Prev: question on tinted fiberglass in the experiment; Space/time/Matter continuum #23; ATOM TOTALITY
Next: Chapter 2 Pictures of the Atom Totality; postscript-- redshift resolved & have Big Bangers ever heard of resonance? #18; ATOM TOTALITY
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 21 Apr 2010 03:51
For a picture of the electron-dot-cloud, although it is not going to
show
you 10^60 dots, although we can start to see 10^60 dots by looking at
the Night Sky of galaxies. Of course, the dots in the Night Sky are
concentrated
in stars and galaxies and not effused and spread out.

This textbook which I have owned for a long time and perhaps the
best College textbook on physics, even though it is 1986 vintage,
for the newest physics textbooks are cluttered up with fake physics
such as black holes, neutron stars, Big Bang and other untrue exotica.

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.
And thus the Atom Totality theory was borne.

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.

Postscript: Chapter 1 on the topic of redshift. I departed chapter 1,
way to early.
And thank goodness for this device of a postscript so that I can
continue to
organize this book whilst adding ideas that are out of place.

If the Big Bang were true, then it is extremely hard to believe that
the redshift is the
expansion of Space itself. That is a new physics altogether and
contradicts other physics. The next question would
be to ask if the galaxies that are riding a space that is travelling
as fast or even faster
than the speed of light, would that also make the velocity of galaxies
be the speed of
light. So in the Big Bang theory explanation of redshift, we have a
whole new physics that
has never been tried before, because we have galaxies riding in Space
that is moving close to
or faster than the speed of light.

How do Big Bang people reconcile their theory with the implications
that Space is moving,
and would that not also make the galaxies move at the speed of light?

Whereas the Atom Totality theory explains the redshift as simply a
Space that is motionless
but highly curved as a lens is curved and that white light traveling
far distances is refracted
in this curved and bent space yielding a redshift.

So I ask the commonsense physicist or the commonsense layperson. Which
makes the easier explanation? The Big Bang which asks you to believe
that Space is in motion and
travelling beyond the speed of light and carrying galaxies along in
that motion to yield
a redshift? Or is the explanation that Space is motionless but highly
curved like the surface
of a sphere and that this curvature over large distances causes light
to be refracted and thus
redshifted?

Clearly the Atom Totality theory is the better commonsense
explanation. The Big Bang involves new physics that has never been
seen or heard of before, where you have
Space in motion, where you have Space as a separate entity, yet never
defining what Space is, and you have Space carrying galaxies
along in that motion. Sounds really farfetched and preposterous. But
then in the time
frame of 1930 to 1990, the Big Bang was the only theory on the block
and so any farfetched
and preposterous and ludicrous notions would pass, since there was no
other theory to
compete with.

I departed Chapter 1 without really resolving the issue of redshift
and blueshift in Big Bang
and Atom Totality. Here, I have resolved it. Because it comes down to
a choice between
Space travelling at the speed of light and thus the galaxies would be
travelling at the speed of
light, or a whole new physics. Or, the choice that Space is
motionless, and that galaxies are
travelling at slow speeds like that of 70 km/sec, and that the
redshift is caused by the
curvature of space that refracts white light and redshifts that light.
This is standard common
physics and nothing new. So on that account alone, where we do not
need to have to
compare redshifts and blueshifts, the Big Bang is a fake and only the
Atom Totality can reasonably explain the redshift. The Big Bang asks
us to accept new
and untried and farfetched physics-- that Space is separate from
matter and that Space
is in motion and that Space carries galaxies at upwards the speed of
light.

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: question on tinted fiberglass in the experiment; Space/time/Matter continuum #23; ATOM TOTALITY
Next: Chapter 2 Pictures of the Atom Totality; postscript-- redshift resolved & have Big Bangers ever heard of resonance? #18; ATOM TOTALITY