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

Groups > sci.math > #410954 > unrolled thread

Re: Yves Meyer fails the lifelong Math test-- A Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

Back to article view | Back to sci.math

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Yves Meyer fails the lifelong Math test-- A Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Jan <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-03 19:45 -0700
    Re: Yves Meyer fails the lifelong Math test-- A Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-05 11:58 -0700
    Re: Yves Meyer fails the lifelong Math test-- A Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-06 13:52 -0700
      Re: Yves Meyer fails the lifelong Math test-- A Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Jan <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-06 19:09 -0700
        Re: Yves Meyer fails the lifelong Math test-- A Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-12 06:59 -0700
          Re: Yves Meyer fails the lifelong Math test-- A Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Jan <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-04-14 22:54 -0700
            Re: Yves Meyer fails the lifelong Math test-- A Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 05:14 -0700
              Re: Yves Meyer fails the lifelong Math test-- A Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 11:18 -0700
                Re: Yves Meyer fails the lifelong Math test-- A Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Jan <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 13:27 -0700
              are stalkers in sci.math mostly gay? Re: Yves Meyer fails the lifelong Math test-- A Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 21:11 -0700
                Re: are stalkers in sci.math mostly gay? Re: Yves Meyer fails the lifelong Math test-- A Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Zelos Malum <zelos.malum@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 23:23 -0700
                  Re: are stalkers in sci.math mostly gay? Re: Yves Meyer fails the lifelong Math test-- A Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 07:45 -0700
                    Re: Archimedes Plutonium fails the lifelong Math test-- A Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-14 20:10 +0000
                Re: are stalkers in sci.math mostly gay? Re: Yves Meyer fails the lifelong Math test-- A Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Jan <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-04 07:14 -0700
                  science failures asking about Real Electron Re: are stalkers in sci.math mostly gay? Re: Yves Meyer fails the lifelong Math test-- A Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-07-04 12:30 -0700
                    Re: science failures asking about Real Electron Re: are stalkers in sci.math mostly gay? Re: Yves Meyer fails the lifelong Math test-- A Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Jan <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-04 14:45 -0700
                  Re: are stalkers in sci.math mostly gay? Re: Yves Meyer fails the lifelong Math test-- A Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-07-04 13:27 -0700
                    Re: are stalkers in sci.math mostly gay? Re: Yves Meyer fails the lifelong Math test-- A Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-07-04 14:54 -0700
                      Re: are stalkers in sci.math mostly gay? Re: Yves Meyer fails the lifelong Math test-- A Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Jan <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-04 15:35 -0700
            Re: Yves Meyer fails the lifelong Math test-- A Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-20 18:02 -0700
            Re: Yves Meyer fails the lifelong Math test-- A Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 20:58 -0700
        Re: Yves Meyer fails the lifelong Math test-- A Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-14 15:53 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#410954 — Re: Yves Meyer fails the lifelong Math test-- A Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 9:29:40 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 9:59:04 PM UTC-5, Jan wrote:
> 
> > Keep confabulating.
> > 
> > --
> > Jan
> 
> 
> 
> Destroying mainstream ignorance 

Stop fantasising already. Sheesh.

--
Jan

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#411141

On Tuesday, April 3, 2018 at 9:46:06 PM UTC-5, Jan wrote:

> Stop fantasising already. Sheesh.
> 
> --
> Jan

Michael Moroney writes:



12:04 AM (1 hour ago)


Math failure

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

#411270

On Tuesday, April 3, 2018 at 9:46:06 PM UTC-5, Jan wrote:

> Stop fantasising already. Sheesh.
> 
> --
> Jan

Zelos Malum writes:

Apr 5

>It is convinient btu that is all it is, it is not best in a mathematical sense because its just representation, in >many cases it is inferior in mathematics. 

AP writes:: you two kooks, how did you escape your kookfarm-- bedsheets out the window

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

#411277

On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 1:52:21 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 3, 2018 at 9:46:06 PM UTC-5, Jan wrote:
> 
> > Stop fantasising already. Sheesh.
> > 
> > --
> > Jan
> 
> Zelos Malum writes:
> 
> Apr 5
> 
> >It is convinient btu that is all it is, it is not best in a mathematical sense because its just representation, in >many cases it is inferior in mathematics. 
> 
> AP writes:: you two kooks, how did you escape your kookfarm-- bedsheets out the window

All you do is post idiocies about some mathematician or other "failing" some "test". Like
this is how real mathematics is done.

