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

"John C. Polasek" wrote in message
...
On 1 Dec 2006 11:45:56 -0800, "a_plutonium"
wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 30 Nov 2006 19:42:42 -0800, "a_plutonium"

wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
(snipped)

Dirac deduced a sea of electrons simply from the minus sign in
the
total energy equation. He did very little with it.

John Polasek

You meant to say "sea of positrons".

No I meant a sea of electrons, look it up in Eisberg for example. An
electron, when removed, left a "hole".


Well that is your logical error isn't it. Dirac's Sea was logical
inference from available knowledge-- Maxwell Equations, Schrodinger
and
Dirac Equations, Energy formulas.

We are arguing history here, but the Maxwell equations etc. did not
inspire Dirac with his sea of electrons. His total energy equation
purported to describe the total energy of electrons and to quantize
their energies, (again see Eisberg), and, seeing the minus sign next
to the radical, decided to do something about it.
I went after the vacuum to see how it could possibly have 8.8uuF/meter
and as a result, I have the vacuum entirely blueprinted.

Sorry, John. You don't have it entirely blueprinted. You entirely
ignore the QCD "vacuum". But your approach is on the right track.

Dirac did not go further than monopole and Dirac Sea and positrons,
because he did not have a Atom Totality theory.

As for yours, well, it is not science theory, it is not science
hypothesis, it is merely a "complaint". You do not even list your
basis
theory for which you think you have something new to say to physics.
Apparently your base theory is the Big Bang but you do not even credit
Big Bang, perhaps because you are scared that the Big Bang will fall
also.

You did not look at my #1 paper at my website. It explains exactly how
the vacuum is constructed. There are 16 equations or equation groups.
Pick one and tell what's wrong with it.
My theory does away with the Big Bang but you would not know that;
it's in the book.

Your density is way too low. ;-) Include the QCD "vacuum" and you will
find a much higher density.

FrediFizzx

Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...uum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...cuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com

John C. Polasek wrote:


We are arguing history here, but the Maxwell equations etc. did not
inspire Dirac with his sea of electrons. His total energy equation
purported to describe the total energy of electrons and to quantize
their energies, (again see Eisberg), and, seeing the minus sign next
to the radical, decided to do something about it.
I went after the vacuum to see how it could possibly have 8.8uuF/meter
and as a result, I have the vacuum entirely blueprinted.

As long as you are talking a different language "sea of electrons" and
not "Sea of Positrons" and not physics, yours is quackery. And I do not
have time for quackery.

You say you went into the vacuum and mapped it out. But that is more
sheer quackery, because anyone who does physics knows that they do it
from some base-established physics. Yet you have no base to dive into
the vacuum. No base to see in the dark about the vacuum. No base and no
reason to be in the vacuum. And your endresult is that you change
nothing of current physics. This is quackery.



You did not look at my #1 paper at my website. It explains exactly how
the vacuum is constructed. There are 16 equations or equation groups.
Pick one and tell what's wrong with it.
My theory does away with the Big Bang but you would not know that;
it's in the book.

If I were to diligently look at people's paper on some other website, I
would not have time for my own physics work. For every person who has
something new and worthwhile to say in physics there are millions of
papers out there that are worthless.

Can you see the difference between your ruminations on the vacuum and
mine.

Mine says these things:
(1) Atom Totality is correct, Big Bang is a sham
(2) Maxwell Equations change, especially Faraday's Law
(3) The monopoles Dirac was looking for are two: (i) Space as a sea of
positrons collectively charged + (ii) the collective mass and matter
form the second monopole
charged -
(4) General Relativity becomes subsumed in the Sea of Positrons where
Space = sea of positrons = force of gravity
(5) explains quasar energy

John, can you see why I call yours quackery. When an idea in science
has value, it connects with the past and it predicts new things beyond
the present accepted things. Yours does none of this.

Anyone with a College degree can look at a isolated feature of physics
and say "I don't like that" and make some changes and then pretend as
if they had done some physics. This is quackery.

So, what is your base theory from which you work from? You say it is
not the Big Bang. So is it String Theory? So when you offer or
pretend-to-offer new theories, you should state your base theory up
front and then indicate what changes in physics that are important will
occur. Perhaps you say this on your website, but I do not have the time
to spend on people's website of new physics.

