Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.math > #402526 > unrolled thread

Drs.Amit Chakma,Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut of Univ Western Ontario-are you as dumb as Dan Christensen//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole

Back to article view | Back to sci.math

Contents

  Drs.Amit Chakma,Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut of Univ Western Ontario-are you as dumb as Dan Christensen//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-01-23 12:15 -0800
    Re: Drs.Amit Chakma,Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut of Univ Western Ontario-are you as dumb as Dan Christensen//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2018-01-23 13:23 -0800
      Re: Drs.Amit Chakma,Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut of Univ Western Ontario-are you as dumb as Dan Christensen//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-01-25 04:44 +0000
    Re: Drs.Amit Chakma,Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut of Univ Western Ontario-are you as dumb as Dan Christensen//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole Jan <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-01-24 21:14 -0800
    Drs.Amit Chakma,Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut of Univ Western Ontario-are you as dumb as Dan Christensen//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-01-25 12:39 -0800
      Re: Drs.Amit Chakma,Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut of Univ Western Ontario-are you as dumb as Dan Christensen//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-01-26 04:42 +0000
      Re: Drs.Amit Chakma,Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut of Univ Western Ontario-are you as dumb as Dan Christensen//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-01-26 10:08 -0800
    Drs.Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang of Univ Western Ontario-are you as dumb as Dan Christensen//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-01-27 14:47 -0800
    Drs.Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones of Univ Western Ontario-are you as dumb as Dan Christensen//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-01-30 20:54 -0800
    Re: Drs.Amit Chakma,Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut of Univ Western Ontario-are you as dumb as Dan Christensen//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-02-08 21:36 -0800
    Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones Re: Drs.Amit Chakma,Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut of Univ Western Ontario-are you as dumb as Dan Christensen//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-10 12:26 -0800
      Re: Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones Re: Drs.Amit Chakma,Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut of Univ Western Ontario-are you as dumb as Dan Christensen//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-03-10 22:24 +0000

#402526 — Drs.Amit Chakma,Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut of Univ Western Ontario-are you as dumb as Dan Christensen//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole

Proofs that the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV, and that the .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole, after all

by Archimedes Plutonium

12 PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon 
by Archimedes Plutonium

Proofs that the Real Electron=muon and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall

PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon 

1st proof is chemical bonding cannot exist with momentum of 938 versus .5MeV 
Chemical Bonds are covalent, ionic, metallic. You simply cannot get atoms to bond if the electron is thought of as the .5MeV particle, only with a muon at 105 MeV and the proton at 840 MeV with neutron at 945 MeV do you have the physics of angular momentum that allows bonding in Chemistry. The .5MeV particle was, all along a magnetic monopole of a photon with .5 MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy. 


2nd proof with the direct observance some years back in Poland of a 840 Mev particle along with 105 MeV particle of the hydrogen atom. 

Hello, well i found the below on the internet. I need a 840MeV particle that is the Real Proton. I have asked to look for it in the production of Muons. Is the below a production of muons along with 840 MeV particles? 

Quoting 

Indication For A Broad J(pc) = 2++ Meson At 840-mev Produced In The Reaction Pi- P ---> Pi+ Pi- N At High |t| 
K. Rybicki, I. Sakrejda (Cracow, INP) 
1985 - 10 pages 

Z.Phys. C28 (1985) 65-74 
DOI: 10.1007/BF01550250 
Abstract (Springer) 
The reaction π−p→π+π−n has been studied at 17.2 GeV/c and 63 GeV/c. A partial wave analysis shows a fairly broad (∼250 MeV) resonance at about 840 MeV. This object, already visible in moments of the angular distribution, is produced in theD wave with helicitym=2 via unnatural exchange. The cross section for the reaction π−p→D2U(840)n is only by an order of magnitude lower than that of ϱ(770) and falls likepLAB−2.1±0.3. We have not been able to explain this object by systematic experimental effects like acceptance and/orN* reflections; neither is the nature of the resonance (if real) clear to us. 
--- end quote --- 


3rd proof-- pull plug out of electrical socket and notice light flash. That flash of light was the magnetic monopoles as photons with charge energy of .5MeV, for the monopoles compose all electric currents. 

4th proof is that the radius of the hydrogen proton shrinks too much when a muon is injected and that contradicts Standard Model. The reason is obvious-- the proton is 840 MeV electron is muon and then you add a second muon. 

--- Quoting from www, Ars Technica, Researchers orbit a muon around an atom, confirm physics is broken --- 

So, the proton radius puzzle remains a puzzle. The team behind this new work point to a number of measurements that could potentially help clarify it. Some of them involve better measurements with normal electrons; others involve scattering muons off protons themselves to see if there's an unknown force at work. The latter would tell us whether anything beyond the Standard Model will be needed to explain this puzzle. 

--- end Quote --- 

5th proof electrochemical battery is not explainable as Faraday law unless you concede the battery is a thrusting bar magnet, and thus, the battery is explained as a dipole magnet of the anode and cathode and the electrolyte solution is the ferromagnetism of spins all lined up. And thus a current in the circuit is because the battery as a thrusting magnet forces monopoles down the circuit wire. 

6th proof, spin is charge, and charge is spin and the only particle for that is a ratio of permittivity to permeability as that of 10^-6/ 10^-12 is a charge energy of 10^6 or 1 MeV for photon charge energy, and that leaves the proton, electron=muon, monopole with .5MeV charge energy. 


7th proof the Maxwell Equations are not symmetrical without current being the flow of magnetic monopoles. 

8th proof, now, a straightforward proof that the muon is the real-electron can come from ion theory. The trouble is that weeding out a proof of electron = muon, is that we get entangled with the magnetic monopole. So, the proof is simple for ion theory, to prove the muon = real electron. Take for example iron Fe atoms, they are 26 protons, 26 electrons=muons 
Now iron has ion states of -4, -2, -1, +1, +2, +3, +4, +5 +6, +7 
So, suppose the electron = .5MeV particle and not the 105 MeV particle 
That would mean Iron can exist as iron with 26 protons and only 19 electrons at one extreme and 26 protons and 30 electrons at the other extreme. 
Now in Maxwell theory, there is a law that enforces Conservation of Energy, called the Lenz law in Faraday law. Otherwise, you have unlimited energy and Nature does not have unlimited energy. 
So that in atoms, the protons become a thrusting bar magnet and the electrons= real-electrons are the closed loop of wire (inert gases are closed loop wires and why bonding exists is to close the loop of real-electron structure). 
So, the proof that .5MeV are not electrons, is that iron bonds readily with other iron forming a compound of iron, the metal iron and metallic bond is due to iron atoms wanting to close the loop of their 26 Real Electrons. They close that loop by the metallic bond. That means, the existence of ions from -4 to +7 is unrelated altogether from Electron configuration. That ions are some other particle behavior but not the electron nor proton behavior. 
The reason iron exists as iron from Fe-4 to Fe+7 is that the particle .5MeV is a surface interloper particle of atoms, it is a add-on particle not the integral electron of atoms. If the monopole were the electron we break conservation of energy by all these interlopers. The reason the chemical table is all built around the inert gases, is because Faraday's law must be obeyed and thus atoms with a closed loop of their electrons seek no bonding of electrons= muons. But atoms that have no closed loop of their muons, seek that closed loop structure and thus, they form covalent, ionic, metallic bonds with other muons of other atoms. 

9th Proof. In Chemistry, it is rare, that a atom loses or gains any Real-Electron=muon. 
And that is a 9th proof that Real Electron=muon, that beta decay in Old Physics, was not the electron of atoms but the transfer of Magnetic Monopoles. 
The only real radioactive decay mode is the helium nucleus-- alpha decay 
But there is never a Real Electron decay for that would mean muons spewed out of atoms. Nor do we see protons spewed out of atoms, Real Proton = 840 MeV. The so called hydrogen nucleus of a 938 MeV is not radioactive decay, for it is still a 840 proton + 105 muon = hydrogen atom. 

10th Proof. Well, I spoke of the internal heart or core of the concept of Chemistry, that the proton/s and electron/s are two parts of the Faraday Law. The protons are the thrusting bar magnet and the electrons= muons forms the closed loop of wire. Essentially that is the heart and core of atomic physics, a replay of Faraday's law with protons and electrons. 

But, however, the electrons= muons only forms a closed loop wire for Faraday's law in the inert gases, the helium, neon, argon, etc and all other atoms want to have that closed loop configuration. Thus, is borne the Chemistry of bonding. Chemistry is borne. So that one atom without a closed loop configuration bonds with another atom to achieve that goal. So chemistry bonding is that of muons bonded to other muons in different atoms. 
  
Now, can these .5 MeV particles fulfill the atoms need to make their muons a closed loop? Obviously not, because ions of atoms such as Fe, iron, swing from -4 to +7 in ions, so that proves ions cannot solve a atom's problem of its electron structure being less than closed loop. Only muons of other atoms can fulfill a atom's need to be closed loop. 

11th Proof. Solving the Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly, alongside proton radius shrunk 
 --- Quoting from www, Ars Technica, Researchers orbit a muon around an atom, confirm physics is broken --- 

So, the proton radius puzzle remains a puzzle. The team behind this new work point to a number of measurements that could potentially help clarify it. Some of them involve better measurements with normal electrons; others involve scattering muons off protons themselves to see if there's an unknown force at work. The latter would tell us whether anything beyond the Standard Model will be needed to explain this puzzle. 
 --- end Quote --- 
  
Now in re-reading that Ars article on proton radius shrinking when a hydrogen atom of 840 MeV proton with electron = 105 MeV and then a second muon is tried to be compounded-- will of course, shrink the proton radius for the two muons with 1 proton all three are centered at the center of the proton. 

But in re-reading was mentioned an anomaly I was not familiar with-- Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly. 

And reading some results of that, I find surprizing for it was Feynman who claimed Electrodynamics was the supreme physics theory in accuracy of prediction. 

But the anomaly is off by a mere .1%, which seems very very small to be not even an anomaly. Trouble is, the electron of Old Physics was found to be so accurate as to be described as physic's most precise finding ever, and that makes the .1% discrepancy ever so much larger. 

Now, I was able to explain away the proton radius anomaly because the proton is not 938 MeV but is 840 MeV and the electron is not the .5MeV particle but rather is 105 MeV. 

So, can I explain away the Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly. I believe I can easily. For if you consider that what Old Physics measured as the electron magnetic moment was none other than the monopole as a dressed up photon magnetic moment. And it is easily seen that in EM theory the permeability constant is "exact" no uncertainty at 1.26*10^-6 H/m. 

So, it is no wonder that Old Physics thought their electron magnetic moment in Quantum Electrodynamics was so ultra ultra precise-- for, they never measured the magnetic moment of the electron, but instead a magnetic monopole of the dressed up .5 MeV particle. 

Then, when it came time to measure the magnetic moment of the muon, the real-true-electron, there is this .1% discrepancy, but there are discrepancies in the proton and neutron etc. 

So, once we realized the Real Electron is the muon, afterall, there is no magnetic moment anomaly. 

12th proof -- Static Electricity Re: Proofs that the Real Electron=muon

Alright, I need a 12th proof, for I do not want to neglect what is probably our first encounter with electricity-- static electricity. As we walk across a carpet and touch something we experience a spark. Trouble with static electricity, is that the concept makes out the atom as a flimsy structure, really really flimsy structure that electrons of atoms can be picked off so easily, and from very many diverse materials. One would think the structure of atoms was built of stronger stuff. And that is what the Electron = Muon concept is about, that it is so very very hard to separate a electron from its atom, just like separating a proton out of a nucleus. So the subject of static electricity is this interloper particle, this surface superficial particle that is easily "whipped up" as the magnetic monopole, just as easy as producing electricity in a Faraday Law demonstration of a thrusting bar magnet in closed loop of wire. For, we can easily imagine that our walk across a carpet is similar to a thrusting bar magnet and then the closed loop wire is when we touch something, having built up some monopoles in our body.

Old Physics would say that we picked up electrons on the carpet, and as we touch something, remit that imbalance of electrons. 

New Physics would say that we picked up magnetic monopoles. 

Now let us look at other static electric experiments. For when we rub a glass rod (+1) with silk, or rub a plastic rod (-1) with wool. Here again, Old Physics would say we pick off electrons of atoms. 

New Physics would say, no, the atoms are still composed of all their electrons and protons. The only thing changed with the rubbing is that energy of the rub transfers to the magnetic monopole energy-- packets of .5MeV monopoles of charge energy. And the energy of rubbing becomes monopoles. These are those closed Lines of Force of a magnet, and the moment we touch something these stored up monopoles, flow from our body to that of the touched object. 

How is that a proof the electron = muon? 

Simple, in that the carpet, or plastic rod (-1) with wool or glass rod (+1) with silk, are materials that are electrically neutral substances, for the rubbing action was transformed not into free electrons, but was formed into monopoles. These substances remain electrically neutral, and the only change is that the rub created magnetic monopoles-- some + charged monopoles, some - charged monopoles, and these monopoles are superficial to the atoms where they formed. 

Static Electricity is merely stored monopoles. Monopoles are conservation of energy, for the rubbing had to be transformed into some energy packets and that is-- monopoles of charge energy. 

In the experiment of where we pick up bits of paper from either the glass rod or the plastic rod due to static electricity. What is happening here, is that the rod is not involved with the Real Electrons of atoms, but is involved with the superficial surface charged particle that is the magnetic monopole. 

Now the electroscope is explained much much easier with magnetic monopoles rather than the silly electrons on one leaf pushing away the electrons on the second leaf. 

For consider instead a closed loop line of force between the two leafs 

/\ 
O 

Where the leafs start out as || 

Then comes the charged rod of monopoles sending down a monopole closed loop O that pushes apart the two leafs. 

Now i have two gold leafs and if true should leave the push apart looking more like this () rather than this /\. And that is what i have () 
 
by Archimedes Plutonium
------------------
------------------- 


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


SEE PICTURE DIAGRAM of FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS below, professors hate teaching this for it shows their "limit calculus to be a joke"

PICTURE DIAGRAM OF FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS 

By April 2015, was there for the first time a picture diagram proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC, not just an analysis argument, but a geometry proof (see below). Old Math could never assemble a picture diagram of the FTC. All they could do is argue with limit concept an analysis argument, never a geometry proof of FTC. 

A picture diagram proof of FTC changes all of calculus and thus, changes all of mathematics for it requires a infinity borderline to produce an actual number for the  infinitesimal, and that number is the inverse of the infinity borderline. Requiring a infinity borderline to produce the infinitesimal changes all of mathematics, and throwing out the limit concept. By changing all of Calculus and thus correcting mathematics, all of math before 2015 was just trash math.

