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

You see in a earlier post to this thread, Bob Kolker was ranting and
raving about the beautiful match between theory and data. When if
anyone who really checks the history of physics of these things finds a
different story. And that so much of science, not only in physics, is
accepted and believed not on merits, but mostly current propaganda and
the desire to make idols of scientists who are really selling a fake
idea.

According to this website on the history of General Relativity,
Einstein predicted a 0.85" deflection:
--- quoting from ---
http://www.americanscientist.org/tem...939?&print=yes

Einstein first suggested how this light-bending effect could be
measured in 1911. He predicted that those rays of starlight that passed
closest to the Sun would be deflected by 0.85 arcseconds (0.00023
degree) because of the Sun's gravitational field.

--- end quoting ---

But when Eddington actually measured the deflection in 1919, he found a
figure of 1.75". And then everyone says how great this is and how great
a match this is, when in fact it is utterly off the mark.

So how did the history of physics record how Einstein got from 0.85" to
that of 1.75" when his theory predicted 0.85".

Mr. Clifford Will of Washington Univ studies General Relativity alot
and has written a book about it and I was hoping to find an answer as
to how anyone is to make 0.85" a match to 1.75".

--- quoting Clifford Will ---
http://www.brookscole.com/physics_d/...elativity.html

The prediction of the bending light by the Sun was one of the great
successes of general relativity. Confirmation by the British
astronomers Eddington and Crommelin of the bending of optical starlight
observed during a total solar eclipse in the first months following
World War I helped make Einstein a celebrity. However, those
measurements had only 30% accuracy, and succeeding eclipse experiments
weren't much better; the results were scattered between one half and
twice the Einstein value, and the accuracies were low.

--- end quoting ---

On that website of C. Will, he talks about doubling the value of
deflection because of some argument of a straight rod. Perhaps,
although it is unclear, Einstein made his mistake of 0.85" prediction
due to not taking into account this straight rod argument.

Anyway, the straight-rod argument to me sounds fishy, and I do not buy
it.

The better theory that explains the full 1.75" deflection is the
Displacement Current theory for gravity. In that Space is positron
ocean and positrons attract electrons and since all the mass and matter
of the Cosmos are bits and pieces of the electrons of the Atom
Totality, gravity is this positron envelope over mass. So the Sun has
alot of positrons as space and is bending space very much near the Sun.
And this bent space of positrons yields the approx 1/2 of the 1.75".
The other 1/2 is yielded by the magnetic field of the Sun itself. So
there are TWO magnetic fields reinforcing one another-- positron
(space) magnetic field and Sun's magnetic field and the two combined
yield 1.75"

I do not expect present day physicist who adore General Relativity and
who have placed Einstein as their idol to ever take a second look at
the validity of GR. I do not expect them to reexamine the actual
history. And to reexamine how GR mathematics can deliver 2X the value
to get 1.75". Science can become nonscience easily, because scientist
are human like anyone and they have a hard time of reexamining the
facts, the data, the theory and the predictions of the theory and its
actual history. They want to go on pretending as if Einstein was some
music rock star, when in fact he had it mostly all wrong.

Scientists can become like politicians where they say over and over
again that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and that things are
going well over there in Iraq.

And when someone comes around and tells them that GR predicts only
0.85" and not 1.75" and that their so called "fix" of a "straight-rod
argument" is nonsense, they just do not listen.

As Bohr and Pauli and Heisenberg remarked in the early 20th century,
that the current physicists of their day will never understand or
accept the new quantum physics and to not even bother to teach them.
Same thing can be said of all those now who believe in General
Relativity for they are so brainwashed and deluded that it is not worth
the bother to point out to them how fake is the theory of General
Relativity. I suppose the best thing to do is to laugh at them, and to
laugh how someone can embrace such phony baloney. And how weak and
crippled they are to ever consider that there beloved GR could be
utterly wrong. The best way to try to change people who have false
ideas and false theories is not to seriously try to teach them, but to
laugh at them.

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:

But when Eddington actually measured the deflection in 1919, he found a
figure of 1.75". And then everyone says how great this is and how great
a match this is, when in fact it is utterly off the mark.