As I said, everyone with a degree in physics, or math or chemistry or
some other science can come up with a "new theory" but the trouble with
their new theory is that all of them are wrong or irrelevant.

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

On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 08:31:12 -0800, "FrediFizzx"
wrote:

"John C. Polasek" wrote in message
.. .
On 1 Dec 2006 11:45:56 -0800, "a_plutonium"
wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 30 Nov 2006 19:42:42 -0800, "a_plutonium"

wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
(snipped)

Dirac deduced a sea of electrons simply from the minus sign in
the
total energy equation. He did very little with it.

John Polasek

You meant to say "sea of positrons".

No I meant a sea of electrons, look it up in Eisberg for example. An
electron, when removed, left a "hole".


Well that is your logical error isn't it. Dirac's Sea was logical
inference from available knowledge-- Maxwell Equations, Schrodinger
and
Dirac Equations, Energy formulas.

We are arguing history here, but the Maxwell equations etc. did not
inspire Dirac with his sea of electrons. His total energy equation
purported to describe the total energy of electrons and to quantize
their energies, (again see Eisberg), and, seeing the minus sign next
to the radical, decided to do something about it.
I went after the vacuum to see how it could possibly have 8.8uuF/meter
and as a result, I have the vacuum entirely blueprinted.

Sorry, John. You don't have it entirely blueprinted. You entirely
ignore the QCD "vacuum". But your approach is on the right track.

Sure I do Fredi. My pair cell is alpha times the Compton wavelength
and when its electron escapes and expands by 1/alpha or, cubed, by 2.5
million, its density becomes equal to that of iron. Electrons out of
pairspace expand with enough energy to support the density of iron at
the velocity of light. In Ch. 13 of the book I show how the continuing
emission of electrons to make stars generates a CMBR temperat;ure of
2.557K vs the "book" 2.724.
What's QCD?

Dirac did not go further than monopole and Dirac Sea and positrons,
because he did not have a Atom Totality theory.

As for yours, well, it is not science theory, it is not science
hypothesis, it is merely a "complaint". You do not even list your
basis
theory for which you think you have something new to say to physics.
Apparently your base theory is the Big Bang but you do not even credit
Big Bang, perhaps because you are scared that the Big Bang will fall
also.

You did not look at my #1 paper at my website. It explains exactly how
the vacuum is constructed. There are 16 equations or equation groups.
Pick one and tell what's wrong with it.
My theory does away with the Big Bang but you would not know that;
it's in the book.

Your density is way too low. ;-) Include the QCD "vacuum" and you will
find a much higher density.

Pairspace density is 4.1x10^10 kg/m^3.

What is your density? Looking at your papers, I don't see the word
density and I don't see any numbers at all, just formulas without
units. In cgs you have to be careful, because the units were wrecked
by the Visigoths who threw out eps0 and mu0. (You can't use coulombs
or volts or farads).

What is your QCD density, numbers and equation?
Now don't forget I am talking about pairspace, the land of the
uncreated, whose electrons after N billion years become our periodic
table and a lot of cooking will have ocurred to make all those
hadrons. Apples and oranges maybe.

FrediFizzx

Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...uum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...cuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com

John Polasek

a_plutonium wrote:


As I said, everyone with a degree in physics, or math or chemistry or
some other science can come up with a "new theory" but the trouble with
their new theory is that all of them are wrong or irrelevant.


And I should also say that most established physicists-- those that
author so many physics textbooks or who are in the limelight of physics
will not be mentioned in the future of physics because their work never
achieved the level of "correctness" And they associate themselves with
false theories. They fill their texts with chimeras and fakeries. Here
I think of those things such as string theory, blackholes, Big Bang,
neutron stars, all of which are teetering on the verge of fakery or
quackery if not immersed in fakery or quackery.

So the problem of doing "new and correct" science is an immense
problem. Not confined to a large volume of Internet posters or websites
blairing to have new and true physics.

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

John C. Polasek wrote:
On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 08:31:12 -0800, "FrediFizzx"
wrote:
(snipped)

Sorry, John. You don't have it entirely blueprinted. You entirely
ignore the QCD "vacuum". But your approach is on the right track.