Picture Diagram needed for Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

Why no continuum and no curves exist in Math, so that the Calculus
can exist, and does exist

by Archimedes Plutonium

Calculus is based upon there being Grid points in geometry, no
continuum, but actually, empty space between two neighboring points.
This is called Discrete geometry, and in physics, this is called
Quantum Mechanics. In 10 Grid, the first few numbers are 0, .1, .2,
.3, etc. That means there does not exist any number between 0 and .1,
no number exists between .1 and .2. Now if you want more precise
numbers, you go to a higher Grid like that of 100 Grid where the first
few numbers are 0, .01, .02, .03, etc.

Calculus in order to exist at all, needs this empty space between
consecutive numbers or successor numbers. It needs that empty space so
that the integral of calculus is actually small rectangles whose
interior area is not zero. So in 10 Grid, the smallest width of any
Calculus rectangle is of width .1. In 100 Grid the smallest width is
.01.

But, this revolutionary understanding of Calculus does not stop with
the Integral, for having empty space between numbers, means no curves
in math exist, but are ever tinier straight-line segments.

It also means, that the Derivative in Calculus is part and parcel of
the function graph itself. So that in a function such as y = x^2, the
function graph is the derivative at a point. In Old Math, they had the
folly and idiocy of a foreign, alien tangent line to a function graph
as derivative. In New Math, the derivative is the same as the function
graph itself. And, this makes commonsense, utter commonsense, for the
derivative is a prediction of the future of the function in question,
and no way in the world can a foreign tangent line to a point on the
function be able to predict, be able to tell where the future point of
that function be. The only predictor of a future point of a function,
is the function graph itself.

If the Calculus was done correctly, conceived correctly, then a
minimal diagram explains all of Calculus. Old Math never had such a
diagram, because Old Math was in total error of what Calculus is, and
what Calculus does.

The fundamental picture of all of Calculus are these two of a
trapezoid and rectangle. In fact, call the picture, the 

FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS, Picture

Trapezoid for derivative as the roof-top of
the trapezoid, which must be a straight-line segment. If it is curved,
you cannot fold it down to form a integral rectangle. And the
rectangle for integral as area.

From this:
        B
        /|
      /  |
 A /----|
  /      |
|        |
|____|


The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
so that it can be hinged at A, and swiveled down to form rectangle for
integral.

To this:

______
|         |
|         |
|         |
---------

And the derivative of x= A, above is merely the dy/dx involving points
A and B. Thus, it can never be a curve in Calculus. And the AB is part
of the function graph itself. No curves exist in mathematics and no
continuum exists in mathematics.

In the above we see that CALCULUS needs and requires a diagram in
which you can go from derivative to integral, or go from integral to
derivative, by simply a hinge down to form a rectangle for area, or a
hinge up to form the derivative from a given rectangle.

Why in Old Math could no professor of math ever do the Calculus
Diagram? Why? The answer is simple, no-one in Old Math pays attention
to Logic, and that no-one in Old Math was required to take formal
Logic when they attended school. So a person bereft of Logic, is never
going to find mistakes of Logic and think clear and think straight.

by Archimedes Plutonium
------------------
------------------- 




Why does Canada make a fool of itself, in having a fool of logic, Dan Christensen, maintain a website on Logic, when, that fool does not even know the difference of "distinct"?? Does Canada love self flagellation??


On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:08:09 AM UTC-6, Peter Percival wrote: 
> Dan Christensen wrote: 
> > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:47:32 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> >> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 8:27:19 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote: 
> >>> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:16:52 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> >>>> PAGE58, 8-3, True Geometry / correcting axioms, 1by1 tool, angles of logarithmic spiral, conic sections unified regular polyhedra, Leaf-Triangle, Unit Basis Vector 
> >>>> 
> >>>> The axioms that are in need of fixing is the axiom that between any two points lies a third new point. 
> >>> 
> >>> The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points." 
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> What a monsterous fool you are 
> >> 
> > 
> > OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it. 
> 
> And yet Mr Plutonium is right.  Two points are distinct (else they would 
> be one) and it is not necessary to say so. 
> 



Dan Christensen is not only a failure of math, --must have have been burnt out at school-- but also an insane stalker-crank on sci.math for 5 years now. I have often asked Google to please engineer a delete key so original authors of a thread can develop their own thread without these insane stalking poopers pooping up (Christensen a 5 year stalker). Let original authors delete any post in their thread which is unfit. Let insane stalkers make their own threads so they can crap all they wish without interrupting those doing serious science. 

MAKE sci.math a Level Playing field, and stop tilting sci.math in favor of moron stalkers. 

Drs.Amit Chakma,Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut of Univ Western Ontario-never a Picture of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus//are you as dumb as Dan Christensen//your students deserve better


MAKE sci.math a Level Playing field, and stop tilting sci.math in favor of moron stalkers. 

Univ Western Ontario math dept
Janusz Adamus, Tatyana  Barron,   Dan Christensen, Graham Denham, Ajneet Dhillon, Matthias  Franz, John Jardine, Massoud Khalkhali, Nicole Lemire, Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner, David Riley, Rasul Shafikov, Gordon Sinnamon 

president Amit Chakma (chemical engineering)
Univ. Western Ontario physics dept
Pauline Barmby, Shantanu Basu, Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown, Blaine Chronik, Robert Cockcroft, John R. de Bruyn, Colin Denniston, Giovanni Fanchini, Sarah Gallagher, Lyudmila Goncharova, Wayne Hocking, Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut, Peter Simpson, Mahi Singh, Paul Wiegert, Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang

   /\-------/\ 
   \::O:::O::/ 
  (::_  ^  _::) 
   \_`-----'_/ 
You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Ontario? 

And, even though you-- professors of physics/math, want to remain stupid in Real-Electron/ Calculus, your students deserve better. 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#402529

On Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 3:16:09 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Proofs that the Real Electron=muon...

The delusional Archie Pu must have dreamed of greatness in his youth, but look at him now in his late 60's. 

Archie Pu is reduced to stalking and insulting random professors (calling them stupid or dumb) hoping to intimidate them into accepting his bizarre theories: that 10^666 is an "infinite number" (his goofy "infinity border line"), that the entire universe is just one huge plutonium (Pu) atom (since EVERYTHING is made up of atoms), that ellipses are not conic sections (since he cuts up paper cones at his kitchen table but can only obtain wiggly ovals), that electrons are muons (no idea where that idiocy came from), that the rules of logic must be scrapped (since he can't tell AND from OR), that fractions don't exist (he still does't get common denominators)... The list goes on and on and on. 

Every error he makes, every misunderstanding, every brain fart is a new, earth-shattering discovery to him and further evidence of a massive international conspiracy to hide The Truth. 

He must be living in total squalor and islolation in his little cabin in the woods. Could the county sheriff in Wherever SD please drop in and check up on him? He really seems to be losing it and may be a danger to himself.


A concerned friend


 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402628

Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> writes:

>Every error he makes, every misunderstanding, every brain fart is a new, 
>earth-shattering discovery to him and further evidence of a massive 
>international conspiracy to hide The Truth.

>He must be living in total squalor and islolation in his little cabin in 
>the woods. Could the county sheriff in Wherever SD please drop in and 
>check up on him? He really seems to be losing it and may be a danger to 
>himself.

>A concerned friend

You probably have a good reason to be concerned.  You see, Archie has been
totally outwitted in logic by someone (George Boole) who was too stupid to
come in out of the rain, and died because of that. If Archie isn't even as
smart as someone too dumb to come in out of the rain, does that mean that
he might try to walk a few miles in a South Dakota blizzard wearing a
T-shirt, shorts and sandals? South Dakota winters can be nasty.

In a way, it's good to see him posting. It means he's alive. It wouldn't
be good if he suddenly stopped posting, and around the time everyone had
forgotten about him we find out that someone found a nasty surprise in a
melting South Dakota snowbank.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402630

On Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 12:16:09 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Proofs that the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV, and that the .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole, after all

Stop polluting this group with garbage.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402712

Newsgroups: sci.math 
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 00:12:06 -0800 (PST) 

Subject: Page21, 2-7, First true real understanding of what is electricity-- 
 monopole flow/ Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017 
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> 
Injection-Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 08:12:06 +0000 


Page21, 2-7, First true real understanding of what is electricity-- monopole flow/ Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017 

Marvelous progress-- world's first correct view of electricity 

I thought it would take many months to understand that electricity comes not from electrons moving, but comes from Magnetic Monopoles of .5 MeV, in that a line of force in the magnetic field is a monopole of .5MeV. Instead, it took but a week to see the conceptual breakthrough. Now, I am not shy nor bashful about admitting that I could never understand the physics of professors waxing on and on about magnetic flux and the breaking of lines of force in the Faraday law. Were you, the reader, also one of those who could never connect with -- how the hell, is the lines of force of the thrusting bar magnet making electrons in the copper wire, move? How the hell does that work. So, like so many other things in science and math, I just accepted it, but saw no rhyme nor reason. I knew the Lines of Force were involved, but I never could see a picture in mind how the lines of force pushed or pulled electrons in the copper wire. 

There was a good reason why this picture never was forthcoming. Because it is simply not true, and was never a explanation of electric current. Oh, sure, the Lines of Force played a crucial role, but how? 

And what happens in the Faraday law, the thrusting bar magnet allows for lines of force as a loop, to jump ship of the bar magnet and jump onto the coil of copper wire. 



                 __   
       .-'               `-.     
   .'                         `.   
 /                              \     
;                                 ; 
|                                 |   this is a closed loop of copper wire 
;                                ;     
 \                              /       
   `.                        .'       
      `-  .  _____   .-'       



This is a bar magnet showing its Lines of Force 



                               North 
                                  __ 
           __..=......._         |  |           
        ,-;,-' _..-----.:=._     |  |     _.=:.-----.._ 
     _,','  ,-'      _____`-:.   |  |   .:-'_____       
    / ,'  ,'    _.-''__...:..::. |  | .::..:...__``-._     `,   
  ,' /  ,'    ,'  _,'   _,,,_-.. |  | ..-_,,,_   `,_  `,     `, 
 .' /  /    ,'   /    ,'     `,  |  |  ,'     `,    \   `,    \  \  `. 
 | /  /    ,'  .'   ,'         `,|  |,'         `,   `.  `,    \  \  | 
| .'  /    |   |   .'           `|  |'           `.   |   |    \  `. | 
| |   |   |   |    |             |  |             |    |   |   |   | | 
| |   |   |   |    |             |  |             |    |   |   |   | | 
|  |  \    \   \    \           /|  |\           /    /   /    /  |  | 
 \ '.  \    \   \    \         / |  | \         /    /   /    /  .` / 
  \ `.  \    \   `.   `._   _.'  |  |  `._   _.'   .'   /    /   
   \  \  `.   `._  `.._  `''=-'''|  |```-=``'  _..'  _.'   .' 
    `. `.  `._   `-..__i;;:=;;;' |  | `;;;=:;;j__..-'   _.'   
      `._`-._ `-.._____..=:i,'   |  |   `,j:=..____ 
         `.._`--.....,-=;-'      |__|      `-;=-,.....-- 
             `'------''       South 



Line of Force of in a bar magnet, where each Loop is either a +1 charge .5MeV monopole or a -1 charge monopole. 

Can you see that as you thrust that bar magnet in the closed loop of wire, that many, many of those ellipses jump onto the loop of copper wire. And each of those loops of Lines of Force carry a .5 MeV charge energy, a monopole. Magnetic Monopoles are either a photon or neutrino, either one, dressed up with a .5MeV charge energy. A normal photon without charge energy travels in a straight line, has linear momentum only. But when you dress up a photon with a charge energy, it becomes a monopole and curves around into a loop, a closed loop. 

So, the Faraday law, is really the geometry of closed loops Line of Forces of a Magnet that jump ship from the magnet and become monopoles of the copper closed loop wire. Now, one experiment that brilliantly shows this to be true is to bend the wire in odd shapes, more odd than the circle ellipses of Magnetic Field, and watch, for the current produced is less if odd shaped. The most current is where the Lines of Force of magnet match closely with the loop of wire. 

Now I hate these two terms "jump ship" and "dress up". Scientists like to have terms that sound and feel scientific. But the reason I opt for these terms, is that scientists go too far in making physics not understandable. I prefer terms in which the human mind can most readily absorb and form a geometrical picture in their own mind as to what is going on. So many journals of science are so lousy in terms that one thinks, the scientists are not teaching or revealing but rather, they are so stupid as to not be able to make common sense. They are dumb, and hiding it in abstract terms. So, I, never want abstract terms, but want immediate understanding. So will stick to "jump ship" and if you hate that , well, just think of Transfer, for transfer is sort of scientific. As for dress up, well, there is superposition, but I prefer dress up. 

The experimental proof of this jumping ship from Lines of Force of bar magnet onto closed loop of wire in Faraday's law, the experimental proof is simple and easy. I posted it two days ago: 

Newsgroups: sci.math 
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 03:26:02 -0800 (PST) 

Subject: just 2 magnets giving me a permanent voltage-- proof the .5 MeV is a monopole 
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> 
Injection-Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2017 11:26:02 +0000 

just 2 magnets on a magnetic board, giving me a permanent voltage-- proof the .5 MeV is a monopole 

This year i discovered the Real Electron is 105 MeV and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. A monopole not with .5MeV of rest-mass but with .5 MeV of charge energy. 

If true it should have a reading of a permanent DC voltage from two powerful nearby stationary magnets, 3cm apart fixed to a magnetic board. I have a costly multimeter. Now I place the electrode on one magnet pole and the other electrode on the other magnet pole. 

Now as i measure one magnet individually the meter jumps in value but settles on 0 reading. 

However, if i put one electrode on one magnet and the other electrode on second magnet i get a permanent reading of .002 volts dc. 

The way i interpret this (maybe i am wrong) is that the lines of force of one magnet with lines of force from other magnet are .5MeV particles causing a voltage, permanent voltage. 

This, if true, may serve as proof that the .5MeV thought to be electron is after all a magnetic monopole. And, this, is proof that electricity is the motion, not of electrons nor protons, but the motion of monopoles. A Monopole is a photon or neutrino dress-up with .5 MeV of charge energy, not rest mass energy, but charge energy. And charge is what bends a wave from going linear, bends the wave to go angular and come back around upon itself. 

I have an expensive Fluke multimeter and powerful neodymium magnets. 

AP 

Of course I need others to repeat the experiment and verify the result. The Result is magnificently important. For never before was a current achieved by two stationary magnets, only thrusting magnets in Faraday's law. And this experiment reiterates the issue that magnetism is primal, so that the production of electricity, needs to come from a more primal origin. Not a Faraday law of thrusting bar magnet, but a law of 2 stationary magnets. Let me call it the AP law of magnetism. It already exists in the AP equations of prior page, under the Law of Magnetism. It simple says that monopoles exist and are .5 MeV charge energy. 

