#1 new book; ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY REPLACES BIG BANG THEORY IN PHYSICS

[plutonium....@gmail.com]

#1 new book; ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY REPLACES BIG BANG
THEORY IN PHYSICS

The last time I wrote on this book was the 2nd edition starting in
August of 2007. This is April of 2009 and the start of the
3rd edition. One of the things I want to get rid of, from the
2nd edition was the poor numbering schemata. Where I
found out that numbering each post is the most efficient
means.

This book is probably the most important single book
to ever be written and stands alongside the Ancient
Greek theory of the Atomic theory. This book is the
completion of the Ancient Greek theory that the matter
of the Universe is composed of atoms, and the completion
of that idea is the Universe itself is one big atom.

When I departed the 2nd edition I vowed to myself
to return to this book and make the next edition whenever
a major new discovery that supports the Atom Totality theory.
The 2nd edition was spurred by the Sloan Great Wall.

There has been no great new evidence supporting the
Atom Totality since the 2nd edition, that I am aware of,
but I need to do this 3rd edition to organize better and to
make that numbering.

I find writing these books not a tedium but rather comforting
and relaxing. I believe happiness in life is that of "order" and so
to instill order into this Atom Totality book gives me great
pleasure and happiness. Order is synonymous with happiness.

The Chapters of this book, I want to list the chapters as to
the most convincing evidence that proves the Atom Totality
theory starting with chapter 3, and saving chapters 1 & 2
to explain the theory and provide ascii art pictures of the
Plutonium Atom Totality.

Chapters of this book:

(1) what is this theory?
(2) pictures of the Atom Totality theory and history
of the theory and precursor hints

Observational and experimental support

(3) density and distribution of galaxies
(4) Tifft quantized galaxy speeds
(5) layered age of Cosmos with 6.5 billion years old 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 Earth and Sun are likely to be twice as old as Jupiter.

(6) Cores of the Solar System destroys both the Big Bang theory and
Nebular Dust Cloud theory and what replaces them is the Atom
Totality theory and Growing Solar System via Dirac Radioactivities.

(7) uniform blackbody 2.71 K cosmic microwave background radiation
and the Dark Night sky: Olber's Paradox
(8) missing mass conundrum and the cosmic distribution of chemical
elements
(9) shape of the Cosmos as 6 lobes of 5f6 as nonrelativistic as Cubic
or as
relativistic Dodecahedron
(10) color of the cosmos as plutonium off-white

Mathematical and logic beauty support
(11) inverse fine structure constant and proton to electron mass ratio
explained
(12) "pi" and "e" explained
(13) Atomic Theory as the foundation of science universal laws and the
Atomic theory Syllogism
(14) Future News and Research Reports supporting the
Atom Totality Theory and future news and research reports commentary

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

[plutonium....@gmail.com]

(12) Bell Inequality with Superdeterminism fits only in an Atom
Totality theory
(13) "pi" and "e" explained
(14) Unification of Forces of Physics to that of one force-- Coulomb
force
makes sense only in an Atom Totality
(15) Gravity becomes the Dirac Ocean of positron-space in a Coulomb
Unification
(16) Atomic Theory as the foundation of science universal laws such
as the Maxwell Equations
(17) Physics due to Atom Totality makes all the other sciences,
especially
mathematics as tiny subsets inside of physics
(18) Atomic theory Syllogism
(19) Future News and Research Reports supporting the

[plutonium....@gmail.com]

From here on out I shorten the title;

> > #1 new book; ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY REPLACES BIG BANG
> > THEORY IN PHYSICS
> >

And I do not need a preface or introduction for the chapter 1 :
What is this Theory? dispenses the need for a preface and
introduction.

A serious and important book does not need blabbering blubber
but can dive right into the action. And should dive into the action.

Now probably that chapter list will change frequently but it gives me
a order guidance.

What I want to do is talk about the most immediate and highly
supportive
evidence that the Atom Totality theory is the true theory and that the
Big
Bang is a fake theory.

I believe what will happen is that the astronomy and cosmology physics
will highly support and indicate the truth of the Atom Totality theory
but
since the distances are so far away, that the pattern and distribution
of
galaxies that is equal to the distribution of the electron-dots of the
electron-
dot-cloud of a Plutonium Atom is not enough evidence for the weak
minded
physicist. And that the overwhelming evidence that even the weak
minded
physicist cannot dismiss will be evidence in our own backyard-- our
Solar
System.

So the day in which it is announced that say the Earth and Sun are
twice
as old as Jupiter and Saturn, is the day in which the Atom Totality
theory
will remove the Big Bang theory. Or the day in which it is found a
chemical substance that dates the Solar System at 10 billion years of
age.

That the acceptance of one theory over an old theory takes place if
the
evidence is nearby. It is sad that science and physics rely on
closeness or
nearby evidence even though faraway evidence becomes overwhelming.

As for my own journey with the Atom Totality theory, it was never that
of
supporting data or supporting evidence. It was from the start in
November
of 1990, that the beauty of symmetry or harmony that the Universe had
to
be an atom just as all matter is of atoms, that the Atom Totality
theory was
borne. The logical symmetry and beauty allowed me to discover it, much
like the discoveries by Dirac in the early 1900s with quantum
mechanics,
that the logical symmetry demands it to be true. And then afterwards
mount the supporting data.

So the above listed chapters are what I consider the best available
evidence that the Atom Totality theory is the true theory and that the
Big Bang is a fake theory.

[plutonium....@gmail.com]

Chapter 1: What Is This Theory

In as few of words as possible to describe this theory is my signature
block for my posts to the Internet:

The whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies.

If you look in a chemistry textbook of what an electron looks like,
it is not a ball shaped object but a whole lot of little dots that
form
a cloud. So the Atom Totality theory is basically the idea that
the dots of the electron-cloud are galaxies in the night sky.

