Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 16:05:59 -0800 (PST)
Subject: PAGE10, 1-10, Evidence proving Atom Totality, Solid Body Rotation
PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE, 8th ed. 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2017 00:05:59 +0000
PAGE10, 1-10, Evidence proving Atom Totality, Solid Body Rotation PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE, 8th ed. 2017
Now I delve into the fact that Solid Body Rotation exists only from EM theory where we have Velocity proportional to radius for magnetic-monopoles=current, making a circuit in the Faraday/Lenz law. Currently, Big Bang, General Relativity BBEGR is trying to explain solid body rotation with a silly "dark matter" dark mass, dark energy, when all you really need to know is that the forces of physics are all unified as a EM force which has a range of force strength from r, to 1/r, to 1/r^2 (which, in final analysis is a Logarithmic force not an inverse square). There, problem solved. That motion in a Observable Universe which is an electron dot cloud of an Atom Totality would be motion of the EM theory which allows for motion as V= r, solid-body, and V proportional to a constant 1/r, and V proportional to 1/r^2.
There has been a uproar of worry over solid body rotation found in spiral galaxies for about 5 decades now, that many spiral galaxies have solid body rotation of their stars close in to the nucleus of the galaxy. But there has been much too much neglect of assessing our own solar system for the Saturn Rings are likely to be Solid Body Rotation in part, or full. So, not only is there solid body motion in spiral galaxies but likely here in our own solar system.
Now Solid Body Rotation is probably the best observable evidence the Universe is a single Cosmic Atom because we see so much Solid Body Rotation, that a structureless BBEGR cannot even start to explain other than hypothesize dark matter, dark energy which clearly none has ever been seen. When physics gets a "big observation in" such as solid-body rotation, the physicists would immediately tack on some ad hoc nonsense of dark matter and dark energy, rather than do the logical thing-- look in EM theory for solidbody rotation motion.
Now let me define Solid Body Rotation as that in which any 2 points in the plane figure have the same distance apart from one another while being rotated. Their rotation or revolving as if they are a solid body. If we paint 2 dots on a music record and then place onto a turntable, those 2 dots will maintain the same figure as the record is moving round and round.
And many people are surprised, very surprised to find out that our Solar System has plenty of examples of Solid Body Rotation. The Rings of Saturn as the finest single example, of rigid body rotation of SubRings of Saturn. Even Maxwell in the 1860s did some work on the Rings of Saturn, although Maxwell had primitive telescopes back then. And the Meteor Belt is another example, although far less of a percentage of rigid-body rotation than the Saturn subrings. The electromagnetism involved with the Rings of Saturn since ice is a van der Waals force of attraction make them a higher percentage of Solid Body Rotation than the Meteor Belt with its magnetic iron rocks. So we have percentages of solid body rotation where the Saturn subrings could be 75 to 90 percent solid body while the meteor belt be only 50%.
Harold Jeffreys in 1947 wrote a work "The effects of collisions on Saturn's Rings". And in Jeffreys work he states " Maxwell showed that a set of satellites moving in one circle about the planet would be stable, and that all the other suggested types-of-constitution, that he considered would be unstable." So, here we see that what Maxwell proposed was that you can have solid-body rotation of small particles-- ice globules in a thin SubRing of Saturn. Each SubRing is rigid body rotation. Further on, Jeffreys writes: "But a fluid ring could be arbitrarily thin if we abandon the hypothesis of rigid-body rotation, which in itself would suggest a very high viscosity." Here Jeffreys is wanting the Rings to be a fluid instead of ice globules, but he still has rigid-body-rotation of ice, not water.
In Electromagnetism theory with AP-Maxwell Equations (next chapter) we see at least three varieties of motion described by V proportional to radius R and known as solidbody motion, and with V proportional to 1/R as seen in Capacitors, and finally the well known force of V proportional to 1/R^2, which--only the last one of these, the 1/R^2 is familiar as the Newton gravity or General Relativity force strength, forgetting and leaving out the other two types, the R and 1/R.
So, how much of Saturn's Rings are solid-body rotation? Is it 75%. How much of the asteroid belt is rigid body rotation? Is it 50%, and would explain why some asteroids, as small as they are have moons such as Ida with Dactyl. It is not because of gravity as 1/R^2 but rather because gravity is EM force that can vary from R to 1/R to 1/R^2, and so, because asteroids are very much magnetic with all that iron the gravity involved is far more than 1/R^2. Same reasoning for Saturn Rings in that ice is a polar molecule of water which is more electromagnetic than other molecules and so the gravity of Saturn Rings is more closer to R or 1/R than to 1/R^2.
