Science > Physics > #17 Replacing General Relativity by Dirac's Sea of Positrons; Does Cosmos have two Spaces?; new book: Growing-Solar-System theory via Dirac New-Radioactivity replaces Nebular-Dust-Cloud theory
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"a_plutonium" |
| Date: |
16 Sep 2007 02:09:51 PM |
| Object: |
#17 Replacing General Relativity by Dirac's Sea of Positrons; Does Cosmos have two Spaces?; new book: Growing-Solar-System theory via Dirac New-Radioactivity replaces Nebular-Dust-Cloud theory |
a_plutonium wrote:
So I have three choices in this problem:
(1) Universe consists of Matter and Antimatter and Space_1 of matter
and Space_2 of Antimatter
(2) Universe consists of Matter and Antimatter and no Space where
Antimatter is Space itself
(3) Universe consists of Matter and Antimatter and where Space_1 is
the space that accompanies Matter and where there is no Space_2 because
Antimatter forms what we would think of as Space_2
The above is a tough choice, and is there physics that can chose
between them?
Does Matter need its own space and does Antimatter need its own space.
That is
are there two distinct spaces in the Cosmos?
Well if it is General Relativity that is being discarded as the Sea of
Positrons then
this Sea of Positrons is Space_2, so that the Universe needs only
Space_1.
When one looks in a physics or chemistry book such as "The Elements
Beyond
Uranium" Seaborg & Loveland page 73 of a picture of the 5f6 of
plutonium and sees
those lobes as the Space of astronomy. As the space of the night sky,
then one
wonders what about the space that is not the lobes? Is it Antimatter
without Space?
That is my dilemma at this moment. Do I need a separate Space, call it
Space_2 for
Antimatter that is the region not filled by the lobes in the picture
on page 73 of that
book?
If I replace and trashcan General Relativity with Dirac's Sea of
Positrons where these
positrons are actually what "bends Space" and what attracts the astro
body such as
the Sun and Earth. Do I need Space_2?????
I do not think so. I think the Sea or Ocean of Positrons is what fills
in the picture on
page 73 of what is "Not the Lobes".
In physics we often pay a penalty by supposing more in a theory than
what is needed.
I think the Universe needs just Space_1 for Ordinary Matter and that
this Sea or Ocean
of Positrons that replaces the Theory of General Relativity does not
require its own
separate Space, call it Space_2.
I think also that this growing of stars and planets from their Centers
of mass would imply
there was no Space_2.
So I am verging on a conclusion here. That the picture in Seaborg &
Loveland of the 5f6
of plutonium atom has only Space_1 and because you cannot show a
picture of what
a lobe looks like unless you contrast it with an "outside field" that
this has caused a sort
of mental illusion of thinking that there is a Space_2.
So I think the Universe is a big atom of 231Plutonium and the
observable Cosmos we
see in the night-sky is that of only the 5f6 of this gigantic atom.
And that the Universe
has a nucleus which we see in the direction of the Great Attractor
which is near the
Great Wall and the Sloan Great Wall. And that gravity is due to the
fact that there is
a Ocean of Antimatter of Positrons which accompanies normal Ordinary
Matter such as
the Sun and Earth and this Ocean of Positrons creates what we see as
the "force of
gravity". This Ocean of Positrons does *not* have its own separate
Space_2.
It is funny how this alarming problem came up not in doing the theory
but in doing something
as practical as the Center of stars and planets and their pipeline or
conduit in growing
more matter to the star or planet via cosmic rays impinging into the
center.
It is my understanding that when physicists want to so called create
or forge positron
antimatter, that they simply go to a "vacuum of space" or a region of
space where there is
no activity and they do some high energy experiment there and thus
they force Positrons
from seemingly out of nowhere at that spot in Space. So if scientists
can forge positrons
from the vacuum of space, then imagine the positrons forged in the
center of stars and Earth
because of the high activity there already.
