#1 preface to new book: Growing-Solar-System theory via Dirac New-Radioactivity replaces Nebular-Dust-Cloud theory

Perhaps to prove the Growing Solar System theory as true and the
Nebular Dust Cloud
theory as false requires just a simple attention to what is the Cosmic
Ray density in
Intergalactic space compared to Interstellar space compared to
Interplanetary space.

For the Growing Solar System theory to be true would mean that Cosmic
Ray density
would be large where a solar system is in progress of growing and
sparse density
outside this region.

So where I was looking for a Cosmic Ray Flux of 2 x 10^9 kilograms per
minute as
a mechanism to build Earth, rather instead all I really needed was to
look for a large
density of Cosmic Rays in the vicinity of Earth and look for a sparse
density of Cosmic
Rays beyond our Solar System. High density of Cosmic Rays means a star
or
solar system is being built in that vicinity. Low density of Cosmic
Rays is a region of
space that is mostly 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

I am doing a poor job of following the purported chapters of this book
as I seem to be
jumping to whatever topic followed the last. Perhaps when I write the
2nd edition of this
book I will put it into chapter order. So much of this book is new and
thus cutting edge
theory. When I wrote the guideline to the chapter titles I did not
know the Magnetosphere
would play such a key role in this theory of Growing Solar System. And
there is very
much we do not know about the Magnetosphere. But now I am going to
write about
something which is very extremely unknown-- the center of a star or
planet.

In this theory of Growing Solar System, apparently the bulk of the
mass of a star
or planet is accreted from Cosmic Rays and Cosmic Gamma Rays. But the
star
and planet originally was borne as a QM-seed-dot. Which is a few atoms
that
continues to grow. Obviously a planet or star when borne from a few
atoms is not
going to have a magnetosphere, and so how does it grow into a star or
planet
before it does possess a magnetosphere?

So what this theory of Growing Solar System via Dirac new
radioactivities suggests
is that a QM-seed-dot is a special conglomeration of atoms which is
linked to the
Nucleus of the Atom Totality and which has particles materialize in
the center of that
QM-seed-dot. My impression is that a energetic Gamma Ray burst can
occur at the
center of a QM-seed-dot which makes it grow faster than any
surrounding particles
or collections of atoms in the surrounding space.

I am speaking of Earth when it was borne as a few atoms and grew into
a large
enough planet to have a magnetosphere. So the sources of mass to make
Earth
grow were (1) materialization of mass from the Atom Totality Nucleus
directly to the
center of the seed-dot (2) acquired mass from the impact of the seed
dot as it
travels through space (3) mass acquired when the magnetosphere is
formed.

Two of those sources are easy to check upon and observe and confirm
but the
materialization at the center of the seed-dot is very much more
difficult to confirm
provided it is true. What I suspect is going on at the center of a QM-
seed-dot are
the materialization of large amounts of energy/mass such as a
energetic Cosmic
Ray or Gamma Ray of the order of 1020 eV. So the infant Earth of a
small ball
say the size of a orange or apple would not have a magnetosphere to
grow
rapidly nor grow rapidly from the impact of particles to the surface
of this infant-Earth.
So the center of this infant-Earth would receive a energetic Cosmic
Ray of the
amount of 1020 eV or perhaps 1025 eV which would be a mass addition
to the
orange or apple sized Earth and thus become pumpkin sized or
watermelon
sized Earth. And then another Cosmic Ray of 1025 eV materializes in
the center of
this infant Earth and growing larger.

Do we know if ever there was something big going on at the center of
the Sun or
Jupiter or Earth? Do we know whether a Cosmic Ray of 1025 eV
materialized in
the center of Earth today would leave some sort of evidence?

So what I am saying is that we have three ways of growing a star or
planet when it
starts out as a QM-seed-dot of a few atoms. We have the collisions of
this seed-dot
with mass in its path which then becomes a larger seed-dot. And we
have magnetosphere
accretion of Cosmic Rays and Cosmic Gamma Rays once the planet or star
is big enough to form a magnetosphere. And it is the third means of
growing that
this post is addressing. The idea that the center of this QM-seed-dot
is linked directly
to the Nucleus of the Atom Totality which then so-to-speak, directly
pipelines massive
particles to the center-of- QM-seed-dot.

Now perhaps some pulsars or quasars maybe evidence of this center
contribution.
That a pulsar or quasar maybe where a star center receives periodic
Gamma Rays
directly into the center of the star which then emits uniform pulses.

So I have a lot of work to be done on how a QM-seed-dot grows to
becoming a
planet or star, before it gains a magnetosphere. More knowledge of the
cores
of young planets like Jupiter compared to old planets like Earth or
Mercury
my help in answering this growth of young planets or young stars.

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

Yes, I think the proving of the Nebular Dust Cloud theory is false and
the Growing Solar System
theory is true, by means of a simple and accurate measure. If we
measure the density of
Cosmic Rays and Gamma Rays in Intergalactic Space compared to
Interstellar Space compared
to InterPlanetary Space and found those spaces of three different
densities of Cosmic Rays
and Cosmic Gamma Rays would indicate that these Cosmic Rays have an
assigned purpose
of building Solar Systems. The below website offers the density for
Interstellar Space.

--- quoting http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ro/cosmic.html

The density of cosmic rays in interstellar space is estimated to be
about 10-3/m3.

--- end quoting http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ro/cosmic.html

Now let us suppose the density for InterGalactic Space is 10^-9/m^3
And let us suppose the density for InterPlanetary Space where we
delete Solar Rays
and have just purely Cosmic Rays is 10^6/m^3.

