Chapt1 What is this theory #11 Atom Totality Theory replacing BigBang theory

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 a lot 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.

And this book gives an alternative explanation of the red shift, an
alternative
that does not even support the Big Bang and thus it has no supporting
evidence.


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. An explosion
like that of a gigantic cosmic gamma ray burst.


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 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.


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.


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 static-earth, and 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. Just some food for thought.


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 9/29/2011 8:37 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

What is the theory of the Atom Totality?

And why did you not crosspost to alt.sci.physics.plutonium ?

One way to explore the
question is to compare the Atom Totality theory to its rival the Big
Bang.

Yes Archie! And I would say that alt.sci.physics.plutonium
is ideally suited for that!

--
Jos

On Wed, 28 Sep 2011, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

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."

Nonsense. There are no explosions in the Big Bang model.

-s

Now I went to see how many times Dirac even mentions Big Bang theory
to sort of gauge whether
Dirac was lukewarm about the Big Bang or whether he was disgusted with
the Big Bang. Perhaps
a accurate historian can fill in some details, for I perceive Dirac as
somewhat hostile towards
the Big Bang, although I have no evidence of that.

In Dirac's book "Directions in Physics" 1978 he mentions the Big Bang
but not a connotation of
approval but only in a tone where Dirac needs to say what the present
community beliefs lay in
as a backdrop to his deriving his "new radioactivities". Dirac later
goes on to say that his
new-radioactivities is contradictory or above and beyond the
establishment view of physics.

In this book, Atom Totality Theory, Dirac has a major chapter with new-
radioactivities as to how
the Solar System and the Cosmos at large were formed. Dirac's new-
radioactivities destroys the Nebular
Dust Cloud theory and also the Big Bang itself.

So maybe, early on in this book, I should mention the fact that
Archimedes Plutonium is a continuation
of the best of physicists that came before, John Bell and Paul Dirac.
That the Atom Totality theory
is not clear out of the blue theory, but a continuation of the most
brightest of all physicists before.

The two giants of 20th century physics, for which our present day
blind physics community does not
yet perceive were Dirac and Bell. So the reader should not think that
Archimedes Plutonium discovered and built the Atom Totality theory in
a vaccuum but rather, this theory is a further continuation of what
Dirac and Bell came to conclude near the end of the 20th century.

If one were to evaluate the feeling of Dirac towards the Big Bang
theory, my impression from "Directions in Physics" is that he was not
in acceptance of the Big Bang, because you cannot have favored new-
radioactivities
and still cling on to the Big Bang theory.

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