Science > Physics > #1 new book; preface Re: ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY REPLACES BIG BANG THEORY IN PHYSICS
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"a_plutonium" |
| Date: |
07 Aug 2007 12:41:46 PM |
| Object: |
#1 new book; preface Re: ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY REPLACES BIG BANG THEORY IN PHYSICS |
New Book: "ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY REPLACES BIG BANG
THEORY IN
PHYSICS", author--Archimedes Plutonium,
Internet book published 1993-2007 (amassed in
Jan-Feb 2007 in sci.physics,sci.math). This is 2nd edition, Aug 2007
Chapters of this book:
(1) preface
(2) introduction
(3) what is this theory
(4) pictures of the Atom Totality theory and history
of the theory and precursor hints
Observational and experimental support
(5) density and distribution of galaxies
(6) Tifft quantized galaxy speeds
(7) layered age of Cosmos with 6.5 billion years old Cosmos yet old
galaxies of the Uranium Atom Totality 20.2 billion years old; the
Freedman versus Sandage data
(8) uniform blackbody 2.71 K cosmic microwave background radiation
and the Dark Night sky: Olber's Paradox
(9) missing mass conundrum and the cosmic distribution of chemical
elements
(10) shape of the Cosmos as 6 lobes of 5f6 or as France's Luminet team
as dodecahedron
(11) color of the cosmos Johns Hopkins Univ findings
Mathematical and logic beauty support
(12) inverse fine structure constant and proton to electron mass ratio
explained
(13) (pi) and (e) explained
(14) Atomic Theory as the foundation of science universal laws and the
Atomic theory Syllogism
Future News and Research Reports supporting the Atom Totality Theory
(15) future news and research reports commentary
PREFACE
This is August of 2007. In January and February of 2007 I assimilated
most of my old posts to the
Internet on this book that stretched back to August of 1993. What I
have done is used the Internet
to publish my books on science. Instead of putting up with alot of
unnecessary hassle that the
old system of book publishing accrues, I have used the Internet to
publish books for it is the very
fast and speedy way of publishing. There is no medium that can compare
with the speed of publishing
via the Internet. The old way of publishing takes years whereas the
Internet way of publishing takes
minutes, and it is very much hassle free. And it is very much in the
public eye so all the mistakes and
changes are there along with the final version of the book.
I have about 100 books on science to publish in this manner and am
approaching the assimilation or
amassing of about 20 of those 100. And I spent the first 6 months of
2007 amassing about 20 of those
books. But about June and July I realized I had to stop amassing these
books and take a break and go
back and re-assemble the first one of these books-- The Atom Totality
book. I had to stop because after
amassing 20 of these books I realized the disorder of my first several
books.
At heart, I am a perfectionist, and all the greatest scientists such
as Maxwell, Newton, Gauss, Galileo
were perfectionists in habit, in lifestyle, in work. That they can not
stomach much disorder but have to
stop every now and then and get some order back into their life.
In the months of June and July 2007 we experienced a severe drought
here where I live and felt that I
could not go back and re-do this book because my frame of mind in a
drought is not a nice frame of mind
and so I put it off until the first heavy rain.
The major problem of my January-February 2007 first edition is that I
did not have a numbering system
in place for which I subsequently learned how to number in the
succeeding books. And that numbering
system involves a simple "#1" then "#2" etc etc. This is important in
locating where I left off in writing.
And I learned also to keep a book mostly in one month of a particular
year so I need only search through
one month. So I would like to write this 2nd edition in only the month
of August 2007.
Order is so very important to a scientist, and I have even ventured to
write a book on Order with the theme
that Happiness in life is tantamount to Order in life, whether that
order is family order or financial order
or job order or spousal order or environmental order. My point or
theme of this order book is that we are
not happy is something in our lives is "out of order." And so, by June
and July 2007, I could see that I
could not go further with amassing another new book beyond what was
already amassed, because my
first book was in a state of relative disorder. And its biggest
problem was a lack of numbering.
So I take the time out now, in August, to give that first book some
ordering. And also to see how fast and
easy it will be to write the second edition. Not that any new news or
reported research was found in the
interim of January to August, but simply because of the disorder.
I also learned to keep the title of the book in the subject line so I
instantly recognize the post.
And I learned that all these Internet books should have a preface, a
introduction, and most important have
a chapter at the end which is the reporting of new news or new
research that relates to the book.
So, all in all, I am learning how to write science books and the
Internet is the best way.
And my perfectionism will not only improve on the chapters via new
editions but will also worry about the
title of these books, where I try to perfect the title of its every
word. I do not know what the final name of
the Atom Totality theory will be. Some may think the name Atom
Universe is a better name than Atom
Totality. Maybe a different name will be given in the far future.
While I was thinking about this book in June and July, my mind focused
on the number one supporting
evidence of why the Atom Totality theory is true and why the Big Bang
is false. So I should emphasize that
point in this preface as well as make it the number one issue in the
Introduction chapter. So I emphasize
this issue in the Preface and in the Introduction chapter. This
evidence is the Sloan Great Wall density
of galaxies next to the Great Wall of galaxies. In other words, a Big
Bang theory is dead because it can
never explain why the density of galaxies is hugely dense in one spot
of the Cosmos and thins out everywhere
else. The Atom Totality theory easily explains density of galaxies as
that the Great Walls are closer to the
Nucleus of the Atom Totality.
So of all the supporting evidence for the Atom Totality theory the
most damaging to the Big Bang is the fact
of density of galaxies proves the Universe is a single big atom and
the Nucleus of the Atom Totality is
nearby to the Sloan Great Wall.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.
|
|
| User: "qlun" |
|
| Title: Re: #1 new book; preface Re: ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY REPLACES BIG BANG THEORY IN PHYSICS |
07 Aug 2007 03:37:53 PM |
|
|
On 7 A ustos, 20:41, a_plutonium <a_pluton...@hotmail.com> wrote:
New Book: "ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY REPLACES BIG BANG
THEORY IN
PHYSICS", author--Archimedes Plutonium,
Internet book published 1993-2007 (amassed in
Jan-Feb 2007 in sci.physics,sci.math). This is 2nd edition, Aug 2007
Chapters of this book:
(1) preface
(2) introduction
(3) what is this theory
(4) pictures of the Atom Totality theory and history
of the theory and precursor hints
Observational and experimental support
(5) density and distribution of galaxies
(6) Tifft quantized galaxy speeds
(7) layered age of Cosmos with 6.5 billion years old Cosmos yet old
galaxies of the Uranium Atom Totality 20.2 billion years old; the
Freedman versus Sandage data
(8) uniform blackbody 2.71 K cosmic microwave background radiation
and the Dark Night sky: Olber's Paradox
(9) missing mass conundrum and the cosmic distribution of chemical
elements
(10) shape of the Cosmos as 6 lobes of 5f6 or as France's Luminet team
as dodecahedron
(11) color of the cosmos Johns Hopkins Univ findings
Mathematical and logic beauty support
(12) inverse fine structure constant and proton to electron mass ratio
explained
(13) (pi) and (e) explained
(14) Atomic Theory as the foundation of science universal laws and the
Atomic theory Syllogism
Future News and Research Reports supporting the Atom Totality Theory
(15) future news and research reports commentary
PREFACE
This is August of 2007. In January and February of 2007 I assimilated
most of my old posts to the
Internet on this book that stretched back to August of 1993. What I
have done is used the Internet
to publish my books on science. Instead of putting up with alot of
unnecessary hassle that the
old system of book publishing accrues, I have used the Internet to
publish books for it is the very
fast and speedy way of publishing. There is no medium that can compare
with the speed of publishing
via the Internet. The old way of publishing takes years whereas the
Internet way of publishing takes
minutes, and it is very much hassle free. And it is very much in the
public eye so all the mistakes and
changes are there along with the final version of the book.
I have about 100 books on science to publish in this manner and am
approaching the assimilation or
amassing of about 20 of those 100. And I spent the first 6 months of
2007 amassing about 20 of those
books. But about June and July I realized I had to stop amassing these
books and take a break and go
back and re-assemble the first one of these books-- The Atom Totality
book. I had to stop because after
amassing 20 of these books I realized the disorder of my first several
books.
At heart, I am a perfectionist, and all the greatest scientists such
as Maxwell, Newton, Gauss, Galileo
were perfectionists in habit, in lifestyle, in work. That they can not
stomach much disorder but have to
stop every now and then and get some order back into their life.
In the months of June and July 2007 we experienced a severe drought
here where I live and felt that I
could not go back and re-do this book because my frame of mind in a
drought is not a nice frame of mind
and so I put it off until the first heavy rain.
The major problem of my January-February 2007 first edition is that I
did not have a numbering system
in place for which I subsequently learned how to number in the
succeeding books. And that numbering
system involves a simple "#1" then "#2" etc etc. This is important in
locating where I left off in writing.
And I learned also to keep a book mostly in one month of a particular
year so I need only search through
one month. So I would like to write this 2nd edition in only the month
of August 2007.
Order is so very important to a scientist, and I have even ventured to
write a book on Order with the theme
that Happiness in life is tantamount to Order in life, whether that
order is family order or financial order
or job order or spousal order or environmental order. My point or
theme of this order book is that we are
not happy is something in our lives is "out of order." And so, by June
and July 2007, I could see that I
could not go further with amassing another new book beyond what was
already amassed, because my
first book was in a state of relative disorder. And its biggest
problem was a lack of numbering.
So I take the time out now, in August, to give that first book some
ordering. And also to see how fast and
easy it will be to write the second edition. Not that any new news or
reported research was found in the
interim of January to August, but simply because of the disorder.
I also learned to keep the title of the book in the subject line so I
instantly recognize the post.
And I learned that all these Internet books should have a preface, a
introduction, and most important have
a chapter at the end which is the reporting of new news or new
research that relates to the book.
So, all in all, I am learning how to write science books and the
Internet is the best way.
And my perfectionism will not only improve on the chapters via new
editions but will also worry about the
title of these books, where I try to perfect the title of its every
word. I do not know what the final name of
the Atom Totality theory will be. Some may think the name Atom
Universe is a better name than Atom
Totality. Maybe a different name will be given in the far future.