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: #18 Chapter on Dirac's new radioactivity ; new book: Growing-Solar-System theory via Dirac New-Radioactivity replaces Nebular-Dust-Cloud theory |
17 Sep 2007 11:21:57 AM |
|
|
New Book: "Growing Solar-System theory via Dirac New-Radioactivity
replaces Nebular-Dust-Cloud theory",
author--Archimedes Plutonium,
Internet book copyrighted and published 1993-2007 (amassed in
Sept 2007 in sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.geo.geology).
Chapters of this book:
(1) preface
(2) introduction
(3) Dirac Radioactivity as explained in his book "Directions in
Physics"
(4) Titius-Bode Solar System spacing
(5) Quantum Mechanics of seed-dots of electron-dot-cloud in Mini-Bangs
from Uranium
Atom Totality to our present day Plutonium Atom Totality
(6) CellWell1 and CellWell2)
(7) zircon crystal dating of Earth age
(8) cores of Sun, planets and satellites as age-dating
(9) abundance of radioactive elements in parts per billion for age-
dating
(10) Cosmic Rays and Cosmic Gamma Ray Bursts for age-dating
(11) exoplanets and binary stars evince a pattern of Growing Solar
Systems not a Nebular Dust Cloud
(12) the universe at large is too impoverished to have supernova
spew dust clouds all about which then forms a solar-system
(13) future news and research reports commentary
Alrighty, let me try to get back on track, since the attention of
another book--
Atom Totality and the mathematics of transcendental numbers took me
away
from this book, and the fact that Google search seems to be "down" as
it
covers only up to 13 Sept.
I have just about completed the chapter on Dirac Radioactivity which
is
the very main feature of this book for it is this mechanism that grows
stars
and solar systems and planets.
In his book, Dirac mentions a means of proving his new-radioactivity
by measuring
the motion of the Moon as to whether it is getting closer in distance
from Earth or
whether the Moon is moving away with increasing time. And Dirac
mentions two
means of growth by new-radioactivity, that of additive growth and that
of multiplicative
growth and that the Moon would distinguish between these two modes of
growth.
On page 80 of DIRECTIONS IN PHYSICS Dirac lays out a formula for
additive
growth and on page 81 the formula for multiplicative growth.
On page 81, Dirac says that the Moon should be moving towards Earth at
about
2 cm/year for additive growth and that the Moon should be moving away
from
Earth by the same amount if multiplicative growth is involved. When
Dirac wrote that
in 1978, we had no way of accurate measure of the Moon's motion. Today
we do
with a laser reflection from the moon. And the answer is in, that the
Moon is moving
away from Earth.
However, I beg to differ with Dirac in that we can have both additive
and multiplicative
growth and still have the Moon moving away from Earth.
The way I see it, is that additive growth is the surface bombardment
of Cosmic
Rays and Cosmic Gamma Rays and the multiplicative growth is the
accretion
of Cosmic rays and Gamma Rays at the center of astro bodies from the
direct
conduit or pipeline to the Nucleus of the Atom Totality to explain the
dense iron
core centers of major astro bodies. And to explain how these bodies
became
the major bodies of stars and planets since certain bodies have to be
"selected"
as a seed-dot to grow into a star or planet and surface bombardment is
not
selective of a seed-dot, but that a pipeline to the Nucleus that picks
out a "seed-dot"
to receive the new matter and new mass is called for. How else to
explain the
Titius-Bode spacings for planets which is the Tifft spacings for
stars?
So that the Cosmos is Quantum Spaced of its star distances and its
planetary distances
and that spacing would have to be a result of how those major bodies
grow from
a seed-dot. So I believe the Cosmos has both additive and
multiplicative growth via
Dirac's new radioactivity. And the multiplicative growth selects a
"seed-dot" that
will receive a pipeline of new mass and new matter from the Nucleus of
the
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: "AutoCrank" |
|
| Title: Re: #17 Replacing General Relativity by Dirac's Sea of Positrons; Does Cosmos have two Spaces?; new book: Growing-Solar-System theory via Dirac New-Radioactivity replaces Nebular-Dust-Cloud theory |
16 Sep 2007 07:23:32 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 12:09:51 -0700, a_plutonium wrote:
a_plutonium wrote:
So I have three choices in this problem:
(1) Universe consists of Matter and Antimatter and Space_1 of matter
and Space_2 of Antimatter
Its entangled mediums' universe alters the BOUNDED interior radiation. Any
real physicist would know that "the" space WILL be its fields' entangled
observed universe. SRian zombies assume that their SPACE creates THE
universe in their space. Relativists blindly ASSUME THAT THE UNIVERSE
should TRANSFORM the space. I have proven that its ELECTRIC charges OF its
rarified ERRORS destroy the 'INCOMING' reference FRAMES' universe of its
VACUUMS. THEIR uniform sounds' exponential well behaved blurred
PROBABILISTIC SPACE for the times might become "entangled" with the
magnetic fields' space.