Eddington did fudge the numbers, but later measurement show GTR is right
on the mark. The light bends as predicted

All of the earlier tests of GTR have been done again and again with
better and better measurement technology. GTR is not yet falsified. It
very likely will be in extremely intense gravitational fields.

Bob Kolker

I'd guess that the satellites of Jupiter and Saturn are a lot closer,
with respect to teh diameters of those two,
than Mercury is to Sun, but I don't know, being so used
to picaresque representations of System Sol, not to scale.

shifts are lower and harder to observe. For example, the perihelion
shift of Earth's orbit due to general relativity effects is about 5
seconds of arc per century.

accept gravity tugs by other planets for Mercury, yet when it comes to
Ganymede and Titan they never factor in any "other planets or even
include the Sun".

magnetic field of the parent. General Relativity is not a direct
proportionality and does not include magnetism. So GR fails. The

thus:
Newton merely algebraized Kepler's three orbital constraints,
which enabled Gauss to determine the orbit of Ceres,
using only three sightings (and I think,
the assumption that Earth's orbit is circular,
was close-enough for such determination .-)

NB: Gauss didn't bother with Newton's thing for that,
I assume. Newton's "laws" indeed are the two-body problem,
with the proviso that he stole the inverse-second-power "law"
from Hooke, whose portraits were burned by President N.

that quote about Dirac, sounds very Islamic!

You mean, unlike Kepler's laws, Newton's theory of gravity and motion
ARE the cornerstone of space-flight planning, except where cases of
utmost accuracy is needed and then relativistic effects must be taken
into account.

this just in:
yesterday's (Tues,. Nov.15) *UCLA Daily Bruin* finally noted that
darfur is entirely Muslim, though downplaying it AMAP.

thus:
Dick Cheeny, Don Rumsfeld and Osama bin Latin form a mission
to Darfur, to prevent a war instead of to start one:
if Darfur is "100% Muslim," then
what's really going on, there?
is it just aother British Quag for USA soldiers to get bogged
into, with Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan et al ad vomitorium,
under auspices of the UN and NATO?

why won't the Bruin publish the fact of Islam on the ground,
therein?

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)

Bob Kolker wrote:
a_plutonium wrote:

But when Eddington actually measured the deflection in 1919, he found a
figure of 1.75". And then everyone says how great this is and how great
a match this is, when in fact it is utterly off the mark.

Eddington did fudge the numbers, but later measurement show GTR is right
on the mark. The light bends as predicted

All of the earlier tests of GTR have been done again and again with
better and better measurement technology. GTR is not yet falsified. It
very likely will be in extremely intense gravitational fields.

Bob Kolker

I am not concerned with the experimental observations side of the
story. Even though some say Eddington was off by 70% with only 30%
accuracy.

What I want to know is how Einstein said his General Relativity
predicted 0.85" deflection and that how this theory was then bent
around and fudged around to later say it predicts 1.75" deflection. And
who did the fudging? Was it Einstein? When a theory makes a prediction,
that prediction is pretty well unalterable and not amenable to change.

So Einsteins GR predicted 0.85" in 1911 and after Eddington said it was
1.75" after 1919, it does not look good for Einstein and his GR to
thence say "GR predicts 1.75" when it predicts 0.85"". So what is the
fudging of GR that it doubled the number.

Is the fudging what Clifford Will says in his websites that the
deflection has a "straight-rod" factor which puts a 1/2 coefficient
into the equation? And if Einstein did not know of this factor, who put
the 1/2 into the equation?

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

Now in fact, this is probably another means of confirming the Current
Displacement theory of gravity, in the fact that you need a Aether in
physics. If memory is correct, I believe Michelson was haunted to his
grave in believing that you had to have a "medium" in order for a wave
to exist. Special-Relativity sort of dispensed with the concept of a
medium for a wave.

But I like the Special Relativity that says the Maxwell Equations are
invariant to the Lorentz transformations. I like this approach rather
than the aether and constancy of light speed. Because the Maxwell
Equation approach is infinitely more commonsensical than the aether
approach. Any halfwit can see that a moving magnet in a loop of wire is
the same as a moving wire near a magnet.