While I was thinking about this book in June and July, my mind focused
on the number one supporting
evidence of why the Atom Totality theory is true and why the Big Bang
is false. So I should emphasize that
point in this preface as well as make it the number one issue in the
Introduction chapter. So I emphasize
this issue in the Preface and in the Introduction chapter. This
evidence is the Sloan Great Wall density
of galaxies next to the Great Wall of galaxies. In other words, a Big
Bang theory is dead because it can
never explain why the density of galaxies is hugely dense in one spot
of the Cosmos and thins out everywhere
else. The Atom Totality theory easily explains density of galaxies as
that the Great Walls are closer to the
Nucleus of the Atom Totality.
So of all the supporting evidence for the Atom Totality theory the
most damaging to the Big Bang is the fact
of density of galaxies proves the Universe is a single big atom and
the Nucleus of the Atom Totality is
nearby to the Sloan Great Wall.
Archimedes Plutoniumwww.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
if very money
www.agloco.com/r/bbdj8038
<a href='https://www.agloco.com/r/bbdj8038' target='_blank'>Please
Click link AGLOCO F very money</a>
www.agloco.com/r/bbdj8038
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Stockbauer" |
|
| Title: Re: #1 new book; preface Re: ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY REPLACES BIG BANG THEORY IN PHYSICS |
07 Aug 2007 03:48:08 PM |
|
|
On Aug 7, 12:41 pm, a_plutonium <a_pluton...@hotmail.com> wrote:
New Book: "ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY REPLACES BIG BANG
THEORY IN
PHYSICS", author--Archimedes Plutonium,
Internet book published 1993-2007 (amassed in
Jan-Feb 2007 in sci.physics,sci.math). This is 2nd edition, Aug 2007
**************************
Very interesting, Mr. (Mrs.?) (Ms.?) Plutonium. Tell me - does your
theory cover the space beyond the causal horizon?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "a_plutonium" |
|
| Title: #2 more of preface Re: ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY REPLACES BIG BANG THEORY IN PHYSICS |
08 Aug 2007 01:40:05 AM |
|
|
a_plutonium wrote:
New Book: "ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY REPLACES BIG BANG
THEORY IN
PHYSICS", author--Archimedes Plutonium,
Internet book published 1993-2007 (amassed in
Jan-Feb 2007 in sci.physics,sci.math). This is 2nd edition, Aug 2007
Chapters of this book:
(1) preface
(2) introduction
(3) what is this theory
(4) pictures of the Atom Totality theory and history
of the theory and precursor hints
Observational and experimental support
(5) density and distribution of galaxies
(6) Tifft quantized galaxy speeds
(7) layered age of Cosmos with 6.5 billion years old Cosmos yet old
galaxies of the Uranium Atom Totality 20.2 billion years old; the
Freedman versus Sandage data
(8) uniform blackbody 2.71 K cosmic microwave background radiation
and the Dark Night sky: Olber's Paradox
(9) missing mass conundrum and the cosmic distribution of chemical
elements
(10) shape of the Cosmos as 6 lobes of 5f6 or as France's Luminet team
as dodecahedron
(11) color of the cosmos Johns Hopkins Univ findings
Mathematical and logic beauty support
(12) inverse fine structure constant and proton to electron mass ratio
explained
(13) (pi) and (e) explained
(14) Atomic Theory as the foundation of science universal laws and the
Atomic theory Syllogism
Future News and Research Reports supporting the Atom Totality Theory
(15) future news and research reports commentary
More Preface:
About the only real advantage the old fashioned means of publishing
has over Internet
publishing is the pictures and diagrams capability. Computers often
have a botched
integration of pictures with text. They are often unbotched when it
comes to text only, and
usually botched when pictures are included. I like to include some
pictures whenever
available even if ascii art.
And a feature that is really outstanding about Internet publishing is
the date time group
given to every post, or page of the book.
And there is no real need for a index because a search engine provides
the index.
And what I especially learned about publishing books on the Internet
from January
to June was that I should have a last chapter devoted to recent news
and research
reports on the issues of the book. So that all the other chapters are
about the
central ideas of the theory and those chapters are not easily changed
nor are
they often changed, but if new
data arise, it is incorporated in the last chapter and if that new
data becomes
so important to the book that it forces the overhauling of earlier
chapters. So the
theory is put forward by all the chapters except the last chapter
which is the
chapter that could cause wholescale changes of the prior chapters.
What I am
trying to say is that the more I publish these books on the Internet,
they more
I become skilled on how to write the books.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.
|
|
|
| User: "a_plutonium" |
|
| Title: #3 Introduction to this new book Re: ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY REPLACES BIG BANG THEORY IN PHYSICS |
08 Aug 2007 04:43:15 AM |
|
|
New Book: "ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY REPLACES BIG BANG
THEORY IN PHYSICS", author--Archimedes Plutonium,
Internet book published 1993-2007 (amassed in
Jan-Feb 2007 in sci.physics,sci.math). This is 2nd edition, Aug 2007
Chapters of this book:
(1) preface
(2) introduction
(3) what is this theory
(4) pictures of the Atom Totality theory and history
of the theory and precursor hints
Observational and experimental support
(5) density and distribution of galaxies
(6) Tifft quantized galaxy speeds
(7) layered age of Cosmos with 6.5 billion years old Cosmos yet old
galaxies of the Uranium Atom Totality 20.2 billion years old; the
Freedman versus Sandage data
(8) uniform blackbody 2.71 K cosmic microwave background radiation
and the Dark Night sky: Olber's Paradox
(9) missing mass conundrum and the cosmic distribution of chemical
elements
(10) shape of the Cosmos as 6 lobes of 5f6 or as France's Luminet team
as dodecahedron
(11) color of the cosmos Johns Hopkins Univ findings
Mathematical and logic beauty support
(12) inverse fine structure constant and proton to electron mass ratio
explained
(13) (pi) and (e) explained
(14) Atomic Theory as the foundation of science universal laws and the
Atomic theory Syllogism
Future News and Research Reports supporting the Atom Totality Theory
(15) future news and research reports commentary
INTRODUCTION
Alright, in order for me to complete this 2nd edition of this book,
considering I
want it all done before September, means that I have to make at least
two posts
per day for a steady pace to meet that criterion. As I said before,
that I like to
have a book written in the span of a month so that when searching back
for the
book I can find it all within that month.
Now let me talk about the layout sections of this book of its 15
chapters. It has
four sections of the preface, introduction, what the theory is and
picture which is
basically the first section and what I call a summary introduction.
The second
section is the physical evidence that supports the theory and discards
or
destroys the Big Bang theory. The third section is not physical
evidence but more
like logical or consistency evidence. There is a contrast between
evidence that is
observational and experimental evidence as constrasted by evidence
that fits together
with past evidence and what I call logical consistency evidence. It is
the beauty of
fitting together of evidence and although it may not be as strong of
supporting evidence
as that of experimental evidence, consistency evidence is very
important and much of
science and physics advances were borne from logical consistency.
Maxwell's completion
of the Maxwell theory was mostly logical consistency evidence where
his theory gave the
speed of light and added onto Ampere's Law. Dirac hypothesized the
positron from
logical consistency evidence and waited for the experimental evidence
to show the
same. The existence of the neutrino was first made from logical
consistency evidence
and only later on was the physical evidence to prove it.
So the second section of this book is about the physical and
experimental and
observational evidence. And the third section of this book is the
Logical Consistency
evidence.
And finally the last section is what all of my science Internet
published books will have
a chapter of new-news or reports that relate to the science of the
book. Where I discuss and
comment on recent developments and if those news reports have a large
impact on
previous chapters, then I shall change those chapters in a newly
edited future edition. I want
to have a way of discussing and commenting on news reports related to
the theory for which
it is too fresh and new to incorporate in the main body of the book,
but which can be
incorporated after thought and reflection.
Now I want to comment on my general feelings and attitude of the
strongest piece of single
evidence that the Atom Totality theory is true and will replace the
false theory of the Big Bang.
If I were tasked to do that in 1990 when I discovered this theory I
would have said the single
evidence that most supports the theory is the redshift of galaxies of
the expanding Universe,
where the size of the uranium atom is smaller than the plutonium atom
and that the redshift
corresponds to the different size of these two chemical elements, and
the fact that the Missing
Mass of 99% missing would be represented by the Nucleus of the Atom
Totality.
But then about 1993 to mid 1990s my preference for the strongest
evidence switched to that of
the Tifft quantized galaxy speeds. I had not known anyone found
quantized galaxy speeds until
about that time period. But when I found out and learned about
quantized galaxy speeds, I shifted
to that as my strongest supporting evidence. Then in the mid 1990s to
the end of the 1990s, I
shifted to the age of the Cosmos with the disputed age between Sandage
and Freedman. It seems as
though my favorite physical evidence is the current raging evidence
found and the Sandage
Freedman argument was front and center at the end of the 1990s.
But if you ask me now in year 2007 what is my favorite single piece of
evidence that the Atom
Totality is true and the Big Bang is false is a piece of evidence that
has not even raised a debate or
clamour or raucous in either the physics or astronomy community. In
fact, it was only recently
discovered of the Sloan Great Wall. It was recently discovered that
the Great Wall has a larger
and more dense structure nearby and called the Sloan Great Wall. This
Sloan Great Wall of
galaxies is my single favorite supporting evidence that the Atom
Totality is the true theory
and the Big Bang a fake. Why do I say that? Because the Big Bang
cannot have a Universe that
is dense with galaxies in one spot and thin out for the rest of the
Cosmos. The Big Bang explosion
creates a Cosmos where a large enough cross section is uniformly dense
of galaxies. By contrast,
the inside of an atom has its electron dot cloud dense near the
nucleus and thinning out the further
away you get from the nucleus.
In physics, some experiments are special and some observations are
special. They are what is
called Deciding Experiments or Deciding Observations. They are special
because they decide which
of two theories is the true one and which is the fake one. The
observation of missing mass as
99% missing is not a Deciding Observation since the Big Bang could say
the missing mass is
dark-matter and thus cannot really decide between the two theories.
But the observation that the
density of galaxies is dense near the Sloan Great Wall and Great Wall
but thins out beyond them
is a deciding-observation for there cannot be an explanation of this
in the Big Bang theory.
Likewise the Tifft quantized galaxy speeds was a deciding-observation
for you cannot have quantization
of galaxy speeds in the Big Bang.
The Freedman-Sandage debate over the age of the Cosmos was not a
deciding experiment or
deciding observation since both were fuzzy as to their ages and where
precision of measurement
is not really available that would lay to rest the fierce and
contentious debate. But there is no
question of the fact of quantized galaxy speeds or the two dense Great
Walls. So as it stands
here in August of 2007, my single favorite piece of evidence is the
density of Great Walls of galaxies
which describes the dots of the electron-dot-cloud of an atom and my
second favorite evidence
is the Tifft quantized galaxy speeds.
One would think that when I first posted on the Internet the Atom
Totality, and who accepted
and believed in the Tifft quantized galaxy speeds would immediately
embrace the Atom
Totality theory, for the two are part and parcel of one another. The
dots of the electron-dot-cloud
are quantized. Maybe they did embrace the Atom Totality theory but
were not going to publically
say so.
Now in this introduction I need to voice alot about the naming of this
theory which I discovered in
November of 1990. I originally gave it a name of something like "Atom
Universe" or "Single Atom
Universe" or "Plutonium Atom Universe". But I did not like the term
"universe" because that term
is so overused that it lacked the power of description of the theory.
I do not know where the term
"Big Bang" was first used to give name to that theory, but it is a
very good name because it
conjers the image of a cosmic explosion. They could have named it the
Cosmic Explosion Theory
instead of the Big Bang. So the first several years after discovery of
the Atom Totality theory
I never used the name "Atom Totality" but used some variations of
"Atom Universe". And then
some years after 1990, someone blurted out the name "Atom Totality"
and I recognized
instantly that such a name was superior to the name "Atom Universe" or
"Single Atom Universe"
or "Atom Whole Universe" or other variations. In science, it is
important to give the best name
to a theory as what you can possibly give, for if you do not then
someone else in the future
will rename it. And the best name is one in which it best describes
the theory in as few of
words as possible. Given just two words, the name Atom Totality is the
best name I can
think of for the theory. The word "Universe" in "Atom Universe" is too
nebulous (sorry for the
pun). For the term "Universe" in "Atom Universe" can have several
different meanings such as "atoms exist in the universe." But the name
"Atom Totality" has
the meaning that the Universe or Cosmos is a single big atom. My above
is only a sketchy
recollection of the actual history, but if anyone wanted precise
history facts can easily look
up those old posts from 1993 to present day time. So this is a big
benefit of publishing on
the Internet in that one can go back and verify whether my memory was
highly accurate
or inaccurate in parts.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.
|
|
|
| User: "a_plutonium" |
|
| Title: #4 More Introduction to this new book; zircon, comet heavy water, Earth is approx 10 billion years old Re: ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY REPLACES BIG BANG THEORY IN PHYSICS |
08 Aug 2007 12:04:02 PM |
|
|
New Book: "ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY REPLACES BIG BANG
THEORY IN PHYSICS", author--Archimedes Plutonium,
Internet book published 1993-2007 (amassed in
Jan-Feb 2007 in sci.physics,sci.math). This is 2nd edition, Aug 2007
Chapters of this book:
(1) preface
(2) introduction
(3) what is this theory
(4) pictures of the Atom Totality theory and history
of the theory and precursor hints
Observational and experimental support
(5) density and distribution of galaxies
(6) Tifft quantized galaxy speeds
(7) layered age of Cosmos with 6.5 billion years old Cosmos yet old
galaxies of the Uranium Atom Totality 20.2 billion years old; the
Freedman versus Sandage data
(8) uniform blackbody 2.71 K cosmic microwave background radiation
and the Dark Night sky: Olber's Paradox
(9) missing mass conundrum and the cosmic distribution of chemical
elements
(10) shape of the Cosmos as 6 lobes of 5f6 or as France's Luminet team
as dodecahedron
(11) color of the cosmos Johns Hopkins Univ findings
Mathematical and logic beauty support
(12) inverse fine structure constant and proton to electron mass ratio
explained
(13) (pi) and (e) explained
(14) Atomic Theory as the foundation of science universal laws and the
Atomic theory Syllogism
Future News and Research Reports supporting the Atom Totality Theory
(15) future news and research reports commentary
(15a) include details of Superdeterminism and how Bell Inequality can
only be true for
Atom Totality, not Big Bang
(15b) include details of Dirac new-radioactivity and the motion of the
Moon away from
Earth
(15c) Zirconium crystals have dated Earth crust to about 4.4 billion
years, but prepare
for zirconium crystals to date all of Earth at more than 10 billion
years old
(15d) The understanding of Earth geology and Moon geology is best
understood with
Earth being 10 billion years old as per my CellWell1 and CellWell2
theories and rather
than the Hartmann model of Earth Moon collision as too catastrophic,
that it was a
collision of a smaller scale with a third object
(15e) Water on Earth and salt on Earth is anomalous, except when we
analyze the
water content of CellWell2 of the outer planets of Jupiter and beyond,
where all the
water ends up mostly on just one outer planet satellite. So all the
water that existed
on Mercury, Venus, Mars, the pre-Asteroid planet and their satellites
wound up on
Earth. Call it a Solar System Water Cycle where the star of a solar
system eventually
moves the water in each Cell of that Solar System to a favored planet.
FURTHER INTRODUCTION
What I am going to have to start doing is add into this book the
mounting evidence of
geology which points to a Earth age of about 10 billion years old and
where our Sun
and other inner planets are about 10 billion years old while the outer-
planets are a
mere 5 billion years old (or the usual touted 4.5 billion years old).
I did not bring in this geology research in the first edition of
January to February 2007
because I was focused on assimilating or amassing or compiled the
overall book
for the first time. But with every new edition, I can then add
details. And the Sandage
Freedman debates as to age of cosmos and age of oldest stars is an
astronomy
debate that is ridden full of inaccurate measurement and nonprecise
measurement
and riddled full of assumptions. But when geology of Earth and Sun and
outer-planet
ages is added to the debate of Age, then we can begin to straighten
out both
astronomical ages and geological ages.
You see, in the Hartmann model of a Earth Moon collision some 4.4
billion years ago,
would it not make better sense of the data and facts at present now if
we consider that
the Earth was 10 billion years old and that the collision that
occurred 4.4 billion years
ago was not the Earth with Moon but the Earth with a satellite of the
Moon. So there
were 3 astro bodies involved in that collision. I say this because the
physics of a
Earth Moon collision would not give us what we currently see as the
Earth Moon.
Such a collision would have been so violent that the Moon should not
exist and the
Earth tilt on axis and spin suggest a collision with a object the size
of a object the
fraction of the size of the ancient Moon. So, physics, points to the
likely Earth Moon
collision of a system that involved 3 objects-- Earth, Moon, and some
third object
wherein this third object caused the Earth tilt and spin and was
incorporated into
Earth and captured the Moon in its orbit. The Hartmann Model is too
unlikely
whereas the 3rd object in the Collision is more likely given our
present day
Earth Moon circumstances.
Someday, scientists here on Earth will find a experiment that dates
Earth and which
those dates imply not a 4.5 billion year old Earth but rather a 10
billion year old Earth.
Experiments such as those conducted in Australia for decades now on
zirconium
crystals which peg the crust as 4.4 billion years old. What if
zirconium crystals can
date back to 10 billion years old? What if zircon was fould in the
mantle or zircon
found in meteorites which gives a date of 10 billion years old? I do
not know where it
will come from, whether from zircon research, but whereever it comes
from will be
immediately dismissed by nearly all scientists having grown up with
4.5 billion years.
And this new data will be fiercely suppressed, but eventually it will
be accepted as
the truth. That Earth is really 10 billion years old and that the age
of the Sun and
Inner Planets is about double the age of the Outer Planets.
So that the Freedman Sandage contentious and fierce debates over the
age of the
Cosmos versus age of the oldest stars will become settled not from any
of their
astronomical measurements but closer to home, from the layered ages of
the Sun
and Inner Planets compared to the Outer Planets. If our Solar System
has a
layered age structure, then obviously, Freedman and Sandage have to
have layered
ages for Cosmos and oldest stars.
Now as for why Earth has so much water, there is a Comet theory that
comets brought
us all this water. Trouble with that theory is that the composition of
comet water is high
in heavy (deuterium) water whereas the ocean water is not high in
heavy-water. What
easily solves and answers the question of where Earth got all of its
water is a look
at the Outer Planets and their satellites. We see Europa almost a
smaller Earth covered
with water. And we see water abundant in the Outer Planets and their
Satellites. Now
envision a dynamic where the water migrates from the outer Planets to
one special
body. In that manner can we envision why Earth is covered in water
since it was the
movement of all the water from Mercury, Venus, Mars and bodies of the
Inner Planets.
Call it a Solar System Water cycle with the Solar Winds as the main
dynamic of
moving the water to some special astro body. This dynamic also
explains why
Earth has overabundant salt.
So envision CellWell2 of the outer planets as a system that eventually
forms Jupiter into
a star. And as Jupiter becomes a star, that much of the mass of the
other outer planets
are swallowed up by Jupiter leaving only a few outer planets which are
highly rich in
iron cores. And these few bodies remaining when Jupiter becomes a star
will have
migrated the water content of CellWell2 to some special distanced
planet that escaped
being swallowed by Jupiter and which has the proper distance that it
can collect this
water lost by the other bodies.
