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

Groups > sci.math > #407826 > unrolled thread

New Chemistry Table-- two superimposed cones Re: AP's Periodic Table of Atoms in light of the fact Real Proton= 840MeV, Real Electron= 105MeV, the .5MeV= monopole

Back to article view | Back to sci.math

Contents

  New Chemistry Table-- two superimposed cones Re: AP's Periodic Table of Atoms in light of the fact Real Proton= 840MeV, Real Electron= 105MeV, the .5MeV= monopole Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 13:50 -0800
    New Chemistry Table-- two superimposed cones Re: AP's Periodic Table of Atoms in light of the fact Real Proton= 840MeV, Real Electron= 105MeV, the .5MeV= monopole Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 14:03 -0800
      New Chemistry Table-- two superimposed cones Re: AP's Periodic Table of Atoms in light of the fact Real Proton= 840MeV, Real Electron= 105MeV, the .5MeV= monopole Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 14:18 -0800
        New Chemistry Table-- two superimposed cones Re: AP's Periodic Table of Atoms in light of the fact Real Proton= 840MeV, Real Electron= 105MeV, the .5MeV= monopole Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 17:26 -0800
          called Double Gyres Re: New Chemistry Table-- two superimposed cones Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 17:40 -0800
            Re: called Double Gyres Re: New Chemistry Table-- two superimposed cones Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-09 17:55 -0800
              Re: called Double Gyres Re: New Chemistry Table-- two superimposed cones moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-03-10 22:46 +0000
                Re: called Double Gyres Re: New Chemistry Table-- two superimposed cones moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-03-18 05:01 +0000
              Re: called Double Gyres Re: New Chemistry Table-- two superimposed cones Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-10 17:34 -0800

#407826 — New Chemistry Table-- two superimposed cones Re: AP's Periodic Table of Atoms in light of the fact Real Proton= 840MeV, Real Electron= 105MeV, the .5MeV= monopole

New Chemistry Table-- two superimposed cones Re: AP's Periodic Table of Atoms in light of the fact Real Proton= 840MeV, Real Electron= 105MeV, the .5MeV= monopole

Alright, I think I have the breakthrough I need to do the AP Table of Atoms, to replace the old chemistry Table. The Old Chemistry Table of Elements, lacked the understanding that Atoms are tiny Faraday Law Machines. Their purpose is to do the Faraday Law which converts Space into energy/matter as a magnetic monopole, the reason for converting Space is to make more Atoms. Life in biology is essentially a process of growth and increase. But that is also the purpose of Atoms-- grow and increase. 
And the growth mechanism is Faraday's law, the increase mechanism is Faraday's law. 

In Old Chemistry, their Table is essentially-- think of the electron as .5MeV a little ball, and the proton is 938 MeV a larger ball and that these two balls in hydrogen do nothing, then helium is 4 tiny balls with 4 massive balls doing nothing, then lithium is 7 tiny balls with 7 massive balls doing nothing. That is Old Chemistry table building. And the only thing Old Chemists did, was worry about the family resemblance that helium resembled neon that resembled argon, that lithium resembled sodium that resembled potassium etc etc. 

In New Chemistry, we see the Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840 MeV and that little guy of .5MeV was not an electron but was Dirac's Magnetic Monopole. And what this does, is create a whole new different picture of a atom, any atom, because the enormous activity always going on inside an atom where the 105 particle is a bar magnet and the 840 particle is actually 8 muons that form a atomic wire closed loop and these two particles 105 and 840 are constantly doing a Faraday Law of creating atomic electricity of magnetic monopoles. Old Chemistry was lazy idling of atomic particles, New Chemistry is for all purposes a constant activity of Faraday's law. 

And so the Atoms Table is the first atom with just 1muon 1 proton, the second atom is 2muons2protons, the third atom is 3muons3protons, the fourth atom is helium with 4 protons, 4 muons, all the way up to element 118 with 295protons, 295muons. 

All atoms are a configuration to maximize a Faraday Law inside that atom, that means, some numbers are able to arrange themselves far better than others, such as Helium is far better able to carry out Faraday's law than is tritium or lithium. 

Now I spoke last night that the best Geometry picture of the Table of Atoms is a cone surface. Let me elaborate on that by doing the Old Chemistry Table only I use just one letter of the element to get in the s,p,d,f orbitals 


H H 
L B B C N O F N 
NM A S P S C A 
K C S T V CM F C N C Z G G A S B K 

more later but the form is shaping up, and the way in which we can have helium neon argon krypton then hydrogen lithium sodium be all under one another in family resemblance columns is to cut out those elements on a flat plane and bend to be a CONE. 

Now, for me, growing up and learning about conic sections for the first time, I was worried about something in conic sections-- why on earth would you stack one cone onto another cone at their apex?? Why oh why would you do a crazy thing like that-- was my first thoughts on seeing conic sections. Is there ever really a need to have cones stacked in order to gain valuable knowledge and understanding in the world around us? The only reason we do such an unnatural silly thing as to stack one cone onto another cone at the apex is so that we can include hyperbolas. If it were not for hyperbolas, we would never do a conic stacking. So, I saved that bit of information of my youth in education, never really thinking any more about it, until last night. 