So as you look up in the night sky and see shiny white dots as
galaxies and as stars, those white dots are mass-pieces of the
last six electrons of 231Plutonium.

To describe the rival theory of the Big Bang theory would go like
this:

The universe arose from a big explosion.

That is the sum total to the Big Bang theory. It is simplistic and
does not have much
information. It does not tell us why it exploded and the Big Bang
theory is not
Quantum Mechanics.

The Atom Totality theory is all Quantum Mechanics for it posits that
only atoms,
including the Universe itself, exist. And the Atom Totality theory is
a consistent theory
since it posits that only atoms exist. All matter is composed of atoms
but science
neglected to complete the picture of logic by realizing that the whole
entire universe
must also be an atom.

Laypersons and nonscientists and even a large proportion of alleged
scientists have
two major problems and errors with the Atom Totality theory and these
two errors are
this:

(1) They cannot envision how the universe we see is the inside of one
big atom

(2) They mistakenly think that since plutonium is radioactive that the
Atom Totality will decay away and poof!!-out-goes-the-Universe. Here
one minute and gone the next type of mistake.

So how do I answer those two most often errors that both laypersons
and even most
trained scientists make as listed in (1) and (2) above?

I answer them by saying look at a chemistry textbook of the electron-
dot-cloud of atoms.
Their mistake is that they think the electron is a single ball that
goes moving around the
nucleus of an atom. It maybe a ball when the atom is collapsed
wavefunction such as the
moving of electricity in a wire. But an atom that is Uncollapsed
wavefunction has its
electrons as dot-clouds. The electron is a large cloud around the
nucleus of the atom and
is a huge number of dots. Each one of those dots is a tiny hunk or
piece of the electron.
So that if all the dots were put together then the electron would be a
ball. So now we begin
to understand how a plutonium atom of its electrons is the galaxies of
the night sky. That
each galaxy we see in the night sky is a tiny piece of an electron of
the Atom Totality.

If you examine a chemistry textbook of the 5f6 or the s, or the p or
the d or the f orbital of
a electron you will see a electron-dot-cloud. That the electron is not
a ball but those huge
number of dots.

So now we can easily envision the Atom Totality theory. We look at the
night sky of all
those dots of light. Some of those dots of light are stars and some
are galaxies. And now
we look at the chemistry textbook of what an electron looks like and
it is a bunch of
dots around a nucleus. So that is the crux of the Atom Totality
theory, that galaxies
and stars (galaxies are just a concentration of stars) are dots of the
electron dot cloud
and so we are living inside one big atom. And the chemical element
that fits the numbers
of physics and mathematics the very best is the chemical element
plutonium.

Now to answer the other most often mistake by laypersons and even
those who call themselves
scientists is the notion that if the Atom Totality was plutonium that
it would decay and be gone.
The answer I give is that radioactivity is time itself. That our
universe, our cosmos would not have
time if the Atom Totality were not radioactive, or, at least, it would
not have sufficient and ample enough
time to run the universe, like a machine that does not run well, or
like an animal or plant that does not
grow fast enough. Time is merely change of matter in position. If
every atom stood still and in place
and never changed position, then there would be no time. Life could
not exist if every atom were to stand
still and not move relative to other atoms. So, to answer why the Atom
Totality is a radioactive element
is to say that you want the Universe to be a entity that has alot of
change going on and radioactivity
provides that change. We see this change every day in Cosmic particles
of protons appearing uniformly
and of Cosmic gamma ray bursts. Radioactivity of the Atom Totality is
what makes stars and planets
come into existence in that the daily accretion of particles of
radioactivity from the Nucleus of the Plutonium
Atom Totality is what gives us our Sun and Earth and Solar System and
Milky Way Galaxy.

Summary: The Atom Totality Theory is easy to state for it simply says
that the Universe itself is one big
atom and the chemical element that fits the special constants and
numbers of physics and mathematics
the best is plutonium, specifically 231Pu. When one asks for a similar
explanation of the Big Bang theory
one gets no description whatsoever other than to say "explosion
happened". And the two most often
made mistakes about the Atom Totality theory is the error that an
electron is a single ball and the error
that plutonium radioactivity is incompatible or incongruent with an
Atom Totality.

P.S. Today I spent some considerable time searching my own mind
of the past. Searching for when it was in my youth that I realized and
understood the Atomic theory of Democritus that all matter is composed
of atoms. Now the 5th and 6th grade schools is when I was 11 and 12
years old. And I remember reading comic books titled "Metal Men"
and that was the 5th grade and I remember in 5th or 6th grade a
fellow student brought a glass tube of mercury and watching him
play with it on the desktop. From the comic books, I can thus remember
that I knew the Atomic theory was already in my mind and whether
I had read about the Atomic theory from another book, I do not recall.
I am trying to remember when I saw the chemical periodic table for the
first time. I do not remember whether in grade school or later. So if
I were to have to put a date time on when I knew and understood the
Atomic theory of Ancient Greeks, I would say I was 11 years old.

Now is 11 years of age a common time for youngsters to be cognizant
of the fact that all matter consists of chemical elements and only
those
elements on the periodic table? And whether most youngsters, like
myself
probably realized the Atomic theory without ever having it lectured to
them or read about it in some book. That the Atomic theory is easy
enough
of a idea that our minds can come to its concept by its own effort.
And then
later, perhaps age 13 or 14 or 15, I was lectured about the Atomic
theory
or read it in a book. I do recall reading something about how
Democritus
would explain water as a fluid because the atoms were round and
rolling
and that "hot or heat" was atoms pointed and sharp, so that
characteristics
of materials would be due to geometry of the atoms composing the
materials.

