics, but is it
physics?

thus:
so, Base One uses the igit, or the ungit, or the git?

I much prefer "Binary digIT" rather than "BINary digiT", but I thought
that question was entirely too silly to deserve an answer.

thus:
Why doesn't the [UCLA Daily] Bruin report that
Darfur's populace is "100%" Muslim,
according to the DAC's sponsor,
Terry Saunders?...
"99%" was the figure given
by Brian Steidle, when I finally found
him at the Hammer, after everyone else
had left (he, his friend & I were the
very last to leave!)...
What could it possibly mean?

--The Other Side (if it exists)

Aluminium Holocene Holodeck Zoroaster wrote:
there's no way to tell what is antimatter in Universe,
just by analyzing waves or photons therefrom,
according to Dirac et al.

Positrons comprising the interstellar hydrogen are a pretty safe bet.

The interstellar medium has an extremely low density, lower than
that of the best vacuum created on Earth. (For comparison, the air
that we breathe contains 30,000,000,000,000,000,000 (3x1019)
molecules in every cubic centimeter, an area about the size of the
tip of a finger; while the interstellar gas around our solar system
contains only one atom in ten (10) cubic centimeters.) It is mainly
made up of gas with some dust. The gas is mostly hydrogen, with a
little helium, and small amounts of heavier elements.

http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html


Many people before me have noted that connecting gravity to EM has one
big hurdle in that EM is both attract and repel whereas gravity is only
attract. So I have overcome that one problem by saying all mass that we
see is electron-mass of the Atom Totality which rides over a Space that
is an ocean of positrons. And positrons attract electrons since they
are oppositely charged.

Attractive only, modes have been demonstrated in simulations that
that consider radiuses out 10 orders of magnitude beyond London
and Van der Waals nearfield effects.

http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html

http://chaos.fullerton.edu/~jimw/gen...rtia/index.htm
http://www.citebase.org/cgi-bin/cita...hysics/0107015
http://www.mypage.bluewin.ch/Bizarre/GRAV.htm
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html

the OP is just reading deeper & deeper into reviews,
without even trying to suppose that ST might work,
as a superset of the Standard Model, because he can't think
of a way to accomodate more than 3D in space, hewing
to the "compactified" motif of Kaluza-Klein. thus,
he is confined to "reifying spacetime according to Minkowski,"
who died before he could qualify his silly statement ...
with a lot of wordsoup a la Hemingdingbatway.

Nature can't do the inverse square law in more than 3D either
so I won't dismiss the OP for that.


Moving D Theory has no verifiable content, as
the words do not "add-up" to a concise metaphor; eh?
(on the other hand, there is Lanscoz's quaternionic treatment
of 3+1 phasespace; sheesh .-)

here is from current experiment (scroll to "conclusion"):

Conclusions:
We have briefly discussed a mission design study based on the
inter-comparison of the oscillation frequencies of three atomic clocks
based on three different species of singly ionized atoms. By flying
this instrument to within six solar radii of the sun it is possible to
search for a variation of fine structure constant to a level that is
not accessible to earth-based instruments. As briefly mentioned above,
and discussed elsewhere in this volume the detail of theories that
predict a temporal or spatial variation in fine structure constant,
such as M-theory or theories based on varying c or e, are rather
tentative. Experimental tests of these theories based on a search for
varying a then must produce direct and unambiguous results to be most
valuable. The three-clock comparison discussed here is indeed such an
approach. As discussed above, each atomic clock will drift in a
specific manner with varying a and inter-comparison of these
variations assures that an observed signal produces a clear result.
Secondly, the technology of atomic clocks is well developed, and a
space test based on clocks has an inherently large probability of
success.
With today's small ultra-stable ion clocks, mission costs for a small
(~ 200kg) solar gravity explorer are comparable or even competitive
with Earth orbit gravity missions and clearly much more adventurous.
The technical problems of spacecraft survival during a near solar flyby
were studied 30 years ago and judged to be feasible even then.
http://horology.jpl.nasa.gov/quantum/pub/SpacePart'03_prestage.pdf

I fail to see how that makes the OP's musings inplausible. Particularly
in light of the Tajmar / de Matos experiment.

Sue...



And that is precisely the problem with (string, brane, M) theory. The
theory had become a source for some interesting mathematics, but is it
physics?

thus:
so, Base One uses the igit, or the ungit, or the git?