You see, the geometry of a single cone is the best geometry for the Table of Atoms, for the New Periodic Table of Chemical Elements, on a cone surface because the rows increase but the columns need to be together. 

One cone, mind you, but, now we still have a problem with a single cone, because, well Hydrogen makes up over 90% of the Cosmos and many elements are so rare, that why should they have a accounting of the same size of block as does hydrogen. So we need a New Table that factors in the abundance of the Elements. We should not have the same size of block for hydrogen as say technetium 43Tc. 

So, the New Table is going to have 295 Atoms arranged numerically in order, but also, the size of block they get is according to the Cosmic abundance. So, how to do that correctly? 

Well getting back to my story, as a youth I thought it crazy to stack two cones on their apex just to get hyperbolas. 

But, now that craziness is going to help me out here. But I need not stack on apex, what I need is two cones where the base of one cone is the apex of the other equal cone. You see, superimpose the two cones. The Ancient Greeks could never do this as well as what we can do it today with computer graphics. We can do this in our imagination but physically we can mold a plastic cone to intersect another plastic cone such that the base of one is where the apex of the other exists. 

So our New Table where Hydrogen is alone as the apex of one cone and the base of the second cone as cosmic abundance. Helium is up there close to hydrogen as the base in abundance but close to hydrogen in the other cone as apex. 

So now, we take a cut of these two cones melded together that is a cut where both cones have a circle cross section (now I wonder if the circles are a constant in area-- something for the mathematicians to work out, whether area of C1 + area of C2 = a constant k no matter where the cut is performed. And if the Ancient Greeks had had this superimposed two equal cones, I am sure they would have discovered the relationship of the two circle areas.) 

Anyway the s,p,d,f rows are now able to be scaled to abundance of those elements. 

And once we scale them, I suspect the New Table of All Atoms becomes a two cones superimposed. 

P.S. I also need mathematicians to figure out, what are the conic sections of these two superimposed cones bring, I mean a cut not parallel to base. If my imagination serves me correctly, it would be two Ovals almost like two circles, one inside the other. But the parabola cut is a mystery and whether a hyperbola exists in this new two conics, if a hyperbola exists, then we can finally, finally, get rid of the old conic section of stacking at apex. 

AP 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#407831

Now the best graphic i could spot from Google of these two nested opposite cones was this site--

The Centre Holds: Beauty, Art & the God Who is There. | the Center
“Drakes Bay” ceramic version of oil painting of God’s original creation. Christopher MacDonald ©2002 Azotus Arts. Turning and turning in the widening gyre The falcon cannot hea…

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

#407835

Now looking at a lot of images for two cones nested forming what i would call a complex cylinder since the ends are equal.

But here is an experiment easily performed at home-- two ice cream cones. One set on table at its base the other on apex held by a steady hand and putting the two close together forms a parallelogram in 2nd D. Now imagine the one going inside the other where the base of one is now the apex of the other.

I do not know if math gave a name to this object

I want to say-- spool, such as a spool of sewing thread

AP

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

#407844

Now here quoting a website of YeatsVision.com that not only gives a good picture of two nested intersecting cones but says they have a name.

-- quoting


The Double Gyres

 The Double Gyre Horizontal
Yeats's thought is fundamentally dualistic and, although the single gyre contains a fundamental dualism in the two boundaries of its form, the base and the apex, it is more natural for Yeats to use a doubled form. Since the apex or minimum of one element implies the maximum of its dualistic opposite, these double cones intersect so that the two gyres are the complementary opposites of each other.

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

#407845 — called Double Gyres Re: New Chemistry Table-- two superimposed cones

On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 7:27:02 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Now here quoting a website of YeatsVision.com that not only gives a good picture of two nested intersecting cones but says they have a name.
> 

I am not sure this is the literary Yeats. Often, literary figures never dabble in mathematics



> -- quoting
> 
> 
> The Double Gyres
> 
>  The Double Gyre Horizontal
> Yeats's thought is fundamentally dualistic and, although the single gyre contains a fundamental dualism in the two boundaries of its form, the base and the apex, it is more natural for Yeats to use a doubled form. Since the apex or minimum of one element implies the maximum of its dualistic opposite, these double cones intersect so that the two gyres are the complementary opposites of each other.

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

#407846 — Re: called Double Gyres Re: New Chemistry Table-- two superimposed cones

On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 7:41:09 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 7:27:02 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Now here quoting a website of YeatsVision.com that not only gives a good picture of two nested intersecting cones but says they have a name.
> > 
> 
> I am not sure this is the literary Yeats. Often, literary figures never dabble in mathematics
> 
> > -- quoting
> > 
> > 
> > The Double Gyres
> > 
> >  The Double Gyre Horizontal
> > Yeats's thought is fundamentally dualistic and, although the single gyre contains a fundamental dualism in the two boundaries of its form, the base and the apex, it is more natural for Yeats to use a doubled form. Since the apex or minimum of one element implies the maximum of its dualistic opposite, these double cones intersect so that the two gyres are the complementary opposites of each other.