Is there anything in our Solar System that is nearly 100% rigid body, or solid body rotation? I believe many of the subrings of Saturn are rigid body rotation. I do not mean all of the Rings collectively is solidbody, but each individual subring is solidbody. And in fact is the cause of gaps between subrings.
Now, we need no high flung mathematics such as what Maxwell tried to give us an answer in 1860s. We can do this with elementary geometry in mind.
We know the planets around the Sun follow a plane (ecliptic) of the Sun, such as the Rings of Saturn is a plane. So now, in comparison, what if the Solar ecliptic was filled with small planets such as the rings of saturn are ice globules. So, can a structure of a Sun Ring of Planets survive without solid-body rotation? Only unless each planet in a revolution had the same speed as the others and would keep the same spacing distance relative to the others. That means, in effect, rigid body motion of the same planets in the same orbital revolution. That means in a orbital band of revolution, the planets would have to have rigid body revolutions in order not to be colliding with the planet behind and the planet in front.
Now the planets and the ice globules can have gaps of empty space between subrings where the motion in the further out subring is slower than the inner subring, or, it could be faster, because the only thing that is of concern is the planets or ice within each subring have rigid body motion. The entire Rings are not solidbody but the subrings are solidbody.
So, for Saturn, as Maxwell showed in 1860s, is not one vast plane of rigid body rotation. But for Saturn, each subring, separated from other subrings by empty space gaps is a rigid body rotation subring.
Shame that in our recent spacecraft, Cassini, mission to collect data on Saturn, that no priority was given to finding out the extent of rigid body rotation of the Saturn subrings. Perhaps on the next mission to Saturn this topic takes top priority. But Cassini did take pictures of a spectacular hexagon shaped North Pole of Saturn. Hexagons are never created by Newton gravity or General Relativity gravity, instead, they are created by EM force such as van der Waals and is seen in snowflakes.
We see Saturn as a complete full disc of ice globules separated by gaps in the subrings. We do not see collisions and the scavenging of ice globules by faster or slower moving ice globules. We see a permanence of the rings and that stability and permanence means rigid or solid body motion. How much solid body? Perhaps for Saturn I would guess 75% or more. I need to look at those tiny moons of Saturn relative to the rings. As for the meteorite belt, the rigid body rotation is far less, perhaps 50%, for many in that belt stray away. But one thing in common with both the Rings and Asteroids, is that they have a more powerful electromagnetic force involved than a body that is mostly EM neutral.
The separation of rings by a gap is usually caused by a moon traveling in the gap, and thus indicating that the subrings of D, C, B, A, F, G, E, etc must be subrings of rigid or partial rigid body rotation. If not rigid body rotation, they would have disappeared a long time ago in forming another moon in that subring.
Wikipedia page on Rings of Saturn mentions the Pan moon as forming a gap between two rings.
The mistake that beginners make with Maxwell involvement of Saturn Rings, is that they misunderstand completely the work of Maxwell which was to say that the total Ring structure was not one solid ring of solid-body rotation. But that the Ring structure was many subrings for which each subring can and must have rigid body rotation to maintain the structure. Now some scientists speculate that the subrings turn periodically from water into ice globules.
Now, Harold Jeffreys, in 1947 wrote a work "The effects of collisions on Saturn's Rings"
And in Jeffreys work he states " Maxwell showed that a set of satellites moving in one circle about the planet would be stable, and that all the other suggested types of constitution that he considered would be unstable."
So that for Maxwell, several satellites equally spaced apart moving in one orbit around Saturn would be stable. Sounds like solid-body rotation of these satellites and would be comparable to a subring.
Further on, Jeffreys writes: "But a fluid ring could be arbitrarily thin if we abandon the hypothesis of rigid-body rotation, which in itself would suggest a very high viscosity."
So the more I read about Maxwell on Saturn Ring, the more I see he is the first to see that those Rings are solid body rotation, not in full, but for the subrings.
Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon of 231Pu
::\ ::|:: /::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
Thomson discovered electron in 1897 (later to be found that this is a muon, not the .5MeV particle)
Rutherford and Moseley for proton 1911-1913
Anderson and Neddermeyer 1936
But i am happy because I solved what the largest, largest Logical Gap in science understanding,-- of where the Real Proton is 840 MeV and worst of all the Real Electron is the Muon at 105 MeV not the tiny tiny little .5 MeV particle, the magnetic monopole that causes electric current flow.