Now I have just made suppositions and speculations of what those
numbers are, but
suppose they are somewhat accurate and true. Then the density alone of
those three
Spaces tells us that Solar Systems are created and built from Cosmic
Rays. And the
reason that the most dense Cosmic Rays are in Solar Systems is because
a Solar System
is being built there.

So to prove the Growing Solar System Theory I did not need to have to
elaborately find
a flow spigot of 2 x 10^9 kilograms per minute but simply point to a
fact that the Solar System
Cosmic Ray density is the highest density of any Space in the Cosmos.
Singling out that
space to have a Solar System built there.

P.S. I want to complain about two of my posts to this thread in that I
posted them but Google
seems unable to "show them" such as my #1b and #8. What I suspect has
happened is that
some vandal has found a way of censoring so that they watch to see
when I make a post and
they immediately set up a "reply to that #8 post" and then they cancel
their own reply. The net
effect is that electronically my original post can not appear.

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 doing a poor job of following the purported chapters of this book
as I seem to be
jumping to whatever topic followed the last. Perhaps when I write the
2nd edition of this
book I will put it into chapter order. So much of this book is new and
thus cutting edge
theory. When I wrote the guideline to the chapter titles I did not
know the Magnetosphere
would play such a key role in this theory of Growing Solar System. And
there is very
much we do not know about the Magnetosphere. But now I am going to
write about
something which is very extremely unknown-- the center of a star or
planet.

In this theory of Growing Solar System, apparently the bulk of the
mass of a star
or planet is accreted from Cosmic Rays and Cosmic Gamma Rays. But the
star
and planet originally was borne as a QM-seed-dot. Which is a few atoms
that
continues to grow. Obviously a planet or star when borne from a few
atoms is not
going to have a magnetosphere, and so how does it grow into a star or
planet
before it does possess a magnetosphere?

So what this theory of Growing Solar System via Dirac new
radioactivities suggests
is that a QM-seed-dot is a special conglomeration of atoms which is
linked to the
Nucleus of the Atom Totality and which has particles materialize in
the center of that
QM-seed-dot. My impression is that a energetic Gamma Ray burst can
occur at the
center of a QM-seed-dot which makes it grow faster than any
surrounding particles
or collections of atoms in the surrounding space.

I am speaking of Earth when it was borne as a few atoms and grew into
a large
enough planet to have a magnetosphere. So the sources of mass to make
Earth
grow were (1) materialization of mass from the Atom Totality Nucleus
directly to the
center of the seed-dot (2) acquired mass from the impact of the seed
dot as it
travels through space (3) mass acquired when the magnetosphere is
formed.

Two of those sources are easy to check upon and observe and confirm
but the
materialization at the center of the seed-dot is very much more
difficult to confirm
provided it is true. What I suspect is going on at the center of a QM-
seed-dot are
the materialization of large amounts of energy/mass such as a
energetic Cosmic
Ray or Gamma Ray of the order of 1020 eV. So the infant Earth of a
small ball
say the size of a orange or apple would not have a magnetosphere to
grow
rapidly nor grow rapidly from the impact of particles to the surface
of this infant-Earth.
So the center of this infant-Earth would receive a energetic Cosmic
Ray of the
amount of 1020 eV or perhaps 1025 eV which would be a mass addition
to the
orange or apple sized Earth and thus become pumpkin sized or
watermelon
sized Earth. And then another Cosmic Ray of 1025 eV materializes in
the center of
this infant Earth and growing larger.

Do we know if ever there was something big going on at the center of
the Sun or
Jupiter or Earth? Do we know whether a Cosmic Ray of 1025 eV
materialized in
the center of Earth today would leave some sort of evidence?

So what I am saying is that we have three ways of growing a star or
planet when it
starts out as a QM-seed-dot of a few atoms. We have the collisions of
this seed-dot
with mass in its path which then becomes a larger seed-dot. And we
have magnetosphere
accretion of Cosmic Rays and Cosmic Gamma Rays once the planet or star
is big enough to form a magnetosphere. And it is the third means of
growing that
this post is addressing. The idea that the center of this QM-seed-dot
is linked directly
to the Nucleus of the Atom Totality which then so-to-speak, directly
pipelines massive
particles to the center-of- QM-seed-dot.

Now perhaps some pulsars or quasars maybe evidence of this center
contribution.
That a pulsar or quasar maybe where a star center receives periodic
Gamma Rays
directly into the center of the star which then emits uniform pulses.

So I have a lot of work to be done on how a QM-seed-dot grows to
becoming a
planet or star, before it gains a magnetosphere. More knowledge of the
cores
of young planets like Jupiter compared to old planets like Earth or
Mercury
my help in answering this growth of young planets or young stars.


I am trying to think of a analogy to the centers of stars and planets
as
where new mass appears that was shot from the Nucleus of the Atom
Totality.

I am trying to see if some electronic or electrical device puts the
mass in
the center to offer as some analogy.

It is easy to visualize the Cosmic Rays hitting the Magnetosphere and
then
turning into neutral matter of hydrogen or nitrogen or water molecules
and
migrating to the surface of Earth. But it is a different picture of
trying to
visualize Cosmic Rays materializing in the exact center of Earth and
increasing Earth's overall mass.

About the best I can do here is quote Dirac's book DIRECTIONS IN
PHYSICS
where he talks about this "new radioactivity" and says things like add
up or
multiply up mass where mass currently exists.

