|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Chapt2 pictures of the Atom Totality theory #442 Atom Totality 4th ed
My signature block for my sci newsgroup posts goes like this:
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies I could not think of a more compact statement in as few of words as possible to explain the Atom Totality theory, other than to draw a picture of the theory. What is a "dot"? *Are there more than 92 of them? Simple version of what a plutonium atom looks like of its electron dot cloud : * * * * * * . \ . *. | . * /. * * * * * *. . \. . .|. . /. . * * * * * * * ..\....|.../... * * * * * * * *::\:::|::/:: * * * * * * * * * *_ _ * * * * * * * * * (:Y * * * * * * * * * *_ _ * * * * * * * *::/:::|::\:: * * * * * * * ../....|...\... * * * * * *. . /. . .|. . \. . * * * * * * . / . *. | . * \ . There are six lobes of the 5f6 I do not have time to explain Quantum Physics of the electron dot cloud for you. The electron can come in either Collapsed Wavefunction form and thus a "unit" or it can be Uncollapsed Wavefunction where the electron is spread out to infinity and each dot is a tiny piece of the electron. Classically, the "dot" is described as the probability of finding the electron at that point in space. But that is just a simpleton interpretation. In all my years devoted to science the largest weakness of a scientist or scientists is usually their inability or weakness of proper interpretation of the data. Finding the data and organizing the data is far easier than the end game of science-- understanding and interpreting the data. Interpretation is usually what makes or breaks a scientist, and what puts one as a top ranking scientist to that of one who ends up as teaching science. The ability to know what the data means, and it requires that elusive rare trait of "intuition." The best scientists of the 20th century, other than me were Dirac and Bell, for they properly carried the physics of the 20th century to the Atom Totality theory. Dirac was a huge giant of physics for his intuition was supremely impeccable. Dirac gave us not only "new radioactivities" but also what gravity is as a "positron space". John Bell gave huge progress towards an Atom Totality theory with his concept of "superdeterminism." The difference between a real physicist and a teacher of physics, is that the real physicist can properly interpret the data and intuit what the correct path forward is. We see this in such a simple case of data of physics of the 20th century of the electron-dot-cloud. It is almost in every physics textbook and chemistry textbook of the dot cloud pattern. But who in physics in the 20th century was able to correctly understand and interpret that? Perhaps only one physicist. One interpretation is the electric potential of an electron stretches out to infinity and so the dots are dense near the nucleus and thin out the further away. In the Atom Totality this electric potential, or dots, are galaxies. And when the dots are put together they form the Cosmic Electrons. If you were to join all the galaxies together you end up with one electron of 231Pu Cosmic Atom Totality. One interpretation of the electron dot cloud was given by Born. In the Max Born interpretation of the dots of the electron-dot-cloud, where the dot is the probability of finding a whole electron at that point and time in space. But to those who are bad in interpretation of physics, end up thinking that what Born said was the "be all and end all of the topic." As if they fail to even understand what the word "interpretation" means. Now I get angered and frustrated with people who cannot even comprehend the word "totality" when they hear of the Atom Totality theory, and start thinking of the Cosmos as a molecule or other far fetched. I like another interpretation of the dots of the electron-dot-cloud. I like to think of the dots as a tiny smashed or shattered piece of an electron. So let us imagine an electron as a glass ball and it is shattered into a large number of tiny fragments. Each of those fragments represents a galaxy. So if all the galaxies of the night sky were joined together they would make up the last six electrons of a Cosmic atom of plutonium, the isotope of 231Pu, the 5f6 of plutonium. 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Redshift and Microwave radiation favor Atom Totality and disfavorBig Bang #9; ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) theory; replaces Big Bang theory | Net-Teams, | Astronomy Misc | 1 | May 31st 10 05:19 PM |
distribution of galaxies points to Atom Totality not Big Bang #176 ;3rd ed; Atom Totality (Atom Universe) theory | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | November 6th 09 09:29 AM |
conservation of angular momentum only in an atom totality structure#142; 3rd ed; Atom Totality (Atom Universe) theory | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 6 | August 13th 09 04:00 PM |
where is the dark-matter, obviously, the Nucleus of the Atom Totality#127 ; 3rd ed; Atom Totality (Atom Universe) theory | Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] | Astronomy Misc | 1 | August 7th 09 07:32 PM |
MECO theory reinforced by Atom Totality theory #48 ;3rd edition book:ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 2 | May 21st 09 07:51 PM |