AP writes:  Now looking at those computer pictures I easily see the Double Cones intersecting where apex is at base does produce a hyperbola.

Now, what I am exploring is whether this depiction of two cones is far superior than Old Math's dummy depiction of apex to apex.

Because, well, I suspect New Chemistries Table of Chemical Elements is a Double Cone Intersection.

I need to investigate whether the hyperbolas produced from cones apex to apex are the same as hyperbolas from cones apex to base.

If they are the same, then I suspect apex to base cones are far far superior not just because of Chemistry Table, but because, well a apex to base double cones is either a generalization of the Cylinder, or the Cylinder is a generalization of the double cones. What I mean here, is that the parallelogram is a generalization of the rectangle.

The final word is still not out, whether Old Math had discovered this figure a long time ago and given it a name, other than double-gyre.

And it is nice and fitting, that the mathematician who discovered the Oval was a Conic section, never the ellipse, is back again fixing even more Conic Section theory, which the Old Math community was too stupid to ever see or fix. So let us give a nice rounded applause to our hero, AP.

AP

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

#407911 — Re: called Double Gyres Re: New Chemistry Table-- two superimposed cones

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:

>And it is nice and fitting, that the mathematician who discovered the Oval
>was a Conic section, never the ellipse, is back again fixing even more Conic
>Section theory,

Oh, so you finally have a proof the ellipse is not a conic section?

Could you please point out the flaw in the following proof that it is an
ellipse?


Some preliminaries:

Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used 
in the proof:

              ^ x
              |
             -+- <= x=h
         .'   |   `.
        .     |     .
        |     |     |
        '     |     '      
         `.   |   .'
 y <----------+ <= x=0
             
Cone (side view):
                 .
                /|\
               / | \
              /b |  \
             /---+---' <= x = h
            /    |'   \
           /   ' |     \
          / '    |      \
x = 0 => '-------+-------\
        /    a   |        \

Proof:

r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x  and  d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x,  hence

y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.

Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1  ...equation of an ellipse

qed

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

#408801 — Re: called Double Gyres Re: New Chemistry Table-- two superimposed cones

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes:

[nothing]

>Michael Moroney        wrote
>4:46 PM (2 hours ago)

>>Oh, so you finally have a [proof the ellipse is not a conic section?]

Archie posted that snippet yet again, even though it's a week old now.
At least 10 times in (at least) two groups. Guess it must really bug
him that he still has no proof the ellipse is not a conic section.

It continues to amuse me how kooks do something totally illogical, and
then do it over and over again.  Like how Archie quotes a contextless
snippet of what I wrote, to the wrong topic, and frequently in the wrong
group, and says nothing about it himself. And he keeps doing that.

Why?  Dementia? Autism? Senility? OCD? Schizophrenia?

Or maybe he just wants to see this proof that the ellipse can be a conic
section again.


Below you will find a simple *proof* that shows that certain conic 
sections are ellipses.

Some preliminaries:

Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used 
in the proof:

              ^ x
              |
             -+- <= x=h
         .'   |   `.
        .     |     .
        |     |     |
        '     |     '      
         `.   |   .'
 y <----------+ <= x=0
             
Cone (side view):
                 .
                /|\
               / | \
              /b |  \
             /---+---' <= x = h
            /    |'   \
           /   ' |     \
          / '    |      \
x = 0 => '-------+-------\
        /    a   |        \

Proof:

r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x  and  d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x,  hence

y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.

Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1  ...equation of an ellipse

qed

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

#407929 — Re: called Double Gyres Re: New Chemistry Table-- two superimposed cones

columns family resemblance challenged Re: New Chemistry Table-- two superimposed cones Re: AP's Periodic Table of Atoms

Now here I need to take a break or momentary pause, not that I am tired, but because I need more facts to move on ahead. 

I need a fact of Chemistry about the concept of family resemblance in columns of the Mendeleev Chart of Elements. I know that was a motivation for discovery to Mendeleev that the gases helium, neon, argon, krypton were substances that looked similar behaved similar, and we take any column and see much the same sort of concept of "family resemblance". However, as much in life as in science, we can take a good concept that stretches just too far. So I am skeptical of this need for columns of family resemblance. 

And what I have in mind, is that somewhere that concept completely falls apart in the Old Chemistry Table. I do not mean that surprise-- we find a noble gas next to a metal like iron. Nothing like that. What I mean is where in the Old Chemistry table of elements, does the elements next to a particular element in a row, behave and resemble that element rather than the elements of the family column? 

I think the answer is Fe iron that, at Cr, Mn, Fe, Co behave and resemble Fe more than does Ru. Os. 

And even harder to say C is related to family members Sn and Pb, than to say Fe is related to Cu. 

Not sure of that but have to check up on it. 

So, what I am saying here, is that halfway in the first d orbital of elements, that the family resemblance of columns breaks apart. And that a new Table of Elements(Atoms) no longer has to insist a Atom fall in the column of previous atoms. 

This also brings up the interesting question of some Electrochemical feature of every Atom, in the Faraday Law, that categorizes where that Element belongs in the Table. Say for instance, simple conduction of electricity. 

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web