But I just wanted to discuss this history of mine own learning of the
Atomic
theory in that I seemed to have had it all along and at the age of
about
11 years old, I was fully cognizant that all matter was composed of
atoms
that were listed on a periodic chart. I wanted to talk about this to
point out
how simple of an idea the Atomic theory is and that people can come to
it
in their own minds without ever having been lectured or read about it.
At
least that was my case. But also, how simple it is to go that one step
further
and to realize that if all matter consists of the atoms listed in a
table, that a
small step further would complete the logic of how the world works, in
that
the Universe itself is an atom. But of course, for me that would be
when I
was 40 years old. So when I was 11 years old, I realized the Atomic
theory
from my mind's eye and then from 11 to age 40, I would put those two
together that if all Matter is made up of atoms, and surely the
Universe is
matter, that it be an atom.

The Atom Totality theory is easy and simple to explain, and I would
guess
that if other people, like me, can come to know the Atomic Theory
independently
of books or lectured to at age 11, that they too, can come to the Atom
Totality theory easily, independently in a older age. Few theories of
science
can it be said that you can arrive at the theory by age 11,
independent of book
learning or lectured to. So a Hallmark of the Atom Totality theory is
that
it is simplicity itself. For once a person realizes the Atomic theory,
then to
lecture the person a tiny bit more by saying the Cosmos is itself an
atom.
Well, that is supreme simplicity.

[plutonium....@gmail.com]

I am going to spend a little more time on this notion of "independent
discovery"
of the Atomic Theory when one is about 10 to 15 years old. And I have
included
sci.edu vice sci.astro for this post. Because I am fascinated that we
can
each of us, go back in times through our thoughts and sort of piece
together
when you "knew something".

So yesterday I was trying to piece together when I, as a youngster
knew of the
Atomic theory. My knowing was not a lecture thereof nor a reading
thereof. At
least my vague memory suggests that. So I traced back to known facts
that
happened and I was reading comic books of "Metal Men" in the 5th and
6th grade so I was about 10 to 12 years old, somewhere in there. And I
remember
clearly a classmate brought into school a tiny droplet of mercury and
was playing
with it on his desktop. Something that no youngster should ever do for
the
dangers of mercury are so vast. And probably one of the first things
to teach
a child is that mercury is so vastly dangerous.

So I traced my past history back to Metal Men comic books and this
mercury
in sight of a youngster playing with it and by that time I had firmly
in mind that
"all matter was composed of atoms" From the Metal Men comic books I
would
have known the chemical periodic table, not that it was in one of the
comic books
but that my curiosity would have been piqued and would have gone to
the school
library to have seen the chart of elements. I was probably 11 years
old but
let me say I was 10 years old because when I was 40 years old, or a 30
year
difference, I would discover the Atom Totality theory. So at 10, I
independently
rediscovered the Atomic theory and as 30 years transpired, I would
discover
the Atom Totality theory.

But the point I want to stir in the education system is the question
of whether
most every student that becomes a scientist, whether they
independently discover
the Atomic theory in their youth of about age 10 to 12. That they are
surrounded
in their environment by talk and visuals of chemical elements and at
that age of
10 to 12, their minds are good enough to independently discover the
Ancient
Greek theory of the Atomic theory. I do not think I am a isolated
case, but I think
that most every person that becomes a scientist, probably discovered
independently
the Atomic theory.

Now when I rediscovered the Atomic theory at age 10-11, it was not a
clear
theory, something that would pass a test on the Atomic theory because
at that age I would not have had the concepts of matter as gaseous.
Basically
what I would have had was "all things are made up of those 92 elements
on
that chart" I would have had the concept of "compound"

As to when I met the Atomic theory formally, in a classroom or a book,
it is
hard to say. If it had been in a school textbook, I am sure that would
have
been its formal introduction to me. I do remember reading about the
Atomic
theory and that they originally thought the attributes of matter were
linked to
the geometry of the atoms involved so that a liquid was such because
the atoms
were round and could roll over one another.

And also, another facet of this, is that the Atom Totality theory
posits Superdeterminism
which in turn posits that the minds of all living things must be
controlled by a
Control Center which would be the Nucleus of the Cosmic Atom. In order
to
satisfy the Bell Inequality with its Superdeterminism, that the mind
of a human
must be controlled by the Nucleus and so all human's are puppets. That
our
every thought, and our every action was "ordered up" and shot into our
brain
to a brain-locus (a single atom) which then sets in motion the thought
or action.
So the brain and the mind are like a TV or radio set that makes us
think and do
what the Nucleus of the Atom Totality has us do.

[plutonium....@gmail.com]

What is the theory of the Atom Totality? One way to explore the
question
is to compare the Atom Totality theory to its rival the Big Bang.

I should say alot more about the remarkable deficiency of the stating
of what the Big Bang theory is. Given the most active advocate of the
Big Bang theory and asked
to write a chapter about "What is the Big Bang theory" that it would
be hard to write beyond one paragraph explaining the Big Bang theory
for
about all that can be said is "there was an explosion." And I would
suppose
the advocate would then refer to some book about the Big Bang which
talks
about what happened after 3 minutes, after 4 minutes, etc etc.

When flawed science exists in the world of science, it is hard to
explain or
detail it and it becomes very vague, like the Big Bang theory. And it
leaves
more questions than any answers. What caused the Big Bang and what
was the material of matter/energy of the Big Bang and what is time in
a Big Bang? And why are all the Quantum Mechanics laws and rules
violated by the Big Bang and when does the laws or rules of
Quantum Mechanics come into existence for the Big Bang.

So that if any scientist in the world at present were to write a book
on the
Big Bang theory with similar chapters as this book on the Atom
Totality theory
that the book would be horribly short in any detail.

In fact I could write a whole book on just this chapter alone for the
Atom
Totality theory because it can include all that is known about the
chemical
elements and Atomic theory and Quantum Mechanics.

