Science > Physics > The observable Universe is a dodecahedron in shape
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
28 Jul 2005 01:03:50 PM |
| Object: |
The observable Universe is a dodecahedron in shape |
I am going to have to dig into this recent announcement. Anyone have a
publication listing for this claim. In the past 5 years there was a
nice claim that the observable Universe is a off-white color given by
researchers of Johns Hopkins Univ. So where does this dodecahedron
claim come from.
The color of the Universe as the researchers narrow their findings, I
am confident will find that the color is matching that of the color of
plutonium element in the raw. Plutonium is an off white color and since
the Universe is an Atom Totality of 231Pu then the color of the
observed Cosmos will match the color of chemistry of element plutonium.
If I remember the history correctly when the Johns Hopkins researchers
first announced their findings they said it was a pale green color but
once they corrected their findings with a factor, they announced it to
be off-white.
So does anyone have a journal reference or publication reference for
this claim of dodecahedron?
Because in a 231Pu Atom Totality, the shape of the 5f6 is more of a six
sided polygon which is what, a hexagon. So like the Johns Hopkins
researchers on color that had a missing factor, I suspect these
cosmic-shape researchers have a missing factor which they need to apply
and once they applied that factor they would thence make the public
correction that they see the Universe not as a dodecahedron but rather
a hexagon shape.
And as these researchers fine tune their data in the future, they will
be able to confirm one another's parameters of color and of shape
because the Universe is just one big atom of plutonium. In the Big Bang
theory color and shape make no sense. In the Atom Totality theory, the
Universe is an entity itself and has to have color and shape.
In the 1990s I posted a picture of the 231Pu Atom Totality in my
autobiography. Wikipedia has that picture in its entry of Archimedes
Plutonium. I will post it to this thread later. But anyway, from what I
get of the Schrodinger Equation solution for the 5f6 of plutonium is a
hexagon shape not a dodecahedron. And from the book "The Elements
Beyond Uranium" by Seaborg and Loveland they get a eight sided shape
for the 5f6 at most and not a dodecahedron of 12 sides.
So is this claim of dodecahedron printed in some science journal or
article?
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: "Pyridine" |
|
| Title: Re: The observable Universe is a dodecahedron in shape |
28 Jul 2005 04:39:01 PM |
|
|
Because in a 231Pu Atom Totality, the shape of the 5f6 is more of a six
sided polygon which is what, a hexagon. So like the Johns Hopkins
researchers on color that had a missing factor, I suspect these
cosmic-shape researchers have a missing factor which they need to apply
and once they applied that factor they would thence make the public
correction that they see the Universe not as a dodecahedron but rather
a hexagon shape.
So if it is the case that such a factor is never found and these
researchers stand firm to their claim of the universe being a
dodecahedron, as opposed to your claim of it looking like the 5f
orbitals, will you then consider the 231Pu Atom Totality theory
falsified?
Will you atleast admit the analogous color argument you made earlier in
the post would be no longer valid and if so do you agree to never
ethically use it again as a part of your arguments in support of your
theory?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The observable Universe is a dodecahedron in shape |
28 Jul 2005 04:45:24 PM |
|
|
Pyridine wrote:
Because in a 231Pu Atom Totality, the shape of the 5f6 is more of a six
sided polygon which is what, a hexagon. So like the Johns Hopkins
researchers on color that had a missing factor, I suspect these
cosmic-shape researchers have a missing factor which they need to apply
and once they applied that factor they would thence make the public
correction that they see the Universe not as a dodecahedron but rather
a hexagon shape.
So if it is the case that such a factor is never found and these
researchers stand firm to their claim of the universe being a
dodecahedron, as opposed to your claim of it looking like the 5f
orbitals, will you then consider the 231Pu Atom Totality theory
falsified?
Will you atleast admit the analogous color argument you made earlier in
the post would be no longer valid and if so do you agree to never
ethically use it again as a part of your arguments in support of your
theory?
Ref: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/old_new_cosmo.html
9 Oct 2003 - Luminet et al., (2003, Nature, 425, 593-595) suggest that
the Universe has a small topology, and what looks like a finite
spherical Universe is really made up of 120 images of a single
dodecahedron. Under this hypothesis, the whole Universe is slightly
smaller than the observable sphere bounded by our surface of last
scattering. But when our line of sight leaves the dodecahedron, it
comes back in on the opposite face. Thus we would not see any sharp
edge between the inside and outside of the dodecahedron, but we could
see some parts of the surface of last scattering more than once from
different directions, just as we can see many images of a barber in a
traditional barber shop with mirrors on both the front and back walls.
As a result, there should be circles on opposite sides of the sky where
the cosmic microwave background anisotropy matches up. In fact, there
should be six pairs of such circles.
