Page1, 1-1, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing Physics, 8th ed.

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Jun 23, 2017, 12:42:29 AM6/23/17

to

PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE
by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017

page1, 1-1, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing Physics, 8th ed.

Preface:

Now I said I wanted Clarity, Comprehension, and Logical Flow in this textbook and keep that foremost in mind. In a way, after all these years, 24 of them, I seem to have learned -- how to write a science textbook. By writing preliminary pages and then constant editing. They say practice makes perfect.

I think this textbook should be of Brevity also, and with the smallest amount of pages possible, under 100 pages. I do not want to ramble on.

I think the first chapter should be pictures, have some pictures in mind, for pictures with ideas are the most comprehensive teaching, and the first two chapters should be pictures with history to put things in perspective.

page1, 1-1 Pictures of Atom-Totality-Universe

I cannot show pictures except ascii-art in sci.physics, so I refer the reader to the many textbooks listed that shows pictures of what electrons of an atom looks like.

A large proportion of people reading this textbook, think that an electron is one round ball that revolves around a proton-neutron nucleus of an atom. They are far from the true reality of what the electron looks like. And most people are aghast or stunned to find out that the electron looks like millions of fine grained glass dust evenly spread over a confined space, which in physics is called the electron-dot-cloud.

One of my earliest ascii-art of the last electron of plutonium was this:

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON

::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::

One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And
each dot represents another galaxy.

Look in a quantum physics textbook or a chemistry textbook for pictures of what an electron looks like. An electron is many white dots surrounding a nucleus. This is commonly called the "Electron Dot Cloud".

Now, look at the night sky and replace those shining galaxies, shining stars, with the white dots of an electron cloud. And there you have the Atom Totality Universe theory in a picture.

It was on 7 November 1990, woken from sleep that I discovered the Atom Totality Universe and the picture from textbooks that I was thinking of in my mind during the discovery was the Halliday & Resnick picture of what the electron of an atom looks like. And I hope the reader himself/herself looks up that picture in Halliday & Resnick textbook PHYSICS, Part 2, Extended
Version , 1986, of page 572.

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON of 231Pu

::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::

One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.

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

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Jun 24, 2017, 12:43:43 AM6/24/17

to

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 21:36:28 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Page2, 1-2, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing
Physics, 8th ed.
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2017 04:36:29 +0000

Page2, 1-2, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing Physics, 8th ed.

Page2, 1-2, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing Physics, 8th ed.

In the 1990s I did a survey in mathematics of math professors doing a Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof in which 84% of them failed to deliver a valid proof, which can be seen in my Correcting Math textbook of 2016. And the reason I bring that issue up is perhaps I should do a survey in physics, or, all the sciences, asking someone to draw a picture of the electron of a hydrogen atom on a piece of paper with pencil. Will most fail?

Looking at Halliday & Resnick textbook PHYSICS, Part 2, Extended Version , 1986, on page 572. This is a large electron cloud dot picture for which I quote the caption.

CHAP.26 CHARGE AND MATTER.
Figure 26-5
An atom, suggesting the electron
cloud and, above, an enlarged view
of the nucleus.
--- end quoting ---

You see, the dots of the electron cloud, its billions upon billions of dots, is one electron itself. An electron is perhaps 10^180 dots that comprise the electron.

And on the historic day 7 November, 1990, having awoken from sleep and remembering that picture in Halliday & Resnick, did I discover the Atom Totality Universe theory. I put together the idea that the dots of the electron dot cloud are actual galaxies and stars in the night sky.

The dots of the electron dot cloud are actual mass chunks or pieces of one electron.

So that if we had a survey test of scientists, especially physicists, would they draw the hydrogen atom of one electron and one proton as this:

o .

Where the electron is a ball going around a tiny ball of a proton nucleus? Probably that is their picture of an electron, and, their understanding of what a proton and electron are, -- some spheres going around one another.

They probably would never draw a picture like this for an electron:

......
..............
.....................
.....................
..............
......

