AP seriously determining where Earth resides--Cosmic Proton?--Cosmic Muons? or Cosmic Neutrons? The Plutonium Atom Totality.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

So I am stuck here. And I thought I would do best if I presented some pictures and perhaps given time, can make a breakthrough and answer my question.

I discovered the Plutonium Atom Totality in year 1990, saying that without it, the Atomic Theory-- the greatest ever theory of science (even Feynman concurs on that assessment), that the Atomic theory is not a theory unless the Universe itself is a single big atom of one of the 118 known chemical elements. The Atomic theory is just a rule of thumb, unless the cosmos itself obeys the Atomic Theory.

I heard of Caltech's Jarrett mapping of the Cosmos in late 1990s and that he found a Ring in 3rd layer. But at that time in my research, I was still on the idea that of a nucleus of atoms and the electrons as 0.5MeV in a dot cloud pattern around the nucleus. So a cosmic ring for me by late 1990s made no big deal.

Then comes the year 2016-17 when I discover Atoms have ___no nucleus___ for Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden in their gold foil experiments 1906-1913 were too sloppy in not noting the bounce back alpha particles at 180 degrees but with a faster exit velocity than a entrance velocity. Meaning??? Meaning that the alpha particles slammed into a chain of 79 muons inside a single proton torus of 79 individual protons with muons inside going round and round at nearly the speed of light in the Faraday law-structure. The incoming alpha particles hit a chain of Muons thrusting through the proton torus and bounced them out of the gold atom with a greater momentum-- greater speed.

So, by 2017, my view of the internal Atom was all the protons form a single proton torus with all the muons inside as bar magnets in a Faraday law-structure. Now I need Rings, to compose the proton as being 840MeV, muon as 105MeV and the neutrons which grow from 1 MeV on out to becoming 945MeV. Each 1 MeV of the proton or neutron or muon is a Ring.

So now I look at the Caltech Jarrett mapping of galaxies with its Ring in 3rd layer and need to determine if Earth is in the Cosmic Proton, or Cosmic Muon, or one of the Cosmic Neutrons which are parallel plate capacitors, storing the electricity produced by the Cosmic Proton + Muons.

The mapping of galaxies is seen here in this picture.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Next, let me show you the Ring in third layer of Caltech's galaxy mapping (the second picture of 0.01<z < 0.02).

ium-atom...@googlegroups.com

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Next, let me show you a crude model of the Plutonium Atom Totality with its Proton Torus and Muons inside doing a Faraday law. This picture was conceived by me after 2017 when I discovered the true electron of atoms is the muon, not the 0.5MeV particle and had a function of being involved in a Faraday law-structure being inside a huge proton torus with rings of 94 x 840 =78,960 Rings in all. The muons form a chain of 94 x 105=9,870 Rings.

This crude model is just for education sake.

p



pp

That model is not even a hydrogen atom for I would need the proton torus to be 840 rings of 1MeV each and the single muon inside of 105 rings of 1MeV each, in order to produce Maximum electricity as the muons act as a bar magnet would be a long ellipse that goes perpendicular to the proton torus and stretches completely along the inside of the torus, not sure but I suspect.

Still, I would need to account for the Caltech Single Ring in 3rd layer.

And it is here that I run into the enormous difficulty that the Caltech Ring derived from Doppler Red Shift, is highly questionable. I do not accept nor believe redshift of light has anything to do with recession of galaxies, but rather has something to do with the curvature of the Cosmos, as if the Cosmos is gigantic round prism. And where redshift is where light is bent the most and could be nearby, rather than a far distance away.

In the past decade from 2017 to 2026, being a trained mathematician, I proffered the guess, that even if you have a screwed-up Doppler Redshift doing the mapping, that if the Cosmos was these proton torus, muon rings, neutron rings as capacitors, and even if the redshift had nothing to do with the distance away or the speed of galaxies, that the application of redshift would leave always at least One Cosmic Ring. And I endeavored after 2017 in a technique of scooting around galaxies to see if I could come up with 5 Rings instead of the plain just 1 Ring.

Tonight I have increased my experimentation on nailing down what the Doppler Redshift really is with new experiments. I did experiments with corrugated translucent fiberglass on oncoming car headlights and found a slight redshift, even though the cars were speeding towards me which should have been a blue shift, not red shift. Trouble with that experiment is that the fiberglass is not clear but seems to have a tint to it and that tint may have caused the red shift.

EXPERIMENT #2 to figure out Doppler Redshift

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new experiment involves a tree lamp of many varieties of bulbs-- 6 bulbs in all some almost pure white, some more yellowish and holding a glass prism to my eyes and looking not directly at the lamps themselves but looking at the lamps reflecting from a distant mirror. What I find, which is fascinating is that the pure white lamps are all blue shifted, while the old type of bulbs that are yellowish light are red shifted. Mind you, there is no motion whatsoever in me or the lamps.

So, what this tells me is that Doppler Redshift is a galaxy predominantly of smaller stars that are not massive and thus not hot enough. While galaxies with a blue shift means it has many stars that are massive and hot, very hot causing their spectral lines to be blue shifted.

So, what I reckon is, if true, means that when and if Caltech revises their mapping, where distance is not involved with the Doppler shift, that they will see the Cosmos of galaxies looking more like this ascii art diagram.

(( | ))  and perpendicular inside is -------- a linear line up of galaxies.