(2) Universe consists of Matter and Antimatter and no Space where
Antimatter is Space itself
Since its rods can collide WITH a "universe," its centers' orbits should
create its 'separate' magnetic fields' integrals. Its UNIVERSE is well
BEHAVED. This MEANS its universe WILL define a rarified universe's
macroscopic uniform frames "in" 'its' universes. ITS ATMOSPHERE of its
segments might BE its entangled scales' space when its VACUUMS hit ITS
mediums. Since ITS ordinary 'positive' universe of its ELECTRIC FIELD line
IS the magnets' rarified space, its matter is made of its moving universe.
QM is wrong because 'its' indeterminate one-way measurement is A vacuum.
Its 'WELL' behaved harmonic IS its periods' internal ruler.
(3) Universe consists of Matter and Antimatter and where Space_1 is
the space that accompanies Matter and where there is no Space_2 because
Antimatter forms what we would think of as Space_2
Establishment physicists 'CANNOT' explain why ITS INDIVIDUAL receivers
might define the transmitted absolute DISTANT rarified equivalent receivers
in the vacuums. ESTABLISHMENT physicists would have you think 'that' the
POSITRONS ARE the sequences. Because a space in the rarified 'universe'
might be EQUAL to the FERMIONS for THE microwaves, the trajectories
'annihilate' the wavelike ELECTRIC currents' radio WAVE. The relative
probabilities become entangled with the EXOTIC universe BECAUSE THE
charges' "bounded" universe must BE equivalent to a detector. Assuming
that the antimatter's universe for ITS universe absorbs the universe in a
BLURRED space, the universe's space must alter the POSITRONS. QM is wrong
BECAUSE the space MIGHT change the stationary emitted SEGMENTS.
The above is a tough choice, and is there physics that can chose
between them?
The light's "indeterminate" momenta can be rarified. THE PRIESTS of QM
believe that 'THE' bodies in their magnetic field line surround the
POSITRONS' frequency! SRian hypnotists say that the centrifugal forces'
macroscopic equivalent sources are 'the' derivatives. The DETECTORS can be
the 'RODS' of the moving graduation!!
Does Matter need its own space and does Antimatter need its own space.
That is
are there two distinct spaces in the Cosmos?
The idiots go so far as to claim the moving "WAVELIKE" fluids should be
relative. Before THE positive spaces' transmitted 'spaces' might be the
spaces IN the internal spaces, the spaces are their spaces!!! A space MUST
BE MADE of a universal subset in its space if "a" rest frame in a RELATIVE
space should perceive the space. Assuming that their spaces' energy
changes the 'segments,' its microscopic SPACES should alter 'its' space's
MOMENTUM. The space in its vortices should "be" an absolute space if the
spaces' space might be the blurred SPACE in the spaces!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well if it is General Relativity that is being discarded as the Sea of
Positrons then
this Sea of Positrons is Space_2, so that the Universe needs only
Space_1.
SR is wrong because the radiation OF the universal positrons SHOULD be the
positron. The positrons 'PERCEIVE' THE space's vacuums if a universe in
THE equivalent activities CAN be "elementary." If the microscopic
positrons IN the universe are 'the' waves, the positrons' probabilistic
isolated positrons in THE wormholes 'can' be ITS positrons in the
positrons!!!! If "the" POSITRONS' exterior discrete positrons are made of
a muon in THE internal gluon, the positrons' ENERGY 'in' its positrons is a
probabilistic space. One OF my POSTULATES is that an oscillation may
ABSORB the discrete POSITRONS' observable 'positron.' IF the vortices'
MAGNETIC clouds in a universe are distant, the POSITRONS ARE the POSITRONS
"in" THE gluon.
When one looks in a physics or chemistry book such as "The Elements
Beyond
Uranium" Seaborg & Loveland page 73 of a picture of the 5f6 of
plutonium and sees
those lobes as the Space of astronomy. As the space of the night sky,
then one
wonders what about the space that is not the lobes? Is it Antimatter
without Space?
The derivatives' relative space FROM the scalar derivatives will affect THE
lobes' lobe ASSUMING that the equivalent lobes' macroscopic lobes of the
UNIFORM SPACE should be the lobes. The distant sequences CAN become the
elementary REFERENCE frames' negative moving lobes in the "dimension."
SRIAN zombies cannot EXPLAIN why AN orbit changes the Higgs bosons.
That is my dilemma at this moment. Do I need a separate Space, call it
Space_2 for
Antimatter that is the region not filled by the lobes in the picture
on page 73 of that
book?
If the lobes from a REGION MIGHT define "the" matter, THE LOBE will be
their space's region of the neutrinos. A space can be the electric field
of 'their' observed LOBES!! SINCE the derivatives must BECOME THE vacuums'
lobes, the lobe should be separate. A well behaved rarified separate lobe
will be separate. SINCE its lobes in the discrete LOBES can be the LOBES'
lobes, the region's matter should be the LOBES' wavelike separate region.
THE "Pioneer" Effect can be explained if the probabilistic space destroys
the lobes' logarithmic lobes.
If I replace and trashcan General Relativity with Dirac's Sea of
Positrons where these
positrons are actually what "bends Space" and what attracts the astro
body such as
the Sun and Earth. Do I need Space_2?????
A 'WELL' behaved positron collides with its deterministic forces' 'EMITTED'
scales if the positrons can be the transmitters' positrons from THE
positrons. 'In' reality, THE positrons from the derivatives "CAN" be the
relative continuous oscillations. THE emitted deterministic rulers "will"
affect the uniform scales for the body. Assuming THAT a positron can
remain universal, the interior positrons may be universal. A body's
one-way planet can be stationary. The INTERNAL EXOTIC body MUST be
EXPECTED IF THE elementary positron can MEASURE the positrons. The body is
THE scale 'of' the positive space when the positrons FROM THE monopoles can
be 'their' probabilistic 'macroscopic' oscillations for their exterior
positrons. The indeterminate SPACE can be made of their deterministic
BLURRED "positrons" if the relative positrons collide WITH THEIR
deterministic transmitted positrons of THEIR INVISIBLE positrons.
I do not think so. I think the Sea or Ocean of Positrons is what fills
in the picture on
page 73 of what is "Not the Lobes".
The positrons' "stationary" lobe is 'internal.' Copenhagenists DO not know
THAT the subsets ARE EQUAL TO the LENGTH. A positron should be a lobe.
THE priests of GR assume THAT the positrons from an observable EIGENVALUE
"must" be THE lobes' universes!!!!!!!! Most importantly, the positrons'
length defines the blurred positron for the positrons.
In physics we often pay a penalty by supposing more in a theory than
what is needed.
I think the Universe needs just Space_1 for Ordinary Matter and that
this Sea or Ocean
of Positrons that replaces the Theory of General Relativity does not
require its own
separate Space, call it Space_2.
SINCE the ABSOLUTE light rays for its positron are equal to the POSITRONS'
space from THE separate positrons, the positrons' segments might REMAIN its
SCALAR ordinary positrons. The fixed positrons' enriched positrons ARE its
ordinary separate positrons. SRian hypnotists go so far as to claim the
planet IN an ordinary UNIVERSE should absorb "the" rods.
I think also that this growing of stars and planets from their Centers
of mass would imply
there was no Space_2.
Their space from 'the' well behaved coordinate systems hits the centers
because THE UNCERTAINTY is their space! 'Their' energy's indeterminate
WELL BEHAVED REST FRAME of THEIR light ray WILL collide with 'THE' Higgs
boson because the receivers' centers from the CENTERS are
individual!!!!!!!! The Pioneer Effect can BE explained "IF" the positive
observable centers in their value perceive THEIR galaxies' antimatter. QM
IS wrong because the blueshift surrounds its Higgs boson of the centers.
If their center will be its negative center, the transmitted PLANETS'
'emitted' rods in 'the' invisible clouds CREATE A scalar frequency from a
star. Before the 'REST' frames IN the planets may perceive the observable
separate emitted ATMOSPHERES, their 'NEGATIVE' space is negative.
So I am verging on a conclusion here. That the picture in Seaborg &
Loveland of the 5f6
of plutonium atom has only Space_1 and because you cannot show a
picture of what
a lobe looks like unless you contrast it with an "outside field" that
this has caused a sort
of mental illusion of thinking that there is a Space_2.
The magnet "is" the matter for the macroscopic clouds. The space of an
atom can collide "with" the PROPER times in a field because the fields
transform THE wavelengths' STATIONARY energy. An atom can annihilate their
'MEDIUMS.' ORTHODOX THINKERS GO so far as to say THAT 'the' OBSERVABLE
electric fields' atom may become entangled with THE magnetic field lines of
the vacuums.
So I think the Universe is a big atom of 231Plutonium and the
observable Cosmos we
see in the night-sky is that of only the 5f6 of this gigantic atom.
And that the Universe
has a nucleus which we see in the direction of the Great Attractor
which is near the
Great Wall and the Sloan Great Wall. And that gravity is due to the
fact that there is
a Ocean of Antimatter of Positrons which accompanies normal Ordinary
Matter such as
the Sun and Earth and this Ocean of Positrons creates what we see as
the "force of
gravity". This Ocean of Positrons does *not* have its own separate
Space_2.
The positrons might define its VORTICES' scalar positrons 'when' the
wavelengths create the boson. The magnetic POSITRONS' observable
COORDINATES FOR their force can create 'its' positrons. Its observable
error of THE ordinary SPACE is the separate SOURCES' atom!!! WHEN a
positron must be separate, the observable separate positrons of the
antimatter may CHANGE ITS OBSERVABLE. THE priests of SR do not know 'that'
the separate neutrinos ARE 'THEIR' functions!!!!!!!! Since the molecules
may create a space "of" 'AN' individual REGION, the 'observable'
transmitters' space of the space is enriched. A trajectory's observed
internal positrons may become the observables of a positron until AN
exponential atom should 'create' the matter of its space.
It is funny how this alarming problem came up not in doing the theory
but in doing something
as practical as the Center of stars and planets and their pipeline or
conduit in growing
more matter to the star or planet via cosmic rays impinging into the
center.
Before THE COSMIC RAYS of A planet destroy the 'monopole's' isolated
indeterminate stars, "their" exponential center will be made of "a" region
of the bounded proper times. It is FUNNY how an isolated entangled cosmic
ray in THE isolated CENTER measures the wavelength!!! SRian ZOMBIES go SO
far as to CLAIM its cosmic rays' invisible "MATTER" can create their
indeterminate STARS. Because the discrete STARS from their currents
measure the scalar planets' planet, its star of the PLANET can be their
worldline. A cosmic ray is one-way until A stationary center's planet
remains the rarified MATTER. The observed lepton measures "the" bounded
fixed interior leptons of the planets. If their targets of the scale
absorb the cosmic rays, THEIR star's current becomes their EXPECTED PLANET.
It is my understanding that when physicists want to so called create
or forge positron
antimatter, that they simply go to a "vacuum of space" or a region of
space where there is
no activity and they do some high energy experiment there and thus
they force Positrons
from seemingly out of nowhere at that spot in Space. So if scientists
can forge positrons
from the vacuum of space, then imagine the positrons forged in the
center of stars and Earth
because of the high activity there already.
My theory is that THE STARS can create the one-way motions from a force.
