ever since 1842, the Doppler shift was assumed to exist for lightwaves and never experimentally verified Chapt 8 #138; ATOM TOTALITY
Archimedes Plutonium
is too difficult to retrieve the thread.
So I will oblige.
Also I had some typo errors of my previous post.
--- repeating my post of last night to David and with a few typo
errors such as the ommission of the word
Doppler in some places ---
Jun 5, 3:56 am
- Hide quoted text -
David Bernier wrote:
> Imagine the police radar is at rest and emits sine waves with
> crests one meter apart (a signal at about 300 Mega-Hertz).
> Suppose a mirror is moving away at 10% of the speed of light from
> the radar, in a radial (in-line with the signal) direction.
> When a crest advances 1 meter, the mirror recedes by 0.1 meter.
> The question is then what is the crest-to-crest separation
> after reflection off the mirror?
> This might involve special relativity, I'm not completely sure.
> But think about planets orbiting about far away stars. It's often
> said that as the earth-planet radial velocity varies as
> the planet moves in its orbit, periodic variations in
> spectral lines (wavelengths or frequencies) are measured,
> interpreted as Doppler effects. Don't you think
> this is well established?
> David Bernier
All physical systems involve SR, since SR is nothing more than saying
that
the Maxwell Equations are invariant as per whether a magnet is moving
or a
wire loop is moving while the other is stationary.
Let me answer you by asking you some questions. Doppler Effect
discovered in
1842; Michelson Morley Experiment 1887; Special Relativity of
Lorentz-
Poincare
1900; Hubble Law of redshift of galaxies 1929.
Questions, David:
(1) Would there be any reason for any scientist to question whether
lightwaves
obeyed a Doppler shift? The actual history shows that noone bothered
to
question whether lightwaves must or must not have a Doppler Effect.
Answer to (1) When the Michelson interferometer experiment arose,
there should
have been at least one physicist or mathematician to raise the
question of whether
we can assume the doppler effect exists for lightwaves. Because the
Interferometer
actually measures wavelengths. So beyond 1887, some people, a few
should have
no longer assumed or presumed that lightwaves obey a Doppler Effect
and begin
to experiment or look for Doppler effect on lightwaves. To my
knowledge, noone
did any such. Noone even raised the question, and all were asleep
under the assumption.
(2) Should anyone have questioned whether a Doppler Effect existed on
lightwaves
after Special Relativity was formulated by Lorentz, Poincare and
later
by Einstein?
Answer (2) as David even mentions that SR comes into question with
the
Doppler
Effect. But here again, apparently not a single person in physics nor
mathematics
raised the fundamental questions of whether SR can support a Doppler
Effect
on lightwaves?
(3) So here comes 1929 with the Hubble Law and we can appreciate how
totally
immersed into the belief or misbelief of a Doppler Shift prevalent
and
pervasive.
So the question is by 1929 and after, what chances were there that
anyone in
physics or mathematics was sober enough to ask the fundamental
question:
is Doppler (sic) lightwaves and Special Relativity compatible or
contradictory?
Answer: By the time of the Hubble Law, only a lone wolf could ask for
a objective
research into whether Doppler Effect on lightwaves contradicted
Special Relativity.
Do you see the historical pattern, David? That a Doppler effect was
so
presumed,
that noone from 1842 to 2010, had the objective commonsense to
question
the assumption of whether lightwaves can have a Doppler shift.
Now, possibly a mathematician from 1842 to 2010 is more likely to
call
attention
to the question of whether Doppler is compatible with SR. Since a
mathematician
often works with consistency and with contradictions. A physicist is
unlikely to
have suspected anything wrong. And a mathematician is more likely to
spot where
a scientist is "making an assumption" that needs valid evidence. From
Christian
Doppler in 1842, who was a mathematician, noone really stepped up and
said
"let us no longer assume lightwaves can be Doppler shifted, but let
us
show
evidence that such is or is not the case." Noone did this. They were
crushed
under the avalanche of Hubble's law and then under the mountain of
the
Doppler radar misnomer.
Noteworthy, David, there has never been a eye witness case example to
anything
involving light and a Doppler shift. Unlike sound from a train to
prove Doppler shift
on Soundwaves, noone has seen a Doppler shift on lightwaves. And
there
is one
case in particular that a Doppler Shift should occur but has not. And
that case is
the radio on the Space Station with the astronauts. Their radio is
not
Doppler shifted
of any radio signal from ground. If their radio has no Doppler shift,
then no Doppler
shift on lightwaves exists. If the world has any Doppler shift, the
radio turned on
in the Space Station listening to radio ground waves should have a
Doppler shift.
But they have no shift.
And the Space Station is a similar experiment to the Michelson Morley
experiment where
the end result in both cases is a "null result". No Doppler shift in
either the Space Station
nor the Michelson interferometer.
Final question David: How could so many be fooled into thinking their
radar waves were
Doppler shifted? Answer: easily fooled since the speed of the object
is begot whether
a Doppler shift exists or does not exist when using the radar
gadgets.
--- end quoting my previous post ---
Basically what I want to direct the attention of the
Physics and Math community is the attention to the
fact that a Doppler Shift on lightwaves or EM spectrum
is nonexistent and is easily proven by the fact that any car radio
antennae is never Doppler shifted to radio waves, whether the car is
in motion or not. And the
Space Station of astronauts moving at large speeds compared to the
puny car speeds has no Doppler shift
on ground based radio waves.
So if there is no Doppler shift on radio waves, no matter what the
speed of source versus object, then
why in the world would anyone believe Doppler Effect
occurrs on any EM wave?
Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
Archimedes Plutonium
So this really brings up a funny, laughable situation in modern day
physics. Where
we have legions of physicists swearing that lightwaves are Doppler
affected, yet
all along, they could zap a moving car with radio waves instead of
radar waves.
How modern physics has reams and reams full of nonsense about how
radar is
Doppler shifted, yet all along, when you zap the same vehicle with
radio waves,
never a Doppler in a blue moon. Worse yet, never a Doppler. Nada a
Doppler.
Just as Michelson found a null result for the luminiferous aether,
here we
have the whole of the physics community finding Doppler's everywhere
with a
Radar waves yet when they switch to Radio waves, lo and behold, never
a
Doppler.
So what are the physicists going to do for this? Say that Radio waves
are
exceptions? Say that radio waves are intercepted by a Higgs boson? Say
that
Radio waves are in a black hole or dark matter exit.
So you must really wonder how the physics community could be so
klutzy,
so dumbfounded. That you had Doppler Effect since 1842 and by 1887
with
the Michelson Experiment and the interferometer that noone in physics
take the logical next step by asking the question-- "can a Doppler
Effect
exist on light waves and the EM spectrum?"
Apparently noone in physics was clever enough and all were dunces
since
1887.
But surely, when Special Relativity came around 1900 with Lorentz and
Poincare and then later Einstein, surely the question must have arisen
that
"can a Doppler Effect exist on the EM spectrum." If this were
mathematics
instead of physics, surely someone would have noticed that both the
Michelson
Experiment and the Principle of Special Relativity goes counter to a
Doppler
Effect existing on EM spectrum. But not a peep, not a whimper from the
physics community. Rather instead a entire bogus and fake field was
hatch
and called the Doppler Radar. Was there really anyone awake in physics
from 1900 to 2010? Apparently not.
And such simple means of proving that a Doppler Effect cannot exist on
EM spectrum. Just take any car and travel to or away from a radio
emitting
source. And there is no Doppler shift to the radio waves. In fact the
fastest speed with people observing is the Space Station of astronauts
and they never notice any Doppler Effect with their radio picking up
ground
signals.
So really now. All these so called bright physicists running around
claiming
Doppler Radar and over yonder all the Radios with radio waves never
seeing or hearing any Doppler Effect.
So this has got to be one of the most laughable history moments in all
of
physics, of how the king of sciences-- physics has had one of its most
embarrassing and comical lapse of logic and reason.
Maybe it is because the schools in education fobb off too much details
and mathematics of unimportant minutae that noone in physics spends
time on clear thinking and logical thinking.
Maybe it is because the schools look for the students that are parrots
of
the teachers and the teachers are the parrots of the mainstream, that
noone in the education system fosters the "logical mind."
How could Radio waves be overlooked from 1900 to 2010 and where Radar
waves are saddled with the goobledygook nonsense of Doppler shifting?
And the car with radio or the Space Station with radio, how neat is
that? That
here we have what I call a boardable or "get inside" of an
interferometer. Michelson
would have been pleased to find that in 2010, a poster realized that
we can have
a Interferometer that is so large that a scientist can get inside the
car or
Space Station and measure the Radio waves as a interferometer.
So why is it, that we can have scientists spend their entire lives
dealing and
dabbling with radar and falling prey to a Doppler Radar, yet never in
their
life of physics, come to question can a Doppler shift exist on EM
waves?
Why are scientists so gullible? Why are they so rarely logical and
clear
in perception? Most of them are herd instinct and parrots of what they
believe others believe is true.
So for a 100 plus 10 years, for 110 years not one single physicist
noticed
that Radio waves never Doppler shift, yet they were all positive and
sure
that Radar waves Doppler shifted. How dunce is that?
When Einstein harped about riding on a light wave and remarking that
the speed of an oncoming lightwave would still be the speed of light
of
c and not c - c, should have alerted even the most dullard in the
physics
community that the Doppler Effect was questionable. Even the most
dense and dullard and dolt in physics should have questioned whether
Doppler shift was compatible with Special Relativity. But it never
happened.
What did happen was that I would come to write the Atom Totality book
and in those writings, I would traverse or trespass over Special
Relativity
and Doppler Effect, and with my logical mind, it would grab my
attention.
And it is all history now.
pete
> radio waves instead of radar waves.
What's your perceived difference between the two?
(RADAR = Radio Detection And Ranging)
--
pete
Ostap Bender
You are letting reality get in the way of philosophy.
Archimedes Plutonium
Wavelength of some typical EM spectrum:
Radar 10km to 1 km
AM 1 km to 100 m
FM 10 m to 1 m
The difference I wanted to point out is that the radar for Doppler
radar (with its alleged
Doppler shift) is all assumption that a Doppler shift took place. So
it is an imaginary Doppler
shift with no proof of a shift having occurred.
The AM and FM on the other hand has the receiver inside the moving car
or the moving
Space Station (whether they can pick up the AM and FM stations). Here,
the Doppler
shift is either existing or nonexisting, since the radio would have to
be fine tuned
as per changing of the speed of the vehicle and direction of the
vehicle.
The point I am making is that the Radar operation does not answer the
question of whether
a Doppler shift in fact exists, but imposes an alleged Shift took
place. The Radio as
receiver is the piece of equipement that answers the question of
whether a Doppler shift
exists in the first place.
So now, let us say someone rigged a Radar that was AM radio waves and
zapped a
car moving at a fast speed away. Would the AM radio have to make any
adjustments compared to the
same car if stationary? What the radio proves, the Radar only assumes,
is that the Radio
can actually detect whether a Doppler shift had occurred, because the
radio would have
to make adjustments, depending on whether it is a coming towards or
away and how fast.
As far as I know, no radio has ever needed a adjustment because of the
speed of the vessel
containing the radio. That means, EM waves have no Doppler effect.
Ostap Bender
Can you testify at my next speeding hearing?
Mike Dworetsky
> pete wrote:
>> Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>
>>> radio waves instead of radar waves.
>>
>> What's your perceived difference between the two?
>>
>> (RADAR = Radio Detection And Ranging)
>>
>> --
>> pete
>
> Wavelength of some typical EM spectrum:
>
> Radar 10km to 1 km
>
> AM 1 km to 100 m
>
> FM 10 m to 1 m
You have a sadly lacking understanding of radar, to say the very least.
Most radar operates at wavelengths less than one metre; many systems operate
at a few cm. For example, the K-band used by police to detect car speeds
operates between 1.1 and 1.7 cm.
A few operate at longer wavelengths (over 1m) for specialized purposes.
>
> The difference I wanted to point out is that the radar for Doppler
> radar (with its alleged
> Doppler shift) is all assumption that a Doppler shift took place. So
> it is an imaginary Doppler
> shift with no proof of a shift having occurred.
You tried this on in court to defend your speeding citation, I take it? How
did that go?
>
> The AM and FM on the other hand has the receiver inside the moving car
> or the moving
> Space Station (whether they can pick up the AM and FM stations). Here,
> the Doppler
> shift is either existing or nonexisting, since the radio would have to
> be fine tuned
> as per changing of the speed of the vehicle and direction of the
> vehicle.
Do they listen to Earthbound FM radio on the ISS?
>
> The point I am making is that the Radar operation does not answer the
> question of whether
> a Doppler shift in fact exists, but imposes an alleged Shift took
> place. The Radio as
> receiver is the piece of equipement that answers the question of
> whether a Doppler shift
> exists in the first place.
So it's all a conspiracy?
>
> So now, let us say someone rigged a Radar that was AM radio waves and
> zapped a
> car moving at a fast speed away. Would the AM radio have to make any
AM waves are long, hundreds of metres, and are not used for radar in police
radar instruments.
> adjustments compared to the
> same car if stationary? What the radio proves, the Radar only assumes,
> is that the Radio
> can actually detect whether a Doppler shift had occurred, because the
> radio would have
> to make adjustments, depending on whether it is a coming towards or
> away and how fast.
>
> As far as I know, no radio has ever needed a adjustment because of the
> speed of the vessel
> containing the radio. That means, EM waves have no Doppler effect.
>
Or they are too small to need to be taken into account at shipping and
motoring speeds.
>
> Archimedes Plutonium
> http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
David Bernier
But not when a probe (Huygens) that descended to Titan had to
relay its data to the Cassini orbiter...
Ref.:
< http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/titan-calling/8 >
and more ...
--------------------Excerpt from IEEE Spectrum, October 2004 ----------------
<< The board discovered that Alenia Spazio SpA, the Rome-based company that
built the radio link, had properly anticipated the need to make the receiver
sensitive over a wide enough range of frequencies to detect Huygens's carrier
signal even when Doppler shifted. But it had overlooked another subtle
consequence: Doppler shift would affect not just the frequency of the carrier
wave that the probe's vital observations would be transmitted on but also the
digitally encoded signal itself. In effect, the shift would push the signal out
of synch with the timing scheme used to recover data from the phase-modulated
carrier.
Because of Doppler shift, the frequency at which bits would be arriving from
Huygens would be significantly different from the nominal data rate of 8192 bits
per second. As the radio wave from the lander was compressed by Doppler shift,
the data rate would increase as the length of each bit was reduced.
"The guys who pushed the original test through are heroes" --John Zarnecki
Although the receiver's decoder could accommodate small shifts in the received
data rate, it was completely out of its league here. The incoming signal was
doomed to be chopped up into chunks that didn't correspond to the actual data
being sent, and as a result the signal decoder would produce a stream of binary
junk. The situation would be like trying to watch a scrambled TV channel--the
TV's tuned in fine, but you still can't make out the picture. >>
-------------------------- from IEEE Spectrum, October 2004 ----------------
Please see:
"Titan Calling" by James Oberg about
the Cassini-Huygens radio link bug and
how a work-around was found ...
here:
< http://spectrum.ieee.org/aerospace/space-flight/titan-calling/6 >
and previous & later pages (very nice article).
David Bernier
Mike Dworetsky
Oh sure, and that was quite a story. But Archie is denying the existence of
Doppler shifts (or something--he isn't very clear). Indeed, not only the
wavelength is shifted but the actual relative time passed in the transmitter
and receiver frames. I'm a little surprised by the oversight because all
these people had previous experience with various orbiters (though
apparently not with relay satellites at the destination).
Archimedes Plutonium
Mike Dworetsky wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >
> > Wavelength of some typical EM spectrum:
> >
> > Radar
IF (sic) You have a sadly lacking understanding of radar, to say the
very least.
> Most radar operates at wavelengths less than one metre; many systems operate
> at a few cm. For example, the K-band used by police to detect car speeds
> operates between 1.1 and 1.7 cm.
>
> A few operate at longer wavelengths (over 1m) for specialized purposes.
>
> >
> > AM 1 km to 100 m
> >
> > FM 10 m to 1 m
Mike has made a valuable contribution to the above synopsis. Notice I
did add a
"IF". Others can sharpen up the above.
The only thing lacking in Mike's post is a failure to comprehend that
he should no
longer "assume that lightwaves can be Doppler shifted" but must prove
that
lightwaves can or cannot be Doppler shifted. Mike is no mathematician,
because
no matter how simple, how obvious is a statement in mathematics, that
a proof
needs be provided. We run across this in mathematics all the time,
that we have
to **prove** a statement no matter how obvious. Now I do remember in
High School
Euclidean geometry proofs that sometimes the proof is so obvious that
we wonder
why we bother to even prove it. But it is important that we prove
rather than assume
because when we assume, we get into a lot of trouble as what can be
seen as a
wasted 110 years in physics and astronomy with their sole reliance on
a Doppler
Shift that never existed.
Well in physics, the Doppler Shift
on Lightwaves was never given any sort of proof that lightwaves are
not Doppler
shifter or, are Doppler Shifted. Ever since Christian Doppler proposed
the shift
in 1842, well, physicists have never tested or experimented for a
proof. They
simply assumed Doppler Shifted EM spectrum existed.
How could physicists have been so narrowminded, so shortsighted? They
looked
at Sound waves and said "aha, a shift occurrs" but rather than prove
whether a
shift occurs with lightwaves, well, they were all greenhorns of
physics.
Too bad that physicists never really understood the fuller
implications of the Michelson
Morley Experiment for it implies EM waves cannot be Doppler Shifted.
Then, awfully
bad that the Special Relativity Principle was never fully understood
by our modern
day physicists, because a Doppler Shifted EM wave contradicts Special
Relativity.
Proof that there is no Doppler Shift of EM waves: the proof is easy
and simple
and is a common everyday occurrence. Turn on your radio any day of the
week or
year and go towards a radio broadcaster and then away from the radio
broadcaster.
Your radio is the same whether you are speeding towards or away from
the broadcasting
source. There never was a Doppler Shift. The Space Station right now
with its astronauts
listening to any radio broadcaster on Earth has no Doppler Shift of
those radio EM signals.
Archimedes Plutonium
And the reason they ended up with an end result of scrambling digit
code was because
they assumed a Doppler Shift and compensated for a Doppler shift. If
instead they
had reasoned no Doppler Shifting occurred, their picture would be
crystal clear.
The only compensation in astronomy for light traveling is that due to
scattering and
refraction. So the distance of light travelling to Titan needs only
compensation for
scattering and refraction. If you compensate for Doppler shifting you
make the picture
worse.
porky_...@my-deja.com
Yeah. Doppler effect caused you seeing green instead of red.
If that doesn't work, try "Better dead than red" line. Have John Birch
Society membership card handy.
Benj
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> pete wrote:
> > Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> > > radio waves instead of radar waves.
> Wavelength of some typical EM spectrum:
>
> Radar 10km to 1 km
>
> AM 1 km to 100 m
>
> FM 10 m to 1 m
Well the Redshift may not be due to a Doppler effect but that does not
mean that you aren't a moron.
Where is Uncle Al when you need him.
Sorry but Doppler shift occurs with ALL EM radiation and that includes
radar waves. Note you haven't a clue what your are talking about. Go
see Andro for some "engineering" lessons! X band radar has a
wavelength of about an inch or so. C band is what? 3 inches? Idiot.
Note that cop speed meters are all using lasers now so light clearly
has a doppler effect (you can easily set it up yourself) I have.
Here's a good rule for you to follow: Please engage brain before
employing mouth in a worldwide forum.
Archimedes Plutonium
saying that
Special Relativity SR, comes down to where the speed of light is a
constant
in all inertial reference frames, meaning that c + v = c and where c -
v = c
where c is the speed of light and v is a speed added or subtracted on.
And
SR is equivalent to the Maxwell theory that a moving magnet in a
stationary
wire loop is the very same as a moving wire loop with stationary
magnets.
So this is common accepted physics.
But later on in that college physics course when talking about Doppler
shift effect,
it is remarked by the professor that if the light source is moving
away or moving
towards the observer, that we see a redshift or blueshift respectively
and where
c + v is not c and where c - v is not c, but rather we have c + v = c
+v and where
we have c - v = c-v.
So the house of physics, modern day physics is not in good consistent
order, but
rather riddled full of holes of inconsistency.
There is absolutely no observational data to support a Doppler shift
Effect in physics
but there are plenty of observations to support a nonexistent Doppler
shift effect on
EM waves. There is the Michelson Morley Experiment and there is
Special Relativity,
but also, there is the observation that a radio receiver never has to
compensate for a
Doppler effect, no matter how fast the vehicle carrying the radio is
going towards or
away from the transmitter.
So the house of physics of 2010 is riddled full of holes of
inconsistency.
Archimedes Plutonium
>
> There is absolutely no observational data to support a Doppler shift
> But there are plenty of observations to support a nonexistent Doppler
> shift effect on
changed it in the original followed with a (sic)
Ostap Bender
> On Jun 6, 4:39 am, Archimedes Plutonium
>
> <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > pete wrote:
> > > Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> > > > radio waves instead of radar waves.
> > Wavelength of some typical EM spectrum:
>
> > Radar 10km to 1 km
>
> > AM 1 km to 100 m
>
> > FM 10 m to 1 m
>
> Well the Redshift may not be due to a Doppler effect but that does not
> mean that you aren't a moron.
> Where is Uncle Al when you need him.
>
> Sorry but Doppler shift occurs with ALL EM radiation and that includes
> radar waves. Note you haven't a clue what your are talking about. Go
> see Andro for some "engineering" lessons! X band radar has a
> wavelength of about an inch or so. C band is what? 3 inches? Idiot.
Yes, he is. Hew is a clueless pompous idiot, spewing non-stop nonsense
about things that he knows nothing about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_radar
Most of today's radar guns operate at X, K, Ka
http://www.radarguns.com/radar-glossary.html
Ka-band is a wide band which allows police radar guns to operate on a
multitude of frequencies. Ka-band: (Frequency 33.4 -36.0 GHz;
Wavelength .344 inches)
http://www.everythingweather.com/weather-radar/bands.shtml
X band radars operate on a wavelength of 2.5-4 cm and a frequency of
8-12 GHz.
http://everything2.com/title/Doppler+Radar
Radar bands and an explanation of where they are used
Cut and pasted from http://www-cmpo.mit.edu/Radar_Lab/FAQ.html
L-Band: 1-2 GHz, 15-30 cm wavelength. Mostly used for clear-air
turbulence studies.
S-Band: 2-4 GHz, 08-15 cm wavelength. Used for long- and short- range
weather surveillance. The WSR-88D's (Nexrad) are S-band. Not easily
attenuated but require large dishes and motors. /p>
C-Band: 4-8 GHz, 04-08 cm wavelength. Used for short-range weather
surveillance (e.g., near airports). Portability means they're often
used in research field programs. Nice tradeoff between X- and S-Bands.
Nearby bands are often used for microwave communications links. /p>
X-Band: 8-12 GHz, 2.5-4 cm wavelength. Used for very short-range work;
very sensitive to smaller particles and thus useful for studies of
early cloud development. However, attenuated rapidly as they pass
through storms. Share some space with police speed radar. /p>
K-Band: 12-18, 27-40 GHz, 1.7-2.5, .75-1.2 cm wavelength. Actually two
bands, split down the middle by a strong water vapor absorption line.
Similar comments as with X-bands, above. Also share space with police
radar.
Ostap Bender
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> pete wrote:
> > Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> > > radio waves instead of radar waves.
>
> > What's your perceived difference between the two?
>
> > (RADAR = Radio Detection And Ranging)
>
> > --
> > pete
>
> Wavelength of some typical EM spectrum:
>
> Radar 10km to 1 km
Are you for real? Do you understand what a 10 km wavelength is and how
useless it would be for any kind of measuring, especially for bouncing
off of cars that are 5 meters long?! 10 km is about 6 miles!
Radar wavelengths are on the order of a few centimeters or even
millimeters!
> Archimedes Plutoniumhttp://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
Androcles
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:cffd2808-6dc0-4ded...@s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 6, 4:39 am, Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> pete wrote:
> > Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> > > radio waves instead of radar waves.
> Wavelength of some typical EM spectrum:
>
> Radar 10km to 1 km
>
> AM 1 km to 100 m
>
> FM 10 m to 1 m
Well the Redshift may not be due to a Doppler effect but that does not
mean that you aren't a moron.
Where is Uncle Al when you need him.
Sorry but Doppler shift occurs with ALL EM radiation
========================================
Well bullshit, Doppler shift only occurs when there is relative motion
between source and detector but that does not mean you aren't a moron.
Note that cop speed meters are all giving a non-zero reading when the
car is moving.
Well idiot.
Here's a good rule for you to follow: Engage brain before opening big
mouth in a worldwide forum.
Well cretin.
Mike Dworetsky
Really? Then how do you account for the following instruction to ham radio
operators trying to talk to astronauts on ISS during scheduled sessions:
a.. NOTE: The "DOPPLER EFFECT" means that the frequency of the space station
will change slightly as it passes by your location. It is usual to adjust
the "downlink" frequency slightly on your receiver (if it is variable).
From http://kg4jvi.webs.com/hamradiotheiss.htm
>
> Archimedes Plutonium
> http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
--
Archimedes Plutonium
Mike Dworetsky wrote:
>
> Really? Then how do you account for the following instruction to ham radio
> operators trying to talk to astronauts on ISS during scheduled sessions:
>
> a.. NOTE: The "DOPPLER EFFECT" means that the frequency of the space station
> will change slightly as it passes by your location. It is usual to adjust
> the "downlink" frequency slightly on your receiver (if it is variable).