The picture of an electron that was instrumental in my discovering the Atom Totality Universe theory is the one by Halliday & Resnick. That picture of the atom with dots caught my attention long before 7 Nov 1990 and it was on that day in 7 Nov1990 where I connected the dots of the electron dot cloud
with actual galaxies and stars, and planets, etc. Thus this picture was instrumental in the discovery of the Plutonium Atom Universe theory. But let me emphasize strongly here that none of the electron cloud dot pictures, that I have seen, really show clearly the night sky of shining galaxies and stars. The discovery of a new theory sees more than what is contained in past wisdom and adds something new and pushes it into the new wisdom.

I had seen many pictures of electron cloud dot patterns mostly in chemistry books and even in movies and TV. And it was stunning to me for the first time when I understood the electron was not some small ball figure circling around a nucleus, but rather a huge number of dots was the actual electron itself. And this stunning understanding is probably lacking in most scientists even a lot of physicists, but not so much chemists since they encounter pictures of electrons more often than others. So that if this survey of drawing what a hydrogen atom looks like of its 1 electron with 1 proton nucleus were given to scientists and professors, would any of them draw something resembling a dot cloud? I think few if any. It is in their psyche to think the electron is a tiny ball going around the proton nucleus, just like Earth going around the Sun.

Somehow it was the Halliday & Resnick picture which jolted my mind into the discovery stage and although in that picture the
white dots are far too dense to look like the night sky of shining galaxies and stars it was enough that they were white dots and that helped tremendously. In most of the other pictures of
the electron dot cloud they are black dots or blue dots set
against a light or white background, or they are too fuzzy as shown in a page from the Encyclopedia Britannica.

And, on that fateful day of 7NOV1990, my day was spent in finding out what chemical element would fit the best as our Atom Totality Universe. Was it uranium, or plutonium?

After 7NOV1990 I have searched many texts to find other pictures which have dot pictures of the electron cloud.

Pictures speak a thousand words as the old saying goes, but better yet, pictures remain in the mind longer than written words.
The Atom Totality Universe is very easy to explain and this ease is credit to the theory that it is the truth. When truth comes to physics the ideas are immediate, quick, connecting to past great ideas. For as Feynman said in his Feynman Lectures text
in the first chapter where he places the Atomic Theory as the
greatest physics idea of all time, and what I do here, is extend the Atomic theory to its utmost reach-- the universe in total is but one big atom.

So on page 6-11 of Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume I, 1963, has a picture of the electron cloud, and quoting the caption:
Fig.6-11. A way of visualizing a hydrogen atom. The density (whiteness) of the cloud represents the probability density for observing the electron.
--- end quoting ---

Well, on my fateful morning of 7 November 1990, I was interpreting those dots more than just probability numbers, but that the electron was those dots and that the dots represent a mass chunk or piece of the electron. Of course, the nucleus of a cosmic atom would have most of the mass, and so, the cosmic atom would be huge for the electron space and massive for the nucleus.

So, if I did a survey on scientists, asking them to draw a electron, would anyone in the survey get it correct by stiplling dots or would they draw some round ball as the electron?

This is the dot picture I used in sci.physics and other newsgroups of Internet.

94th ELECTRON OF 231PU

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON of 231Pu

::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::

One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy.

A larger version of what a plutonium atom looks like
with its 5f6 as that of 12 lobes or as a dodecahedron:

. \ . . | . /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
--------------- -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
--------------- --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / . . | . \ .

Archimedes Plutonium

pora...@gmail.com

unread,

Jun 24, 2017, 2:14:08 AM6/24/17

to

====================
idiot morn
what is keeping all your dot cloud
from getting lost to hell
from your defined space ??
=
that idiot is unable to think
a little step forwards
or to challenge his dreams by**** himself**with]

some simple self criticism !!!
that is so important (the ''a b c'' ) for a real innovator !!
and a gain
possible typical for sick people
======
TIA
Y.Porat
=================

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Jun 24, 2017, 6:29:45 PM6/24/17

to

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2017 15:20:23 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Page3, 1-3, pictures of the PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE +
AP/Maxwell-Equations-Describing Physics, 8th ed.
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2017 22:20:23 +0000

Page3, 1-3, pictures of the PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + AP/Maxwell-Equations-Describing Physics, 8th ed.

Page3, 1-3, pictures of the PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE

Page3, 1-3, pictures of the PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + AP/Maxwell-Equations-Describing Physics, 8th ed.