Now there needs to be an experiment, one that colleges can do, wherein we see that the definition of quantum spin m_s of the four quantum numbers is 1/2 spin. The experiment is to show that the number 1/2, was wisely chosen, because the experiment exposes the fact that electron volts definition is the energy of a single monopole in minimum energy. What I mean is, well, MeV as a amount of energy fits the nuclear energy compared to the electron space energy. In this textbook I derive the Strong Nuclear Force (a later page) showing that the ration of nuclear energy to electron space energy is a difference of 10^6, and this difference shows up with fine structure constant in that permittivity and permeability have a ratio of 10^6. Given that difference, then all that needs to be accounted for is the 1/2 or .5. Thus, the magnetic monopole that Dirac was chasing after was not that of 137/2 of electric charge, but was that of .5 MeV charge. Now, I need to go back and see where Dirac went astray on 137/2. 

Let me briefly touch on this idea that we can pare away the MeV and focus on just .5 eV, where the definition in physics gives us eV as the correct measure of the monopole and the assignment of 1/2 spin was a wisely chosen arbitrary assignment. But here is some of that later page discussion 

>factor of 10^6 (permeability/permittivity) for Chemical Bond to Strong Nuclear Force as a Coulomb force 
> 
>If one looks on page 572: PHYSICS, part 2, extended version, Halliday & Resnick, 1986, page 572, we see >a picture of a typical atom with its electron shells and a nucleus. The electron cloud has a diameter of >2x10^-10 meter and the diameter of the nucleus is 5x10^-15 meters. 
> 
>As I have reported of equilibration, that the Chemical bond is typically 5 eV and the nuclear force bond is 5 >MeV so that eV to MeV is a difference of 10^6. 
> 
> (snipped) 
> 
>Stated simply, nuclear physics is chemical bonds at a distance of 10^-6. What holds together the proton and >neutron in deuteron is the same force that holds together the hydrogen atom with a proton (dihydrogen ion), >and only difference is one is 10^6 smaller distance. 
>So 10^6 is a special number in physics, and obviously a dimensionless 
> 
>(snipped) 
>If we look at the two constants in the Maxwell Equations: permeability 
>constant of 1.26 x 10^-6 H/m and the permittivity constant of 8.85 x 10^-12 F/m, that those two constants >directly link to one another as being a factor of 10^6 and that starting from 0 to permeability as 10^-6 we >reach permittivity as another 10^6 increment. 
> 

Now, experiments put the number at .51 MeV or thereabouts, and what I tell them, it is exactly .5 MeV, if you use the Decimal number system for which computers use binary, and so many of the numbers of physics constants are off, not because Nature, but because of lousy binary. So that the monopole is .5 MeV, the speed of light is 3.00 not 2.9… the inverse fine structure constant is 137, not a fraction more or less. The Real Electron = Muon rest mass is exactly 105, and the proton is exactly 840 and neutron is exactly 945 MeV. Leave it to some stupid country club gaggle of physicists that when they see 938.27 for proton, could never ring any bells in their minds and connect 105.65 MeV muon. Now, if you had a bonehead physicists who got for the proton, got say 940.1 and for muon got say 105.2, just for instance, do you think the lights would have come on, upstairs? I doubt it. Because the way I discovered the Real Electron is the Muon, is because, to me 938 and 105, had the lights go on immediately. (I should dig up that history of 2016). Let me review how the lights came on for me that the Real Electron is the Muon. Back in 2016, I noticed the Elementary Particles that the muon was 105 and the proton was 938 MeV respectively, and to me, looking for patterns, my mind is never so rusty, so tarnished as is the minds of almost all physicists, for to me, 105 and 938, meant the proton was exactly 9 muons. But that was year 2016, and it was not until 2017, that I had to breakdown that idea that 9Muons = 1 Proton. By breaking it down to the fact that a Proton was 840 MeV and the Muon was the Real Electron and thus, the particle we had always thought was the electron, that puny small particle of .5 MeV was something else, and turns out to be the magnetic monopole and the source of electricity. 


Newsgroups: sci.physics 
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 11:50:59 -0700 (PDT) 
Subject: is the proton that of 9 muons packed together? The 200 rest mass Rule 
 /textbook 7th ed 
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> 
Injection-Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 18:50:59 +0000 

> 
>is the proton that of 9 muons packed together? The 200 rest mass Rule /textbook 7th ed 
> 
>Seems like a few weeks ago I wrote this about rest mass, and the rule of 200: 
> 
>Two Sequences I want a formula for: 
> 
>1st Sequence 0.51,  105.7, 135, 139.6, 493.7, 497.7, 548.8 
> 
>2nd Sequence 938.3, 939.6, 1116, 1189, 1192, 1197, 1315, 1321, 1672 
> 
>If you are wondering where these numbers come from, they come from PHYSICS, Halliday & >Resnick, 1986, page A27 and are the electron-like rest masses and proton-like rest masses. 
> 
>Electron, Muon, Pion, K meson, Eta meson 
> 
>Proton, Neutron, Lambda, Sigma, Xi, Omega 
(snipped) 
. 
. 
. 
>And the question of why 940 MeV for proton? While electron is a meagre .51 MeV. Now let me put >a thought out that may pan out, but not likely. Think of the proton of rest mass as 940 MeV and >consider that the muon is 105 MeV and that 9 Muons packed together makes a proton. Now that >sounds so far off the beaten tracks, because how could you assemble 9 negative charges to be a >single positive charge? 
> 
>But there is a charming aspect to that idea, that the muon is the rest-mass giver. 
> 
>AP 
--- end of old 2016 post which lead to the discovery that the Real Electron = muon.--- 

This almost reminds me of astronomy, solar system of the spacing distance of planets per the Titius Bode Formula. I would be very happy to get a Titius Bode type of formula rule for particle rest mass. 

Now, in the above, I spotted a sort of rule, called 200 rule. 

The Neutron is 200 smaller than the lambda or sigma, and the sigma is 200 smaller than the Xi. 

So I have a 200-rule for rest mass, since the electron=muon is roughly 200 larger in mass than the magnetic monopole at .5 MeV. 

Is there such a thing as Proton Production as there is Monopole production in a Pair Production? Can a energetic photon produce protons? I suppose an experiment in a particle accelerator can find out if protons are produced with an anti-proton together. Perhaps one of these particles beyond the Omega particle of 1672 MeV has already validated Proton Pair Production. Or, if you consider the Real Proton at 840 MeV then it and its antiparticle sums to 1680 MeV, just a little above 1672 MeV. 


For once, in science history, we can understand what electricity really is, and understand why AC can go far distance, yet DC is not far. 

Amazing, true amazing, that electric current flow, is not the electrons, nor protons, but is magnetic monopoles doing the flowing, doing the current, doing electricity. 

Electricity was never the motion of electrons, for electrons were muons. Electricity was always about the motion of monopoles that consist of .5MeV charge energy. 

Yes, Worlds NEW VIEW of how Electricity really works. 

And, this probably changes our complete view and understanding of the Metallic Bond, and valence. And, this should explain a whole lot easier the difference between AC and DC. Now Old Physics could explain what AC was, but they could not explain why AC goes so far in distance, never explain that with any degree of truth. Why AC is longer distance, is that the DC loop of a monopole weakens, but if you reverse current so fast, that the extinguishing of the geometry closed loop is not extinguished, but, made vivid and full each reversal. 

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402734

Physics Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails:

>For once, in science history, we can understand what electricity really is,
> and understand why AC can go far distance, yet DC is not far.

Wrong.

AC is used for long distances because it is sent at high voltages and low
current using transformers, and transformers just don't work on DC.

These days, however, they use high voltage DC to transmit power for even
longer distances than is practical using AC, using converter stations at
each end.  Right now, I am about 20 miles from the converter station at
the end of one of these lines, which imports hydroelectric power from
northern Canada, where there is nobody around to use it.

Thomas Edison is having the last laugh.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402796

explaining muon decay Re: Drs.Thomas Rosenbaum Murray Gell-Mann John Schwarz of CalTech//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac monopole

On Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 5:27:34 PM UTC-6, Jan wrote: 

> 
> They are different particles. For example, electron is stable but 
> muon is unstable (mean lifetime 2.2 us). 
> 
> -- 
> Jan 

Not all of jumbo dumbo worthless Jan Bielawski in science posts are trash. Some force people to have to look at their silly physics mistakes. 
---- 

For instance, in physics, Old Physics, the muon decay is into a silly electron .5MeV and two neutrinos of 105/2 MeV. 

In New Physics, the muon is the electron and so, it does not decay, but rather, it finds a 840MeV proton particle and becomes hydrogen. 

Now, in the production of muons, did they come from a preexisting hydrogen atom where the electron= muon was stripped, and so the muon is just rejoining up with its proton it lost. 

Now, this begs the question of how many times has any physicist seen a 105/2 pair of neutrinos? So, did the decay of muon in Old Physics, just --- hypothesize the neutrino in the muon, for surely it is extremely difficult to ever even detect a neutrino. 

Now my intuition is telling me that muons are produced in high energy interactions with atoms like hydrogen, and so, it is conceivable that these high energy interactions strip away the electron = 105 MeV from its proton 840 MeV, and in a microsecond the electron finds its stripped off partner and reforms hydrogen. 

Wikipedia writes: "About 10,000 muons reach every square meter of the Earth's surface a minute; these charged particles form as byproducts of cosmic rays colliding with molecules in the upper atmosphere." 

"When a cosmic ray proton impacts atomic nuclei in the upper atmosphere, pions are created. These decay within a relatively short distance into muons, and muon neutrinos. These muons from these high energy cosmic rays generally continue in about the same direction  as the original proton,.." 

"The same nuclear reaction described above (i.e. hadron-hadron impacts to produce pion beams, which then quickly decay to muon beams over short distances) is used by particle physicists to produce muon beams.." 

So, what I am saying is the muon comes from matter of atoms, from atomic structure of proton + electron = muon, and so when you separate that Real Electron= muon from a proton of a atom, it must find that proton very quickly and rejoin. 

As for other decay products, you can have .5 MeV monopoles with the Muon. That is probably why they constantly find muon as 105.7 MeV for the 0.7 is an attached monopoles. 

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#402879 — Drs.Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang of Univ Western Ontario-are you as dumb as Dan Christensen//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole

On Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 2:16:09 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Proofs that the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV, and that the .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole, after all
> 
> by Archimedes Plutonium
> 
> 12 PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon 
> by Archimedes Plutonium
> 
> Proofs that the Real Electron=muon and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall
> 
> PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon 
> 
> 1st proof is chemical bonding cannot exist with momentum of 938 versus .5MeV 
> Chemical Bonds are covalent, ionic, metallic. You simply cannot get atoms to bond if the electron is thought of as the .5MeV particle, only with a muon at 105 MeV and the proton at 840 MeV with neutron at 945 MeV do you have the physics of angular momentum that allows bonding in Chemistry. The .5MeV particle was, all along a magnetic monopole of a photon with .5 MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy. 
> 
> 
> 2nd proof with the direct observance some years back in Poland of a 840 Mev particle along with 105 MeV particle of the hydrogen atom. 
> 
> Hello, well i found the below on the internet. I need a 840MeV particle that is the Real Proton. I have asked to look for it in the production of Muons. Is the below a production of muons along with 840 MeV particles? 
> 
> Quoting 
> 
> Indication For A Broad J(pc) = 2++ Meson At 840-mev Produced In The Reaction Pi- P ---> Pi+ Pi- N At High |t| 
> K. Rybicki, I. Sakrejda (Cracow, INP) 
> 1985 - 10 pages 
> 
> Z.Phys. C28 (1985) 65-74 
> DOI: 10.1007/BF01550250 
> Abstract (Springer) 
> The reaction π−p→π+π−n has been studied at 17.2 GeV/c and 63 GeV/c. A partial wave analysis shows a fairly broad (∼250 MeV) resonance at about 840 MeV. This object, already visible in moments of the angular distribution, is produced in theD wave with helicitym=2 via unnatural exchange. The cross section for the reaction π−p→D2U(840)n is only by an order of magnitude lower than that of ϱ(770) and falls likepLAB−2.1±0.3. We have not been able to explain this object by systematic experimental effects like acceptance and/orN* reflections; neither is the nature of the resonance (if real) clear to us. 
> --- end quote --- 
> 
> 
> 3rd proof-- pull plug out of electrical socket and notice light flash. That flash of light was the magnetic monopoles as photons with charge energy of .5MeV, for the monopoles compose all electric currents. 
> 
> 4th proof is that the radius of the hydrogen proton shrinks too much when a muon is injected and that contradicts Standard Model. The reason is obvious-- the proton is 840 MeV electron is muon and then you add a second muon. 
> 
> --- Quoting from www, Ars Technica, Researchers orbit a muon around an atom, confirm physics is broken --- 
> 
> So, the proton radius puzzle remains a puzzle. The team behind this new work point to a number of measurements that could potentially help clarify it. Some of them involve better measurements with normal electrons; others involve scattering muons off protons themselves to see if there's an unknown force at work. The latter would tell us whether anything beyond the Standard Model will be needed to explain this puzzle. 
> 
> --- end Quote --- 
> 
> 5th proof electrochemical battery is not explainable as Faraday law unless you concede the battery is a thrusting bar magnet, and thus, the battery is explained as a dipole magnet of the anode and cathode and the electrolyte solution is the ferromagnetism of spins all lined up. And thus a current in the circuit is because the battery as a thrusting magnet forces monopoles down the circuit wire. 
> 
> 6th proof, spin is charge, and charge is spin and the only particle for that is a ratio of permittivity to permeability as that of 10^-6/ 10^-12 is a charge energy of 10^6 or 1 MeV for photon charge energy, and that leaves the proton, electron=muon, monopole with .5MeV charge energy. 
> 
> 
> 7th proof the Maxwell Equations are not symmetrical without current being the flow of magnetic monopoles. 
> 
> 8th proof, now, a straightforward proof that the muon is the real-electron can come from ion theory. The trouble is that weeding out a proof of electron = muon, is that we get entangled with the magnetic monopole. So, the proof is simple for ion theory, to prove the muon = real electron. Take for example iron Fe atoms, they are 26 protons, 26 electrons=muons 
> Now iron has ion states of -4, -2, -1, +1, +2, +3, +4, +5 +6, +7 
> So, suppose the electron = .5MeV particle and not the 105 MeV particle 
> That would mean Iron can exist as iron with 26 protons and only 19 electrons at one extreme and 26 protons and 30 electrons at the other extreme. 
> Now in Maxwell theory, there is a law that enforces Conservation of Energy, called the Lenz law in Faraday law. Otherwise, you have unlimited energy and Nature does not have unlimited energy. 
> So that in atoms, the protons become a thrusting bar magnet and the electrons= real-electrons are the closed loop of wire (inert gases are closed loop wires and why bonding exists is to close the loop of real-electron structure). 
> So, the proof that .5MeV are not electrons, is that iron bonds readily with other iron forming a compound of iron, the metal iron and metallic bond is due to iron atoms wanting to close the loop of their 26 Real Electrons. They close that loop by the metallic bond. That means, the existence of ions from -4 to +7 is unrelated altogether from Electron configuration. That ions are some other particle behavior but not the electron nor proton behavior. 
> The reason iron exists as iron from Fe-4 to Fe+7 is that the particle .5MeV is a surface interloper particle of atoms, it is a add-on particle not the integral electron of atoms. If the monopole were the electron we break conservation of energy by all these interlopers. The reason the chemical table is all built around the inert gases, is because Faraday's law must be obeyed and thus atoms with a closed loop of their electrons seek no bonding of electrons= muons. But atoms that have no closed loop of their muons, seek that closed loop structure and thus, they form covalent, ionic, metallic bonds with other muons of other atoms. 
> 
> 9th Proof. In Chemistry, it is rare, that a atom loses or gains any Real-Electron=muon. 
> And that is a 9th proof that Real Electron=muon, that beta decay in Old Physics, was not the electron of atoms but the transfer of Magnetic Monopoles. 
> The only real radioactive decay mode is the helium nucleus-- alpha decay 
> But there is never a Real Electron decay for that would mean muons spewed out of atoms. Nor do we see protons spewed out of atoms, Real Proton = 840 MeV. The so called hydrogen nucleus of a 938 MeV is not radioactive decay, for it is still a 840 proton + 105 muon = hydrogen atom. 
> 
> 10th Proof. Well, I spoke of the internal heart or core of the concept of Chemistry, that the proton/s and electron/s are two parts of the Faraday Law. The protons are the thrusting bar magnet and the electrons= muons forms the closed loop of wire. Essentially that is the heart and core of atomic physics, a replay of Faraday's law with protons and electrons. 
> 
> But, however, the electrons= muons only forms a closed loop wire for Faraday's law in the inert gases, the helium, neon, argon, etc and all other atoms want to have that closed loop configuration. Thus, is borne the Chemistry of bonding. Chemistry is borne. So that one atom without a closed loop configuration bonds with another atom to achieve that goal. So chemistry bonding is that of muons bonded to other muons in different atoms. 
>   
> Now, can these .5 MeV particles fulfill the atoms need to make their muons a closed loop? Obviously not, because ions of atoms such as Fe, iron, swing from -4 to +7 in ions, so that proves ions cannot solve a atom's problem of its electron structure being less than closed loop. Only muons of other atoms can fulfill a atom's need to be closed loop. 
> 
> 11th Proof. Solving the Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly, alongside proton radius shrunk 
>  --- Quoting from www, Ars Technica, Researchers orbit a muon around an atom, confirm physics is broken --- 
> 
> So, the proton radius puzzle remains a puzzle. The team behind this new work point to a number of measurements that could potentially help clarify it. Some of them involve better measurements with normal electrons; others involve scattering muons off protons themselves to see if there's an unknown force at work. The latter would tell us whether anything beyond the Standard Model will be needed to explain this puzzle. 
>  --- end Quote --- 
>   
> Now in re-reading that Ars article on proton radius shrinking when a hydrogen atom of 840 MeV proton with electron = 105 MeV and then a second muon is tried to be compounded-- will of course, shrink the proton radius for the two muons with 1 proton all three are centered at the center of the proton. 
> 
> But in re-reading was mentioned an anomaly I was not familiar with-- Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly. 
> 
> And reading some results of that, I find surprizing for it was Feynman who claimed Electrodynamics was the supreme physics theory in accuracy of prediction. 
> 
> But the anomaly is off by a mere .1%, which seems very very small to be not even an anomaly. Trouble is, the electron of Old Physics was found to be so accurate as to be described as physic's most precise finding ever, and that makes the .1% discrepancy ever so much larger. 
> 
> Now, I was able to explain away the proton radius anomaly because the proton is not 938 MeV but is 840 MeV and the electron is not the .5MeV particle but rather is 105 MeV. 
> 
> So, can I explain away the Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly. I believe I can easily. For if you consider that what Old Physics measured as the electron magnetic moment was none other than the monopole as a dressed up photon magnetic moment. And it is easily seen that in EM theory the permeability constant is "exact" no uncertainty at 1.26*10^-6 H/m. 
> 
> So, it is no wonder that Old Physics thought their electron magnetic moment in Quantum Electrodynamics was so ultra ultra precise-- for, they never measured the magnetic moment of the electron, but instead a magnetic monopole of the dressed up .5 MeV particle. 
> 
> Then, when it came time to measure the magnetic moment of the muon, the real-true-electron, there is this .1% discrepancy, but there are discrepancies in the proton and neutron etc. 
> 
> So, once we realized the Real Electron is the muon, afterall, there is no magnetic moment anomaly. 
> 
> 12th proof -- Static Electricity Re: Proofs that the Real Electron=muon
> 
> Alright, I need a 12th proof, for I do not want to neglect what is probably our first encounter with electricity-- static electricity. As we walk across a carpet and touch something we experience a spark. Trouble with static electricity, is that the concept makes out the atom as a flimsy structure, really really flimsy structure that electrons of atoms can be picked off so easily, and from very many diverse materials. One would think the structure of atoms was built of stronger stuff. And that is what the Electron = Muon concept is about, that it is so very very hard to separate a electron from its atom, just like separating a proton out of a nucleus. So the subject of static electricity is this interloper particle, this surface superficial particle that is easily "whipped up" as the magnetic monopole, just as easy as producing electricity in a Faraday Law demonstration of a thrusting bar magnet in closed loop of wire. For, we can easily imagine that our walk across a carpet is similar to a thrusting bar magnet and then the closed loop wire is when we touch something, having built up some monopoles in our body.
> 
> Old Physics would say that we picked up electrons on the carpet, and as we touch something, remit that imbalance of electrons. 
> 
> New Physics would say that we picked up magnetic monopoles. 
> 
> Now let us look at other static electric experiments. For when we rub a glass rod (+1) with silk, or rub a plastic rod (-1) with wool. Here again, Old Physics would say we pick off electrons of atoms. 
> 
> New Physics would say, no, the atoms are still composed of all their electrons and protons. The only thing changed with the rubbing is that energy of the rub transfers to the magnetic monopole energy-- packets of .5MeV monopoles of charge energy. And the energy of rubbing becomes monopoles. These are those closed Lines of Force of a magnet, and the moment we touch something these stored up monopoles, flow from our body to that of the touched object. 
> 
> How is that a proof the electron = muon? 
> 
> Simple, in that the carpet, or plastic rod (-1) with wool or glass rod (+1) with silk, are materials that are electrically neutral substances, for the rubbing action was transformed not into free electrons, but was formed into monopoles. These substances remain electrically neutral, and the only change is that the rub created magnetic monopoles-- some + charged monopoles, some - charged monopoles, and these monopoles are superficial to the atoms where they formed. 
> 
> Static Electricity is merely stored monopoles. Monopoles are conservation of energy, for the rubbing had to be transformed into some energy packets and that is-- monopoles of charge energy. 
> 
> In the experiment of where we pick up bits of paper from either the glass rod or the plastic rod due to static electricity. What is happening here, is that the rod is not involved with the Real Electrons of atoms, but is involved with the superficial surface charged particle that is the magnetic monopole. 
> 
> Now the electroscope is explained much much easier with magnetic monopoles rather than the silly electrons on one leaf pushing away the electrons on the second leaf. 
> 
> For consider instead a closed loop line of force between the two leafs 
> 
> /\ 
> O 
> 
> Where the leafs start out as || 
> 
> Then comes the charged rod of monopoles sending down a monopole closed loop O that pushes apart the two leafs. 
> 
> Now i have two gold leafs and if true should leave the push apart looking more like this () rather than this /\. And that is what i have () 
>  
> by Archimedes Plutonium
> ------------------
> ------------------- 
> 
> 
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> SEE PICTURE DIAGRAM of FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS below, professors hate teaching this for it shows their "limit calculus to be a joke"
> 
> PICTURE DIAGRAM OF FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS 
> 
> By April 2015, was there for the first time a picture diagram proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC, not just an analysis argument, but a geometry proof (see below). Old Math could never assemble a picture diagram of the FTC. All they could do is argue with limit concept an analysis argument, never a geometry proof of FTC. 
> 
> A picture diagram proof of FTC changes all of calculus and thus, changes all of mathematics for it requires a infinity borderline to produce an actual number for the  infinitesimal, and that number is the inverse of the infinity borderline. Requiring a infinity borderline to produce the infinitesimal changes all of mathematics, and throwing out the limit concept. By changing all of Calculus and thus correcting mathematics, all of math before 2015 was just trash math.
> 
> Picture Diagram needed for Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> 
> Why no continuum and no curves exist in Math, so that the Calculus
> can exist, and does exist
> 
> by Archimedes Plutonium
> 
> Calculus is based upon there being Grid points in geometry, no
> continuum, but actually, empty space between two neighboring points.
> This is called Discrete geometry, and in physics, this is called
> Quantum Mechanics. In 10 Grid, the first few numbers are 0, .1, .2,
> .3, etc. That means there does not exist any number between 0 and .1,
> no number exists between .1 and .2. Now if you want more precise
> numbers, you go to a higher Grid like that of 100 Grid where the first
> few numbers are 0, .01, .02, .03, etc.
> 
> Calculus in order to exist at all, needs this empty space between
> consecutive numbers or successor numbers. It needs that empty space so
> that the integral of calculus is actually small rectangles whose
> interior area is not zero. So in 10 Grid, the smallest width of any
> Calculus rectangle is of width .1. In 100 Grid the smallest width is
> .01.
> 
> But, this revolutionary understanding of Calculus does not stop with
> the Integral, for having empty space between numbers, means no curves
> in math exist, but are ever tinier straight-line segments.
> 
> It also means, that the Derivative in Calculus is part and parcel of
> the function graph itself. So that in a function such as y = x^2, the
> function graph is the derivative at a point. In Old Math, they had the
> folly and idiocy of a foreign, alien tangent line to a function graph
> as derivative. In New Math, the derivative is the same as the function
> graph itself. And, this makes commonsense, utter commonsense, for the
> derivative is a prediction of the future of the function in question,
> and no way in the world can a foreign tangent line to a point on the
> function be able to predict, be able to tell where the future point of
> that function be. The only predictor of a future point of a function,
> is the function graph itself.
> 
> If the Calculus was done correctly, conceived correctly, then a
> minimal diagram explains all of Calculus. Old Math never had such a
> diagram, because Old Math was in total error of what Calculus is, and
> what Calculus does.
> 
> The fundamental picture of all of Calculus are these two of a
> trapezoid and rectangle. In fact, call the picture, the 
> 
> FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS, Picture
> 
> Trapezoid for derivative as the roof-top of
> the trapezoid, which must be a straight-line segment. If it is curved,
> you cannot fold it down to form a integral rectangle. And the
> rectangle for integral as area.
> 
> From this:
>         B
>         /|
>       /  |
>  A /----|
>   /      |
> |        |
> |____|
> 
> 
> The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
> so that it can be hinged at A, and swiveled down to form rectangle for
> integral.
> 
> To this:
> 
> ______
> |         |
> |         |
> |         |
> ---------
> 
> And the derivative of x= A, above is merely the dy/dx involving points
> A and B. Thus, it can never be a curve in Calculus. And the AB is part
> of the function graph itself. No curves exist in mathematics and no
> continuum exists in mathematics.
> 
> In the above we see that CALCULUS needs and requires a diagram in
> which you can go from derivative to integral, or go from integral to
> derivative, by simply a hinge down to form a rectangle for area, or a
> hinge up to form the derivative from a given rectangle.
> 
> Why in Old Math could no professor of math ever do the Calculus
> Diagram? Why? The answer is simple, no-one in Old Math pays attention
> to Logic, and that no-one in Old Math was required to take formal
> Logic when they attended school. So a person bereft of Logic, is never
> going to find mistakes of Logic and think clear and think straight.
> 
> by Archimedes Plutonium
> ------------------
> ------------------- 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does Canada make a fool of itself, in having a fool of logic, Dan Christensen, maintain a website on Logic, when, that fool does not even know the difference of "distinct"?? Does Canada love self flagellation??
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:08:09 AM UTC-6, Peter Percival wrote: 
> > Dan Christensen wrote: 
> > > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:47:32 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> > >> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 8:27:19 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote: 
> > >>> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:16:52 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> > >>>> PAGE58, 8-3, True Geometry / correcting axioms, 1by1 tool, angles of logarithmic spiral, conic sections unified regular polyhedra, Leaf-Triangle, Unit Basis Vector 
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> The axioms that are in need of fixing is the axiom that between any two points lies a third new point. 
> > >>> 
> > >>> The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points." 
> > >>> 
> > >> 
> > >> What a monsterous fool you are 
> > >> 
> > > 
> > > OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it. 
> > 
> > And yet Mr Plutonium is right.  Two points are distinct (else they would 
> > be one) and it is not necessary to say so. 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Christensen is not only a failure of math, --must have have been burnt out at school-- but also an insane stalker-crank on sci.math for 5 years now. I have often asked Google to please engineer a delete key so original authors of a thread can develop their own thread without these insane stalking poopers pooping up (Christensen a 5 year stalker). Let original authors delete any post in their thread which is unfit. Let insane stalkers make their own threads so they can crap all they wish without interrupting those doing serious science. 
> 
> MAKE sci.math a Level Playing field, and stop tilting sci.math in favor of moron stalkers. 
> 
> Drs.Amit Chakma,Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut of Univ Western Ontario-never a Picture of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus//are you as dumb as Dan Christensen//your students deserve better
> 
> 
> MAKE sci.math a Level Playing field, and stop tilting sci.math in favor of moron stalkers. 
> 
> Univ Western Ontario math dept
> Janusz Adamus, Tatyana  Barron,   Dan Christensen, Graham Denham, Ajneet Dhillon, Matthias  Franz, John Jardine, Massoud Khalkhali, Nicole Lemire, Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner, David Riley, Rasul Shafikov, Gordon Sinnamon 
> 

Dan Christensen	writes
12:59 PM (3 hours ago)


Geez, Archie, this little campaign of yours should cement your reputation as the top internet crank of all time... for sure! 


Dan 

> president Amit Chakma (chemical engineering)
> Univ. Western Ontario physics dept
> Pauline Barmby, Shantanu Basu, Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown, Blaine Chronik, Robert Cockcroft, John R. de Bruyn, Colin Denniston, Giovanni Fanchini, Sarah Gallagher, Lyudmila Goncharova, Wayne Hocking, Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut, Peter Simpson, Mahi Singh, Paul Wiegert, Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang


Dr Amit Chakma is a chemist, and is nearby for you to ask how in the world could he ever be duped into thinking a .5MeV is the electron along with a 938MeV proton, yet have the momentum for chemistry to exist.