Thus a VACUUM creates the bodies. If THE moving incoming stars can be
emitted, THE positrons' absolute vacuum in THE leptons is macroscopic. The
STARS for the positrons can 'CREATE' THE stars for the SCALES since the
'blurred' force in a positron REMAINS a positron FROM the electric field
lines!!! The length CREATES a MAGNETIC well behaved rarified INTERIOR
ordinary space WHEN the electrons' positrons MUST be 'its' quarks.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
Until the galaxies' periods become the expected currents, the eigenvectors
are the DETERMINISTIC galaxies of THE GALAXIES. Assuming THAT the light
RAY of the cloud is their boson, the Planck lengths' galaxies remain
isolated. Its galaxies surround the negative universe!!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Art Deco" |
|
| Title: Re: #17 Replacing General Relativity by Dirac's Sea of Positrons; Does Cosmos have two Spaces?; new book: Growing-Solar-System theory via Dirac New-Radioactivity replaces Nebular-Dust-Cloud theory |
17 Sep 2007 01:00:43 PM |
|
|
a_plutonium <a_plutonium@hotmail.com> wrote:
a_plutonium wrote:
So I have three choices in this problem:
(1) Universe consists of Matter and Antimatter and Space_1 of matter
and Space_2 of Antimatter
(2) Universe consists of Matter and Antimatter and no Space where
Antimatter is Space itself
(3) Universe consists of Matter and Antimatter and where Space_1 is
the space that accompanies Matter and where there is no Space_2 because
Antimatter forms what we would think of as Space_2
The above is a tough choice, and is there physics that can chose
between them?
Does Matter need its own space and does Antimatter need its own space.
That is
are there two distinct spaces in the Cosmos?
Replying to yourself again, Archie-Poo?
--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco
Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
as designated by Brad Guth
COOSN-266-06-39716
.
|
|
|
| User: "John \C" |
|
| Title: Re: #17 Replacing General Relativity by Dirac's Sea of Positrons; Does Cosmos have two Spaces?; new book: Growing-Solar-System theory via Dirac New-Radioactivity replaces Nebular-Dust-Cloud theory |
17 Sep 2007 01:07:44 PM |
|
|
"Art Deco" <erfc@caballista.org> wrote in message
Replying to yourself again, Archie-Poo?
Hiding in the bushes again, Deco-Poo?
http://www.jibjab.com/starring_you/receipt/780467
HJ
--
AUK does not need another Michael Baldwin Bruce.
-
"Silly little awards"
-
"I don't like out-of-control kookologists; they make AUK look bad."
-
"we (tinw) really do it for our own entertainment"
-
"There are no rules"
- Kadaitcha Man (RIP)
"Everything I type is a lie."
- Art Deco <erfc@caballista.org>
I know AUK to be exactly what it is...a pit of chaos...nothing more,
nothing less.
- K.A. Cannon
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "chatnoir" |
|
| Title: Re: #17 Replacing General Relativity by Dirac's Sea of Positrons; Does Cosmos have two Spaces?; new book: Growing-Solar-System theory via Dirac New-Radioactivity replaces Nebular-Dust-Cloud theory |
18 Sep 2007 06:31:16 AM |
|
|
On Sep 17, 12:00 pm, Art Deco <e...@caballista.org> wrote:
a_plutonium <a_pluton...@hotmail.com> wrote:
a_plutonium wrote:
So I have three choices in this problem:
(1) Universe consists of Matter and Antimatter and Space_1 of matter
and Space_2 of Antimatter
(2) Universe consists of Matter and Antimatter and no Space where
Antimatter is Space itself
(3) Universe consists of Matter and Antimatter and where Space_1 is
the space that accompanies Matter and where there is no Space_2 because
Antimatter forms what we would think of as Space_2
The above is a tough choice, and is there physics that can chose
between them?
Does Matter need its own space and does Antimatter need its own space.
That is
are there two distinct spaces in the Cosmos?
Replying to yourself again, Archie-Poo?
Don't do it yourself when you can do it to Art Deco!:
http://b3ta.hnldesign.nl/beta309.gif
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
