Prev: Chapter 4 : galactic density and distribution; #43; ATOM TOTALITY
Next: Yanick Toutain, friend?
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 29 Apr 2010 11:41

Chapter 4

So of all the supporting evidence for the Atom Totality theory the
most damaging to the Big Bang is the fact
of density of galaxies implies the Universe is a single big atom and
the Nucleus of the Atom Totality is
nearby to the Sloan Great Wall.


If you ask me now in year 2010 what is my favorite single piece of
evidence that the Atom
Totality is true and the Big Bang is false is a piece of evidence
that
has not even raised a debate or
clamour or raucous in either the physics or astronomy community. In
fact, it was only recently
discovered of the Sloan Great Wall. It was recently discovered that
the Great Wall has a larger
and more dense structure nearby and called the Sloan Great Wall.
This
Sloan Great Wall of
galaxies is my single favorite supporting evidence that the Atom
Totality is the true theory
and the Big Bang a fake. Why do I say that? Because the Big Bang
cannot have a Universe that
is dense with galaxies in one spot and  successively have
intermittent dense sheets with voids and overall thins out the
further one goes from the Sloan Great Wall (alleged nucleus). The
Big
Bang explosion creates a Cosmos where a large enough cross section
is
uniformly dense
of galaxies. By contrast, the inside of an atom has its electron dot
cloud dense near the nucleus and thinning out the further
away you get from the nucleus.


In physics, some experiments are special and some observations are
special. They are what is
called Deciding Experiments or Deciding Observations. They are
special
because they decide which
of two theories is the true one and which is the fake one. The
observation of missing mass as
99% missing is not a Deciding Observation since the Big Bang could
say
the missing mass is
dark-matter and thus cannot really decide between the two theories.
But the observation that the
density of galaxies is dense near the Sloan Great Wall and Great
Wall
but thins out uniformly and intermittent with sheets of galaxies
then
voids beyond them
is a deciding-observation for there cannot be an explanation of this
in the Big Bang theory.


Likewise the Tifft quantized galaxy speeds was a deciding-observation
for you cannot have quantization of galaxy speeds in the Big Bang.


The Freedman-Sandage debate over the age of the Cosmos was not a
deciding experiment or
deciding observation since both were fuzzy as to their ages and
where
precision of measurement
is not really available that would lay to rest the fierce and
contentious debate. But there is no
question of the fact of quantized galaxy speeds or the two dense
Great
Walls. So as it stands
here in April 2010, my single favorite piece of evidence is the
density of Great Walls of galaxies
which describes the dots of the electron-dot-cloud of an atom and my
second favorite evidence
is the Tifft quantized galaxy speeds.


One would think that when I first posted on the Internet the Atom
Totality, and who accepted
and believed in the Tifft quantized galaxy speeds would immediately
embrace the Atom
Totality theory, for the two are part and parcel of one another. The
dots of the electron-dot-cloud
are quantized. Maybe they did embrace the Atom Totality theory but
were not going to publically
say so.


I need to voice alot about the naming of this
theory which I discovered in
November of 1990. I originally gave it a name of something like
"Atom
Universe" or "Single Atom
Universe" or "Plutonium Atom Universe". But I did not like the term
"universe" because that term
is so overused that it lacked the power of description of the
theory.
I do not know where the term
"Big Bang" was first used to give name to that theory, but it is a
very good name because it
conjers the image of a cosmic explosion. They could have named it
the
Cosmic Explosion Theory
instead of the Big Bang. So the first several years after discovery
of
the Atom Totality theory
I never used the name "Atom Totality" but used some variations of
"Atom Universe". And then
some years after 1990, someone blurted out the name "Atom Totality"
and I recognized
instantly that such a name was superior to the name "Atom Universe"
or
"Single Atom Universe"
or "Atom Whole Universe" or other variations. In science, it is
important to give the best name
to a theory as what you can possibly give, for if you do not then
someone else in the future
will rename it. And the best name is one in which it best describes
the theory in as few of
words as possible. Given just two words, the name Atom Totality is
the
best name I can
think of for the theory. The word "Universe" in "Atom Universe" is
too
nebulous (sorry for the
pun). For the term "Universe" in "Atom Universe" can have several
different meanings such as "atoms exist in the universe." But the
name
"Atom Totality" has
the meaning that the Universe or Cosmos is a single big atom.


Postscript: Chapter 18: "pi" and "e" and "i" explained; inverse fine
structure constant, and proton to electron mass ratio, speed of
light, all linked and explained.

Now some may complain about the description of force such as gravity
as the photon interaction of Earth's positron space with Moon's
positron
space. Complain because, why would not the Sun's photons obliterate
any photonic interaction of gravity with Earth and Moon? And that is a
good
question, when considering that forces are the exchanging of particles
such as the photon.

And my first impulse to answer that question would be to say that
since all
the matter that we see and observe in Nature is "electron matter" of
the
last six electrons of an 231Pu Atom Totality. The Positron Space of a
astro
body is a different physical entity than the "electron matter". So
that the photons
of the Sun or a star are different photons than that of the Photons
from Positron
Space interacting with the electron-matter of the Earth and Moon. Now
I am
a bit skeptical of my answer on this, and it may improve with time.

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: Chapter 4 : galactic density and distribution; #43; ATOM TOTALITY
Next: Yanick Toutain, friend?