At first I attempted to explain this Ring via pure math geometry. Now I see it as an explanation of just exactly "what is Doppler Redshift or Blueshift if not distance".
The Cosmic mapping of galaxies is nothing but rings, and we use scooting-over. Because the Cosmos is so large, we see only 3 Rings in all.
AP's 262nd book of science// Looking for a Math Proof that a linear fake tool destroys 90% of a picture but cannot destroy it all.
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 16, 2023, 12:39:14 AM (4 days ago)
to
For my 262nd book of science I explore this cosmology astronomy challenge of math.
Caltech's Jarrett is/was doing a mapping of the galaxies of the Cosmos and found a Ring in the 3rd layer. I keep telling him (via Usenet) that the night sky of galaxies is a Cosmic Proton Torus of many windings of a Plutonium Atom. And that the true
mapping of galaxies would be all rings. But because Old Physics thinks the Doppler RedShift indicates distance, that the Jarrett mapping is all screwed up except for his one Ring in 3rd layer.
I keep exclaiming that when you apply a fake tool of Doppler RedShift, you can screw up all the galaxies save for one Ring when all of them should be rings.
So here I want to explore some Geometry math proofs for the idea, that if you start with say a torus with 10 windings (10 Rings) and inside the torus 1 ring for muon. That if you use a fake tool of Doppler Redshift for distance, that you will screw up
all 11 Rings save 1. The tool that does the screwing up has to be a "linear function mess-up tool".
So, I am using my expert mathematical abilities to surmise that when a linear application is applied to geometry figure, it destroys the figure almost all destroyed, save one true winding.
I suspect there is already a proof inside of mathematics that says the same thing. Only I have to hunt it down if it exists.
If it does not already exist, this is a conjecture of that idea, and then I have to come up with a proof of the idea.
I suspect if this proof already exists, it probably lies in "Projective Geometry".
The physics is clear cut--- using a linear tool that is false. Destroying most of the true picture, however, because it is linear, it cannot destroy all the true picture.
AP
AP's 262nd book of science// Looking for a Math Proof that a linear fake tool destroys 90% of a picture but cannot destroy it all.
AP's 262nd book of science-- the Ring in 3rd layer of Jarrett's mapping of galaxies-- is it already a proof in math or does AP need to start from scratch and make the math proof
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Archimedes Plutonium
5:23 PM, 15Sep2023
to sci.physics
What Dr.Jarrett & Caltech do not understand, for they are quite a bit backwards in logical intelligence as evidence by their stupid belief slant cut of cone is ellipse when that is an oval, and no wonder no-one at Caltech can do a valid proof of
Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
But the big lesson for today on Caltech failure in astronomy, is that given the Doppler RedShift has no say in distance, for Light Waves cannot be redshifted due to motion of source-- for Caltech scientists are dumb and stupid to think Special Relativity
is broken with Doppler Redshift.
And there is a beautiful idea in Mathematics, pure mathematics that given a Mapping of Galaxies, an honest mapping that uses a linear error of Doppler Redshift. Uses that error into the mapping. That the error can eliminate all the rings of the mapping
except for one.
This is a beautiful idea that comes from pure mathematics. The idea is that the Cosmos is really a mapping of Rings as a Torus coil with one ring perpendicular and inside the torus coil.
Now you apply a error ridden stupid Doppler Redshift for distance. And what that stupid error can do, is erase and eliminate all the rings except for one ring. One ring will survive with error filled math of Doppler RedShift. And that one ring is Jarrett'
s ring in 3rd layer.
So now if we apply AP's scoot over to all the galaxies. For we do know for certainty in which direction and part of the sky a galaxy lies in. And apply a scoot over, what AP is conjecturing is that a scoot over renders the Cosmic Mapping of Galaxies into
a Torus Coil of at least 3 rings visible, two of the Proton torus and 1 of the muon inside the proton torus.
Asking Dr.Jarrett of Caltech, for Volney is far too stupid of a science idiot with his 938 is 12% short of 945.