>
> From http://kg4jvi.webs.com/hamradiotheiss.htm
(snipped)
>
> --
> Mike Dworetsky
>
Get real; taking the words in some instructions as scientific
knowledge. Do you
take the instructions of your new generator made in China with Chinese
interpreters
writing the instruction manual as scientific knowledge?
Look, Mike, it is easy to retrofit or reengineer the interferometer of
Michelson's famous
luminerfous aether Experiment of 1887. It is easy to retrofit that
Experiment to
see if the Doppler shift Effect can exist upon EM waves. I am doing
the experiment
in my mind and cannot see how anything but a "null result" accrues out
of such a
retrofitted Michelson Experiment. In my mind, which could be wrong,
the Michelson
Experiment in its original form proves that EM waves cannot Doppler
shift, because
if EM waves can Doppler shift, then Michelson and Morley in 1887 would
have had
to have made a adjustment for the Doppler shift.
And also, to think that these cop radars or weather doppler radars
really have a
Doppler shift occurring would have to have a miniaturized Michelson
Interferometer
inside of them in order to fetch out that tiny Doppler Shift and I
simply cannot envision
how modern technology has miniaturized the interfermeter to fit inside
one of those
puny Doppler radar guns or even those Weather Doppler-radars.
When culture has a fake-science in its midsts-- doppler radar -- then
that fake
science gets spread around all over the place, for perhaps it sells
more radars if
the words "Doppler radar" are splashed as advertisement, long before
anyone rational enough
to say "stop this nonsense and get some real physics in the form of an
experiment to put an end to the nonsense."
So I am saying, stop the nonsense and retrofit the Michelson
Experiment of 1887
to put an end to the Doppler Shift fakery. Or, in the tiny possibility
that I was wrong,
show me if that is the case.
spudnik
no need of using such a doppler shift, assuming that
it does exist, because mere timing of the radar's return,
over some part of a second, is adequate to do the math. and,
one always hears of "dppler radar" by weather satellites,
whether or not that *inerferometry* is actully required, and
the radar-ranging can stil be interpreted in terms
of doppler shifts (in the colors of the Weather Channel graphics
e.g.).
now, why AP does not "beleive" in doppler shifts, apart
from the belief in the so-called Hubble *interpretation*
of the prevailing redshift-woith-distance effect,
seen in teh starfield ... you'd have to read his ****,
more carefully; and that, ladies & germs, is scatology.
--Stop BP's and Waxman's capNtrade arbitrage rip-off!
http://wlym.com
Mike Dworetsky
> Mike Dworetsky wrote:
>>
>> Really? Then how do you account for the following instruction to
>> ham radio operators trying to talk to astronauts on ISS during
>> scheduled sessions:
>>
>> a.. NOTE: The "DOPPLER EFFECT" means that the frequency of the space
>> station will change slightly as it passes by your location. It is
>> usual to adjust the "downlink" frequency slightly on your receiver
>> (if it is variable).
>>
>> From http://kg4jvi.webs.com/hamradiotheiss.htm
>
> (snipped)
>
>>
>> --
>> Mike Dworetsky
>>
>
>
> Get real; taking the words in some instructions as scientific
> knowledge. Do you
> take the instructions of your new generator made in China with Chinese
> interpreters
> writing the instruction manual as scientific knowledge?
Non sequitur. The radio operator was very experienced and knew these
systems well. I'd take his advice over yours any day.
I don't need to show that my factual statements are right. It's up to you
to prove your paranoid rants are right and millions of scientist and
engineers are wrong. Go right ahead.
>
> Look, Mike, it is easy to retrofit or reengineer the interferometer of
> Michelson's famous
> luminerfous aether Experiment of 1887. It is easy to retrofit that
> Experiment to
> see if the Doppler shift Effect can exist upon EM waves. I am doing
> the experiment
> in my mind
Well, I think that's the problem, you seem to have an equipment fault.
> and cannot see how anything but a "null result" accrues out
> of such a
> retrofitted Michelson Experiment. In my mind, which could be wrong,
> the Michelson
> Experiment in its original form proves that EM waves cannot Doppler
> shift, because
> if EM waves can Doppler shift, then Michelson and Morley in 1887 would
> have had
> to have made a adjustment for the Doppler shift.
>
> And also, to think that these cop radars or weather doppler radars
> really have a
> Doppler shift occurring would have to have a miniaturized Michelson
> Interferometer
> inside of them in order to fetch out that tiny Doppler Shift and I
> simply cannot envision
> how modern technology has miniaturized the interfermeter to fit inside
> one of those
> puny Doppler radar guns or even those Weather Doppler-radars.
That's because you have no real idea how radar works. It does not rely on
interferometry.
>
> When culture has a fake-science in its midsts-- doppler radar -- then
> that fake
> science gets spread around all over the place, for perhaps it sells
> more radars if
> the words "Doppler radar" are splashed as advertisement, long before
> anyone rational enough
> to say "stop this nonsense and get some real physics in the form of an
> experiment to put an end to the nonsense."
>
> So I am saying, stop the nonsense and retrofit the Michelson
> Experiment of 1887
> to put an end to the Doppler Shift fakery. Or, in the tiny possibility
> that I was wrong,
> show me if that is the case.
What do you mean, *tiny* possibility?
>
> Archimedes Plutonium
> http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
--
Archimedes Plutonium
(issue of 28 June 1999)
There is alot about lightwaves that I do not know, as I was reading
about Slow-Light
Experiments. I forget how slow the slow light has reached, whether to
a standstill. Wikipedia
even has a article about "slow light" and phase velocity.
But my interest in this is whether slow-light can prove or disprove
that Lightwaves
have no Doppler shift effect.
Now I would think that if the Doppler shift effect existed for
lightwaves, that the slowed-light
in the various recent experiments, that the slowed light would become
ever more redder
and redder and redder. That they would start off with white-light and
as it was slowed down to
90 km/sec that the light would be so very much red light, that is if
the Doppler shift effect
were true.
But from pictures I have seen of these experiments, it is white light
going in as input and
the slowed light output is still white light. If that is true, then it
appears as though "Slow Light"
experiments supports a nonexistant Doppler shift.
Archimedes Plutonium
Or maybe I got that turned around backwards, that in slow-light
experiments
and if a Doppler shift effect existed with EM waves, that the slowed-
light
would become more bluer and bluer as it was slowed and slowed down.
But since slow-light is neither blueshifted nor redshifted, signifies
that
no Doppler shift effect exists.
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 5229
> > (issue of 28 June 1999)
Now I wonder if these slow light experiments can be built on a movable
platform?
And then to use that movable platform as a means of testing whether a
Doppler
shift effect exists or does not exist. So that if the slow light were
to be seen as
white, and then the platform moved away, would we see a redshift. Or
if the
platform were scooted into our direction whether we would see a
blueshift?
So I wonder, whether this slow-light can be utilized into the question
of "is there
a Doppler shift or not?" I would guess the endresult is a null result.
Archimedes Plutonium
sufficiently. Perhaps
it is because I am learning too much to be able to organize properly.
When the learning
slows down am I able to wrestle with order and organization. At least
one thing I have
saved to make better order in the next edition, is that I am numbering
the chapters.
Some day, one of these editions will flow like a book should flow.
II. Cosmic characteristics and features; support
(3) uniform blackbody 2.71 K cosmic microwave background radiation
and Dark Night sky: Olber's Paradox fully answered
Now this chapter used to be my top chapter as far as a proof that the
Atom Totality was
the true theory, and the Big Bang was a hoax theory. The reason I say
that is because
only in Atomic Physics do we have blackbody radiation. That is what
Planck discovered
and how Quantum Mechanics arose, due to blackbody cavity radiation.
Quantum Mechanics
began with blackbody radiation and now we see the Cosmos has a
Microwave blackbody
radiation at 2.71 Kelvin.
Blackbody radiation exists only with atoms. That means the Cosmos or
Universe is one big
atom.
Because the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is blackbody, the
Big Bang theory
is dismissed. You cannot explain the Microwave 2.71 K in the Big Bang
theory. The only
explanation is that the Universe itself is a big atom. The chemical
element that fits the
special numbers of math and physics the best, is the element
plutonium. The isotope
of plutonium that fits the important physics numbers such as fine-
structure constant
or mass ratio of proton to electron is the isotope 231Pu.
Archimedes Plutonium
II. Cosmic characteristics and features; support
radiation
and Dark Night sky: Olber's Paradox fully answered
Most scientists when they talk about the Cosmic Blackbody Microwave
Radiation
are deceiving because they neglect the word "blackbody". They do this
because
they know that only blackbody radiation exists in a atom cavity. The
Big Bang
is not a atom cavity. The Atom Totality is one big atom cavity.
I am on chapter 3 discussing the fact that the cosmic
microwave radiation is blackbody and that means only one thing-- the
cosmos is the inside of some container
and the only suitable container is an atom, a cosmic
atom. The fact it is quantized is another clue that the
cosmos is a atom since only atoms are quantized.
The basic structure of this chapter centers on the work
done by DeBroglie where in his book he considers atoms and electrons
to be containers and thus allows
a thermodynamic.
Now the Big Bang theory heralded the 2.71K as supporting their theory
as a cosmic explosion, but because CMBR is blackbody quantized at
2.71K, the
more and
more it looks that the CMBR disproves the Big Bang
Theory since no explosion can be quantized nor can
a explosion be blackbody.
Atom Totality theory explains uniform blackbody 2.71 K cosmic
microwave background radiation (CMBR) as the inside of an
electron shell forms a blackbody cavity.
First question to those who know physics, can you
really have a
blackbody radiation such as the ones that Planck had
studied and
had researched and used to form the foundation of
quantum mechanics
that is not uniform? That it may have fluctuations and ripples?
Second question,
can the Cosmos really have a blackbody radiation and
not be a cavity?
Such as the cavity of the 5f6 of 231Pu?
Third question, can you really have a blackbody cavity
as the Cosmos itself and not be an Atom?
porky_...@my-deja.com
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Most scientists when they talk about the Cosmic Blackbody Microwave
> Radiation
> are deceiving because they neglect the word "blackbody". They do this
> because
> they know that only blackbody radiation exists in a atom cavity. The
> Big Bang
> is not a atom cavity. The Atom Totality is one big atom cavity.
>
Your brain is one big cavity, Archie Poo. Have you tried to microwave
it and see what happens?
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
II. Cosmic characteristics and features; support
Chapter (3) uniform blackbody 2.71 K cosmic microwave background
radiation and Dark Night sky: Olber's Paradox fully answered
Before I can do the DeBroglie thermodynamics of an electron cavity,
I need to know the large number of Coulomb Interactions inside a 231Pu
atom.
Subject: Re: Minimum Coulomb Interactions for
plutonium
Date: 30 Sep 1995 02:39:12 GMT
In article (44e36n...@rzsun02.rrz.uni-hamburg.de>
fc3a...@AMRISC03.math.uni-hamburg.de (Hauke Reddmann)
writes:
> And Pu is then the case where even the Schroedinger
> equation can't be written out. (Remember that Pu has
a so high
> mass number that relativistic effects come in.) In
this case you
> use approximations, like treating closed shells as a
spherically
> symmetric potential. Of course the calculations then
are not
> nearly exact as in the H case.
> So, which value should YOU use? As you are sort of a
> neopythagorean, I fear you won't be satisfied with
approximations
> and must use the 95!/2 value. Even worse, this only
nails down
> the coulomb interactions. There are loads of
second-order effects
> due to spin dependent interactions.
> Hope this helps. This post got very long, but you
see what happens
> when you get into the realm of "dirty" science, with
all sorts of
> models, approximations and calculations.
Thank you very much both Hauke Reddmann and Gerald
L. Hurst.
The Coulombic states is a very large number indeed.
I can use any of these large numbers for plutonium,
(2^188 x2x2x2) of (n,L,M_L,m_s), or the 95!/2, or the
one which
I favor the most since as of recent it comes from the
Hydrogen
Atom Systems where all the forces are either Coulombic
or
Radioactivity. Thus 231PU is ((2^231) x2x2x2) or that of
232!/2.
With those large numbers it really does not matter
for the
difference of one more electron and proton in the next
element
after plutonium, which is element 95. These numbers
are so huge
and that is what is needed in order to compose a
thermodynamics.
I could not compose a satisfying thermodynamics for
plutonium
with just 94x187 = 17578 things going on.
The cosmic microwave background radiation is
blackbody radiation.
The fact that it is blackbody seems to have escaped
the attention of
virtually every physicist and scientist alive except
me. For if they
deny that they missed it, and understood what it means
to be blackbody
and the implication of something "being" a blackbody,
because blackbody
directly implies a structure, yes, a structure, then
ask them what
structure they understood it to be if they claim they
understood it
initially? An onion?
I have combed every science magazine and journal and
have never seen
any physicist or writer display that math logic
reasoning and well
thinking for all mention blackbody but noone said or
printed the next
logical step, if blackbody then it is a structure. Our
observable
universe is a structure itself.
I knew the structure to be a blackbody cavity
because the 94th+93rd
electron space is a blackbody cavity and that is why
the night sky is
black because it is a blackbody cavity. Get it --
blackbody means
black.
The book LA THERMODYNAMIQUE DE LA PARTICULE ISOLEE
(OU THERMODYNAMIQUE CACHEE DES PARTICULES)
(btw, I like that title with the word "cachee"
and obviously this book is written in French and it is
one of the
greatest books ever written. It is truly amazing of
the dazzling genius
of Debroglie to have anticipated so much in advance)
written by
Debroglie, 1964, considers the relativistic
fluctuations of mass of
subatomic particles such as the protons, electrons.
And then associates
temperature with a relativistic statistical mechanic.
Archimedes Plutonium
II. Cosmic characteristics and features; support
Chapter (3) uniform blackbody 2.71 K cosmic microwave background
radiation and Dark Night sky: Olber's Paradox fully answered
I no longer remember in which edition that I had the Blackbody Cosmic
Microwave Background Radiation as the top supporting piece of evidence
but then thought otherwise. In the case of Wegener with Continental
Drift theory,
he had to wait for the top evidence of the seafloor spreading. I
believe the top evidence
for the Atom Totality theory, right here and now, is the blackbody
microwave radiation.
It is impossible for the Big Bang theory to explain that one single
outstanding piece of
factual data.
What I am trying to do with DeBroglie is show how the electrons of the
231Pu Atom
Totality form a cavity, a electron cavity or box and where the Coulomb
Interactions
of the Atom Totality creates this 2.71 K microwave blackbody
radiation.
The book LA THERMODYNAMIQUE DE LA PARTICULE ISOLEE
(OU THERMODYNAMIQUE CACHEE DES PARTICULES)
(btw, I like that title with the word "cachee"
and obviously this book is written in French and it is
one of the
greatest books ever written. It is truly amazing of
the dazzling genius
of Debroglie to have anticipated so much in advance)
written by
Debroglie, 1964, considers the relativistic
fluctuations of mass of
subatomic particles such as the protons, electrons.
And then associates
temperature with a relativistic statistical mechanic.
I am following Debroglie's intuition, except
replacing relativistic
mass fluctuations with statistical quantum
fluctuations of the Coulomb
interactions for a plutonium atom in order to derive
an intrinsic
associated temperature for an electron cavity, which
is simply the
space occupied by an electron of 231 plutonium atom.
Let me use 95!/2 or either 232!/2 as the "Coulombic
states" and with
this large number of statistical interactions, I
propose to find an
intrinsic temperature for the 94th electron of an
isolated plutonium
atom.
From pages 94-101, Debroglie works with the formula
1/T = dS/dL
where T is temperature, dS is the derivative of
entropy with respect to
the lagrangian L which is kinetic energy of a system
minus the
potential energy of that system. Debroglie derives
the formula m_0cc =
kT_0 , then where M_0 is proportional to the factor
e^(S/k) as M_0 =
m_0 thus the entropy is proportional to the Boltzmann
factor
e^(-M_0/m_0), thence 1/T = e^(-M_0/m_0)/ d L. Now
taking the idea of a
neutron of a neptunium atom radioactively growing to
transform into a
plutonium atom in which the term d L is very close to
1 by the factor
(neutron/neutron) - ((proton + electron)/neutron).
So 1/T =
e^(-188/186) K/1 which is 1/T = 1/e^(188/186) K. So
the thermodynamic
of the isolated plutonium atom or the blackbody
temperature of a
plutonium atom is e^188/186 K which is the value of
2.74 degrees
Kelvin. The presently determined value by the COBE
satellite for the
cosmic background microwave temperature of the
observable universe is
2.735 + 0.06 K. I assert that it is not coincidence
that the value for
the cosmic background microwave radiation temperature
of 2.7 is close
to the value of the number "e" in maths.
Mike Dworetsky
Reality check: would this numerology have given the same answer 5-6 billion
years ago when the CMB was closer to 5 K? Or was e different back then?
What about 10 billion years ago when it was even hotter?
Archimedes Plutonium
Mike Dworetsky wrote:
>
> Reality check: would this numerology have given the same answer 5-6 billion
> years ago when the CMB was closer to 5 K? Or was e different back then?
> What about 10 billion years ago when it was even hotter?
>
I may have to combine this chapter with "new radioactivities" for I
begin to see
that uninformed and misguided people cannot separate a hot Big Bang
from a
cool progressive building of the Cosmos starting with the Hydrogen
Atom Totality
and eventually reaching up to the Plutonium Atom Totality. So maybe I
have to
somehow combine new-radioactivities with blackbody microwave to allay
all those
misguided. Maybe I can refer to and give warning in this chapter. For
I have
made up my mind that this chapter is the Deciding Evidence that
trashes
the Big Bang theory and the Atom Totality is the victor. Just as
seafloor spreading
proof was the deciding evidence for Wegener's Continental Drift.
So I cannot have it where foolish polluted minds of the Big Bang read
the
first three chapters and never have enough of a commonsense to see an
alternative way of building the Cosmos in a "cool process" of Dirac's
new radioactivities, building atom by atom until it turns from a
Hydrogen
Atom Totality into our present day Plutonium Atom Totality.
Read Dirac's book Directions in Physics, for there never was a hot
period. Only
Big Bangers need a super hot and super everything period. Atom
Totality works with
Dirac's vision and intuition.
There was "new radioactivities". Read where he talks about
multiplicative or
additive creation.
I would not call Dirac numerology. I would bet that Mike does not even
have a degree
in physics and far afield of his training given his above simpleton
understanding of nothing.
Archimedes Plutonium
a true theory removes
a fake theory of a "static Earth". I like it because it shows that
true science usually divides
the scientists of that community. Divides them into bandwagons of
those who cling onto
the old past and falsehoods. And the Continental Drift theory is of
recent memory. So it is
a good example, especially in how the theory ended up winning with a
Deciding Evidence
of seafloor spreading which provides a mechanism to move continents.
So, now, compare Atom Totality versus Big Bang with that of
Continental Drift versus
Static Earth. In the first chapter I said that the Big Bang as a
description was an
amorphous nonentity. What I meant was that the Big Bang is just an
explosion and that
the Universe is a nothing but becoming into something for it is just
an explosion.
If we have a bomb that explodes and only see the process of the
explosion, we cannot
say the Cosmos as a bomb explosion is a entity, can we? We cannot say
in frame 1 or
frame 2 or frame 3 of the explosion that the explosion is a formed
entity.
But in the Atom Totality, if we take frames of time we can always say
the Universe is a
atom of one of the atoms from hydrogen to plutonium. In other words,
the Universe is a
"something" at all times.
So that when we discovered that the Universe had a blackbody cosmic
microwave
background radiation, what we had discovered was that the Universe was
an entity,
was a something, and in fact it was a Quantum Blackbody Cavity. The
only quantum
blackbody cavities are the insides of atoms.
So where seafloor spreading was proof that Continental Drift was true,
likewise,
when we discovered that Cosmic Blackbody Microwave Radiation is proof
that
the Universe is a big atom.
Mike Dworetsky
So I see my question has made you backpedal, when you realized you had
overlooked such a basic fact as the time-changing value of CMBR temperature.
There goes your "theory". You are making it up as you go along hoping no
one will notice.
>
> Read Dirac's book Directions in Physics, for there never was a hot
> period. Only
> Big Bangers need a super hot and super everything period. Atom
> Totality works with
> Dirac's vision and intuition.
Is that what he says? Are you sure? Intuition isn't everything. It can be
trumped by a critical observation.
>
> There was "new radioactivities". Read where he talks about
> multiplicative or
> additive creation.
I don't think he meant what you are trying to read into it.
>
> I would not call Dirac numerology. I would bet that Mike does not even
> have a degree
> in physics and far afield of his training given his above simpleton
> understanding of nothing.
Well, while you are at it, tell us all about YOUR physics degrees.
>
> Archimedes Plutonium
> http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
--
Archimedes Plutonium
point in
having two chapters on the redshift so I combined those into one. That
left
a gap opening for a chapter on the evolution of galaxies from
spherical to
elliptical galaxies and how magnetohydrodynamics is probably the main
force
behind this evolutionary process.
Since I am adamant that the most proving and deciding evidence of the
Atom Totality that dismisses the Big Bang theory is the cosmic
blackbody microwave
background radiation, it becomes chapter 3, and that I need to
associate more
the Dirac new radioactivities in chapter 1 and 3. To emphasize that
the Atom
Totality theory is a progression of Atom Totalities from a Hydrogen
Atom Totality
to a Helium Atom Totality to a Lithium Atom Totality all the way
upwards to our
present day Plutonium Atom Totality. This progression is not a hot
cosmic temperature
progression but a cool progression of a constant creation of new
matter via
Dirac new radioactivities.
The Big Bang theory is not a entity theory, not a "something theory"
but rather
a process of an explosion and to Big Bang believers the universe is
not a
"something" but rather a "process".
Now on those grounds alone, logic is averse to a theory that is a mere
process.
A theory that is a "becoming of something" but always stuck in a
process mode.
For an explosion never ends up as a "something". Unless, I suppose the
believers
of the Big Bang want gravity to halt the explosion and then bring the
Universe back
to some entity.
Now, for the life of me, I cannot think of another theory of science
that is wholly a
process without ever a substance or entity or something that the
process acts upon
to make a integral theory. Now Darwin evolution theory has a process
involved but it
also has a entity involved of genetics. Nay, I cannot think of one
single theory of science
other than the Big Bang theory that is utterly deplete of a substance
or a entity and where
the entire theory is simply a 100% process. It is sort of like saying
that we can have a
theory of science on a vacuum. We know how to make partial vaccuums in
a process of
removing all matter and energy from a container, but then, to say we
have a science theory
on vaccuums is nonsense to be nice about it.
So unlike the Big Bang theory of its sole term of an explosion and it
being a 100% process
with no substance or entity for the process to work upon, the Atom
Totality theory is both
a process and a crystal clear entity of something-- the elements of
the periodic table.
The process in the Atom Totality is where one atom totality builds up
enough new atoms that
it catapults the atom totality into the next higher atomic number Atom
Totality. This creation
of new matter is the Dirac new radioactivities.
So in the Atom Totality theory, the theory has both material matter to
work with and a process
of change. Whereas the Big Bang theory is only process-- of a
explosion.
So now, when science observed in the late 20th century that the Cosmic
Microwave
Background Radiation was a Quantum Blackbody radiation, immediately
supports the
Atom Totality theory as it says the Universe is a something-- a entity
and is a big atom
to have a cavity inside that atom to create a blackbody microwave
radiation. The Big Bang theory is destroyed with that evidence of a
blackbody microwave, because the Big Bang
is not an entity, is not a container or cavity to have a blackbody
microwave radiation
at 2.71 Kelvin.
So in chapter 1, I need to expand on the idea of a progression of atom
totalities from
hydrogen to helium all the way up through the chemical elements to
plutonium. Whereas
the Big Bang is just all process and no substance, is just one
explosion, that could not
possibly render a blackbody microwave cosmic radiation.
Archimedes Plutonium
science. In some cases
the public social acceptance of a science truth may take milleniums as
for the case
of heliocentric versus geocentric solar system. For me personally, to
know the truth
of what is true and what is false is enough satisfaction, and whether
the "other persons" do not know
the truth, but clings to a falsehood is alright by me, for to expect
everyone to know
and accept the truth of the world is rather a misguided notion in
itself.
The finest example of socialized science is the Atomic theory itself
starting way back with
Leucippus, Democritus and others. Science truth is known and accepted
by a few
persons, and this small group grows in numbers and strength through
time until finally
the entire social network for the most part understands and accepts
the truth. It took
approximately two milleniums for the social network to accept what
Democritus knew full
well back in Ancient Greek times. It took not quite two milleniums to
accept a round and
revolving Earth in the heliocentric system. There were probably vast
holdouts of believers
until many of the sailors circumnavigated the globe.
For Wegener and Continental Drift, most rational commonsense people
did not need a
seafloor spreading nor a mechanism for seafloor spreading to be
convinced that the
continents of Earth had moved in the past and were moving in the
present. The evidence
was piling up and was pointing to the truth of Continental Drift.
Likewise for the Atom
Totality theory, where the evidence is piling up and eliminating the
Big Bang theory.
For me, the fact of the observational and experimental evidence of a
Blackbody Cosmic
Microwave Background Radiation implies the Cosmos is a quantum cavity.
There is only
one such entity that is quantum cavity-- the interior of an atom. The
Cosmos is one big
atom is the conclusion of the Blackbody Microwave. To most rational,
reasonable commonsense people, whether they are scientists or not
scientists, is enough of a
deciding evidence to understand and accept the Atom Totality theory
and dismiss the
Big Bang theory. But there are many within the science community that
have more of
an irrational mind of science rather than a rational science mind.