If we were in the Cosmic Muons, that is not conducive to life, at such fast speed as the Cosmic Muons thrusting through Proton Torus. And probably all this high enormous energy Cosmic Gamma Rays come from the Cosmic Muons thrusting through the Proton Torus.

So I doubt that Earth is in the Cosmic Muons. That leaves either the Cosmic single Proton Torus or in one of the parallel plates of the Cosmic Neutrons.

The shape of Parallel Plate Capacitors sitting around a Proton Torus can be round shape as well as square or rectangular. Which place would life be most comfortable??? Living in a Proton or living in a Neutron?

AP, King of Science

[Archimedes Plutonium]

I repeated the experiment of last night, where I find that the old bulbs of incandescent versus these new LED bulbs of more white and blue light in a Lamp Tree. I have grown fond of Tree Lamps that can hold many bulbs for reading. And so I have a Lamp with 3 incandescent bulbs that glow somewhat Yellowish and two bulbs LED. In fact the USA faces this horrible problem in motor vehicle traffic where the new LED makes night time driving almost Blinding for the headlights are blinding but politicians too stupid to fix the problem. It is getting to the point where you can no longer drive at night without being blinded by oncoming traffic.

So, now, I have a glass triangular prism and I hold it up to my eyes and view the 5 bulbs as the light is reflected in a mirror, a beveled edge glass mirror. I will take Photograph pictures of what I see and post it here to this thread-newsgroup.

And what I see is that the 3 incandescent bulbs are redshifted with a long pattern that looks like this ((((((()))))))))))))bulb(((((((()))))))))

And the LED white bulbs are blueshifted with a long pattern that looks like this ((((((((((((()))))bulb(((((((()))))))))))))

This Implies that Doppler shift is not about motion of light source but simply, all about how big and hot the star is. This makes sense in that most stars are like our Sun or smaller and not that hot and when seen would be redshifted. Only a few stars or galaxies when seen are blueshifted.

And, well, we can check on this Experiment for it predicts that you can have many constellations in the night sky where one of the stars in the constellation is a blue shifted star while the others are a red shift, which makes sense and logically fits in with my tree lamp observation that shifting of light is due to how hot the object is, not anything dealing with relative motion.

So, is there a constellation, probably many of them, where one of the stars is blueshifted and the others redshifted--- is proof that Doppler Redshift was invented by logical idiots of physics. For the Doppler shift is true for Sound waves. But for Light, Doppler shift tells only how HOT the object is and nothing to do with relative motion. And that makes sense, because in 1st year college physics the professors tell us--- Light is a constant maximum speed and the relative motion of the source of light plays absolutely no role in shifting of light wavelength. What does play a role is how HOT that star is. If the star is blue hot, you observe a blueshift, but most stars are red hot and so when we see them or the galaxies they reside in, we see a redshift.

So, what constellation stars do you know of, wherein resides a blue star along with red stars. For the ignorant idiot astronomers and physicists would say the blue star is heading towards us at a fast speed while the redshift stars are far away and accelerating to infinity away from us, yet for thousands of years of constellation observing the group of stars are still held together for the same night time observing by millions of people.

Now, I can begin to sense how to fix the Caltech mapping of Cosmos galaxies and that the Ring in 3rd layer is beginning to make sense as not just one ring but at least 3 rings which should better be stated as 3 ribs of a proton torus.

Notice in the first picture above that the lettering of superclusters of galaxies is mostly in the Northern Hemisphere of that map, and if we start to disentangle those superclusters we end up with at least 3 ribs

)))

And taking in the other layers we end up with this configuration of the Cosmos.

(((|))) where we are located in the center rib along side 3 ribs to the left of us and 3 ribs to the right of us.

Indicating that Earth is part of the Cosmic Proton Torus.

Ribs are not full Rings but partial rings, for our telescopes the best of them can only see a rib of a ring.

Much in the same way we use binoculars to peer out over the ocean water and the curvature of Earth will halt our seeing a long distance, in fact we can see perhaps 16km in all before the Earth curvature halts our vision--- a rib of Earth.

The Cosmic Muon would be too violent of an environment for life to live on.

I think the Cosmic Neutrons would also be too violent as it collects and stores the energy of Faraday Law-structure from Muons thrusting through Proton Torus.

Strangley, the Cosmic Proton would be the most stable nourishing environment for biology life to live and grow. And that is concurrent with the observation that neutrons are not stable, nor are muons, but protons in the laboratories on Earth, are the most stable and not radioactive of the three.

I will try to get a photo of Experiment 2-- the tree lamp experiment where 2 bulbs are blueshifted while 3 bulbs are redshifted.

The Doppler Redshift of Light was one of science greatest joke hoax maximum idiocy, comparable to the yakkity yak idiots of math with their slant cut of cone a ellipse when it is a oval.

On Wednesday, May 20, 2026 at 4:08:27 AM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Next, let me show you a crude model of the Plutonium Atom Totality with its Proton Torus and Muons inside doing a Faraday law. This picture was conceived by me after 2017 when I discovered the true electron of atoms is the muon, not the 0.5MeV particle and had a function of being involved in a Faraday law-structure being inside a huge proton torus with rings of 94 x 840 =78,960 Rings in all. The muons form a chain of 94 x 105=9,870 Rings.

This crude model is just for education sake.

p



pp

That model is not even a hydrogen atom for I would need the proton torus to be 840 rings of 1MeV each and the single muon inside of 105 rings of 1MeV each, in order to produce Maximum electricity as the muons act as a bar magnet would be a long ellipse that goes perpendicular to the proton torus and stretches completely along the inside of the torus, not sure but I suspect.

Still, I would need to account for the Caltech Single Ring in 3rd layer.

And it is here that I run into the enormous difficulty that the Caltech Ring derived from Doppler Red Shift, is highly questionable. I do not accept nor believe redshift of light has anything to do with recession of galaxies, but rather has something to do with the curvature of the Cosmos, as if the Cosmos is gigantic round prism. And where redshift is where light is bent the most and could be nearby, rather than a far distance away.

In the past decade from 2017 to 2026, being a trained mathematician, I proffered the guess, that even if you have a screwed-up Doppler Redshift doing the mapping, that if the Cosmos was these proton torus, muon rings, neutron rings as capacitors, and even if the redshift had nothing to do with the distance away or the speed of galaxies, that the application of redshift would leave always at least One Cosmic Ring. And I endeavored after 2017 in a technique of scooting around galaxies to see if I could come up with 5 Rings instead of the plain just 1 Ring.

Tonight I have increased my experimentation on nailing down what the Doppler Redshift really is with new experiments. I did experiments with corrugated translucent fiberglass on oncoming car headlights and found a slight redshift, even though the cars were speeding towards me which should have been a blue shift, not red shift. Trouble with that experiment is that the fiberglass is not clear but seems to have a tint to it and that tint may have caused the red shift.

EXPERIMENT #2 to figure out Doppler Redshift

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

My new experiment involves a tree lamp of many varieties of bulbs-- 5 bulbs in all some almost pure white, some more yellowish and holding a glass prism to my eyes and looking not directly at the lamps themselves but looking at the lamps reflecting from a distant mirror. What I find, which is fascinating is that the pure white lamps are all blue shifted, while the old type of bulbs that are yellowish light are red shifted. Mind you, there is no motion whatsoever in me or the lamps.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Here is a description of Experiment #1 on Doppler Redshift conducted in May of 2010. In 2010, my conclusion was the Redshift is due to curvature of space and the corrugated fiberglass translucent panel was imitating the curvature of cosmic space. In Experiment #2 on Doppler Redshift conducted in May 2026, I blame the temperature of the star where the light was produced for red shift if not that hot and blueshift if star is very hot.

Archimedes Plutonium
May 2, 2010, 10:52:09 PM
to
Well I repeated the experiment tonight, only outside of my house. For
I took a
single panel 127 cm by 34 cm and about a thickness of 1 to 1.5
millimeters.
Now I do not know how science of optics describes these panels.
Whether they
are translucent for they are not clear, and whether they are opaque
and the difference
between opaque and translucent. They are fiberglass and you can see
white streaks
inside. And if I held a sheet of paper with handwriting on it, if held
up close to the
panel, one can read the writing but at a tiny distance away, the
writing is too blurred
to read.

The panel comes from a small greenhouse, much like a small shed bought
in
Lowes lumber yard. The greenhouse could not stand up to the South
Dakota
winds so I cut it and use it inside the house. It is this use that I
began to notice
redshifting of auto headlights.

So I took this panel outside the house for I was getting too much in
house reflections
that was creating a redshift. So to eliminate the in house reflection
and refraction
causing redshift, I went to the side of the road and to conduct the
experiment directly
on the autos and headlights.

Immediately I spotted all the white light headlights were redshifted
coming towards me.
Only when the autos were close by, could I see any white light from
their headlights.
When they were at a far distance these white lights were redshifted,
and their was
a maximum redshift at a specific distance. This is the same distance
at which the
opposite traffic exposing their taillights of red vanished from view
in the panel.

So in other words, when a car's taillights of red are in view of my
panel, I see a
bright red in the panel but at a select distance away, the auto red
light vanishes
in the panel and is black, but removing the panel, I still see the red
light.
And it is this distance at which is the maximum redshifting of the
oncoming white
light.

Now the tilting of the panel has some role in the lateral spreading
out of the redshift
but not of the intensity of the redshift. Now if I tilted the panel to
becoming more and
more parallel to the road itself, there was a point at which the
whitelight was able to
be seen instead of the predominant redshift.

So now, this is proof that the Cosmic Redshift, need not be a Doppler
Effect of an
expanding Universe wherein Space is moving at the speed of light or
greater and carrying
along with it the galaxies.

In fact, this experiment points out that the speed of an object is
immaterial in causing a
redshift, because the white headlights should be blueshifted, yet none
were blueshifted.
All were redshifted.

So what this experiment implies is that the Geometry of the Cosmos, or
the curvature of the
Cosmos, or perhaps, the opaqueness of the Cosmos causes a redshift.

I returned inside my house to see to what extent that reflections off
walls plays in the redshift
and had a lamp near a white painted wall surface. The lamp itself was
white and not redshifted
but the reflection of the white light on the nearby surface was
redshifted. So to some extent,
reflected light can be redshifted and I do not know the physical
explanation of how the interior
walls can reflect the light so that the fiberglass panels cause a
redshift.

And I tried experimenting with obtaining a blueshift. I took a white
light lamp and I vigorously
waved the sheet back and forth, and I suspect I obtained a blueshift,
however it was
too small to be assured.

The implications of this experiment are grand, because it offers a
more simple explanation
of Cosmic Redshift of galaxies. An explanation that does not depend on
the speed of galaxies,
nor their distance, nor a convoluted concept of Space in motion.