The strongest evidence that the center of planets and stars is a
source of new
mass is the idea that a Nebular Dust Cloud theory cannot reconcile how
planets
and stars have so much iron in their cores and be so young at 4.6
billion years old
and yet this iron core of Earth was in place after 100 million years
from birth. So the
size of the Earth iron core and the time line of 4.6 billion years to
4.5 billion years
does not agree with the laws of physics as a Nebular Dust Cloud time
line. What does
agree with the laws of physics is that Earth is 8 to 10 billion years
old and the core
was steadily grown via Cosmic Rays materializing directly within the
center-of-Earth.
So that let us say about 2 x 10^8 kilograms of iron per minute was
created at the
center of Earth over 8 billion years all due to Cosmic Rays and Cosmic
Gamma Rays
that materialized in the center of Earth.

Is there any physical phenomenon in the stars that we can perhaps
check out and say
"oh yes, that is due to the fact that the star is growing a more
massive iron core from
Cosmic Rays materializing in that star's center". Are pulsars or
quasars perhaps such
phenomenon? We certainly know that fusion in stars gradually builds up
iron in their
cores, but I am looking for iron that is created from Cosmic Rays that
materialize in the
core center and those Rays came from the Nucleus of the Atom Totality.

Mass accretion due to Magnetosphere is an easy sell, but mass
accretion due to the center
of a astro body is a harder sell.

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)


I am trying to think of a analogy to the centers of stars and planets
as
where new mass appears that was shot from the Nucleus of the Atom
Totality.

I am trying to see if some electronic or electrical device puts the
mass in
the center to offer as some analogy.

It is easy to visualize the Cosmic Rays hitting the Magnetosphere and
then
turning into neutral matter of hydrogen or nitrogen or water molecules
and
migrating to the surface of Earth. But it is a different picture of
trying to
visualize Cosmic Rays materializing in the exact center of Earth and
increasing Earth's overall mass.

There is a model and it goes way back to the time of Newton when he
discovered
universal-gravitation. It bothered Newton that gravity as a force has
to be considered
as all the mass at the center of Earth and one of the reasons he co-
discovered the
calculus was that it made easier this fussy problem of gravity being
the center of
Earth. But it is still a problem for which gravity never satisfied as
a theory of science
and why gravity and then its later forms as General Relativity are
also shortcoming
and outright fake theories of science. Science that is true never
leaves messy spots
such as the center of Earth is where all the gravity is accounted for.

If you read the Dirac's book Directions in Physics, he talks about two
types of his
"new radioactivities" where one type is adding more mass and the other
type of
multiplying more mass.

In the Growing Solar System theory we can see two types of growing the
Earth where
Cosmic Rays bombard the Magnetosphere of Earth and tumble down into
Earth as neutral
atoms or molecules adding more mass to Earth and thus growing from a
seed-dot to our
present day sized planet. But another form of accreting more mass to
Earth is from the
center of Earth where Cosmic Rays materialize and form new mass. We
must consider
this center of Earth as a spigot for more mass and whether it is a
addition or multiplication
is not our concern now. So that the growing of a planet or star is
from two directions, one
of bombardment or migration of Cosmic Rays to the surface and the
other is the materialization
of Cosmic Rays at the center of the astro body. Why must we consider
this Center as a
formation fountain? Because a planet or star takes a long time before
it has a magnetosphere
that brings alot of mass to the star or planet. So before the star or
planet has a magnetosphere
it must grow rapidly from another wellhead and that is the center of
the astro body or
QM-seed-dot as it begins its process of building the star or planet.

Now I do have a model for the CENTER and it involves my new theory
that replaces gravity and
General Relativity. What this new theory says is that gravity is just
another form of the Coulomb
Force and the weakest possible Coulomb force. Gravity is the Dirac Sea
of Positrons. So that
Space is not empty dotted here and there by astro bodies, but rather,
Space is two entities
of our usual space and a parallel space of antimatter of positrons.
Gravity and General Relativity
boils down to the glib statement: "mass bends space and that mass
follows the curvature of that
bent space" That is gravity in its elemental form. But what is this
force of gravity really? The
answer is that it is the weakest Coulomb force in an Atom Totality. So
that the mass of the Sun
bends Space which consists of Matter Space and Antimatter (Positron)
Space and the bent
positron space has a Coulomb attraction for the Sun since the Sun is
normal matter.

Gravity is a magnetic monopole. There exists at least one magnetic
monopole and it is the Dirac
Sea of Positrons which accompanies or exists alongside all normal-
matter.

This is how we get rid of gravitation and where all of physics becomes
Quantum Mechanics.

So, now, let me try to get back to why the Center of stars and planets
are so special and how they
tap into the Nucleus of the Atom Totality where a constant flow of
Cosmic Rays impinge on
the Center of Earth or Jupiter or the Sun and continually make those
bodies grow in mass.

The CENTER of astro bodies like Earth are thus very special because
all of the Positron Space
that accompanies Normal-Matter-Space such as the Earth meet at the
center of Earth. So the
center of Earth and the center of the Positron Space with its
AntiMatter-Earth center coincide.

This special point of contact of the Matter Earth Center and the
Positron Earth Center is a pipeline
or conduit to the Nucleus of the Atom Totality and where Dirac's new
radioactivity is Funnelled
and thus Earth or Sun grows from their centers.