Sure I do Fredi. My pair cell is alpha times the Compton wavelength
and when its electron escapes and expands by 1/alpha or, cubed, by 2.5
million, its density becomes equal to that of iron. Electrons out of
pairspace expand with enough energy to support the density of iron at
the velocity of light. In Ch. 13 of the book I show how the continuing
emission of electrons to make stars generates a CMBR temperat;ure of
2.557K vs the "book" 2.724.
What's QCD?

Dirac did not go further than monopole and Dirac Sea and positrons,
because he did not have a Atom Totality theory.

As for yours, well, it is not science theory, it is not science
hypothesis, it is merely a "complaint". You do not even list your
basis
theory for which you think you have something new to say to physics.
Apparently your base theory is the Big Bang but you do not even credit
Big Bang, perhaps because you are scared that the Big Bang will fall
also.

You did not look at my #1 paper at my website. It explains exactly how
the vacuum is constructed. There are 16 equations or equation groups.
Pick one and tell what's wrong with it.
My theory does away with the Big Bang but you would not know that;
it's in the book.

Your density is way too low. ;-) Include the QCD "vacuum" and you will
find a much higher density.

Pairspace density is 4.1x10^10 kg/m^3.

What is your density? Looking at your papers, I don't see the word
density and I don't see any numbers at all, just formulas without
units. In cgs you have to be careful, because the units were wrecked
by the Visigoths who threw out eps0 and mu0. (You can't use coulombs
or volts or farads).

What is your QCD density, numbers and equation?
Now don't forget I am talking about pairspace, the land of the
uncreated, whose electrons after N billion years become our periodic
table and a lot of cooking will have ocurred to make all those
hadrons. Apples and oranges maybe.


Okay, I am going to give it one try and then stop reading these
distractions.

John, see if you can get the Dirac Sea of Positrons to match the force
of gravity for the Sun and its planets. In other words, get the force
of magnetism of a Sea of Positrons as Space itself and attracted to
mass of the Sun and Planets (wherein the mass is bits and pieces of the
electrons of the Atom Totality).

So in other words, work out where the magnetism of positron-Space
attracts the mass matter of the Sun and its planets and is equal to the
know force of gravity of the Sun and planets.

In simple terms: find out what force of magnetism with the presumption
of Space as Positrons and where mass and matter are from the electrons
of the Atom Totality. And find out what magnetism is needed to equal
the force of gravity.

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:


Okay, I am going to give it one try and then stop reading these
distractions.

John, see if you can get the Dirac Sea of Positrons to match the force
of gravity for the Sun and its planets. In other words, get the force
of magnetism of a Sea of Positrons as Space itself and attracted to
mass of the Sun and Planets (wherein the mass is bits and pieces of the
electrons of the Atom Totality).

So in other words, work out where the magnetism of positron-Space
attracts the mass matter of the Sun and its planets and is equal to the
know force of gravity of the Sun and planets.

In simple terms: find out what force of magnetism with the presumption
of Space as Positrons and where mass and matter are from the electrons
of the Atom Totality. And find out what magnetism is needed to equal
the force of gravity.


If you try it John, you will have to come up with some Equinumerous
Parity argument. An argument that the Sun and planets contain X number
of electron mass particles and thus a magnetic monopole composed of X
number of electrons. Now suppose the Space wherein the Sun and planets
reside is composed of an equal number of positrons. And does this match
the dictum of General Relativity-- "mass bends space and other mass
follows the curvature of that bent space"

So if the X number works out correctly and matches Newton's Law of
Gravity, then it is going to be very convincing that Space is Dirac's
Sea of Positrons and that gravity is a magnetic phenomenon of positrons
of Space attracting mass/matter.

In other words, we have finally integrated gravity into quantum
mechanics.

But then again, if you are too busy with your quackery of vacuum and
paircells, then stay with that nonsense.

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

"John C. Polasek" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 08:31:12 -0800, "FrediFizzx"
wrote:

"John C. Polasek" wrote in message
. ..
On 1 Dec 2006 11:45:56 -0800, "a_plutonium"

wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
On 30 Nov 2006 19:42:42 -0800, "a_plutonium"

wrote:


John C. Polasek wrote:
(snipped)

Dirac deduced a sea of electrons simply from the minus sign in
the
total energy equation. He did very little with it.

John Polasek

You meant to say "sea of positrons".