But Luminet et al. did not look for these circles in the WMAP
anisotropy data before publishing in a Nature cover story. The negative
results of such a circle search are given by Cornish et al. Thus this
theory is discussed under the headline "Cosmic Soccer Ball? Theory
Already Takes Sharp Kicks" in today's New York Times.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The observable Universe is a dodecahedron in shape |
29 Jul 2005 02:19:01 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Ref: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/old_new_cosmo.html
9 Oct 2003 - Luminet et al., (2003, Nature, 425, 593-595) suggest that
the Universe has a small topology, and what looks like a finite
spherical Universe is really made up of 120 images of a single
dodecahedron. Under this hypothesis, the whole Universe is slightly
smaller than the observable sphere bounded by our surface of last
scattering. But when our line of sight leaves the dodecahedron, it
comes back in on the opposite face. Thus we would not see any sharp
edge between the inside and outside of the dodecahedron, but we could
see some parts of the surface of last scattering more than once from
different directions, just as we can see many images of a barber in a
traditional barber shop with mirrors on both the front and back walls.
As a result, there should be circles on opposite sides of the sky where
the cosmic microwave background anisotropy matches up. In fact, there
should be six pairs of such circles.
But Luminet et al. did not look for these circles in the WMAP
anisotropy data before publishing in a Nature cover story. The negative
results of such a circle search are given by Cornish et al. Thus this
theory is discussed under the headline "Cosmic Soccer Ball? Theory
Already Takes Sharp Kicks" in today's New York Times.
Sam, I was unable to access that NYT article. I was wondering if you
could please summarize it. Whether the Cornish results nullifies
Luminet. Or whether the dodecahedron becomes a hexagon or an octagon or
some other polygon.
Seems as though my post is fortuitous in that NYT has an article just
this very day and my post was just this very day.
Also in that website was mentioned a gamma ray burst that packed energy
of 10^54 ergs, if memory serves. If I am not mistaken that is more
energy than a Supernova explosion. And I remember some replies to my
posts of the 1990s wanting me to correct my statement where I said
cosmic ray bursts were found to have 10^22 MeV, and approaching 10^30
MeV, some poster (from England if memory serves) said that the maximum
ray burst ever seen was 10^14 MeV. Of course the Atom Totality theory
postulates that any size or range of cosmic ray burst is permissible
because they all originate from the nucleus of the Atom Totality. So
that if a Nuclear neutron of the ATom Totality were to decay it could
pack the energy equivalent to the entire energy of the observable
Universe which is the 5f6. And I wonder when these physicists who look
for black-holes to explain cosmic ray bursts will stop with that silly
and fake explanation simply because the enormous magnitude of these ray
bursts rules out such for an explanation. Cosmic ray bursts come from
the Nucleus of the Atom Totality as a nuclear event took place and for
which energy of all sizes could occur.
But I wonder what the Cornish results were in the NYT.
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: "" |
|
| Title: our hexagon cosmos not dodecahedron Re: The observable Universe is a dodecahedron in shape |
31 Jul 2005 12:49:03 PM |
|
|
I do not know the extent of copyright law and would say that no-one
really knows. There is "fair usage" which some have said is about the
length of a average paragraph to quote copyrighted material. So I have
run up against a NYT copyrighted article. And found my own solution.
What I have done below is cut and paste the entire NYT article, added
my comments and finally, erased the entire NYT article leaving only my
comments. Thus, I never will get into any copyright hassle. Those that
want to view what my comments go to is this NYT article:
The New York Times In America
October 9, 2003
Cosmic Soccer Ball? Theory Already Takes Sharp Kicks
By DENNIS OVERBYE
snip NYT
It is not revolutionary new because it is merely a tiny fact of the
Atom Totality theory that the Universe is a structure and that
structure is one single atom and since the 5f6 of 231Pu is more than
likely a hexagon, then the researchers of WEeks, Luminet et al have
their observations and analysis slightly wrong. It is not a
dodecahedron of 12 sides but rather instead is a hexagon of 6 sides and
such that you cannot see the entire cosmos. So that Weeks and Luminet
are correct in that it is a polygon but it is not a dodecahedron but
rather instead a hexagon.
snip NYT
So it is in a NATURE write up also, good, because then I can do the
same for that article, cut and paste and add my comments and then erase
in entirety the NATURE write up, leaving only my comments.
snip NYT
Stronger evidence against the Big Bang is that the Atom Totality theory
explains so much more of physical reality and data and that is how a
false theory of the Big Bang gets trashcanned is that a different
theory answers more questions than the Big Bang. And the shape of the
cosmos as a polygon is part of the Atom Totality theory.
snip NYT
Well, Spergel's ruling out in his website arXiv.org/list/astro-ph would
not diminish the polygon Universe because it is not a dodecahedron in
the first place, it is a hexagon. A hexagon of 6 sides, not a cube
hexagon but the six sided figure as shown on page 73 of the General Set
for the 5f6 of plutonium in the book THE ELEMENTS BEYOND URANIUM by
Seaborg and Loveland 1990.