--
Jan

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

#411595

On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 9:10:04 PM UTC-5, Jan wrote:

> All you do is post idiocies about some mathematician or other "failing" some "test". Like
> this is how real mathematics is done.
> 
> --
> Jan

Zelos Malum writes:
1:30 AM (7 hours ago)
>You don't sense his sarcasm, do you? 

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

#411796

On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 6:59:51 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 9:10:04 PM UTC-5, Jan wrote:
> 
> > All you do is post idiocies about some mathematician or other "failing" some "test". Like
> > this is how real mathematics is done.
> > 
> > --
> > Jan
> 
> Zelos Malum writes:
> 1:30 AM (7 hours ago)
> >You don't sense his sarcasm, do you?

Just stop posting here. Don't you have anything better to do?

--
Jan

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

#412013

Den söndag 15 april 2018 kl. 07:55:00 UTC+2 skrev Jan:
> On Thursday, April 12, 2018 at 6:59:51 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > On Friday, April 6, 2018 at 9:10:04 PM UTC-5, Jan wrote:
> > 
> > > All you do is post idiocies about some mathematician or other "failing" some "test". Like
> > > this is how real mathematics is done.
> > > 
> > > --
> > > Jan
> > 
> > Zelos Malum writes:
> > 1:30 AM (7 hours ago)
> > >You don't sense his sarcasm, do you?
> 
> Just stop posting here. Don't you have anything better to do?
> 
> --
> Jan

If he did he'd not be on here posting garbage.

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

#412361

On Thursday, April 19, 2018 at 7:15:10 AM UTC-5, Zelos Malum wrote:
> Den söndag 15 april 2018 kl. 07:55:00 UTC+2 skrev Jan:
snip the two insane stalker crap


> On Tuesday, April 3, 2018 at 10:28:36 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> > [ ] ...which, of course, is not actually a mistake... 
> > 
> > 13 points. 

Dan Christensen writes: 

8:30 AM (4 hours ago) 

> 
Math failure Archie Pu scored 0/4 on this easy little math test (answers given here): 
> 
Use any aids. Answer in the space provided. 
  
1. What is the sine of 45 degrees to 3 decimal places?    (0.707 from calculator) 

2. True or false:  10^604 = 0   (False) 
  
3. If A is true and B is false, then A AND B is  (False) 
  
4. If A is true and B is true, then A OR B is  (True) 
0/4. What a numbskull! 
>Dan 


AP writes::  please let Medical doctors DNA test these stalkers --do please submit to DNA testing as a proven-25 year insane stalker, Michael Moroney compared to, Jan Bielawski-24 year, Jan Burse-approx 5 year, Dan Christensen-approx 6 year, Karl Olav Nyberg approx 3 year, Zelos Malum--approx 2 yr, insane stalkers, probably have the same genetic defects that make them obsessive stalkers. Probably all of them have a defect on the Y chromosome.

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

#413093

On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 11:19:02 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Thursday, April 19, 2018 at 7:15:10 AM UTC-5, Zelos Malum wrote:
> > Den söndag 15 april 2018 kl. 07:55:00 UTC+2 skrev Jan:
> snip the two insane stalker crap

Lose that "stalker" nonsense talk. It's a public forum: you posts here,
you pays the consequences.

If you want to post unchallenged, just leave this newsgroup and open a
blog instead.

--
Jan

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

#412469 — are stalkers in sci.math mostly gay? Re: Yves Meyer fails the lifelong Math test-- A Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

On Thursday, April 19, 2018 at 7:15:10 AM UTC-5, Zelos Malum wrote:
> Den söndag 15 april 2018 kl. 07:55:00 UTC+2 skrev Jan:

> 
> If he did he'd not be on here posting garbage.

Jan 	writes:
10:51 PM (15 minutes ago)

He is not any "stalker". He just posted a response to your post on a public forum. If you 
don't like public forums, just leave. 

-- 
Jan 


AP writes::  please let Medical doctors DNA test these stalkers --do please submit to DNA testing as a proven-25 year insane stalker, Michael Moroney compared to, Jan Bielawski-24 year, Jan Burse-approx 5 year, Dan Christensen-approx 6 year, Karl Olav Nyberg approx 3 year, Alouatta approx 3 years, Zelos Malum--approx 2 yr, insane stalkers, probably have the same genetic defects that make them obsessive stalkers. Probably all of them have a defect on the Y chromosome. 
Question-- how many of this list of stalkers are gay men-- and that is how they get their rocks off-- by harassing those doing science or math-- is Jan Bielawski gay, and stalking provides him with discharge of rocks.

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

#412685 — Re: are stalkers in sci.math mostly gay? Re: Yves Meyer fails the lifelong Math test-- A Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

Den fredag 27 april 2018 kl. 06:12:05 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium:
> On Thursday, April 19, 2018 at 7:15:10 AM UTC-5, Zelos Malum wrote:
> > Den söndag 15 april 2018 kl. 07:55:00 UTC+2 skrev Jan:
> 
> > 
> > If he did he'd not be on here posting garbage.
> 
> Jan 	writes:
> 10:51 PM (15 minutes ago)
> 
> He is not any "stalker". He just posted a response to your post on a public forum. If you 
> don't like public forums, just leave. 
> 
> -- 
> Jan 
> 
> 
> AP writes::  please let Medical doctors DNA test these stalkers --do please submit to DNA testing as a proven-25 year insane stalker, Michael Moroney compared to, Jan Bielawski-24 year, Jan Burse-approx 5 year, Dan Christensen-approx 6 year, Karl Olav Nyberg approx 3 year, Alouatta approx 3 years, Zelos Malum--approx 2 yr, insane stalkers, probably have the same genetic defects that make them obsessive stalkers. Probably all of them have a defect on the Y chromosome. 
> Question-- how many of this list of stalkers are gay men-- and that is how they get their rocks off-- by harassing those doing science or math-- is Jan Bielawski gay, and stalking provides him with discharge of rocks.

Those are not stalkers you moron, we point out your idiocy.

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

#413079 — Re: are stalkers in sci.math mostly gay? Re: Yves Meyer fails the lifelong Math test-- A Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 1:23:34 AM UTC-5, Zelos Malum wrote:

> 
> Those are not stalkers you moron, we point out your idiocy.

Michael Moroney 	writes:
May 13 (9 hours ago)

>No answer? 
>
>Can you round off 105.658 to three digits? 
>What is 106*9? 
>What is 105.658*9? 
>What is 105.658*9-938? 
>If someone owed you $900.00 and he gave you $888.00, would you be 
>satisfied that he paid you back in full? 

percentage for Moroney, 938 is what percent short of 945


On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon. 
> Hardly "exactly" 9 muons. 

Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 

> 
> Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572.  A proton is about the mass 
> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short. 


AP writes: these type of posts goes away once the 26 year long stalker Moroney goes away-- otherwise, they are like the US postage stamp, the "forever stamp"

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

#413091 — Re: Archimedes Plutonium fails the lifelong Math test-- A Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

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

>On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 1:23:34 AM UTC-5, Zelos Malum wrote:

>>
>> Those are not stalkers you moron, we point out your idiocy.


I see you still haven't found your dictionaruy yet, Mr. A. Failure
Plutonium.

>Michael Moroney 	writes:
>May 13 (9 hours ago)

>>No answer?
>>
>>Can you round off 105.658 to three digits?
>>What is 106*9?
>>What is 105.658*9?
>>What is 105.658*9-938?
>>If someone owed you $900.00 and he gave you $888.00, would you be
>>satisfied that he paid you back in full?

Still no answer? I knew you weren't very good at math but I thought you
could at least do simple problems like that.

>percentage for Moroney, 938 is what percent short of 945

So why do you refuse to use the correct mass of the muon?

>AP writes: these type of posts goes away once the 26 year long stalker 
>Moroney goes away-- otherwise, they are like the US postage stamp, the
>"forever stamp"

Zelos is still correct. Trying to discuss things in a discussion group is
definitely not stalking.  You post in a discussion group but demand that
nobody tries to discuss anything with you or even post in "your threads" is
like trying to drive screws with a hammer. The concept of a blog (with replies
disabled or author moderated) is what you should be doing, perfect for you,
but here you are, demanding censorship in a discussion group, whacking screws
with a hammer, muttering to yourself how screws are pieces of junk because
they are so hard to use.... And you cuss at those who either try to hand you a
screwdriver or some nails...

