Ignoring your personal attacks, there are several points in your
theory that are falsifiable. For instance, you state that most of the
missing mass of the universe can be explained by the fact that most of
the mass of the cosmic plutonium atom resides in its nucleus. Current
astronomical observations account for about 4% of the mass of the
universe, leaving about 96% unknown, composed of dark matter and dark
energy. Since the nucleus of an atom accounts for 99.9998% of its mass
(protons and neutrons being about 1,822 times heavier than electrons),
there is a discrepancy between your theory and astronomical
observations. - Loadmaster 16:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Loadmaster's questions are improving, over his pitiful previous
question where he thought that the dots of the electron-dot-cloud
contained only 94 dots. Pretty stupid physics, but Loadmaster is on
his toes now. The answer really, if you know details of current
physics is that the Missing Mass of the universe is begot from solid-
body-rotation of observed galaxies. And those observations put the
RANGE OF MISSING MASS anywhere from 70% all the way up to
99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%. So, if
you accept the Atom Totality theory, the answer is ended. If you
accept the Big Bang theory, then you have to come up with fairy tales
of dark matter and other stupid sordid crap. I post this to
sci.physics. And congratulations, Loadmaster, your questions have
improved 50%. 216.16.57.138 22:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Loadmaster is an editor for Wikipedia, and I thank him for joining in
the discussion, but I am curious as to where he sourced his 96%,
because I could almost bet that the source would say something like
96% + or - 5% error.

Ignoring your personal attacks, there are several points in your
theory that are falsifiable. For instance, you state that most of the
missing mass of the universe can be explained by the fact that most of
the mass of the cosmic plutonium atom resides in its nucleus. Current
astronomical observations account for about 4% of the mass of the
universe, leaving about 96% unknown, composed of dark matter and dark
energy. Since the nucleus of an atom accounts for 99.9998% of its mass
(protons and neutrons being about 1,822 times heavier than electrons),
there is a discrepancy between your theory and astronomical
observations. - Loadmaster 16:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Loadmaster's questions are improving, over his pitiful previous
question where he thought that the dots of the electron-dot-cloud
contained only 94 dots. Pretty stupid physics, but Loadmaster is on
his toes now. The answer really, if you know details of current
physics is that the Missing Mass of the universe is begot from solid-
body-rotation of observed galaxies. And those observations put the
RANGE OF MISSING MASS anywhere from 70% all the way up to
99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%. So, if
you accept the Atom Totality theory, the answer is ended. If you
accept the Big Bang theory, then you have to come up with fairy tales
of dark matter and other stupid sordid crap. I post this to
sci.physics. And congratulations, Loadmaster, your questions have
improved 50%. 216.16.57.138 22:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Loadmaster is an editor for Wikipedia, and I thank him for joining in
the discussion, but I am curious as to where he sourced his 96%,
because I could almost bet that the source would say something like
96% + or - 5% error.

* Is it worth mentioning that his "Plutonium Atom Totality Theory"
is falsifiable? He theorizes that galaxies are electrons in the
"electron dot cloud" of a cosmic Pu atom, so astronomical observations

So what does this mean for the oldest stars in our galaxy? It means
that in the future, there will be found a
star that is 15 billion years old, and in the future a star that
clocks up an age of 19 to 20 billion years will be
found. Such discoveries will bring crisis to the Big Bang believers
and they will be robustly adamant that the
researchers made mistakes. But they did not make mistakes. The trouble
is that the Big Bang theory is a fake.

Google is doing a good job of matching interests of what I write and
what is advertised.
This one caught my eye.
--- quoting http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2007-05-11-ancient-star_N.htm
Long before our solar system formed and even before the Milky Way
assumed its final spiral shape, a
star slightly smaller than the Sun blazed into life in our galaxy,
formed from the newly scattered remains
of the first stars in the universe.

Employing techniques similar to those used to date archeological
remains here on Earth, scientists
have learned that a metal-poor star in our Milky Way called HE 1523 is
13.2 billion years old-just
slightly younger than 13.7 billion year age of the universe. Our solar
system is estimated to be
only about 4.6 billion years old.

The findings are detailed in the May 10 issue of Astrophysical
Journal.
--- end quoting http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2007-05-11-ancient-star_N.htm

I am excited by this discovery but will be even more excited because
the Atom Totality theory predicts stars in our
Milky Way Galaxy that are older than the alleged age of the Cosmos
13.7 billion years.

In the Atom Totality theory ages of stars and galaxies are layered.
Some ages are from the Plutonium Atom Era,
some from the previous Uranium Atom Era, some from the prior Thorium
Atom Era. So that the age of
13.7 billion years was merely the Plutonium Atom extension onto a
prior older cosmos of the Uranium Atom
Totality.

So what does this mean for the oldest stars in our galaxy? It means
that in the future, there will be found a
star that is 15 billion years old, and in the future a star that
clocks up an age of 19 to 20 billion years will be
found. Such discoveries will bring crisis to the Big Bang believers
and they will be robustly adamant that the
researchers made mistakes. But they did not make mistakes. The trouble
is that the Big Bang theory is a fake.

And closer to home, according to the Atom Totality theory, our own
Solar System displays this same layering
of ages in that the Sun and inner planets date back to the prior
Uranium Atom Totality and can be as old as
20 billion years, whereas the outer planets of Jupiter and beyond are
of the recent Plutonium Atom Era and
are only 4-5 billion years old. So when experimentalists can
accurately date the Sun and inner planets compared
to the outer planets, be not surprized when the data says that the Sun
and Earth are closer to 20 billion
years old and Jupiter and Saturn are only 5 billion years old.

But can I claim this layering truth now from the given 13.2 billion
years? Can I claim victory for the Atom Totality
theory, right here, and right now? I think so. Because in the Big Bang
theory requires billions of years for the
explosion to have coalesced the material to form a star and not just a
mere 0.5 billion years. In other words,
our present understanding of solar dynamics does not allow for a star
forming in 0.5 billion years immediately
after the Big Bang explosion. That picture conjures up the image that
the explosion had pre-made stars.

So I think I can count victory right here and right now. And the icing
on the cake will be when researchers report
a star that is 20 billion years old in our galaxy.

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