Even a fool like Dan can envision that the electron should be 105 MeV to proton 840 MeV to have chemistry, even a fool

> 
>    /\-------/\ 
>    \::O:::O::/ 
>   (::_  ^  _::) 
>    \_`-----'_/ 
> You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Ontario? 
> 
> And, even though you-- professors of physics/math, want to remain stupid in Real-Electron/ Calculus, your students deserve better.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#403150 — Drs.Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones of Univ Western Ontario-are you as dumb as Dan Christensen//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole

On Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 2:16:09 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Proofs that the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV, and that the .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole, after all
> 
> by Archimedes Plutonium
> 
> 12 PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon 
> by Archimedes Plutonium
> 
> Proofs that the Real Electron=muon and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall
> 
> PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon 
> 
> 1st proof is chemical bonding cannot exist with momentum of 938 versus .5MeV 
> Chemical Bonds are covalent, ionic, metallic. You simply cannot get atoms to bond if the electron is thought of as the .5MeV particle, only with a muon at 105 MeV and the proton at 840 MeV with neutron at 945 MeV do you have the physics of angular momentum that allows bonding in Chemistry. The .5MeV particle was, all along a magnetic monopole of a photon with .5 MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy. 
> 
> 
> 2nd proof with the direct observance some years back in Poland of a 840 Mev particle along with 105 MeV particle of the hydrogen atom. 
> 
> Hello, well i found the below on the internet. I need a 840MeV particle that is the Real Proton. I have asked to look for it in the production of Muons. Is the below a production of muons along with 840 MeV particles? 
> 
> Quoting 
> 
> Indication For A Broad J(pc) = 2++ Meson At 840-mev Produced In The Reaction Pi- P ---> Pi+ Pi- N At High |t| 
> K. Rybicki, I. Sakrejda (Cracow, INP) 
> 1985 - 10 pages 
> 
> Z.Phys. C28 (1985) 65-74 
> DOI: 10.1007/BF01550250 
> Abstract (Springer) 
> The reaction π−p→π+π−n has been studied at 17.2 GeV/c and 63 GeV/c. A partial wave analysis shows a fairly broad (∼250 MeV) resonance at about 840 MeV. This object, already visible in moments of the angular distribution, is produced in theD wave with helicitym=2 via unnatural exchange. The cross section for the reaction π−p→D2U(840)n is only by an order of magnitude lower than that of ϱ(770) and falls likepLAB−2.1±0.3. We have not been able to explain this object by systematic experimental effects like acceptance and/orN* reflections; neither is the nature of the resonance (if real) clear to us. 
> --- end quote --- 
> 
> 
> 3rd proof-- pull plug out of electrical socket and notice light flash. That flash of light was the magnetic monopoles as photons with charge energy of .5MeV, for the monopoles compose all electric currents. 
> 
> 4th proof is that the radius of the hydrogen proton shrinks too much when a muon is injected and that contradicts Standard Model. The reason is obvious-- the proton is 840 MeV electron is muon and then you add a second muon. 
> 
> --- Quoting from www, Ars Technica, Researchers orbit a muon around an atom, confirm physics is broken --- 
> 
> So, the proton radius puzzle remains a puzzle. The team behind this new work point to a number of measurements that could potentially help clarify it. Some of them involve better measurements with normal electrons; others involve scattering muons off protons themselves to see if there's an unknown force at work. The latter would tell us whether anything beyond the Standard Model will be needed to explain this puzzle. 
> 
> --- end Quote --- 
> 
> 5th proof electrochemical battery is not explainable as Faraday law unless you concede the battery is a thrusting bar magnet, and thus, the battery is explained as a dipole magnet of the anode and cathode and the electrolyte solution is the ferromagnetism of spins all lined up. And thus a current in the circuit is because the battery as a thrusting magnet forces monopoles down the circuit wire. 
> 
> 6th proof, spin is charge, and charge is spin and the only particle for that is a ratio of permittivity to permeability as that of 10^-6/ 10^-12 is a charge energy of 10^6 or 1 MeV for photon charge energy, and that leaves the proton, electron=muon, monopole with .5MeV charge energy. 
> 
> 
> 7th proof the Maxwell Equations are not symmetrical without current being the flow of magnetic monopoles. 
> 
> 8th proof, now, a straightforward proof that the muon is the real-electron can come from ion theory. The trouble is that weeding out a proof of electron = muon, is that we get entangled with the magnetic monopole. So, the proof is simple for ion theory, to prove the muon = real electron. Take for example iron Fe atoms, they are 26 protons, 26 electrons=muons 
> Now iron has ion states of -4, -2, -1, +1, +2, +3, +4, +5 +6, +7 
> So, suppose the electron = .5MeV particle and not the 105 MeV particle 
> That would mean Iron can exist as iron with 26 protons and only 19 electrons at one extreme and 26 protons and 30 electrons at the other extreme. 
> Now in Maxwell theory, there is a law that enforces Conservation of Energy, called the Lenz law in Faraday law. Otherwise, you have unlimited energy and Nature does not have unlimited energy. 
> So that in atoms, the protons become a thrusting bar magnet and the electrons= real-electrons are the closed loop of wire (inert gases are closed loop wires and why bonding exists is to close the loop of real-electron structure). 
> So, the proof that .5MeV are not electrons, is that iron bonds readily with other iron forming a compound of iron, the metal iron and metallic bond is due to iron atoms wanting to close the loop of their 26 Real Electrons. They close that loop by the metallic bond. That means, the existence of ions from -4 to +7 is unrelated altogether from Electron configuration. That ions are some other particle behavior but not the electron nor proton behavior. 
> The reason iron exists as iron from Fe-4 to Fe+7 is that the particle .5MeV is a surface interloper particle of atoms, it is a add-on particle not the integral electron of atoms. If the monopole were the electron we break conservation of energy by all these interlopers. The reason the chemical table is all built around the inert gases, is because Faraday's law must be obeyed and thus atoms with a closed loop of their electrons seek no bonding of electrons= muons. But atoms that have no closed loop of their muons, seek that closed loop structure and thus, they form covalent, ionic, metallic bonds with other muons of other atoms. 
> 
> 9th Proof. In Chemistry, it is rare, that a atom loses or gains any Real-Electron=muon. 
> And that is a 9th proof that Real Electron=muon, that beta decay in Old Physics, was not the electron of atoms but the transfer of Magnetic Monopoles. 
> The only real radioactive decay mode is the helium nucleus-- alpha decay 
> But there is never a Real Electron decay for that would mean muons spewed out of atoms. Nor do we see protons spewed out of atoms, Real Proton = 840 MeV. The so called hydrogen nucleus of a 938 MeV is not radioactive decay, for it is still a 840 proton + 105 muon = hydrogen atom. 
> 
> 10th Proof. Well, I spoke of the internal heart or core of the concept of Chemistry, that the proton/s and electron/s are two parts of the Faraday Law. The protons are the thrusting bar magnet and the electrons= muons forms the closed loop of wire. Essentially that is the heart and core of atomic physics, a replay of Faraday's law with protons and electrons. 
> 
> But, however, the electrons= muons only forms a closed loop wire for Faraday's law in the inert gases, the helium, neon, argon, etc and all other atoms want to have that closed loop configuration. Thus, is borne the Chemistry of bonding. Chemistry is borne. So that one atom without a closed loop configuration bonds with another atom to achieve that goal. So chemistry bonding is that of muons bonded to other muons in different atoms. 
>   
> Now, can these .5 MeV particles fulfill the atoms need to make their muons a closed loop? Obviously not, because ions of atoms such as Fe, iron, swing from -4 to +7 in ions, so that proves ions cannot solve a atom's problem of its electron structure being less than closed loop. Only muons of other atoms can fulfill a atom's need to be closed loop. 
> 
> 11th Proof. Solving the Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly, alongside proton radius shrunk 
>  --- Quoting from www, Ars Technica, Researchers orbit a muon around an atom, confirm physics is broken --- 
> 
> So, the proton radius puzzle remains a puzzle. The team behind this new work point to a number of measurements that could potentially help clarify it. Some of them involve better measurements with normal electrons; others involve scattering muons off protons themselves to see if there's an unknown force at work. The latter would tell us whether anything beyond the Standard Model will be needed to explain this puzzle. 
>  --- end Quote --- 
>   
> Now in re-reading that Ars article on proton radius shrinking when a hydrogen atom of 840 MeV proton with electron = 105 MeV and then a second muon is tried to be compounded-- will of course, shrink the proton radius for the two muons with 1 proton all three are centered at the center of the proton. 
> 
> But in re-reading was mentioned an anomaly I was not familiar with-- Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly. 
> 
> And reading some results of that, I find surprizing for it was Feynman who claimed Electrodynamics was the supreme physics theory in accuracy of prediction. 
> 
> But the anomaly is off by a mere .1%, which seems very very small to be not even an anomaly. Trouble is, the electron of Old Physics was found to be so accurate as to be described as physic's most precise finding ever, and that makes the .1% discrepancy ever so much larger. 
> 
> Now, I was able to explain away the proton radius anomaly because the proton is not 938 MeV but is 840 MeV and the electron is not the .5MeV particle but rather is 105 MeV. 
> 
> So, can I explain away the Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly. I believe I can easily. For if you consider that what Old Physics measured as the electron magnetic moment was none other than the monopole as a dressed up photon magnetic moment. And it is easily seen that in EM theory the permeability constant is "exact" no uncertainty at 1.26*10^-6 H/m. 
> 
> So, it is no wonder that Old Physics thought their electron magnetic moment in Quantum Electrodynamics was so ultra ultra precise-- for, they never measured the magnetic moment of the electron, but instead a magnetic monopole of the dressed up .5 MeV particle. 
> 
> Then, when it came time to measure the magnetic moment of the muon, the real-true-electron, there is this .1% discrepancy, but there are discrepancies in the proton and neutron etc. 
> 
> So, once we realized the Real Electron is the muon, afterall, there is no magnetic moment anomaly. 
> 
> 12th proof -- Static Electricity Re: Proofs that the Real Electron=muon
> 
> Alright, I need a 12th proof, for I do not want to neglect what is probably our first encounter with electricity-- static electricity. As we walk across a carpet and touch something we experience a spark. Trouble with static electricity, is that the concept makes out the atom as a flimsy structure, really really flimsy structure that electrons of atoms can be picked off so easily, and from very many diverse materials. One would think the structure of atoms was built of stronger stuff. And that is what the Electron = Muon concept is about, that it is so very very hard to separate a electron from its atom, just like separating a proton out of a nucleus. So the subject of static electricity is this interloper particle, this surface superficial particle that is easily "whipped up" as the magnetic monopole, just as easy as producing electricity in a Faraday Law demonstration of a thrusting bar magnet in closed loop of wire. For, we can easily imagine that our walk across a carpet is similar to a thrusting bar magnet and then the closed loop wire is when we touch something, having built up some monopoles in our body.
> 
> Old Physics would say that we picked up electrons on the carpet, and as we touch something, remit that imbalance of electrons. 
> 
> New Physics would say that we picked up magnetic monopoles. 
> 
> Now let us look at other static electric experiments. For when we rub a glass rod (+1) with silk, or rub a plastic rod (-1) with wool. Here again, Old Physics would say we pick off electrons of atoms. 
> 
> New Physics would say, no, the atoms are still composed of all their electrons and protons. The only thing changed with the rubbing is that energy of the rub transfers to the magnetic monopole energy-- packets of .5MeV monopoles of charge energy. And the energy of rubbing becomes monopoles. These are those closed Lines of Force of a magnet, and the moment we touch something these stored up monopoles, flow from our body to that of the touched object. 
> 
> How is that a proof the electron = muon? 
> 
> Simple, in that the carpet, or plastic rod (-1) with wool or glass rod (+1) with silk, are materials that are electrically neutral substances, for the rubbing action was transformed not into free electrons, but was formed into monopoles. These substances remain electrically neutral, and the only change is that the rub created magnetic monopoles-- some + charged monopoles, some - charged monopoles, and these monopoles are superficial to the atoms where they formed. 
> 
> Static Electricity is merely stored monopoles. Monopoles are conservation of energy, for the rubbing had to be transformed into some energy packets and that is-- monopoles of charge energy. 
> 
> In the experiment of where we pick up bits of paper from either the glass rod or the plastic rod due to static electricity. What is happening here, is that the rod is not involved with the Real Electrons of atoms, but is involved with the superficial surface charged particle that is the magnetic monopole. 
> 
> Now the electroscope is explained much much easier with magnetic monopoles rather than the silly electrons on one leaf pushing away the electrons on the second leaf. 
> 
> For consider instead a closed loop line of force between the two leafs 
> 
> /\ 
> O 
> 
> Where the leafs start out as || 
> 
> Then comes the charged rod of monopoles sending down a monopole closed loop O that pushes apart the two leafs. 
> 
> Now i have two gold leafs and if true should leave the push apart looking more like this () rather than this /\. And that is what i have () 
>  
> by Archimedes Plutonium
> ------------------
> ------------------- 
> 
> 
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> SEE PICTURE DIAGRAM of FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS below, professors hate teaching this for it shows their "limit calculus to be a joke"
> 
> PICTURE DIAGRAM OF FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS 
> 
> By April 2015, was there for the first time a picture diagram proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC, not just an analysis argument, but a geometry proof (see below). Old Math could never assemble a picture diagram of the FTC. All they could do is argue with limit concept an analysis argument, never a geometry proof of FTC. 
> 
> A picture diagram proof of FTC changes all of calculus and thus, changes all of mathematics for it requires a infinity borderline to produce an actual number for the  infinitesimal, and that number is the inverse of the infinity borderline. Requiring a infinity borderline to produce the infinitesimal changes all of mathematics, and throwing out the limit concept. By changing all of Calculus and thus correcting mathematics, all of math before 2015 was just trash math.
> 
> Picture Diagram needed for Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> 
> Why no continuum and no curves exist in Math, so that the Calculus
> can exist, and does exist
> 
> by Archimedes Plutonium
> 
> Calculus is based upon there being Grid points in geometry, no
> continuum, but actually, empty space between two neighboring points.
> This is called Discrete geometry, and in physics, this is called
> Quantum Mechanics. In 10 Grid, the first few numbers are 0, .1, .2,
> .3, etc. That means there does not exist any number between 0 and .1,
> no number exists between .1 and .2. Now if you want more precise
> numbers, you go to a higher Grid like that of 100 Grid where the first
> few numbers are 0, .01, .02, .03, etc.
> 
> Calculus in order to exist at all, needs this empty space between
> consecutive numbers or successor numbers. It needs that empty space so
> that the integral of calculus is actually small rectangles whose
> interior area is not zero. So in 10 Grid, the smallest width of any
> Calculus rectangle is of width .1. In 100 Grid the smallest width is
> .01.
> 
> But, this revolutionary understanding of Calculus does not stop with
> the Integral, for having empty space between numbers, means no curves
> in math exist, but are ever tinier straight-line segments.
> 
> It also means, that the Derivative in Calculus is part and parcel of
> the function graph itself. So that in a function such as y = x^2, the
> function graph is the derivative at a point. In Old Math, they had the
> folly and idiocy of a foreign, alien tangent line to a function graph
> as derivative. In New Math, the derivative is the same as the function
> graph itself. And, this makes commonsense, utter commonsense, for the
> derivative is a prediction of the future of the function in question,
> and no way in the world can a foreign tangent line to a point on the
> function be able to predict, be able to tell where the future point of
> that function be. The only predictor of a future point of a function,
> is the function graph itself.
> 
> If the Calculus was done correctly, conceived correctly, then a
> minimal diagram explains all of Calculus. Old Math never had such a
> diagram, because Old Math was in total error of what Calculus is, and
> what Calculus does.
> 
> The fundamental picture of all of Calculus are these two of a
> trapezoid and rectangle. In fact, call the picture, the 
> 
> FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS, Picture
> 
> Trapezoid for derivative as the roof-top of
> the trapezoid, which must be a straight-line segment. If it is curved,
> you cannot fold it down to form a integral rectangle. And the
> rectangle for integral as area.
> 
> From this:
>         B
>         /|
>       /  |
>  A /----|
>   /      |
> |        |
> |____|
> 
> 
> The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
> so that it can be hinged at A, and swiveled down to form rectangle for
> integral.
> 
> To this:
> 
> ______
> |         |
> |         |
> |         |
> ---------
> 
> And the derivative of x= A, above is merely the dy/dx involving points
> A and B. Thus, it can never be a curve in Calculus. And the AB is part
> of the function graph itself. No curves exist in mathematics and no
> continuum exists in mathematics.
> 
> In the above we see that CALCULUS needs and requires a diagram in
> which you can go from derivative to integral, or go from integral to
> derivative, by simply a hinge down to form a rectangle for area, or a
> hinge up to form the derivative from a given rectangle.
> 
> Why in Old Math could no professor of math ever do the Calculus
> Diagram? Why? The answer is simple, no-one in Old Math pays attention
> to Logic, and that no-one in Old Math was required to take formal
> Logic when they attended school. So a person bereft of Logic, is never
> going to find mistakes of Logic and think clear and think straight.
> 
> by Archimedes Plutonium
> ------------------
> ------------------- 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does Canada make a fool of itself, in having a fool of logic, Dan Christensen, maintain a website on Logic, when, that fool does not even know the difference of "distinct"?? Does Canada love self flagellation??
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:08:09 AM UTC-6, Peter Percival wrote: 
> > Dan Christensen wrote: 
> > > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:47:32 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> > >> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 8:27:19 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote: 
> > >>> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:16:52 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> > >>>> PAGE58, 8-3, True Geometry / correcting axioms, 1by1 tool, angles of logarithmic spiral, conic sections unified regular polyhedra, Leaf-Triangle, Unit Basis Vector 
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> The axioms that are in need of fixing is the axiom that between any two points lies a third new point. 
> > >>> 
> > >>> The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points." 
> > >>> 
> > >> 
> > >> What a monsterous fool you are 
> > >> 
> > > 
> > > OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it. 
> > 
> > And yet Mr Plutonium is right.  Two points are distinct (else they would 
> > be one) and it is not necessary to say so. 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Christensen is not only a failure of math, --must have have been burnt out at school-- but also an insane stalker-crank on sci.math for 5 years now. I have often asked Google to please engineer a delete key so original authors of a thread can develop their own thread without these insane stalking poopers pooping up (Christensen a 5 year stalker). Let original authors delete any post in their thread which is unfit. Let insane stalkers make their own threads so they can crap all they wish without interrupting those doing serious science. 
> 
> MAKE sci.math a Level Playing field, and stop tilting sci.math in favor of moron stalkers. 
> 
> Drs.Amit Chakma,Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut of Univ Western Ontario-never a Picture of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus//are you as dumb as Dan Christensen//your students deserve better
> 
> 
> MAKE sci.math a Level Playing field, and stop tilting sci.math in favor of moron stalkers. 
> 
> Univ Western Ontario math dept
> Janusz Adamus, Tatyana  Barron,   Dan Christensen, Graham Denham, Ajneet Dhillon, Matthias  Franz, John Jardine, Massoud Khalkhali, Nicole Lemire, Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner, David Riley, Rasul Shafikov, Gordon Sinnamon 
> 
> president Amit Chakma (chemical engineering)
> Univ. Western Ontario physics dept
> Pauline Barmby, Shantanu Basu, Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown, Blaine Chronik, Robert Cockcroft, John R. de Bruyn, Colin Denniston, Giovanni Fanchini, Sarah Gallagher, Lyudmila Goncharova, Wayne Hocking, Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut, Peter Simpson, Mahi Singh, Paul Wiegert, Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang
> 