But the Big Bang book writer faced with a chapter on "What is this Big
Bang theory"
can say only about a sentence or paragraph -- It was a Cosmic
Explosion which
created the Universe" What made it explode? What was it in the first
place? And why does the Big Bang offer no clues as to the future,
or the purpose of life?

You see, when science has theories that cannot explain things, then
you should and
must distrust the theory. When the theory does not connect with other
science and
when the theory violates other physics theories such as Quantum
Mechanics, then
the sensible person should not buy the theory.

In the past history of physics there have been other theories
that were false
and which followed a similar deficiency of unable to detail what the
theory is. The
phlogiston theory for heat and the fluidia theory for electricity are
examples of
old theories in physics which could not detail or explain the basic
foundations of
the theory. So you say heat is a fluid or you say that electricity is
a fluid, but that
never gives you any details of either heat or electricity.

So I invite the most enamored lover of the Big Bang theory to write a
chapter on
the Big Bang of "What this Big Bang theory is" since I cannot see how
they
can say anything more than "there was a big explosion." In fact the
name Big
Bang theory suggests it is incapable of detailing the theory because
if it had
been named Big Explosion theory then the explanation may have said
"in the beginning was a big-bang."

On the other hand, the Atom Totality theory is so immensely rich of a
science theory,
that I could write a thousand pages alone on this one chapter.

And a counterpart who loves the Big Bang theory writing about the
supporting
evidence for the Big Bang theory would have only one chapter of
supporting evidence
in the observation of a red shift expansion of the universe. So other
than that
observation, the Big Bang theory has no other supporting evidence. Not
even the
Cosmic Microwave Radiation supports the Big Bang because it is a
quantized
radiation at 2.71 K and utterly uniform with no fluctuations. The
alleged fluctuations
in recent past years were due to the fact that the precision of the
measuring instruments
had been surpassed. So for the past decades of the Big Bang theory,
they have only
one evidence that supports the Big Bang, whereas this book has more
than 20 different categories and subcategories of evidence to support
the Atom Totality theory.

What is the theme or message of this inability or deficiency of
explaining in detail what a
theory of science is? The theme is that if a theory of science has a
difficult time of
explaining its foundations, then it is likely to not be a theory of
science but a fakery.

However, I do want to leave on a good note for the Big Bang theory.
The Big Bang
can be incorporated inside the Atom Totality theory given some
modifications.
In that when the Atom Totality went from a Uranium Atom Totality to
that of a
Plutonium Atom Totality via what I am guessing was a act of
Spontaneous
Fission that we can consider that act as a Mini Bang.

But the reverse is not possible of fitting the Atom Totality theory
inside of the
Big Bang theory. And when LeMaitre first wrote about the Big Bang
theory, 1920s
or 1930s he called it the "Primeval Atom". So the explanation was the
explosion of a primeval-atom.

I should make some comments on the features of true science. That when
science gets
caught up in a debate between two rival competing theories, is there a
logical testing
procedure which can indicate, not prove mind you, which of the two
theories is more
true than the other? I believe the above two paragraphs may have
uncovered a test of
validity for rival theories.

The test is that if one theory can incorporate the other theory given
some modifications
of the other theory then it is more likely true and the second false.
And where the second
theory is never able to incorporate the first theory given
modifications of the first theory.

Now the underlying Logic of that test is the idea that a true theory
cannot be modified to
accomodate a false theory and thus be incorporated inside the false
theory. Whereas a
false theory can be modified and then fit inside the true theory.

An analogy for the layperson is a crime mystery murder investigation
such as the CSI
movies. Where two witnesses one telling the full truth and the second
telling a story
riddled with lies. So the true story cannot be modified to fit into
the liar's story, but the
liar's story can be modified to fit into the true story. Anyway, you
get a flavor of where
I am going with this Test of Rival competing theories.

Now can we go back in science history and see if such a test would
have worked or helped
in the unraveling of which of two rival theories was more true than
the other? How about
Continental Drift and its rival of Convection Currents? How about
Darwin Evolution and its
rival of Lamarckian traits? Or Darwin Evolution and its rival of
Biblical Genesis? Or how about
in astronomy the competing theories of geocentric and heliocentric
solar system? Or how about
the rival theories of light as particle or light as wave?

About the best example of rival competing theories where the test
works well is the Newtonian
Mechanics versus Quantum Mechanics. Best example because we still
consider Newtonian Mechanics
as a subset of QM for slow moving and massive objects.

But is the test useful only for physics?

I do not think so, because in biology I have a recent theory of metal
causation for five diseases of
Alzheimer Autism Parkinson Prion and Schizophrenia. And where the test
applies in that a rival
Prion theory of rogue proteins is modified to fit inside the metal
theory but where the Metal theory
cannot be modified to fit inside the rogue protein only theory. So
here is a case example of
two rival theories being put to this test and where the Metal theory
is conferred more truth value than
the rival prion theory.

I am not going to spend time here on this test but just thought I
should comment on it since it stuck
out in my above writing.

[plutonium....@gmail.com]

Archimedes Plutonium

[plutonium....@gmail.com]

plutonium.archime...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> The test is that if one theory can incorporate the other theory given
> some modifications
> of the other theory then it is more likely true and the second false.
> And where the second
> theory is never able to incorporate the first theory given
> modifications of the first theory.

The above is garbled. I should do better.

The test is that if theory A can incorporate theory B, given
some modifications of B, but where theory B
can never incorporate theory A given some modifications of
A. Then theory A is likely to be the true theory.

I am taking the liberty of replacing that entire paragraph in the
original.

[lwa...@lausd.net]

On Apr 24, 9:43 pm, plutonium.archime...@gmail.com wrote:
> Now is 11 years of age a common time for youngsters to be cognizant
> of the fact that all matter consists of chemical elements and only
> those elements on the periodic table?

Yes.