Now the inspiration for me to make this ascii art electron dot cloud picture

94th ELECTRON OF 231PU

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON

::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::

One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy.

A larger version of what a plutonium atom looks like
with its 5f6 as that of 12 lobes or as a dodecahedron:

. \ . . | . /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
--------------- -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
--------------- --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / . . | . \ .

of the 5f6 of 231plutonium comes from the old textbooks by White and then Seaborg & Loveland.

The above is similar to a picture from White's text on atomic spectra. For few books try to show what the 5f6 looks like.
H. E. White in his textbook INTRODUCTION TO ATOMIC
SPECTRA, 1934, page 71, uses a spinning top to make pictures of what atomic orbitals look like. And he shows a picture of the electron of plutonium as white dots against a black background, but the white dots, like Halliday and Resnick are too dense of white.

The white dots should be spread out more on the scale of what we see in the night sky of white dots of stars and galaxies. The night sky that we see is just the space and mass of the last two electrons of 231PU, our observable Universe.

The shape of the 5f6 of plutonium is seen in White's Atomic Spectra, and is seen again in The Elements Beyond Uranium, Seaborg & Loveland, 1990, page 73, and again seen on page 76, not as a dot pattern but just as a overall shape.

This is a beautiful irony in the history of physics. To unravel what the atom looked like, was earnestly pursued in the early 1900s by such as J.J. Thomson, Rutherford, Bohr and others, and the atom was conceived as a miniature Solar System with the electrons as miniature planets revolving around a Nuclear Sun. But then, later in the 1900s say around 1930's with White's Atomic Spectra, we see the electron was seen more as a dot cloud picture, then a revolving ball.

That is what Feynman is beginning to show in his Volume III, Feynman Lectures on Physics, 1965, page 19-12 in his diagram of the 2s, then 3p then 4d of hydrogen wave functions, which of course means a picture of what the electron looks like. Feynman in this picture on page 19-12 does not use dots but rather squiggly curves, but that is better than the wrong picture of a electron as a round ball revolving around a nucleus. Feynman also shows the atom on page 6-11, Volume I, as a dot cloud.

Now in High School, 1964 to 1968 I studied physics with a textbook of PSSC, I believe the 2nd edition, and I do not recall, ever a picture of what a atom looks like, except perhaps in a film in that PSSC course. Shame that you can have a entire physics course in High School and escape the learning of what an "atom, its electron" looks like. So that if I had been required to take a survey of what an atom and electron looks like in High School, I would have drawn this picture:

o .

or this

o O

depending on whether I thought the individual electron was larger than the nucleus material.

Thinking the electron was a ball o going around a tiny nucleus of .

So, how fortunate for me, that before 1990, I had bought PHYSICS: Halliday & Resnick Part 2, Extended Version, 3rd edition, 1986, because without that picture on page 572, I probably would not have discovered the Atom Totality theory, and never have posted to the Internet of any science or math. How one picture, changed the course of my life.

And, speaking more, that PHYSICS: Part 2 Extended Version, Halliday & Resnick, 1986, page 1194, shows pictures of the p-orbitals which are not too dense in dots, and perfect for translating the dots as galaxies and stars. Of course there is the Old Physics interpretation of the dots making the electron cloud represent 90% of finding the electron, as a electron-ball, according to Born interpretation, but according to my interpretation those dots represent 90% of the actual electron mass, the electron itself smashed up into fine matter and evenly scattered around the nucleus.

And of course, in High School, I read the Time Life book MATTER, 1963, Lapp, which on page 118 was my intuition of what the electron and atom looks like as tiny balls revolving around a nucleus, but on page 125 shows a different picture as the dot-cloud for the electron.

So, what if we set in place this Survey, a survey where you ask a scientist, handing him/her a sheet of paper and asking the scientist to draw a picture of a electron going around a nucleus, the hydrogen atom. Draw it.

Would 90% draw a ball going around a smaller ball or a larger ball:

o .

o O

Or, would there be no one taking the survey that does a dot cloud.

Certainly, if I were given the survey test at any time up to 7 November 1990, I would have drawn a ball going around another ball, much the same as Time Life's book MATTER on page 118. And even though, I had taken Chemistry classes in University and seen dot cloud pictures in chemistry books, it did not sink into my mind, that the electron was a dot cloud, not a ball going around.