Weeks and Luminet et al are correct in that it is a structure, a
polygon but it is not a 12 sided polygon but a 6 sided polygon and so
the Spergel claim rules out nothing of importance.
snip NYT
It is only a minor story of the Atom Totality theory, just as the color
story of the Universe made in early 2000s by researchers of Johns
Hopkins who said it was a faint green color but later found some
mistakes in calculation and said it was off-white. The element
plutonium has a color and it is off-white.
Theme of the story: just as the Johns Hopkins had to recalibrate their
findings, I feel confident that Weeks and Luminet have to recalibrate
from that of dodecahedron to that of hexagon.
snip NYT
It will not be settled soon because it will always be "up for revision"
just as the color is up for revision everytime more data is pooled to
the existing data. Every time a new data of a new satellite measures
the cosmic microwave background radiation, the more detail the polygon
will have. So every time a new measure of the cosmic microwave
radiation occurs then a updating of the polygon occurs.
snip NYT
Dr. Weeks , Dr. Jean-Pierre Luminet , Dr. Alain Riazueleo , Dr. Roland
Lehoucq and Dr. Jean-Phillippe Uzan
It is a good thing that most of the scientists of this polygon universe
claim are from Europe or international science and not stuck to the
USA. I say that because here in the USA, too many scientists are prone
to subjectivity by their current culture environment of the influence
of corrosive religion. We see that in the political denial of Global
Warming and the political banning of stem cell research. The USA at
present is a corrosive science thinking culture.
snip NYT
So this polygon universe is based on the Wilkinson Microwave Anistropy
Probe of February 2003 with no waves larger than about 60 degrees.
Funny to me how anistropy was a problem in the 20th century because the
uniformity of the background microwave radiation was so uniform that
the Big Bang never existed. And so researchers fudged over the fact
that it is so uniform that there really are no ripples and a reflection
of the limits of measuring devices. I bring that up because now those
same people who pressed to have ripples are faced with the dilemma that
those ripples are now being used to tell us the Universe is a polygon.
So the Big Bang is squeezed in the middle. Squeezed as it wants to have
ripples, when in reality there are no ripples, and now those ripples
are used to make a polygon but the Big Bang does not want to have a
polygon. Funny and laughable is it not, how a theory of the Big Bang is
on the hot fire squiggling to stay alive.
snip NYT
Not a soccer ball of 12 sides, but rather a hexagon as pictured in the
above book by Seaborg and Loveland on page 73, and as thus not able to
see like a mirror the entire Universe. Where the Milky Way galaxy is
one of the dots of the electron dot cloud of the 5f6.
snip NYT
Six pairs of circles, each having 35 degrees in diameter will probably
not be seen for Dr. Weeks because it is not a dodecahedron, it is a
hexagonal shaped Cosmos.
snip remainder of NYT
That was rather fun and I wish I had done this technique some 10 years
earlier where I detach all of the copyrighted stuff and leave remaining
only my comments.
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: "" |
|
| Title: Cube model replaces dodecahedron model of Cosmos because of 5f6 Re: |
01 Aug 2005 12:47:13 AM |
|
|
The 5f6 of 231Pu Atom Totality is a hexagon shape so of the *regular
polyhedra* the hexagon shape would be the *cube*. I claim the shape of
the cosmos is a cube and not a dodecahedron.
So I am puzzled as to why Weeks and Luminet teams have focused on
dodecahedron. Was there something in the ripples of the cosmic
microwave radiation, the fossil radiation to suggest 12 sided
polyhedron rather than the 6 sided polyhedron of a cube?
I looked for the October 2003 NATURE article on this subject but was
unable to get.
I want to see whether Weeks and Luminet let the data do the talking as
to what polyhedra was the shape of the Cosmos or whether they had a
idea of dodecahedron first and then try to make the data fit the idea.
I got a partial answer from this website:
http://luth2.obspm.fr/Compress/oct03_lum.en.html
A finite dodecahedral Universe
The Poincar=E9 Dodecahedral Space accounts for the low value of the
quadrupole as observed by WMAP in the fluctuation spectrum, and
provides a good value of the octopole. To be confirmed, such a
"soccer-ball" model of space must satisfy two experimental tests :
# A finer analysis of WMAP data, or new data from the future European
satellite Planck Surveyor (scheduled 2007), will be able to determine
the value of the energy density parameter with a precision of 1%. A
value lower than 1.01 will discard the Poincar=E9 space as a model for
cosmic space, whereas a value greater than 1.01 will confirm its
cosmological pertinence.