No I meant a sea of electrons, look it up in Eisberg for example.
An
electron, when removed, left a "hole".


Well that is your logical error isn't it. Dirac's Sea was logical
inference from available knowledge-- Maxwell Equations, Schrodinger
and
Dirac Equations, Energy formulas.

We are arguing history here, but the Maxwell equations etc. did not
inspire Dirac with his sea of electrons. His total energy equation
purported to describe the total energy of electrons and to quantize
their energies, (again see Eisberg), and, seeing the minus sign next
to the radical, decided to do something about it.
I went after the vacuum to see how it could possibly have
8.8uuF/meter
and as a result, I have the vacuum entirely blueprinted.

Sorry, John. You don't have it entirely blueprinted. You entirely
ignore the QCD "vacuum". But your approach is on the right track.

Sure I do Fredi. My pair cell is alpha times the Compton wavelength
and when its electron escapes and expands by 1/alpha or, cubed, by 2.5
million, its density becomes equal to that of iron. Electrons out of
pairspace expand with enough energy to support the density of iron at
the velocity of light. In Ch. 13 of the book I show how the continuing
emission of electrons to make stars generates a CMBR temperat;ure of
2.557K vs the "book" 2.724.
What's QCD?

Quantum ChromoDynamics. ;-)

Dirac did not go further than monopole and Dirac Sea and positrons,
because he did not have a Atom Totality theory.

As for yours, well, it is not science theory, it is not science
hypothesis, it is merely a "complaint". You do not even list your
basis
theory for which you think you have something new to say to physics.
Apparently your base theory is the Big Bang but you do not even
credit
Big Bang, perhaps because you are scared that the Big Bang will fall
also.

You did not look at my #1 paper at my website. It explains exactly
how
the vacuum is constructed. There are 16 equations or equation
groups.
Pick one and tell what's wrong with it.
My theory does away with the Big Bang but you would not know that;
it's in the book.

Your density is way too low. ;-) Include the QCD "vacuum" and you
will
find a much higher density.

Pairspace density is 4.1x10^10 kg/m^3.

What is your density? Looking at your papers, I don't see the word
density and I don't see any numbers at all, just formulas without
units. In cgs you have to be careful, because the units were wrecked
by the Visigoths who threw out eps0 and mu0. (You can't use coulombs
or volts or farads).

What is your QCD density, numbers and equation?
Now don't forget I am talking about pairspace, the land of the
uncreated, whose electrons after N billion years become our periodic
table and a lot of cooking will have ocurred to make all those
hadrons. Apples and oranges maybe.

We had this discussion before and I think I gave you a rough estimate
that was about 10^18 greater than your pairspace density. Do a
googlegroup search on my handle and your name. You should be able to
figure it out from the vacuum expectation value of about 246 GeV.

FrediFizzx

Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...uum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...cuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com

Now one of the features of the StrongNuclear Force that we can all
agree upon is that it is localized. Meaning that its strength is only
over small distance. Whereas the Coulomb force of protons holding
electrons in orbit is over vast distance.

Now we should have an answer as to why StrongNuclear Force is
localized.

If we consider that the neutron is a particle with internal parts of a
proton, electron and antineutrino, that the electron spills out of the
neutron when in the nucleus of an atom and runs around holding together
all the protons. We take that picture as the StrongNuclear force. It is
a Coulomb force and this electron is given the name nuclear-electron to
distinguish it from an electron that is outside the nucleus. And the
Coulombic force of this nuclear-electron is so much stronger than the
Coulombic force of a normal proton and electron outside the nucleus.
But it also explains why the StrongNuclear Force is localized. This is
because there is no Space in the nucleus of an atom. Space exists
outside the nucleus of an atom and that space is a Dirac Sea of
Positrons. Normal electrons have space which they reside in and that
space is the Dirac sea of positrons.

When electrons are inside the nucleus, they are nuclear-electrons and
have no space component. Their space component goes into more energy of
Coulombic energy in holding together the protons.

As for electrons outside the nucleus, they have space in the form of a
sea of positrons and this is gravity. So we end up with the very
strongest Coulombic force of the StrongNuclear of nuclear electrons.
Then we move outside the nucleus to the electrons orbiting the atom and
that is the regular Coulomb force. And finally we have the weakest
Coulomb force of the Space which is a sea of positrons attracted
magnetically to the electrons orbiting in that 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

I reached a point in my ruminations where I need to review all the
important facets of physics. Get down to the ultimate basis and that is
the Atom Totality.