They have invested their
time into the Big Bang theory and are not about to admit that they
were ever wrong about
their lifetime of belief in a false theory. For them it may take much
more than the simple
fact of a Blackbody Microwave. For them they would require a proof of
the Dirac New-Radioactivities that creates each successive Atom
Totality from Hydrogen Atom Totality
to Helium Atom Totality all the way up to a Plutonium Atom Totality.
Just as there were
many geologists who would not accept Continental Drift until they saw
a mechanism in
action such as the seafloor spreading. Some were even unconvinced
after the reports
of the Atlantic Ocean seafloor spreading mapps were shown.
So in the case of the Atom Totality theory, many in the science
community are going to
hold fast to their Big Bang even though we have Blackbody Microwave.
They will ignore
it, for they spent all their lifetime in science invested with the Big
Bang. They are not
going to be rational and commonsense about the evidence. To them, they
need not only
the Blackbody Microwave but they need the Dirac "new-radioactivities"
where the cosmic
rays and cosmic gamma ray bursts are newly created matter shot from
the Nucleus of the
Atom Totality. Dirac talks extensively about "new radioactivities" in
his book "Directions in
Physics."
For me, the story is over with and ended as far as the truth of the
Atom Totality and the
fakery of the Big Bang. The story is over with because a Blackbody
Microwave is the end
of the story as to a proof of the Atom Totality. But for most people,
including those in science,
they let their sentiment rule their life's thinking and do not have
the control of their minds
to let logic rule their thinking. To them, Blackbody Microwave is not
enough, and they need
much more, for they need proof of Dirac's new radioactivities.
When I went to college in 1968 to UC and in my freshman year I took a
course in
geology and the professor at UC apologized about the textbook, saying
that it had
little information about the debate of Continental Drift versus Static
Earth. So we can
see how "snail crawling slow is a science community in accepting what
is true and
dismissing what is false." Acceptance of the true theory of a science
moves
as slowly as what Continental Drift moves continents.
Most of us have the misconception that in science, a true theory
replaces the old
fake theory at some breakneck speed. In come the new true theory and
out goes
the old false within a crisp short time. Unfortunately that is rarely
if ever the case.
Old fake theories seem to have a life of their own. And they remain
active false theories
until the general public insists that scientists label them as "false
theories" within the textbooks. So when do we get rid of
fakes like Big Bang, like black-holes? Not until we see in college
textbooks printed
that the Big Bang is a fake or that black-holes were the
misconceptions of scientists
of the 20th and 21st century. Only when the general public expects the
textbook
writers to state that the Big Bang is a false theory and that black-
holes were merely
chimeras in the minds of past scientists.
When I took the geology course in 1968, there was a debate of whether
Continental
Drift or Static Earth was true. And my textbook barely covered the two
theories. Nowadays the textbooks state, or imply, that Static Earth is
a false theory, if they even mention it
at all. False theories of science are usually found in the history of
geology or the history
of physics.
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Well I really do not much care of the socialization of a theory of
> science. In some cases
> the public social acceptance of a science truth may take milleniums as
> for the case
> of heliocentric versus geocentric solar system. For me personally, to
> know the truth
> of what is true and what is false is enough satisfaction, and whether
> the "other persons" do not know
> the truth, but clings to a falsehood is alright by me, for to expect
> everyone to know
> and accept the truth of the world is rather a misguided notion in
> itself.
>
I need to expand chapter 2 to include the "history", not only of the
history
of science and a history of a particular theory of science but history
overall. Most of us believe that history is the accurate recording and
retelling of past events. But there is far more to "history" than that
simpleton notion. For this book ends with the theory of
superdeterminism,
where all human actions and thoughts were predetermined and forced
or ordered to come about, much like puppets on strings forced to do
what
they do.
I need to expand chapter 2, especially from the years 1990 when I
discovered
this theory to present day-- the current latest edition. It must
include my thoughts
on how a new theory-- Atom Totality replaces a fake theory of Big
Bang. How some
of the social dynamics cause such to happen.
I made mention in various older posts of an idea called Levels or
Hierarchies of
Engineering. What I mean by that is I have several lots of land with
buildings on
them, including my home where I have a large number of tools and
materials, and
depending on what goes wrong and needs fixing, that I have so many
tools and
materials that I can engineer a fix to the problem. An alternative
view of this
Hierarchy of Engineering is that we could not build a skyscraper in
the 19th century
but had to wait for the 20th century where we had a Hierarchy of
Engineering
with steel, welding and concrete to build these skyscrapers. Likewise
I could use the
example of airplanes where the 19th century did not have the Levels of
Engineering
in materials or in understanding to produce airplanes back then.
In my own situation of discovering the Atom Totality theory in 1990.
That theory was
not possible without the previous and prior understanding that an
electron can be two
things. An electron can be a ball shaped material object in a
collapsed wavefunction,
or it can be a myriad number of dots in an electron-dot-cloud. So,
that idea of either
a ball or a dot-cloud was a very important member of the Levels of
Understanding in
Physics that enabled me to discover the Atom Totality theory. Without
that idea that
an electron in uncollapsed wavefunction is a myriad number of dots in
an electron
dot cloud, would have made it impossible for me to discover that the
Universe was a
big gigantic atom itself, because the galaxies are these dots of the
electron dot cloud.
So without the electron dot cloud concept of Quantum Mechanics that
existed from
about 1920's to 1990, I would not have had enough tools or
understanding to discover
the Plutonium Atom Totality in 1990.
Now let me just remark a few key remarks about when a new theory
rivals an old theory--
the Big Bang. Let me remark about what usually happens when the new
theory meets
with the old theory.
As I said in the previous post, I really do not care all that much
about whether "another
person" believes and accepts the Big Bang theory even after they read
this book. My
satisfaction is that I know the truth about the Universe and the Big
Bang believer
is one who accepts a fakery.
But let me add on to that circumstance. The Quantum theory of Physics
was a new theory
that came around 1900 with Planck's blackbody radiation that he
noticed energy comes
only in discrete packets of energy-- it was quantized. And let us
suppose that noone other
than Planck understood and believed and accepted this quantization of
energy. Much like
the Atom Totality theory being understood and accepted only by AP or a
small group of
people.
In the case of Max Planck, his quantization was immediately accepted
and then what
happened was that a plethora of other scientists made brilliant and
dazzling discoveries
all from the first beginnings of a quantization of energy. For there
was Bohr with the
way electrons work in atoms, the Bohr Model, and there was the
Complementary Principle
and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the Schrodinger Equation
and the Dirac Equation, and the Pauli Exclusion Principle. From Planck
in 1900 to about 1930 there
must have been over 100 different scientists who all earned scientific
fame for their
contribution to what Planck had started. Now if all those 100
scientists had said
"phooey phooey" to Planck's quantization and had stuck with the old
Newtonian Physics
none of those 100 would have made a mark in physics, and would have
left open to
Planck all those discoveries taken by Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrodinger,
Dirac and the
100 or more.
A theory of science is like engineering and that if we use a hammer to
hammer in
screws and not a screwdriver, is the same as the Big Bang being a
false theory
and hammering in screws. Does it matter to a scientist who finds the
true theory
of the Atom Totality to care whether another scientist believes and
accepts the Big Bang?
Does it matter to me whether someone builds their house by hammering
in screws
rather than using screwdrivers? If I were a construction company, I
would be pleased
to hear my competitors are hammering in their screws, because I would
know that
all their doors would be faulty and that their sheet metal roofs would
come loose
soon.
Since 1990 when the Atom Totality was discovered, and widely reported,
mostly
on the Internet, but some in print and newspapers. It makes me happy
to know that
only a small group of believers accepts the theory. Because it has
allowed me to
capture the lionshare of new truths. What do I care if all the shoddy
built homes
with hammered in screws have their roofs blown off and their doors
fall in. Would
not Max Planck have been more satisfied if it were a Planck Hydrogen
Atom Model,
a Planck Uncertainty Principle, a Planck Equation.
Because the group of believers, accepters and understanders of the
Atom Totality
theory is so small from 1990 to 2010, is a blessing to me, because,
then I can
discover more and receive even more credit. And who cares whether all
the other
houses have their roofs blown off and doors fall in.
Everytime the TV NOVA shows display a fakery science with a program on
string
theory or a program on Big Bang or a program on black holes. Do I
really care they
are taking up the spotlight and center stage of science with their
fakery nonsense
theories? I do not mind at all, really, because I know they are a
passing fleeting
moment, since their science is a fakery. The time they spend on their
Big Bang,
their black holes and their strings, is wasted time just as wasted as
hammering
in screws in construction and only a matter of time before that
construction
is dismissed.
The price that scientist pay, for their inability to recognize,
understand and accept the
new theory that is the true theory, and where they cling to old fake
theories like the
Big Bang, is the price that although they may occupy the attention and
center stage
now, that they will be seen in the future as "not scientists or
worse". For those that
do recognize that the Big Bang is a fake, they have an opportunity to
find some
true physics for which they can make important discovery and
contribution.
Archimedes Plutonium
the history of this
Atom Totality theory in particular. I need a confluence of
Superdeterminism with history.
We normally think of the subject of "history" as the simple faithful
recording of the
facts of the past as to what happened. Trouble is that we often do not
see or understand
the links of what happened and why things happened in the manner that
they happened.
Much of history, whether it be general history or specific history
such as the history of
physics has spurious interpretations, disguising as facts. Causes and
effects are
spuriously given and interpretated as factual. Although the history of
say physics or
biology would be less spurious than the history of say a country and
its politics and
economics and social web.
Another shortfall of history, whether it be history of physics or
history of a political
country, is that we view history as a "absolute truth", sort of like a
Newtonian
Absolute Space and Time frame of reference. What I mean by this, is
that given
a date such as 1860s we think that the history of the world should
emphasize that
the USA had a Civil War raging on and the history mostly talks about
wars and
leaders in various countries, whereas a truer reflection of history of
humanity in
the 1860s is that we were beginning to have photography technology,
radio
technology with the Maxwell Equations, the start of internal
combustion engines,
start of submarines. In other words, technology in history is more
important than
what wars were going on and what leaders were doing in various
countries.
This Hierarchy or Levels of Engineering is more telling of history
than is what
country politics and economics was occurring. In the next two decades
from
2010 to 2030, it is more important in history as to solving energy
technology
than to solving squabbles and wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and other
places.
A theory of Science itself, such as the Big Bang theory or the Atom
Totality theory
can be seen as a Level of Engineering. Theories are thus-- Models of
Engineering--
and how good they work as a model, the more truth value they have. So
the Big Bang could not exist as a Model, as a theory, unless it had
some supporting evidence, like
the Microwave background or the redshift of galaxies. But when the
Microwave
and redshift turn out to be against the Big Bang then the theory does
not work and
is dismissed.
In the past, science used philosophy to talk about the "history of
science" and this
unfortunately lead to this Newtonian Absolutism of the history of
physics or other
sciences. There was obnoxious talk of "paradigm shift". But in an Atom
Totality
with Superdeterminism, then theories of science and the history of
science becomes
more like Engineering Models where the models work, or are surpassed
by other
models that work better. So we have a sort of Pragmatism of history.
If a model
of a history is formulated which fits the facts as alleged facts or
otherwise, fits them
better than another model, then we use the superior model.
So for example, the history of geology needed a long period of time in
which it was
considered that the Continents were static through time and were not
moving, and then
only in the 20th century, could geology move into a theory of
Continental Drift, since
we had the instruments, and levels of organization to make that new
model of
Continental Drift. Likewise, the Atom Totality theory could not have
been borne
in 1920s or 1930s but had to wait to have a Big Bang interloper until
1990 to be
borne. The Atom Totality theory needed the Big Bang theory, even
though it is a
fake theory, it needed it to move into the true theory of Atom
Totality. Just as the
Big Bang theory needed the Steady State theory of the Universe that
preceded the
Big Bang theory. So the progression of theories-- prior to 1930 was
the Steady State
theory -- then the Big Bang replaced the Steady State and then after
the 1990s
the Atom Totality replaces the Big Bang.
So these progressions of replacement are similar to Engineering Models
that replace
old outdated and unusable models. We do not want to return to whale
oil to light
up homes as a energy technology, and we thus progressed into coal/oil/
natural gas
but now we are faced with those fossil fuels as destroying the
environment and most
be replaced by a renewable clean energy-- volcanoes as geothermal of
tapping into
the interior of Earth of its volcano energy.
Or we can analogize metaphorically to the Wright brothers first
airplanes as the Steady
State Theory which moved to the airplanes of the World War I and II as
the Big Bang
theory of physics, which has moved to the airplanes and spaceships of
2010 as the
Atom Totality theory. So a theory of science is a feat of engineering,
levels of engineering
to put together a model that works best given all the facts and data
available.
The Big Bang no longer has the Microwave Background nor the Doppler
redshift
working in its favor but working against it. Here the Atom Totality
theory has
usurped the Microwave since it is a Blackbody Microwave and has
usurped the
redshift as not even being Doppler, but is something altogether
different than a
measure of speed or distance.
In an Atom Totality theory, since it has superdeterminism, then the
subject of
history, whether a country or nation's history or the history of
science such as
the history of physics, all those histories are changed, because
superdeterminism
alters how we understand history.
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(all else snipped)
>
> In an Atom Totality theory, since it has superdeterminism, then the
> subject of
> history, whether a country or nation's history or the history of
> science such as
> the history of physics, all those histories are changed, because
> superdeterminism
> alters how we understand history.
>
Now let me spend some time, although not too much time on biology and
the
discovery of science theories by scientists in an Atom Totality run by
superdeterminism.
In the Big Bang theory, there is no superdeterminism but rather we
have Darwin
evolution theory, where it is thought that the best genetics and
environment combine
to produce a person who is best able to think up or experimentally
come upon a science theory. Where the best fit science minds produce
the best science theory.
Let me not write too much about this because I consider this mostly as
"people talk"
whereas this book is about physics and astronomy where one is unlikely
to want to
talk about people. And one of the reasons that the Atomic theory borne
some 2 milleniums
ago in Ancient Greek times was so despised was that it seemed to make
people and
gods irrelevant and it made little unseen atoms as the most important
things.
But let me do some talking about people, scientists and how science
theories are
discovered in an Atom Totality where superdeterminism is the modus
operandi or
the driving action. Superdeterminism is where people are puppets
manipulated by
the Atom Totality Nucleus in order to satisfy the Bell Inequality of
Quantum Mechanics.
There is no free will and hence Darwin Evolution theory is no longer
true but only a
rule that is approximately true some of the time.
So how does a Big Bang believer armed with Darwin Evolution theory
envision a scientist
making a discovery of a science theory such as the Big Bang theory?
Well, to them
they believe that a person becomes a scientist by having good genetics
to think clear
and logical and with a ease of mathematical abilities, coupled with an
environment in
which science skills and learning are fostered such as going to
schools. And then
landing in a science career and doing science as a job. And so the
discovery of the
Big Bang theory with its mathematics and with its Microwave radiation
and with its
Doppler redshift, such persons as Hubble or Einstein we see themselves
as discoverers
of these theories of the Big Bang as a result of their good genetics
and good schooling
and their avid interest in wanting a science discovery.
Now let me say what the Atom Totality with superdeterminism would see
a discovery
of a theory such as the Atom Totality theory. Of course, I discovered
it so I can
say first hand of what it is like. In Superdeterminism, I actually did
not discover
any theory, nor did any other scientist discover any theory of
science. In superdeterminism,
a discoverer or a achiever of science is picked or chosen by the Atom
Totality Nucleus.
Picked and chosen at birth to make the discovery when the time comes,
and in the meantime,
given the training and path leading up to the discovery.
In Big Bang/ Darwinism, probability of science success, of discovery,
depends on
whether there is a genetic favorability and whether the environment
nurtured and fostered
the path to the discovery. In Atom Totality/superdeterminism, genetics
and environment
are besides the point, for the only point is whether a person is
chosen at birth to later in
future years to make a theory of science, and the Nucleus of the Atom
Totality leads that
person all along the path to that discovery.
So in the Big Bang/ Darwinism view of science achievement, these
people are seen as
geniuses of science as having superior genetics with a superior
environment. In the
Atom Totality/superdeterminism these people who make the discoveries
are seen as
"avatars" chosen at birth, and given just enough information in their
windy path through
life to end up making the science discovery they make.
Now in a way, although I would not put too much emphasis on it, in a
way, these two
contrasts should be able to tell us if the Big Bang/Darwinism is true
or whether the
Atom Totality/Superdeterminism is true, by looking at the actual
history of science
events. If the Atom Totality/ Superdeterminism is true, then more
often than not, the
great discoveries in science should often come from those who never
looked promising
to amount to much in science. Who seemed to come out of the clear blue
yonder
and made a huge contribution. And the reverse is also true that we can
have scientists
whose genetics from past family of scientists and who had the finest
schools and who
end up backing a fake theory and can never seem to dismiss the fake
theory but irrationally
hold on to the fake.
If the reader knows the history of physics or of biology or of
mathematics, knows that
many of the most famous discoveries were from so called "outsiders"
and where the
most promising newly minted scientists from the finest schools ended
up as being
cranks of fake theories.
I am going to mention four names that are especially relevant to the
Atom Totality theory
and who follow the Superdeterminism path rather than the Darwinian
path. (1) Dirac,
(2) John Bell (3) DeBroglie (4) Faraday. Both Dirac and Bell were
trained as
engineers, and it is hard to see them ending up as pure theoretical
physicists as
per Darwinian Evolution. DeBroglie was an outsider to physics
altogether and something
seemed to pull him into physics. Faraday is an example of a complete
outsider to science
but was drawn to science by some force, and even when an insider to
science, he
was never able to use mathematics. So science discovery is not
dependent on
genetics, nor on environment, but only on whether one is chosen and
picked for a
mission by the Nucleus of the Atom Totality.
In Big Bang/ Darwinism, the discoveries of great new science should be
the people
who make the highest test scores in science and math. In the Atom
Totality/Superdeterminism, the discoveries of great new science is
more often then not
the outsiders who never fared all that well in schools or even studied
the science
in school, but are pulled to their fate, their destiny by the Nucleus
of the Atom
Totality. And once they are close to their important discoveries, it
is the Nucleus
of the Atom Totality that is guiding them all through their work.
So actually, science theories are not discoveries, but echoes of the
Atom
Totality, using humans as avatars, as portals. This idea that is
prevalent nowadays that
scientists are geniuses and that the chemicals sloshing around in
their
brain to come up with the new theory, is really a grotesque idea of
what really
happens.
If anyone were to keep the statistics from say around 1980 to 2010 of
those that
made the highest College scores in physics and biology and math and
then see
where they ended up in those sciences will be surprized to find out
that they
never measured up to promise, whereas those that come out of the blue
yonder
as never really promising, are the ones who do measure up.
Archimedes Plutonium
unable to
get this book in a decent order and organization. It does not read
like a flowing
book as yet and so the flowing reading must wait for some future
edition.
This is the up to date chapters:
I. the theory
(1) what is this theory?
(2) pictures of the Atom Totality theory, and history of the theory
and precursor hints
II. Cosmic characteristics and features; support
(3) uniform blackbody 2.71 K cosmic microwave background radiation
and Dark Night sky: Olber's Paradox fully answered
(4) missing mass conundrum solved
(5) 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.
(6) the cosmic distribution of chemical elements
(7) shape of the Cosmos as 6 lobes of 5f6 as nonrelativistic as
Cubic, or as relativistic Dodecahedron; color of the cosmos as
plutonium off-white
(8) Cosmic magnetohydrodynamics: Maxwell Equations applied to
the galaxies.
III. Observational and experimental support
(9) Redshift of light from galaxies caused by
refraction and scattering, not a Doppler effect
experiment that shows us what the redshift truly is-- curvature
of the lobes of an Atom Totality
(10) Telescope experiments as distance tool, telescopic-eclipse-
technique, and upper limit of telescope in distance is about 400
million light years
(11) Experiment that Space is electromagnetic, not gravitational
with
the upper limit of distance as 400 million light years
(12) density and distribution of all the galaxies
(13) Tifft quantized galaxy speeds
(14) Dirac's new-radioactivities and Dirac's multiplicative-
creation
(15) Planetary evidence: "Earth evidence" such as age; zirconium
crystal dating; Titius-Bode Rule as diffraction pattern
(16) "Solar System evidence" such as CellWell 1 and CellWell2 ;
planet cores ; plane of ecliptic
(17) Galaxy evidence: "Milky Way evidence" : Exoplanets and
exosolarsystems; Binary Stars
(18) MECO theory to explain high energy sources and black-hole
theory as science-fiction
IV. Mathematical and logic beauty support
(19) "pi" and "e" and "i" explained; inverse fine structure
constant, and proton to electron mass ratio, speed of light, all
linked and explained
(20) Bell Inequality with Superdeterminism fits only in an Atom
Totality theory
(21) Purpose and meaning of life
(22) Atomic theory Syllogism
Let me summarize how the "history of physics" goes in an Atom
Totality/
Superdeterminism Universe compared to how "history of physics" occurs
in an Big Bang/Darwin Evolution Universe.
In an Atom Totality, the history of physics follows engineering feats
of accomplishment
in tandem with physics advances. So one can say that the knowledge and
wisdom of
physics is mirrored by what is available at that time in engineering
knowledge. So we could
not have the Maxwell Equations without the electric motor first. We
could not have
Continental Drift without the engineering devices that detected and
measured the
seafloor spreading. We could not have Cell theory without the
microscope. We could not
have the Big Bang theory without the telescope. And we cannot have the
Atom Totality
without the latest engineering devices that will detect the new Dirac
Radioactivities
and whether it is an additive creation process or a multiplicative
creation process.
In Dirac's book "Directions in Physics", he says that the Moon should
be moving away from Earth at a rate of 2cm/year for Multiplicative
Creation. Until now we never really had the
engineering capability nor the precision to make Dirac's measurements.
We do now, and
whether the Moon is the best place to find if Dirac was correct, is
debatable. It maybe that
Earth is easier to find out if Dirac was correct with an elaborate
engineered experiment.
We simply have to measure with precision the incoming cosmic rays and
cosmic gamma
ray bursts. We could not do that during Dirac's lifetime, but our
engineering prowess has
increased enormously since Dirac lived.
So let me summarize the history of physics and how theories are made
in an Atom Totality/
Superdeterminism versus Big Bang/ Darwin Evolution
Atom Totality summary:
(1) The theories mirror reflect the state of art of engineering
technology whether in the
ability to build devices to make accurate measurement or to simply
peer into or look into
a subject realm. So the theories are no better than the state of
engineering at the time.
(2) The discovery of a theory of science is a chain of events where a
person is picked or
chosen by the Atom Totality to make the discovery and where the person
acts like a portal
or avatar for the discovery. Often the discoverer is an outsider of
that science subject.
(3) Knowledge, understanding and science are progressive states not
conditions of
absolute-and-forever knowledge, just as the Atom Totality
is a progression from a Uranium Atom Totality to a Neptunium Atom
Totality to a Plutonium
Atom Totality then on to the next higher Atom Totality
(4) Discovery of a correct science theory depends only on whether the
Nucleus of the
Atom Totality picks and choses a person to make the discovery.
Big Bang/ Darwin Evolution summary:
(1) Special people with their gifted genetics to think clear and
straight and logical
coupled with a better environment such as a school education offers
them the
better chances of discovery of a theory of science. They are called
geniuses if
they do so.
(2) Whether a correct theory of science is discovered, depends on the
probability
of the proper chemicals sloshing around in the brain to put together
that theory.
(3) Science and science theories have an "absolute truth or a forever
quality to them"
(4) Since scientists have the better genetics to think clearly and
logically, that
presented with evidence between two rival theories, these scientists
should
for the most part side with the most compelling logic.
(5) Free will in discovery, in choices of action, and probability
plays a huge
role in whether a science theory is discovered and whether engineering
advances are discovered. Engineering and science theory discovery are
different
realms and do not have to move in tandem.
What does a study of the history of physics or the history of biology
or the
history of geology or the history of chemistry or the history of
astronomy
reveal as to whether Atom Totality/ Superdeterminism or Big Bang/
Darwin Evolution is true? In my opinion, from what histories of
science I have
read, that the close ties between what is engineered as instruments of
measurement
or machines or devices is in synch, lock step with what theories of
science
exist at any given time period. If the engineering is crude, than the
theories of
science are crude also. One only has to look how the microscope
sharpened up
the biology theories or how the telescope sharpened up astronomy
theories.
Once we make a engineering device or instrument that tests Dirac's new
radioactivities, would be the final end of the Big Bang theory. As for
the
Darwin Evolution theory, it was dead when John Bell and Alain Aspect
tested the Bell Inequality. The only trouble here is that few to zero
scientists
ever understood a proper and correct interpretation of the Bell &
Aspect
results. We still see in Wikipedia these daft and silly philosophy
interpretations
such as "locality or counterfactual". Rare is the person who
understands that
the Bell & Aspect experiment means the Universe is superdeterministic.
And funny, how John Bell realized the proper interpretation of his
Bell
Inequality was that of "superdeterminism". So ever since John Bell,
there
are only two people who got the Bell Inequality and its interpretation
correct--
they were John Bell and AP.
bert
> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
To Ya All Best GUT is "Gravity created and evolved all that is"
Goes well with my G=EMC^2. TreBert
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(snipped)
Now surprisingly the history of some scientists favors the Atom
Totality with
superdeterminism rather than the Big Bang with Darwin Evolution as the
mechanisms
of how science theories are discovered.
