maybe I need to combine this chapter with "Dirac new radioactivities" Chapt 3 #152; ATOM TOTALITY
in [Math]
|
Prev: Very vicious differential problem
Next: Big Bang is a amorphous, a nonentity, process whereas Atom Totality is a "something that is building" Chapt 3 #153; ATOM TOTALITY
From: Archimedes Plutonium on 10 Jun 2010 15:03 Mike Dworetsky wrote: > > Reality check: would this numerology have given the same answer 5-6 billion > years ago when the CMB was closer to 5 K? Or was e different back then? > What about 10 billion years ago when it was even hotter? > I may have to combine this chapter with "new radioactivities" for I begin to see that uninformed and misguided people cannot separate a hot Big Bang from a cool progressive building of the Cosmos starting with the Hydrogen Atom Totality and eventually reaching up to the Plutonium Atom Totality. So maybe I have to somehow combine new-radioactivities with blackbody microwave to allay all those misguided. Maybe I can refer to and give warning in this chapter. For I have made up my mind that this chapter is the Deciding Evidence that trashes the Big Bang theory and the Atom Totality is the victor. Just as seafloor spreading proof was the deciding evidence for Wegener's Continental Drift. So I cannot have it where foolish polluted minds of the Big Bang read the first three chapters and never have enough of a commonsense to see an alternative way of building the Cosmos in a "cool process" of Dirac's new radioactivities, building atom by atom until it turns from a Hydrogen Atom Totality into our present day Plutonium Atom Totality. Read Dirac's book Directions in Physics, for there never was a hot period. Only Big Bangers need a super hot and super everything period. Atom Totality works with Dirac's vision and intuition. There was "new radioactivities". Read where he talks about multiplicative or additive creation. I would not call Dirac numerology. I would bet that Mike does not even have a degree in physics and far afield of his training given his above simpleton understanding of nothing. 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
From: Mike Dworetsky on 10 Jun 2010 16:54
Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Mike Dworetsky wrote: >> >> Reality check: would this numerology have given the same answer 5-6 >> billion years ago when the CMB was closer to 5 K? Or was e >> different back then? What about 10 billion years ago when it was >> even hotter? >> > > I may have to combine this chapter with "new radioactivities" for I > begin to see > that uninformed and misguided people cannot separate a hot Big Bang > from a > cool progressive building of the Cosmos starting with the Hydrogen > Atom Totality > and eventually reaching up to the Plutonium Atom Totality. So maybe I > have to > somehow combine new-radioactivities with blackbody microwave to allay > all those > misguided. Maybe I can refer to and give warning in this chapter. For > I have > made up my mind that this chapter is the Deciding Evidence that > trashes > the Big Bang theory and the Atom Totality is the victor. Just as > seafloor spreading > proof was the deciding evidence for Wegener's Continental Drift. > > So I cannot have it where foolish polluted minds of the Big Bang read > the > first three chapters and never have enough of a commonsense to see an > alternative way of building the Cosmos in a "cool process" of Dirac's > new radioactivities, building atom by atom until it turns from a > Hydrogen > Atom Totality into our present day Plutonium Atom Totality. So I see my question has made you backpedal, when you realized you had overlooked such a basic fact as the time-changing value of CMBR temperature. There goes your "theory". You are making it up as you go along hoping no one will notice. > > Read Dirac's book Directions in Physics, for there never was a hot > period. Only > Big Bangers need a super hot and super everything period. Atom > Totality works with > Dirac's vision and intuition. Is that what he says? Are you sure? Intuition isn't everything. It can be trumped by a critical observation. > > There was "new radioactivities". Read where he talks about > multiplicative or > additive creation. I don't think he meant what you are trying to read into it. > > I would not call Dirac numerology. I would bet that Mike does not even > have a degree > in physics and far afield of his training given his above simpleton > understanding of nothing. Well, while you are at it, tell us all about YOUR physics degrees. > > 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 -- Mike Dworetsky (Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply) |