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

#417162 — Re: are stalkers in sci.math mostly gay? Re: Yves Meyer fails the lifelong Math test-- A Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 9:12:05 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Thursday, April 19, 2018 at 7:15:10 AM UTC-5, Zelos Malum wrote:
> > Den söndag 15 april 2018 kl. 07:55:00 UTC+2 skrev Jan:
> 
> > 
> > If he did he'd not be on here posting garbage.
> 
> Jan 	writes:
> 10:51 PM (15 minutes ago)
> 
> He is not any "stalker". He just posted a response to your post on a public forum. If you 
> don't like public forums, just leave. 
> 
> -- 
> Jan 
> 
> 
> AP writes::  please let Medical doctors DNA test these stalkers --do please submit to DNA testing as a proven-25 year insane stalker, Michael Moroney compared to, Jan Bielawski-24 year, 

...except I didn't post here for the large middle portion of that period. But why don't YOU
stop posting nonsense instead? You keep complaining about others merely responding
to your idiocies while you give yourself the right to destroy this group? How does this work,
exactly?

--
Jan

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

#417170 — science failures asking about Real Electron Re: are stalkers in sci.math mostly gay? Re: Yves Meyer fails the lifelong Math test-- A Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 9:14:11 AM UTC-5, Jan wrote:
> How does this work,
> exactly?
> 
> --
> Jan

Jan asks for more of TRUE CHEMISTRY, Jan realizing that if he lived to be a million years old would never have discovered, never understood, nor ever accepted the truth that Real Proton = 840MeV, Real ELECTRON= 105MeV and the .5MeV particle was Dirac's Magnetic Monopole.


Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 18:28:06 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: short history of subatomic particles of Physics Re: True Chemistry--
 2018 textbook
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 01:28:07 +0000

short history of subatomic particles of Physics Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook

In my textbook True Chemistry, those new early pages, I need a chronology of history of how we viewed atoms, their constituent elementary particles, and electricity. For the blame as to not knowing the .5MeV particle was not the electron but a magnetic monopole, is the conceit of the minds of physicists, or should be say the naivety of the minds of physicists is that they were blown away by +1 and -1 charge. If we had taken off the table the electric charge. Then when JJ Thomson discovered this 1897 particle of .5MeV, if electric charge was not a issue, then Thomson, in my opinion would have realized it could not be the electron. 

So let me make a rough sketch of the history involved, the pertinent history. 

1861-1864, Maxwell wrote " A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field"-- a complete theory of electricity tying together magnetism, as EM, electromagnetism theory. Perhaps the single greatest physics book, or book in general, before the Atom Totality textbook. 

1897, J.J. Thomson discovers a .5MeV particle, with a -1 charge, which he names as electron, thinking it is the electron of atoms, which, it turns out by 2017 is the Dirac magnetic monopole, and the muon is the real-electron. 

1913, the Bohr model of the Atom, which gives no working role for its elementary subatomic particles of proton, electron, neutron, photon (of which the magnetic monopole is a photon with a charge energy-- or a neutrino with charge energy). Sadly, the Bohr model is lacking any sort of physical role for these subatomic particles, other than to say, let there exist a proton, let there exist a electron. It is this lack of a job or role or working marching order for subatomic particles that should have alerted all chemists, all physicists, that they have a looney tune model of the atom. In the true model of the Atom, come 2017, is that the elementary particles are doing a Faraday Law and Ampere Law sort of like a dance, a job, a commitment for their existence, inside the Atom, conducted by those protons and muons. Where protons as a coil and muon electron as a bar magnet creates new monopoles, converting Space into monopoles, and stored in neutrons as capacitors, which a hydrogen atom grows to become a deuterium atom etc etc. In other words, the creation of new atoms and heavier atoms is the job of existing atoms. 

1917-1920, Rutherford discovers the proton of what he thought was 938 MeV 

1931, Dirac with a paper on magnetic monopoles which in order to satisfy the quantization of electricity, which implies that monopoles must exist. 

1932, Chadwick discovered the neutron of 945 MeV. Now they discovered these particles, like the neutron and proton but would have to wait years before they refined their masses on how much mass they had. 

1936, Anderson & Neddermeyer discover the muon particle of 105 MeV. I do not know what year they found out it weighed 105 MeV. 