AP

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Jun 25, 2017, 7:30:36 PM6/25/17

to

So, like in prior editions i weave in an out of atomic theory then EM theory

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Jun 26, 2017, 3:19:14 AM6/26/17

to

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 00:08:30 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Page4, 1-4, pictures of the PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE 8th ed.
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 07:08:30 +0000

Page4, 1-4, pictures of the PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE 8th ed.

Page4, 1-4, pictures of the PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE

Now in this page I need to cover the Born Interpretation of the Atom and its electron, and talk about Collapsed and Uncollapsed Wave function. Because the electron that moves in wires in electricity is the collapsed wavefunction. But the electron in an atom is in the dot cloud form, the uncollapsed wavefunction. The Universe as one big atom of plutonium is in the Uncollapsed form.

The Born Interpretation is one among many interpretations. His interpretation is that the electron is always a ball figure, tiny ball that revolves around a atomic nucleus, and the dots are the probability of finding this ball at that specific dot.

It is rather funny, how the novice, the greenhorn, the stupid and silly of physics people see something like "the Born Interpretation" and forget what the word interpretation means. They immediately replace the word "interpretation" to be that of "dictatorial, fascist so". They do not understand that in science, we can have interpretations.

My interpretation is different from Born, for the electron dot cloud. My interpretation is that the electron is smashed into pieces just as we smash a glass ball into fine glass powder or dust and spread those fine glass particles in Space. So for Born, the dots are only a parking lot space for a electron ball. For me, the dots are actual pieces of the electron. So every atom that exists, every particle that exists is a dot in the electron dot cloud. We can expand the dots to be large dots as a galaxy, or star and so as we look in the night sky we see white dots, and those white dots are parts of the last electron dot cloud of the Plutonium Atom Totality.

My first encounter of what electrons look like has to be the Time Life book MATTER on page 118 and 125, although I would not remember the dot cloud picture on page 125, only the ball picture on 118. This was probably when I was 15 years old.

My next encounter of what the electron as a dot cloud would be circa 1966-1967 in my High School physics class where I saw a film of PSSC which showed the electron cloud as many white dots.

The next encounter of the electron as a dot cloud would be in college chemistry class of a textbook by author Mortimer in 1968-69.

I have the fourth edition of Mortimer, Chemistry: A Conceptual Approach, 1979, not the edition I used in 1969. But these are very similar texts. And on page 45 shows the 2s orbital of helium in blue dots. It is a real good picture, but it was the Halliday & Resnick picture in PHYSICS text that discovered the Atom Totality theory.

Now I have other chemistry texts that I bought after the discovery of the Atom Totality and out of curiosity and desire to compare, I mention them. Perhaps I should do a survey on scientists, asking them to draw a hydrogen atom of its electron and proton, and see if any of them do a dot-cloud picture.

So here are some texts that I bought after the historic 7 November 1990 discovery.

CHEM ONE, by Waser, Trueblood, Knobler, 1980, sad to say, really do not have a dot-cloud picture of the electron. The best they do is a ball type figure on page 317.

Brown, LeMay, Bursten, 5th ed. Chemistry: The Central Science, 1991 on page 188 and 189 shows the dot cloud of electrons of the 1s, 2s, and 3s, and the 2p, and good pictures where the dots are in blue.

You see, the stumbling block of dot clouds is that people are going to think a single dot is the electron, when in fact all those dots are one electron.

Oxtoby, Nachtrieb in their Principles of Modern Chemistry, 2nd ed., 1990, page 505 do a 1s, 2s, 3s in blue dots that are too dense and fuzzy. And on pages 506 and 507 show the p and d orbitals but the blue dots are too dense and you would think it is a solid blue.

Wehr, Richards, Adair, 4th ed. Physics of the Atom, 1984, and shame on them for I could not find one single picture of the electron as a dot cloud. I could not find a picture of the "atom", for which this entire book is devoted. Sort of like writing a book on the history of a person and neglecting to install a picture of the person. Otherwise, this text is excellent and have often used it for reference.

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH

ELECTRON of 231Pu

::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Jun 26, 2017, 4:42:42 PM6/26/17

to

Page5, 2-1, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + AP/Maxwell-Equations-Describing Physics, 8th ed.

