Chapters of this book; #225; 3rd ed; Atom Totality (Atom Universe) theory
Archimedes Plutonium
edition, because I need organization and
order. I have failed in three editions to organize the text
so that it flows when reading. So far I have posts that
are numbered but not coordinated. Here is a outline of
the chapters of the 4th edition.
Plutonium Atom Totality theory
Chapters of this book:
I. the theory
(1) what is this theory?
(2) pictures of the Atom Totality theory
(3) history of the theory and precursor hints
II. Observational and experimental support
(4) density and distribution of all galaxies
(5) Tifft quantized galaxy speeds
(6) Dirac's new-radioactivities and Dirac's multiplicative-creation
(7) Earth itself; age; zirconium crystal dating
(8) Solar System: CellWell 1 and CellWell2 ; planet cores ; plane of
ecliptic
(9) Milky Way: Exoplanets and exosolarsystems; Binary Stars
(10) MECO theory to explain high energy sources and
black-hole theory as science-fiction
III. Cosmic characteristics and features; support
(11) layered age of Cosmos with 6.5 billion years new Cosmos yet old
galaxies of the Uranium Atom Totality 20.2 billion years old; the
data including discussion over the layered ages of the Solar System
where Sun is likely to be twice as old as Jupiter.
(12) uniform blackbody 2.71 K cosmic microwave background radiation
(13) Dark Night sky: Olber's Paradox fully answered
(14) missing mass conundrum solved
(15) the cosmic distribution of chemical elements
(16) shape of the Cosmos as 6 lobes of 5f6 as nonrelativistic as
Cubic or as relativistic Dodecahedron
(17) color of the cosmos as plutonium off-white
IV. Mathematical and logic beauty support
(18) inverse fine structure constant and proton to electron mass
ratio, both linked and explained
(19) Bell Inequality with Superdeterminism fits only in an Atom
Totality theory
(20) "pi" and "e" and "i" explained
(21) Atomic theory Syllogism
(22) Future News and Research Reports supporting the Atom Totality
Theory and future news and research reports commentary
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
Archimedes Plutonium
Looking at the above list of supporting evidence, I believe the key
evidence is
the density and distribution of galaxies. And that a future report
saying that there
is a larger wall beyond the Sloan Great Wall with a void in between is
the downfall of the Big Bang theory.
That no Big Bang explosion could ever give a density and distribution
of galaxies
that looks like a diffraction pattern of the double-slit experiment.
Only atomic physics
gives diffraction patterns of density and distribution. And in a
sense, our own Solar
System with its eerily close ties with the Titius-Bode Rule which one
can consider
to be a diffraction pattern spacing of planets.
The best evidence to prove one theory over another theory is the
largest observable
piece of evidence and that would be the density and distribution of
galaxies.
But to me, a highly logical person, all of the evidence put together
implies the Big Bang
is fake and only the Atom Totality theory can answer each of the
evidences.
Science of geology had a similar experience in the past. Geology had
continental-drift
which to a logical person was rather obvious and the evidence was
mounting up and
mounting up and one wonders how anyone could have been stupid enough
to hold out.
But they held out by saying they had no mechanism, until the evidence
of the sea-floor
spreading was given. So in a similar situation of the Atom Totality
versus Big Bang,
the density and distribution of galaxies is that of the shape of the
continents and that they
had fit together into plates a long time ago and moved apart. So I
think that we may have
a repeat of science history of the Continental Drift theory of geology
taking slow to
become the mainstream theory and that the Atom Totality is taking a
long time to
replace the Big Bang theory.
eratosthenes
the word salad that you've written about this so-called atom totality
theory. It's a cute idea, but I am inclined to think that it's
bullshit. I am unable to find sufficient information to make a single
quantitative calculation or prediction other than the ones that you
flatly state as refinements of known values, such statements are made
without any support from your theory. I dont think you've got
anything here. Prove me wrong?
Patrick