# If space has a non trivial topology, there must be particular
correlations in the CMB, namely pairs of correlated circles along which
temperature fluctuations should be the same [3]. The Poincar=E9
Dodecahedral Space model predicts 6 pairs of circles with an angular
radius of 35=B0. The model is therefore an ideal candidate to test the
method of "matched circles" originally devised by the American
astrophysicists N. Cornish, D. Spergel and G. Starkman [4]
end quoting http://luth2.obspm.fr/Compress/oct03_lum.en.html
Apparently the researchers of Luminet and Weeks and their teams had a
preconception of the shape and they focused on dodecahedron without any
facts or data to favor that support.
I was thinking that the shape of the Cosmos was written up in past
history by Poincare with a dodecahedron model and that is why Weeks and
Luminet entered this research with biased views favoring dodecahedron.
But the Atom Totality theory where the observable universe is the 5f6
favors not a dodecahedron but a 6 sided polyhedron which we know as a
cube. So there is no 12 sided cosmos because the Plutonium Atom
Totality of the 5f6 has 6 sides.
Now the energy density parameter of being greater than 1.01 would favor
both the cube and the dodecahedron. Now the dodecahedron favors 6 pairs
of circles with angular radius of 35 degrees. What would favor the
cube? I suspect is has no pairs of circles.
So was this dodecahedron model offered because of its glitz and glamour
and stirring of the emotions and the cube model would be dull and
bland. Was it because of the historical work of Poincare that the
dodecahedron was offered but the cube model ignored? I think so. And I
think that the fault lies in that these researchers never considered
the Atom Totality Theory and what that implies to a shape.
So the recent updates of data by Cornish and others may well squash the
dodecahedron model but it brings to the forefront and to the spotlight
the Cube model that the shape of the Cosmos is hexagonal because the
5f6 of 231Pu is hexagonal.
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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The observable Universe is a dodecahedron in shape |
31 Jul 2005 01:53:59 AM |
|
|
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/File001.html
Some of the first pictures on that webpage shows the hexagonal shape of
the 5f6.
In the book by Seaborg and Loveland, they get a graphics of the 5f6 as
octagonal as well as hexagonal.
So I wonder whether the Luminet findings made a simple error of
thinking that there is a duplication of hexagonal to make dodecahedron.
And that the Cornish after-study was simply a confirmation of the true
fact that the Universe is a hexagon and not a dodecahedron.
What will be nice is if the color people at Johns Hopkins combine or
collobarate with the shape people, where the color and shape coincide
with the 5f6 of 231Pu. As well as the full agreement of the 2.71 K
cosmic temperature.
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: "Lloyd Parker" |
|
| Title: Re: The observable Universe is a dodecahedron in shape |
29 Jul 2005 10:18:21 AM |
|
|
In article <1122573830.091145.293000@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
I am going to have to dig into this recent announcement. Anyone have a
publication listing for this claim. In the past 5 years there was a
nice claim that the observable Universe is a off-white color given by
researchers of Johns Hopkins Univ. So where does this dodecahedron
claim come from.
The color of the Universe as the researchers narrow their findings, I
am confident will find that the color is matching that of the color of
plutonium element in the raw. Plutonium is an off white color and since
the Universe is an Atom Totality of 231Pu
Hello? Looney bin on line 1.
then the color of the
observed Cosmos will match the color of chemistry of element plutonium.
If I remember the history correctly when the Johns Hopkins researchers
first announced their findings they said it was a pale green color but
once they corrected their findings with a factor, they announced it to
be off-white.
So does anyone have a journal reference or publication reference for
this claim of dodecahedron?
Because in a 231Pu Atom Totality, the shape of the 5f6 is more of a six
sided polygon which is what, a hexagon. So like the Johns Hopkins
researchers on color that had a missing factor, I suspect these
cosmic-shape researchers have a missing factor which they need to apply
and once they applied that factor they would thence make the public
correction that they see the Universe not as a dodecahedron but rather
a hexagon shape.
And as these researchers fine tune their data in the future, they will
be able to confirm one another's parameters of color and of shape
because the Universe is just one big atom of plutonium. In the Big Bang
theory color and shape make no sense. In the Atom Totality theory, the
Universe is an entity itself and has to have color and shape.
In the 1990s I posted a picture of the 231Pu Atom Totality in my
autobiography. Wikipedia has that picture in its entry of Archimedes
Plutonium. I will post it to this thread later. But anyway, from what I
get of the Schrodinger Equation solution for the 5f6 of plutonium is a
hexagon shape not a dodecahedron. And from the book "The Elements
Beyond Uranium" by Seaborg and Loveland they get a eight sided shape
for the 5f6 at most and not a dodecahedron of 12 sides.
So is this claim of dodecahedron printed in some science journal or
article?
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