Here in California, as it is in many states in the U.S, here's
something called Content Standards, which determine what the
students are expected to learn in each grade. And so we read:

"Grade Five:
Physical Sciences:

1. Elements and their combinations account for all the varied
types of matter in the world. As a basis for understanding this
concept:

a. Students know that during chemical reactions the atoms in
the reactants rearrange to form products with different
properties.

b. Students know all matter is made of atoms, which may combine
to form molecules.

c. Students know metals have properties in common, such as high
electrical and thermal conductivity. Some metals, such as
aluminum (Al), iron (Fe), Nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), silver
(Ag), and gold (Au), are pure elements; others, such as steel
and brass, are composed of a combination of elemental metals.

d. Students know that each element is made of one type of atom
and that the elements are organized in the periodic table by
their chemical properties.

And so on. Indeed, at the following link:

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/documents/gr5scirefcma.pdf

there is a periodic table. Notice that right at the top, it
reads, "Grade Five Science Reference Sheet."

I don't know about other states, but a quick Google search
for "periodic table fifth grade" reveals a number of other
states, mostly in the South (GA, LA, SD, VA) that also give
the periodic table as a fifth grade Content Standard.

Therefore, there's nothing extraordinary about AP learning
about the periodic table and the atomic theory in the fifth
grade, because that's the normal age for students to hear
about it for the first time.

[plutonium....@gmail.com]

Alright, thank you very much. If it is taught as standard in 5th
grade in California, I would expect that Anderson High School
near Cincinnati Ohio would have taught the Atomic Theory in
5th grade also. That would have been 1960 and I was 10 years
old.

So my memory was not that good. That the classroom books
and lecture probably was where I learned the Atomic theory
and that I had not independently rediscovered the Atomic theory.

Not to say that I had no predilection, no precognition for the
theory before I was formally introduced to the theory. I may
have had some preformed notions of the theory. And then
when lectured or read the theory that I had it fully in tow.

I suppose we can easily experiment socially on this. That we can
in a pleasant manner sort of question a group of 9 year olds
to see if any of them have a pre Atomic Theory already in their
minds. They say there are musical savants at age 5. So can we
somehow talk about the chemical elements around a group of
5 year olds without ever saying the Atomic theory, and can we
expect any of them "knows the Atomic theory?" Trouble here is
the lack of vocabulary for these youngsters to communicate.

And the Atomic Theory should resemble the learning of "how
to tell time" from a clock. That we mature to an age where our
mind can read the clock without having any supervision or training
on how to read the clock. So I suspect the learning of the Atomic
Theory should follow a similar path. That we learn there are chemical
elements and then we put together the pieces of the puzzle and
realize the Atomic theory. So that would mean that everyone who
never went to school would have likely come upon the Atomic theory
in their own minds, just as they understood how to read the clock.

[plutonium....@gmail.com]

Before I start, I like to comment on some very, very interesting
research
coming out of the "Dust collected of Comets" near Earth. In that a
National Geographic report that some of this dust is older than 4.5
billion years.

When it is reported of some dust that is 8 billion or 9 or 10 billion
years
old. Well, there goes the Nebular Dust Cloud theory along with the Big
Bang theory and in comes the Dirac Radioactivity theory with the
Atom Totality.

As I said earlier, science news that is close to home is the most
compelling
rather than any other news since the faraway distances always conjures
up the idea that something was unaccounted for in the observations.

The most compelling evidence that the Atom Totality is true and the
Big Bang is a fake, is the pattern of the galaxies in the Great Wall
and Sloan Great Wall. Such a pattern is what is found for the electron-
dot-
cloud of plutonium. Such a pattern is not in agreement with a Big
Bang.

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

Relativistic Physics has the energy of light at E = mc^2

NonRelativistic Physics has the kinetic energy at E = 1/2mv^2

Notice that one is 1/2 and the other is 1. That is important as
to the shape of the Atom Totality whether it is 6 sided or 12 sided.

Simple version of what a plutonium atom looks like:

. \ . . | . /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
_ _

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

There are six lobes and those lines represent those 6 lobes and all
the dots represent the
last 6 electrons as a electron dot cloud. Each dot is a galaxy in the
night sky. So when
we look up in the nighttime at the Night Sky and see all those stars
and galaxies we are
looking at pieces of the last six electrons of one gigantic big atom
of plutonium.

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

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

[David R Tribble]

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Before I start, I like to comment on some very, very interesting
> research
> coming out of the "Dust collected of Comets" near Earth. In that a
> National Geographic report that some of this dust is older than 4.5
> billion years.
>
> When it is reported of some dust that is 8 billion or 9 or 10 billion
> years
> old. Well, there goes the Nebular Dust Cloud theory along with the Big
> Bang theory and in comes the Dirac Radioactivity theory with the
> Atom Totality.

You're talking about interstellar dust particles that were
created from first and second generation supernovae
predating, and providing the raw material for, the formation
of our solar system.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presolar_grains
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_dust

[plutonium....@gmail.com]

There is going to be a point in my life where I no longer am able to
think
back and tell the history of the Atom Totality theory, where I forget
the
succession of events and where my mind is too old or for whatever
reason
unable to tell this story accurately. So it is good that this history
account
is told in every one of these editions before I reach that inability
stage.
And I want to make each edition
better reading than the previous one. This 3rd edition is going to be
shorter.
I can cut out alot of the details and sort of skip to major points. I
am
going to start this history by accounting the history of the discovery
of the
Atom Totality theory, 7 November 1990. I am going to start the story
from
1975 when I was 25 years old and teaching math in Australia and
reading this
book on Pragmatism. Earlier editions give a larger version of this
history,
but I want a abbreviated one now. And this history is going to use
books
as the succession of events.

History of discovery of Atom Totality Theory as per books read:

(1) I read a pretty idea from the mathematician C.S.
Peirce who wrote "The Architecture of Theories" in 1891
that the universe is crystallizing-out.

