Prev: Question about continuity/measurability
Next: Numeric Mc2.By Aiya-Oba
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 14 Jun 2010 15:50
Let me backtrack a little here and using Wikipedia information to make
my point clear.

--- Quoting Wikipedia on Wegener ---

Alfred Lothar Wegener (1 November 1880 – November 1930) was a German
scientist, geophysicist, and meteorologist.

He is most notable for his theory of continental drift
(Kontinentalverschiebung), proposed in 1912, which hypothesized that
the continents were slowly drifting around the Earth. However, Wegener
was unable to demonstrate a mechanism for continental drift, which,
combined with his mostly circumstantial evidence, meant that his
hypothesis was not accepted until the 1950s, when numerous discoveries
provided evidence of continental drift.[1][2]
--- end quoting Wikipedia ---

Wegener wrote a book in 1915 titled (English translation) "The Origin
of
Continents and Oceans"

Of course we all know that Charles Darwin wrote his famous book in
1859
titled "On the Origin of Species"

No, I am never going to title the Atom Totality theory as "On the
Origin of
the Universe"

But what I want to point out is how mischevious is a science community
and
mischevious are scientists when they cover the history of science.

Note the evaluation of "circumstantial evidence" but that moniker was
seldom
applied to Darwin. The history of Darwin's theory was that it divided
people
into believers and nonbelievers immediately. So that by 1860 there was
a large fraction
of the science community that accepted the theory and a fraction that
did not.
As for Wegener and Continental Drift, by 1916 there was no fraction of
acceptance
by the science community and it was not due to whether the evidence
was
considered circumstantial or not circumstantial. The problem was that
the theory
did not stir up the public to care for the truth of whether it was
true or not true.
In the case of Darwin, the theory immediately caught the general
public attention.

It can be argued that Darwin's book was just as circumstantial as was
Wegener's
considering that DNA was not discovered until the next century. So is
it reasonable
to have told Darwin, that his theory of evolution was unsatisfactory
until the day in
which or the century in which DNA was discovered, the genetic unit of
inheritance,
and until long after DNA discovery and to see how DNA works, to tell
Darwin that
his evidence must wait until then?

Just as it happened to Wegener, that he had a brilliant theory and had
astounding
evidence to support it, yet faced a backward and dullard science
community.

So we should not be labelling Wegener as circumstantial evidence,
because Darwin's
book would have to have been labelled thus. But, rather, to be more
technical about the
history of science, is that in most cases of the discovery of big
science, is that the
founder of the big science is not lacking in evidence and that the
evidence is not
circumstantial, but rather the blame lies mostly on the fact that the
social network
and science community are too stupid in logic to appreciate the new
theory.

If the science community of geologists from 1915 to 1960, had had a
modicum of
logic, just a slight modicum of logic, would have realized that
Wegener had a true
theory with ample supporting evidence. The fault was not Wegener but
the poor
logic of the geology community, and then also, the poor news media
covering the
story. We see that even today, with Wikipedia writing --
"circumstantial evidence".

Why not write "circumstantial evidence" in Wikipedia's entry on Darwin
with
his Origins of Species.

Now, on to Atom Totality. I can be faulted for this book by those who
would
want to label it as "circumstantial evidence". But that only reflects
more on
the illogical mind of the attacker.

When you have the Cosmic Microwave as blackbody microwave, that
evidence
alone trashcans the Big Bang theory

When you have evidence that the Cosmos is missing over 90% of the mass/
matter
and you know that the mass of a atom resides mostly in the Nucleus,
can be
called "circumstantial evidence", just as Wegener noticed that the
continents fit together
like a jigsaw puzzle, yet labeled as circumstantial evidence.

So these things such as labeling of circumstantial evidence, has more
to do with the
people who are too dumb to understand science and who are trying to
thwart science.
Than it has anything to do with science itself.

Now it is funny how noone said to Darwin that his theory must wait for
"more evidence"
such as perhaps the discovery of DNA. They did require of Wegener to
come up with
a mechanism, even though Wegener listed the Atlantic Ocean Ridge as
evidence. So the
antiscientists really attacked Wegener quite harshly, demanding far
more than what any
reasonable, modicum of logic person would need in order to accept a
theory that is offered.

With the Atom Totality theory, just the fact that the Microwave is
Blackbody Microwave should
alone be the fact that tosses out the Big Bang theory. Then you couple
that with the fact that
missing mass resides in a Nucleus of an Atom Totality is more than
enough evidence.

To require that I prove Dirac's new-radioactivities, as the mechanism
of how the Cosmos
grows, is a reasonable requirement, but the proof that the Universe is
an Atom Totality
should have come with the singular data that the Microwave Background
Cosmic Radiation
is Blackbody.

Even if Wegener had seafloor spreading in his book of 1915, that is
not as good of proving
evidence of Continental Drift, because we need a theory of the
interior of Earth as to how
seafloors can spread. So the data of a Blackbody Microwave is far more
proving of the Atom
Totality theory than even if Wegener had seafloor spreading data in
his 1915 book.

What was the most compelling evidence in favor of Darwin's Evolution
theory of 1859?
It was none of the thoughts and arguments in his book of 1859, but
rather in something
that few people in and out of science recognize which caused the
immediate acceptance
by a large fraction of the science community. It was the fossil record
of all those annoying
bones of ancient animals that were far different from the bones of any
living species. So
Darwin's proving evidence or deciding-evidence was nothing in his book
but rather the
fossil record itself.

The fossil record for Darwin Evolution was the Deciding Proof that
Darwin was correct
or at least on the path of a correct theory (since the Atom Totality
theory even revises
Darwin Evolution theory with superdeterminism).

For the Atom Totality theory, we already have the deciding proof
evidence. Only the inside
of a big atom can you have Blackbody Microwave Radiation. The Universe
is a entity, a present day entity, a structure, and a structure that
causes the microwave radiation to be
blackbody. This evidence alone throws out the Big Bang theory.

But I realize that most people are not very logical, most people, even
those in the sciences
are far more sentimental than they are logical. Most people, in the
sciences have a skill of
being good with some mathematics of science, but when it comes to
independent logical thoughts, they are incapable and revert to being a
"parrot of science."

A logical person, a true scientist, knows that if you have Cosmic
Microwave that is
Blackbody, means that you have proven the Universe is a big atom. To
further that
proof, we can show that the mass of the Cosmos is in a Nucleus, so
that we would
be "missing over 99% of the mass observed". To further the proof, I
can show that
Dirac's "new radioactivities" is how the Cosmos is built.

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 about continuity/measurability
Next: Numeric Mc2.By Aiya-Oba