P.S. It will take me several months perhaps years before I get to
amassing or
compiling all the posts on geology which I intend on turning into a
Internet published books. I
have at least 100 books on science where about 5 of those 100 are on
geology
with new ideas and theories to publish, and slowly
I will get around to publishing them here on the Internet. In the
meantime it is good that
I cross reference these 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
.
|
|
|
| User: "a_plutonium" |
|
| Title: #5 the heavy water ratio found in the Outer Planets, Earth is approx 10 billion years old Re: ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY REPLACES BIG BANG THEORY IN PHYSICS |
08 Aug 2007 03:12:12 PM |
|
|
a_plutonium wrote:
Now as for why Earth has so much water, there is a Comet theory that
comets brought
us all this water. Trouble with that theory is that the composition of
comet water is high
in heavy (deuterium) water whereas the ocean water is not high in
heavy-water. What
easily solves and answers the question of where Earth got all of its
water is a look
at the Outer Planets and their satellites. We see Europa almost a
smaller Earth covered
with water. And we see water abundant in the Outer Planets and their
Satellites. Now
envision a dynamic where the water migrates from the outer Planets to
one special
body. In that manner can we envision why Earth is covered in water
since it was the
movement of all the water from Mercury, Venus, Mars and bodies of the
Inner Planets.
Call it a Solar System Water cycle with the Solar Winds as the main
dynamic of
moving the water to some special astro body. This dynamic also
explains why
Earth has overabundant salt.
So envision CellWell2 of the outer planets as a system that eventually
forms Jupiter into
a star. And as Jupiter becomes a star, that much of the mass of the
other outer planets
are swallowed up by Jupiter leaving only a few outer planets which are
highly rich in
iron cores. And these few bodies remaining when Jupiter becomes a star
will have
migrated the water content of CellWell2 to some special distanced
planet that escaped
being swallowed by Jupiter and which has the proper distance that it
can collect this
water lost by the other bodies.
Now I wonder, if the scientists working on measuring the ratio of
heavy-water for comets
could spend just a fraction of their time on finding out what is the
ratio of heavy water for
all the water found in the Outer Planets. Is the ratio of heavy water
to light water on Europa
match that of Earth?
So what I am logically saying is that if the ratio of heavy water to
light water for the Outer
Planets matches the ratio found here on Earth, then that would be
strong evidence
of how Earth got its huge amount of water in the dynamics of what I
call CellWell1 and
CellWell2.
And I would guess that measuring the ratio of heavy water to light
water for the Outer Planets
and their satellites is much easier than measuring Cometary water. And
perhaps such was
already done but noone paid much attention to the reported data.
And also, if my above is correct in part or in whole, would provide a
mechanism and explanation
not only for how Earth got its huge amount of water which is anomalous
compared to the other
Inner Planets, but could also explain why Earth has a huge amount of
salt and its salty oceans.
So did the salt migrate to Earth as well as the water migrating from
the Inner planets? So here
also, we can look to the amount of salt in the Outer Planets and see
if the water migration would
entail a salt migration.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.
|
|
|
| User: "a_plutonium" |
|
| Title: #6 chapter What Is This Theory Re: ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY REPLACES BIG BANG THEORY IN PHYSICS |
09 Aug 2007 01:49:50 PM |
|
|
New Book: "ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY REPLACES BIG BANG
THEORY IN PHYSICS", author--Archimedes Plutonium,
Internet book published 1993-2007 (amassed in
Jan-Feb 2007 in sci.physics,sci.math). This is 2nd edition, Aug 2007
Chapters of this book:
(1) preface
(2) introduction
(3) what is this theory
(4) pictures of the Atom Totality theory and history
of the theory and precursor hints
Observational and experimental support
(5) density and distribution of galaxies
(6) Tifft quantized galaxy speeds
(7) layered age of Cosmos with 6.5 billion years old Cosmos yet old
galaxies of the Uranium Atom Totality 20.2 billion years old; the
Freedman versus Sandage data
(8) uniform blackbody 2.71 K cosmic microwave background radiation
and the Dark Night sky: Olber's Paradox
(9) missing mass conundrum and the cosmic distribution of chemical
elements
(10) shape of the Cosmos as 6 lobes of 5f6 or as France's Luminet team
as dodecahedron
(11) color of the cosmos Johns Hopkins Univ findings
Mathematical and logic beauty support
(12) inverse fine structure constant and proton to electron mass ratio
explained
(13) (pi) and (e) explained
(14) Atomic Theory as the foundation of science universal laws and the
Atomic theory Syllogism
Future News and Research Reports supporting the Atom Totality Theory
(15) future news and research reports commentary
(15a) include details of Superdeterminism and how Bell Inequality can
only be true for
Atom Totality, not Big Bang
(15b) include details of Dirac new-radioactivity and the motion of the
Moon away from
Earth
(15c) Zirconium crystals have dated Earth crust to about 4.4 billion
years, but prepare
for zirconium crystals to date all of Earth at more than 10 billion
years old
(15d) The understanding of Earth geology and Moon geology is best
understood with
Earth being 10 billion years old as per my CellWell1 and CellWell2
theories and rather
than the Hartmann model of Earth Moon collision as too catastrophic,
that it was a
collision of a smaller scale with a third object
(15e) Water on Earth and salt on Earth is anomalous, except when we
analyze the
water content of CellWell2 of the outer planets of Jupiter and beyond,
where all the
water ends up mostly on just one outer planet satellite. So all the
water that existed
on Mercury, Venus, Mars, the pre-Asteroid planet and their satellites
wound up on
Earth. Call it a Solar System Water Cycle where the star of a solar
system eventually
moves the water in each Cell of that Solar System to a favored
planet.
Chapter: What Is This Theory
In as few of words as possible to describe this theory is my signature
block
for my posts to the Internet:
The whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies.
To describe the rival theory of the Big Bang theory would go like
this:
The universe arose from a big explosion.
That is the sum total to the Big Bang theory. It is simplistic and
does not have much
information. It does not tell us why it exploded and the Big Bang
theory is not
Quantum Mechanics.
The Atom Totality theory is all Quantum Mechanics for it posits that
only atoms,
including the Universe itself, exist. And the Atom Totality theory is
a consistent theory
since it posits that only atoms exist. All matter is composed of atoms
but science
neglected to complete the picture of logic by realizing that the whole
entire universe
must also be an atom.
Laypersons and nonscientists and even a large proportion of alleged
scientists have
two major problems and errors with the Atom Totality theory and these
two errors are
this:
(1) They cannot envision how the universe we see is the inside of one
big atom
(2) They mistakenly think that since plutonium is radioactive that the
Atom Totality
will decay away and poof-out-goes-the-Universe. Here one minute and
gone the next
type of mistake.
Before I answer these two most often mistakes I would like to remind
the reader of the
two most often mistakes by the majority of living humans during
Ancient Greek times
to that of Galileo and the Earth is flat model compared to Earth is
round and moving
around the Sun. For Galileo had the same problems of teaching
laypersons and even
learned-persons about the truth of heliocentric versus Earth is flat
and stationary. Why
so many could not accept or even understand the Heliocentric model for
Earth is because
they could not fathom how humans would not fall off of Earth if moving
so fast and why
humans and objects would not fall off Earth when on the other side
(upside down) from
them. We all laugh now at the lack of understanding of a round Earth
that moves fast
around the Sun and why Galileo would have a difficult time in teaching
the obtuse and
ignorant of his day. But I face the same sort of ignorance and
obtuseness with the
Atom Totality theory as Galileo faced with heliocentric theory.
So how do I answer those two most often errors that both laypersons
and even most
trained scientists make as listed in (1) and (2) above?
I answer them by saying look at a chemistry textbook of the electron-
dot-cloud of atoms.
Their mistake is that they think the electron is a single ball that
goes moving around the
nucleus of an atom. It maybe a ball when the atom is collapsed
wavefunction such as the
moving of electricity in a wire. But an atom that is Uncollapsed
wavefunction has its
electrons as dot-clouds. The electron is a large cloud around the
nucleus of the atom and
is a huge number of dots. Each one of those dots is a tiny hunk or
piece of the electron.
So that if all the dots were put together then the electron would be a
ball. So now we begin
to understand how a plutonium atom of its electrons is the galaxies of
the night sky. That
each galaxy we see in the night sky is a tiny piece of an electron of
the Atom Totality.
If you examine a chemistry textbook of the 5f6 or the s, or the p or
the d or the f orbital of
a electron you will see a electron-dot-cloud. That the electron is not
a ball but those huge
number of dots.
So now we can easily envision the Atom Totality theory. We look at the
night sky of all
those dots of light. Some of those dots of light are stars and some
are galaxies. And now
we look at the chemistry textbook of what an electron looks like and
it is a bunch of
dots around a nucleus. So that is the crux of the Atom Totality
theory, that galaxies
and stars (galaxies are just a concentration of stars) are dots of the
electron dot cloud
and so we are living inside one big atom. And the chemical element
that fits the numbers
of physics and mathematics the very best is the chemical element
plutonium.
Now to answer the other most often mistake by laypersons and even
those who call themselves
scientists is the notion that if the Atom Totality was plutonium that
it would decay and be gone.
The answer I give is that radioactivity is time itself. That our
universe, our cosmos would not have
time if the Atom Totality were not radioactive, or, at least, it would
not have sufficient and ample enough
time to run the universe, like a machine that does not run well, or
like an animal or plant that does not
grow fast enough. Time is merely change of matter in position. If
every atom stood still and in place
and never changed position, then there would be no time. Life could
not exist if every atom were to stand
still and not move relative to other atoms. So, to answer why the Atom
Totality is a radioactive element
is to say that you want the Universe to be a entity that has alot of
change going on and radioactivity
provides that change. We see this change every day in Cosmic particles
of protons appearing uniformly
and of Cosmic gamma ray bursts. Radioactivity of the Atom Totality is
what makes stars and planets
come into existence in that the daily accretion of particles of
radioactivity from the Nucleus of the Plutonium
Atom Totality is what gives us our Sun and Earth and Solar System and
Milky Way Galaxy.