Now, the big question is why are the minds of physicists so backwards, so empty of Logical thought, because when the proton was discovered by Rutherford in 1917 and could measure its mass to be roughly 940 MeV and then Thomson's particle of .5MeV. So, the puzzling question is from 1917 to 2017 is a span of time of 100 years, and the astonishment that in those 100 years, every physicist, every chemist knew of the Covalent bond of chemistry, every one of them knew what angular momentum was, or had a reasonable notion of what angular momentum means-- at least we thought they knew, yet not a single scientist ever had the thought run through their mind-- stop a minute-- how can a covalent bond of chemistry exist if the proton was 938 versus .5MeV electron ?? How, how is that possible. When that is only possible if the proton was 840 versus 105 MeV. Is the simple and short answer-- no physicist in the 20th century had a good decent logical mind to think straight, to think clear. 

AP 


Experimental Proofs and Definitions

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 23:00:27 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron =
 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 06:00:28 +0000


Now here is a new proof that belongs in the first page. 

Now chemistry is all about the nature and behavour of the last electrons of atoms, while the protons and neutrons of atoms play little role in chemistry. So well if that malarkey is true then the electrons flowing in copper should turn copper wire into nickel wire. Should turn iron atoms into manganese. 

And why is it not doing such? Because the .5MeV particle is not the electron but a magnetic monopole and the real-electron = muon of atoms stays firmly in place with Real Proton=84MeV. 

In New Chemistry atomic number is the same if you count Real Electron =105MeV or count protons. 

AP 

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 12:44:41 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: definition of Chemistry is all wet behind the ears in Old Chemistry
 Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV,
 Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 19:44:41 +0000


definition of Chemistry is all wet behind the ears in Old Chemistry Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV

- hide quoted text -
On Monday, March 19, 2018 at 1:00:31 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> Now here is a new proof that belongs in the first page. 
> 
> Now chemistry is all about the nature and behavour of the last electrons of atoms, while the protons and neutrons of atoms play little role in chemistry. So well if that malarkey is true then the electrons flowing in copper should turn copper wire into nickel wire. Should turn iron atoms into manganese. 
> 
> And why is it not doing such? Because the .5MeV particle is not the electron but a magnetic monopole and the real-electron = muon of atoms stays firmly in place with Real Proton=84MeV. 
> 
> In New Chemistry atomic number is the same if you count Real Electron =105MeV or count protons. 
> 

Alright, when I went to college in 1968, Univ Cincinnati, taking Freshman Chemistry (may have been sophomore year?) one of the first things we learned from the instructor is that Chemistry is about the electrons, the last few electrons of any atom. I remember the book used was Mortimer's Chemistry: A Conceptual Approach. I no longer have the textbook edition I used, but a later edition, the 4th ed. of Mortimer, 1979. 

Now, Mortimer attempts to define Chemistry on page 1 by saying : "Chemistry may be defined as the science that is concerned with the characterization, composition, and transformation of matter. This definition, however, is far from adequate." Further on, Mortimer writes: "The focus of chemistry, however, is probably the chemical reaction."  Trouble is, though Mortimer never defines or tells us what "chemical reaction" is. And probably the reason the UC instructor said words to the effect-- "Chemistry is about the behavior of the last electrons of atoms." 

And so, what we have here, in terms of Logic, we have a massive contradiction, a massive counterintuitive definition of Chemistry. So if the science of Chemistry is basically, not all but the bulwark of chemistry is the study of the last electrons in any atom, then in electricity flow in copper, with Old Chemistries stupid notion the electron is the .5MeV particle, then, right before your very eyes, all copper wire should turn to nickel wire because is the nickel atom has 28 electrons and the copper has 29 electrons, as the electron flows into the appliance, it deprives all the copper atoms of an electron and thus, making those copper atoms become nickel atoms, even though they still have 29 protons. 

You see, the only way to resolve Old Chemistry's dilemma, is to consider, that the .5MeV particle was never the electron at all, but was Dirac's Magnetic Monopole that Dirac strived to find in his lifetime for the monopole was the carrier of electricity. Electricity is not the flow of electrons, but the flow of magnetic monopoles-- those, .5MeV particles. 

The Real Electron, like the Real Proton hardly ever move outside the atom they are confined in. It takes enormous amount of energy to move any electron inside an atom and that is because the Real Electron is 105MeV, what is called the muon in physics, and the Real Proton is 840MeV. 