In fact, we can probably decipher what the curvature of Space or the
opaqueness of space,
or the width of Space is from the redshift data. If we have enough
reliable redshifts and the
motion of those bodies derived not from Hubble's style law, but
derived from other tests of
motion, that we should be able to describe the geometry and curvature
of Space.


So what I suspect will happen is that we can gather the data of cosmic
redshift and gather the
data of the motion of astro bodies, without the reliance on redshift,
but the motion derived
by other means. And then we can compute what the curvature or width or
the geometry of
Space has to be in order to have the redshift that we currently have.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

At the moment I am trying to assemble the quotes of physicists on Doppler Redshift, where they are contradicting themselves. 

Carl Sagan in a TV show said this "Color is to light what pitch is to sound". As his way of endorsing Doppler Redshift as a distance measure. But AP would counter Sagan by saying he violates the constant speed of light and no matter what the speed of the source is-- the principle of Special Relativity.

Halliday & Resnick in "Fundamentals of Physics" 1988, 3rd edition, page 400 says " The speed of light has the same value c in all directions and in all inertial reference frames. In measuring the speed of light, the relative velocity of the source of light and the observer simply does not matter."

Halliday & Resnick further go on to write in their PHYSICS Part 2, Extended Version, 1986 on page 929 " The measured frequency and wavelength will change, but always in such a way that their product,  which is the velocity of light, remains constant."

Now I do not expect physicists to be logicians of logical reasoning, but I am a logician and can easily tear into Halliday & Resnick by pointing out that if they are correct, then a measurement of blueshift of Orion of  Saiph or of Enif or of Sadalmelik. Or redshifted Canopus or Rasalgethi, or Rastaban or Betelgeuse or Polaris. That this mix of blueshifted stars and redshifted stars in constellations is contradictory and the constellation will soon disappear. And if true what H & R says that every measurement of the redshift or blueshift, will change over time. So one year a blueshift is measured at a specific number and 10 years later a very different number for the same star due to change in Line-of-Sight between the star and Earth. But there is no noticeable change. And the reason being is that Doppler shifting is not connected to speed of source but is connected to how hot the star is.

Now my Experiment #2 says the Doppler Shift corresponds to the hottness of the light bulbs-- the LED are blueshifted and no motion is involved. The Incandescent old bulbs are redshifted in my experiment. But now, it is claimed that Barnard's star, the closest star beyond the Sun is a Red Dwarf star at a distance of 6 light years from Earth. And it is claimed to be blueshifted. This would be a counterexample to my hypothesis that Doppler shifting is all about how hot a star or galaxy is. So what gives, is AP wrong just as he gets started on a explanation?? Well if you read the history of research into Barnard's Star you will see many times where people said this and that about it only to be retracted completely in a few years. Some say it has 4 planets and then Forbes magazine shows that to be false. Some have found a Gigantic Blue Flare but no possible energy source to create the flare other than to say its magnetic field.

And so, Barnard's star is a test case example of how much the whole of the science of Astronomy is in the Weeds of understanding. Here we have what is presumed to be the closest star other than the Sun, and from one year to the next we have overthrowing of what was thought to be true of the star. My guess is that there is something obscuring the collecting of true data from Barnard's star, what is the obstruction????? Is it some of the Oort cloud or perhaps a Oort type of cloud surrounding Barnard's star, and fooling astronomers on Earth in thinking it is a Red Dwarf when in reality it is a Blue Star and has a blueshift because it is a blue star. But it is not coming towards Earth at that enormous velocity, no, it is relatively fixed in place relative to Earth.

This is what I mean when astronomy is in the WEEDS, and will stay in the weeds as long as it ignorantly thinks Doppler shifting tells us anything other than the temperature of a star or galaxy.

Then there is the case of Andromeda galaxy which supports AP's hypothesis of Doppler is a temperature of star measure. The ignorant fools of astronomy with Doppler telling distance peg Andromeda with a blueshift, large blueshift, where AP would say--- no, Andromeda has a blueshift because a predominant large population of blue giant stars. And so I look up Andromeda , and lo and behold, recent news that  such as NASA. gov "Rare Ultra-blue Stars Found in Neighboring Galaxy's Hub" and then in ESA Space Science "Mysterious disk of blue stars in our neighboring Andromeda Galaxy (M31).

So here, Andromeda supports the AP hypothesis, that M31 has a registered Doppler blueshift not because it idiotically is racing towards us, hell no, it is a blueshift because it has a large population of hot giant blue stars.

AP, King of Science

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Alright, recently I did Experiment #2 to determine what Doppler Redshift of Light means and came to a conclusion that it does not tell distance but rather instead tells how hot the star or galaxy is, and by hot would be blue star/s and by not hot would be red stars and thus redshift.

In a Universe run by Faraday law-structure of inside every atom is a thrusting muon as bar magnet inside a single large proton torus and the electricity produced makes up 90% of starshine whether from a blue star like Rigel or a red star like our Sun.

In this type of Universe, the size of the star and how hot it is is directly proportional to the age of the star. All blue stars are old while all red stars are young.