I much prefer "Binary digIT" rather than "BINary digiT", but I thought
that question was entirely too silly to deserve an answer.

thus:
Why doesn't the [UCLA Daily] Bruin report that
Darfur's populace is "100%" Muslim,
according to the DAC's sponsor,
Terry Saunders?...
"99%" was the figure given
by Brian Steidle, when I finally found
him at the Hammer, after everyone else
had left (he, his friend & I were the
very last to leave!)...
What could it possibly mean?

--The Other Side (if it exists)

Sue... wrote:
a_plutonium wrote:
a_plutonium wrote:
(Moresome snipping)

-

Many people before me have noted that connecting gravity to EM has one
big hurdle in that EM is both attract and repel whereas gravity is only
attract. So I have overcome that one problem by saying all mass that we
see is electron-mass of the Atom Totality which rides over a Space that
is an ocean of positrons. And positrons attract electrons since they
are oppositely charged.


Attractive only, modes have been demonstrated in simulations that
that consider radiuses out 10 orders of magnitude beyond London
and Van der Waals nearfield effects.


I meant it in a different manner. I meant it in lines with Dirac. Here
is a quote from his valuable book.

--- quoting from Dirac in his book DIRECTIONS IN PHYSICS 1978, page 16

Now, with quantum mechanics, we cannot exclude transitions from
positive energy states to negative energy states, and that means that
we cannot exclude the negative energy states from our theory. If we
cannot exclude them, we must find a method of physical interpretation
for them. One can get a reasonable interpretation by adopting a new
picture of the vacuum. Previously, people have thought of the vacuum as
a region of space that is completely empty, a region of space that does
not contain anything at all.

.....

Thus these "holes" move as though they had positive energies and
positive charges instead of the usual negative charge of the electron;
the "holes" appear as a new kind of particle having a positive charge.

--- end quoting ---

What Dirac calls the vacuum, I am going to extend to meaning Space
itself. So replace vacuum with space. And what Dirac calls holes are
Positrons. By the way, I am not clear as to how the positron was
actually, physically discovered.

So now, let me try to explain my position in a different manner with an
analogy to a train on a track. Suppose a train is all the observable
universe and suppose the track is space. And suppose the engine is the
sun and the train cars behind are planets. And the track is space as
composed of positrons. The train engine and cars are all fragmented
pieces of electrons. Now as the Sun car is moving on the track the two
are attracted to each other because they are opposite charge. And let
us further suppose that the Sun car since it is so much heaver of a car
than the other train cars that it bends the track into a direction
because of its heavier weight. So the Sun car bends the track (bends
space) and the following cars move in the same direction as the bent
space.

Dirac was focused on vacuum and quantum mechanics mathematical
accounting for energy. So Dirac theoretically discovered the Positron
before it was physically discovered due to his diligence in noting the
mathematical need for the existence of the Positron.

Well, I am taking Dirac's picture much further. I am saying that Space
itself is this Ocean of Positrons. Vacuums are non existent. And that
with Space as an ocean-of-positrons, I can therefor account for gravity
as merely another Coulomb force, albeit the weakest Coulomb force.
Gravity in this picture is the fact that all matter in an Atom Totality
that we see is bits and pieces of the 94 electrons of 231Pu, what are
usually called the electron dot cloud becomes dots as individual
galaxies. And the space which these electrons occupy is an Ocean of
Positrons. A cosmic ocean of positrons in which galaxies, stars and
planets move.

So the old idea that gravity bends space and thus all the matter within
that space follows the curvature of that bent space is revised. The
revision is simply that Space is an entity and that entity is this
cosmic ocean of positrons.

In this manner, I explain gravity to its fullest extent and also I
unify gravity as a force to the Coulomb force. So gravity is no longer
a loner. Gravity is merely a Coulomb force.

This has to be correct because the old idea is deaf dumb and silent
with the crucial concept of " What is Space".

We in physics or any science makes a grave error whenever we believe in
an idea that has ill-defined concepts. When we say "Space", in the old
physics that usually meant something like a vacuum region in which
devoid of all matter and energy. And then to compound the lousy concept
with the idea of "mass bending space". If you think of space as a
vacuum, then how can you bend it? So whenever physics or any other
science makes up theories in which the concepts of that theory are
dirty , messy, ill-defined and even contradictory, then it is not long
before the entire theory has to be revamped.

That book of Dirac's is a historical gem of a book and if alot more
scientists of the 20th century had read his book and thrown out their
General Relativity and other nonsense, would have been far better
placed to do 21st century physics.