What I mean is that we all need logic and the use of logic in science
endeavor and
especially in discovering a new theory of science. We cannot be doing
science without
logic, without rational thinking. When a scientist becomes irrational
and illogical,
they cease being scientists.
In the history of physics let me note two examples which points to
favoring the
superdeterminism mechanism. The example of Michelson in the Michelson
Morley
famous experiment to determine the motion of the luminiferous aether.
After
Michelson published the null result, he never seemed to be logical and
rational
about his work and continued to repeat the experiment thinking to find
the aether.
And another example is Einstein who in the beginning of the Quantum
Revolution
was a key discoverer of the photoelectric effect, but in his middle
and old age
rebuked the Quantum Mechanics and was never able to accept any of it,
even
after Bohr ironed out all his objections.
In an Atom Totality with superdeterminism, the fate of a scientist is
predetermined
at birth and once those items are finished, one can say the
electricity of science
discovery has been unplugged and the person can thence be rather
unscientific
or even antiscience. In a Big Bang/ Darwin evolution as the engine of
science
discovery, what allows the scientist to make the discovery is the
logic and
rational thinking that gets him/her to the finish line, so it would be
difficult to
understand how in this framework, a scientist becomes almost instantly
antilogical, antiscience, antirational. Michelson and Einstein are two
examples
and I am sure there are plenty more.
Now some will argue that perhaps disease or aging causes delusions and
causes
the antiscience or antilogic to develop after their famous
contribution. That maybe
a explanation of a few scientists but in the case of Michelson and
Einstein, it is
a case of being logical and rational up to the moment of their
discoveries and soon
afterwards a falling off into irrational, illogical and antiscience.
Now I do not know enough of the history of Edison, but there was a
episode in
his life where he became irrational and illogical by attacking AC
current and Tesla.
I do not know if Edison ever discovered anything more after this
attack on
Tesla, but he seems to have become antiscience in attacking Tesla.
So these examples suggest that the Superdeterminism is the more likely
mechanism
of discovery in science, because we are predetermined to do what was
fated, and once
accomplished, we, like some wound up robot puppet can radically veer
off into
illogic and antiscience. If Darwin evoluton were the mechanism, we
would have
been so pavlov dog trained to do logical things and rational things
that we would
not veer off course so drastically.
I am not going to make some big issue out of this, but only to cite
some
observations.
Jesse F. Hughes
> I made mention in various older posts of an idea called Levels or
> Hierarchies of Engineering. What I mean by that is I have several lots
> of land with buildings on them, including my home where I have a large
> number of tools and materials, and depending on what goes wrong and
> needs fixing, that I have so many tools and materials that I can
> engineer a fix to the problem. An alternative view of this Hierarchy
> of Engineering is that we could not build a skyscraper in the 19th
> century but had to wait for the 20th century where we had a Hierarchy
> of Engineering with steel, welding and concrete to build these
> skyscrapers. Likewise I could use the example of airplanes where the
> 19th century did not have the Levels of Engineering in materials or in
> understanding to produce airplanes back then.
This is very insightful. In order to build certain things, one needs
the requisite technological knowledge.
I'm not sure that anyone has ever noticed this before. You are the man!
--
"Now I realize that he got away with all of that because sci.math is
not important, and the rest of the world doesn't pay attention.
Like, no one is worried about football players reading sci.math
postings!" -- James S. Harris on jock reading habits
Jesse F. Hughes
> Since 1990 when the Atom Totality was discovered, and widely reported,
> mostly on the Internet, but some in print and newspapers. It makes me
> happy to know that only a small group of believers accepts the theory.
Small group?
Is there really a second believer in your theory?
--
Jesse F. Hughes
"I think the problem for some of you is that you think you are very
smart. I AM very smart. I am smarter on a scale you cannot really
comprehend and there is the problem." -- James S. Harris
porky_...@my-deja.com
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What I mean is that we all need logic and the use of logic in science
> endeavor and
> especially in discovering a new theory of science. We cannot be doing
> science without
> logic, without rational thinking. When a scientist becomes irrational
> and illogical,
> they cease being scientists.
>
Yes, Archie. Those irrational and illogical beings are better known as
crackpots. Welcome aboard!
Archimedes Plutonium
my point clear.
--- Quoting Wikipedia on Wegener ---
Alfred Lothar Wegener (1 November 1880 – November 1930) was a German
scientist, geophysicist, and meteorologist.
He is most notable for his theory of continental drift
(Kontinentalverschiebung), proposed in 1912, which hypothesized that
the continents were slowly drifting around the Earth. However, Wegener
was unable to demonstrate a mechanism for continental drift, which,
combined with his mostly circumstantial evidence, meant that his
hypothesis was not accepted until the 1950s, when numerous discoveries
provided evidence of continental drift.[1][2]
--- end quoting Wikipedia ---
Wegener wrote a book in 1915 titled (English translation) "The Origin
of
Continents and Oceans"
Of course we all know that Charles Darwin wrote his famous book in
1859
titled "On the Origin of Species"
No, I am never going to title the Atom Totality theory as "On the
Origin of
the Universe"
But what I want to point out is how mischevious is a science community
and
mischevious are scientists when they cover the history of science.
Note the evaluation of "circumstantial evidence" but that moniker was
seldom
applied to Darwin. The history of Darwin's theory was that it divided
people
into believers and nonbelievers immediately. So that by 1860 there was
a large fraction
of the science community that accepted the theory and a fraction that
did not.
As for Wegener and Continental Drift, by 1916 there was no fraction of
acceptance
by the science community and it was not due to whether the evidence
was
considered circumstantial or not circumstantial. The problem was that
the theory
did not stir up the public to care for the truth of whether it was
true or not true.
In the case of Darwin, the theory immediately caught the general
public attention.
It can be argued that Darwin's book was just as circumstantial as was
Wegener's
considering that DNA was not discovered until the next century. So is
it reasonable
to have told Darwin, that his theory of evolution was unsatisfactory
until the day in
which or the century in which DNA was discovered, the genetic unit of
inheritance,
and until long after DNA discovery and to see how DNA works, to tell
Darwin that
his evidence must wait until then?
Just as it happened to Wegener, that he had a brilliant theory and had
astounding
evidence to support it, yet faced a backward and dullard science
community.
So we should not be labelling Wegener as circumstantial evidence,
because Darwin's
book would have to have been labelled thus. But, rather, to be more
technical about the
history of science, is that in most cases of the discovery of big
science, is that the
founder of the big science is not lacking in evidence and that the
evidence is not
circumstantial, but rather the blame lies mostly on the fact that the
social network
and science community are too stupid in logic to appreciate the new
theory.
If the science community of geologists from 1915 to 1960, had had a
modicum of
logic, just a slight modicum of logic, would have realized that
Wegener had a true
theory with ample supporting evidence. The fault was not Wegener but
the poor
logic of the geology community, and then also, the poor news media
covering the
story. We see that even today, with Wikipedia writing --
"circumstantial evidence".
Why not write "circumstantial evidence" in Wikipedia's entry on Darwin
with
his Origins of Species.
Now, on to Atom Totality. I can be faulted for this book by those who
would
want to label it as "circumstantial evidence". But that only reflects
more on
the illogical mind of the attacker.
When you have the Cosmic Microwave as blackbody microwave, that
evidence
alone trashcans the Big Bang theory
When you have evidence that the Cosmos is missing over 90% of the mass/
matter
and you know that the mass of a atom resides mostly in the Nucleus,
can be
called "circumstantial evidence", just as Wegener noticed that the
continents fit together
like a jigsaw puzzle, yet labeled as circumstantial evidence.
So these things such as labeling of circumstantial evidence, has more
to do with the
people who are too dumb to understand science and who are trying to
thwart science.
Than it has anything to do with science itself.
Now it is funny how noone said to Darwin that his theory must wait for
"more evidence"
such as perhaps the discovery of DNA. They did require of Wegener to
come up with
a mechanism, even though Wegener listed the Atlantic Ocean Ridge as
evidence. So the
antiscientists really attacked Wegener quite harshly, demanding far
more than what any
reasonable, modicum of logic person would need in order to accept a
theory that is offered.
With the Atom Totality theory, just the fact that the Microwave is
Blackbody Microwave should
alone be the fact that tosses out the Big Bang theory. Then you couple
that with the fact that
missing mass resides in a Nucleus of an Atom Totality is more than
enough evidence.
To require that I prove Dirac's new-radioactivities, as the mechanism
of how the Cosmos
grows, is a reasonable requirement, but the proof that the Universe is
an Atom Totality
should have come with the singular data that the Microwave Background
Cosmic Radiation
is Blackbody.
Even if Wegener had seafloor spreading in his book of 1915, that is
not as good of proving
evidence of Continental Drift, because we need a theory of the
interior of Earth as to how
seafloors can spread. So the data of a Blackbody Microwave is far more
proving of the Atom
Totality theory than even if Wegener had seafloor spreading data in
his 1915 book.
What was the most compelling evidence in favor of Darwin's Evolution
theory of 1859?
It was none of the thoughts and arguments in his book of 1859, but
rather in something
that few people in and out of science recognize which caused the
immediate acceptance
by a large fraction of the science community. It was the fossil record
of all those annoying
bones of ancient animals that were far different from the bones of any
living species. So
Darwin's proving evidence or deciding-evidence was nothing in his book
but rather the
fossil record itself.
The fossil record for Darwin Evolution was the Deciding Proof that
Darwin was correct
or at least on the path of a correct theory (since the Atom Totality
theory even revises
Darwin Evolution theory with superdeterminism).
For the Atom Totality theory, we already have the deciding proof
evidence. Only the inside
of a big atom can you have Blackbody Microwave Radiation. The Universe
is a entity, a present day entity, a structure, and a structure that
causes the microwave radiation to be
blackbody. This evidence alone throws out the Big Bang theory.
But I realize that most people are not very logical, most people, even
those in the sciences
are far more sentimental than they are logical. Most people, in the
sciences have a skill of
being good with some mathematics of science, but when it comes to
independent logical thoughts, they are incapable and revert to being a
"parrot of science."
A logical person, a true scientist, knows that if you have Cosmic
Microwave that is
Blackbody, means that you have proven the Universe is a big atom. To
further that
proof, we can show that the mass of the Cosmos is in a Nucleus, so
that we would
be "missing over 99% of the mass observed". To further the proof, I
can show that
Dirac's "new radioactivities" is how the Cosmos is built.
Archimedes Plutonium
Dirac in his
book Directions in Physics said that additive creation would mean the
Moon is moving
towards Earth at 2cm/year and if multiplicative creation was true the
Moon would
be moving away at 2cm/year.
I seem to have come to favor additive creation because if we look and
examine the
whole of the Solar System, the bodies seem to be moving closer
together to
one another for Neptune has gone off track as per Titius Bode Rule and
is moving
to join with Uranus.
And if we examine exoplanets, they are revolving very near or close to
their
parent stars.
I had a look in Wikipedia for the local group of galaxies:
--- quoting Wikipedia ---
Future collision of the Milky Way with Andromeda
Main article: Andromeda–Milky Way collision
The Andromeda Galaxy is approaching the Sun at about 100 to 140
kilometres per second (62 to 87 mi/s),[59] so it is one of the few
blue shifted galaxies. The Andromeda Galaxy and the Milky Way are thus
expected to collide in perhaps 4.5 billion years, although the details
are uncertain since Andromeda's tangential velocity with respect to
the Milky Way is only known to within about a factor of two.[60] A
likely outcome of the collision is that the galaxies will merge to
form a giant elliptical galaxy.[61] Such events are frequent among the
galaxies in galaxy groups. The fate of the Earth and the Solar System
in the event of a collision are currently unknown. If the galaxies do
not merge, there is a small chance that the Solar System could be
ejected from the Milky Way or join Andromeda.[62]
--- end quoting Wikipedia ---
Notice that Andromeda is on a collision course with the Milky Way.
(Although I would not
hold any verity in the doppler blue shift claim.)
Now maybe, just maybe, it was rather impossible for any science
experiment to measure
the Dirac NEW RADIOACTIVITIES for the Moon or any experiment here on
Earth. Maybe
the technical accuracy is far demanding of precision.
But perhaps the mass of an entire galaxy of the local group can make
Dirac's new
radioactivities a easier measurement. If additive creation is the true
Dirac new
radioactivities, and if the Solar System is just not big enough to
measure this
additive creation due to the interference of so many other things
going on such as
the incoming cosmic dust and debris to the Moon to mess up the 2cm/
year measure.
Perhaps we need whole galaxies to make the measurement of Dirac new
radioactivities.
So what would Dirac have calculated for Andromeda moving towards Earth
to have
been, if it were additive creation? Would it have been something like
2 light years/year??
Come to think of it, would not the fact that galaxies cluster together
is caused by
this Additive Creation process of Dirac new radioactivities? Or at
least a factor along
with say magnetohydrodyamics that causes clustering of galaxies.
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> Perhaps we need whole galaxies to make the measurement of Dirac new
> radioactivities.
> So what would Dirac have calculated for Andromeda moving towards Earth
> to have
> been, if it were additive creation? Would it have been something like
> 2 light years/year??
Sorry about that typing error.
Maybe this book should have a joke in it, one or two. Obviously you
cannot
have 2 light years per year.
That was a typing error, or a rather funny joke of 2 light years
per year. A joke like that would get one fired or failed out of any
physics classroom.
What I should have typed was 100 kilometers/year between galaxies
keeping
in line with the figure of Wikipedia on the approaching speed of
Andromeda, rather
than 2cm/year between Moon and Earth.
What I am asking, basically, is whether it is easier to make a Dirac
new-radioactivity measurement on Andromeda with Milky Way rather
than on Moon and Earth?
After thinking about it, the Moon to Earth is probably better. Too
many
unknowns about galaxies. Although the yearly coming closer of galaxies
would be much larger than 2cm/year, the sheer size and distance and
mass
of galaxies is not amenable to precision measure that is required.
Perhaps there is a means of repeating the very old Cavendish
experiment
of gravitational attraction, where Cavendish weighed the planet Earth.
How well fine tuned can we do that Cavendish experiment? Can we,
in a sense measure a Dirac new radioactivities of additive creation
from a modern day precise Cavendish Experiment? Trouble is how do
we subtract out the entering meteor showers and other assorted
incoming,
or how do we add those departing masses of spacecraft and other things
leaking out into space.
No, I rather guess that the only sure test experiment of Dirac new
radioactivities
is something akin to those neutrino experiments where we have the
accurate
mass of a vat of liquid that is enclosed and watch and wait with time
to see
if the vat increases in mass.
Another such type of experiment is to get a accurate sample of a
radioactive element
to know how many atoms are in that sample and to wait over time to see
if any of
those atoms become a higher atomic numbered atom. So if the sample is
uranium
and if Dirac new radioactivities is true then over time, there should
be some plutonium
atoms in the sample, due to additive-creation. I think this is going
to be the very best
means of testing Dirac's new-radioactivities additive creation.
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> Another such type of experiment is to get a accurate sample of a
> radioactive element
> to know how many atoms are in that sample and to wait over time to see
> if any of
> those atoms become a higher atomic numbered atom. So if the sample is
> uranium
> and if Dirac new radioactivities is true then over time, there should
> be some plutonium
> atoms in the sample, due to additive-creation. I think this is going
> to be the very best
> means of testing Dirac's new-radioactivities additive creation.
>
On page 92 of Dirac's Directions in Physics, Dirac was asked a
question
about his new-radioactivities and he responds by saying "which occurs
too
seldom to show up in ordinary laboratory experiments."
A few posts back I wrote that a science theory in any science is good
only depending
on how advanced the technology and engineering of the time is, in
order to test and
experiment that theory. Apparently the Dirac new radioactivities was
far ahead of its
time since there was nothing of precision to test Dirac's ideas on new
radioactivity.
The moon and planets are not good testing because their motions are so
complicated.
But I believe there is one test and experiment that we can now do to
see if Dirac's new
radioactivities additive creation is true or false.
It involves the new tunnelling microscope that allows scientists to
count the atoms
of a sample.
So we take a isotope that is easy to monitor and we count out say 100
of those
atoms. Then we wait some period of time to see if any new atoms
appear. That would
be proof of new-radioactivities. And to make it easier we chose a
isotope that can
possibly grow into a higher atomic number and easy to detect. For
example if we chose
uranium atoms and counted out 100 of them and waited 3 months and in
that time period
2 of the 100 uranium atoms became plutonium atoms, is proof of Dirac's
new radioactivities.
P.S. recently the recognition has dawned on me, that like Wegener, it
is important to
provide a mechanism for a new theory to prosper over the old fake
theory Big Bang.
So I should spend alot of time in facilating the experiments to prove
Dirac's new
radioactivities is true. In other words, there never was a Big Bang
that created the
Cosmos, but rather a constant steady flow of new atoms from the
nucleus of the Atom
Totality built the Universe.
PPS: although this edition is not organized, it at least has better
organized my own
argument of proving the Atom Totality. First I need the blackbody
microwave, but that
is not the end of it, I also need the Dirac new radioactivities. One
and then two. One,
I need the blackbody microwave for that means the Universe is a
entity, a structure,
and it can only be the inside of a big atom. Secondly, I need how that
atom-universe
grows, the mechanism of how it is created, and that is the Dirac new-
radioactivity.
In prior editions that was not clear to me, as it is now clear to me.
Archimedes Plutonium
Although this is not the edition in which I make the book flow per
reading, as a
finished product book. It is the edition in which I have organized the
arguments
of the supporting data for the Atom Totality theory. I have slowly
realized that
the Blackbody Microwave is the proof of the Atom Totality, but that
the Dirac
new-radioactivities is the mechanism that needs the Experimental
proof. For
me, just the Blackbody Microwave is sufficient proof of Atom Totality,
but
not to others who need the New-Radioactivities before they dispell the
Big Bang theory.
So here is another reordering of the chapters:
I. The theory
(1) what is this theory?
(2) pictures of the Atom Totality theory, and history of the theory
and precursor hints
II. Observational and experimental support
(3) uniform Blackbody 2.71 K cosmic microwave background radiation
and Dark Night sky: Olber's Paradox fully answered
(4) missing mass conundrum solved
(5) Experiment: Dirac's new-radioactivities and Dirac's additive-
creation
(6) Redshift Experiment caused by refraction and scattering, not a
Doppler effect experiment that shows us what the redshift truly is--
curvature
of the lobes of an Atom Totality
(7) Tifft quantized galaxy speeds
(8) Telescope experiments as distance tool, telescopic-eclipse-
technique, and upper limit of telescope in distance is about 400
million light years
(9) Experiment that Space is electromagnetic, not gravitational
with
the upper limit of distance as 400 million light years
(10) density and distribution of all the galaxies
(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) the cosmic distribution of chemical elements
(13) shape of the Cosmos as 6 lobes of 5f6 as nonrelativistic as
Cubic, or as relativistic Dodecahedron; color of the cosmos as
plutonium off-white
(14) Cosmic magnetohydrodynamics: Maxwell Equations applied to
the galaxies.
(15) MECO theory to explain high energy sources and black-hole
theory as science-fiction
(16) Planetary evidence: "Earth evidence" such as age; zirconium
crystal dating; Titius-Bode Rule as diffraction pattern
(17) "Solar System evidence" such as CellWell 1 and CellWell2 ;
planet cores ; plane of ecliptic
(18) Galaxy evidence: "Milky Way evidence" : Exoplanets and
exosolarsystems; Binary Stars
III. Mathematical and logic beauty support
(19) "pi" and "e" and "i" explained; inverse fine structure
constant, and proton to electron mass ratio, speed of light, all
linked and explained
(20) Bell Inequality with Superdeterminism fits only in an Atom
Totality theory
(21) Purpose and meaning of life
(22) Atomic theory Syllogism
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
though Dirac himself
was pushing for a astronomical proof setup with using the Moon to
Earth 2cm/year
approach for additive creation. Dirac mentions work by Shapiro and Van
Flandern on
page 84 of his book "Directions in Physics".
Trouble with an astronomy proof is that the motion of the Moon and
planets is far to
complicated and complex for such a tiny measurement.
As I wrote earlier, a theory of science is only acceptable as true if
the technology and
engineering of deciding-experiments is available. I suspect the
engineering and technology
for making a Dirac new-radioactivities experiment is now available,
but not when
Dirac was alive. I think the key or crucial component is the scanning
tunnel microscope,
or the precision used in the neutrino flipping experiment of large
underground vats of
a solution to test for neutrinos.
I believe we have the precision to test Dirac's new radioactivities by
using the tunnelling
microscope to actually count the atoms. So if we counted out 100 atoms
which we
plan to watch over a extended period of time, and for which we expect
newer atoms to
appear within that isolated container of 100 original starting atoms
or which we expect
a higher atomic number atom to have grown from one of the 100 starting
original atoms.
Most people will balk because they realize this is breaking of the
conservation laws
since we have more than what we started with. But that is a fact of an
Atom Totality.
Archimedes Plutonium
I am sort of glad I took that journey down the road of the history of
physics or
the history of science for it made better my desire to organize this
book and to
make me aware of how important Dirac's new radioactivities is to this
theory
of Atom Totality.
I could read Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" or I could read
Wegener's
book "The Origin of Continents and Oceans" to see how they organized
their
evidence and to see what they used for their most deciding-evidence.
For this
book, the Atom Totality, the blackbody microwave is the proof and
which by itself
dismisses the Big Bang theory. Was there anything in Darwin's book as
a
proving evidence? First we would have to recognize who evolution's
rival was
and the rival was religion. So we have Darwin Evolution versus
Religion. And
it is safe to say that the deciding or proving evidence was the entire
fossil record.
The fossil record to Darwin was the blackbody-microwave to the Atom
Totality.
And the mechanism for Darwin Evolution was the process of natural
selection
as survival of the fittest. For Wegener the deciding evidence was that
the continents
and oceans fit together as a jigsaw puzzle and would be the blackbody-
microwave
of the Atom Totality. But the mechanism for the continents drifting
would wait until
proof of seafloor spreading and that would be the analog of Dirac new-
radioactivities
for the Atom Totality.
So I see from past history, whether I like it or not, that I have to
shore up the Dirac
new radioactivities as a mechanism for the Atom Totality theory. That
most people,
including scientists are lacking in par logic, they need a one then
two knock out punches
and cannot see a one punch knock out. For me, the blackbody microwave
is end
of story: Atom Totality proved, and Big Bang trashcanned. But most
scientists
do not have that superior logic and need other spoon feeding of more
evidence.
Actually, Wallace's short letter to Darwin was as much of a proof of
Evolution when
coupled with the fossil record as was Darwin's massive tome book of
evidence.
So for me, if I simply just wrote out the Blackbody Microwave, without
working further
for the Dirac new radioactivities, is sufficient proof of the Atom
Totality.
But having now seen the past history of Darwin and Wegener, that to
usher in a new
era of science for physics and astronomy, I should take the patience,
and pain, and time to
expand on Dirac's new radioactivities.
Archimedes Plutonium
say a radioactive
isotope that we can track if there was a single atom of that element?
An element that
is very easy to monitor and track if there was a singular atom of it
in an experiment.
I understand we can make diamonds with a high degree of purity. But I
suspect that
purity is not sufficient for a Dirac new radioactivities experiment,
unless we can
engineer that pure diamond with a counted number of radioactive atoms,
say ten
atoms of uranium fitted inside a highly pure diamond.
But better yet, I am thinking of a radioactive isotope that is easy to
monitor if we
had just a single atom of it. And hopefully it is a carbon isotope, or
perhaps a
gold isotope or silver isotope or a platinum isotope. Because in our
history we
have made coins and jewelry out of these metals and of course diamond
jewelry.
So the question for the experiment is if there is a isotope that is
easy to
monitor for a single atom of that isotope. Then in the experiment,
measure
for the prescence of that isotope.
ato
If gold has a isotope that is easy to measure then we can enlist the
gold
bars or coins minted of old age.
If not, then we go with the straightforward experiment. We find what
atom is
easiest to monitor. We then chose a atomic number lower from the
monitoring
atom. For example if plutonium atom is the easiest to monitor then we
chose
uranium or neptunium atoms as the base of the experiment. We then
enlist
the help of the scanning tunnel microscope that can count out the base
atoms.
Suppose we count out 100 of these base atoms, say for example
neptunium
atoms. So we isolate those 100 atoms and we watch them over a period
of time.
On a day in which we come to look at our 100 atoms and find that there
are only
99 neptunium atoms and 1 plutonium atom, is the day we have proven
Dirac's
new radioactivities additive creation is true. Is our state of
technology and engineering
up to par for such an experiment? I believe so.
Archimedes Plutonium
There probably already have been experiments that have witnessed the
odd higher
atomic element or isotope appear, and then counted it as a glitch in
their experiment
not thinking any further upon it.
But I do recall that the comets water content is very much different
from that of the
heavy water found in comets versus Earth's oceans. To me this is a
fine example of
Dirac's new radioactivities, that the comets have undergone a
different new-radioactivities
from that of the Earth's ocean water. So I beleive we already have the
experiment performed
and only have to interpret correctly the Dirac new radioactivity of
additive creation upon
the Comet water versus the Earth ocean water. So here is a case where
the experiment
was already performed, or we can repeat it here on Earth. And that we
only need to
marshall the correct sequence of events as to how the heavy water got
into the Comets.
Archimedes Plutonium
water for Earth's oceans
and 320 ppm of heavy water for Comets. I do not know of the veracity
of those numbers
but going with them, let me suggest an experiment as to how they came
about.