But Space as a ocean of positrons demands there be an Aether, a
luminiferous aether. So that all waves in physics require a medium and
even light requires a medium. The medium is positrons as space. The old
Special Relativity thought of space as a vacuum.

So as we revise the old Maxwell Equations where a monopole does exist
and Gauss's law of magnetism has a nonzero term and where the Faraday's
Law has a displacement current, making the Maxwell Equations perfectly
symmetrical.

Now is the aether of a ocean of positrons existing in the Atom Totality
only but on the scale of inside of an atom, is there still this ocean
of positron to create Space?

I think so. Whereever there exists a electron, there exists a positron.
The positron may not be in a particle form but rather instead in a wave
form and thus what we think of as "space".

So I wonder if this Space = positrons clears up and clarifies other
areas of physics. It sure clears up what gravity is. And it Unifies the
forces of physics by unifying gravity with EM. And it makes the Maxwell
Equations perfectly symmetrical. And it explains quasars and the shape
of galaxies and solar systems.

So I wonder if there is some particle physics experiment that proves
this statement--- whereever there is a electron, there is a positron
nearby?

And I wonder if physics needs a Aether (ether) to straighten out some
other area of physics, and not just the one stipulation that a wave
requires a medium. I have been around physics to long to know that a
truth in physics is not a one particular isolated case but that other
areas are affected.

Today I have been wondering about the need of an Aether for more than
just a medium for waves. I think a Aether is required to make Faraday's
lines of force true. In other words, if an Aether to carry waves does
not exist, then Faraday's Lines-of-Force are nonexistent, and we all
know that lines-of-force exist. So I wonder if Lines of Force are
another demand that an aether exists.

And I would almost bet that some experiments in particle physics for
the ocean of positrons are added proof that space is positrons and thus
Space is an aether of positrons. Experiments where positrons seem to
appear from out of nowhere.

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:


But I like the Special Relativity that says the Maxwell Equations are
invariant to the Lorentz transformations. I like this approach rather
than the aether and constancy of light speed. Because the Maxwell
Equation approach is infinitely more commonsensical than the aether
approach. Any halfwit can see that a moving magnet in a loop of wire is
the same as a moving wire near a magnet.

But Space as a ocean of positrons demands there be an Aether, a
luminiferous aether. So that all waves in physics require a medium and
even light requires a medium. The medium is positrons as space. The old
Special Relativity thought of space as a vacuum.


When you change the no monopole Gauss Law to be symmetrical with
Coulomb Law and when you change Faradays Law to include a
displacement-current and thereby all the Maxwell Equations are
perfectly symmetrical, I believe the endresult is that you are required
to have a luminferous aether. The monopole law and the displacement
current in Faraday's Law demand a medium for waves to travel in.

Now Dirac spent a great deal of his life thinking about monopoles. But
I wonder if Dirac spent a few moments thinking about if a monopole
exists, then how would the Maxwell Equations be changed to fit this
monopole? And did Dirac ever write out what a perfectly symmetrical
Maxwell Equations were? I know almost every physicists has come across
the knowledge that the Maxwell Equations are asymmetrical for even my
college physics text points out this fact. But has any physicist spent
the time on what a perfectly symmetrical Maxwell Equations would be?

I am very much astounded that no physicist has seemed to venture into a
perfectly symmetrical Maxwell Equations. I have heard that in the
forests of Germany and Austria that you never come across a branch or
limb lying around to rot because the people living there clean out the
forest everyday for firewood. So it surprizes me that no physicist has
ventured into the forest of asymmetrical Maxwell Equations and come up
with a perfectly symmetrical Maxwell Equations.

I guess I better Google search to be sure that Dirac or no-one else
proffered symmetrical Maxwell Equations.

For I suspect that a perfectly symmetrical Maxwell Equations demands a
Space = positrons which demands the existence of a Luminiferous Aether.
And that the math alone demands it and that experiments need not even
be performed to prove it. That the math alone demands it.

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:

But Space as a ocean of positrons demands there be an Aether, a

Prove it and show the math.