As to an experiment to show I am correct that Space is Ocean of
Positrons, and that gravity is a weakest form of the Coulomb force in
an Atom Totality, I am still amiss as to a deciding experiment. This is
not easy. Not easy because all the matter we encounter, is electron
matter of the Atom Totality as opposed to the Ocean of Positrons. So
that an experiment of London chemical forces or van der Waals is not
really relevant, as far as I can see.

Something about Maxwell's Equations if Space is a Ocean of Positrons
would be in play here. Something odd or goofy about the Maxwell
Equations that would be set right if Space were an Ocean of Positrons.
So that not only is gravity unified with Coulomb force, but that
Maxwell Equations are made better. That would be a deciding experiment
where one great theory supports and validates another great theory in
physics.

Perhaps the resolution of no monopoles would be verified by Space being
an Ocean of Positrons. In that an Ocean of Positrons would remove any
and all asymmetry in the Maxwell Equations. But then again, perhaps the
Maxwell Eq. need some asymmetry because the Universe itself is nothing
but one big atom which contains nothing but smaller atoms inside
itself. So if that is the sum total description of the Universe-- big
atom contains smaller atoms, then the Maxwell theory, by logic, cannot
be perfectly symmetrical.


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

I was appending unrelated thread from another OP,
the loosey-goosey *literateur* of "MDT." anyway,
why would interstellar or intergalactic space consist of positrons,
not electrons ... and associated antiprotons etc.?

the OP, hereinat, has failed to give any necessity or sufficiency
for such an ideal ... although I didn't read most of it, since
I provisionally use the Alfven cosmology.

there's no way to tell what is antimatter in Universe,
just by analyzing waves or photons therefrom,
according to Dirac et al.

Positrons comprising the interstellar hydrogen are a pretty safe bet.

http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html

We have briefly discussed a mission design study based on the
inter-comparison of the oscillation frequencies of three atomic clocks
based on three different species of singly ionized atoms. By flying
this instrument to within six solar radii of the sun it is possible to
search for a variation of fine structure constant to a level that is
not accessible to earth-based instruments. As briefly mentioned above,
and discussed elsewhere in this volume the detail of theories that
predict a temporal or spatial variation in fine structure constant,
such as M-theory or theories based on varying c or e, are rather
tentative. Experimental tests of these theories based on a search for
varying a then must produce direct and unambiguous results to be most
valuable. The three-clock comparison discussed here is indeed such an
approach. As discussed above, each atomic clock will drift in a
specific manner with varying a and inter-comparison of these
variations assures that an observed signal produces a clear result.
Secondly, the technology of atomic clocks is well developed, and a
space test based on clocks has an inherently large probability of
success.
With today's small ultra-stable ion clocks, mission costs for a small
(~ 200kg) solar gravity explorer are comparable or even competitive
with Earth orbit gravity missions and clearly much more adventurous.
The technical problems of spacecraft survival during a near solar flyby
were studied 30 years ago and judged to be feasible even then.
http://horology.jpl.nasa.gov/quantum/pub/SpacePart'03_prestage.pdf

I fail to see how that makes the OP's musings inplausible. Particularly
in light of the Tajmar / de Matos experiment.

thus:
the OP is just reading deeper & deeper into reviews,
without even trying to suppose that ST might work,
as a superset of the Standard Model, because he can't think
of a way to accomodate more than 3D in space, hewing
to the "compactified" motif of Kaluza-Klein. thus,
he is confined to "reifying spacetime according to Minkowski,"
who died before he could qualify his silly statement ...
with a lot of wordsoup a la Hemingdingbatway.
Moving D Theory has no verifiable content, as
the words do not "add-up" to a concise metaphor; eh?
(on the other hand, there is Lanscoz's quaternionic treatment
of 3+1 phasespace; sheesh .-)
http://horology.jpl.nasa.gov/quantum/pub/SpacePart'03_prestage.pdf

And that is precisely the problem with (string, brane, M) theory. The
theory had become a source for some interesting mathematics, but is it
physics?

thus:
so, Base One uses the igit, or the ungit, or the git?
I much prefer "Binary digIT" rather than "BINary digiT", but I thought
that question was entirely too silly to deserve an answer.

thus:
Why doesn't the [UCLA Daily] Bruin report that
Darfur's populace is "100%" Muslim,
according to the DAC's sponsor,
Terry Saunders?
"99%" was the figure given
by Brian Steidle, when I finally found
him at the Hammer, after everyone else
had left (he, his friend & I were the
very last to leave!)

What could it possibly mean?

--The Other Side (if it exists)