Page5, 2-1 What is the Atomic theory of matter
Atom-Totality-Universe

The Atomic Theory of science is perhaps the oldest science theory that is true, 2200 years ago, that basically was as true then as it is today without much changing or altering. It was first offered by the Ancient Greeks starting with Leucippus and then his most famous student of Democritus, and then followed by Epicurus, and then to Titus Lucretius who wrote a poem on the Atomic theory. Hard to imagine that poetry comes into the most famous science theory of all science theories.

I cannot think of a single science theory that survived the test of time as well as the Atomic Theory. Large parts of Newtonian physics, his gravity law of 1687 lasted just a mere 330 years when AP's EM Gravity replaced it. So by comparison we have a Atomic theory mostly unchanged for 2200 years and a gravity theory replaced that lasts only 330 years.

So the Atomic Theory is special in the history of science, for its duration and for it being the center of physics and chemistry. In later pages, I argue the Atomic theory is the center of mathematics and logic also.

So what is the Atomic Theory of Democritus and what is it today?

Democritus said words to the effect: "The only things that exist are
atoms and the void".

Now I ask you. None of us dispute that whenever we point to a material
object we know it is composed of atoms. When we point to mass and
matter we know it is composed of atoms. Even the gases and air we
breathe on Earth are made of atoms.

And what is the modern day Atomic Theory, and here I point to the statement of Feynman:

--- quoting ---
The Feynman Lectures on Physics, 1963
page 1-2
If, in some cataclysm, all of scientific knowledge were to be destroyed, and only one sentence passed on to the next generations of creatures, what statement would contain the most information in the fewest words? I believe it is the Atomic hypothesis (or the atomic fact, or whatever you wish to call it) that All things are made up of atoms-- little particles that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another.
--- end quote ---

So we have no trouble with either Democritus or Feynman in understanding the Atomic theory. But there is trouble, and the trouble comes when we ask what about the Universe itself as a entity, a structure. Is it a non-entity and structureless. Or, is it a atom, a single atom which would complete the Logic. Which would push the Atomic theory of Democritus and as the Feynman statement, push the Atomic Theory to its ultimate and total maximum, to its end conclusion of pushing to the idea that if All things are atoms, then the Universe itself, being a thing, must be an atom.

Archimedes Plutonium after 1990 said " All Matter is made up of singular atoms, and the Universe, matter itself, has to be one big atom". What chemical element is this Universe we live in? That was the gigantic question on my mind the morning of 7NOV1990 when I discovered the Atom Totality theory. What chemical element is the Universe.

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH

ELECTRON DOT CLOUD of 231Pu

::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.

. \ . . | . /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
--------------- -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
--------------- --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / . . | . \ .

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Jun 27, 2017, 1:08:45 AM6/27/17

to

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 13:47:21 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Page5, 2-1 What is the Atomic theory of matter PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE

8th ed.
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>

Injection-Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 20:47:21 +0000

Page6, 2-2 PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + AP-Maxwell Equations-Describing all of Physics, 8th ed.

Page6, 2-2 What is the Atomic theory of matter
Atom-Totality-Universe

Due to the sharp criticism in sci.physics about the Atomic theory syllogism which I cover in another page, I felt it important to include it early on. Because so very many people are just simply poor and blind of logic.

The greatest criticism of scientists is their lack of logic. Their inability to assemble or recognize a logical argument and how they stick to their dirty error filled opinion, rather than accept logic. A chief blame of this lack of logic is that the schools of higher education never require logic as a prerequisite to being a scientist. Most scientists have never taken formal logic in their university schooling, and learned how to start to think clearly. This forces me to amplify these first pages, seeing the horrible lack of logic in sci.physics as I introduced this in sci.physics in Spring of 2016.

And the second greatest shortfall of scientists is their logical inability to correctly *interpret* the experiment data or observation data. I spoke of the Born Interpretation of the atom electron earlier, but the interpretation of science data is a frightening lack of ability by most. How they so easily misinterpret the data, which is evident in a later page on the subject of a repelling force or a denial of the same space occupancy of two bar magnets.