--- quoting FOUR PRAGMATISTS by I. Scheffler, 1974
---
Peirce's The Architecture of Theories...
...would be a Cosmogonic Philosophy. It would
suppose
that in the beginning - infinitely remote - there was
a chaos
of unpersonalized feeling, which being without
connection or
regularity would properly be without existence. This
feeling,
sporting here and there in pure arbitrariness, would
have
started the germ of a generalizing tendency. Its other
sportings would be evanescent, but this would have a
growing
virtue. Thus, the tendency to habit would be started;
and
from this, with the other principles of evolution, all
the
regularities of the universe would be evolved. At any
time,
however, an element of pure chance survives and will
remain
until the world becomes an absolutely perfect,
rational,
and symmetrical system, in which mind is at last
crystallized in the infinitely distant future.
--- end quoting FOUR PRAGMATISTS ---

The first time I read this was in 1975, and I was so impressed
with that paragraph that I remembered it clearly by 1989
when it would come to me in a torrent of creativity.

I remember in 1989 in my apartment flat in New Hampshire
of this Pierce Cosmology coming into my mind. Almost
out of the blue, for it just came to me where I asked a
question. I had remembered this crystallizing out that
Pierce had written and asked the question, what in the
world is worthy of crystallizing out *into*? Is there anything
in existence worthy of crystallizing-into? And the answer
was, for me in 1989, yes, crystallizing out into becoming
an atom. That atoms were nearly perfect entities and the
only thing near to perfect as far as the world understands
perfect.

And now that I look back from 2009 to 1989 which was
20 years ago (my, time does fly), one would think that
I should have had the Atom Totality theory right then and
there. But actual discovery takes twists and turns and pauses.
The 1989 event for me was the setting-up of the discovery
of the Atom Totality theory. I think if my memory is correct
and too lazy to check in my archive that I called this 1989 event
the Atom Equinox since I think it was Autumn of 1989, or it
could have been the Spring of 1989, for I cannot remember
at this moment. (And why it is important to write these
things while I still can). Anyway, this 1989 event set the stage
for the discovery of the Atom Totality theory of 7 November
1990.

Before I get to 1990, I need to talk about another book that
was pivotal in the discovery. It was a book, but also a TV
series called COSMOS by Sagan. And I specifically remember
this segment from the TV series with its beautiful Vangelis
music that accompanied this verse:

I had watched on TV the series COSMOS , and
remembered
a paragraph which I looked-up in the book COSMOS
on pages 265-267.

--- quoting from book COSMOS ---

[pages 265-267] There is an idea--strange, haunting,
evocative- one of the most exquisite conjectures in
science or religion. It is entirely undemonstrated;
it may never be proved. But it stirs the blood.
There
is , we are told, an infinite hierarchy of universes,
so that an elementary particle, such as an electron,
in our universe would, if penetrated, reveal itself to
be an entire closed universe. Within it, organized
into the local equivalent of galaxies and smaller
structures, are an immense number of other, much
tinier elementary particles, which are themselves
universe at the next level, and so on forever- an
infinite downward regression, universes within
universes, endlessly. And upward as well. Our
familiar universe of galaxies and stars, planets
and people, would be a single elementary particle
in the next universe up, the first step of another
infinite regress.

--- end quoting COSMOS ---

Actually it was the music that made me tape record
it from the TV while I was in the Navy in the early
1980s and taped it over repeatedly so that for
1/2 hour of tape I would hear the above words
and the Vangelis music over and over again. I no
longer know what exact year that was, perhaps
1983.

So there I was, 1989 with the Pierce crystallizing out
of the Cosmos and with Sagan's Elementary Particle Cosmos
going into the year 1990.

Let me repeat, for more details, anyone can read my earlier
edition of the 2nd edition or possibly my 1991 copyrighted
manuscript that I sent to the Library of Congress and I posted
in the timeframe of 1993 and beyond to the sci newsgroups.

So here is the beginning of 1990, the year 1990 with me
set-up in my mind the Four Pragmatist paragraph of
crystallizing out of the Cosmos and with Sagan's paragraph
in Cosmos TV show of a "elementary particle universe".

So there I was with those two ideas mixing and turning
in my mind in 1989 and 1990, and then a third book that
finally tips the scales and sends me into a major discovery.

This book was the textbook:
Halliday & Resnick textbook PHYSICS, Part 2, Extended
Version , 1986, of page
572. This is a large electron cloud dot picture for
which I quote the caption.
--- quoting ---
CHAP.26 CHARGE AND MATTER.
Figure 26-5
An atom, suggesting the electron
cloud and, above, an enlarged view
of the nucleus.
--- end quoting ---

If you happen to have the book and look at the picture, the dots
are vastly too dense. But it was this picture that connected the dots
(sorry for the pun) for my mind on the morning of 7 November 1990.

You see, the dots of the electron cloud are the

galaxies of the night sky.

The dots of the electron cloud are actual mass chunks
or pieces of the last 6
electrons, the 5f6 of 231PU.

So in 1989 I had the Cosmos as crystallizing out in the future and
the only near perfect thing is an atom. And I had the nested
elementary
particle universe in Sagan's COSMOS tv show. Then on the
morning of 7 November 1990, and putting the Halliday Resnick
physics textbook picture of an Electron-Dot-Cloud to the night
sky of stars and galaxies. Eureka, I had put together that the
Universe was already an Atom and had always been an Atom
and that the nightsky of stars and galaxies were pieces of the
last electrons of an Atom Totality.

So I quickly went to the library in New Hampshire to find out
what atomic element
would fit best the present day Cosmos? And to my delight, it was
the element plutonium. Later I would find out that 231Pu gives the
fine-structure-constant the best, along with the mass ratio of
proton to electron.