So, Old Chemistry-- every book that assumes the electron is .5MeV is now a defunct worthless trash book. Old Chemistry starts off their science with a crazy contradiction, a counterintuitive definition of Chemistry-- for they say-- Chemistry is about the last electrons of atoms, yet their ideas would thus cause copper wire to change into nickel wire by just the flow of electricity. When the Real Electron = muon, it stays behind with its 840MeV proton, securely fastened to the proton, and what is flowing as electricity is a .5 MeV magnetic monopole. 

AP 

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 14:32:03 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: new early page of textbook, explaining the hole in Old Chemistry Re:
 True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 21:32:04 +0000


new early page of textbook, explaining the hole in Old Chemistry Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook

- hide quoted text -
On Monday, March 19, 2018 at 2:44:48 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> On Monday, March 19, 2018 at 1:00:31 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> > Now here is a new proof that belongs in the first page. 
> > 
> > Now chemistry is all about the nature and behaviour of the last electrons of atoms, while the protons and neutrons of atoms play little role in chemistry. So well if that malarkey is true then the electrons flowing in copper should turn copper wire into nickel wire. Should turn iron atoms into manganese. 
> > 
> > And why is it not doing such? Because the .5MeV particle is not the electron but a magnetic monopole and the real-electron = muon of atoms stays firmly in place with Real Proton=84MeV. 
> > 
> > In New Chemistry atomic number is the same if you count Real Electron =105MeV or count protons. 
> > 
> 
> Alright, when I went to college in 1968, Univ Cincinnati, taking Freshman Chemistry (may have been sophomore year?) one of the first things we learned from the instructor is that Chemistry is about the electrons, the last few electrons of any atom. I remember the book used was Mortimer's Chemistry: A Conceptual Approach. I no longer have the textbook edition I used, but a later edition, the 4th ed. of Mortimer, 1979. 
> 
> Now, Mortimer attempts to define Chemistry on page 1 by saying : "Chemistry may be defined as the science that is concerned with the characterization, composition, and transformation of matter. This definition, however, is far from adequate." Further on, Mortimer writes: "The focus of chemistry, however, is probably the chemical reaction."  Trouble is, though Mortimer never defines or tells us what "chemical reaction" is. And probably the reason the UC instructor said words to the effect-- "Chemistry is about the behavior of the last electrons of atoms." 
> 
> And so, what we have here, in terms of Logic, we have a massive contradiction, a massive counterintuitive definition of Chemistry. So if the science of Chemistry is basically, not all but the bulwark of chemistry is the study of the last electrons in any atom, then in electricity flow in copper, with Old Chemistries stupid notion the electron is the .5MeV particle, then, right before your very eyes, all copper wire should turn to nickel wire because is the nickel atom has 28 electrons and the copper has 29 electrons, as the electron flows into the appliance, it deprives all the copper atoms of an electron and thus, making those copper atoms become nickel atoms, even though they still have 29 protons. 
> 
> You see, the only way to resolve Old Chemistry's dilemma, is to consider, that the .5MeV particle was never the electron at all, but was Dirac's Magnetic Monopole that Dirac strived to find in his lifetime for the monopole was the carrier of electricity. Electricity is not the flow of electrons, but the flow of magnetic monopoles-- those, .5MeV particles. 
> 
> The Real Electron, like the Real Proton hardly ever move outside the atom they are confined in. It takes enormous amount of energy to move any electron inside an atom and that is because the Real Electron is 105MeV, what is called the muon in physics, and the Real Proton is 840MeV. 
> 
> So, Old Chemistry-- every book that assumes the electron is .5MeV is now a defunct worthless trash book. Old Chemistry starts off their science with a crazy contradiction, a counterintuitive definition of Chemistry-- for they say-- Chemistry is about the last electrons of atoms, yet their ideas would thus cause copper wire to change into nickel wire by just the flow of electricity. When the Real Electron = muon, it stays behind with its 840MeV proton, securely fastened to the proton, and what is flowing as electricity is a .5 MeV magnetic monopole. 
> 

Sad that I have to go to physics to get a good enough definition of a chemical reaction. I go to Feynman Lectures on Physics, 1963, page 1-6 and 1-7 

--- quoting --- 

Chemical reactions 

In all of the processes which have been described so far, the atoms and the ions have not changed partners, but of course there are circumstances in which the atoms do change combinations, forming new molecules. This is illustrated in Fig. 1-8. A process in which the rearrangement of the atomic partners occurs is what we call a chemical reaction. 