Summary: The Atom Totality Theory is easy to state for it simply says
that the Universe itself is one big
atom and the chemical element that fits the special constants and
numbers of physics and mathematics
the best is plutonium, specifically 231Pu. When one asks for a similar
explanation of the Big Bang theory
one gets no description whatsoever other than to say "explosion
happened". And the two most often
made mistakes about the Atom Totality theory is the error that an
electron is a single ball and the error
that plutonium radioactivity is incompatible or incongruent with an
Atom Totality.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.
|
|
|
| User: "a_plutonium" |
|
| Title: #7 chapter What Is This Theory with more details Re: ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY REPLACES BIG BANG THEORY IN PHYSICS |
10 Aug 2007 02:26:48 AM |
|
|
a_plutonium wrote:
(snipped)
Chapter: What Is This Theory
In as few of words as possible to describe this theory is my signature
block
for my posts to the Internet:
The whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies.
To describe the rival theory of the Big Bang theory would go like
this:
The universe arose from a big explosion.
That is the sum total to the Big Bang theory. It is simplistic and
does not have much
information. It does not tell us why it exploded and the Big Bang
theory is not
Quantum Mechanics.
I should say alot more about the remarkable deficiency of the stating
of what
the Big Bang theory is. Incredible deficiency that how any scientist
could
accept it. Given the most active advocate of the Big Bang theory and
asked
to write a chapter about "What is the Big Bang theory" that it would
be hard to write one paragraph explaining the Big Bang theory for
about
all that can be said is "there was an explosion." And I would suppose
the
advocate would then refer to some book about the Big Bang which talks
about what happened after 3 minutes, after 4 minutes, etc etc.
When flawed science exists in the world of science, it is hard to
explain or
detail it and it becomes very vague, like the Big Bang theory. And it
leaves
more questions than any answers. What caused the Big Bang and what
was the material of matter/energy of the Big Bang and what is time in
a
Big Bang? And why are all the Quantum Mechanics laws and rules
violated by the Big Bang and when does the laws of rules of
Quantum Mechanics come into existence for the Big Bang.
So that if any scientist in the world at present were to write a book
on the
Big Bang theory with similar chapters as this book on the Atom
Totality theory
that the book would be horribly short in any detail.
In fact I could write a whole book on just this chapter alone for the
Atom
Totality theory because it can include all that is known about the
chemical
elements and Atomic theory and Quantum Mechanics.
But the Big Bang book writer faced with a chapter on "What is this Big
Bang theory"
can say only about a sentence or paragraph -- It was a Cosmic
Explosion which
created the Universe" What made it explode? What was it in the first
place?
You see, when science has theories that cannot explain things, then
you should and
must distrust the theory. When the theory does not connect with other
science and
when the theory violates other physics theories such as Quantum
Mechanics, then
the sensible person should not buy the theory.
In the past history of physics there have been other pitiful theories
that were false
and which followed a similar deficiency of unable to detail what the
theory is. The
phlogiston theory for heat and the fluidia theory for electricity are
examples of
old theories in physics which could not detail or explain the basic
foundations of
the theory. So you say heat is a fluid or you say that electricity is
a fluid, but that
never gives you any details of either heat or electricity.
So I invite the most enamored lover of the Big Bang theory to write a
chapter on
the Big Bang of "What this Big Bang theory is" since I cannot see how
they
can say anything more than "there was a big explosion." In fact the
name Big
Bang theory suggests it is incapable of detailing the theory because
if it had
been named Big Explosion theory then the explanation may have said
"in the beginning was a big-bang."
On the other hand, the Atom Totality theory is so immensely rich of a
science theory,
that I could write a thousand pages alone on this one chapter.
And a counterpart who loves the Big Bang theory writing about the
supporting
evidence for the Big Bang theory would have only one chapter of
supporting evidence
in the observation of a red shift expansion of the universe. So other
than that
observation, the Big Bang theory has no other supporting evidence. Not
even the
Cosmic Microwave Radiation supports the Big Bang because it is a
quantized
radiation at 2.71 K and utterly uniform with no fluctuations. The
alleged fluctuations
in recent past years were due to the fact that the precision of the
measuring instruments
had been surpassed. So for the past decades of the Big Bang theory,
they have only
one evidence that supports the Big Bang, whereas this book has more
than 20 different
categories of evidence to support the Atom Totality theory.
What is the theme or message of this inability or deficiency of
explaining in detail what a
theory of science is? The theme is that if a theory of science has a
difficult time of
explaining its foundations, then it is likely to not be a theory of
science but a fakery.
The Atom Totality theory is all Quantum Mechanics for it posits that
only atoms,
including the Universe itself, exist. And the Atom Totality theory is
a consistent theory
since it posits that only atoms exist. All matter is composed of atoms
but science
neglected to complete the picture of logic by realizing that the whole
entire universe
must also be an atom.
Laypersons and nonscientists and even a large proportion of alleged
scientists have
two major problems and errors with the Atom Totality theory and these
two errors are
this:
(1) They cannot envision how the universe we see is the inside of one
big atom
(2) They mistakenly think that since plutonium is radioactive that the
Atom Totality
will decay away and poof-out-goes-the-Universe. Here one minute and
gone the next
type of mistake.
Before I answer these two most often mistakes I would like to remind
the reader of the
two most often mistakes by the majority of living humans during
Ancient Greek times
to that of Galileo and the Earth is flat model compared to Earth is
round and moving
around the Sun. For Galileo had the same problems of teaching
laypersons and even
learned-persons about the truth of heliocentric versus Earth is flat
and stationary. Why
so many could not accept or even understand the Heliocentric model for
Earth is because
they could not fathom how humans would not fall off of Earth if moving
so fast and why
humans and objects would not fall off Earth when on the other side
(upside down) from
them. We all laugh now at the lack of understanding of a round Earth
that moves fast
around the Sun and why Galileo would have a difficult time in teaching
the obtuse and
ignorant of his day. But I face the same sort of ignorance and
obtuseness with the
Atom Totality theory as Galileo faced with heliocentric theory.
So how do I answer those two most often errors that both laypersons
and even most
trained scientists make as listed in (1) and (2) above?
I answer them by saying look at a chemistry textbook of the electron-
dot-cloud of atoms.
Their mistake is that they think the electron is a single ball that
goes moving around the
nucleus of an atom. It maybe a ball when the atom is collapsed
wavefunction such as the
moving of electricity in a wire. But an atom that is Uncollapsed
wavefunction has its
electrons as dot-clouds. The electron is a large cloud around the
nucleus of the atom and
is a huge number of dots. Each one of those dots is a tiny hunk or
piece of the electron.
So that if all the dots were put together then the electron would be a
ball. So now we begin
to understand how a plutonium atom of its electrons is the galaxies of
the night sky. That
each galaxy we see in the night sky is a tiny piece of an electron of
the Atom Totality.
If you examine a chemistry textbook of the 5f6 or the s, or the p or
the d or the f orbital of
a electron you will see a electron-dot-cloud. That the electron is not
a ball but those huge
number of dots.
So now we can easily envision the Atom Totality theory. We look at the
night sky of all
those dots of light. Some of those dots of light are stars and some
are galaxies. And now
we look at the chemistry textbook of what an electron looks like and
it is a bunch of
dots around a nucleus. So that is the crux of the Atom Totality
theory, that galaxies
and stars (galaxies are just a concentration of stars) are dots of the
electron dot cloud
and so we are living inside one big atom. And the chemical element
that fits the numbers
of physics and mathematics the very best is the chemical element
plutonium.
Now to answer the other most often mistake by laypersons and even
those who call themselves
scientists is the notion that if the Atom Totality was plutonium that
it would decay and be gone.
The answer I give is that radioactivity is time itself. That our
universe, our cosmos would not have
time if the Atom Totality were not radioactive, or, at least, it would
not have sufficient and ample enough
time to run the universe, like a machine that does not run well, or
like an animal or plant that does not
grow fast enough. Time is merely change of matter in position. If
every atom stood still and in place
and never changed position, then there would be no time.
I left the above about time in a cloud of confusion (sorry for the
weak pun).
In the Atom Totality theory time is simply the change in position of
atoms relative
to other atoms. If all atoms of the Universe, including the Universe
itself since it is
one big atom were to be frozen still relative to one another, then
there is no time.
Consider a jigsaw puzzle analogy where the pieces are thrown on the
floor and they keep their
position, then those pieces have "no time". But when one piece is
moved relative to all
the other pieces, then the puzzle has time. Likewise if all the atoms
of the Universe were
frozen in place relative to all other atoms, then there would be "no
time." Once one atom
moves relative to all other atoms do have "time in the system". Now if
alot of atoms move
relative to one another then the system has alot of time. So my point
is about
radioactivity of the Plutonium Atom Totality that if the Cosmos was a
stable element such
as say nonradioactive xenon or lead that such a universe would have
time but not alot of
time when the Universe is a radioactive atom because of the rapid
change of position
of many more atoms and the introduction of new atoms.
Now I should comment on the Big Bang theory with its ideas and notions
of time. The
Big Bang is incapable of saying much about "time" because it is not a
science theory
in the first place. The Big Bang would say that prior to the
explosion, there was no time
just as the Big Bang would say there is no center to the Universe and
no "edge" to the
Universe. And here the Big Bangers run into another huge problem of
logic, for if they
say the Cosmos had no time before the explosion and no center or edge
after the
explosion then they cannot really say the Cosmos had mass/energy
before or after
the explosion. Because if you say the Cosmos had no time before the
explosion,
then you must say the Cosmos had no mass and no energy before the
explosion.
But obviously you have mass and energy and time after the explosion.
So this is
a huge contradiction and flaw of the Big Bang whereas the Atom
Totality theory
never has any trouble or problems of existence of mass or energy or
time since
there always is or was a "prior atom totality". Before the Plutonium
Atom Totality
there was the Uranium Atom Totality and all the way back to a Hydrogen
Atom
Totality and then a Neutron Atom Totality and then a ....999999 Atom
Totality.
The inability of the Big Bang to detail what it is, is a clear sign
that the Big
Bang theory is a fake theory.