We know that we never see antimatter in the cosmos at large. Well,
Space as a Sea of Positrons would preclude large scale antimatter
because Space is antimatter against the mass and matter of astro
bodies. This is the first time I am able to explain why no antimatter.

But it leaves open one of the biggest puzzles. As with any idea that
furthers our understanding of the universe, new questions are opened
and new challenges arise.

I am speaking of the unsettling idea of nested atoms. That all mass
matter we see in astronomy is all part of the electron mass of the Atom
Totality. That implies that protons are made up of atoms and more atoms
in protons than in electrons. Unless, the Atom Totality is a special
atom above other atoms. And is there a concept of "nested" in other
sciences or math or logic? So, here I have a big new question and a big
new challenge.

I should talk about this in another separate post.

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

So I have travelled a long road in this past 16 years with the Atom
Totality. About 13 years on in that road I found a Unification of all
the forces of physics as a Coulomb force, where every force is a
Coulomb manifestation, and the Atom Totality theory helps in that
explanation. However, I never had a clear picture of gravity as how it
could be a Coulomb force until this year, 16 years on. And the picture
that emerged was Space is the Dirac Sea of Positrons which magnetically
attracts to all the mass and matter in the observable universe. And
considering all the mass and matter are pieces of the electrons of the
Atom Totality, hence the magnetic attraction and hence the force of
gravity.

But it now comes to the point where I have to do some careful thinking
as to this concept of "nested". If all mass matter we see such as the
Sun, planets, stars and galaxies are atoms, then how could this
collection of atoms in a larger view be seen as electrons of the Atom
Totality? And if that is true, then are protons of the Atom Totality a
huge collection of atoms inside the proton? And what about the Dirac
Sea of Positrons that make up Space? Is it a huge collection of
antiprotons and antielectrons and antiatoms?

So I have big problems on my hand. On the one hand I an solve old
problems easily with the Atom Totality and especially solving gravity.
But on the other hand, new problems emerge such as this "nesting"
problem.

So I have two choices I could take. I could say that every proton and
electron is a composite particle of atoms. Or I could say that the Atom
Totality is a special atom and has a nested function.

I must review the basic parameters of atoms. One of them is time and
temperature and I can solve those as "the arrangement of the particles
for which the whole is made of " So as the arrangement changes, the
parameter of "time" is borne.

But what is the basic parameter of "charge" all about? How can I
describe "charge" in terms of other aspects of atoms? Is charge
something to do with the shape of an atom or particle? Is it the
geometry of an atom or particle? If I can figure out what charge is in
most basic form, then I maybe able to reconcile that Electrons can be
composed of atoms. And to say that Earth, even though it is mostly
neutral in charge overall and composed of many atoms, that it is a
piece of the Electron of the Atom Totality.

I think I can say that because the alternative is less satisfying. The
alternative is to say that a proton or electron is a particle for which
it cannot be composed of atoms. This is less satisfying because it says
that a proton is merely a blob with a positive charge and a given rest
mass. So that is not saying much at all. Whereas if I say a proton is a
large collection of atoms inside the proton would have more things to
work with.

And I am looking for other areas of physics where a concept of nested
is vital. Is there someplace in QM where "nested" is needed? Can we say
the Complementarity Principle or the Superposition Principle have the
concept of "nested" built into them? Duality in Quatum Mechanics, is
that a call for "nested", in that the particle is nested in the wave
and vice versa? Or that electricity is nested inside magnetism and vice
versa.

And in logic and mathematics, is there a concept of "nested" that seems
vital for the subject? One can consider Aristotlinean Logic as linear
logic and not circular logic but is there a logic which has a nested
feature?

So that in an Atom Totality, where a person is standing on a planet
that is composed of many atoms and which is a tiny part of an electron
in the Atom Totality, and this person is holding atoms in his hand, the
question comes as to whether those atoms are themselves composed of
protons and electrons which have more atoms inside themselves.

So, I solve all the old problems of physics with the Atom Totality, but
I am faced with brand new problems that do not make sense at this time.

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