Jan	Bielawski writes:
8:43 PM (2 hours ago)

Gobbledygook. 

AP writes:: of course Bielawski is a failure of science, never knowing that Feynman diagrams do not involve rest mass.

On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 4:12:41 PM UTC-6, Jan wrote: 
> 
> According to experiments, electron is not muon. Exercise: evaluate the Feynman diagram for electron-muon scattering (nothing fancy, just 2 vertices). 

But is Bielawski worthless chatter saying that all physics professors are just gobbledygook parrots mouthing off-- never looking into What is the Real Electron.

>    /\-------/\ 
>    \::O:::O::/ 
>   (::_  ^  _::) 
>    \_`-----'_/ 
> You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Ontario? 
> 
> And, even though you-- professors of physics/math, want to remain stupid in Real-Electron/ Calculus, your students deserve better.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#403930

This needs updating from the Copenhagen H+1 bonding to P+1 report


On Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 2:16:09 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Proofs that the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV, and that the .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole, after all
> 
> by Archimedes Plutonium
> 
> 12 PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon 
> by Archimedes Plutonium
> 
> Proofs that the Real Electron=muon and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall
> 
> PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon 
> 
> 1st proof is chemical bonding cannot exist with momentum of 938 versus .5MeV 
> Chemical Bonds are covalent, ionic, metallic. You simply cannot get atoms to bond if the electron is thought of as the .5MeV particle, only with a muon at 105 MeV and the proton at 840 MeV with neutron at 945 MeV do you have the physics of angular momentum that allows bonding in Chemistry. The .5MeV particle was, all along a magnetic monopole of a photon with .5 MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy. 
> 
> 
> 2nd proof with the direct observance some years back in Poland of a 840 Mev particle along with 105 MeV particle of the hydrogen atom. 
> 
> Hello, well i found the below on the internet. I need a 840MeV particle that is the Real Proton. I have asked to look for it in the production of Muons. Is the below a production of muons along with 840 MeV particles? 
> 
> Quoting 
> 
> Indication For A Broad J(pc) = 2++ Meson At 840-mev Produced In The Reaction Pi- P ---> Pi+ Pi- N At High |t| 
> K. Rybicki, I. Sakrejda (Cracow, INP) 
> 1985 - 10 pages 
> 
> Z.Phys. C28 (1985) 65-74 
> DOI: 10.1007/BF01550250 
> Abstract (Springer) 
> The reaction π−p→π+π−n has been studied at 17.2 GeV/c and 63 GeV/c. A partial wave analysis shows a fairly broad (∼250 MeV) resonance at about 840 MeV. This object, already visible in moments of the angular distribution, is produced in theD wave with helicitym=2 via unnatural exchange. The cross section for the reaction π−p→D2U(840)n is only by an order of magnitude lower than that of ϱ(770) and falls likepLAB−2.1±0.3. We have not been able to explain this object by systematic experimental effects like acceptance and/orN* reflections; neither is the nature of the resonance (if real) clear to us. 
> --- end quote --- 
> 
> 
> 3rd proof-- pull plug out of electrical socket and notice light flash. That flash of light was the magnetic monopoles as photons with charge energy of .5MeV, for the monopoles compose all electric currents. 
> 
> 4th proof is that the radius of the hydrogen proton shrinks too much when a muon is injected and that contradicts Standard Model. The reason is obvious-- the proton is 840 MeV electron is muon and then you add a second muon. 
> 
> --- Quoting from www, Ars Technica, Researchers orbit a muon around an atom, confirm physics is broken --- 
> 
> So, the proton radius puzzle remains a puzzle. The team behind this new work point to a number of measurements that could potentially help clarify it. Some of them involve better measurements with normal electrons; others involve scattering muons off protons themselves to see if there's an unknown force at work. The latter would tell us whether anything beyond the Standard Model will be needed to explain this puzzle. 
> 
> --- end Quote --- 
> 
> 5th proof electrochemical battery is not explainable as Faraday law unless you concede the battery is a thrusting bar magnet, and thus, the battery is explained as a dipole magnet of the anode and cathode and the electrolyte solution is the ferromagnetism of spins all lined up. And thus a current in the circuit is because the battery as a thrusting magnet forces monopoles down the circuit wire. 
> 
> 6th proof, spin is charge, and charge is spin and the only particle for that is a ratio of permittivity to permeability as that of 10^-6/ 10^-12 is a charge energy of 10^6 or 1 MeV for photon charge energy, and that leaves the proton, electron=muon, monopole with .5MeV charge energy. 
> 
> 
> 7th proof the Maxwell Equations are not symmetrical without current being the flow of magnetic monopoles. 
> 
> 8th proof, now, a straightforward proof that the muon is the real-electron can come from ion theory. The trouble is that weeding out a proof of electron = muon, is that we get entangled with the magnetic monopole. So, the proof is simple for ion theory, to prove the muon = real electron. Take for example iron Fe atoms, they are 26 protons, 26 electrons=muons 
> Now iron has ion states of -4, -2, -1, +1, +2, +3, +4, +5 +6, +7 
> So, suppose the electron = .5MeV particle and not the 105 MeV particle 
> That would mean Iron can exist as iron with 26 protons and only 19 electrons at one extreme and 26 protons and 30 electrons at the other extreme. 
> Now in Maxwell theory, there is a law that enforces Conservation of Energy, called the Lenz law in Faraday law. Otherwise, you have unlimited energy and Nature does not have unlimited energy. 
> So that in atoms, the protons become a thrusting bar magnet and the electrons= real-electrons are the closed loop of wire (inert gases are closed loop wires and why bonding exists is to close the loop of real-electron structure). 
> So, the proof that .5MeV are not electrons, is that iron bonds readily with other iron forming a compound of iron, the metal iron and metallic bond is due to iron atoms wanting to close the loop of their 26 Real Electrons. They close that loop by the metallic bond. That means, the existence of ions from -4 to +7 is unrelated altogether from Electron configuration. That ions are some other particle behavior but not the electron nor proton behavior. 
> The reason iron exists as iron from Fe-4 to Fe+7 is that the particle .5MeV is a surface interloper particle of atoms, it is a add-on particle not the integral electron of atoms. If the monopole were the electron we break conservation of energy by all these interlopers. The reason the chemical table is all built around the inert gases, is because Faraday's law must be obeyed and thus atoms with a closed loop of their electrons seek no bonding of electrons= muons. But atoms that have no closed loop of their muons, seek that closed loop structure and thus, they form covalent, ionic, metallic bonds with other muons of other atoms. 
> 
> 9th Proof. In Chemistry, it is rare, that a atom loses or gains any Real-Electron=muon. 
> And that is a 9th proof that Real Electron=muon, that beta decay in Old Physics, was not the electron of atoms but the transfer of Magnetic Monopoles. 
> The only real radioactive decay mode is the helium nucleus-- alpha decay 
> But there is never a Real Electron decay for that would mean muons spewed out of atoms. Nor do we see protons spewed out of atoms, Real Proton = 840 MeV. The so called hydrogen nucleus of a 938 MeV is not radioactive decay, for it is still a 840 proton + 105 muon = hydrogen atom. 
> 
> 10th Proof. Well, I spoke of the internal heart or core of the concept of Chemistry, that the proton/s and electron/s are two parts of the Faraday Law. The protons are the thrusting bar magnet and the electrons= muons forms the closed loop of wire. Essentially that is the heart and core of atomic physics, a replay of Faraday's law with protons and electrons. 
> 
> But, however, the electrons= muons only forms a closed loop wire for Faraday's law in the inert gases, the helium, neon, argon, etc and all other atoms want to have that closed loop configuration. Thus, is borne the Chemistry of bonding. Chemistry is borne. So that one atom without a closed loop configuration bonds with another atom to achieve that goal. So chemistry bonding is that of muons bonded to other muons in different atoms. 
>   
> Now, can these .5 MeV particles fulfill the atoms need to make their muons a closed loop? Obviously not, because ions of atoms such as Fe, iron, swing from -4 to +7 in ions, so that proves ions cannot solve a atom's problem of its electron structure being less than closed loop. Only muons of other atoms can fulfill a atom's need to be closed loop. 
> 
> 11th Proof. Solving the Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly, alongside proton radius shrunk 
>  --- Quoting from www, Ars Technica, Researchers orbit a muon around an atom, confirm physics is broken --- 
> 
> So, the proton radius puzzle remains a puzzle. The team behind this new work point to a number of measurements that could potentially help clarify it. Some of them involve better measurements with normal electrons; others involve scattering muons off protons themselves to see if there's an unknown force at work. The latter would tell us whether anything beyond the Standard Model will be needed to explain this puzzle. 
>  --- end Quote --- 
>   
> Now in re-reading that Ars article on proton radius shrinking when a hydrogen atom of 840 MeV proton with electron = 105 MeV and then a second muon is tried to be compounded-- will of course, shrink the proton radius for the two muons with 1 proton all three are centered at the center of the proton. 
> 
> But in re-reading was mentioned an anomaly I was not familiar with-- Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly. 
> 
> And reading some results of that, I find surprizing for it was Feynman who claimed Electrodynamics was the supreme physics theory in accuracy of prediction. 
> 
> But the anomaly is off by a mere .1%, which seems very very small to be not even an anomaly. Trouble is, the electron of Old Physics was found to be so accurate as to be described as physic's most precise finding ever, and that makes the .1% discrepancy ever so much larger. 
> 
> Now, I was able to explain away the proton radius anomaly because the proton is not 938 MeV but is 840 MeV and the electron is not the .5MeV particle but rather is 105 MeV. 
> 
> So, can I explain away the Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly. I believe I can easily. For if you consider that what Old Physics measured as the electron magnetic moment was none other than the monopole as a dressed up photon magnetic moment. And it is easily seen that in EM theory the permeability constant is "exact" no uncertainty at 1.26*10^-6 H/m. 
> 
> So, it is no wonder that Old Physics thought their electron magnetic moment in Quantum Electrodynamics was so ultra ultra precise-- for, they never measured the magnetic moment of the electron, but instead a magnetic monopole of the dressed up .5 MeV particle. 
> 
> Then, when it came time to measure the magnetic moment of the muon, the real-true-electron, there is this .1% discrepancy, but there are discrepancies in the proton and neutron etc. 
> 
> So, once we realized the Real Electron is the muon, afterall, there is no magnetic moment anomaly. 
> 
> 12th proof -- Static Electricity Re: Proofs that the Real Electron=muon
> 