The above is a brief summary of the chain of events, and anyone
wanting more details can read my earlier editions or posts to the
sci newsgroups. As I get older, I run the risk of inaccurate memory,
but with age, also, I tend to want to summarize more than prior
renditions.

In my next post I want to recall the Atomic theory history with the
Atom Totality theory history. Especially a report that Democritus
may have believed in a SuperAtom that was the entire Cosmos itself.
It is likely to have been true, with the only hindrance that the
ancients
did not have a chemical table of the periodic elements.

[plutonium....@gmail.com]

plutonium.archime...@gmail.com wrote:

snipped to save on space

I looked it up and I gave it a special name since it occurred
during the Autumn Equinox and called it the Autumnal Electronox
or Electronox for short.

I will change this sentence in the original followed by a (sic).

[plutonium....@gmail.com]

Let me just give #9 a rewrite since I made too many typing mistakes
and other mistakes:

of this Peirce Cosmology coming into my mind. Almost

out of the blue, for it just came to me where I asked a
question. I had remembered this crystallizing out that

Peirce had written and asked the question, what in the

world is worthy of crystallizing out *into*? Is there anything
in existence worthy of crystallizing-into? And the answer
was, for me in 1989, yes, crystallizing out into becoming
an atom. That atoms were nearly perfect entities and the
only thing near to perfect as far as the world understands
perfect.

And now that I look back from 2009 to 1989 which was
20 years ago (my, time does fly), one would think that
I should have had the Atom Totality theory right then and
there. But actual discovery takes twists and turns and pauses.
The 1989 event for me was the setting-up of the discovery

of the Atom Totality theory. I gave this 1989 event a special

name since it occurred during the Autumn Equinox and called

it the Autumnal Electronox or Electronox for short. This 1989

event set the stage for the discovery of the Atom Totality
theory of 7 November 1990.

Before I get to 1990, I need to talk about another book that
was pivotal in the discovery. It was a book, but also a TV
series called COSMOS by Sagan. And I specifically remember
this segment from the TV series with its beautiful Vangelis
music that accompanied this verse:

(2) I had watched on TV the series COSMOS , and

So there I was, 1989 with the Peirce crystallizing out

of the Cosmos and with Sagan's Elementary Particle Cosmos
going into the year 1990.

Let me repeat, for more details, anyone can read my earlier
edition of the 2nd edition or possibly my 1991 copyrighted
manuscript that I sent to the Library of Congress and I posted
in the timeframe of 1993 and beyond to the sci newsgroups.

So here is the beginning of 1990, the year 1990 with me
set-up in my mind the Four Pragmatist paragraph of
crystallizing out of the Cosmos and with Sagan's paragraph
in Cosmos TV show of a "elementary particle universe".

So there I was with those two ideas mixing and turning
in my mind in 1989 and 1990, and then a third book that
finally tips the scales and sends me into a major discovery.

(3) This book was the textbook:

and that the night-sky of stars and galaxies were pieces of the

last electrons of an Atom Totality.

Looking back now, here in 2009, it does not look like it had
to be a huge step forward in logic to go from:
(1) Universe crystallizing out in the future as an atom
(2) Universe as nested elementary-particles

going from (1) and (2) to that of the Night Sky of galaxies are
the dots in the electron-dot-cloud and therefore the Universe
is already an Atom Totality. That the Universe had always
been an Atom Totality.

Reflection back now, it seems as though I should have discovered
the Atom Totality in 1989, but a new discovery often takes a
windy journey rather than a straightline to discovery.

So I quickly went to the library in New Hampshire to find out
what atomic element

would fit best the present day Cosmos? At that moment I
was not looking for exacting detailed evidence of a chemical
element such as the Fine Structure Constant or the Proton to
Electron mass ratio. I was looking for something much more simple
and immediate. I was looking for what element would have a
radius expansion from previous element to give a red shift in
galaxies. And to my delight, it was

the element plutonium. Later I would find out that 231Pu gives the
fine-structure-constant the best, along with the mass ratio of
proton to electron.

The above is a brief summary of the chain of events, and anyone
wanting more details can read my earlier editions or posts to the
sci newsgroups. As I get older, I run the risk of inaccurate memory,
but with age, also, I tend to want to summarize more than prior
renditions.

In my next post I want to recall the Atomic theory history with the
Atom Totality theory history. Especially a report that Democritus
may have believed in a SuperAtom that was the entire Cosmos itself.
It is likely to have been true, with the only hindrance that the
ancients
did not have a chemical table of the periodic elements.

Archimedes Plutonium

[plutonium....@gmail.com]

plutonium.archime...@gmail.com wrote:
(snipped)

> In my next post I want to recall the Atomic theory history with the
> Atom Totality theory history. Especially a report that Democritus
> may have believed in a SuperAtom that was the entire Cosmos itself.
> It is likely to have been true, with the only hindrance that the
> ancients
> did not have a chemical table of the periodic elements.
>

I am not going to talk about the Ancient Greeks with the Atomic
Theory.
There is plenty of literature on them. From Thales of Miletus with
amber
and lodestone of (-550 De Rerum Natura). To Leucippus as the founder
of the Atomic Theory and his most famous student Democritus (-400
De Rerum Natura) to Epicurus to Titus Lucretius who wrote De Rerum
Natura (0000 date time).

Notice that I use a system of date time that places the calendar as
the
year in which De Rerum Natura was widespread. So I link Science to
the calendar. So when I think of the year 2009, to me it means two
thousand nine years since De Rerum Natura was widespread and the
Atomic
Theory was here on Earth.

I am not going to dwell on the Ancient Greeks and the Atomic Theory
for it is
easily accessible to anyone wanting as much information as they so
desire.

But I will talk about two other books before the Atom Totality theory
that
existed before I was born and which have a link to the Atom Totality
theory.

To keep my numbering in order this should be the book number (4).