When I was a teenager in school there was a joke spreading around. I hate the joke because it involves the torture of animals such as a frog or grasshopper, and I request no-one does this joke for it is a sin to torture animals. The joke goes like this-- a scientist studies grasshoppers and says "jump hopper jump" and the hopper jumps. Then the scientist pulls off one of the hoppers legs and says "jump hopper jump" and the hopper jumps a little bit with its remaining leg. Finally the scientist pulls off the other large leg and says "jump hopper jump" and the hopper just stands there. So the scientist concludes that by pulling off the two large legs of grasshopper makes the hopper deaf in his ears. Now we all laugh at that joke because the truth is the hopper cannot jump because his means of jumping is removed. But you would be surprised that much of modern day science is the misinterpretation of the facts, data, and observations. Much of astronomy with its fakery of black holes, dark matter, dark energy is misinterpretation. Much of particle physics with its fakery of Higgs boson is misinterpretation of particle tracks. The recent gravity waves device of LIGO, is a misinterpretation of data.

So, Logic is a terrible mess by most scientists, and I recommend they take formal logic courses in University to help them think more clearly.

Well, Feynman makes two mistakes in his Lectures on the Atomic theory.

His first mistake is using a nonscientific term "thing" when he should have used a science term of "matter". Matter is one of the chemical elements of hydrogen, helium, lithium on up to plutonium and the transuranium atoms. The periodic table of chemical elements lists all the atoms of matter, which according to Wikipedia numbers now 118 chemical elements to date.

Now you can have matter that is a compounding of atoms, such as water is three atoms of H2O with two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen. And matter has three states of matter-- solid, liquid and gas. (Plasma is not a state of matter but a form of electromagnetic EM radiation).

His second mistake is to think that EM has a repelling force when in fact EM has only an attraction force. I cover this in detail later on in this textbook.
The Pauli Exclusion Principle is a denial of the same space occupancy. The Meissner effect is denial of same space occupancy. The Hund's Rule in Aufbau principle is denial of same space occupancy. The flow of electrons in a current is not repel but denial of same space occupancy just as the congregating of electrons in a capacitor. It is easy, to think that Nature has a force of repelling, upon watching one magnet oriented in such a way as to seemingly repel a second magnet, but if you examine that situation up closely, you will recognize that there is no repulsion as there really is an attraction, but rather, there is attraction and there is "denial of the same space occupancy", that looks like repulsion.

I myself was deceived most of my life with thinking there is repelling and repulsion, but there really is not. The concept of Denial of Same Space Occupancy is a subtle concept that is very much close to repelling, repulsion.

In Hund's Rule, one electron does not repel another, for if you remember electricity is the flow of a large number of electrons together in a wire. Or electrons clustering in large numbers together in a capacitor, which should not happen if there was a force of repelling or repulsion.

Or, most important of all as Rutherford found out in 1911, that electrons cluster together outside the nucleus while protons cluster together to form a nucleus of an atom. So that this sounds not like a force of repulsion, but one of attraction. So how do we dismiss two magnets moving away from one another? We account for this by saying it is denial of same space occupancy.

So, the major error of 19th, 20th, 21st century physics is a inability to recognize what is a repulsion force in physics and what is a "denial of same space occupancy". The Maxwell Equations have only a force of attraction.

Now, as for the logical syllogism of the Atomic Theory both by Democritus-- Only things existing are atoms and the void, and Feynman-- All things are made up of atoms, both are incomplete and have errors, and are missing the idea with regards to the Universe itself. Neither addresses the Universe itself.

We include the Universe in the logical syllogism.

All Matter is made up of Atoms
These atoms are one of the chemical elements,
one of the elements of the periodic table
An atom of chemistry has structure, subatomic particles,
mass, energy, space and other items
The Universe itself is matter
So, the Universe is either a chemical element or is not
If not, the Atomic Theory is not general, not universal
but leaves the Cosmos out
If the Universe is a chemical element,
the Atomic Theory is thoroughly a Universal Logical Statement
and the big question remaining is
what chemical element is the Universe

No, sorry, I did not try to be poetic as Titus Lucretius with De Rerum Natura.

Syllogism

(1) Atomic Theory says "all matter is made up of singular atoms"  

(2) The Universe itself is matter

 (3) The Universe is either a singular atom or is not a singular atom

 (4) If the Universe is a singular atom then the Atomic Theory is a  beautiful universal truth pushed to its maximum logical reach

 (5) If the Universe is not a singular atom then the Atomic theory  has to be modified to include the exception : All matter, except the  Universe itself, is made up of singular atoms.