Life could not exist if every atom were to stand
still and not move relative to other atoms. So, to answer why the Atom
Totality is a radioactive element
is to say that you want the Universe to be a entity that has alot of
change going on and radioactivity
provides that change. We see this change every day in Cosmic particles
of protons appearing uniformly
and of Cosmic gamma ray bursts. Radioactivity of the Atom Totality is
what makes stars and planets
come into existence in that the daily accretion of particles of
radioactivity from the Nucleus of the Plutonium
Atom Totality is what gives us our Sun and Earth and Solar System and
Milky Way Galaxy.
Summary: The Atom Totality Theory is easy to state for it simply says
that the Universe itself is one big
atom and the chemical element that fits the special constants and
numbers of physics and mathematics
the best is plutonium, specifically 231Pu. When one asks for a similar
explanation of the Big Bang theory
one gets no description whatsoever other than to say "explosion
happened". And the two most often
made mistakes about the Atom Totality theory is the error that an
electron is a single ball and the error
that plutonium radioactivity is incompatible or incongruent with an
Atom Totality.
However, I do want to leave on a good note for the Big Bang theory.
The Big Bang
can be incorporated inside the Atom Totality theory given some
modifications.
In that when the Atom Totality went from a Uranium Atom Totality to
that of a
Plutonium Atom Totality via what I am guessing was a act of
Spontaneous
Fission that we can consider that act as a Mini Bang.
But the reverse is not possible of fitting the Atom Totality theory
inside of the
Big Bang theory. And when LeMaitre first wrote about the Big Bang
theory, 1920s
or 1930s he called it the "Primeval Atom". So the explanation was the
explosion of a primeval-atom.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.
|
|
|
| User: "a_plutonium" |
|
| Title: #8 a logical test of two rival theories that separates the true one from the false one Re: ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY REPLACES BIG BANG THEORY IN PHYSICS |
10 Aug 2007 12:51:26 PM |
|
|
a_plutonium wrote:
(all snipped except for this)
However, I do want to leave on a good note for the Big Bang theory.
The Big Bang
can be incorporated inside the Atom Totality theory given some
modifications.
In that when the Atom Totality went from a Uranium Atom Totality to
that of a
Plutonium Atom Totality via what I am guessing was a act of
Spontaneous
Fission that we can consider that act as a Mini Bang.
But the reverse is not possible of fitting the Atom Totality theory
inside of the
Big Bang theory. And when LeMaitre first wrote about the Big Bang
theory, 1920s
or 1930s he called it the "Primeval Atom". So the explanation was the
explosion of a primeval-atom.
The above two paragraphs have caught my eye and perhaps I should not
leave it so fast
but make some comments on the features of true science. That when
science gets
caught up in a debate between two rival competing theories, is there a
logical testing
procedure which can indicate, not prove mind you, which of the two
theories is more
true than the other? I believe the above two paragraphs may have
uncovered a test of
validity for rival theories.
The test is that if one theory can incorporate the other theory given
some modifications
of the other theory then it is more likely true and the second false.
And where the second
theory is never able to incorporate the first theory given
modifications of the first theory.
Now the underlying Logic of that test is the idea that a true theory
cannot be modified to
accomodate a false theory and thus be incorporated inside the false
theory. Whereas a
false theory can be modified and then fit inside the true theory.
An analogy for the layperson is a crime mystery murder investigation
such as the CSI
movies. Where two witnesses one telling the full truth and the second
telling a story
riddled with lies. So the true story cannot be modified to fit into
the liar's story, but the
liar's story can be modified to fit into the true story. Anyway, you
get a flavor of where
I am going with this Test of Rival competing theories.
Now can we go back in science history and see if such a test would
have worked or helped
in the unraveling of which of two rival theories was more true than
the other? How about
Continental Drift and its rival of Convection Currents? How about
Darwin Evolution and its
rival of Lamarckian traits? Or Darwin Evolution and its rival of
Biblical Genesis? Or how about
in astronomy the competing theories of geocentric and heliocentric
solar system? Or how about
the rival theories of light as particle or light as wave?
About the best example of rival competing theories where the test
works well is the Newtonian
Mechanics versus Quantum Mechanics. Best example because we still
consider Newtonian Mechanics
as a subset of QM for slow moving and massive objects.
But is the test useful only for physics?
I do not think so, because in biology I have a recent theory of metal
causation for five diseases of
Alzheimer Autism Parkinson Prion and Schizophrenia. And where the test
applies in that a rival
Prion theory of rogue proteins is modified to fit inside the metal
theory but where the Metal theory
cannot be modified to fit inside the rogue protein only theory. So
here is a case example of
two rival theories being put to this test and where the Metal theory
is conferred more truth value than
the rival prion theory.
I am not going to spend time here on this test but just thought I
should comment on it since it stuck
out in my above writing.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.
|
|
|
| User: "a_plutonium" |
|
| Title: #9 chapter 4, pictures and history (caution long post) Re: ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY REPLACES BIG BANG THEORY IN PHYSICS |
14 Aug 2007 01:24:54 AM |
|
|
New Book: "ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY REPLACES BIG BANG
THEORY IN PHYSICS", author--Archimedes Plutonium,
Internet book published 1993-2007 (amassed in
Jan-Feb 2007 in sci.physics,sci.math). This is 2nd edition, Aug 2007
Chapter (4): pictures of the Atom Totality theory and history
of the theory and precursor hints
Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON
::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And
each dot represents another galaxy.
Look in a quantum physics textbook or a chemistry
textbook for pictures of
what an electron looks like. An electron is many white
dots surrounding a
nucleus. This is commonly called the "Electron Cloud".
Now, look at the night
sky and replace those shining galaxies with the white
dots of an electron
cloud. And there you have the Atom Universe Totality
theory in a picture.
Why is the universe the isotope 231Pu? Because there
are very special numbers
in both physics and mathematics. And the only chemical
element, isotope that
fits these special numbers best is 231Pu. A few of
these special numbers are
the electromagnetic fine-structure constant, pi, e,
cosmic microwave
background radiation temperature and others.
This is the cover of my textbook on the theory circa
1991.
(include in book)
But I like this one because it contrasts the accepted
old view of one electron
with the new Atom Totality theory.
The picture above showing two books overlapping.
The one picture on the left is the cover of my book
PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY
THEORY, circa 1991, and it has three smaller pictures
within itself. My cover is a tripartate picture. The
cover of my textbook is
tripartate showing (1) the 5f6 of 231PU dot pattern
supposed to look like the
dark night sky of galaxies and to the top left corner
I tried to dot pattern the
Solar System; (2) below the 231PU is the night sky
showing galaxies, stars and
constellations. Do you see the Big Dipper and Sirius
which the white dots are
supposed to represent? (3) to the right of the 231PU
is the periodic table of
chemical elements only much of it is blocked from view
by the second textbook.
The second textbook to the right of my tripartate
cover is a page from
Halliday & Resnick textbook PHYSICS, Part 2, Extended
Version , 1986, of page
572. This is a large electron cloud dot picture for
which I quote the caption.
CHAP.26 CHARGE AND MATTER.
Figure 26-5
An atom, suggesting the electron
cloud and, above, an enlarged view
of the nucleus.
You see, the dots of the electron cloud are the
galaxies of the night sky.
The dots of the electron cloud are actual mass chunks
or pieces of the last 6
electrons, the 5f6 of 231PU.
I may not get around to posting many of the pictures
I have made of electron
clouds. They are some of the pictures of atoms that
caught my interest. The one
which was instrumental in my discovering the Atom
Universe theory is the one
above by Halliday & Resnick and I repeat it below.
That picture of the atom with
dots caught my attention long before 7 Nov 1990 and it
was on that day in 7 Nov
1990 where I connected the dots of the electron cloud
with actual galaxies. Thus
this picture was instrumental in the discovery of the
Plutonium Universe theory.
But, and let me emphasize strongly here that none of
the electron cloud dot
pictures really show clearly the night sky of shining
galaxies and stars. The
discovery of a new theory sees more than what is
contained in past wisdom and
adds something new and pushes it into the new wisdom.
I had seen many pictures
of electron cloud dot patterns mostly in books and
even in movies and TV.
Somehow it was the Halliday & Resnick picture above
which jolted my mind into
the discovery step and although in that picture the
white dots are too dense to
look like the night sky of shining galaxies and stars
it was enough that they
were white dots and that helped tremendously. In most
of the other pictures of
the electron cloud they are black or blue dots set
against a light background,
or they are too fuzzy as shown in _my_ photo of a page
from the Encyclopedia
Britannica.
After 7NOV1990 I have searched many texts to find
other pictures which
have dot pictures of the electron cloud. Provided I
have enough room on
this web site I will scan all of those pictures in my
personal collection
and post to this site. Pictures speak a thousand words
as the old saying
goes, but better yet, pictures remain in the mind
longer than written words.
The Atom Universe is very easy to explain and this
ease is credit to the
theory that it is the truth. When truth comes to
physics the ideas are
immediate, quick, connecting to past great ideas. In
one of the pictures of
me where I am holding the Feynman Lectures text in my
hand and please read the
first chapter and see what Feynman thought was the
greatest physics idea of all.
_My_ photo of pages from the Feynman Lectures on
Physics where he discusses the
Atomic Theory. This came out as a very nice picture
for those atoms look almost
golden due to the vinyl bookcover.
This text stating the Atomic Fact as Feynman
emphasizes was
another "push" to my mind to hurdle me into the
discovery that the universe
itself was an atom. For you see, the math logic
implication of the Atomic Fact
or Atomic Hypothesis as so eloquently printed by
Feynman comes to the inexorable
conclusion that since all things are made up of atoms,
means that the sum total
of atoms must also be an atom itself. Restating it, if
you hold that all matter
is made up of atoms leads to the conclusion that the
whole-of-the-universe must
itself be an atom. That is just pure math and science
logic. All things made up
of atoms pushed to math logic conclusion means or
implies or leads to the fact
that the universe itself is an atom. Which atom is it?
Well, of course there are
plenty of special numbers in both physics and math and
the atom which fits best
all of those special numbers is the isotope 231PU. The
chemical element or
isotope that fits all the special numbers of both
physics and math best is
plutonium, specifically 231PU. ATOM
And I had to figure roughly what the 5f6 looks like
from the Schroedinger
Equation in order for me to make my own picture for
the front cover of my text.