If true, then we look at Caltech's Jarrett mapping of the Cosmos according to layers of redshift. And we can make a deduction, that if a Ring appears in 3rd layer, then we should have rings appear in all the other layers, or the making of a ring. Reason: red starts make Doppler redshift and are young stars directly proportional to age, and the layers are by the size of redshift in Jarrett's mapping.

pp

--- quoting the ned dot ipac dot caltech dot edu ---

The Cosmic Web - Figure 1 beautifully unveils the background extragalactic sky from the obscuring foreground Milky Way. Galaxies are color-coded by their inferred redshift (or distance from the Sun), thereby providing depth to the surface distribution of galaxies. Large-scale structures are clearly discerned, from the Local Supercluster (Virgo/Hydra/Centaurus) to the Perseus-Pisces (P-P) and Pavo-Indus (P-I) superclusters. (Figure 2, a key to the large scale structures). Probing orthogonal to this 3-D surface reveals the redshift distibution along the line of sight; an example is shown in Figure 10 for the Shapley Concentration (discussed below).

Figure 10. Redshift slice of the Shapley Concentration region, extending to the limit of the 2MASS galaxy catalog, z ~ 0.1 (400 Mpc). The equatorial RA slice is 90 deg between a declination boundary of -36.5° < Dec < -26.5°. The points are color-coded by redshift (see Figure 1). The "finger of god" radial velocity artifacts trace galaxy clusters, including Abell 3558 (center, yellow). The Hydra-Cen supercluster is foreground (blue fingers) to the Shapley Concentration.

As seen in Figure 1, a continuous chain of structures seems to wrap around Hydra/Virgo, up to Coma to the north, through Hercules to the east, down through P-P and around to P-I to the west, then extending up through the ZoA into the Shapley concentration. This is more easily seen when each redshift layer is shown separately; Figure 11. 

Figure 11. 2MASS galaxy distribution separated by redshift layer. The color scheme, when combined, creates the panorama shown in Figure 1.

ppp

Honestly, I would say the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th layers all have resemblance to 3rd layer. And this would indicate that we can observe at minimum, 5 cosmic ribs of 10 rings.

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Thursday, May 21, 2026 at 4:57:55 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Honestly, I would say the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th layers all have resemblance to 3rd layer. And this would indicate that we can observe at minimum, 5 cosmic ribs of 10 rings.

My mistake, if we see 5 Rings we can see 5 ribs of the Proton torus.

But if we are a part of the Proton torus, we should not be to see a full ring at all but a rib of a ring. If we are on the inside of the Cosmic Proton Torus on a Muon then we can see full rings.

It looks like the evidence is leaning towards the idea that the Milky Way and Earth are in the Cosmic Muons, the 94 muons which is 94 x 105 =9,870 rings. If we are on the Cosmic Muon we can see full rings of the Cosmic Proton.

If we are on the Cosmic Proton we can only see ribs of rings. If we are on the Cosmic Neutron (one of 137 neutrons as parallel plate capacitors) we can only see a partial ring, but better than just a rib of a ring).

I am thinking that the Cosmic Muons are too dangerous of a place for life to live. But so far, the evidence points to the Cosmic Muons if we are seeing full Rings.

AP 

[Archimedes Plutonium]

As this model picture below shows, if inside that proton torus, on a cosmic muon then you can see full rings of the Cosmic Proton. But if Earth lies on one of the Rings of the Cosmic Proton, we should see only Ribs of the Cosmic proton.

And then the big question comes into play to the extent at which we can see a Cosmic structure of the Universe itself. Should we be able to see the full extent of the cosmos by seeing a full Ring of the Proton torus. My intuition would say we can only see a tiny fraction of a full Proton Ring.

p



p

Do you see that small ring-band inside the Torus???? It represents a Muon thrusting through the Proton torus. If we were riding on that small ring-band we would see, easily 5 full rings of the Proton torus.

Earth on the proton torus would see only 5 ribs. Earth on a Neutron capacitor would see 5 ribs but much more than the ribs of the proton torus. But Earth on a Muon would see Full Rings of the Proton torus.

So, I am going to have to work through this. Logic is merciless in that we are forced to accept the logic, and so far, Logic is saying that --- Seeing Full Rings of galaxies, means we are on the Cosmic Muon.

Why is that bad?? Being on the cosmic muons??? Because that is likely the most violent environment in all the Universe. Fast speeds in doing the Faraday Law-Structure producing electricity.

AP, King of Science 

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Now Wikipedia has some excellent pictures of large scale Cosmic structure that I want to share with you.

And I can make out a Muon ring inside a Proton torus ring in one of these pictures. To be discussed further.

But the major point I want to make here is that the Universe in whole is not governed by gravity. And we should have known that 3 or 4 decades back when Solid Body Rotation by Vera Rubin was discovered. Sadly Vera did not know the Maxwell Equations well enough to understand Solid Body Rotation means what Hannes Alfven had been talking about for a long time--- Electricity magnetism, EM, rules the cosmic skies and gravity is only a tiny tiny part of EM.

EM easily makes Solid body Rotation in galaxies for it is a force that is 10^38 larger of a force than is gravity. But no, Vera Rubin introduces the blind nonsense of dark matter and later dark energy which only failed fools of physics understand and yappity yap accept.

But, how do failed fools of physics, astronomy, cosmology ever attempt to explain why the largest structure of galaxies are in FILAMENTS-- which I like to call Wires.

In AP's Unification of all the forces of Physics as being Electromagnetism force, and then there are the revised Maxwell Equations with Ampere law-structure and Faraday law-structure and New Ohm's law structure, 3 of the 4 forces involve Wires. Gravity is only a tiny tiny fraction of the Coulomb law-structure.

If, you have 3 of the 4 forces of Nature requiring "wires", then, obviously, the final structure of galaxies will be ***wire-like***. One day in the future, the name "filaments" will be replaced with "wire".