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Jun 27, 2017, 11:45:46 AM6/27/17

to

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 08:21:44 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Page7, 2-3 The only things that exist are Atoms; PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE
+ AP/Maxwell-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 8th ed.
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 15:21:44 +0000

Page7, 2-3 The only things that exist are Atoms; PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 8th ed.

page 2-3 The only things that exist are Atoms
Atom-Totality-Universe

So we have Democritus Atomic Theory that the "only things that exist are atoms and the void", and we have the modern day version of "All things are made up of atoms-- little particles that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another".

And I pointed out that by logic, this theory has one and only one further allowance, for it misses an item, the Universe itself. Is the Universe itself an atom? Can the Universe be such that all things are atoms except for the Universe itself? Can that be logical, for we all must think the Universe is the ultimate in logic. So this is a logical question and allowance that we can push the Atomic Theory one step more, one step further, and say that All things are made up of atoms and the Universe itself is a single big atom.

In these opening pages, I gave the syllogism with the idea that "All things are made up of atoms" as argument, concluding that the Atomic theory is not a universal law if the Universe was not an atom.

Science theories are about "universal laws" and the most important science theory of all science theories is the Atomic theory. So if the Universe is not a single atom, one of those elements of the Periodic Chart of Chemical Elements, then the Atomic theory is not a universal law of science or of physics.

By logic, the Universe is a thing, a item with structure, or, the universe is not a structured thing or item, but structureless. If it has structure, the Universe's only candidate choice of what that structure is -- is an atom itself, one among the many chemical atoms known, from hydrogen to helium to lithium to beryllium to boron to carbon to nitrogen to oxygen, on up to uranium to plutonium and to the elements beyond. And that we have to surmise which chemical element which chemical atom is the Universe itself. But before I do that, let me repeat the Atomic theory Syllogism with the Democritus version of the theory-- "The only things that exist are atoms and the void".

Now in Atomic theory, the atom is composed of subatomic particles for which the atom has a proton nucleus and electrons revolving around the nucleus and most of the volume of the atom is empty space where photons and neutrinos travel and that space itself is energy, what we can call "the void". We can include atomic nodes-- vacuums of Atoms as voids also.

In the rival theory of the Atom Totality is the Big Bang theory and not quite sure as to what those believers of Big Bang have for empty space, where their theory presupposes the Universe was empty before the explosion and the explosion is pushing against empty space in some sort of silly philosophical scheme.

So, let me do the Syllogism with "the only things existing are atoms".

Atomic Theory Logic Syllogism "the only things that exist are atoms".

Syllogism

(1) Atomic Theory says the only things that exist are atoms
(2) The Universe itself exists
(3) Hence, the Universe is an atom

Science, true science usually has a completed logic, no loose ends. For the Atomic theory to be a Universal-Law, demands the Universe itself be one of the chemical elements, a singular atom, but a big atom, containing all the other atoms inside itself.

So, what is this chemical element that makes up the Universe? In later pages I give evidence from math and physics, that plutonium, of all the chemical elements, fits the best for the Cosmic Atom that is our Universe.

So if the Feynman definition of the Atomic theory-- All things are made up of atoms, gives those lacking logic abilities a conniption fit, you can imagine what the Democritus definition of Atomic theory -- only things that exist are atoms, gives them.

So that the fool of logic with his "all humans are made of cells, hence a human is a cell", or worse yet, "Only things that exist are cells". So, you see, if you train in college to be a physicist or scientist, and never take any formal logic in school, you see how low your thinking can become.

Now a lot of people do not know the history of the Atomic theory, and how such violence was exacted upon Democritus and the later atomists. Every one of Democritus's books were burned, and remarkable that he was not killed for the atomic theory. For it is a vast, vast sweeping idea-- the only things that exist are atoms, and that life is a mere process for atoms, a process like the water that flows from continent to the sea. As I said so often before, that life was put into this world by Atoms, so that life is a cold star, nucleosynthesizing elements beyond plutonium, which cannot be done in hot stars or supernova. The world is here, for atoms, and atoms are in charge, and the world is one big atom.