Bob Kolker

Bob Kolker wrote:
a_plutonium wrote:

But Space as a ocean of positrons demands there be an Aether, a

Prove it and show the math.

Bob Kolker

Well it is not the Aether that Michelson was expecting. He expected
something like waves on the top of a medium such as the ocean or a lake
of water.

When gravity = displacement current in Faraday Law, then the Aether
comes into prominent view. The opposite of the Aether exists is that
blackholes cannot exist. And the recent astronomers of the quasar with
a strong magnetic field support the idea that blackholes cannot exist.

This Aether is not going to change the speed of light in different
reference frames which Michelson was looking for. This Aether is merely
the existence of a medium for which light waves travel. This medium is
"energy" and the energy of positrons where Space is not a vacuum but a
ocean of positrons.

So, the

old Maxwell Equations:
Gauss Law for electricity-- Integral E dot dA = q/e
Gauss Law for magnetism-- Integral B dot dA = 0
Faraday's Law-- Integral E dot ds= -dB/dt
Ampere-Maxwell Law Integral B dot ds = ue (dE/dt) + u i

Now, with Space being Dirac's ocean of Positrons we iron out all the
asymmetry of the old Maxwell Equations and they become the new Maxwell
Equations with another displacement current in the Faraday law:

New Maxwell Equations:

Gauss Law for electricity Integral E dot dA = q/e
Gauss-Plutonium Law for magnetism Integral B dot dA = q/e
Faraday-Plutonium Law Integral E dot ds= (ue) -dB/dt + u i
Ampere-Maxwell Law Integral B dot ds = ue (dE/dt) + u i

We take the Complimentary Principle and apply it to the old Maxwell
Equations. There is a contradiction with the old Faraday Law because
we can replace particle-wave duality with that of E and B vectors.

The whole understanding of Maxwell theory is that electricity and
magnetism are one and the same. Complimentary Principle of Quantum
Mechanics is the universal dualism of particle and wave.

So replacing particle wave with E and B, and there is no trouble with
the Gauss's laws, even though Gauss law of magnetism is asymmetrical.
The problem arises when the Complimentarity is replaced in the old
Faraday Law. There is no complimentary maintained, for we have a wave
and no particle or a particle and no wave. In the old Ampere-Maxwell
law, the Complimentarity Principle is maintained because the
displacement current of (u i) is the wave to the changing electric
field.

To put it into picture form, a wave has to have a medium in order to
exist and to propagate. The medium for the Maxwell Equations is
"energy" and that is what the missing term in the old Faraday Law is--
energy for it is space itself and it is the ocean of positrons.

Our picture of atoms that we learn in physics, advanced physics is an
incomplete picture. For we conceptualize that the nucleus is held
together by the neutrons. And that the electrons outside the nucleus
are held to the atom by the protons in the nucleus, but we fail to
complete the picture as to why the electrons so close to other
electrons do not repel. The answer is that Space is positrons and their
magnetic attraction cancels out the repulsion of electron to electron.

Since the entire Cosmos is just one big atom itself and all the mass we
see is bits and pieces of the electrons, this positron space becomes
what we commonly call gravity.

So the math is that without the new term in Faraday Law, the old
Maxwell Equations violate the Complementarity Principle and that new
term is Space = positrons = gravity.

Michelson had the belief that a wave required a medium. As it turns
out, the medium is space is full of energy because it is a ocean of
positrons.

New Experiment #2: the space in a nucleus of an atom is not a ocean of
positrons, but the space that the electrons occupy is a ocean of
positrons. In the nucleus, neutrons transform into proton + nuclear
electron + energy and these nuclear electrons run around holding
together all the protons. So the space in the nucleus of atoms is not
an ocean of positrons.

I do not know if our technology is advanced enough to detect that there
is no gravity force inside the nuclear region of atoms because there is
no ocean of positrons there. The only electrons in the nucleus are
those that originated inside neutrons. So here is a Experiment that
will decide between whether GR is correct or whether gravity =
displacement current is correct. But it requires horribly fine tuned
instruments. We should find no "gravity force" inside the nucleus of an
atom. Maybe there are some indirect experiments.