I doubt there is a phenomenon we can observe to verify that the center
of Earth is growing with
new mass that comes from the Nucleus of the Atom Totality, maybe we
can. I would be looking
for superheavy isotopes of iron or cobalt or nickel or copper or zinc
as the Cosmic Rays make
normal iron into superheavy elements nearby iron. Such superheavy
elements nearby iron
would not be formed from the physics of Earth itself, but from the
physics of a constant flow of
energetic Cosmic Rays originating from the Nucleus of the Atom
Totality.

But the most obvious evidence that the center of astro bodies must
have this Dirac new
radioactivities is the fact that our physics cannot explain in the
Nebular Dust Cloud theory
how the satellites of the outer planets and the planets and Sun have
so much iron in their cores.

You can run computer models all you want, but they cannot give you a
Nebular Dust Cloud theory
and why the planets have such massive iron cores.

The Nebular Dust Cloud theory got away with its unreasonable
explanations during the 20th century
and the first seven years of the 21st century, not because it was such
a good theory that
explained so much, but rather it had no rivalling theories that could
easily point out the shortcomings
of the Nebular Dust Cloud theory. The same can be said for the Big
Bang theory. The lesson to
learn is that scientists stick to a crumby and falling apart theory
not because it is so lousy, but
because absent of a rival theory that explains things better.

So once a rival theory springs up and starts competing with a
established theory do we begin to see how
weak and lousy and deficient both the Big Bang and Nebular Dust Cloud
theories are.

As I said in the opening of this book. That in science when a new
phenomenon comes along
and where scientists must give an explanation in the form of a theory,
that they usually find their
first theory to explain the new phenomenon as a fake theory by future
scientists. This is commonsense
natural how we expect things to work. That we want a theory and can
expect that theory to be
weak and fake as the future reveals more facts and data and
experiments and thus a more true
theory to account for the phenomenon. Both the Nebular Dust Cloud
theory and Big Bang theories
were first initial theories to try to account for that Nature. And
thus a person with commonsense
would easily see that both are probably fake theories as the future
scientists give us the more
true theories.

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:


There is a model and it goes way back to the time of Newton when he
discovered
universal-gravitation. It bothered Newton that gravity as a force has
to be considered
as all the mass at the center of Earth and one of the reasons he co-
discovered the
calculus was that it made easier this fussy problem of gravity being
the center of
Earth. But it is still a problem for which gravity never satisfied as
a theory of science
and why gravity and then its later forms as General Relativity are
also shortcoming
and outright fake theories of science. Science that is true never
leaves messy spots
such as the center of Earth is where all the gravity is accounted for.

If you read the Dirac's book Directions in Physics, he talks about two
types of his
"new radioactivities" where one type is adding more mass and the other
type of
multiplying more mass.

In the Growing Solar System theory we can see two types of growing the
Earth where
Cosmic Rays bombard the Magnetosphere of Earth and tumble down into
Earth as neutral
atoms or molecules adding more mass to Earth and thus growing from a
seed-dot to our
present day sized planet. But another form of accreting more mass to
Earth is from the
center of Earth where Cosmic Rays materialize and form new mass. We
must consider
this center of Earth as a spigot for more mass and whether it is a
addition or multiplication
is not our concern now. So that the growing of a planet or star is
from two directions, one
of bombardment or migration of Cosmic Rays to the surface and the
other is the materialization
of Cosmic Rays at the center of the astro body. Why must we consider
this Center as a
formation fountain? Because a planet or star takes a long time before
it has a magnetosphere
that brings alot of mass to the star or planet. So before the star or
planet has a magnetosphere
it must grow rapidly from another wellhead and that is the center of
the astro body or
QM-seed-dot as it begins its process of building the star or planet.

Now I do have a model for the CENTER and it involves my new theory
that replaces gravity and
General Relativity. What this new theory says is that gravity is just
another form of the Coulomb
Force and the weakest possible Coulomb force. Gravity is the Dirac Sea
of Positrons. So that
Space is not empty dotted here and there by astro bodies, but rather,
Space is two entities
of our usual space and a parallel space of antimatter of positrons.
Gravity and General Relativity
boils down to the glib statement: "mass bends space and that mass
follows the curvature of that
bent space" That is gravity in its elemental form. But what is this
force of gravity really? The
answer is that it is the weakest Coulomb force in an Atom Totality. So
that the mass of the Sun
bends Space which consists of Matter Space and Antimatter (Positron)
Space and the bent
positron space has a Coulomb attraction for the Sun since the Sun is
normal matter.

Gravity is a magnetic monopole. There exists at least one magnetic
monopole and it is the Dirac
Sea of Positrons which accompanies or exists alongside all normal-
matter.

This is how we get rid of gravitation and where all of physics becomes
Quantum Mechanics.

So, now, let me try to get back to why the Center of stars and planets
are so special and how they
tap into the Nucleus of the Atom Totality where a constant flow of
Cosmic Rays impinge on
the Center of Earth or Jupiter or the Sun and continually make those
bodies grow in mass.

The CENTER of astro bodies like Earth are thus very special because
all of the Positron Space
that accompanies Normal-Matter-Space such as the Earth meet at the
center of Earth. So the
center of Earth and the center of the Positron Space with its
AntiMatter-Earth center coincide.

This special point of contact of the Matter Earth Center and the
Positron Earth Center is a pipeline
or conduit to the Nucleus of the Atom Totality and where Dirac's new
radioactivity is Funnelled
and thus Earth or Sun grows from their centers.