So we have to ask Dr. Jarrett what is the Cosmic Ring in the 3rd layer of his mapping??? Is it the Cosmic Muon or a ring of the Cosmic Proton, for the muon is thrusting through the Cosmic Proton Torus of 231Plutonium. That would be 8 rings times 94.
And of course 94 muons in a chain inside the Proton torus of 8 x 94.
Now Old Astronomy and Old Physics are working and belaboring under the mindless idiotic notion of Doppler Redshift. They are two faced contradictory idiots of physics for they believe in Special Relativity, which does not allow for Doppler Redshift of
Light Waves.
So in one of my books I called for a massive "Scoot Over" of the mapping of galaxies. We know "in general" where the galaxies are located and ask a computer to scoot galaxies to form a Coil, a Torus Coil with a perpendicular Ring inside. We may get
only 3 rings in all of the proton and muon with scooting over for the Cosmos is big.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
1:46 AM (13 hours ago)
to
I am really psyched and geared up in doing this book. It will be a new conjecture if Old Math never came across such a math idea.
What is so exciting is that it is a problem already known in Cosmology Astronomy, and all I need to do is apply pure math to it.
Let me outline the problem and Conjecture once again, as I love this conjecture.
In astronomy they use a tool which I consider fake tool of distance measure. They use the Doppler Redshift of galaxies. Astronomers claim the redshift is caused by the motion of the galaxy. Red is receding from us, and blue shifted if coming towards us.
I consider that all poppycock because of Special Relativity forbids the speed of light be augmented by the speed of the source. So AP considers Doppler shifting on Light Waves as a phony measure of distance.
And what astronomers have done in the last century is mapp where the galaxies are in the night sky. Map where they are located and then used Doppler Redshift for distance.
And then Caltech's Jarrett has found a Cosmic Ring of galaxies in the 3rd layer.
So in steps AP with this Geometry Conjecture.
AP believes the true geometry of the galaxies is like a coil in the Faraday Law. A coil where you thrust a bar magnet (the muon) through the coil and it produces electric current in the coil. Just pure and simple Faraday law.
And what AP then considers is that Jarrett sees just one of the Rings of many rings of galaxies. And the reason Jarrett is not seeing more Rings, and to be frank and honest-- the galaxies form a coil geometry, all of the galaxies are either in the proton
coil or the muon bar magnet ring. Mind you there is some empty space between these windings or rings of galaxies. And the empty space maybe so large that we find only 3 cosmic rings in all out of a total of 94 x 8 rings or 94 x 840 windings for proton
torus and 105 windings for muon.
So, what this geometry conjecture by AP is all about, is AP is looking in mathematics, if a proof has already been given of the idea. You start with a Coil of windings, and you apply a linear function upon the galaxies as dots. This linear function is a
fake application. And the conjecture says that regardless of the application of a fake linear function, it cannot destroy all the windings of the torus, but must preserve at least one winding. One true winding-ring is preserved but all the others are
destroyed by the application of the fake linear function (the Doppler Redshift).
In several of my past books I outlined a technique I called Scooting Over. We know the general direction in the sky of where all the galaxies exist. We do not know there accurate distance from us for the Doppler Redshift is phony on distance.
So, that is the conjecture by AP, a linear phony application can destroy all the true picture save for one Ring.
Is there already a math proof in Projective Geometry of this idea???
If I had posted this in 1993 in August when the Usenet sci.math was relatively new. I would get at least 50 replies from dot edu addresses from professors with real names, in reply, saying either no or yes. Some even posting the projective geometry proof.
But since 1993 and the horrid Huns of dragnet police FBI, CIA spam and then on top of that--paid stalkers, sci.math delivers no reply to a intriguing conjecture.
AP, King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
2:52 PM (2 minutes ago)
to
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 1:46:27 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
I am really psyched and geared up in doing this book. It will be a new conjecture if Old Math never came across such a math idea.
As quickly as I was psyched up, I now see the conjecture is false. All I needed was some good modeling. The billiards table models a linear interaction, showing the conjecture cannot stand.
AP
AP's 262nd book of science-- Explaining Caltech's Jarrett's Ring of Galaxies in 3rd layer of Cosmic Mapping
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)