Look carefully below at the picture of the "The Universe within 1 billion light-years" for in that picture we can say our observable universe is a circle ring and within that ring from a clock perspective at about 12:07 to then 12:37 at a diagonal is a dense line of galaxies-- which I reckon to be a Cosmic Muon, a ring inside a ring.

--- quoting Wikipedia---

Galaxy filament

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Galaxy filaments, walls and voids form web-like structures. Computer simulation.

In cosmology, galaxy filaments are the largest known structures in the universe, consisting of walls of galactic superclusters. These massive, thread-like formations can commonly reach 50 to 80 megaparsecs (160 to 260 megalight-years)—with the largest found to date being Quipu (400 megaparsecs),^[1][2] and possibly the still unconfirmed Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall at around 3 gigaparsecs (9.8 Gly) in length—and form the boundaries between voids.^[3] Due to the accelerating expansion of the universe, the individual clusters of gravitationally bound galaxiesthat make up galaxy filaments are moving away from each other at an accelerated rate; in the far future they will dissolve.^[4]

Galaxy filaments form the cosmic weband define the overall structure of the observable universe.^[5][6][7]

Discovery

Discovery of structures larger than superclusters began in the late 1980s. In 1987, astronomer R. Brent Tully of the University of Hawaii's Institute of Astronomy identified what he called the Pisces–Cetus Supercluster Complex. The CfA2 Great Wall was discovered in 1989,^[8] followed by the Sloan Great Wall in 2003.^[9]

In January 2013, researchers led by Roger Clowes of the University of Central Lancashire announced the discovery of a large quasar group, the Huge-LQG, which dwarfs previously discovered galaxy filaments in size.^[10] In November 2013, using gamma-ray bursts as reference points, astronomers discovered the Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall, an extremely large filament measuring more than 10 billion light-years across.^[11][12][13]

Filaments

The filament subtype of filaments have roughly similar major and minor axes in cross-section, along the lengthwise axis.

Filaments of galaxies
Filament
Date
Mean distance
Dimension
Notes
Coma Filament



The Coma Supercluster lies within the Coma Filament.^[14] It forms part of the CfA2 Great Wall.^[15]
Perseus–Pegasus Filament
1985


Connected to the Pisces–Cetus Supercluster, with the Perseus–Pisces Supercluster being a member of the filament.^[16]
Ursa Major Filament



Connected to the CfA Homunculus, a portion of the filament forms a portion of the "leg" of the Homunculus.^[17]
Lynx–Ursa Major Filament(LUM Filament)
1999
from 2000 km/s to 8000 km/s in redshift space

Connected to and separate from the Lynx–Ursa Major Supercluster.^[17]
z=2.38 filament around protocluster ClG J2143-4423
2004
z=2.38
110 Mpc
A filament the length of the Great Wall was discovered in 2004. As of 2008, it was still the largest structure beyond redshift 2.^{[18][19][20][21]}

• A short filament was proposed by Adi Zitrin and Noah Brosch—detected by identifying an alignment of star-forming galaxies—in the neighborhood of the Milky Way and the Local Group.^[22] The proposal of this filament, and of a similar but shorter filament, were the result of a study by McQuinn et al. (2014) based on distance measurements using the TRGB method.^[23]

Galaxy walls

The galaxy wall subtype of filaments have a significantly greater major axis than minor axis in cross-section, along the lengthwise axis.

Walls of galaxies
Wall
Date
Mean distance
Dimension
Notes
CfA2 Great Wall(Coma Wall, Great Wall, Northern Great Wall, Great Northern Wall, CfA Great Wall)
1989
z=0.03058
251 Mpc long: 750 Mly long 
250 Mly wide 
20 Mly thick
This was the first super-large large-scale structure or pseudo-structure in the universe to be discovered. The CfA Homunculus lies at the heart of the Great Wall, and the Coma Supercluster forms most of the homunculus structure. The Coma Cluster lies at the core.^[24][25]
Sloan Great Wall(SDSS Great Wall)
2003
z=0.07804
433 Mpc long
This was the largest known galaxy filament to be discovered,^[24] until it was eclipsed by the Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wallfound ten years later.
Sculptor Wall(Southern Great Wall, Great Southern Wall, Southern Wall)


8000 km/s long 
5000 km/s wide 
1000 km/s deep (in redshift spacedimensions) 
The Sculptor Wall is "parallel" to the Fornax Wall and "perpendicular" to the Grus Wall.^[26][27]
Grus Wall



The Grus Wall is "perpendicular" to the Fornax and Sculptor Walls.^[27]
Fornax Wall



The Fornax Cluster is part of this wall. The wall is "parallel" to the Sculptor Wall and "perpendicular" to the Grus Wall.^[26][27]
Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall
2013
z≈2^[12]
3 Gpc long,^[12]
150 000 km/s deep^[12]
(in redshift space) 
The largest known structure in the universe.^[11][12][13] This is also the first time since 1991 that a galaxy filament/great wall held the record as the largest known structure in the universe.