Of course, in that prior edition I was using those numbers of 2X, as
an argument that the
Earth was 1/2 to 3/4 as old as the Sun and the Comets and was using
Dirac's multiplicative
creation of new radioactivities.
But let me suggest an experiment that may resolve the 160 versus 320
ppm issue. Suppose
Dirac new radioactivities Additive Creation is correct and welling
from the Nucleus of the
Atom Totality in the form of cosmic rays and cosmic gamma ray bursts.
Now the proportion of salt in Earth oceans versus salt in Cometary
water is very much
different. Is it a 2X ratio? Probably not.
But I propose an experiment where we take average ocean water of earth
with its
average salt content and we bombard it with a measured amount of gamma
rays
and cosmic rays (being protons). And it is a closed system. We do the
same for
a representative of Comet water in a closed system bombarded.
The question is, does the bombardment increase the heavy water amount
in the
Comet system and not so much in the Earth system? Where the cosmic
rays
(protons) goes to increasing the salinity of the Earth water? Is there
such a
thing as "heavy salt"?
And is there such a thing as a likely building principle to make salt,
starting with
hydrogen through carbon, an aufbau of building atomic elements that
prefers
increasing salt rather than increasing the density of deuterium water?
So that
on a planet the size of Earth with its huge supply of water, that the
Dirac
additive creation is locked into increasing the salt content density
rather than
on comets aufbau, increasing the heavy water density.
So in this experiment, we have two closed systems bombarded by cosmic
rays (protons) and want to see if for some reason, heavy water is
preferred
in Comet system.
porky_...@my-deja.com
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> that the
> Dirac
> additive creation is locked into increasing the salt content density
> rather than
> on comets aufbau, increasing the heavy water density.
>
My thinks you are Nazi spy, Archie Poo.
Archimedes Plutonium
As I wrote in the previous edition of this book, I used the 160ppm
data of
Earth heavy water versus 320ppm heavy water in Comets as a age
argument.
Citing that 2X density as that Sun and Comets were much older than
Earth
due to Dirac new radioactivities-multiplicative creation.
In this edition, the 4th edition, I am citing that data as possible
evidence for
Dirac new radioactivities-additive creation.
I was looking up salt of its sodium and chlorine atoms as to whether
we can
have "heavy salt" when normal salt is bombarded with cosmic rays
(protons).
Interestling, sodium has only one stable isotope of Na23. However,
chlorine
has two stable isotopes of CL35 and CL37. Odd that CL36 should not be
stable, if its neighbors are stable.
Anyway, I am guessing or speculating that perhaps the Dirac New
Radioactivities
of Additive Creation of a constant steady influx of cosmic rays
(protons) shot from
the Nucleus of the Atom Totality and ending up on a Comet or on Earth
ocean.
That the proton would increase the heavy water in Comets to a 320 ppm
but would
on Earth oceans increase the ratio of the salt into "heavy salt".
So my speculation is that comets have 2X the heavy water density than
does
Earth but if you take into account the salt on Earth oceans would be
compensation
of the 160 ppm heavy water going into the increased proportion of
heavy salt.
So that the Dirac New Radioactivities of adding protons to Earth and
to a Comet
are in equal amounts relative to existing matter, but that the heavy
water plus
heavy salt on Earth matches the proportion of heavy water on a Comet.
So has anyone studied and found out if the heavy salt on Earth is 2X
the density
of heavy salt on a Comet?
And is a chemist prepared to say that when bombarding ocean water with
protons
that a large proportion of the salt molecules absorb the proton,
whereas on comet
water that has little salt at all, the protons are absorbed as heavy
water.
bert
> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
>
> - Show quoted text -
What if "salt" gets into Gulf tar balls and gives them negative
bouyancy? Will BP have subs scooping them up off the floor.? Heavy
water on comets does not bother me at this perilous spacetime. TreBert
Archimedes Plutonium
that the Earth ocean water
was 160 ppm heavy water whereas on comets it is 320ppm. So that factor
of 2X, I used
as a age reckoning difference between the age of Earth versus the age
of Comets.
In the 3rd edition, I was arguing for a multiplicative creation of
Dirac new radioactivities,
and in this edition I am arguing that the creation process is
additive, not multiplicative.
So this experiment is a rather good one, replacing Dirac's
astronomical experiments
that the Moon should approach Earth by 2cm/year if additive and recede
by 2cm/year
if multiplicative. In my experiment I get rid of astronomical
measurement because the
motion of planets and the Moon are far to complex and complicated to
retrieve any
small motion. Instead, in this experiment, we imitate additive
creation and then depending
on what we learn from the imitation, see if the same effect occurred
somewhere in
Nature. We get a container of Earth ocean water that is not quite
ocean salinity nor the
160ppm of heavy water and we bombard it with cosmic rays
(protons) and we see if we thence approach the identical contents of
present day ocean
water. Then we get water that is pre-Comet conditions of not quite
320ppm heavy water
and have somewhat the salinity of Comet water. Bombard it with cosmic
rays (protons)
and see if the outcome is that approaching what Comet water is.
So it seems safe to say that if we set up experiments that imitates
Dirac's additive creation
and find that the outcome is a approach of what the actual present day
conditions of the Earth's ocean waters and the waters in Comets. That
such a result would validate the Dirac
new radioactivities.
Dirac's attempts via Shapiro and Van Flandern (Directions in Physics,
1978) were simply
not aggressive enough of experiments that used the Moon and planets to
eke out a
tiny motion of 2cm/year for the Moon. Just not aggressive enough of
experiments and
hard to unravel the complicated motions of the Moon that would mask
the 2cm/year.
So my experiment is far more aggressive in questioning the existence
of Dirac's New
Radioactivities. My experiment simulates new-radioactivities should it
exist. By bombarding
a container with protons (cosmic rays) I simulate additive creation of
new radioactivities.
I bombard a closed container with protons and see if I can turn a
160ppm or a 320ppm
of heavy water versus heavy-salt.
My other experiment is to simply wait, having counted out precisely
100 atoms of uranium,
and wait for one or two of them to convert into plutonium.
I think the aggressive experiment of imitating new radioactivities is
a far better experiment
in terms of time. And instead of say the heavy water and salinity of
Earth and Comets, I can
focus on other chemistry such as the Jupiters chemistry with Europa's
chemistry. Or say
the chemistry of Mars with that of Earth.
Archimedes Plutonium
As I wrote in the 3rd edition of this book, I used the fact
that the Earth ocean water
was 160 ppm heavy water whereas on comets it is 320ppm. So that
factor
of 2X, I used that fact as a age reckoning
difference between the age of Earth versus the age
of Comets. In this 4th edition I am scrapping that usage in favor of
using the 160 ppm versus 320ppm for a supporting proof of Dirac's
new radioactivities-additive creation. The difference in heavy water
on Earth versus Comets, maybe, just maybe the evidential proof
of Dirac's new radioactivities. And of course, if it turns out to be a
proof,
there are other chemicals on various planets and comets which would
also
be in a proportional difference to further prove Dirac's new
radioactivities
additive creation.
In the 3rd edition, I was arguing for a multiplicative creation of
Dirac new radioactivities,
and in this 4th edition I am arguing that the creation process is
additive, not multiplicative.
So I have two experiments to help prove Dirac's new radioactivities.
I have the experiment (A) where I count out 100 uranium atoms; isolate
them in a special container; wait and then hope to find 99 uranium
atoms
with 1 plutonium atom. The I have experiment (B) where I take a given
quantity of Earth simulated ocean water and another sample of a
simulated
Comet water and I bombard both with cosmic rays (protons) and expect
to find a 160ppm versus 320ppm heavy water end result, where 1/2X the
protons go into making heavy salt in the Ocean water. Both these
experiments
are experiments to prove Dirac new radioactivities.
So this experiment (B) is a rather good one, replacing Dirac's
astronomical experiments
that the Moon should approach Earth by 2cm/year if additive and
recede
by 2cm/year
if multiplicative. In my experiment I get rid of astronomical motion
measurement because the
motion of planets and the Moon are far to complex and complicated to
retrieve any reliable
small motion. Anyone can raise a fuss and claim tidal effects or
numerous
other astronomical effects. I need a experiment where noone can raise
fussess.
In experiment B, we imitate additive
creation by bombarding with protons, and then depending
on what we learn from the imitation, see if the same effect occurred
somewhere in
Nature. In our case, see if Ocean water and Comet water end up with
the
160ppm and 320ppm. We get a container of Earth ocean water that is not
quite
ocean salinity nor the
160ppm of heavy water and we bombard it with cosmic rays
(protons) and we see if we thence approach the identical contents of
present day ocean
water. Then we get water that is pre-Comet conditions of not quite
320ppm heavy water
and have somewhat the salinity of Comet water. Bombard it with
cosmic
rays (protons)
and see if the outcome is that approaching what Comet water actually
is.
So it seems safe to say that if we set up experiments that imitates
Dirac's additive creation
and find that the outcome is a approach of what the actual present
day
conditions of the Earth's ocean waters and the waters in Comets.
That
such a result would validate the Dirac
new radioactivities. This is easier to do rather than be observing
water for
actual cosmic rays to strike that water and thence build up the
160ppm.
In Experiment A, we actually do wait around for a cosmic ray or
whatever
else involves the Additive Creation in New Radioactivities to enter
the isolated
chamber where the 100 uranium atoms are counted and observed and to
change
one of them into a plutonium atom. So experiment A is an actual watch
and wait
to verify Additive Creation. In experiment B, we are lazy in waiting
and so we
simulate cosmic rays by bombarding two samples imitating Earth ocean
and
Comet water, and by bombarding, we expect the trend of 160ppm and
320ppm
to continue.
Dirac's attempts to prove his new radioactivities via Shapiro and Van
Flandern (Directions in Physics, 1978) were simply
not aggressive enough of experiments that used the Moon and planets
to
eke out a
tiny motion of 2cm/year for the Moon. Just not aggressive enough of
experiments and
hard to unravel the complicated motions of the Moon that would mask
the 2cm/year.
I think we have far better luck of proving Dirac's new radioactivities-
additive
creation by the slow buildup of chemical differences between different
astro bodies such as Comets versus Earth. Or such as Sun versus Earth
as per the lighter elements such as the elements before we reach
carbon.
And another good place to look for Dirac's new radioactivities is the
Jupiter
and its satellites or Saturn and its satellites. The disparity in the
abundance
of chemical elements would be very noticeable if Dirac's new
radioactivities
is true.
So my experiments are far more aggressive in questioning the
existence
of Dirac's New
Radioactivities. My experiment simulates new-radioactivities should
it
exist. By bombarding
a container with protons (cosmic rays) I simulate additive creation
of
new radioactivities.
I bombard a closed container with protons and see if I can turn a
pre-
160ppm and a pre 320ppm
of heavy water versus heavy-salt.
My other experiment is to simply wait, having counted out precisely
100 atoms of uranium,
and wait for one or two of them to convert into plutonium.
I think the aggressive experiment of imitating new radioactivities is
a far better experiment
in terms of time. And instead of say the heavy water and salinity of
Earth and Comets, I can
focus on other chemistry such as the Jupiters chemistry with
Europa's
chemistry. Or say
the chemistry of Mars with that of Earth since Earth is more massive
and
dense, that it should have a different aufbau of chemical elements if
additive
creation is true.
Archimedes Plutonium
to be competing for
two different chapters in this book, chapter 5 of Dirac's new
radioactivities and chapter
12, the cosmic abundance and distribution of chemical elements. It is
annoying for me
to have to sort and weigh whether a post is in one chapter or the
other, and I guess if
the editions of this book reach to edition 10 or 11, that I can begin
to fine tune even such
a daunting task or organization.
Having discussed the proportion of heavy water in Earth Oceans versus
in Comets, has
made me realize that the Cosmic abundance and distribution of the
chemical elements
is a proof of not only the Atom Totality theory but also a proof that
Dirac new
radioactivities is at work.
If you study the cosmic abundance of chemical elements, you know there
is a puzzle
as to why the lighter elements of lithium, beryllium and boron are so
rare, when they should
not be that rare.
--- quoting Wikipedia on lithium ---
The nuclei of lithium are relatively fragile: the two stable lithium
isotopes found in nature have lower binding energies per nucleon than
any other stable compound nuclides, save deuterium, and helium-3 (3He).
[1] Though very light in atomic weight, lithium is less common in the
solar system than 25 of the first 32 chemical elements.[2]
--- end quoting ---
If Dirac's new radioactivities is true of additive creation, then
there are barriers to the creation
or aufbau of these elements for a cosmic abundance.
Now in the Big Bang theory, the abundance and distribution of the
chemical elements hinges
on supernova, creating the elements and distributing them. But
supernova are rare and their
attempts of distribution would be a sloppy distribution to say the
least, and to
think they can be such a perfect creator and distributor of elements
is so farfetched that
these scientists should be ashamed in believing what they believe.
On the other hand, if you accept Dirac's new radioactivities, we
immediately see and can sense a cosmic uniform creation and
distribution of the chemical elements. And because
of additive creation, that the lighter elements would be almost
nonexistent in stars but rather
abundant in the planets that are near the stars. So that we have a
rarity of lithium, beryllium
and boron in stars but an abundance of them in the planets that
revolve around those
stars. The reason being is that Dirac additive creation has barriers
in massive astro bodies
like stars but not a barrier in lighter bodies like planets. So the
additive creation process
is different depending on the mass of the astro body. And we see this
in the Comets having
heavy water at 320ppm whereas Earth has heavy water at 160ppm.
Now other elements such as technetium at 43 and promethium at 61 are
virtually nonexistent
in the cosmos at large. Now the Big Bang with its supernova
explanation is again deaf, dumb
and silent about elements 43 and 61. But the Dirac new radioactivities
with additive creation
can explain this glitch of 43 and 61, by saying that the process of
additive creation, regardless
of the mass of the astro body, cannot build or aufbau 43 and 61 since
those are weak points
in the aufbau. But elements of thorium and uranium at 90 and 92 are
apparently overabundant
in the cosmos and that is explained easily by the additive-creation
that 90 and 92 are energy wells that attract the cosmic rays in aufbau
regardless of whether a massive star or a tiny planet.
So we see here a union or a link between the Dirac new radioactivities
with the abundance and
distribution of the chemical elements in the cosmos. In fact, I
envision that if someone were to
make a Cosmic mapping of every atom in the entire Universe that it
would match the mapping of what Jarrett and Juric are doing for the
galaxies and stars of the Universe. Both of them
were created from the same source of creation process-- Dirac's new
radioactivites additive form.
Archimedes Plutonium
organizing the book
as a reading book, I have made progress in organizing the chapters.
I. The theory
(1) what is this theory?
(2) pictures of the Atom Totality theory, and history of the theory
and precursor hints
II. Observational and experimental support
(3) uniform Blackbody 2.71 K cosmic microwave background radiation
and Dark Night sky: Olber's Paradox fully answered
(4) missing mass conundrum solved
(5) Experiment: Dirac's new-radioactivities and Dirac's additive-
creation
(6) Redshift Experiment caused by refraction and scattering, not a
Doppler effect. Experiment that shows us what the redshift truly is--
curvature
of the lobes of an Atom Totality
(7) Tifft quantized galaxy speeds
(8) Telescope experiments as distance tool, telescopic-eclipse-
technique, and upper limit of telescope in distance is about 400
million light years
(9) Experiment that Space is electromagnetic, not gravitational
with
the upper limit of distance as 400 million light years
(10) density and distribution of all the galaxies
(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) the cosmic abundance and distribution of chemical elements
(13) shape of the Cosmos as 6 lobes of 5f6 as nonrelativistic as
Cubic, or as relativistic Dodecahedron; color of the cosmos as
plutonium off-white
(14) Cosmic magnetohydrodynamics: Maxwell Equations applied to
the galaxies.
(15) MECO theory to explain high energy sources and black-hole
theory as science-fiction
(16) Planetary evidence: "Earth evidence" such as age; zirconium
crystal dating; Titius-Bode Rule as diffraction pattern
(17) "Solar System evidence" such as CellWell 1 and CellWell2 ;
planet cores ; plane of ecliptic
(18) Galaxy evidence: "Milky Way evidence" : Exoplanets and
exosolarsystems; Binary Stars
III. Mathematical and logic beauty support
(19) "pi" and "e" and "i" explained; inverse fine structure
constant, and proton to electron mass ratio, speed of light, all
linked and explained
(20) Bell Inequality with Superdeterminism fits only in an Atom
Totality theory
(21) Purpose and meaning of life
(22) Atomic theory Syllogism
Now the Big Bang theory is very cloudy and obfuse with the cosmic
abundance
and creation of the chemical elements. The Big Bang has one isolated
process
to explain the abundance and process-- supernova. But we all know that
supernova
are rare events. So how does our Universe have such a fine tuned
cosmic abundance
of elements and so evenly distributed? The answer lies with the Atom
Totality theory
with its mechanism of creation of Dirac's New-Radioactivities in
Additive Creation.
That the Nucleus of the Atom Totality constantly spews out more energy
and matter
in the form of constant daily barrage of cosmic rays (protons) and
cosmic gamma ray
bursts. These two forms of spewing out are vastly uniform in the
cosmos whereever
there is existing matter in place.
Astronomers, before the Atom Totality theory were frantically and
constantly running around
looking for where Cosmic Rays and Cosmic Gamma Ray Bursts had their
source? Where
they were coming from? They were so uniform and so constant. Well they
never did find
the source in the Big Bang theory because Cosmic Rays and Cosmic Gamma
Ray Bursts
were coming from a Nucleus of an Atom Totality and their spew is so
uniformly constant
that they build the chemical elements on planets and stars and astro
bodies so precisely
to a Dirac Additive Creation that the aufbau principle in Quantum
Mechanics is one and the
same as the Dirac Additive Creation New Radioactivities.
The Big Bang with supernova cannot answer why the element iron is
stable to both
fission and fusion. The Atom Totality with its Dirac new
radioactivities tells us why iron
element 26 must be the element stable to both fission and fusion.
Tells us why hydrogen
and helium must be 99% of the chemical elements in the universe and
why the other
elements must be in a proportional abundance that they have.
Basically, the answer is that Dirac New Radioactivities of Additive
Creation is one and the same as the Aufbau Principle in Quantum
Mechanics. When a Cosmic Ray (proton) is shot
from the Nucleus of the Atom Totality and "appears" on the Sun, it is
going to be counted as
a hydrogen atom for the Sun. When a Cosmic Ray shot from the Nucleus
of the Atom Totality
appears on Earth inside the Earth, it has a good chance of landing on
a lead atom and increasing its atomic number to that of 83 becoming a
bismuth atom.
Now many of us were taught in schools (brainwashed) into thinking that
gold or uranium was
crafted only in some faraway supernova a long time ago and eventually
became part of Earth's elements. In reality though, the gold or
uranium that we find on Earth never came from
any supernova, but was gradually built up from smaller atomic numbered
elements, proton by proton via Dirac new-radioactivities such as
cosmic rays. Now some may find this hard to believe, until most
everyone learns that the Cosmos has Cosmic Gamma Ray Bursts that also
comes from a Atom Totality Nucleus and some of these bursts can wipe
out an entire
galaxy. Yes, you heard me correctly. In past years some gamma ray
bursts are the most
powerful single events in the Cosmos, having more energy than an
entire galaxy has
energy.
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(all else snipped)
>
> Now many of us were taught in schools (brainwashed) into thinking that
> gold or uranium was
> crafted only in some faraway supernova a long time ago and eventually
> became part of Earth's elements. In reality though, the gold or
> uranium that we find on Earth never came from
> any supernova, but was gradually built up from smaller atomic numbered
> elements, proton by proton via Dirac new-radioactivities such as
> cosmic rays. Now some may find this hard to believe, until most
> everyone learns that the Cosmos has Cosmic Gamma Ray Bursts that also
> comes from a Atom Totality Nucleus and some of these bursts can wipe
> out an entire
> galaxy. Yes, you heard me correctly. In past years some gamma ray
> bursts are the most
> powerful single events in the Cosmos, having more energy than an
> entire galaxy has
> energy.
>
Well, I want to qualify that thought of "more energy than an entire
galaxy"
More electromagnetic energy than an entire galaxy of its
electromagnetic energy.
--- quoting Wikipedia on a energetic gamma ray burst ---
GRB 080916C is a gamma-ray burst (GRB) that occurred on September 16,
2008 in the Carina constellation and detected by NASA's Fermi Gamma-
ray Space Telescope. It is the most powerful gamma-ray burst ever
recorded. The explosion had more power than 9,000 supernovae, and the
gas jets emitting the initial gamma rays moved at a minimum velocity
of 99.9999 percent the speed of light, making this blast the most
extreme recorded to date.[1][2]
--- end quoting ---
These powerful gamma ray bursts are true and undeniable. They exist.
What does not
exist are black-holes, Big Bang which cannot explain something like
GRB 080916C.
There is no debate, no argument as to the existence of these powerful
Gamma Ray Bursts.
And the only reasonable explanation is that the Cosmos has a powerful
Emitter to create
such a burst. That Emitter is a Nucleus of an Atom Totality. Black
holes are no emitters
of such a event. The Big Bang is no emitter except if you want to
count its initial explosion as
an emission.
So there is nothing in the physics of a Big Bang with black-holes to
account for a Cosmos
that has frequent and periodic Gamma Ray Bursts of such a huge
magnitude. The only
reasonable accounting for these huge bursts is a Nucleus of an Atom
Totality.
A Nucleus of an Atom Totality would account for the building of the
Universe via
Dirac new radioactivities of a constant spew of cosmic rays and cosmic
gamma ray bursts.
A Nucleus would also account for Solid Body Rotation of galaxies and
thus the 99% missing
mass since the Nucleus is the bulk of the mass of the Universe. No
scientist, with any
sort of reasoning or logic could accept a Big Bang with black holes
when they see
a Cosmic Gamma Ray Burst of that magnitude. The Universe is not driven
by gravity
with black holes swallowing up things, but rather, the Universe is
driven by an
emitter. A huge emitter such as a Nucleus that can routinely emit huge
gamma ray bursts.
Owen Jacobson
> The I have experiment (B) where I take a given quantity of Earth
> simulated ocean water and another sample of a simulated Comet water
Ocean water is easy, but how do you propose to simulate comet water?
-o
Androcles
"Owen Jacobson" <angryb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2010061900210633875-angrybaldguy@gmailcom...
Buy a fridge from here:
http://www.comet.co.uk/shopcomet/homePage.do?zone_id=13
Archimedes Plutonium
Well the experiment would have to run through a bombardment test
of protons on ice water versus liquid water in that ice water may
cause
the higher ratio of heavy water formation. I saw no reports of
Antarctica having
a higher density of heavy water compared to liquid ocean water. But
would
have to rule this out.
I am guessing that astronomers know the salinity of Comet water with
some
high degree of accuracy. So what I am guessing the reason that Comet
water is 2X more heavy water than Earth water is that both are created
via
Dirac new radioactivities additive creation, but that the Cosmic Rays
(protons)
end up on Earth into making more heavy salt rather than heavy water
since
chlorine has two stable isotopes of CL35 and CL37.
I have not yet confirmed whether astronomers know what the salt
density
in Comets is? My suspicion is that these equations are true:
Earth water + cosmic rays = 160ppm heavy water + 1/4 more CL37 density
than Comet
Comet water + cosmic rays = 320ppm heavy water + miniscule CL37
density increase
Of course, Earth is bombarded with more cosmic rays than a comet.
In summary, the cosmic rays as additive creation Dirac's new
radioactivities causes
Earth water to use more of the protons in creating heavy salt whereas
in Comets
those protons go to making 2X more heavy water than Earth.
This is what the experiment hopes to verify. And if it does so, would
be substantial
proof that Dirac's new radioactivities additive creation is true.
And it leaves the field of astro chemistry wide open to explore other
chemicals on
planets or moons and their density disparity. Why does Earth have
a larger iron density than Mars or Venus? Is it because the larger
magnetic field of
Earth brings in more Cosmic rays than normally.
Owen Jacobson
Ok, that's clever. Well played.
-o
Androcles
I have ever met, whether commercial airline or military, say that the
flight
simulator doesn't simulate a normal 10-year-old plane, it simulates a very
new, just-off-the-assembly-line plane. The nice thing is simulated crashes
only cause simulated death, a condition similar to Archie's intellectual
capabilities.
Archimedes Plutonium
satellites have a
chemical composition more in keeping with a additive creation versus
multiplicative.
In Dirac's book, Directions in Physics, he computes that the Moon
would recede
from Earth if multiplicative creation by 2cm/year and would approach
Earth by
2cm/year if additive creation.
So in this edition of this book, I am wanting a better experiment to
decide between
additive and multiplicative creation because the detection of motion
of 2cm/year is
too messy and complex of a task with something so complicated as the
motion of
the Moon with such a small measure of 2cm/year. So I believe the
chemistry of
New Radioactivities is a far far better proof scheme, such as the
Comet water
is 320ppm versus Earth's 160ppm.
Now in additive creation, the formation of new matter occurs where
matter
already exists, and little to no new matter where there is absence of
existing
matter. In multiplicative creation, there is new matter arising
everywhere. A mathematical example is the logarithmic spiral or the
fractals that as they become larger, they
keep their same shape. So the logarithmic spiral is multiplicative
creation. An example
of additive creation is the tree rings of a tree or the growth of a
tree.