--- end quoting Feynman --- 

I have not located any author who comes outright saying "Chemistry is basically the study of the last electrons of atoms". 

But the above is as close as we need to get on the fact that Old Chemistry is a Contradiction in Terms, and that Old Chemistry is Counterintuitive, if it wants people to believe that the electron is .5MeV, proton is 938 MeV and neutron is 940 MeV. 

In my discovery that the Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton= 840MeV, and neutron = 945MeV, leaving behind the .5MeV particle as Dirac's magnetic monopole. My discovery of all of that, stems from a day in 2016 when looking at tables of masses of elementary particles, I saw the muon at 105 and the proton at 938 MeV and said to myself, -- lo and behold, that is less than 1% of being 9x105 = 945. I said to myself, lo and behold 945/938 = 1.007, or, in percentage is .7%, less than 1%, and to me, that means they are really equal, that 9muons = 1 proton. 

So, with that magnificent discovery in 2016 that a proton was just 9 muons, I did not assemble that beautiful discovery just yet, that the proton had to be actually just 840 MeV. Leaving me to wonder in 2017, what in the world is the .5MeV if the real-electron=105MeV, real proton = 840 MeV and thus, in 2017, I soon realized the vagabond tiny particle .5MeV was what Dirac was chasing after all his life, and ironic he was a electrical engineer before becoming a theoretical physicist. 

Anyway, with the discovery that these .5MeV particles were never the electrons of atoms, I sought for proofs that the Real Electron was 105MeV and the first proof I thought of was the bonding of Chemistry, the angular momentum needed to bond a Covalent bond or Ionic bond or Metallic bond. Those bonds could never occur when the proton to electron is 938 versus .5 MeV. Bonding in Chemistry needs a ratio of at least 8 to 1, as in 840 to 105 MeV. So that was my first proof. 

But reflecting on this history, now in March of 2018, I need to revamp the entire Old Chemistry. Because, well, Chemical Atoms can be classified far far far better with Atomic Number = number of muons inside an atom. Chemistry is better when we say that carbon is 6 muons, that hydrogen is 1 muon that helium is 2 muons, instead of this silly proton count of atoms. For Chemistry, basically is all about the actions and reactions of the real electron = muon. And the muons in atoms are almost, just as secure in that atom as the protons of that atom. If you think it is terribly difficult to remove a proton from an atom, well, it is almost as difficult to remove the muon from that atom. 

So the Chemical Table of Elements based on atomic number = number of protons, is better served, if it is based on atomic number = number of muons. 

And thus, the hideous conclusions of Old Chemistry, that you can have a copper wire conducting electricity thinking it is the flow of electrons out of the copper atoms, a truly truly hideous notion, because in reality, the flow of electricity is never the flow of electrons, but the flow of magnetic monopoles-- the particle that Dirac needed to make electromagnetism a fully complete and symmetrical theory. For without the magnetic monopole, EM theory had a huge hole in it, a fake theory until that hole was plugged. 

So, see for yourself, for if Old Chemistry is correct then electricity in a copper wire would turn it into a nickel wire. But it never does that, because electricity was never about electrons flowing, it was about monopoles flowing and the copper wire remains as copper. 

AP 

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 15:12:00 -0800 (PST)

Subject: radioactive Beta decay is 105 not .5 MeV Re: Chemists are smarter than
 Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real
 Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 23:12:00 +0000


radioactive Beta decay is it 105MeV or .5 MeV Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV

On Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 3:36:00 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV 
> 
> 

So logically incoherent have Physicists become, so incoherent. Incoherent is a polite term for crazy, for physicists have become babbling crazy fools. 

They would have you believe that Beta decay in Radioactivity is the decay of electrons as .5 MeV particles. 

That means, the electric current in any electric wire is Radioactive beta decay. How silly is that?

So, do the babbling crazy fools ever consider that if Electrons = .5MeV, then a current in a wire is Radioactive Decay. Give me any 10 outstanding physicists today, any 10, and, even all put together have not one gram of Logical thought among them. 

If you think the electron is the .5MeV particle, then your radioactive decay is all messed up and screwy. 