How can the world of science, of physics live for over a 100 years and have this basic fact and understanding all wrong, and, in the face of it develop so much electricity and electronics. One would think that if you had screwed up what the proton really was, what the electron really was, one would think you could not invent electrical society and electronics. But then looking at the invention of portable fire making way back before even civilization is known, and the fact that our understanding properly what is going on when we have "fire" took a million or more years in between. So the proper understanding of what is going on in an invention does not come before but usually a long time after.
Now Dirac chased after something all his life, and was the wish he probably wanted an answer most of all his questions. The wish answered of all his questions in physics-- the magnetic monopole. He looked looked and looked. Sometimes in life we look too hard, and it is right under our nose. The magnetic monopole is this little particle-- this .5 MeV + or - charged particle we so foolishly thought was the electron. It is a photon or neutrino that carries a bundle of charge energy of .5 MeV, charge energy, not rest mass energy.
So, if the little particle was not the Real Electron, then what was?
The Real Electron had to be about the rest mass of the Real Proton, proper amount of momentum to form bonds of chemistry. You cannot have covalent, ionic, metallic bonding with .5MeV momentum and 938 MeV momentum. Oh , one could be 2 or 3 or 4, even 8 times larger than the other in terms of rest mass but not something ridiculous as nearly 2,000 times different, because remember the electron was the basis of the chemical bond.
Physics had a particle that fits that description, the muon.
And, besides, the world of science, ever since the muon was discovered, have often asked-- what the hell does the world need this thing for? Well, if you think long enough, you realize, that Dirac's monopole was the .5 MeV particle and thus muon was the Real Electron.
But now, where in physics does it tell us the muon is the real electron other than Chemical Bonding needs it to be so. What corner of physics tells us-- you are crazy if you think that little .5 MeV is the electron. This is what i was searching for in the past few days.
The answer is simple and obvious. The answer lies in one of many of my youths confounding lessons. I do not remember in youth-- 1960's when i read that the radioactivity was beta particle electron and alpha particle a helium nucleus and then a third particle gamma rays-- photons. I recall exactly what i was thinking as a teenager-- why why, for where was hydrogen nucleus-- it made no logical sense to miss hydrogen and jump to helium.
So, the easiest proof that the Real Proton is 840 MeV and Real Electron is 105 MeV is examine the Sun. It is hydrogen mostly and that means it is a 105 muon stuck together with a proton of 840 MeV to form a neutral hydrogen atom. The Sun is overall electrically neutral because hydrogen is 840+105.
Hydrogen is not 938 + .5
The reason there is no radioactive decay particle of hydrogen nucleus is because the real electron is the muon and tightly bound to the 840 proton.
So, what is beta decay? It is magnetic monopole emission, and not radioactive decay at all
What is alpha decay? It is a helium atom for its electrons=muons are still riding with it.
Why no hydrogen decay? Because, it takes enormous energy to split apart a hydrogen atom of its 105 MeV electron stuck to its 840 MeV proton.
So the Sun is proof because if the electron was the .5 particle. The Sun would have disappeared long time ago because it would be a proton star having lost most of its electrons.
The reason the Sun is still here is because electrons are muons and the Sun's massive outpour of charged particles are just magnetic monopoles (gravity as EM).
Now I am beginning to see that most of the problems of physics can usually be answered by the Sun. So that if we have a major theory problem and the Sun is involved, that the Sun will answer it best. For example, proof or evidence of the Atom Totality theory versus Big Bang. Hard to see that the Sun solves the question. But once you learn the Sun is hollow (see New Scientist, Oct21, 2017, and work by Asplund). Once you see the Sun is Hollow, means that electricity magnetism rules the world, rules the Universe. Because of Gauss's law of electricity that a charge moves to the upper surface, leaving the Sun hollow. Means that gravity is EM, and a world where EM governs is a world where it is a Atom Totality.
Now, in the case of the Real Electron is a muon = 105 MeV and the Real Proton is 840 MeV, how does the Sun answer that vital theory question? Simple, if the electron was the .5 MeV particle, then the Sun would quickly degenerate into hydrogen protons of 938 MeV, making the Sun electrically + charge and unstable and break apart. Why the Sun is overall neutral and stable? Because the real electron is the muon, stuck and fastened extremely tight to the proton and thus, overall the Sun is neutral. The outpouring of the Sun of .5 MeV particles, well, those are not electrons but are magnetic monopoles of .5 MeV charge energy, either a positron +1 charge or its opposite -1 charge, that is fastened to a photon or neutrino.
The particle we all know of as .5 MeV -1 charge is not the electron. That particle is a Magnetic Monopole of a photon or neutrino with a fastened .5 MeV of charge energy.
Now, to further prove what I am saying above. We can do the thousands upon thousands of Chemical Bonding experiments and prove that those bondings can exist only with Electron = Muon.