So, now, let us check what the growth pattern of the chemical elements
for the planets and
moons have been? We really have access to only one astro body of its
interior composition,
our Earth. And the question would be, has the Earth grown from a
multiplicative creation
or a additive creation of Dirac New Radioactivities?
And here, we also must include what the Big Bang via Nebular Dust
Cloud theory would say
of chemical composition in that the planets were created from a
gravitational lumping together
of planetesimals.
Correct me if wrong, but I understand of the data and facts of
chemical composition of Earth
and stars is that the elements of thorium, uranium are seemingly
overabundant for what they
should be compared to neighboring elements on the periodic chart. That
for some reason
of creation process, the elements of thorium and uranium are
overabundant once we go
beyond bismuth as the last stable isotope of the periodic chart. And
this thorium and uranium
overabundance can be seen on Earth chemistry and in stars where we can
check spectroscopically.
In an earlier edition of this book I relied on a publication of the
1980s on the cosmic
abundance of the chemical elements and it seems as though noone in the
science
community is making that data up to date. If I remember correctly,
someone in Europe,
Holland? was keeping the data of cosmic abundance of elements. But
whether anyone
is making that data an ongoing up to date event is worrisome. Some
physics data should
be a recurring up to date report and the cosmic abundance of elements
is one of those
important needed reports. I have to search through my previous
editions to find that reference. But basically, what I recall is that
the abundance of
chemical elements decreases the higher the atomic number. And that
after lead
and bismuth, there are few atoms of any elements except for thorium
and uranium
and these two are just as abundant as many of the elements lower in
atomic number
than bismuth. This seems to be a astronomical truth and fact and data
that is
highly reliable. That thorium and uranium are as abundant as a
nonradioactive
element of lower atomic number.
This fact or data disproves the multiplicative creation process, for
you cannot have
a overabundant thorium and uranium in that process. This fact and data
also
disproves the Nebular Dust Cloud creation process of gravity as the
creator of our
planets, and also, the abundance of uranium and thorium on the surface
of Earth
is contradictory to gravity and Nebular Dust Cloud.
The cosmic abundance and distribution of thorium and uranium support
only one
creation process-- Dirac's new radioactivities of additive creation.
As I started with
analogies of a tree ring growth or a tree in general, that the rings
are rather uniform
and so the amount of thorium and uranium as overabundant is uniform in
each layer
of a star or layer of Earth. So we can expect overabundant thorium and
uranium atoms
given any layer of Earth or a star.
If multiplicative creation and Nebular Dust Cloud creation were true,
we could expect that
the center of Earth is not a iron core but rather a thorium uranium
core center. And especially
Jupiter. But we see none of that.
The chemical composition and abundance point to Additive Creation as
the true process.
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(snipped)
>
> In an earlier edition of this book I relied on a publication of the
> 1980s on the cosmic
> abundance of the chemical elements and it seems as though noone in the
> science
> community is making that data up to date. If I remember correctly,
> someone in Europe,
> Holland? was keeping the data of cosmic abundance of elements. But
> whether anyone
> is making that data an ongoing up to date event is worrisome. Some
> physics data should
> be a recurring up to date report and the cosmic abundance of elements
> is one of those
> important needed reports. I have to search through my previous
> editions to find that reference. But basically, what I recall is that
An easy and quick search in Wikipedia found my old source:
Anders, E; Ebihara, M (1982). "Solar-system abundances of the
elements". Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 46: 2363. doi:
10.1016/0016-7037(82)90208-3.
But that is the problem that I harkened to in the 1990s, was that
important data such as
the chemical composition of the Universe is data that needs constant
revision and reporting.
It is one of the most important data for telling us whether the Atom
Totality is true and
the Big Bang false. For it tells us that the elements of thorium and
uranium are too overabundant for a Big Bang theory to be true, and
that the overabundance of thorium
and uranium support the truth of Dirac's new radioactivities Additive
Creation.
Archimedes Plutonium
start the 5th edition by
culling all the posts into organized chapters and at least on the road
to a flowing reading.
Tonight I looked into my past posts, reaching into 2003 and 2006 for
this gem:
Archimedes Plutonium wrote circa 2003 and 2006:
--- quoting in parts Sources: Anders and Ebihara, 1982 Solar-system
abundances of the
elements Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta Vol. 46, pages 2363-2380.
The above table is the abundance compilation Anders and Grevesse,
1988,
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta.
atomic number relative cosmic abundances of the elements
based on meteors and analysis of the Sun
Atoms/10^6 Si
1 hydrogen H 2.79 x 10^10
2 helium He 2.72 x 10^9
3 lithium Li 57.1
4 beryllium Be 0.73
5 boron B 21.2
6 carbon C 1.01 x 10^7
7 nitrogen N 3.13 x 10^6
8 oxygen O 2.38 x 10^7
9 fluorine F 843
10 neon Ne 3.44 x 10^6
11 sodium Na 5.74 x 10^4
12 magnesium Mg 1.074 x 10^6
13 aluminum Al 8.49 x 10^4
14 silicon Si 1.00 x 10^6
15 phosphorus P 1.04 x 10^4
16 sulfur S 5.15 x 10^5
17 chlorine Cl 5240
18 argon Ar 1.01 x 10^5
19 potassium K 3770
20 calcium Ca 6.11 x 10^4
21 scandium Sc 34.2
22 titanium Ti 2400
23 vanadium V 293
24 chromium Cr 1.35 x 10^4
25 manganese Mn 9550
26 iron Fe 9.00 x 10^5
27 cobalt Co 2250
28 nickel N 4.93 x 10^4
29 copper Cu 522
30 zinc Zn 1260
31 gallium Ga 37.8
32 germanium Ge 119
33 arsenic As 6.56
34 selenium Se 62.1
35 bromine Br 11.8
36 krypton Kr 45
37 rubidium Rb 7.09
38 strontium Sr 23.5
39 yttrium Y 4.64
40 zirconium Zr 11.4
41 niobium Nb 0.698
42 molybdenum Mo 2.55
43 technetium Tc
44 ruthenium Ru 1.86
45 rhodium Rh 0.344
46 palladium Pd 1.39
47 silver Ag 0.486
48 cadmium Cd 1.61
49 indium In 0.184
50 tin Sn 3.82
51 antimony Sb 0.309
52 tellurium Te 4.81
53 iodine I 0.90
54 xenon Xe 4.7
55 cesium Cs 0.372
56 barium Ba 4.49
57 lanthanum La 0.4460
58 cerium Ce 1.136
59 praseodymium Pr 0.1669
60 neodymium Nd 0.8279
61 promethium Pm
62 samarium Sm 0.2582
63 europium Eu 0.0973
64 gadolinium Gd 0.3300
65 terbium Tb 0.0603
66 dysprosium Dy 0.3942
67 holmium Ho 0.0889
68 erbium Er 0.2508
69 thulium Tm 0.0378
70 ytterbium Yb 0.2479
71 lutetium Lu 0.0367
72 hafnium Hf 0.154
73 tantalum Ta 0.0207
74 tungsten W 0.133
75 rhenium Re 0.0517
76 osmium Os 0.675
77 iridium Ir 0.661
78 platinum Pt 1.34
79 gold Au 0.187
80 mercury Hg 0.34
81 thallium TL 0.184
82 lead Pb 3.15
83 bismuth Bi 0.144
84 polonium Po
85 astatine At
86 radon Rn
87 francium Fr
88 radium Ra
89 actinium Ac
90 thorium Th 0.0335
91 protoactinium Pa
92 uranium U 0.0090
93 neptunium Np
94 plutonium Pu
--- quoting in part Sources: Anders and Ebihara, 1982 Solar-system
abundances of the
elements Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta Vol. 46, pages 2363-2380.
The above table is the abundance compilation Anders and Grevesse,
1988,
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta.
I suspect that if one examines and analyzes the above data, can make
the assertion
that Dirac's New Radioactivities Additive Creation must be true and at
work in having
those number data of abundances.
In a Atom Totality where atoms are created by New Radioactivities
Additive Creation
can you have thorium element 90 at 0.0335 and more abundant than
elements
84,85,86,87,88, 89 and tantalum at 73 and of course elements 61 and
43.
Now going in the opposite direction of the abundance of beryllium
element 4 at
0.73, we have to wait until element 41, niobium of 0.698 to start to
see that range
of abundance.
So in my suggested Experiment of taking some liquid water and
bombarding it with
protons to simulate Cosmic Ray bombardment and afterwards see where
the protons
went into making newer elements. And then repeating the experiment
with say other
atoms, we begin to see why the elements are as abundant as found in
Nature.
The Big Bang theory would all hinge on luck as to whether there was a
Supernova
in the vicinity of our Solar System a long time ago before we had a
solar system and
that supernova brought a Nebular Dust Cloud which would congeal into
our Solar System
and have those numbers of abundance as reported by Anders et al,
above. So alot of
probability, happenstance and luck with the Big Bang and its
accompanying Supernova
and Nebular Dust Cloud.
Contrast that happenstance with the Atom Totality that says our Solar
System was
built as Dirac describes New Radioactivities of a constant and steady
additive creation
such as cosmic rays landing where atoms already exist and building the
lighter atoms
into heavier atoms. Contrast this constant steady construction of
heavier elements from
lighter elements via Dirac new radioactivities with the throw of the
dice in the Big Bang
that a supernova is nearby in the distant past and spews out heavy
elements in such
an exacting proportion as what the Cosmic abundance listed above.
Extremely difficult to believe a supernova can generate thorium atoms
with so much
abundance. But very easy to see and understand that additive creation
by cosmic
rays would bypass elements 84 to 89 and then be in a quantum well of
stability with
thorium at 90 that the protons would be in this quantum well of
stability and thus
make abundant thorium atoms.
Likewise on the other end of the periodic table of elements that
beryllium is so rare
when it should not be rare if supernova and star interiors created the
elements. In
the case of beryllium it is a quantum leakage, not a quantum well,
that you add
protons to elements 1,2,3, and they do not want to stay put for
element 4, but rather
the next stable quantum well is carbon of element 6.
Notice also, that apparently the quantum well of stability for
creating oxygen atoms
via Dirac new radioactivities is far more stable for oxygen than it is
for carbon. It is
this levels of quantum stability that the Atom Totality with Dirac new
radioactivities
is far better able to explain the abundance of elements rather than
the willy-nilly explanation
that a Big Bang with supernova and Nebular Dust Clouds attempts.
The above data is a harmonic sequence of creation of elements that a
Additive
process is the driving mechanism. So that the Aufbau principle in
physics of
building atoms, is tantamount to Dirac's new radioactivities of the
additions of
protons such as cosmic rays.
Archimedes Plutonium
read it until
recently where a person asks Dirac a question:
--- quoting from Directions in Physics ---
Question: I was wondering if a suitable combination of additive
creation and multiplicative
creation could give any answer you'd like?
Professor Dirac:
That is so! But it would be rather unreasonable, I think. I don't
suppose anybody would
believe in a combination of both additive and multiplicative creation.
--- end quoting ---
I want to remark about mine own history on this topic of additive
versus multiplicative.
Of course, Dirac did not have the Atom Totality theory. So I think, to
Dirac, that he was
looking at a exclusion of either, or. Either one or the other with
exclusion.
And I suspect that during Dirac's life, he was expecting the answer to
end up as
multiplicative creation. I sense that in his book he was expecting the
Moon to recede
at 2cm/year.
And that sense of expectation by Dirac for multiplicative creation
rubbed off onto me
and that I was expecting multiplicative to be true as one can see that
it was in
my first three editions of this book.
But I do remember quite well that I remarked several times that I
thought it could
be both a multiplicative with additive creation. Where the creation is
not a exclusive
either, or, but an inclusive either or or both.
Now let me remark on some of the astronomy evidence since Dirac. There
is the
evidence that Neptune is moving off its track and heading to a
approach of the
Uranus track. So one can almost picture the orbit of Neptune as a
huge, a mega
Dirac additive creation. Then there is another astro news of
exoplanets and their tight
close orbits around their parent stars. Here again we can depict these
orbits as
Dirac mega-additive creation orbits.
Now one may ask why has Mercury still been able to escape being
swallowed
by the Sun if Dirac additive creation was true? And I would answer
that the
outward pressure of the Solar rays is enough to counterbalance the
additive creation.
But if the planet were very big and gaseous so that the outward
pressure of
solar rays had not much to "push against" that the approachement would
be
in order.
So I think Dirac expected multiplicative creation, or at least favored
that.
And that Dirac was not aware of Neptune's off track orbit, nor aware
of
exoplanets approacing their parent stars.
And lastly, since Dirac did not have an Atom Totality to base his new
radioactivities,
he would only see a exclusive either or for multiplicative versus
additive.
But in quantum mechanics we have duality and I sense that the question
of
either or exlusive is not what QM would answer. I sense that there is
a mix
of the two, but mostly additive is what is going on. I sense the
universe needs
a touch of multiplicative, because how does a new solar system come
into
being if it is all additive creation? Multiplicative creation starts a
new solar
system, or a new galaxy.
So I think we can have both Additive and Multiplicative creation but
the predominant
one is Additive.
Archimedes Plutonium
I. The theory
(1) what is this theory?
(2) pictures of the Atom Totality theory, and history of the theory
and precursor hints
II. Observational and experimental support
(3) uniform Blackbody 2.71 K cosmic microwave background radiation
and Dark Night sky: Olber's Paradox fully answered
(4) missing mass with its solid-body-rotation conundrum solved
(5) Experiment: Dirac's new-radioactivities and Dirac's additive-
creation
(6) Redshift Experiment caused by refraction and scattering, not a
Doppler effect. Experiment that shows us what the redshift truly is--
curvature
of the lobes of an Atom Totality
(7) Tifft quantized galaxy speeds
(8) Telescope experiments as distance tool, telescopic-eclipse-
technique, and upper limit of telescope in distance is about 400
million light years
(9) Experiment that Space is electromagnetic, not gravitational
with
the upper limit of distance as 400 million light years
(10) density and distribution of all the galaxies
(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) the cosmic abundance and distribution of chemical elements
(13) shape of the Cosmos as 6 lobes of 5f6 as nonrelativistic as
Cubic, or as relativistic Dodecahedron; color of the cosmos as
plutonium off-white
(14) Cosmic magnetohydrodynamics: Maxwell Equations applied to
the galaxies. And the Universe itself is the one and only magnetic
monopole
(15) MECO theory to explain high energy sources and black-hole
theory as science-fiction
(16) Planetary evidence: "Earth evidence" such as age; zirconium
crystal dating; Titius-Bode Rule as diffraction pattern
(17) "Solar System evidence" such as CellWell 1 and CellWell2 ;
planet cores ; plane of ecliptic
(18) Galaxy evidence: "Milky Way evidence" : Exoplanets and
exosolarsystems; Binary Stars
III. Mathematical and logic beauty support
(19) "pi" and "e" and "i" explained; inverse fine structure
constant, and proton to electron mass ratio, speed of light, all
linked and explained
(20) Bell Inequality with Superdeterminism fits only in an Atom
Totality theory
(21) Purpose and meaning of life
(22) Atomic theory Syllogism
Now Dirac was worried about magnetic monopoles existing. He was
worried because
the mathematics indicates that the explanation for why electric charge
is always quantized
is derived from the existence of a magnetic monopole. Now there need
not be numerous
magnetic monopoles in existence, but merely the fact of the existence
of one magnetic
monopole is all that is needed.
Now from the beginning of the discovery of the Atom Totality theory, I
have been bothered
by one feature in particular of this theory. That all of the matter we
observe is electron
matter of the 231Pu Atom Totality. So all matter, whether positive or
negative charged or
neutral is all parts of the electrons of the Atom Totality. So this
means that a proton we
observe, although positively charged, it is negatively charged since
it is part of the electrons
of the Atom Totality. And an electron we observe is seemingly twice
negatively charged, one
from it being an electron and the fact that it is matter means it is
part of the electrons of the atom totality.
So I bring up the topic of magnetic monopoles for it just maybe the
explanation of how you
can have positive and negative and neutral charge , yet everything of
matter that exists
be negative charge.
So maybe, just maybe the best answer to the puzzle of how you can have
postive, negative
and neutral charge yet all being negative charge in the Atom Totality
is because the
Atom Totality is a magnetic monopole.
Now if it were a magnetic monopole, and the only such monopole in all
of the Universe, where
the universe itself was the magnetic monopole. That we should be able
to confirm this because the Universe should be able to independently
give the electric charge.
So if the Universe was the unique magnetic monopole, would solve two
problems in one--
(a) solve why electric charge is always quantized
(b) solve how electric charge derives it magnitude
Archimedes Plutonium
It is rather good that I touch on this subject of the Universe being
the one and only
monopole in existence. Dirac had terrific physics intuition, certainly
the tallest
physicist of the 20th century of QM, and I am a baton carrier of
mostly
Dirac's legacy. Without a doubt, the biggest quantum mechanics
physicist of
that era that sported Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli and many others that
Dirac shines
brightest. Einstein was a midget compared to Dirac. But let me not get
carried away
on history.
It is good that I talk about monopole just immediately after talking
about whether
we have additive or multiplicative new radioactivities. Because
learning and understanding
complicated physics is best done when you have a bunch of stuff that
is similar or can ask
the same questions over a wide spectrum of phenomenon. For instance:
(1) Is it additive or multiplicative new radioactivities or both in
combinations?
(2) Is light ever travelling at the speed of light or is it always
slowed down due
to space always curved and space never being a full vaccuum?
(3) Is Space ever Euclidean or is it always a mix of both Elliptic and
Hyperbolic
that may be Euclidean in a few spots here and there?
(4) Can you ever have a "front" yet no "back"
(5) If you had a monopole, would it mean there is no quantum duality?
Because north and south poles of magnets are nothing more than
dualities.
(6) If you had a monopole, would it mean the Maxwell Equations are
wrong?
(7) If you had a monopole, would it mean that you had Euclidean
geometry
since a dipole means Elliptic.
I think all those questions are related to the question of whether a
monopole exists or
not.
I think that Dirac was both correct and wrong with his insistence of a
magnetic monopole.
I think he was wrong in thinking that a magnetic monopole would show
up as did the
positron for his Dirac Equation showed up in experiments. Dirac was
expecting monopoles
showing up as what happened when positrons showed up in experiments. I
think Dirac
was too persuaded by his insistence that the "electric charge is
always quantized". But to
save electric charge quantization, must we sacrifice Maxwell Equations
and Quantum Duality? So I think that Dirac never really talked about
what he would lose by having monopoles exist.
I think what Dirac made the mistake with monopole seeking was a
mistake in emphasis. He
emphasized the existence of monopoles to uphold electric charge as
always quantized. But
by having monopoles, we violate the Maxwell Equations and Quantum
Duality. So Dirac
wanted to uphold electric charge quantization but did not mind losing
Maxwell Equations and
Quantum Duality. So here, I think the logical question is whether we
can have a Universe
where we uphold charge quantization, Maxwell Equations and Quantum
Duality? Can we
uphold all three of those, not just charge quantization.
Dirac was correct by insisting that a monopole does exist. Only not
the sort of monopole that
Dirac had in mind, like a particle such as a positron validating his
Dirac Equation. The monopole that does exist is rather a condition of
the Universe. That the Universe itself
is a monopole as an "upper limit condition". This is a monopole that
we cannot generate in
a experiment. It is a condition of the Universe, not a particle.
Let me try to explain what I mean with the theory of light. We all
know that light has a speed
designated as "c" of which it is travelling in a vaccuum. But is there
a perfect vaccuum? Is there a
vaccuum at all? Probably not. And is not the Universe an elliptic
geometry meaning it has
a curvature and thus any light travelling in curved space is not going
to speed at "c". And so there is no light, ever, travelling at "c"
itself. So if all light is travelling at less than "c" does it mean
that the physics of light is wrong? No. It simply means
that light has a upper bound, an upper limit. Another place in physics
where we meet such
a condition is the absolute zero temperature. Nothing in the Cosmos is
0 Kelvin, but that does
not mean 0 Kelvin is nonexistant. It only means 0 Kelvin exists but is
an upper limit.
Monopole theory is the same sort of thing as the speed of light or 0
Kelvin. All magnets are dipoles,
but in the upper bound or upper limit we can rescue from the Universe
one monopole, the
universe itself. A dipole magnet simply means that the EM force is a
Elliptic geometry force
of going around in circles. To have a monopole magnet means that EM
force is Euclidean
flat plane geometry. No EM force is Euclidean flat plane. The only
place in physics where
light actually travels at the speed of light is a Euclidean flat plane
that is a vaccuum.
So Dirac was wanting to justify why electric charge is always
quantized, but it is quantized
not because the Universe has a monopole, but is quantized because
everything in the universe is duality driven. A monopole is not
duality but singularity. Light travelling at the speed of light is not
duality but a singularity. Dirac derives his need for a monopole by
considering the Schrodinger Equation in his book Directions in
Physics. But there is an
implied mistake that Dirac made in his derivation, on page 46 where he
gets:
Umin = (137/2)(e)
Dirac made a implicit mistake by using the Schrodinger Equation
without mention of
quantum duality. Positive charge is the dual of negative charge. Dirac
neglects that
bipolar magnets are duality relationships and Dirac neglects the
duality in his calculation
of Umin.
Noone is going to find a monopole in the laboratory, ever. But a
monopole exists as the
Universe in total is a monopole, just as the Universe in total has the
speed of light
travelling at "c" as a upper limit case. And just as the Universe has
0 Kelvin as the lower
limit of temperature.
So a monopole is not a object of existence, not an entity of existence
but a condition
of existence, a upper or lower limit condition.
So Dirac was both correct and wrong about his magnetic monopole. He
was right that
at least one exists, but it is not something that can be bottled in an
experiment. It is
a upper limit case of the entire Universe itself. Euclidean geometry
is the upper limit
case of Elliptic geometry where you have no more curves and bends but
everything
is straight lines with the parallel axiom. He was wrong in thinking
that experiments
would deliver some particle that was monopolic. And he was wrong in
not following up
on the logical implications of a monopole. Sure he had the motivation
of a electric
charge quantization, but he failed to subtract that the Maxwell
Equations are destroyed
and that the Quantum Duality is destroyed.
But it is to Dirac's credit that we now can make sense of magnetic
monopoles, because
without his adventure into that topic we would still be far into the
weeds.
P.S. I doubt that the Universe as a monopole itself can make easier
the question of
how all the matter we see is "electronic matter". Why we do not
recognize that
the Moon or Earth are parts of an electron in an Atom Totality and
would thus
appear charged matter. That we see matter as cosmically neutral
overall. I think what
masks this "electronic matter" is that space is positively charged
with positron space
and that makes the overall observable universe appear electrically
neutral.
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(snipped)
>
> Let me try to explain what I mean with the theory of light. We all
> know that light has a speed
> designated as "c" of which it is travelling in a vaccuum. But is there
> a perfect vaccuum? Is there a
> vaccuum at all? Probably not. And is not the Universe an elliptic
> geometry meaning it has
> a curvature and thus any light travelling in curved space is not going
> to speed at "c". And so there is no light, ever, travelling at "c"
> itself. So if all light is travelling at less than "c" does it mean
> that the physics of light is wrong? No. It simply means
> that light has a upper bound, an upper limit. Another place in physics
> where we meet such
> a condition is the absolute zero temperature. Nothing in the Cosmos is
> 0 Kelvin, but that does
> not mean 0 Kelvin is nonexistant. It only means 0 Kelvin exists but is
> an upper limit.
>
In sci.math, recently I outlined how we derive the speed of light
purely out of math
without ever doing experimental measurement. Let me recap that
procedure. We are
given a sphere surface, or it could be a elliptical surface. And we
make the lines of
longitude as bands rather than lines. So to use Earth as an example,
and to use the
speed of light in meters per second, the bands that are the lines of
longitude are
a meter thick bands. Then we use a logarithmic spiral for the time
coordinate. So the
speed of light is the full coverage of a light ray that races through
all the longitude bands
and the length of the logarthmic spiral is the time factor (keep in
mind that only a 1/3,
if memory serves me, of the
log spiral from pole to pole is used due to geometry). So it matters
none whether
the speed of light is in meters a second or in miles per hour because
the bands are compensated for different units.
Now the speed of light as most experiments reveal is approx 2.99... x
10^8 m/sec
or 3 x 10^8 m/sec.
But the reasoning for this post is that those figures are probably,
highly inaccurate, even
though they are touted as super accurate.
The reason I say this is because in my prior post, I said that there
is no actual physics
vacuum and all measurements of the speed of light were committed in
nonvacuum conditions.
Even space is highly occupied, even in the voids space there is no
vacuum to be found.
And another feature of Space is that it is highly curved or bent since
it is not Euclidean geometry. So any measurement of light speed is
going to be a slower speed than what
"c" actually is, due to no vacuum and bent space.
My hunch is that the speed of light is probably 3.14159.. x 10^8 m/
sec. In other words, the
speed of light in vacuum in Euclidean geometry is the digits of pi.
Now there is a nice test of this conjecture. Simply see if the
construct I proposed above:
distance of bands of longitudes/logarithmic spiral one third from pole
to pole
to see if that formula is in fact the digits of pi in mathematics. No
matter what the size
of the sphere is, we divide the band distance by 1/3 log spiral
distance and end up with a
number that is the digits of pi.
Now this monopole idea by Dirac makes me want to explore whether the
electric charge:
1.60 x 10^-19 C is also able to be assertained purely from mathematics
without ever doing
a physics experiment. I think so. More in next post.
Archimedes Plutonium
is found from
pure math considerations as the distance of longitude bands divided by
a special
portion of the polar log-spiral. This derivation is immune to any sort
of units for the
speed of light. And I said that since the Universe is never a vacuum
and that space
is highly elliptical and not Euclidean, that the old measurement of
light speed at
3 x 10^8 m/sec is probably off by 4 to 5% off. And that the speed of
light is exactly
following the digits of pi. So more accurately the speed of light is
3.14159.. x 10^8 m/sec
Now as for the electric charge given as 1.60 x 10^-19 C. It is easy to
see that such
is very close to a very famous number in mathematics, the number phi
or commonly
known as the golden-ratio as (1 + sqrt5)/2 and is 1.618..
Now the remarkable thing about this number is that if you take 1 and
divide it by
1.618 what you end up with is 0.618. And if you take 1 and divide it
by
0.618 you end up with 1.618. So another name for this special number
is perhap the
log-fractal number because it seems to mirror image itself.
So now if we look at the electric charge and assume that it is the phi
number for its
digits that a more accurate electric charge is 1.618.. x 10^-19 C.
But the more important task is to render the electric charge into pure
mathematical derivation,
just as I have done for the speed of light as bands of longitude
divided by a segment of the
polar log spiral.
I suspect the electric charge is derived from the log spiral on the
sphere surface. And the hard part is to obtain that exponent and make
it unit independent.
Archimedes Plutonium
One of the problems with having so many irons in the fire, is that I
do not remember
so well where I left off previously. So I had to refresh my memory
with these two posts:
#######
sci.math, sci.physics, sci.logic
Jan 28, 1:00 am
Date: Jan 28, 2010 2:00 AM
Author: plutonium....@gmail.com
Subject: help on geometry problem #356; Correcting Math
Enrico wrote:
(snipped)
> Convex: The dual of the concave situation above:
> A circle centered on the triangle ABC and passing through points A,
B,
> and C.
> Disclaimer - I don't think this works if the surface area of the
> equilateral
> triangle is greater than or equal to 1/8 of the surface area of
the
> sphere.
> The task of converting all this into numbers is not one I care to have
> to
> learn how to do before producing a result. I don't have the time
or
> interest.
> Enrico
Thanks a million, Enrico. You have stated the problem far better than
what I have stated the problem.
#######
sci.math, sci.physics, sci.logic
Apr 14, 3:13 pm
Date: Apr 14, 2010 4:13 PM
Author: plutonium....@gmail.com
Subject: deriving the speed of light, purely out of math #599
Correcting Math
I wrote:
(snipped)
Now let me give an example of how a math book should treat a subject
matter.
Earlier I wrote how the speed of light in physics should be derived
out of pure math
as that of Stripe Geometry on the surface of Earth where I take all
the meridians
as stripes and where the circumference of Earth is 40,000 km so all
the stripes are
1 km wide and all of meridians would be 40,000 x 40,000 and the
stripe
that represents
the Log-spiral would be 5,000, thus yielding a speed of light of 3 x
10^5 km/sec.
######
Today is June 21, 2010, and for some reason, the log spiral
representative of
the meridians is only 1/8 of the meridian distance.
So I have in the above 40,000 x 40,000/ 5,000 = 300,000 km/sec
So I derive the speed of light purely out of mathematical geometry as
that of
the meridians versus the log spiral on any sphere surface, and
independent of
any units of measure as the bands or stripes removes the units.
This is what should happen in an Atom Totality, that the most
important numbers
of physics come from the fact the Cosmos is an Atom Totality. Such as
pi is
the number of subshells 22 of s,p,d,f subshells divided by the number
of shells
of 7; and "e" is the number of occupied subshells 19/7. So the speed
of light is the
number of band meridians divided by the representative log-spiral.
Now I should be able to derive from pure math, the electric charge of
1.6 x 10^-19 C.
Archimedes Plutonium
To derive the electric charge purely from math geometry, I am going to
have
to interpret what the "Coulomb unit is".
Wikipedia gives this as definition of Coulomb:
"One coulomb is the amount of electric charge transported in one
second by a steady current of one ampere.[3][4][5]"
That may appear to be horrifically daunting to interpret the Coulomb
as a geometry, but
I think it is rather easy, provided I make a careful assumption. I am
going to assume that
the electric charge is the light wave, or what Maxwell and Faraday
said was the
"disturbance in the electromagnetic field"
That is a reasonable assumption, that the light wave is the coulomb
unit of measure in
geometrical units.
So the speed of light is actually the band-meridians divided by the
representative log-spiral.
So the Coulomb unit should be a Euclidean cross section of this sphere
with band-meridians.
More later when I have it better worked out in my head.
Archimedes Plutonium
difficult, in case I
make no progress. But it seems as though I always make progress on
these
challenges.
Charge as a physics characteristic or attribute, is a rather difficult
concept. Unlike
speed where we know it is distance/time, with charge we struggle to
relate to it.
The best we can do is examine and study magnetism. But even here, it
seems that
the true meaning of charge is foreign to our grasp. Because it looks
like charge is
force, or poetically, frozen force. Charge and magnetism are
unsettling to our minds
and we have to accept them, knowing they are stranger than most
concepts that we
can grasp and quickly understand.
But I have made some progress tonight.
I said in my prior posts, that to understand the basics of charge
would have
to be able to explain the exponent of 10^-19 C for the elementary
charge of
1.6 x 10^-19 C.
If one looks at radius or diameter of the smallest particles in
physics such as
the proton or electron. We know the Bohr radius is on the order of 5.2
x 10^-11 m.
So we are getting close to 10^-19. We know the proton diameter is
about
1.6 x 10^-15 m. So here with the proton we are only 10^-4 away from
10^-19.
Now we know that the mass of the proton is about 2,000 times larger
than the electron.
Can we thence say that the diameter of the electron in collapsed
wavefunction is
approx 10^-19 meters?
Now notice that the definition of the Ampere is 6.241 x 10^18
electrons passing a given
point per second of time.
Here again, I contend a more accurate number for One Ampere is 6.18 x
10^18 electrons
given my speculation that the elementary charge "e" is actually the
digits of the golden
ratio or the phi number of 1.618 and so, One Ampere should be the
digits 6.18.. and not
6.24.
Notice also that in the proton diameter, it is reported as 1.6 x
10^-15. So the "phi number"
is blossoming out all over the place in physics.
So now, how do I derive the elementary charge "e" purely out of math
without ever
doing any physics experimentation? Well, it is not going to be as
challenging or
difficult as was deriving the speed of light out of pure math, and I
still have some
lingering issues with that derivation as to why 1/8 of the distance of
the log-spiral
is used. But the derivation of the speed of light out of pure math is
a beautiful
tour in physics and math, in that every sphere surface embodies the
speed of light
as a division of its meridians by a log spiral.
The adventure of deriving elementary charge from pure math is not as
dazzling,
but more straightforward. This is so, I suspect, because charge is
more of a
force than a parameter. With speed we can break it down into distance
and time.
With charge, well, it is a quasi force itself. That is why the
definition of charge and
ampere are really only a repeat of the Coulomb force law.
So, let me derive elementary charge out of pure math. We are going to
say that in
physics there is a smallest particle between the proton or electron,
and that be the electron.
The proton diameter is 10^-15 m. The electron diameter we are going to
surmize as
10^-19 meters. Charge itself is geometry and we are going to say that
the proton is
Elliptic geometry and thus, the electron is Hyperbolic geometry such
as the pseudsphere.
This means the proton is positively charged and the electron is
negatively charged.
Now what number is the elementary charge going to have? I have
established that its
exponent is going to be 10^-19 Coulombs because the smallest of the
proton or electron
is the electron. Now all I need to establish the elementary charge is
what numeric value
for the 10^-19 C. And the answer is of course the only number in
mathematics that is
self similar, no matter how big or small in size, the number is
proportionally the same.
Call it the logarithmic fractal number and it is phi or the golden
ratio of (1 + sqrt5)/2 = 1.618.
If you take that number and multiply it by itself you end up with
2.618.. If you take that number
1.618.. and divide it into 1 you end up with 0.618..
So the number phi is like a charge in physics, it is conserved and
quantized.
Now I maybe able to go further in a derivation by pointing out the
significance of
sqrt5 for the Atom Totality and the division by 2 to make the phi
number. But I think
I have derived it well enough to move on.
Archimedes Plutonium
physics, like blue
bonnetts in an Onderdonck (spelling?) painting.
Since my last post I was wondering if it was consistent with other
numbers in physics.
Physicists rarely think like mathematicians as regards to consistency
as a means
of checking their work.
The Planck Length is another phi number or golden ratio number of 1.61
x 10^-32
meters. Now I wonder why no physicist ever noticed the plethora of
"phi numbers"
in physics? I seem to be the first in alot of things in science.
Now the Planck length of course has the speed of light included as
sqrt(hG/c^3)
But now, what I am concerned is to check my work of deriving the
elementary-charge
"e" out of pure math and to check it, it must be consistent with
Planck Length.
So basically, let me summarize what Elementary Charge means. It means
the smallest
size of a sphere or pseudosphere that either the proton or electron
can obtain. No electron
can be smaller than 10^-19 meters. That is the crux of the meaning of
charge. The smallest
size of either an Elliptic or Hyperbolic geometry is 10^-19 meters.
Now some would think that 10^-35 was the smallest size sphere or
pseudosphere to be
obtained, but no, the elementary charge says 10^-19 meters is the
smallest size sphere
or pseudosphere. Because in the derivation of the speed of light as
that of band meridians
divided by 1/8 log spiral is constrained to having 10^-19 meters the
smallest size to
accomodate band meridians and 1/8 log-spiral.
You see, if you had 10^-19 x 10^-19 you would have in band-meridians a
length of
beyond the Planck Length.
The Elementary Charge "e" is thus the smallest Elliptic or Hyperbolic
geometry
that fits consistent with Planck length and yet allows the speed of
light as
band meridians.
Now do not get me wrong. The basic issue with elementary charge is its
positive and negative characteristics. This is obtained by the fact
that charge
is either Elliptic geometry or Hyperbolic geometry. But the size
question is what
the Elementary Charge number is about. How big or how small can "e"
be.
And the answer is of the magnitude of order of 10^-19. The constraints
of the
exponent in "e" at 10^-19 are many constraints. It has to be 10^-19
not only
for the Planck length but if it were any larger say 10^-18, it would
mess up
with the proton diameter, neutron diameters and thus proton masses.
Archimedes Plutonium
mathematical considerations,
without ever having to do any physics experiment to find out what the
speed of light is.
Of course, I would want to verify by physics experiment that I had
actually produced the
speed of light.
So let me recap how I derived the speed of light. I took any sphere,
it could be the size
of Earth (idealized as a sphere) or the size of a sphere globe in my
home, or the size of
a baseball.
Then what I do is imagine lines of meridians or lines of longitude.
Then I give them a
band width, depending on what units I want my speed of light to end up
with. So for example on Earth sphere, I may choose kilometers per
second as the ultimate form I want for
the speed of light. Thus the band meridian or the stripe or width of
the lines of longitude are
all one kilometer wide. There are 40,000 of these kilometer wide band
meridians. And each of
them is 40,000 kilometers in distance. So the total distance of all
these band meridians is
40,000 x 40,000 = 1,600,000,000. Now on this same Earth sphere there
is a logarithmic spiral
from pole to pole. I take not the full log spiral distance but rather
the distance that the log spiral represents a meridian of 40,000
kilometers. It is 1/8 of the circumference or 5,000
kilometers for Earth sphere. The band meridian is the distance that
light travels, or
1,600,000,000, and the time that light travels in seconds is 5,000 as
representative of
one band meridian. So the speed of light is 1,600,000,000 kilometers/
5,000 seconds
And that answer, is of course, approx 300,000 km/sec. And this
derivation is unitless, for
I can do it in meters/second or in miles/hour or any other unit so
long as the sphere can
accommodate the band width.
But now the question occurrs as to whether the speed of light is
actually and truly the
math number "pi" to a specific decimal point. So for in the example of
kilometers, that the
speed of light in reality is 314159.265.. kilometers/second?? In
meters per second the
speed of light would be 314159265.35 meters/second.
Is there anything in physics that would suggest the old figures of
2.99 x 10^5 km/sec
or the 3.00 x 10^5 km/sec are too far off and not precise enough?
I would say yes, there are two valid arguments to suggest that the
speed of light is
a numeric representation of the number "pi" in math, given that the
Universe is an
Atom Totality. Those two reasons are that the speed of light is a
upper limit and cannot
be obtained because the Universe has no perfect vacuum. All the earth
done experiments
were not vacuums. And secondly, in an Atom Totality, the curvature of
the Universe is
a high degree of curvature, so any measure of the speed of light would
be a measure
that fails to add in or subtract the curvature of the Cosmos.
So any physics experimental measure of the speed of light is going to
be off the mark
by a sizable percentage. A sizeable error of measure.
Now I cannot prove that the speed of light must be the digits of "pi"
simply from my
derivation.
But I can claim, without doubt that the speed of light using that
derivation could be
the digits of pi.
However, I can make a proof argument that the speed of light must be
the digits of
pi, given my recent foray into the derivation of the elementary-charge
in physics.
I notice that these physical constants are probably all of them a form
of the golden
ratio number, the phi number of 1.6180339887498948482..
It looks as though, although no proof as yet that these numbers in
physics are all
a form of phi:
(1) elementary charge "e" as 1.6 x 10^-19 C
(2) Planck length 1.61 x 10^-35 meters
(3) the ampere (of course the conjugate of elementary charge) at 6.18
x 10^18 electrons
(4) proton diameter at 1.6 x 10^-15 meters
But if proof were given that they are all a form of phi-numbers, then
I suspect we
can prove that the speed of light must be a pi-number.
Let me repeat why the speed of light would have been off by so much,
since
3.00 x 10^8 m/s is far different from 3.14 x 10^8 m/s and would cause
considerable
changes in astronomy reckoning. The reason for the error is that the
speed of light
is an upper limit that exists only in the condition of a "perfect
vacuum" and where
the geometry of the Cosmos is Euclidean, not the bent Elliptic. In a
near-vacuum
and a Elliptic shaped Cosmos, you would experimentally come up with
the shoddy number
3 x 10^8 m/sec for light speed and not the true 314159265.35.. m/s
Again, this needs proving.
Archimedes Plutonium
>
> The Planck Length is another phi number or golden ratio number of 1.61
> x 10^-32
> meters. Now I wonder why no physicist ever noticed the plethora of
Typing error, that should have read 10^-35 not 10^-32, and changed on
original
with a "sic" sign.
Frederick Williams
>
> Earlier this year, I derived the speed of light from purely
> mathematical considerations,
> without ever having to do any physics experiment to find out what the
> speed of light is.
> Of course, I would want to verify by physics experiment that I had
> actually produced the
> speed of light.
The speed of light is 299,792,458 metres per second by definition.
--
I can't go on, I'll go on.
David R Tribble
> It is 1/8 of the circumference or 5,000 kilometers for Earth sphere.
If you mean the actual Earth, it has a circumference slightly
larger than 40,000 km. Its equatorial circumference is 40,075 km
and its meridional (polar) circumference is 40,008 km. Which
means, of course, that the Earth is not a perfect sphere.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzcircumference.htm
Uncle Al
>
> Earlier this year, I derived the speed of light from purely
> mathematical considerations,
I cannot believe how incredibly stupid Archie-Poo is. I mean
rock-hard stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. Surface
of Venus under 80 atmospheres of red hot carbon dioxide and sulfuric
acid vapor dehydrated for 300 million years rock-hard stupid. Stupid
so stupid that it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole
different sensorium of stupid. Archie-Poo is trans-stupid stupid.
Meta-stupid. Stupid so collapsed upon itself that it is within its
own Schwarzschild radius. Black hole stupid. Stupid gotten so dense
and massive that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid.
Archie-Poo emits more stupid/second than our entire galaxy otherwise
emits stupid/year. Quasar stupid. Nothing else in the universe can
be this stupid. Archie-Poo is an oozingly putrescent primordial
fragment from the original Big Bang of Stupid, a pure essence of
stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of
physics that define maximally extrapolated hypergeometric
n-dimensional backgroundless stupid as we can imagine it. Archie-Poo
is Planck stupid, a quantum foam of stupid, a vacuum decay of stupid,
a grand unified theory of stupid.
Archie-Poo is the epitome of stupidity, the epiphany of stupid, the
apotheosis of stupidity. Archie-poo is stooopid.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
Owen Jacobson
You're trying to correct someone who sincerely believes that if a
measurable quantity is "close enough" to one of his favourite numbers,
then the measurement is somehow wrong and the number is *really* his
favourite number -- even when the experimental value is known to far
too many places for that to be feasible or when the value is defined by
fiat.
In other words, a crazy person.
Have fun,
-o
Androcles
the speed of light and then defined the speed of light in terms of
the metre. It doesn't get any more psychotic than that.
David R Tribble
>> Earlier this year, I derived the speed of light from purely
>> mathematical considerations,
>> without ever having to do any physics experiment to find out what the
>> speed of light is.
>> Of course, I would want to verify by physics experiment that I had
>> actually produced the
>> speed of light.
>
Frederick Williams said:
>> The speed of light is 299,792,458 metres per second by definition.
>
Owen Jacobson wrote:
>| You're trying to correct someone who sincerely believes that if a
>| measurable quantity is "close enough" to one of his favourite numbers,
>| then the measurement is somehow wrong and the number is *really* his
>| favourite number -- even when the experimental value is known to far
>| too many places for that to be feasible or when the value is defined by
>| fiat.
>| In other words, a crazy person.
>
Androcles wrote:
> The one that is crazy is the one that defined the metre in terms of
> the speed of light and then defined the speed of light in terms of
> the metre. It doesn't get any more psychotic than that.
The metre is defined as the distance light travels in 1/299,792,458
of a second. A second, in turn, is defined as the duration of
9,192,631,770 periods of radiation from a certain hyperfine
transition of a cesium atom. So, technically, the speed of light
is defined in terms of a subatomic event.
The meter used to be defined in terms of what the French thought
the polar circumference of the Earth was (which was off by about
8 km).
At any rate, I think we all know who is the craziest person here.
Androcles
"David R Tribble" <da...@tribble.com> wrote in message
news:f3ae1480-2334-4a42...@w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
| Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
| >> Earlier this year, I derived the speed of light from purely
| >> mathematical considerations,
| >> without ever having to do any physics experiment to find out what the
| >> speed of light is.
| >> Of course, I would want to verify by physics experiment that I had
| >> actually produced the
| >> speed of light.
| >
|
| Frederick Williams said:
| >> The speed of light is 299,792,458 metres per second by definition.
| >
|
| Owen Jacobson wrote:
| >| You're trying to correct someone who sincerely believes that if a
| >| measurable quantity is "close enough" to one of his favourite numbers,
| >| then the measurement is somehow wrong and the number is *really* his
| >| favourite number -- even when the experimental value is known to far
| >| too many places for that to be feasible or when the value is defined by
| >| fiat.
| >| In other words, a crazy person.
| >
|
| Androcles wrote:
| > The one that is crazy is the one that defined the metre in terms of
| > the speed of light and then defined the speed of light in terms of
| > the metre. It doesn't get any more psychotic than that.
|
| The metre is defined as the distance light travels in 1/299,792,458
| of a second.
David R Tribble wrote "Frederick Williams said:
The speed of light is 299,792,458 metres per second by definition."
Doesn't matter what a second is.
The one that is crazy is the one that defined the metre in terms of
the speed of light and then defined the speed of light in terms of
the metre. It doesn't get any more psychotic than that.
| A second, in turn, is defined as the duration of
| 9,192,631,770 periods of radiation from a certain hyperfine
| transition of a cesium atom. So, technically, the speed of light
| is defined in terms of a subatomic event.
Ok, so the speed of light is 299,792,458 metres per 9,192,631,770 periods of
radiation from a certain hyperfine transition of a cesium atom
and a fucking metre is ct = 299,792,458 metres per 9,192,631,770 periods of
radiation from a certain hyperfine transition of a cesium atom
* 9,192,631,770 periods of radiation from a certain hyperfine transition of
a cesium atom, and you are fucking insane.
|
| The meter used to be defined in terms of what the French thought
| the polar circumference of the Earth was (which was off by about
| 8 km).
|
| At any rate, I think
Do you have any empirical evidence to support the absurd notion that you CAN
think?
| we all know who is the craziest person here.
Yep, the dumb bastard that defined the metre in terms of the speed of light
and the speed of light in terms of the metre, then got hopeless confused
over what a second is, is the craziest person here. We all know that.
Archimedes Plutonium
when I reach a
moment in which a paragraph describes the entire idea to a new reader.
Describe
the derivation and how it works.
--- derivation of speed of light out of pure math ---
Earlier I wrote how the speed of light in physics should be derived
out of pure math
as that of Stripe Geometry on the surface of Earth where I take all
the meridians
as stripes and where the circumference of Earth is 40,000 km so all
the stripes are
1 km wide and all of meridians distance would be 40,000 x 40,000 and
the
stripe
that represents
the Log-spiral would be 5,000 and this is the time in seconds
instead of distance,
thus yielding a speed of light
40,000 x 40,000 / 5,000 is equal to 3 x
10^5 km/sec.
--- end of derivation ---
Now the above derivation is unitless, in other words it matters not
whether we do in
in km/second or meters/second or in miles/second because the band
width of the
stripe compensates for the different units.
Now there are still some unresolved issues I have with the technique.
For instance,
I am not resolved on why it is 1/8 of the circumference as a log-
spiral representation, that is involved. This maybe because
in a Plutonium Atom Totality, the geometry of plutonium as seen on
page 73 of "The
Elements Beyond Uranium" by Seaborg and Loveland, 1990, shows 8 lobes
of the
plutonium atom geometry. Or it maybe the case as a poster responded to
what is
the maximum size triangle that can be converted from Elliptic into
Hyperbolic geometry
and vice versa which involves 1/8 circumference. Or maybe these two
are related.
But regardless of whether I have some ironing out to do, is no
detraction for the technique.
The technique is solid. The technique is here to stay and to elaborate
upon.
And it may shock most everyone in physics that the speed of light can
be churned
out from pure mathematics.
Now that leaves open for a complaint. A complaint I recently received
saying that
Mr. Plutonium, if you had not known that the speed of light is roughly
3 x 10^5 km/s
then you would not know to take 1/8 of the circumference as
representative log-spiral. Now that is of course a very valid
complaint.
So instead of answering that complaint directly, let me veer off as to
the meaning
of the technique. And once I finish with the "meaning of the
technique". I think I can
answer the complaint better.
I previously wrote that the speed of light has alot in common with the
absolute
zero kelvin temperature of physics. Both are limits, one an upper
limit and the other
a lower limit. Both are never reached in physics and we see that
especially with
0 Kelvin. But with the speed of light, it is never actually reached
either because
there is no perfect vacuum in physics, and there is no Euclidean
geometry in
physics for light to travel at the speed of light, but always at a
slower speed,
just as light is slowed down travelling through water.
So let me offer my opinion as to what this new technique is all about
for the
speed of light.
There are three geometries in the Universe, -- Euclidean, Elliptic and
Hyperbolic.
To me, Euclidean when broken in its symmetry ends up being Elliptic
and Hyperbolic
where one is the picture and the other is the frame for the picture.
In other words,
Euclidean geometry exists because it is a compilation of Elliptic with
Hyperbolic.
Elliptic is like the particle and Hyperbolic the wave. So the two
geometries
are duals of one another, like particle and wave duality.
So Quantum Mechanics is Elliptic and Hyperbolic geometry. Now when I
say the 0 Kelvin
is a lower limit and nothing can ever reach 0 Kelvin, then it is not
physical is it? It is not
obtainable so it does not exist, does it, but rather, it is a
condition or a lower limit. Likewise
for the speed of light as an upper limit. It can never be reality
because there is no
perfect vacuum and Space is not Euclidean but rather Elliptic with
Hyperbolic.
In a sense, then, Euclidean geometry is the limit of putting Elliptic
with Hyperbolic geometry
together as one geometry.
What I mean here is that if you have a concave inward triangle
(hyperbolic) and added
a concave outward triangle (elliptic) they cancel and produce a
straight lined Euclidean triangle. So the speed of light, is a limit
of Elliptic speeds. That you can go as fast as you
want until you reach almost the speed of light and still be Elliptic
geometry, but if you
reach the speed of light, you entered into Euclidean geometry.
Any and every sphere has lines of longitude and a log spiral to the
poles that is
a 1/8 circumference representative. Any and every
sphere has band-meridians or stripe-meridians. We ask the question,
what is the Minimum
speed at which you can cover that sphere of its band-meridians and log
spiral? And the answer
is that the Least speed or lower limit speed to cover or create the
sphere surface itself, is the
40,000 x 40,000 / 5,000.
So the speed of light, is seen as a creation process of making the
sphere itself in the least amount of speed.
So now, to answer the valid question raised that "Mr. Plutonium, you
had to know the speed of
light before you used your purely math derivation?"
And my reply back is that "no". If I never heard of 3 x 10^5 km/s. And
armed only with my
above technique. I would have looked at Earth as a sphere and said,
alright, I want a speed of
light in km/s. That meant I would have had 40,000 km band
circumference and I would have had 40,000 of these bands. So that
would have given me a total distanced of 1,600,000,000
km. Then I would have had to have known beforehand that 1/8 of the
circumference was the
Minimum for the log spiral as a time, not distance measure, admittely,
knowing it was
1/8 the circumference that is the Minimum needed speed. And the log
spiral would have given
me 1/8 of 40,000 but not in km but in seconds, so I would have had
5,000 seconds from the
log spiral.