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:
(snipped)

We take the Complimentary Principle and apply it to the old Maxwell
Equations. There is a contradiction with the old Faraday Law because
we can replace particle-wave duality with that of E and B vectors.

The whole understanding of Maxwell theory is that electricity and
magnetism are one and the same. Complimentary Principle of Quantum
Mechanics is the universal dualism of particle and wave.

So replacing particle wave with E and B, and there is no trouble with
the Gauss's laws, even though Gauss law of magnetism is asymmetrical.
The problem arises when the Complimentarity is replaced in the old
Faraday Law. There is no complimentary maintained, for we have a wave
and no particle or a particle and no wave. In the old Ampere-Maxwell
law, the Complimentarity Principle is maintained because the
displacement current of (u i) is the wave to the changing electric
field.


I am probably the first scientist to give new students of science a
valuable lesson about creating new ideas in science which uses the
"history of science" as its tool. Well let me correct that to "two
lessons".
The first lesson is that a textbook on beginning physics should be the
history of physics. Not the traditional first textbook to students as
physics divided up into subject areas. The first learning of physics
should be a history of the subject.

My second lesson to students of science if they want to create new
ideas in science is to go back in history to when scientists created
new ideas and to try to figure out how their mind's travelled from the
old ideas to the new ideas. The example of where Maxwell had the old
idea of Ampere Law and how Maxwell then traversed to his Ampere-Maxwell
Law, and why he thought he needed a displacement current.

Reviewing the Maxwell of the 1800's the historical Maxwell and trying
to assemble his mind as it went from Ampere to Ampere-Maxwell Law, I
suspect it was a form of Complimentarity. I say that hesitantly because
there was no Complimentary principle around when Maxwell discovered the
displacement current.

But it is obvious to me now in 2006, that the Complimentarity Principle
of Quantum Mechanics is the backbone, the framework of the Maxwell
Equations. Electricity and Magnetism are inseparable because they are
particle and wave in one. They are quantum duality, and that wherever
there is the B vector there is the E vector.

So, imagine ourselves transported back in time to the 1800s with
Maxwell on the verge of discovering the displacement current. His mind
would have said-- there is something missing here in Ampere Law. It has
only a E vector. It is only particle and no wave. Yet light is always
both E and B together. Always both particle and wave together.

So, now, myself in November of 2006 and looking at the old Faraday Law.
Again, it is only the E vector and missing a B vector. So we violate
the Complimentary Principle of Quantum Mechanics, or we add the missing
term.

This is good advice to new and young students of physics because so
much of our beginning textbooks of physics are not a history of the
subject but a brainwash propaganda. Most textbooks in physics are
riddled full of falsehoods-- Big Bang, blackholes, even stupid things
like wormholes and other exotica, and far-out-falsehoods like String
theory, and even neutron stars are not proven.

So our beginning new students are not "taught properly" to physics but
are advertised to. Advertised to buy these crank and crackpot physics
of those pushing Big Bang, blackholes, String theory, neutron stars.
And these young students then live most of their physics career after
being inculcated with these fake ideas of trying to schuck out of their
system. So they are indoctrinated in their youth to these falsehoods
and spend the rest of their life never really aware of the truth of
physics.

So my advice is read the history of physics as your first introduction
because the old history seldom reaches the last 50 or 100 years because
the closer you get to the "present" day physics the more cluttered with
advertisement and propaganda by crackpots of the subject. Blackholes
and Big Bang and String theory is crackpot science.

And the second lesson, is that if you want to create new physics, I
advise you to research when the old and famous physicists went from the
old idea to the new idea, for in that transition gets to the heart of
the foundation of that area of physics.

The reason Dirac believed a magnetic monopole exists, and I proved him
correct, is that Dirac in his mind, knew that the Cosmos is more
beautiful mathematically for a monopole to exist and ugly if it does
not exist. Dirac's mind just had to combine Saturn's Ring with space an
ocean of positrons, and he would have seen his magnetic monopole.

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:



I am probably the first scientist to give new students of science a

You are not any kind of a scientist. What have you published? What have
you accomplished? Has your work been peer reviewed? Have any of your
theories been tested? You are a crackpot with delusions of grandure.

Bob Kolker