> Alright, I need a 12th proof, for I do not want to neglect what is probably our first encounter with electricity-- static electricity. As we walk across a carpet and touch something we experience a spark. Trouble with static electricity, is that the concept makes out the atom as a flimsy structure, really really flimsy structure that electrons of atoms can be picked off so easily, and from very many diverse materials. One would think the structure of atoms was built of stronger stuff. And that is what the Electron = Muon concept is about, that it is so very very hard to separate a electron from its atom, just like separating a proton out of a nucleus. So the subject of static electricity is this interloper particle, this surface superficial particle that is easily "whipped up" as the magnetic monopole, just as easy as producing electricity in a Faraday Law demonstration of a thrusting bar magnet in closed loop of wire. For, we can easily imagine that our walk across a carpet is similar to a thrusting bar magnet and then the closed loop wire is when we touch something, having built up some monopoles in our body.
> 
> Old Physics would say that we picked up electrons on the carpet, and as we touch something, remit that imbalance of electrons. 
> 
> New Physics would say that we picked up magnetic monopoles. 
> 
> Now let us look at other static electric experiments. For when we rub a glass rod (+1) with silk, or rub a plastic rod (-1) with wool. Here again, Old Physics would say we pick off electrons of atoms. 
> 
> New Physics would say, no, the atoms are still composed of all their electrons and protons. The only thing changed with the rubbing is that energy of the rub transfers to the magnetic monopole energy-- packets of .5MeV monopoles of charge energy. And the energy of rubbing becomes monopoles. These are those closed Lines of Force of a magnet, and the moment we touch something these stored up monopoles, flow from our body to that of the touched object. 
> 
> How is that a proof the electron = muon? 
> 
> Simple, in that the carpet, or plastic rod (-1) with wool or glass rod (+1) with silk, are materials that are electrically neutral substances, for the rubbing action was transformed not into free electrons, but was formed into monopoles. These substances remain electrically neutral, and the only change is that the rub created magnetic monopoles-- some + charged monopoles, some - charged monopoles, and these monopoles are superficial to the atoms where they formed. 
> 
> Static Electricity is merely stored monopoles. Monopoles are conservation of energy, for the rubbing had to be transformed into some energy packets and that is-- monopoles of charge energy. 
> 
> In the experiment of where we pick up bits of paper from either the glass rod or the plastic rod due to static electricity. What is happening here, is that the rod is not involved with the Real Electrons of atoms, but is involved with the superficial surface charged particle that is the magnetic monopole. 
> 
> Now the electroscope is explained much much easier with magnetic monopoles rather than the silly electrons on one leaf pushing away the electrons on the second leaf. 
> 
> For consider instead a closed loop line of force between the two leafs 
> 
> /\ 
> O 
> 
> Where the leafs start out as || 
> 
> Then comes the charged rod of monopoles sending down a monopole closed loop O that pushes apart the two leafs. 
> 
> Now i have two gold leafs and if true should leave the push apart looking more like this () rather than this /\. And that is what i have () 
>  
> by Archimedes Plutonium
> ------------------
> ------------------- 
> 
> 
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> SEE PICTURE DIAGRAM of FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS below, professors hate teaching this for it shows their "limit calculus to be a joke"
> 
> PICTURE DIAGRAM OF FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS 
> 
> By April 2015, was there for the first time a picture diagram proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC, not just an analysis argument, but a geometry proof (see below). Old Math could never assemble a picture diagram of the FTC. All they could do is argue with limit concept an analysis argument, never a geometry proof of FTC. 
> 
> A picture diagram proof of FTC changes all of calculus and thus, changes all of mathematics for it requires a infinity borderline to produce an actual number for the  infinitesimal, and that number is the inverse of the infinity borderline. Requiring a infinity borderline to produce the infinitesimal changes all of mathematics, and throwing out the limit concept. By changing all of Calculus and thus correcting mathematics, all of math before 2015 was just trash math.
> 
> Picture Diagram needed for Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> 
> Why no continuum and no curves exist in Math, so that the Calculus
> can exist, and does exist
> 
> by Archimedes Plutonium
> 
> Calculus is based upon there being Grid points in geometry, no
> continuum, but actually, empty space between two neighboring points.
> This is called Discrete geometry, and in physics, this is called
> Quantum Mechanics. In 10 Grid, the first few numbers are 0, .1, .2,
> .3, etc. That means there does not exist any number between 0 and .1,
> no number exists between .1 and .2. Now if you want more precise
> numbers, you go to a higher Grid like that of 100 Grid where the first
> few numbers are 0, .01, .02, .03, etc.
> 
> Calculus in order to exist at all, needs this empty space between
> consecutive numbers or successor numbers. It needs that empty space so
> that the integral of calculus is actually small rectangles whose
> interior area is not zero. So in 10 Grid, the smallest width of any
> Calculus rectangle is of width .1. In 100 Grid the smallest width is
> .01.
> 
> But, this revolutionary understanding of Calculus does not stop with
> the Integral, for having empty space between numbers, means no curves
> in math exist, but are ever tinier straight-line segments.
> 
> It also means, that the Derivative in Calculus is part and parcel of
> the function graph itself. So that in a function such as y = x^2, the
> function graph is the derivative at a point. In Old Math, they had the
> folly and idiocy of a foreign, alien tangent line to a function graph
> as derivative. In New Math, the derivative is the same as the function
> graph itself. And, this makes commonsense, utter commonsense, for the
> derivative is a prediction of the future of the function in question,
> and no way in the world can a foreign tangent line to a point on the
> function be able to predict, be able to tell where the future point of
> that function be. The only predictor of a future point of a function,
> is the function graph itself.
> 
> If the Calculus was done correctly, conceived correctly, then a
> minimal diagram explains all of Calculus. Old Math never had such a
> diagram, because Old Math was in total error of what Calculus is, and
> what Calculus does.
> 
> The fundamental picture of all of Calculus are these two of a
> trapezoid and rectangle. In fact, call the picture, the 
> 
> FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS, Picture
> 
> Trapezoid for derivative as the roof-top of
> the trapezoid, which must be a straight-line segment. If it is curved,
> you cannot fold it down to form a integral rectangle. And the
> rectangle for integral as area.
> 
> From this:
>         B
>         /|
>       /  |
>  A /----|
>   /      |
> |        |
> |____|
> 
> 
> The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
> so that it can be hinged at A, and swiveled down to form rectangle for
> integral.
> 
> To this:
> 
> ______
> |         |
> |         |
> |         |
> ---------
> 
> And the derivative of x= A, above is merely the dy/dx involving points
> A and B. Thus, it can never be a curve in Calculus. And the AB is part
> of the function graph itself. No curves exist in mathematics and no
> continuum exists in mathematics.
> 
> In the above we see that CALCULUS needs and requires a diagram in
> which you can go from derivative to integral, or go from integral to
> derivative, by simply a hinge down to form a rectangle for area, or a
> hinge up to form the derivative from a given rectangle.
> 
> Why in Old Math could no professor of math ever do the Calculus
> Diagram? Why? The answer is simple, no-one in Old Math pays attention
> to Logic, and that no-one in Old Math was required to take formal
> Logic when they attended school. So a person bereft of Logic, is never
> going to find mistakes of Logic and think clear and think straight.
> 
> by Archimedes Plutonium
> ------------------
> ------------------- 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does Canada make a fool of itself, in having a fool of logic, Dan Christensen, maintain a website on Logic, when, that fool does not even know the difference of "distinct"?? Does Canada love self flagellation??
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:08:09 AM UTC-6, Peter Percival wrote: 
> > Dan Christensen wrote: 
> > > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:47:32 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> > >> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 8:27:19 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote: 
> > >>> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:16:52 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> > >>>> PAGE58, 8-3, True Geometry / correcting axioms, 1by1 tool, angles of logarithmic spiral, conic sections unified regular polyhedra, Leaf-Triangle, Unit Basis Vector 
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> The axioms that are in need of fixing is the axiom that between any two points lies a third new point. 
> > >>> 
> > >>> The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points." 
> > >>> 
> > >> 
> > >> What a monsterous fool you are 
> > >> 
> > > 
> > > OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it. 
> > 
> > And yet Mr Plutonium is right.  Two points are distinct (else they would 
> > be one) and it is not necessary to say so. 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Christensen is not only a failure of math, --must have have been burnt out at school-- but also an insane stalker-crank on sci.math for 5 years now. I have often asked Google to please engineer a delete key so original authors of a thread can develop their own thread without these insane stalking poopers pooping up (Christensen a 5 year stalker). Let original authors delete any post in their thread which is unfit. Let insane stalkers make their own threads so they can crap all they wish without interrupting those doing serious science. 
> 
> MAKE sci.math a Level Playing field, and stop tilting sci.math in favor of moron stalkers. 
> 
> Drs.Amit Chakma,Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut of Univ Western Ontario-never a Picture of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus//are you as dumb as Dan Christensen//your students deserve better
> 
> 
> MAKE sci.math a Level Playing field, and stop tilting sci.math in favor of moron stalkers. 
> 
> Univ Western Ontario math dept
> Janusz Adamus, Tatyana  Barron,   Dan Christensen, Graham Denham, Ajneet Dhillon, Matthias  Franz, John Jardine, Massoud Khalkhali, Nicole Lemire, Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner, David Riley, Rasul Shafikov, Gordon Sinnamon 
> 
> president Amit Chakma (chemical engineering)
> Univ. Western Ontario physics dept
> Pauline Barmby, Shantanu Basu, Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown, Blaine Chronik, Robert Cockcroft, John R. de Bruyn, Colin Denniston, Giovanni Fanchini, Sarah Gallagher, Lyudmila Goncharova, Wayne Hocking, Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut, Peter Simpson, Mahi Singh, Paul Wiegert, Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang
> 
>    /\-------/\ 
>    \::O:::O::/ 
>   (::_  ^  _::) 
>    \_`-----'_/ 
> You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Ontario? 
> 
> And, even though you-- professors of physics/math, want to remain stupid in Real-Electron/ Calculus, your students deserve better.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407905 — Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones Re: Drs.Amit Chakma,Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut of Univ Western Ontario-are you as dumb as Dan Christensen//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole

Dan Christensen	writes:
Mar 9 (23 hours ago)


>Huh? Always true? How useless is that? 

>So, according to your goofy system, 

AP writes:: no wonder no one in Canada could ever realize Real Electron= 105 MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV and the .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole, no wonder no one in Canada ever can understand that-- they are still backwards as dumb Dan that 1 OR 2 = 3 when even a Canadian goose would know 1 AND 2 = 3




On Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 2:16:09 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Proofs that the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV, and that the .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole, after all
> 
> by Archimedes Plutonium
> 
> 12 PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon 
> by Archimedes Plutonium
> 
> Proofs that the Real Electron=muon and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall
> 
> PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon 
> 
> 1st proof is chemical bonding cannot exist with momentum of 938 versus .5MeV 
> Chemical Bonds are covalent, ionic, metallic. You simply cannot get atoms to bond if the electron is thought of as the .5MeV particle, only with a muon at 105 MeV and the proton at 840 MeV with neutron at 945 MeV do you have the physics of angular momentum that allows bonding in Chemistry. The .5MeV particle was, all along a magnetic monopole of a photon with .5 MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy. 
> 
> 
> 2nd proof with the direct observance some years back in Poland of a 840 Mev particle along with 105 MeV particle of the hydrogen atom. 
> 
> Hello, well i found the below on the internet. I need a 840MeV particle that is the Real Proton. I have asked to look for it in the production of Muons. Is the below a production of muons along with 840 MeV particles? 
> 
> Quoting 
> 
> Indication For A Broad J(pc) = 2++ Meson At 840-mev Produced In The Reaction Pi- P ---> Pi+ Pi- N At High |t| 
> K. Rybicki, I. Sakrejda (Cracow, INP) 
> 1985 - 10 pages 
> 
> Z.Phys. C28 (1985) 65-74 
> DOI: 10.1007/BF01550250 
> Abstract (Springer) 
> The reaction π−p→π+π−n has been studied at 17.2 GeV/c and 63 GeV/c. A partial wave analysis shows a fairly broad (∼250 MeV) resonance at about 840 MeV. This object, already visible in moments of the angular distribution, is produced in theD wave with helicitym=2 via unnatural exchange. The cross section for the reaction π−p→D2U(840)n is only by an order of magnitude lower than that of ϱ(770) and falls likepLAB−2.1±0.3. We have not been able to explain this object by systematic experimental effects like acceptance and/orN* reflections; neither is the nature of the resonance (if real) clear to us. 
> --- end quote --- 
> 
> 
> 3rd proof-- pull plug out of electrical socket and notice light flash. That flash of light was the magnetic monopoles as photons with charge energy of .5MeV, for the monopoles compose all electric currents. 
> 
> 4th proof is that the radius of the hydrogen proton shrinks too much when a muon is injected and that contradicts Standard Model. The reason is obvious-- the proton is 840 MeV electron is muon and then you add a second muon. 
> 
> --- Quoting from www, Ars Technica, Researchers orbit a muon around an atom, confirm physics is broken --- 
> 
> So, the proton radius puzzle remains a puzzle. The team behind this new work point to a number of measurements that could potentially help clarify it. Some of them involve better measurements with normal electrons; others involve scattering muons off protons themselves to see if there's an unknown force at work. The latter would tell us whether anything beyond the Standard Model will be needed to explain this puzzle. 
> 
> --- end Quote --- 
> 
> 5th proof electrochemical battery is not explainable as Faraday law unless you concede the battery is a thrusting bar magnet, and thus, the battery is explained as a dipole magnet of the anode and cathode and the electrolyte solution is the ferromagnetism of spins all lined up. And thus a current in the circuit is because the battery as a thrusting magnet forces monopoles down the circuit wire. 
> 
> 6th proof, spin is charge, and charge is spin and the only particle for that is a ratio of permittivity to permeability as that of 10^-6/ 10^-12 is a charge energy of 10^6 or 1 MeV for photon charge energy, and that leaves the proton, electron=muon, monopole with .5MeV charge energy. 
> 
> 
> 7th proof the Maxwell Equations are not symmetrical without current being the flow of magnetic monopoles. 
> 
> 8th proof, now, a straightforward proof that the muon is the real-electron can come from ion theory. The trouble is that weeding out a proof of electron = muon, is that we get entangled with the magnetic monopole. So, the proof is simple for ion theory, to prove the muon = real electron. Take for example iron Fe atoms, they are 26 protons, 26 electrons=muons 
> Now iron has ion states of -4, -2, -1, +1, +2, +3, +4, +5 +6, +7 
> So, suppose the electron = .5MeV particle and not the 105 MeV particle 
> That would mean Iron can exist as iron with 26 protons and only 19 electrons at one extreme and 26 protons and 30 electrons at the other extreme. 
> Now in Maxwell theory, there is a law that enforces Conservation of Energy, called the Lenz law in Faraday law. Otherwise, you have unlimited energy and Nature does not have unlimited energy. 
> So that in atoms, the protons become a thrusting bar magnet and the electrons= real-electrons are the closed loop of wire (inert gases are closed loop wires and why bonding exists is to close the loop of real-electron structure). 
> So, the proof that .5MeV are not electrons, is that iron bonds readily with other iron forming a compound of iron, the metal iron and metallic bond is due to iron atoms wanting to close the loop of their 26 Real Electrons. They close that loop by the metallic bond. That means, the existence of ions from -4 to +7 is unrelated altogether from Electron configuration. That ions are some other particle behavior but not the electron nor proton behavior. 
> The reason iron exists as iron from Fe-4 to Fe+7 is that the particle .5MeV is a surface interloper particle of atoms, it is a add-on particle not the integral electron of atoms. If the monopole were the electron we break conservation of energy by all these interlopers. The reason the chemical table is all built around the inert gases, is because Faraday's law must be obeyed and thus atoms with a closed loop of their electrons seek no bonding of electrons= muons. But atoms that have no closed loop of their muons, seek that closed loop structure and thus, they form covalent, ionic, metallic bonds with other muons of other atoms. 
> 
> 9th Proof. In Chemistry, it is rare, that a atom loses or gains any Real-Electron=muon. 
> And that is a 9th proof that Real Electron=muon, that beta decay in Old Physics, was not the electron of atoms but the transfer of Magnetic Monopoles. 
> The only real radioactive decay mode is the helium nucleus-- alpha decay 
> But there is never a Real Electron decay for that would mean muons spewed out of atoms. Nor do we see protons spewed out of atoms, Real Proton = 840 MeV. The so called hydrogen nucleus of a 938 MeV is not radioactive decay, for it is still a 840 proton + 105 muon = hydrogen atom. 
> 
> 10th Proof. Well, I spoke of the internal heart or core of the concept of Chemistry, that the proton/s and electron/s are two parts of the Faraday Law. The protons are the thrusting bar magnet and the electrons= muons forms the closed loop of wire. Essentially that is the heart and core of atomic physics, a replay of Faraday's law with protons and electrons. 
> 
> But, however, the electrons= muons only forms a closed loop wire for Faraday's law in the inert gases, the helium, neon, argon, etc and all other atoms want to have that closed loop configuration. Thus, is borne the Chemistry of bonding. Chemistry is borne. So that one atom without a closed loop configuration bonds with another atom to achieve that goal. So chemistry bonding is that of muons bonded to other muons in different atoms. 
>   
> Now, can these .5 MeV particles fulfill the atoms need to make their muons a closed loop? Obviously not, because ions of atoms such as Fe, iron, swing from -4 to +7 in ions, so that proves ions cannot solve a atom's problem of its electron structure being less than closed loop. Only muons of other atoms can fulfill a atom's need to be closed loop. 
> 
> 11th Proof. Solving the Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly, alongside proton radius shrunk 
>  --- Quoting from www, Ars Technica, Researchers orbit a muon around an atom, confirm physics is broken --- 
> 
> So, the proton radius puzzle remains a puzzle. The team behind this new work point to a number of measurements that could potentially help clarify it. Some of them involve better measurements with normal electrons; others involve scattering muons off protons themselves to see if there's an unknown force at work. The latter would tell us whether anything beyond the Standard Model will be needed to explain this puzzle. 
>  --- end Quote --- 
>   
> Now in re-reading that Ars article on proton radius shrinking when a hydrogen atom of 840 MeV proton with electron = 105 MeV and then a second muon is tried to be compounded-- will of course, shrink the proton radius for the two muons with 1 proton all three are centered at the center of the proton. 
> 
> But in re-reading was mentioned an anomaly I was not familiar with-- Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly. 
> 
> And reading some results of that, I find surprizing for it was Feynman who claimed Electrodynamics was the supreme physics theory in accuracy of prediction. 
> 
> But the anomaly is off by a mere .1%, which seems very very small to be not even an anomaly. Trouble is, the electron of Old Physics was found to be so accurate as to be described as physic's most precise finding ever, and that makes the .1% discrepancy ever so much larger. 
> 
> Now, I was able to explain away the proton radius anomaly because the proton is not 938 MeV but is 840 MeV and the electron is not the .5MeV particle but rather is 105 MeV. 
> 
> So, can I explain away the Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly. I believe I can easily. For if you consider that what Old Physics measured as the electron magnetic moment was none other than the monopole as a dressed up photon magnetic moment. And it is easily seen that in EM theory the permeability constant is "exact" no uncertainty at 1.26*10^-6 H/m. 
> 
> So, it is no wonder that Old Physics thought their electron magnetic moment in Quantum Electrodynamics was so ultra ultra precise-- for, they never measured the magnetic moment of the electron, but instead a magnetic monopole of the dressed up .5 MeV particle. 
> 
> Then, when it came time to measure the magnetic moment of the muon, the real-true-electron, there is this .1% discrepancy, but there are discrepancies in the proton and neutron etc. 
> 
> So, once we realized the Real Electron is the muon, afterall, there is no magnetic moment anomaly. 
> 
> 12th proof -- Static Electricity Re: Proofs that the Real Electron=muon
> 
> Alright, I need a 12th proof, for I do not want to neglect what is probably our first encounter with electricity-- static electricity. As we walk across a carpet and touch something we experience a spark. Trouble with static electricity, is that the concept makes out the atom as a flimsy structure, really really flimsy structure that electrons of atoms can be picked off so easily, and from very many diverse materials. One would think the structure of atoms was built of stronger stuff. And that is what the Electron = Muon concept is about, that it is so very very hard to separate a electron from its atom, just like separating a proton out of a nucleus. So the subject of static electricity is this interloper particle, this surface superficial particle that is easily "whipped up" as the magnetic monopole, just as easy as producing electricity in a Faraday Law demonstration of a thrusting bar magnet in closed loop of wire. For, we can easily imagine that our walk across a carpet is similar to a thrusting bar magnet and then the closed loop wire is when we touch something, having built up some monopoles in our body.
> 
> Old Physics would say that we picked up electrons on the carpet, and as we touch something, remit that imbalance of electrons. 
> 
> New Physics would say that we picked up magnetic monopoles. 
> 
> Now let us look at other static electric experiments. For when we rub a glass rod (+1) with silk, or rub a plastic rod (-1) with wool. Here again, Old Physics would say we pick off electrons of atoms. 
> 
> New Physics would say, no, the atoms are still composed of all their electrons and protons. The only thing changed with the rubbing is that energy of the rub transfers to the magnetic monopole energy-- packets of .5MeV monopoles of charge energy. And the energy of rubbing becomes monopoles. These are those closed Lines of Force of a magnet, and the moment we touch something these stored up monopoles, flow from our body to that of the touched object. 
> 
> How is that a proof the electron = muon? 
> 
> Simple, in that the carpet, or plastic rod (-1) with wool or glass rod (+1) with silk, are materials that are electrically neutral substances, for the rubbing action was transformed not into free electrons, but was formed into monopoles. These substances remain electrically neutral, and the only change is that the rub created magnetic monopoles-- some + charged monopoles, some - charged monopoles, and these monopoles are superficial to the atoms where they formed. 
> 
> Static Electricity is merely stored monopoles. Monopoles are conservation of energy, for the rubbing had to be transformed into some energy packets and that is-- monopoles of charge energy. 
> 
> In the experiment of where we pick up bits of paper from either the glass rod or the plastic rod due to static electricity. What is happening here, is that the rod is not involved with the Real Electrons of atoms, but is involved with the superficial surface charged particle that is the magnetic monopole. 
> 
> Now the electroscope is explained much much easier with magnetic monopoles rather than the silly electrons on one leaf pushing away the electrons on the second leaf. 
> 
> For consider instead a closed loop line of force between the two leafs 
> 
> /\ 
> O 
> 
> Where the leafs start out as || 
> 
> Then comes the charged rod of monopoles sending down a monopole closed loop O that pushes apart the two leafs. 
> 
> Now i have two gold leafs and if true should leave the push apart looking more like this () rather than this /\. And that is what i have () 
>  
> by Archimedes Plutonium
> ------------------
> ------------------- 
> 
> 
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> SEE PICTURE DIAGRAM of FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS below, professors hate teaching this for it shows their "limit calculus to be a joke"
> 
> PICTURE DIAGRAM OF FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS 
> 
> By April 2015, was there for the first time a picture diagram proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC, not just an analysis argument, but a geometry proof (see below). Old Math could never assemble a picture diagram of the FTC. All they could do is argue with limit concept an analysis argument, never a geometry proof of FTC. 
> 
> A picture diagram proof of FTC changes all of calculus and thus, changes all of mathematics for it requires a infinity borderline to produce an actual number for the  infinitesimal, and that number is the inverse of the infinity borderline. Requiring a infinity borderline to produce the infinitesimal changes all of mathematics, and throwing out the limit concept. By changing all of Calculus and thus correcting mathematics, all of math before 2015 was just trash math.
> 
> Picture Diagram needed for Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> 
> Why no continuum and no curves exist in Math, so that the Calculus
> can exist, and does exist
> 
> by Archimedes Plutonium
> 
> Calculus is based upon there being Grid points in geometry, no
> continuum, but actually, empty space between two neighboring points.
> This is called Discrete geometry, and in physics, this is called
> Quantum Mechanics. In 10 Grid, the first few numbers are 0, .1, .2,
> .3, etc. That means there does not exist any number between 0 and .1,
> no number exists between .1 and .2. Now if you want more precise
> numbers, you go to a higher Grid like that of 100 Grid where the first
> few numbers are 0, .01, .02, .03, etc.
> 
> Calculus in order to exist at all, needs this empty space between
> consecutive numbers or successor numbers. It needs that empty space so
> that the integral of calculus is actually small rectangles whose
> interior area is not zero. So in 10 Grid, the smallest width of any
> Calculus rectangle is of width .1. In 100 Grid the smallest width is
> .01.
> 
> But, this revolutionary understanding of Calculus does not stop with
> the Integral, for having empty space between numbers, means no curves
> in math exist, but are ever tinier straight-line segments.
> 
> It also means, that the Derivative in Calculus is part and parcel of
> the function graph itself. So that in a function such as y = x^2, the
> function graph is the derivative at a point. In Old Math, they had the
> folly and idiocy of a foreign, alien tangent line to a function graph
> as derivative. In New Math, the derivative is the same as the function
> graph itself. And, this makes commonsense, utter commonsense, for the
> derivative is a prediction of the future of the function in question,
> and no way in the world can a foreign tangent line to a point on the
> function be able to predict, be able to tell where the future point of
> that function be. The only predictor of a future point of a function,
> is the function graph itself.
> 
> If the Calculus was done correctly, conceived correctly, then a
> minimal diagram explains all of Calculus. Old Math never had such a
> diagram, because Old Math was in total error of what Calculus is, and
> what Calculus does.
> 
> The fundamental picture of all of Calculus are these two of a
> trapezoid and rectangle. In fact, call the picture, the 
> 
> FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS, Picture
> 
> Trapezoid for derivative as the roof-top of
> the trapezoid, which must be a straight-line segment. If it is curved,
> you cannot fold it down to form a integral rectangle. And the
> rectangle for integral as area.
> 
> From this:
>         B
>         /|
>       /  |
>  A /----|
>   /      |
> |        |
> |____|
> 
> 
> The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
> so that it can be hinged at A, and swiveled down to form rectangle for
> integral.
> 
> To this:
> 
> ______
> |         |
> |         |
> |         |
> ---------
> 
> And the derivative of x= A, above is merely the dy/dx involving points
> A and B. Thus, it can never be a curve in Calculus. And the AB is part
> of the function graph itself. No curves exist in mathematics and no
> continuum exists in mathematics.
> 
> In the above we see that CALCULUS needs and requires a diagram in
> which you can go from derivative to integral, or go from integral to
> derivative, by simply a hinge down to form a rectangle for area, or a
> hinge up to form the derivative from a given rectangle.
> 
> Why in Old Math could no professor of math ever do the Calculus
> Diagram? Why? The answer is simple, no-one in Old Math pays attention
> to Logic, and that no-one in Old Math was required to take formal
> Logic when they attended school. So a person bereft of Logic, is never
> going to find mistakes of Logic and think clear and think straight.
> 
> by Archimedes Plutonium
> ------------------
> ------------------- 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does Canada make a fool of itself, in having a fool of logic, Dan Christensen, maintain a website on Logic, when, that fool does not even know the difference of "distinct"?? Does Canada love self flagellation??
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 10:08:09 AM UTC-6, Peter Percival wrote: 
> > Dan Christensen wrote: 
> > > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:47:32 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> > >> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 8:27:19 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote: 
> > >>> On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 at 9:16:52 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> > >>>> PAGE58, 8-3, True Geometry / correcting axioms, 1by1 tool, angles of logarithmic spiral, conic sections unified regular polyhedra, Leaf-Triangle, Unit Basis Vector 
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> The axioms that are in need of fixing is the axiom that between any two points lies a third new point. 
> > >>> 
> > >>> The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points." 
> > >>> 
> > >> 
> > >> What a monsterous fool you are 
> > >> 
> > > 
> > > OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it. 
> > 
> > And yet Mr Plutonium is right.  Two points are distinct (else they would 
> > be one) and it is not necessary to say so. 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Christensen is not only a failure of math, --must have have been burnt out at school-- but also an insane stalker-crank on sci.math for 5 years now. I have often asked Google to please engineer a delete key so original authors of a thread can develop their own thread without these insane stalking poopers pooping up (Christensen a 5 year stalker). Let original authors delete any post in their thread which is unfit. Let insane stalkers make their own threads so they can crap all they wish without interrupting those doing serious science. 
> 
> MAKE sci.math a Level Playing field, and stop tilting sci.math in favor of moron stalkers. 
> 
> Drs.Amit Chakma,Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut of Univ Western Ontario-never a Picture of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus//are you as dumb as Dan Christensen//your students deserve better
> 
> 
> MAKE sci.math a Level Playing field, and stop tilting sci.math in favor of moron stalkers. 
> 
> Univ Western Ontario math dept
> Janusz Adamus, Tatyana  Barron,   Dan Christensen, Graham Denham, Ajneet Dhillon, Matthias  Franz, John Jardine, Massoud Khalkhali, Nicole Lemire, Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner, David Riley, Rasul Shafikov, Gordon Sinnamon 
> 
> president Amit Chakma (chemical engineering)
> Univ. Western Ontario physics dept
> Pauline Barmby, Shantanu Basu, Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown, Blaine Chronik, Robert Cockcroft, John R. de Bruyn, Colin Denniston, Giovanni Fanchini, Sarah Gallagher, Lyudmila Goncharova, Wayne Hocking, Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut, Peter Simpson, Mahi Singh, Paul Wiegert, Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang
> 
>    /\-------/\ 
>    \::O:::O::/ 
>   (::_  ^  _::) 
>    \_`-----'_/ 
> You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Ontario? 
> 
> And, even though you-- professors of physics/math, want to remain stupid in Real-Electron/ Calculus, your students deserve better.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#407909 — Re: Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones Re: Drs.Amit Chakma,Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut of Univ Western Ontario-are you as dumb as Dan Christensen//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole

oh dear, Plutonium is going autistic again. He's back to reposting the
12 Failures of Plutonium again.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web