So the answer to the valid complaint, is that I needed to know that
1/8 circumference for
the log spiral was the Minimum, and that I never needed to know that
the speed of light was 3 x 10^5 km/s beforehand.
Faraday and Maxwell described light as the disturbance of the EM
field. What I am doing
with the technique is describing light as a creator of a particle or
sphere, or a creator of a
sphere geometry. Light travels through every band meridian in the time
of 1/8 circumference as log spiral, is
a light wave that is creating that sphere itself.
Another way of saying it, is that a sphere exists in mathematics,
because the Minimum
speed to traverse all the meridian bands divided by 1/8 circumference
as log spiral is the speed of light. If that
were not true, then there would be no spheres in Euclidean geometry.
Again, Faraday and Maxwell saw light as a disturbance of the EM field.
I am beginning to
see light as a creator of a sphere. So that when we hold a magnet
under a sheet of
paper with iron filings, they quickly form into a circular
configuration. That the EM waves
are forming a 2D sphere or circle and in 3D would be a sphere.
P.S. as for proof that the speed of light is actually the digits of pi
to an exponent is
straightforward from the fact that most of the lengths in physics of
the smallest lengths
are digits of the golden ratio 1.618.. Because the smallest lengths in
physics have a
golden ratio digits such as Planck length, proton diameter, elementary
charge, means
that the speed of light is the digits of pi to an exponent.
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(snipped)
>
> Any and every sphere has lines of longitude and a log spiral to the
> poles that is
> a 1/8 circumference representative. Any and every
> sphere has band-meridians or stripe-meridians. We ask the question,
> what is the Minimum
> speed at which you can cover that sphere of its band-meridians and log
> spiral? And the answer
> is that the Least speed or lower limit speed to cover or create the
> sphere surface itself, is the
> 40,000 x 40,000 / 5,000.
>
The word "minimum" used above is probably confusing since we know the
speed of
light is the maximum speed possible. So it looks as though I may have
caused
confusion rather than elucidation. What I should have said was that
the 5,000 was
the Minimum time needed to cover all the meridian bands. I was
thinking in terms
of Least Action Principle in physics of a minimum. It was wrong of me
to say
Minimum speed, when I should have said minimum time and it is the
Least time
needed to derive the speed of light and that would be 1/8 the
circumference as "time".
But let me get back to this idea that the speed of light in reality is
not 2.99 x 10^5 km/s
nor is it 3.0 x 10^5 km/s but rather, the speed of light is exactly
314159 km/s. If you look
carefully at that number it is the digits of pi, so that if it were in
meters, I just write out the
next three digits of pi.
Now I should be able to prove that this is true that pi-digits are the
exact speed of light,
provided if, I have the 1/8 circumference as the true factor.
In the case of Earth as 40,000 km circumference with 40,000 of these
km band meridians
is a total distance of 1,600,000,000 km and 1/8 of 40,000 km is 5,000
but that is seconds
now instead of km.
Now to prove that speed of light is really pi digits of 314159 km/s, I
would need to show that
there is no sphere of circumference of exactly 40,000 since
circumference is pi x diameter
and pi is transcendental so it cannot be exactly 40,000 and thus the
1/8 of the actual
circumference is also not 5,000 but a fractional number.
Now I keep the 1/8 factor, and I work backwards, of reverse
engineering. I want to retrieve
not a 1,600,000,000/5,000 which is close to 314159, but I want to
know what is exactly the
d/t that yields 314159 and whether the 1/8 was the proper factor to
deliver 314159?
Archimedes Plutonium
a small correction there and changed in original
no sphere of integer circumference and integer diameter since pi is
transcendental
NoEinstein
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
Dear Archimedes Plutonium: First of all, light is composed of photons
(quanta), NOT waves. No medium is required for light to travel.
Light will also travel perfectly well through the ether, which is
concentrated near massive objects such as planets, stars and
galaxies. Second, All light is EMITTED at velocity 'c'. But the
actual velocity is V = 'c' + or - v. The small v represents the
velocity of the light source in the direction in question. Third,
most light is Doppler shifted all the time. But light from very far
away which has traveled through the ether, will have the Blue Shifted
light slowed down till it reaches velocity 'c'. Red shifted light is
speeded up 'approaching' velocity 'c', but is unlikely to reach such
velocity because the ether is less efficient in speeding up the slower
photons, or because the ether has more time (less ether churning) that
allows the slower photons to pass through with less interaction with
the ether. The smallest energy units of the ether, which I name
IOTAs, have a tangential velocity of 'c'. Fourth, For all practical
purposes, A. A. Michelson's Mt. Wilson, 22 mile long, out-and-back
light velocity determination is the definitive work in air, which
should not be questioned. All out-and-back light speed measurements
AVERAGE the red and the blue Doppler shifts to effectively take the
velocity of the source (the Earth) out of the equation. Michelson
didn't always understand WHY his experiments (such as M-M) did or did
not work, but he built things exceedingly well! — NoEinstein —
Where Angels Fear to Fall
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/8152ef3e...
Last Nails in Einstein's Coffin
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre...
Pop Quiz for Science Buffs!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316...
An Einstein Disproof for Dummies
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7a63...
Another look at Einstein
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/41670721...
Three Problems for Math and Science
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/bb07f30aab43c49c?hl=en
Matter from Thin Air
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/ee4fe3946dfc0c31/1f1872476bc6ca90?hl=en#1f1872476bc6ca90
Curing Einstein’s Disease
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4ff9e866e0d87562/f5f848ad8aba67da?hl=en#f5f848ad8aba67da
Replicating NoEinstein’s Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f9852639d5d9e1/dcb2a1511b7b2603?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#dcb2a1511b7b2603
Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmash
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0/739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26
Dropping Einstein Like a Stone
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en#
Plotting the Curves of Coriolis, Einstein, and NoEinstein (is
Copyrighted.)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/713f8a62f17f8274?hl=en#
Are Jews Destroying Objectivity in Science?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d4cbe8182fae7008/b93ba4268d0f33e0?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#b93ba4268d0f33e0
The Gravity of Masses Doesn’t Bend Light.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/efb99ab95e498420/cd29d832240f404d?hl=en#cd29d832240f404d
KE = 1/2mv^2 is disproved in new falling object impact test.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/51a85ff75de414c2?hl=en&q=
Light rays don’t travel on ballistic curves.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/c3d7a4e9937ab73e/c7d941d2b2e80002?hl=en#c7d941d2b2e80002
A BLACK HOLE MYTH GETS BUSTED:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a170212ca4c36218?hl=en#
SR Ignored the Significance of the = Sign
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/562477d4848ea45a/92bccf5550412817?hl=en#92bccf5550412817
Eleaticus confirms that SR has been destroyed!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/c3cdedf38e749bfd/0451e93207ee475a?hl=en#0451e93207ee475a
NoEinstein Finds Yet Another Reason Why SR Bites-the-Dust!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a3a12d4d732435f2/737ef57bf0ed3849?hl=en#737ef57bf0ed3849
NoEinstein Gives the History & Rationale for Disproving Einstein
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/81046d3d070cffe4/f1d7fbe994f569f7?hl=en#f1d7fbe994f569f7
There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a8c26d2eb535ab8/efdbea7b0272072f?hl=en&
PD has questions about science. Can any of you help?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4a2edad1c5c0a4c1/2d0e50d773ced1ad?hl=en&
Taking a Fresh Look at the Physics of Radiometers.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/3ebe85495d1929b0/ba1163422440ffd9?hl=en#ba1163422440ffd9
A Proposed Gravity-Propelled Swing Experiment.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/3052e7f7b228a800/aef3ee7dc59b6e2f?hl=en&q=gravity+swing
Shedding New Light on Comet Tails
http://groups.google.com/g/d8e7fef4/t/fbb6a213b8c465b3/.../187797453b40de4f?...
>
> A reader has asked me to not go over 200 posts in a thread as that it
> is too difficult to retrieve the thread.
> So I will oblige.
>
> Also I had some typo errors of my previous post.
>
> --- repeating my post of last night to David and with a few typo
> errors such as the ommission of the word
> Doppler in some places ---
> Jun 5, 3:56 am
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
>
>
>
>
> David Bernier wrote:
> > Imagine the police radar is at rest and emits sine waves with
> > crests one meter apart (a signal at about 300 Mega-Hertz).
> > Suppose a mirror is moving away at 10% of the speed of light from
> > the radar, in a radial (in-line with the signal) direction.
> > When a crest advances 1 meter, the mirror recedes by 0.1 meter.
> > The question is then what is the crest-to-crest separation
> > after reflection off the mirror?
> > This might involve special relativity, I'm not completely sure.
> > But think about planets orbiting about far away stars. It's often
> > said that as the earth-planet radial velocity varies as
> > the planet moves in its orbit, periodic variations in
> > spectral lines (wavelengths or frequencies) are measured,
> > interpreted as Doppler effects. Don't you think
> > this is well established?
> > David Bernier
>
> All physical systems involve SR, since SR is nothing more than saying
> that
> the Maxwell Equations are invariant as per whether a magnet is moving
> or a
> wire loop is moving while the other is stationary.
>
> Let me answer you by asking you some questions. Doppler Effect
> discovered in
> 1842; Michelson Morley Experiment 1887; Special Relativity of
> Lorentz-
> Poincare
> 1900; Hubble Law of redshift of galaxies 1929.
>
> Questions, David:
> (1) Would there be any reason for any scientist to question whether
> lightwaves
> obeyed a Doppler shift? The actual history shows that noone bothered
> to
> question whether lightwaves must or must not have a Doppler Effect.
>
> Answer to (1) When the Michelson interferometer experiment arose,
> there should
> have been at least one physicist or mathematician to raise the
> question of whether
> we can assume the doppler effect exists for lightwaves. Because the
> Interferometer
> actually measures wavelengths. So beyond 1887, some people, a few
> should have
> no longer assumed or presumed that lightwaves obey a Doppler Effect
> and begin
> to experiment or look for Doppler effect on lightwaves. To my
> knowledge, noone
> did any such. Noone even raised the question, and all were asleep
> under the assumption.
>
> (2) Should anyone have questioned whether a Doppler Effect existed on
> lightwaves
> after Special Relativity was formulated by Lorentz, Poincare and
> later
> by Einstein?
> Answer (2) as David even mentions that SR comes into question with
> the
> Doppler
> Effect. But here again, apparently not a single person in physics nor
> mathematics
> raised the fundamental questions of whether SR can support a Doppler
> Effect
> on lightwaves?
>
> (3) So here comes 1929 with the Hubble Law and we can appreciate how
> totally
> immersed into the belief or misbelief of a Doppler Shift prevalent
> and
> pervasive.
> So the question is by 1929 and after, what chances were there that
> anyone in
> physics or mathematics was sober enough to ask the fundamental
> question:
> is Doppler (sic) lightwaves and Special Relativity compatible or
> contradictory?
> Answer: By the time of the Hubble Law, only a lone wolf could ask for
> a objective
> research into whether Doppler Effect on lightwaves contradicted
> Special Relativity.
>
> Do you see the historical pattern, David? That a Doppler effect was
> so
> presumed,
> that noone from 1842 to 2010, had the objective commonsense to
> question
> the assumption of whether lightwaves can have a Doppler shift.
>
> Now, possibly a mathematician from 1842 to 2010 is more likely to
> call
> attention
> to the question of whether Doppler is compatible with SR. Since a
> mathematician
> often works with consistency and with contradictions. A physicist is
> unlikely to
> have suspected anything wrong. And a mathematician is more likely to
> spot where
> a scientist is "making an assumption" that needs valid evidence. From
> Christian
> Doppler in 1842, who was a mathematician, noone really stepped up and
> said
> "let us no longer assume lightwaves can be Doppler shifted, but let
> us
> show
> evidence that such is or is not the case." Noone did this. They were
> crushed
> under the avalanche of Hubble's law and then under the mountain of
> the
> Doppler radar misnomer.
>
> Noteworthy, David, there has never been a eye witness case example to
> anything
> involving light and a Doppler shift. Unlike sound from a train to
> prove Doppler shift
> on Soundwaves, noone has seen a Doppler shift on lightwaves. And
> there
> is one
> case in particular that a Doppler Shift should occur but has not. And
> that case is
> the radio on the Space Station with the astronauts. Their radio is
> not
> Doppler shifted
> of any radio signal from ground. If their radio has no Doppler shift,
> then no Doppler
> shift on lightwaves exists. If the world has any Doppler shift, the
> radio turned on
> in the Space Station listening to radio ground waves should have a
> Doppler shift.
> But they have no shift.
>
> And the Space Station is a similar experiment to the Michelson Morley
> experiment where
> the end result in both cases is a "null result". No Doppler shift in
> either the Space Station
> nor the Michelson interferometer.
>
> Final question David: How could so many be fooled into thinking their
> radar waves were
> Doppler shifted? Answer: easily fooled since the speed of the object
> is begot whether
> a Doppler shift exists or does not exist when using the radar
> gadgets.
>
> --- end quoting my previous post ---
>
> Basically what I want to direct the attention of the
> Physics and Math community is the attention to the
> fact that a Doppler Shift on lightwaves or EM spectrum
> is nonexistent and is easily proven by the fact that any car radio
> antennae is never Doppler shifted to radio waves, whether the car is
> in motion or not. And the
> Space Station of astronauts moving at large speeds compared to the
> puny car speeds has no Doppler shift
> on ground based radio waves.
>
> So if there is no Doppler shift on radio waves, no matter what the
> speed of source versus object, then
> why in the world would anyone believe Doppler Effect
> occurrs on any EM wave?
>
> Archimedes Plutoniumhttp://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(all else snipped)
>
> --- derivation of speed of light out of pure math ---
> Earlier I wrote how the speed of light in physics should be derived
> out of pure math
> as that of Stripe Geometry on the surface of Earth where I take all
> the meridians
> as stripes and where the circumference of Earth is 40,000 km so all
> the stripes are
> 1 km wide and all of meridians distance would be 40,000 x 40,000 and
> the
> stripe
> that represents
> the Log-spiral would be 5,000 and this is the time in seconds
A Logarthmic spiral, whether golden spiral or not, and whose arclength
is
5,000 km becomes 5000 seconds is the representative spiral in this
derivation
> instead of distance,
> thus yielding a speed of light
> 40,000 x 40,000 / 5,000 is equal to 3 x
> 10^5 km/sec.
> --- end of derivation ---
>
> Now the above derivation is unitless, in other words it matters not
> whether we do in
> in km/second or meters/second or in miles/second because the band
> width of the
> stripe compensates for the different units.
>
I am backtracking for a moment. I am not an expert on log spirals and
that is why
it has taken me longer time to straighten this out. I call this log
spiral of 5,000 seconds
or 1/8 of Earth circumference as the *log spiral representative*.
The task for me is to find out what is so special about a particular
log spiral, if it be the
golden log spiral and what is special about the arc length of 5,000 km
on that
log spiral for Earth's circumference at 40,000 km.
So I need to find out if there is any log spiral that has something
special going on when
running from pole to pole and with a 5,000 km arc length.
So what I am going to do is experiment by getting pieces of bendable
wire and playing
around on a globe. I need to see it in practice rather than just ideas
floating in the mind.
If I find out that there is a special unique log spiral for Earth
(idealized as a sphere) and that
there is something special about arclength of 5,000 km for this log
spiral, then I will have
solved it.
By the way, I ran through some integer numbers for circumference of
Earth and 1/8
Earth circumference to see how close I could reach 314159 km/s.
39633 x 39633 = 1,570,774,689 and that divided by 1/8(39633) or 4954
is 317072
But all of that is meaningless pursuit, unless I find a unique log
spiral, whether it be
a golden spiral, but a unique log spiral for Earth that makes 1/8
circumference as
arc length on the spiral have special meaning.
SECOND OPTION: there is a second option, in case the above fails
completely. By
failure, I mean that there is no special log spiral where a Earth
metric of 5,000 arc
length is special. A second option is the pseudosphere, or the
hyperbolic geometry
analog of the sphere in elliptic geometry. So I have 40,000 x 40,000
and I need a time
factor of 5,000 divided into 40,000 x 40,000. Is there something about
a 5,000 km on
the analog pseudosphere that is unique and special? I recall that the
volume and surface
area of the pseudosphere is identical to the sphere. There are no
lines of longitude on
a pseudosphere, so I wonder if that the lines of longitude on sphere
is 40,000 km, there
are some special hyperbolic lines on the pseudosphere of arc length
5,000 km?
So if my log spiral option runs out into failure, I need to look into
the pseudosphere.
David R Tribble
>| The meter used to be defined in terms of what the French thought
>| the polar circumference of the Earth was (which was off by about
>| 8 km).
>
Androcles wrote:
> Do you have any empirical evidence to support the absurd notion that you CAN
> think?
Point taken. The fact that I am responding you proves conclusively
that I cannot think and am insane.
> | we all know who is the craziest person here.
>
> Yep, the dumb bastard that defined the metre in terms of the speed of light
> and the speed of light in terms of the metre, then got hopeless confused
> over what a second is, is the craziest person here. We all know that.
You win.
Archimedes Plutonium
That is misleading, and sorry to ever mislead, but the formulas for
volume
and area are identical to that of sphere and pseudosphere, but
however, the
pseudosphere is open and infinite whereas the sphere is closed and
finite.
But this perhaps is where an "Earth pseudosphere" may have a special
number for 5,000 km. The Earth sphere is circumference of 40,000 km
and 1/8 of that is 5,000 km
> lines of longitude on
> a pseudosphere, so I wonder if that the lines of longitude on sphere
> is 40,000 km, there
> are some special hyperbolic lines on the pseudosphere of arc length
> 5,000 km?
>
> So if my log spiral option runs out into failure, I need to look into
> the pseudosphere.
>
Consider the Earth-Sphere, and this is Earth idealized as a sphere
with
a circumference of approx 40,000 km. Now consider a Earth-Pseudosphere
whose equitor is identical to Earth-Sphere equator and are
superimposed as
one. In that superposition of Earth-Pseudosphere inside that of Earth-
Sphere,
the ends of the pseudosphere go popping out through the poles. And the
poles
of the Earth sphere are points, but are cylinders in the Earth-
pseudosphere at
the moment they popp out of the Earth-sphere.
Now I wonder, I just wonder if that cylinder that comes popping out of
the
Earth-pseudosphere nested inside Earth-sphere, I wonder if the
circumference
of that cylinder is 5,000 km or 1/8 the circumference of the Earth-
sphere?
I may have struck gold here. That the intersection of the nested Earth
pseudosphere
at the polar region is a cylinder that may have a circumference of 1/8
Earth Sphere
circumference. I have to explore that lead.
Androcles
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/current.html
The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum
during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.
The mile is the length of the path travelled by a car on an interstate
during a time interval of 1 minute. The speed of cars is 60 miles per hour.
Archimedes Plutonium
Wikipedia provides an excellent picture of a pseudosphere:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudosphere
And one can immediately see the two poles cutaway. And if that
pseudosphere
were tucked inside the sphere the poles of the sphere would be two
points
but the poles of the pseudosphere would be two hollow cylinders or a
circle.
From the Wikipedia picture we can almost sense how large of a
circumference
those polar circles of the pseudosphere are. Now 1/8 of the
circumference of
Earth sphere is 5,000 km and picture a Earth pseudosphere stuffed
inside of
Earth. The question would be, how much of a distance are the two
circles of the
pseudosphere poles? Would they each be about 2,500 km for a total of
5,000 km?
From the Wikipedia picture it looks as though the circumference of the
total polar
circles is larger than 5,000 km.
One can always compute how large the circumference of these
pseudosphere
poles are, but I rather trust hands on, eyesight of direct models and
to measure
the length.
In the news recently was the world soccer games in South Africa with
their noisy
bugle toys and some are made of plastics. So I am ordering two of
those bugle
horns and then fold a sheet of paper to simulate an enclosing sphere
and find out
how much of a circumference for the two pseudosphere poles.
Now if it arises that these pseudosphere poles are 5,000 km or 1/8 of
Earth sphere,
then I am rather bewildered with this outcome. Bewildered because I
can logically
understand how a log spiral could be a measure of time versus the
meridian-strips
as length for the speed of light derivation. But how can a so called
"defect" of the
pseudosphere cutaway be the time element? The only logical sense I
could make of
that circumstance, is that time is a imaginary feature of physics. It
is measured by
"what is not present", namely, the rest of the poles of the
pseudosphere that goes to
infinity. This is a rather surprizing result, provided of course it is
1/8 the Earth sphere
circumference.
Archimedes Plutonium
Playing around with some of the algebra of the setup. It works if I
use
only one pseudosphere-pole and where 1/2 circumference of pseudosphere
pole equals 1/8 circumference of sphere.
So this relationship is starting to materialize as true:
Earth Sphere = 40,000 km circumference
Earth Sphere 1/8 circumference = 5,000 km
Earth Pseudosphere Pole = 10,000 km circumference and both
pseudosphere poles
would be 20,000 km
If it were 1/2 of a single pseudosphere pole circumference then I
would have
the 5,000 km but that seems awfully ad hoc.
But there maybe some mathematical relief in my favor. If we apply a
generality,
not just restricted to the sphere but to all ellipse containing the
pseudosphere
of a given diameter, then I think this relationship holds:
circumference of both pseudosphere poles when added together, the sum
equals
1/8 of the circumference of the diameter of the sphere.
P.S. I did note that in the tractrix curve that the defect from the
tractrix to the
circle of same radius is a linear defect of 8 to 1. What I mean is
that you go 8 units
of the Tractrix and you have 1 unit missing to the circle. The circle
is finite and closed,
yet the tractrix is infinite and open. Starting at 0 or the origin or
center of circle, that
you go 8 units of the circle, 4 on Y-axis and 4 on -Y, and you have a
defect of 1 unit
of the tractrix. So if I can better define this defect, maybe the
answer to 1/8 circumference.
Archimedes Plutonium
Wikipedia has a fine outstanding entry on "tractrix"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractrix
It runs hand in hand with this argument I am making. It shows a graph
of the
Tractrix with a radius of 4 units and it thus reveals the "defect" to
be about
2 units and a bit more.
Now by defect, I mean the fact that the enclosing of a sphere with
pseudosphere
inside has to deal with the cutting-off of the two infinite poles of
the pseudosphere.
So for Earth sphere of 40,000 km strips with 40,000 of these strips
making a total
distance of 40,000 x 40,000 km and then divided by time in seconds of
5,000 seconds.
How do I get 5,000 seconds?
A long time ago, I thought there was 5,000 km of a special important
log spiral,
perhaps the golden ratio log spiral. So that the speed of light is a
rivalry or a race
between light travelling through the 40,000 strips each 40,000km long
and the
log spiral is the timekeeper for the travelling through all the
strips.
And thus the speed of light would be 40,000km x 40,000/ 5,000 seconds.
Trouble is, I cannot find anything special about log spirals to give
me 5,000 km
to say it is 5,000 seconds. There is no log spiral with a 5,000
connected to it
that is special.
So that is why I now have turned to looking at the Hyperbolic geometry
for a
5,000 special number.
I think I may have found it, unlike the U2 song "found what I am
looking for".
Notice on that Wikipedia page of Tractrix, that the poles of the
pseudosphere
are cutaways. The poles go to infinity, but being enclosed inside the
Earth sphere
of 40,000 km circumference, the pseudosphere has its poles cut off,
and there
is this gap or breakage of continuity of the pseudosphere inside the
Earth sphere.
I think this gap is the specialty, where I find the special number of
1/8 of the
enclosing sphere circumference over the pseudosphere inside.
So if you look at that Wikipedia page of tractrix, the defect of the
tractrix or pseudosphere
pole is 1 unit in 8 units, or 1/8 circumference.
In the prior immediate posts, I was looking at the circumference of
the pseudosphere poles
and that is a far to big of a number. All I want of a defect number is
a "bridge number".
A bridge number so that as the light waves go around 40,000 times each
of a distance
of 40,000 km. That those light waves, so to speak, go over the bridge
of the
enclosed pseudosphere defect.
So how much length of this bridge during each circuit of the
circumference? If I am not
mistaken, the distance or length of the bridge that fills in the gap
of the pseudosphere
poles is a distance of 5,000 km, if the enclosing sphere circumference
is 40,000 km.
Now the way to think about this all, would be to reverse where the
light travels, since
Elliptic and Hyperbolic geometries are reversals of one another, or
inverses or duals of
one another.
So the way to think about this derivation of the speed of light is
that given a sphere,
and I chose the Earth sphere of 40,000 km circumference with the
pseudosphere inside
it. And the light wave travels down every 40,000 km strip, not of the
sphere but of the
pseudosphere, but when it reaches near the poles, there is a hole
there that is bridged
by the Elliptic sphere, and so the light wave disengages with the
pseudosphere track
inside Earth sphere when it gets close to the poles and takes the
bridge of the sphere
to get it back to where the pseudosphere inside leds the track
further.
Or, better yet, since elliptic is reverse of hyperbolic we shift the
poles of the pseudosphere
to be located at the equator of the Earth sphere and thus have the
cusp of the tractrix where
the poles of the Earth sphere is located. And now, as the light wave
travels on the Pseudosphere track, it naturally will take the bridge
at the equator as the sphere curve.
In this manner, speed of light is seen as a rivalry of a competing for
how long is the
pseudosphere circumference and since it has a hole or defect, the
competing of filling
or bridging that hole gap by the bridge of the sphere arc over the
hole gap.
And so we have 40,000 x 40,000/ 5,000
I think I am getting closer, but not fully satisfied with this. Still
feel some ad hoc in this.