This is the dot picture I used on the
sci.hierarchies of Internet for most
of the time to Internet until this page. You
can see that I tried to
simulate my 231PU on the front cover of my
text above in ascii art without
spending too much time. Art can take a long
time; time away from physics.
94th ELECTRON OF 231PU
Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON
::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy.
Halliday and Resnick show white dots but their white
dots are too dense.
The white dots should be spread out more on the scale
of what we see in the
night sky of white dots of stars and galaxies. The
night sky that we see is
just the space and mass of the last electrons of
231PU.
When I showed those 30 pictures, one of them was the
electron cloud from
FEYNMAN LECTURES ON PHYSICS. The white dots of the
electron cloud are too
dense. And now that the world has the true theory of
the origin of the universe
and its future purpose, then textbooks of the future
will start to make more
accurate and more detailed pictures of electron
orbitals. I tried to show the
constellations and brightest stars and galaxies on my
cover of my book PLUTONIUM
ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE because the observable night
sky of stars and galaxies
are the dots of the 231PU One Atom Everything
Universe.
This is a beautiful irony in the history of physics.
To unravel what the
atom was, when earnestly pursued in the early 1900s
the atom was conceived
as a miniature Solar System with the electrons as
miniature planets revolving
around a Nuclear Sun. That is what Feynman is showing
in his diagram in this
picture from his Lectures. Now with the Atom Universe
the idea and picture is
the reverse. That the Solar System of stars and
planets, and better yet that
the galaxies all, are bits and pieces of an electron.
Our observable universe
is merely electron space and electron mass. That my
friends, is the biggest
irony in all of science history!
I showed two pictures that are representative of the
early models of atoms.
One is the Rutherford model and the other is the Bohr
model of the early 1900's.
As I said above, the supreme irony in the history of
all the sciences is that
first we wanted to make electrons as miniature
planets revolving around a
nuclear Sun. And now it turns out that the entire
observable universe is merely
the last electrons of a One Atom Everything Universe.
The electron orbital of an atom is a dot
picture seen as approximating
spherical or elliptical or lobelike or
toroidal or cylindrical or plane
geometry in shape.
The atom is governed by a probabilistic math which
means there is a probability
of finding the electron at some position around the
nucleus. This meaning is
the statistical interpretation given by Born to the
probability wavefunction.
This probability results in a dot picture. Drawing
a general outline picture
of an electron orbital is accurate only for a
hydrogen atom but for any atom
which has more than one electron then the outline
picture of the electron
orbital is only a first approximation, because the
picture is very complex due
to the many electron-electron interactions. The
position of the electron is
governed by this probability wavefunction and so
reinterpreting Born's
interpretation, I assert that the probability
density, the dots themselves are
parts of the mass of the last 6 electrons, the 5f6 of
231PU. The parts of mass
is what we see as galaxies. Whenever we collapse the
wavefunction of the
probability density of the 5f6 then what we observe
are galaxies of the night
sky.
In the uncollapsed wavefunction, all electrons
go out to infinity because
the electromagnetic potential V is proportional to
1/r, where r is distance of
the electron from the nucleus. Since the
electromagnetic potential is infinite,
this implies that the dots of electron density
distribution is infinite. Since
the dots of the probability density distribution
represent galaxies (large dots),
stars and planets (smaller dots inside the larger
galaxy dots), and astronomical
objects and life (tiny dots inside the planet dots);
the V implies that
astronomical objects are infinite. Astronomical
objects have no end in the
uncollapsed wavefunction. The further in space we make
observations, the further
we will collapse the probability wavefunction and
consequently materialize newer
astronomical objects. We will never come to an end in
observing matter of the
93rd and 94th electron. Galaxies are more dense near
the nucleus and become
sparser the further out from the nucleus. Much further
out from the nucleus,
there are no more stars or planets, only astronomical
objects are materializable.
Every electron is infinite in the uncollapsed
state.
_My_ photograph of a picture taken from a book (I am
trying to locate
the book.) I am trying to show electron cloud dot
pictures of s, p, d,
and f orbitals. I liked the density of the dots in
this picture because
one can see them sort of like individual separate
galaxies. Of course
the 5f6 of 231PU is not an s,p,or d orbital but an f
orbital.
_My_ photograph of a picture taken from the book
QUANTA: A Handbook of Concepts, 1991, 2nd ed, page 260
showing p-orbital. The cover of this book shows a 4f
orbital.
Perhaps this is the first book ever that has a f
orbital as its cover. In the
future there will be many texts of the 5f6 as its
front cover.
_My_ photograph of a picture taken from a book and I
am trying to locate
this book. I am trying to show electron cloud dot
pictures of s, p, d, and f
orbitals. In a p orbital one can see the importance of
spin and in a Atom
Totality, the galactic clustering contrasted with
large voids implies spin to
the whole entire universe. If you accept spin in the
universe in toto, then you
must accept the universe as one entity. The only
entity which makes sense would
be an atom.
The above is _my_ photograph of a picture from the
book
PHYSICS: Part 2 Extended Version, Halliday & Resnick,
1986, page 1194.
These pictures are the probability density psi^2 for
hydrogen atoms in
higher energy states such as the p-orbitals shown. The
dots making the electron
cloud represent 90% of finding the electron according
to Born interpretation,
but according to my interpretation those dots
represent 90% of the actual
electron mass.
Again _my_ photograph of a picture taken from a book.
The author was
Mortimer and was my chemistry textbook I used in 1968
and one
of my first encounters of what electrons look like. I
believe my very first
encounter of what an electron looks like occurred
circa 1966-1967 in my
High School physics class where I saw a film which
showed the electron cloud
as many white dots. The above is the d orbital.
_My_ photo of a picture out of the textbook QUANTA by
Atkins showing the
f-orbitals, not the 5f but the 4f and this is what the
caption reads "The
boundary surfaces of 4f electrons."
The above is my photograph of a picture from White's
text on atomic spectra.
Few books try to show what the 5f6 looks like.
H. E. White in his textbook INTRODUCTION TO ATOMIC
SPECTRA, 1934 uses a
spinning top to make pictures of what atomic orbitals
look like.
Here I tried to rework White's spinning top look of
the 5f6 with a dot and sheet
pattern for the galaxies. It is becoming apparent to
astronomers that galaxies
are clumped in sheets (The Great Wall) with large
voids between. And in my
rework, knowing that the electron cloud density
decreases the further away from
the nucleus you go, thus I have extended the
galaxy-dot-pattern decreasingly
outward. Each dot represents a galaxy. White in his
picture has his borders all
black, but to be more accurate the galaxy-dots extend
out to infinity but ever
so decreasingly. Talking of tops reminds me of this
favorite picture located in
Halliday & Resnick and shown below is _my_ photo of
that picture.
And again I have reworked White's spinning top look of
atomic orbitals
in his original picture trying to show the electron
cloud dot picture where
each dot represents a galaxy. The galaxy dots go out
to infinity but they
become less dense the further from the nucleus that
you go.
The above is _my_ photograph of a picture from the
book THE ELEMENTS BEYOND
URANIUM, 1990. On page 73, it reads below the picture:
"Figure 3.5 Pictorial representation of the
nonrelativistic f orbital shapes."
There is quite a lot of artistic allowance in the
math. And so my picture of
the 5f6 is quite different from these. But it appears
that the shape of the 5f6
of plutonium has those elongated lobes as seen in the
above pictures and in my
picture. I ask the question would elongated lobes be
visible or detectable in
the night sky of galaxies in some way? And the best I
can come up with is the
fact that we observe these high redshifted galaxy
centers. We call these objects
quasars. And the power source behind quasars are as
yet unknown. But what is
certain about quasars are that they are a phenomenon
of only galaxies. Quasars
do not exist in the Milky Way Galaxy, or do they?
Using the Atom Totality theory,
I make the guess that quasars are just normal galaxy
centers but that their
location, their galaxy location in the 5f6 space is in
a highly curved portion
of one of those lobes. And only because of the quasars
position in space of a
lobe is the spectra so tremendously shifted in the
red. And hence, our Milky Way
galaxy as seen by one of these quasars would appear as
a quasar to them. So that
quasars in an Atom Totality are just normal galaxy
centers that happen to lie in
a highly curved lobe of the 5f6.
No great science theory arrives in a background of
not-much-going-on,
and no problems to be solved. All great theories arise
out of the
current problems and problems wanting and begging for
a solution.
Where does the Quantum world end and the Classical
Newtonian
physics world of measurement begin? That problem
became the
world's number one physics problem ever since QM was
discovered in
the early part of the 20th century circa 1900-1930.
Science is pragmatic and practical and all great
theories have long
past previous suggestions or hints or forerunners or
one can sort
of "read more into past works" or, someone can
exaggerate past
works to hint of recent discoveries. It is fun to
trace past
histories for strands of thought that hinted of, or
suggested of
the Atom Totality and that is what this article
attempts to do. In
one of the listings below I show where Charles S.
Peirce,
the famous USA pragmatist hinted of Quantum Mechanics
long before
QM was discovered. And that is not to say that Peirce
is the
discoverer of QM but it shows how new important
discoveries have
had past hints. Some past hints have actually been the
catalyst
or booster in the forming of the new discovery.
I have wondered whether Democritus himself by pure
math logic
reasoning came to the conclusion that the universe
itself must
be an atom. For clearly, it follows that if all things
are made-up
of atoms (or is the void between atoms) then this
logically implies
that the whole must be an atom itself (or the void and
clearly it cannot be a void since we exist). Did
Democritus have
the idea that since all matter was made up of atoms
that by pure
math logic implied the entirety is an atom itself? Not
knowing
any physics or any science but just good in math
logic, that if
you make the theory that all things are made up of
atoms, by pure
math logic reasoning implies that the whole is also an
atom itself!
I know Democritus was a math genius for Archimedes
recognized his
talents, but still, I did not expect Democritus to
push his Atomic
Theory to its logical conclusion. Perusing the physics
history
literature I came across this gem.
