sci.physics

New Book: "ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY REPLACES BIG BANG
THEORY IN PHYSICS", author--Archimedes Plutonium,
Internet book published 1993-2007 (amassed in
Jan-Feb 2007 in , ). This is 2nd edition, Aug 2007

Chapters of this book:
(1) preface
(2) introduction
(3) what is this theory
(4) pictures of the Atom Totality theory and history
of the theory and precursor hints

Observational and experimental support

(5) density and distribution of galaxies
(6) Tifft quantized galaxy speeds
(7) layered age of Cosmos with billion years old Cosmos yet old
galaxies of the Uranium Atom Totality billion years old; the
Freedman versus Sandage data
(8) uniform blackbody K cosmic microwave background radiation
and the Dark Night sky: Olber's Paradox
(9) missing mass conundrum and the cosmic distribution of chemical
elements
(10) shape of the Cosmos as 6 lobes of 5f6 or as France's Luminet team
as dodecahedron
(11) color of the cosmos Johns Hopkins Univ findings

Mathematical and logic beauty support

(12) inverse fine structure constant and proton to electron mass ratio
explained
(13) (pi) and (e) explained
(14) Atomic Theory as the foundation of science universal laws and the
Atomic theory Syllogism

Future News and Research Reports supporting the Atom Totality Theory

(15) future news and research reports commentary

INTRODUCTION

Alright, in order for me to complete this 2nd edition of this book,
considering I
want it all done before September, means that I have to make at least
two posts
per day for a steady pace to meet that criterion. As I said before,
that I like to
have a book written in the span of a month so that when searching back
for the
book I can find it all within that month.

Now let me talk about the layout sections of this book of its 15
chapters. It has
four sections of the preface, introduction, what the theory is and
picture which is
basically the first section and what I call a summary introduction.
The second
section is the physical evidence that supports the theory and discards
or
destroys the Big Bang theory. The third section is not physical
evidence but more
like logical or consistency evidence. There is a contrast between
evidence that is
observational and experimental evidence as constrasted by evidence
that fits together
with past evidence and what I call logical consistency evidence. It is
the beauty of
fitting together of evidence and although it may not be as strong of
supporting evidence
as that of experimental evidence, consistency evidence is very
important and much of
science and physics advances were borne from logical consistency.
Maxwell's completion
of the Maxwell theory was mostly logical consistency evidence where
his theory gave the
speed of light and added onto Ampere's Law. Dirac hypothesized the
positron from
logical consistency evidence and waited for the experimental evidence
to show the
same. The existence of the neutrino was first made from logical
consistency evidence
and only later on was the physical evidence to prove it.

So the second section of this book is about the physical and
experimental and
observational evidence. And the third section of this book is the
Logical Consistency
evidence.

And finally the last section is what all of my science Internet
published books will have
a chapter of new-news or reports that relate to the science of the
book. Where I discuss and
comment on recent developments and if those news reports have a large
impact on
previous chapters, then I shall change those chapters in a newly
edited future edition. I want
to have a way of discussing and commenting on news reports related to
the theory for which
it is too fresh and new to incorporate in the main body of the book,
but which can be
incorporated after thought and reflection.

Now I want to comment on my general feelings and attitude of the
strongest piece of single
evidence that the Atom Totality theory is true and will replace the
false theory of the Big Bang.
If I were tasked to do that in 1990 when I discovered this theory I
would have said the single
evidence that most supports the theory is the redshift of galaxies of
the expanding Universe,
where the size of the uranium atom is smaller than the plutonium atom
and that the redshift
corresponds to the different size of these two chemical elements, and
the fact that the Missing
Mass of 99% missing would be represented by the Nucleus of the Atom
Totality.

But then about 1993 to mid 1990s my preference for the strongest
evidence switched to that of
the Tifft quantized galaxy speeds. I had not known anyone found
quantized galaxy speeds until
about that time period. But when I found out and learned about
quantized galaxy speeds, I shifted
to that as my strongest supporting evidence. Then in the mid 1990s to
the end of the 1990s, I
shifted to the age of the Cosmos with the disputed age between Sandage
and Freedman. It seems as
though my favorite physical evidence is the current raging evidence
found and the Sandage
Freedman argument was front and center at the end of the 1990s.

But if you ask me now in year 2007 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 thin out for the rest of the
Cosmos. 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 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 August of 2007, 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.

Now in this introduction 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. My above
is only a sketchy
recollection of the actual history, but if anyone wanted precise
history facts can easily look
up those old posts from 1993 to present day time. So this is a big
benefit of publishing on
the Internet in that one can go back and verify whether my memory was
highly accurate
or inaccurate in parts.

Archimedes Plutonium
/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies