The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Chapt16.1 Ring in galactic mapping in 3rd layer of Caltech's mapping
suggests the electron lobe of a Plutonium Atom Totality #1243 New Physics
#1363 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Replies: 0  

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List

Posts: 18,572
Registered: 3/31/08
Chapt16.1 Ring in galactic mapping in 3rd layer of Caltech's mapping
suggests the electron lobe of a Plutonium Atom Totality #1243 New Physics
#1363 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Posted: Feb 19, 2013 6:45 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Chapt16.1 Ring in galactic mapping in 3rd layer of Caltech's mapping
suggests the electron lobe of a Plutonium Atom Totality

I did not think that I would blend the New Physics with the Atom
Totality text as well as this. I thought I would reach page 1300 and
abruptly stop New Physics and re-start the Atom Totality but it looks
like a well knit blending is occurring.

I have thought about Chapt16.1 in that the Doppler shift is
nonexistent for light waves and so the shift must be some other
physical phenomenon. I believe it is curvature of space that causes
light waves to diffract. Now if the Cosmos were the surface of a
sphere then the curvature would correlate exactly with distance and
the redshift would be an accurate measure of distance. But, if the
Cosmos were a ellipsoid such as a long slender cylinder then many
redshifts are going to be close by as we look over the "sides of the
cylinder". If we look along the axis of the cylinder we have no
redshift of light but we have a terribly huge distance. So if the
Cosmos were a cylinder shape, then our mappings of galaxies would be
in terrible error because the most redshifted galaxies could be our
nearest galaxies and the least redshifted galaxies could be along the
axis and very very far away.

Now in my previous post I asked for the mathematics community to look
over the Jarrett

--- quoting --- ?
The third layer (0.01 < z < 0.02) is dominated by the P-P
supercluster ?(left side of image) and the P-I supercluster extending
up into the ?ZoA terminating as the Great Attractor region (notably
Abell 3627) ?disappears behind a wall of Milky Way stars. An
intriguing "ring" or ?chain of galaxies seems to circle/extend from
the northern to the ?southern Galactic hemisphere (see also Figure 1).
It is unknown ?whether this ring-like structure is physically
associated with the ?cosmic web or an artifact of projection.
--- end quoting ---
To mathematically look over that mapping because if the Cosmos were a
sphere then there would be many rings reported by Jarrett. But if the
Cosmos were a cylinder that was tear drop shaped, shaped like a lobe
in the Schrodinger Equation of a electron, then with the redshift not
as a Doppler but rather the redshift as curvature of Space, then what
happens is that at least one of the Jarrett mappings must end up being
a ring structure.

This is the mathematics that I requested the math community to
consider. When you believe the redshift is a Doppler redshift and do a
mapping that Jarrett has done then you end up with at least one ring
structure. But if you realize that redshift is due to curvature of
space then the redshift is not at all indicative of distance but
curvature, and so if we re-plotted all of Jarrett's galaxies with the
idea of placine galaxies in terms of curvature, what we end up with is
not Jarrett's giant sphere with one ring structure, but rather with a
giant lobe shaped ellipsoid that is a cylinder with a tear drop shape
and where there are numerous ring structures.

Now, why is the Cosmos a tear drop shaped cylinder? Because that is
the only figure that would have one ring when we assume redshift is
Doppler redshift. If we assume redshift to be curvature only, then it
cannot be a cylinder but a tear drop shaped ellipsoid.

Also, there are a few reported blueshifts. If I recall, all of them
are tiny tiny blueshifts and only a few stars or galaxies demonstrate
a blueshift. So does curvature also provide an explanation for
blueshift? Well, it does. It does so in that the blueshift is over a
Electromagnetism of Space, for if you carefully look at a dipole
magnet into a closed loop wire, some lines of force are only slightly
curved opposite to a positive curvature and this slight negative
curvature would account for blueshift.


Google's archives are top-heavy in hate-spew from search-engine-
bombing. Only Drexel's Math Forum has done a excellent, simple and
fair archiving of AP posts for the past 15 years as seen here:

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

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.