I doubt there is a phenomenon we can observe to verify that the center
of Earth is growing with
new mass that comes from the Nucleus of the Atom Totality, maybe we
can. I would be looking
for superheavy isotopes of iron or cobalt or nickel or copper or zinc
as the Cosmic Rays make
normal iron into superheavy elements nearby iron. Such superheavy
elements nearby iron
would not be formed from the physics of Earth itself, but from the
physics of a constant flow of
energetic Cosmic Rays originating from the Nucleus of the Atom
Totality.

But the most obvious evidence that the center of astro bodies must
have this Dirac new
radioactivities is the fact that our physics cannot explain in the
Nebular Dust Cloud theory
how the satellites of the outer planets and the planets and Sun have
so much iron in their cores.

You can run computer models all you want, but they cannot give you a
Nebular Dust Cloud theory
and why the planets have such massive iron cores.

The Nebular Dust Cloud theory got away with its unreasonable
explanations during the 20th century
and the first seven years of the 21st century, not because it was such
a good theory that
explained so much, but rather it had no rivalling theories that could
easily point out the shortcomings
of the Nebular Dust Cloud theory. The same can be said for the Big
Bang theory. The lesson to
learn is that scientists stick to a crumby and falling apart theory
not because it is so lousy, but
because absent of a rival theory that explains things better.

So once a rival theory springs up and starts competing with a
established theory do we begin to see how
weak and lousy and deficient both the Big Bang and Nebular Dust Cloud
theories are.

As I said in the opening of this book. That in science when a new
phenomenon comes along
and where scientists must give an explanation in the form of a theory,
that they usually find their
first theory to explain the new phenomenon as a fake theory by future
scientists. This is commonsense
natural how we expect things to work. That we want a theory and can
expect that theory to be
weak and fake as the future reveals more facts and data and
experiments and thus a more true
theory to account for the phenomenon. Both the Nebular Dust Cloud
theory and Big Bang theories
were first initial theories to try to account for that Nature. And
thus a person with commonsense
would easily see that both are probably fake theories as the future
scientists give us the more
true theories.


I have a problem in science that alot of people would be envious of,
rather than be
annoyed thereof. My problem is that I have so many theories of science
that as I
discuss various ideas I have a hard time of recalling everything
correctly. A problem
of accurate memory is a problem.

The mistake I made above is that it suggests there are two Spaces, one
comprising
of normal matter and the space occupied by normal matter and then the
space of
antimatter of Dirac's ocean of positrons. That is not correct.

The theory of gravity that replaces and removes gravity out of physics
and makes all of
physics Quantum Mechanics, involves one Space. And that one Space is
the Dirac Sea
or Ocean of Positrons. So the Observable Universe is ordinary Matter
and Space as a Ocean
of Positrons. Now the Centers of large astro bodies like the stars and
planets have positrons
occupying that center as well as being the center of ordinary matter.

So sorry if I drew the picture wrongly that there are two Spaces.

The correct idea (I believe) is that Space = Ocean of Positrons and
the other constituent
of reality is ordinary Matter. So we have two things comprising the
World-- ordinary matter
and Space which Ocean of Positrons.

And the force of gravity is eliminated from physics because it is
merely the attraction of
positrons that is Space with the ordinary Matter.

And this picture renders the center of stars and planets as something
special, such as
a pipeline to the Nucleus of the Atom Totality.

My memory is getting worse and nothing like what my memory was in
youth or middle
age. I cannot remember exactly at this moment whether I wrote the book
about Space as
Dirac Ocean of Positrons replacing gravity. If I have not, well, that
must be the next book that
I compile, and probably October. I kind of think I did already amass
that book, but even
so, I should at least review it and see if a 2nd edition is warranted.

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)

So sorry if I drew the picture wrongly that there are two Spaces.

The correct idea (I believe) is that Space = Ocean of Positrons and
the other constituent
of reality is ordinary Matter. So we have two things comprising the
World-- ordinary matter
and Space which Ocean of Positrons.

And the force of gravity is eliminated from physics because it is
merely the attraction of
positrons that is Space with the ordinary Matter.

And this picture renders the center of stars and planets as something
special, such as
a pipeline to the Nucleus of the Atom Totality.

My memory is getting worse and nothing like what my memory was in
youth or middle
age. I cannot remember exactly at this moment whether I wrote the book
about Space as
Dirac Ocean of Positrons replacing gravity. If I have not, well, that
must be the next book that
I compile, and probably October. I kind of think I did already amass
that book, but even
so, I should at least review it and see if a 2nd edition is warranted.


I refreshed my memory by looking back. It is a productive time in my
life
in that I am able to write books and even two books per month and that
I have a vast source of Internet posts spanning back to 1993 as the
framework
of at least 100 books. Whether I get all 100 or more books compiled
and amassed
remains to be seen. So far I have about 20 amassed.

Back in March, April 2007 I amassed this book:

#1monograph-book: UNIFICATION OF THE FORCES OF PHYSICS AS A COULOMB
UNIFICATION, Archimedes Plutonium, Internet published 1993-2007

And in that book I needed to discuss Dirac Sea of Positrons and Space
as Magnetic Monopole.

So I definitely need to write a book in October on that of
specifically how physics eliminates the
force of gravity and makes all of physics Quantum Mechanics. The above
book on Unification
has to spend much time on not only gravity but StrongNuclear and
WeakNuclear and EM.

Perhaps I should revise to a 2nd edition the above Unification book
and make it a full length
book instead of a monograph while simultaneously writing this book
where Monopole Dirac Ocean
of Positrons replaces Gravity. So I already have my work cut out for
me for October.

But getting back to the subject at hand.

I am vacillating and wavering. When I last discussed Positrons
replacing the Force of Gravity
I had it in mind that there was one Space in the World and it was the
Dirac Sea of Positrons
and it eliminates the Force of Gravity as the attraction by positrons
for ordinary matter.

But I think that such a picture is wrong and that there are two Spaces
in the World. There are
two forms of Matter, both ordinary and Antimatter so why not two
Spaces? If we look at the
geometry of an atom it has the Space of its electrons orbiting the
nucleus and its matter is
ordinary matter. So we can picture that the Electron Space is one form
of Space and that leaves
vast room for a second kind of space in an Atom Totality. What is not
the space of the electrons
in an Atom Totality would be the Dirac space of positrons. So here I
would have two Spaces
and two forms of Matter.

And that would also leave me with the specialness of the Center of
stars and the center of
planets because the center would be an intersection of the Electron-
Space and the Dirac Positron
Space and thus a conduit or pipeline that goes directly to the Nucleus
of the Atom Totality
and where alot of mass and energy in the form of Cosmic Rays or Gamma
Rays flows and
materializes and causes the star or planet to grow from its center
outward.

Perhaps we can observe something special about Sun, Jupiter and Earth
for if I am correct
in the above then the centers of these objects should reveal evidence
of the nucleosynthesis
of very heavy isotopic iron and the elements around iron in the
periodic table. This is how
planets end up with dense cores of iron is that they grow them over a
time period of 5
to 10 billion years via this Dirac new radioactivity. The Nebular Dust
Cloud theory can never
reconcile how the inner planets and the satellites of the Outer
Planets have such dense massive
iron cores. This is where modern scientists have stopped being
scientists and have become
fools and slaves to computer modeling where they set up a computer
simulation that gives a
metal core inside a planet but where the laws of physics cannot give a
metal core.



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 in
ups.com:

Look who I found while checking to see which groups knew that their
favorite resident net.kooks were on the ballot--Archimedes Plutonium,
the archetype of a mad scientist on USENET! Since I have a fondness for
1) classic net.kooks (and Achimedes here is as classic as they get),
making sure that gaping holes in net.kooks' resumes get filled, and 3)
getting in the fun of being FNVW by rewarding the kooks that Phoenix
poked on my watch, I'm going to see which awards Element 94 here has
won, and which ones are notable by their absence.

http://www.caballista.org/auk/kookle...arch=plutonium

Kookle Search Results

9 matches for "plutonium".

Ludwig "Archimedes Plutonium" Poehlmann

Kook of the Month, August 1994
Golden Killfile, August 1996
Victor von Frankenstein "Weird Science" Award, December 1997
Victor von Frankenstein "Weird Science" Award, February 2006
Looney Maroon Award, November 1997
George Pickett Memorial Trophy, October 1999
Bobo Award
Kook Kard Deck, Ace of Diamonds
Kook Chess Set, Blue King

For such a classic koo^H^H^H net-legend, Element 94 has a pretty skimpy
resume. The one that most stands out to me, especially since I'm
responding to a /205-line/ post that begins a 17-post thread of articles
that average more than 100 lines each, is the lack of a Unabomber
Surprise. I know I just seconded Art Deco's nomination of Johnny Wizard
for Unabomber Surprise, but A [Temporary] Dog also seconded that nom, so
I'll avoid having to use my FNVW privilege by withdrawing that second
and nominating Ludwig "Archimedes Plutonium" Poehlmann for the Unabomber
Surprise.

Seconds?

May this be the first of more nominations to fill in Element 94's
resume!

[evidence retained below.]

Let me start over fresh since the first attempt was poorly ordered and
poorly organized and plenty
of mistakes.

New Book: "Growing Solar-System theory via Dirac New-Radioactivity
replaces Nebular-Dust-Cloud theory",
author--Archimedes Plutonium,
Internet book copyrighted and published 1993-2007 (amassed in
Sept 2007 in sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.geo.geology).

Chapters of this book:
(1) preface
(2) introduction
(3) Dirac Radioactivity as explained in his book "Directions in
Physics"
(4) Titius-Bode Solar System spacing
(5) Quantum Mechanics of seed-dots of electron-dot-cloud in Mini-Bangs
from Uranium
Atom Totality to our present day Plutonium Atom Totality
(6) CellWell1 and CellWell2)
(7) zircon crystal dating of Earth age
(8) cores of Sun, planets and satellites as age-dating
(9) abundance of radioactive elements in parts per billion for age-
dating
(10) Cosmic Rays and Cosmic Gamma Ray Bursts for age-dating
(11) exoplanets and binary stars evince a pattern of Growing Solar
Systems not a Nebular Dust Cloud
(12) the universe at large is too impoverished to have supernova
spew dust clouds all about which then forms a solar-system
(13) future news and research reports commentary

PREFACE

This book comes at the tail end of my last published Internet book--
the 2nd
edition of my Atom Totality theory book which I completed in August
of 2007, and yet I had many pages of that book talking about zircon
crystal dating of Earth where I speculated that Earth is twice as old
as Jupiter. And where I wrote many pages on the idea of a Growing
Solar System theory that replaces the Nebular Dust Cloud theory. So
the posts to the Atom Totality theory 2nd edition are transfered to
this book. And fitting that I amass this book here in September of
2007 from my posts going all the way back to August of 1993.
Many of the main ideas of Growing Solar System Theory began in
August of 1993 and shall discuss some of that history in this preface.

