Prev: semi-Hamiltonian paths in planar triangulations
Next: COMPUTERIZED MUSIC COMPOSITION OF RYTHM OF MATHEMATICS AND PRIME NUMBERS RYTHM AT 19 inverse, 1:3, 1:6 ,
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 12 Jun 2010 14:37


Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Well I really do not much care of the socialization of a theory of
> science. In some cases
> the public social acceptance of a science truth may take milleniums as
> for the case
> of heliocentric versus geocentric solar system. For me personally, to
> know the truth
> of what is true and what is false is enough satisfaction, and whether
> the "other persons" do not know
> the truth, but clings to a falsehood is alright by me, for to expect
> everyone to know
> and accept the truth of the world is rather a misguided notion in
> itself.
>

I need to expand chapter 2 to include the "history", not only of the
history
of science and a history of a particular theory of science but history
overall. Most of us believe that history is the accurate recording and
retelling of past events. But there is far more to "history" than that
simpleton notion. For this book ends with the theory of
superdeterminism,
where all human actions and thoughts were predetermined and forced
or ordered to come about, much like puppets on strings forced to do
what
they do.

I need to expand chapter 2, especially from the years 1990 when I
discovered
this theory to present day-- the current latest edition. It must
include my thoughts
on how a new theory-- Atom Totality replaces a fake theory of Big
Bang. How some
of the social dynamics cause such to happen.

I made mention in various older posts of an idea called Levels or
Hierarchies of
Engineering. What I mean by that is I have several lots of land with
buildings on
them, including my home where I have a large number of tools and
materials, and
depending on what goes wrong and needs fixing, that I have so many
tools and
materials that I can engineer a fix to the problem. An alternative
view of this
Hierarchy of Engineering is that we could not build a skyscraper in
the 19th century
but had to wait for the 20th century where we had a Hierarchy of
Engineering
with steel, welding and concrete to build these skyscrapers. Likewise
I could use the
example of airplanes where the 19th century did not have the Levels of
Engineering
in materials or in understanding to produce airplanes back then.

In my own situation of discovering the Atom Totality theory in 1990.
That theory was
not possible without the previous and prior understanding that an
electron can be two
things. An electron can be a ball shaped material object in a
collapsed wavefunction,
or it can be a myriad number of dots in an electron-dot-cloud. So,
that idea of either
a ball or a dot-cloud was a very important member of the Levels of
Understanding in
Physics that enabled me to discover the Atom Totality theory. Without
that idea that
an electron in uncollapsed wavefunction is a myriad number of dots in
an electron
dot cloud, would have made it impossible for me to discover that the
Universe was a
big gigantic atom itself, because the galaxies are these dots of the
electron dot cloud.

So without the electron dot cloud concept of Quantum Mechanics that
existed from
about 1920's to 1990, I would not have had enough tools or
understanding to discover
the Plutonium Atom Totality in 1990.

Now let me just remark a few key remarks about when a new theory
rivals an old theory--
the Big Bang. Let me remark about what usually happens when the new
theory meets
with the old theory.

As I said in the previous post, I really do not care all that much
about whether "another
person" believes and accepts the Big Bang theory even after they read
this book. My
satisfaction is that I know the truth about the Universe and the Big
Bang believer
is one who accepts a fakery.

But let me add on to that circumstance. The Quantum theory of Physics
was a new theory
that came around 1900 with Planck's blackbody radiation that he
noticed energy comes
only in discrete packets of energy-- it was quantized. And let us
suppose that noone other
than Planck understood and believed and accepted this quantization of
energy. Much like
the Atom Totality theory being understood and accepted only by AP or a
small group of
people.

In the case of Max Planck, his quantization was immediately accepted
and then what
happened was that a plethora of other scientists made brilliant and
dazzling discoveries
all from the first beginnings of a quantization of energy. For there
was Bohr with the
way electrons work in atoms, the Bohr Model, and there was the
Complementary Principle
and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the Schrodinger Equation
and the Dirac Equation, and the Pauli Exclusion Principle. From Planck
in 1900 to about 1930 there
must have been over 100 different scientists who all earned scientific
fame for their
contribution to what Planck had started. Now if all those 100
scientists had said
"phooey phooey" to Planck's quantization and had stuck with the old
Newtonian Physics
none of those 100 would have made a mark in physics, and would have
left open to
Planck all those discoveries taken by Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrodinger,
Dirac and the
100 or more.

A theory of science is like engineering and that if we use a hammer to
hammer in
screws and not a screwdriver, is the same as the Big Bang being a
false theory
and hammering in screws. Does it matter to a scientist who finds the
true theory
of the Atom Totality to care whether another scientist believes and
accepts the Big Bang?
Does it matter to me whether someone builds their house by hammering
in screws
rather than using screwdrivers? If I were a construction company, I
would be pleased
to hear my competitors are hammering in their screws, because I would
know that
all their doors would be faulty and that their sheet metal roofs would
come loose
soon.

Since 1990 when the Atom Totality was discovered, and widely reported,
mostly
on the Internet, but some in print and newspapers. It makes me happy
to know that
only a small group of believers accepts the theory. Because it has
allowed me to
capture the lionshare of new truths. What do I care if all the shoddy
built homes
with hammered in screws have their roofs blown off and their doors
fall in. Would
not Max Planck have been more satisfied if it were a Planck Hydrogen
Atom Model,
a Planck Uncertainty Principle, a Planck Equation.

Because the group of believers, accepters and understanders of the
Atom Totality
theory is so small from 1990 to 2010, is a blessing to me, because,
then I can
discover more and receive even more credit. And who cares whether all
the other
houses have their roofs blown off and doors fall in.

Everytime the TV NOVA shows display a fakery science with a program on
string
theory or a program on Big Bang or a program on black holes. Do I
really care they
are taking up the spotlight and center stage of science with their
fakery nonsense
theories? I do not mind at all, really, because I know they are a
passing fleeting
moment, since their science is a fakery. The time they spend on their
Big Bang,
their black holes and their strings, is wasted time just as wasted as
hammering
in screws in construction and only a matter of time before that
construction
is dismissed.

The price that scientist pay, for their inability to recognize,
understand and accept the
new theory that is the true theory, and where they cling to old fake
theories like the
Big Bang, is the price that although they may occupy the attention and
center stage
now, that they will be seen in the future as "not scientists or
worse". For those that
do recognize that the Big Bang is a fake, they have an opportunity to
find some
true physics for which they can make important discovery and
contribution.

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: semi-Hamiltonian paths in planar triangulations
Next: COMPUTERIZED MUSIC COMPOSITION OF RYTHM OF MATHEMATICS AND PRIME NUMBERS RYTHM AT 19 inverse, 1:3, 1:6 ,