--- start quoting A SHORT HISTORY OF ATOMISM
by J. Gregory, Univ. Leeds, 1931, page 4 ---
The traditional atom, the genuine atom, is both
quite
indestructible and exceedingly minute. Atoms were
indivisible
for Leucippus because they were too minute to be
divided,
and for Democritus because they were too hard to be
broken.
If sundry traditions are trustworthy, Democritus
allowed all
sizes to atoms: a single Democritean atom might even
be, so
some said, as big as the world. The gigantic
Democritean atom,
if it ever existed, vanished from the atomistic
tradition.
The subsequent Epicurean atom was too hard to be
broken, but
it was also too small to be seen, and only thought
could
discern it. It did not become doubtful, nor even
admittedly
speculative, for Epicurus was as sure of atoms as if
he had
seen them with his eyes.
--- end quoting A SHORT HISTORY OF ATOMISM
by J. Gregory, Univ. Leeds, 1931, page 4 ---
I read a pretty idea from the mathematician C.S.
Peirce who
wrote The Architecture of Theories in 1891
that the universe is crystallizing-out.
--- quoting FOUR PRAGMATISTS by I. Scheffler, 1974
---
Peirce's The Architecture of Theories...
...would be a Cosmogonic Philosophy. It would
suppose
that in the beginning - infinitely remote - there was
a chaos
of unpersonalized feeling, which being without
connection or
regularity would properly be without existence. This
feeling,
sporting here and there in pure arbitrariness, would
have
started the germ of a generalizing tendency. Its other
sportings would be evanescent, but this would have a
growing
virtue. Thus, the tendency to habit would be started;
and
from this, with the other principles of evolution, all
the
regularities of the universe would be evolved. At any
time,
however, an element of pure chance survives and will
remain
until the world becomes an absolutely perfect,
rational,
and symmetrical system, in which mind is at last
crystallized in the infinitely distant future.
--- end quoting FOUR PRAGMATISTS ---
The first time I read this in 1975, I disagreed
with Peirce's notion of an infinite future and an
infinite
past, for the paragraph seemed inconsistent in various
spots.
How can something crystallize-out in an infinite
future?
Crystallize is finite, infinite is endless.
Intuitively,
I could not reconcile infinite time. And later
rereading
Peirce's cosmogony I would argue against this notion
of
infinity because I was convinced from Feynman by his
book
THE CHARACTER OF PHYSICAL LAW, and seeing Feynman on
films
that infinities in quantum physics are trouble, and
must
be renormalized out. But I liked the main parts of
Peirce's
cosmogony, especially the idea of "at last
crystallized".
Later, after I had familiarized myself more with
quantum
theory I sensed that Peirce's cosmogony anticipated
quantum
ideas, such as the Uncertainty Principle-- "At any
time,
however, an element of pure chance survives". And
Peirce's
cosmogony has the feel of math in it, yet it does not
mention any math straightforward, such as
probability--
"sporting here and there"; geometry-- "symmetrical
system",
and "crystallized"; functions--"generalizing
tendency";
equations-- "regularities". The math concept of
convergence to a limit is analogous to "at last
crystallized".
I tend to view Peirce's cosmogony above as a
precursor to
the idea that the universe is a structure or as Peirce
saw
it-- will become a structure itself.
--- start of quote from Encyclopedia Britannica 1992
---
Lemaitre, Georges (b. July 17, 1894, Charleroi,
Belg.--d.
June 20, 1966, Louvain), Belgian astronomer and
cosmologist who formulated the modern big-bang theory,
which holds that the universe began in a cataclysmic
explosion of a small, primeval "super-atom."
A civil engineer, Lemaitre served as an artillery
officer
in the Belgian Army during World War I. After the war
he entered a seminary and in 1923 was ordained a
priest.
He studied at the University of Cambridge's solar
physics
laboratory (1923-24) and then at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Cambridge (1925-27), where he
became acquainted with the findings of the American
astronomers Edwin P. Hubble and Harlow Shapley on the
expanding universe. In 1927, the year he became
professor of astrophysics at the University of
Louvain, he proposed his big-bang theory, which
explained the recession of the galaxies within the
framework of Albert Einstein's theory of general
relativity. Although expanding models of the
universe had been considered earlier, notably by
the Dutch astronomer Willem de Sitter, Lemaitre's
theory, as modified by George Gamow, has become
the leading theory of cosmology.
Lemaitre also did research on cosmic rays and
on the three-body problem, which concerns the
mathematical description of the motion of three
mutually attracting bodies in space. His works
include Discussion sur l'evolution de l'univers
(1933; "Discussion on the Evolution of the Universe")
and L'Hypothese de l'atome primitif
(1946; "Hypothesis of the Primeval Atom")
--- end of quote from Encyclopedia Britannica 1992 ---
The reason I bring up Lemaitre is that several
times in
his writings he refers to his Big Bang as the
"Primeval Atom"
as a description of the initial Big Bang in its
point-singularity, the universe as a point-complex of
matter radiation. Obviously Lemaitre used "primeval
atom"
as a purely descriptive term never claiming that the
present universe was an atom itself. Anyone whoever
claims to have had the Atom Totality theory would
have to make the obvious next step that they in fact
originated the theory by giving details as to what
chemical element the present universe actually is.
I had watched on TV the series COSMOS , and
remembered
a paragraph which I looked-up in the book COSMOS
on pages 265-267.
--- quoting from book COSMOS ---
[page 258] And if there are cycles in the years of
humans,
might there not be cycles in the aeons of the gods?
The
Hindu religion is the only one of the world's great
faiths
dedicated to the idea that the Cosmos itself undergoes
an
immense, indeed an infinite, number of deaths and
rebirths.
It is the only religion in which the time scales
correspond,
no doubt by accident, to those of modern scientific
cosmology. Its cycles run from our ordinary day and
night
to a day and night of Brahma, 8.64 billion years long,
longer than the age of the Earth or the Sun and about
half the time since the Big Bang. And there are much
longer time scales still.
[page 258] There is the deep and appealing notion
that
the universe is but the dream of the god who, after a
hundred Brahma years, dissolves himself into a
dreamless
sleep. The universe dissolves with him--until, after
another Brahma century, he stirs, recomposes himself
and begins again to dream the great cosmic dream.
Meanwhile, elsewhere, there are an infinite number of
other universes, each with its own god dreaming the
cosmic dream. These great ideas are tempered by
another,
perhaps still greater. It is said that men may not be
the dreams of the gods, but rather that the gods are
the dreams of men.
[pages 265-267] There is an idea--strange, haunting,
evocative- one of the most exquisite conjectures in
science or religion. It is entirely undemonstrated;
it may never be proved. But it stirs the blood.
There
is , we are told, an infinite hierarchy of universes,
so that an elementary particle, such as an electron,
in our universe would, if penetrated, reveal itself to
be an entire closed universe. Within it, organized
into the local equivalent of galaxies and smaller
structures, are an immense number of other, much
tinier elementary particles, which are themselves
universe at the next level, and so on forever- an
infinite downward regression, universes within
universes, endlessly. And upward as well. Our
familiar universe of galaxies and stars, planets
and people, would be a single elementary particle
in the next universe up, the first step of another
infinite regress.
[pages 266-267 picture of what appears like a human
transcending an elementary particle universe, and I
quote the caption to the picture] Infinite
regression.
A representation of the passage from one universe to
the next larger universe in a Cosmos with an infinite
regression of nested universes. Neither universe is
ours. Painting by Jon Lomberg.
[page 267] This is the only religious idea I know
that surpasses the endless number of infinitely old
cycling universes in Hindu cosmology. What would
those other universes be like? Would they be built
on different laws of physics? Would they have stars
and galaxies and worlds, or something quite
different? Might they be compatible with some
unimaginably different form of life? To enter them,
we would somehow have to penetrate a fourth physical
dimension-- not an easy undertaking, surely, but
perhaps a black hole would provide a way. There may
be small black holes in the solar neighborhood.
Poised at the edge of forever, we would jump off . . .
--- end quoting COSMOS ---
Sagan says the idea of a nested universe of
elementary
particles is an old religious idea or conjecture. He
does
not mention where it came from and we can see plainly
that
no-one took the idea seriously. For if anyone took the
idea
seriously then such a person would have worked out a
elementary particle universe in terms of Quantum
Mechanics.
And, as I have remarked before, for anyone to claim
discovery of the Atom Totality would have worked out
what
chemical element or isotope it would be to make the
Atom
Universe of present. The religious idea of nested
universes
as elementary particles, is not the Plutonium Atom
Universe as I have done by saying that the whole
entire
universe is one structure and that structure is one
atom
itself. Where did the nested elementary particle
universe
come from? What religion? Because the book COSMOS or
TV
series did not mention what religion it was.
The reason I suspect that neither Carl Sagan nor
anyone
else could use that religious idea and push it further
into
the discovery and creation of the Atom Totality, is
because
our modern times has many silly notions which are
prevalent
in science and physics (1) particle physics zoo is a
conundrum
(2) atoms are not elementary (3) electrons are point
particles (4) General Relativity is worshipped above
Quantum Mechanics, yet GR is a fake (5) Big Bang and
black
holes and other exotica fakeries . . etc to name a
few.
But for me none of those became traps. For me, atoms
were
the last and fundamental and elementary of all
particles
because a whole entire hydrogen atom is nested inside
a
neutron. And the particle physics zoo confounded
physicists but to me it was all a ghost chase never a
stumbleblock to me.
Notice also that the Brahmin age scale of 8.64 billion
years fits and matches the recently discovered age
reckoning
of the Big Bang by Wendy Freedman et al of 8 billion
years.
And I disagree with Sagan that it is "by accident" for
there
are no accidents in a superdeterministic universe.
When I heard this idea for the first time on
TV, I
thought no way for it meant an infinity of worlds
which were
not scientifically testable. Later I saw the picture
drawn
in the book COSMOS showing an electron as a ball, not
as an
electron cloud with no dots of the probability density
distribution of an electron to hint of the galaxies
and
stars. This idea | | | | | | | | |