I used to call it assimilation of old posts in the formation of these
Internet published books by me. Now I call it "amassed". Since what
I am doing is amassing the old posts into forming a Internet
published
book. I ask the question "why not use one's past history of developing
these ideas and theories?"
And something new is that I now list "copyrighted" in the title page.
For I consider all of my posts to the sci newsgroups of the Internet
as
copyrighted. And the first time I posted about Dirac New-
Radioactivities
as described in Dirac's book "Directions in Physics" was August of
1993.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...thread/thread/
94c55a4772fece55/122a5116a0beb28c?
lnk=st&q=plutonium+Dirac+radioactivities+materiali zation&rnum=
5&hl=en#122a5116a0beb28c

The above post of mine in 1993 highlights my thinking about Dirac new
radioactivities and how to begin to
replace the Nebular Dust Cloud theory for the Solar System. Back in
1993, though, I was more concerned
about filing a patent over what I called RSNM "radioactive spontaneous
neutron materialization" because I
was interested in the cold fusion claims about fusion in a test tube
by simply applying an electric current to
heavy water with palladium as a battery set up, cathode and anode. It
would not be until about
1995 where my attention to Dirac new radioactivities would focus on
replacing the Nebular Dust Cloud theory.
And as the years rolled by from 1993 to 1995 Dirac new radioactivity
became one and the
same as RSNM.

Then around 1995 was the first time I posted the concept of Growing
Solar System as a theory:


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s.../browse_thread
/thread/5a7f5be96bbfd1a/8a3d7dca735a6ab2?lnk=st&q=plutonium+%
22growing+solar+system%22&rnum=32&hl=en#8a3d7dca73 5a6ab2

The above gives a 1995 post of mine detailing the concept of "Growing
Solar System"
and in that post I mentioned Dirac new radioactivity and mentioned my
concept of RSNM "radioactive
spontaneous neutron materialization" for which I applied for a patent
to explain cold fusion in a test tube.

Then to see when the first time I detailed the concepts of CellWell1
and CellWell2 in the
Growing Solar System theory.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s.../browse_thread
/thread/440b4dd246a61e3e/d523e5f34deaa803?lnk=st&q=plutonium+CellWell1
+Cellwell2&rnum=145&hl=en#d523e5f34deaa803

Psst. Your links are fugly and I had to fix them. Perhaps you should
use tinyurl instead.

It was March of 1996 that I was deep into the crux of the Growing
Solar System theory in that I proposed
the concepts of CellWell1 and CellWell2.

It is nice that Google retains old posts so that one can easily check
into the history.

From about years 2000 onwards to present day September 2007, I mostly
dropped RSNM
and narrowed down the Dirac new-radioactivities to that of simply
Cosmic-Rays and
Cosmic-Gamma-Ray-Bursts. So that Dirac new radioactivities was simply
cosmic
rays and gamma rays. In a sense, what remains by 2007 is more exciting
than what was
started in 1993-1994. I say this because more mathematics can be
applied to this theory
such as figuring out how long it would take for Earth to grow from a
seed-particle to our
present day Earth mass and size from simply cosmic rays and gamma
rays. Did it take
4.6 billion years or did it take 8 to 10 billion years?

I am going to start this book with an major idea I left-off with in
the 2nd
edition book of the Atom Totality theory. I spoke of in that book, the
idea
that in
the history of science, when scientists are confronted with a new
phenomenon
for which they must explain in a scientific manner, that usually their
first science
theory that covers that new phenomenon turns out to be found wrong by
future scientists. I cited the example of the "flat Earth theory" and
the
example of the Ptolemy epicycle theory and the example of the cholic
humour theory of disease in biology where leeches bleed out the bad
cholic. The list is a huge and long list of where the first scientists
trying
to theorize a new phenomenon invariably get it mostly wrong. And where
future scientists replace the early theory because it is so very much
wrong.

So, now, looking at the new phenomenon of having a Solar System of
the Sun and Inner Planets and the Outer Planets and their satellites
and
the other astro bodies such as asteroids and comets and Kuiper belt
objects.
That the first theory to account for the Solar System was the Nebular
Dust Cloud Theory. So given the track record of most theories of
science
when formulated to describe a new phenomenon, that it would be
prudent and wise to say that the Nebular Dust Cloud theory
will be found out as a fake and wrong theory and replaced by a true
theory.

When I first learned about the Nebular Dust Cloud theory in the mid
to late 1960s, for I well remember taking astronomy books with
me on vacation out West and pondering the Nebular Dust Cloud
theory and what struck me as rather odd and troublesome is the fact
that supernova are rare, yet
the gold we have on Earth is alleged to come from a supernova. So if
supernova are rare and yet the number of stars with their own solar
systems is a
huge and large number and yet the age of the cosmos is a mere 4.6 to
14
billion years old just does not make sense as to how rare supernova
can spew out that many Dust Clouds and spew them out uniformily all
over the Cosmos. So this vast discrepancy always bothered me. And I
ignored it by saying to myself in an analogy of the sights and scenery
I was seeing in those vacations, since, it is hard to imagine that a
river
can carve out the Grand Canyon but given millions of years time it
can.
So in my youth, I was giving the Nebular Dust Cloud theory wide
latitude
because it was billions of years and besides, I had nothing better of
an
idea to replace the Dust Cloud theory. But can
rare supernova create and spread uniformily all the gold in the world?
So I never liked the Nebular Dust Cloud theory for it never resolved
those obvious contradictions.