• A "Centaurus Great Wall" (or "Fornax Great Wall" or "Virgo Great Wall")^{[citation needed]} has been proposed, which would include the Fornax Wall as a portion of it (visually created by the Zone of Avoidance) along with the Centaurus Supercluster and the Virgo Supercluster, also known as the Local Supercluster, within which the Milky Way galaxy is located (implying this to be the Local Great Wall).^[26][27]
• A wall was proposed to be the physical embodiment of the Great Attractor, with the Norma Cluster as part of it. It is sometimes referred to as the Great Attractor Wall or Norma Wall.^[28] This suggestion was superseded by the proposal of a supercluster, Laniakea, that would encompass the Great Attractor, Virgo Supercluster, Hydra–Centaurus Superclusters.^[29]
• A wall was proposed in 2000 to lie at z=1.47 in the vicinity of radio galaxy B3 0003+387.^[30]
• A wall was proposed in 2000 to lie at z=0.559 in the northern Hubble Deep Field(HDF North).^[31][32]

Map of nearest galaxy walls

The Universe within 500 million light years, showing the nearest galaxy walls

Large quasar groups

Large quasar groups (LQGs) are some of the largest structures known.^[33] They are theorized to be protohyperclusters/proto-supercluster-complexes/galaxy filament precursors.^[34]

Large quasar groups
LQG
Date
Mean distance
Dimension
Notes
Clowes–Campusano LQG
(U1.28, CCLQG)
1991
z=1.28

• longest dimension: 630 Mpc

It was the largest known structure in the universe from 1991 to 2011, until U1.11's discovery.
U1.11
2011
z=1.11

• longest dimension: 780 Mpc

Was the largest known structure in the universe for a few months, until Huge-LQG's discovery.
Huge-LQG
2012
z=1.27

• characteristic size: 500 Mpc 
• longest dimension: 1.24 Gpc 

It was the largest structure known in the universe,^[33][34]until the discovery of the Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall found one year later.^[12]

Supercluster complex

• Pisces–Cetus Supercluster Complex

Maps of large-scale distribution

• 
  The universe within 1 billion light-years (307 Mpc) of Earth, showing local superclustersforming filaments and voids
 
• 
  Map of nearest walls, voids and superclusters
• 
  2dF survey map, containing the SDSS Great Wall
• 
  2MASS XSC infrared sky map
 
• 
  A mosaic MeerKATimage of the Galactic Center at 20 cm with a 4" resolution.^[35]

ppp

--- end quoting Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia---

AP writes: Wikipedia did a nice job in pictures. I give it a B+. If they had omitted--- like I omitted the propaganda brain wash of Big Bang, they deserve a A-.

If they had talked about the idea and fact that gravity cannot explain "filament formation" but that Electromagnetic Force can easily explain why filaments form the largest astronomy structures, then they would deserve a A+, just like AP's posts are A+.

AP, King of Science

[Archimedes Plutonium]

(snipped)

Look carefully below at the picture of the "The Universe within 1 billion light-years" for in that picture we can say our observable universe is a circle ring and within that ring from a clock perspective at about 12:07 to then 12:37 at a diagonal is a dense line of galaxies-- which I reckon to be a Cosmic Muon, a ring inside a ring.

---from Wikipedia--- 

Maps of large-scale distribution

• 
  The universe within 1 billion light-years (307 Mpc) of Earth, showing local 

What I am talking about is the almost straight line diagonally down from Corona-Borealis superstructure, with Virgo as center (Earth is in Virgo), and at opposite end is Horologium supercluster. 

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Here I am trying to match up Jarrett's rhetoric with this below picture mapping. I do not know if these two pictures are independent of one another.

--- quoting ---

Caltech's Jarrett mapping

The third layer (0.01 < z < 0.02) is dominated by the P-P
supercluster
 (left side of image) and the P-I supercluster extending up into the
 ZoA terminating as the Great Attractor region (notably Abell 3627)
 disappears behind a wall of Milky Way stars. An intriguing "ring" or
 chain of galaxies seems to circle/extend from the northern to the
 southern Galactic hemisphere (see also Figure 1). It is unknown
 whether this ring-like structure is physically associated with the
 cosmic web or an artifact of projection. 
--- end quoting --- 

I see a Pisces to the lower left side

[Archimedes Plutonium]

So I am working on scant news, and tainted news. Scant because I have a vague Ring in 3rd layer and tainted because it comes from false thinking that Doppler Redshift tells us distance. No, Doppler redshift tells us the star or predominant stars in a galaxy are red stars--- young and growing.

Blueshift galaxies like Andromeda are not speeding towards us, no, they are predominantly old stars, big massive blue stars causing a blueshift.

So when you put that together with a Ring in 3rd layer, there likely is far more rings than just one ring.

But, I have to work with what is given.

AP, King of Science

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Now here is a nice picture which seems to be newer than other pictures, perhaps X-ray telescope.

And according to the arrows, I make out at least 2 Rings.

I no longer see a dense filament of galaxies from Corona Borealis to that of Horologium as was mentioned earlier.

There is quite a bit of news about mistakes in astronomy as it is now seen that Great Attractor is only 1/10 of the mass believed in before.

--- quoting Wikipedia---

Location

Panoramic view of the entire near-infrared sky. The location of the Great Attractor is shown following the long blue arrow at bottom right.

The first indications of a deviation from uniform expansion of the universe were reported in 1973 and again in 1978. The location of the Great Attractor was finally determined in 1986: It is situated at a distance of somewhere between 150 and 250 Mly (million light-years) (47–79 Mpc), the larger being the most recent estimate, away from the Milky Way, in the direction of the constellations Triangulum Australe (The Southern Triangle) and Norma (The Carpenter's Square).^[10] While objects in that direction lie in the Zone of Avoidance (the part of the night sky obscured by the Milky Way galaxy) and are thus difficult to study with visible wavelengths, X-ray observations have revealed that region of space to be dominated by the Norma Cluster (ACO 3627),^[11][12] a massive cluster of galaxies containing a preponderance of large, old galaxies, many of which are colliding with their neighbours and radiating large amounts of radio waves.