--- start of quote from Encyclopedia Britannica 1992
---
Lemaitre, Georges (b. July 17, 1894, Charleroi,
Belg.--d.
June 20, 1966, Louvain), Belgian astronomer and
cosmologist who formulated the modern big-bang theory,

which holds that the universe began in a cataclysmic
explosion of a small, primeval "super-atom."
.... His works
include Discussion sur l'evolution de l'univers
(1933; "Discussion on the Evolution of the Universe")
and L'Hypothese de l'atome primitif
(1946; "Hypothesis of the Primeval Atom")
--- end of quote from Encyclopedia Britannica 1992 ---

The reason I bring up Lemaitre is that several
times in
his writings he refers to his Big Bang as the
"Primeval Atom"
as a description of the initial Big Bang in its
point-singularity, the universe as a point-complex of
matter radiation. Obviously Lemaitre used "primeval
atom"
as a purely descriptive term never claiming that the
present universe was an atom itself. Anyone whoever
claims to have had the Atom Totality theory would
have to make the obvious next step that they in fact
originated the theory by giving details as to what
chemical element the present universe actually is.
Sagan never had the Atom Totality or else he would
have specified a chemical element. Lemaitre never
had the Atom Totality or he would have specified
a chemical element.

Lemaitre's primeval atom had no effect on my
journey to discovery of that Atom Totality theory.
But just the idea of "primeval atom" as the start of the
Big Bang should have ignited the imagination of
many scientists into the next exciting question--
could the Cosmos be an atom itself? And can we
make a different Born Interpretation of the electron-dot-cloud
to accomodate a Atom Totality with the night sky of
stars and galaxies as tiny pieces of the last electrons
of an Atom Universe? Luckily for me, anyway, there
was no spark of imagination by anyone when learning
of a primeval atom. But I wonder if the French translation
above is really "primeval" or whether it means more of
"primitive". If it means more of "primitive" then there was
likely less of a sparking of imagination.

Science is pragmatic and practical and all great
theories have long
past previous suggestions or hints or forerunners or
one can sort
of "read more into past works" or, someone can
exaggerate past
works to hint of recent discoveries. It is fun to
trace past
histories for strands of thought that hinted of, or
suggested of
the Atom Totality and that is what this article
attempts to do. In
one of the listings, I show where Charles S.
Peirce,
the famous USA pragmatist hinted of Quantum Mechanics
long before
QM was discovered. And that is not to say that Peirce
is the
discoverer of QM but it shows how new important
discoveries have
had past hints. Some past hints have actually been the
catalyst
or booster in the forming of a new discovery.

I have wondered whether Democritus himself by pure
math logic
reasoning came to the conclusion that the universe
itself must
be an atom. For clearly, it follows that if all things
are made-up
of atoms (or is the void between atoms) then this
logically implies
that the whole must be an atom itself (or the void and

clearly it cannot be a void since we exist). Did
Democritus have
the idea that since all matter was made up of atoms
that by pure
math logic implied the entirety is an atom itself? Not
knowing
any physics or any science but just good in math
logic, that if
you make the theory that all things are made up of
atoms, by pure
math logic reasoning implies that the whole is also an
atom itself!

I know Democritus was a math genius for Archimedes
recognized his
talents, but still, I did not expect Democritus to
push his Atomic
Theory to its logical conclusion. Perusing the physics
history
literature, years after I discovered the Atom Totality theory,
I came across this gem.
Book number (5):

--- start quoting A SHORT HISTORY OF ATOMISM
by J. Gregory, Univ. Leeds, 1931, page 4 ---
The traditional atom, the genuine atom, is both quite
indestructible and exceedingly minute. Atoms were
indivisible for Leucippus because they were too minute to be
divided, and for Democritus because they were too hard to be
broken.
If sundry traditions are trustworthy, Democritus allowed all
sizes to atoms: a single Democritean atom might even
be, so some said, as big as the world. The gigantic
Democritean atom, if it ever existed, vanished from the atomistic
tradition.
The subsequent Epicurean atom was too hard to be
broken, but
it was also too small to be seen, and only thought
could
discern it. It did not become doubtful, nor even
admittedly
speculative, for Epicurus was as sure of atoms as if
he had
seen them with his eyes.
--- end quoting A SHORT HISTORY OF ATOMISM
by J. Gregory, Univ. Leeds, 1931, page 4 ---

So what am I to make of this fact. A fact I cannot deny since
there is that book and I own a copy now. It is 1931, and Gregory
must have been referring to some evidence when he says "so some
said, as big as the world." Gregory was not making that up out of
nothing.

So let us say there was some evidence of a Democritean SuperAtom.
Then Democritus would have discovered the Atom Totality theory, and
the only thing holding him back from pinpointing what chemical element
it was, was that he had no chemistry and the periodic table of
chemical
elements that we have in modern times.

Now before I leave this history I should include a broad category of
other books that were very influential. Those chemistry and physics
books I used in High School and College which showed pictures of the
electron-dot-cloud. In High School it was PSSC and in College it was
Chemistry by Mortimer and in Physics it was Halliday and Resnick.
Let me just group them all into a category of books (6) and say they
had pictures of the electron-dot-cloud.

The discovery of the Atom Totality theory was to reinterpret the Born
Interpretation of the electron of an atom. Most everyone imagines the
electron as a tiny ball whizzing around the nucleus. When in fact, the
electron
is a dot-cloud-pattern. We have the electron as a ball when collapsed
wavefunction such as electricity in motion. But when the atom is not
collapsed
which is most of the time, it is in a electron-dot-cloud where its
tiny mass is
smashed like a broken windshield of a car and the tiny pieces
scattered all over
the place. Those tiny pieces, are each a galaxy.

So the discovery of the Atom Totality theory was to discover that the
electron-dot-cloud
is the night-time sky of galaxies.