But if you dislike a theory of science, that is not enough to dismiss
it. The burden is to find a theory that replaces it and solves the
contradictions. And at my age of around 18 or 19 or 20 years old
I had other things more on my mind.

After I discovered the Atom Totality theory in 1990, it would only be
a matter of time before I would then clean out and clean up the
Nebular Dust Cloud theory. And it would be a help from Dirac's book
that would trashcann the Nebular Dust Cloud theory.

What solves the Solar System origins and creation and building is the
"new radioactivities" as described by Dirac in his book Directions in
Physics. Dirac never went further with his new radioactivities because
Dirac did not have a Atom Totality theory to give rise to where these
new particles are coming from and what these particles actually were.
Dirac could not say that Cosmic Rays and
Cosmic Gamma Ray Bursts came from the Nucleus of the Atom Totality.
But it is his credit for his enormous genius that he even had the
remarkable insight that the Cosmos must have a "new radioactivity".

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
--
Pinku-Sensei
Co-FNVW of AUK
Acting Pollmaster of AFA-B
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in rec.arts.marching.drumcorps
http://www.caballista.org/auk/index.html

"Pinku-Sensei" wrote in
. 245.131:

http://www.caballista.org/auk/kookle...arch=plutonium

Kookle Search Results

9 matches for "plutonium".

Ludwig "Archimedes Plutonium" Poehlmann

Kook of the Month, August 1994
Golden Killfile, August 1996
Victor von Frankenstein "Weird Science" Award, December 1997
Victor von Frankenstein "Weird Science" Award, February 2006
Looney Maroon Award, November 1997
George Pickett Memorial Trophy, October 1999
Bobo Award
Kook Kard Deck, Ace of Diamonds
Kook Chess Set, Blue King

For such a classic koo^H^H^H net-legend, Element 94 has a pretty
skimpy resume. The one that most stands out to me, especially since
I'm responding to a /205-line/ post that begins a 17-post thread of
articles that average more than 100 lines each, is the lack of a
Unabomber Surprise. I know I just seconded Art Deco's nomination of
Johnny Wizard for Unabomber Surprise, but A [Temporary] Dog also
seconded that nom, so I'll avoid having to use my FNVW privilege by
withdrawing that second and nominating Ludwig "Archimedes Plutonium"
Poehlmann for the Unabomber Surprise.

Seconds?

Oops! Forgot to format Subject line corrrectly for a Nomination poast.
F1X0R3D.

May this be the first of more nominations to fill in Element 94's
resume!

The Custer also comes to mind, although I'd like to see something
approaching a declaration of victory first. I'd also have to see which
of Element 94's weird science ideas have already been recognized before
entertaining another VVFWS nomination for an ostensibly "new" idea, such
as the subject of the book that is being posted to USENET in this
thread.
--
Pinku-Sensei
Co-FNVW of AUK
Acting Pollmaster of AFA-B
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in rec.arts.marching.drumcorps
http://www.caballista.org/auk/index.html

Pinku-Sensei wrote:

"Pinku-Sensei" wrote in
.245.131:

http://www.caballista.org/auk/kookle...arch=plutonium

Kookle Search Results

9 matches for "plutonium".

Ludwig "Archimedes Plutonium" Poehlmann

Kook of the Month, August 1994
Golden Killfile, August 1996
Victor von Frankenstein "Weird Science" Award, December 1997
Victor von Frankenstein "Weird Science" Award, February 2006
Looney Maroon Award, November 1997
George Pickett Memorial Trophy, October 1999
Bobo Award
Kook Kard Deck, Ace of Diamonds
Kook Chess Set, Blue King

For such a classic koo^H^H^H net-legend, Element 94 has a pretty
skimpy resume. The one that most stands out to me, especially since
I'm responding to a /205-line/ post that begins a 17-post thread of
articles that average more than 100 lines each, is the lack of a
Unabomber Surprise. I know I just seconded Art Deco's nomination of
Johnny Wizard for Unabomber Surprise,

That was Archie, not I.

but A [Temporary] Dog also
seconded that nom, so I'll avoid having to use my FNVW privilege by
withdrawing that second and nominating Ludwig "Archimedes Plutonium"
Poehlmann for the Unabomber Surprise.

Seconds?

Oops! Forgot to format Subject line corrrectly for a Nomination poast.
F1X0R3D.

As a result, I believe I am eligible to offer this nom of pluto-breath
a hearty second.

May this be the first of more nominations to fill in Element 94's
resume!

The Custer also comes to mind, although I'd like to see something
approaching a declaration of victory first. I'd also have to see which
of Element 94's weird science ideas have already been recognized before
entertaining another VVFWS nomination for an ostensibly "new" idea, such
as the subject of the book that is being posted to USENET in this
thread.

He don't reply much to stimulus, IIRC.

[cbfgrq gb fpv.culfvpf, Obo Pnva jvyy yvxryl abg nccebir]

--
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads for alt.astronomy
Wee Davie Tholen is a grade-school lamer
Trainer and leash holder of:
Honest "Clockbrain" John
nightbat "fro0tbat" of alt.astronomy
Tom "TommY Crackpotter" Potter
http://www.caballista.org/auk/kookle.php?search=deco

"Classic erroneous presupposition. Others developed websites
so that they could have the Last Word, Deco. In the newsgroups,
I could counter their lies."
--David Tholen