Debate over apparent mass

In 1992, much of the apparent signal of the Great Attractor was attributed to a statistical effect called Malmquist bias.^[13] In 2005, astronomers conducting an X-ray survey of part of the sky known as the Clusters in the Zone of Avoidance (CIZA) project reported that the Great Attractor was actually only one tenth the mass that scientists had originally estimated. The survey also confirmed earlier theories that the Milky Way galaxy is in fact being pulled toward a much more massive cluster of galaxies near the Shapley Supercluster, which lies beyond the Great Attractor, and which is called the Shapley Attractor.

--- end quoting Wikipedia---

I suspect some day soon, the admission will be made that Doppler Redshift says nothing about how far away something is, but tells what the star mass and age --- red means young and small and not hot and blue means very hot and large and blue.

The whitest spots appear to be Shapley Concentrate and Perseus Pisces, and perhaps that is the Cosmic Muon diameter.

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Sorry, but, this mapping is not in agreement with the next mapping, and using a Hour Clock 12 as true north, 6 as true south we see Persius Pisces at 8 in both pictures but see Corona Borealis as 11 in the picture below and then see it at 2 in the following picture. We see Horologium at 5 in the picture below and in the following picture see it at 7. We see the Shapley in the same spot in both pictures. We see Shapley and Perseus Pisces in the same spot but see Corona Borealis and Horologium-- each switched by 90 degrees--. I am trying to think it is a perspective issue but come to the conclusion it is a mistake.

--- quoting Wikipedia---

Location

Panoramic view of the entire near-infrared sky. The location of the Great Attractor is shown following the long blue arrow at bottom right.

p

pp 

[Archimedes Plutonium]

I have been looking around all day today for a description of how astronomers determine the speed of galaxies. 

They are all over the map on galactic speeds. One web site claims stars traveling at 2 times the speed of Light.

AI Overview claims the Milky Way galaxy is between 370 to 550 km/second.

One web site claims distant galaxies are speeding along at 750 km/second.

The Sun is claimed to be moving at 220km/second.

The speed of Light is 3*10^8 meters/sec which would be 3*10^5 km/second.

So that a galaxy velocity of 750 km/s would be 300,000/750 =400  or 1/400 the speed of Light.

Remember, nothing can travel faster than  the speed of Light.

AP is looking for a physics constant that would restrict galaxy and star speeds. For it is just plain commonsense that if a star is moving rapidly it would just break up or leave half the star behind.

The Neutron is 945MeV rest mass.

The magnetic monopole (would dumb old professors thought was the electron of Atoms) is 0.5MeV.

The addition of Proton torus with Muon inside is another 945MeV.

When we double the magnetic monopole we have 1MeV and a Neutron is 945 rings of 1MeV.

So we have 1/945 of the Speed of Light and we have double that to 1/1890 the speed of Light.

300,000/ 945=317.46  and 300,000/ 1890 =158.73 

Is 159km/second the maximum Cosmic speed of a galaxy or of a star????

AP, King of Science

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Tuesday, May 26, 2026 at 12:59:59 AM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

I have been looking around all day today for a description of how astronomers determine the speed of galaxies. 

No mention of how the calculation goes in my old astronomy textbook.

And even Wikipedia has no separate page on how galactic velocity is determined.

 

They are all over the map on galactic speeds. One web site claims stars traveling at 2 times the speed of Light.

AI Overview claims the Milky Way galaxy is between 370 to 550 km/second.

One web site claims distant galaxies are speeding along at 750 km/second.

The Sun is claimed to be moving at 230km/second.

Sun 230 km/s orbital speed around Milky Way
Mercury, 0.24 yr orbital period, 47.87 km/s orbital speed
Venus, 0.61 yr orbital period, 35.02 km/s orbital speed
Earth, 1 yr orbital period, 29.78 km/s orbital speed 

Moon , 27 days orbit, 1 km/s orbital speed
Mars, 1.8 yrs orbital period, 24.07 km/s orbital speed

Jupiter, 11.86 yrs orbital period, 13.07 km/s orbital speed 

Saturn, 29.45 yrs orbital period, 9.69 km/s orbital speed 

Uranus, 84.32 yrs orbital period, 6.81 km/s orbital speed 


Neptune, 164.79 yrs orbital period, 5.43 km/s orbital speed 

The speed of Light is 3*10^8 meters/sec which would be 3*10^5 km/second.

So that a galaxy velocity of 750 km/s would be 300,000/750 =400  or 1/400 the speed of Light.

Remember, nothing can travel faster than  the speed of Light.

AP is looking for a physics constant that would restrict galaxy and star speeds. For it is just plain commonsense that if a star is moving rapidly it would just break up or leave half the star behind.

The Neutron is 945MeV rest mass.

The magnetic monopole (which dumb old professors thought was the electron of Atoms) is 0.5MeV.

The addition of Proton torus with Muon inside is another 945MeV.

When we double the magnetic monopole we have 1MeV and a Neutron is 945 rings of 1MeV.

So we have 1/945 of the Speed of Light and we have double that to 1/1890 the speed of Light.

300,000/ 945=317.46  and 300,000/ 1890 =158.73 

So, is the maximum speed in the Cosmos that of 317 km/second to where massive bodies do not breakup. 

Is 159km/second the maximum Cosmic speed for planets going around a star????

AP, King of Science