If you think the Real Electron = 105 MeV, then, you have a modicum of a logical mind, because when the Real Electron = 105 MeV, it seldom ever comes out of its parent-atom. It seldom comes out unless you apply high energy to the atom to force it apart from its 840 MeV proton. Thus, when you have a neutral atom and force that atom to emit or eject a 105 MeV particle, then, then, you have Radioactive Beta Decay. 

But, the run of the mill photon with .5MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy, is not any Radioactive Decay. 

I am going to have to rewrite the entire textbook on Radioactive Decay.


AP

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

#417175 — Re: science failures asking about Real Electron Re: are stalkers in sci.math mostly gay? Re: Yves Meyer fails the lifelong Math test-- A Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 12:30:16 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 9:14:11 AM UTC-5, Jan wrote:
> > How does this work,
> > exactly?
> > 
> > --
> > Jan
> 
> Jan asks for more of TRUE CHEMISTRY, Jan realizing that if he lived to be a million years old would never have discovered, never understood, nor ever accepted the truth that Real Proton = 840MeV, Real ELECTRON= 105MeV and the .5MeV particle was Dirac's Magnetic Monopole.

Pure gobbledygook. You may also reconsider your asinine practice of quoting out of context.

--
Jan

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

#417172 — Re: are stalkers in sci.math mostly gay? Re: Yves Meyer fails the lifelong Math test-- A Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 7:14:11 AM UTC-7, Jan wrote:
> On Thursday, April 26, 2018 at 9:12:05 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 19, 2018 at 7:15:10 AM UTC-5, Zelos Malum wrote:
> > > Den söndag 15 april 2018 kl. 07:55:00 UTC+2 skrev Jan:
> > 
> > > 
> > > If he did he'd not be on here posting garbage.
> > 
> > Jan 	writes:
> > 10:51 PM (15 minutes ago)
> > 
> > He is not any "stalker". He just posted a response to your post on a public forum. If you 
> > don't like public forums, just leave. 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Jan 
> > 
> > 
> > AP writes::  please let Medical doctors DNA test these stalkers --do please submit to DNA testing as a proven-25 year insane stalker, Michael Moroney compared to, Jan Bielawski-24 year, 
> 
> ...except I didn't post here for the large middle portion of that period. But why don't YOU
> stop posting nonsense instead? You keep complaining about others merely responding
> to your idiocies while you give yourself the right to destroy this group? How does this work,
> exactly?
> 
> --
> Jan


It's like a deaf-mute that hears things and won't shut up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6QzY6KbCUQ

Led Zeppelin, 2?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_lSJ-0Gl7Q

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

#417176 — Re: are stalkers in sci.math mostly gay? Re: Yves Meyer fails the lifelong Math test-- A Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 3:27:22 PM UTC-5, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

> It's like a deaf-mute 

Ross says that if he could live to be 10 million years old and only thinking about Real Electron, that Ross is too retarded that he would never have discovered Real Electron = 105MeV and the .5MeV particle was Dirac's Magnetic Monopole



On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 8:25:06 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:

Re:  Identity Crisis when it occurs in physics Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV//.5MeV was Dirac's monopole

- show quoted text -
On Quora, someone tells us this:: 

Quoting:: 
The idea that Columbus died thinking he had found only islands off the coast of Asia is a myth. It is clear from his own writings that he realized he had encountered a new continent. On his third voyage (1496), Columbus for the first time encountered the coast of South America, in what is now Venezuela, at a point where the Orinoco River enters the sea. He originally assumed this was a large island. But a few days later, he came to the conclusion that no island could produce the quantity of fresh water which he observed at the mouth of the Orinoco, and concluded, “I believe this is a very large continent which until now has remained unknown” (“Yo estoy creído que esta es tierra firma, grandísima, de que hasta hoy no se ha sabido” in Las Casas, Historia, vol 2, p. 264). 



On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 9:51:23 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:
Re:  Identity Crisis when it occurs in physics Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV//.5MeV was Dirac's monopole

On stackexchange we have a differing view and one i am inclined to accept 

Quoting:: 


Under Portuguese auspices he completed a second expedition, which set sail from Lisbon on May 31, 1501. After a halt at the Cape Verde Islands, the expedition traveled southwestward, reached the coast of Brazil, and certainly sailed as far south as the Río de la Plata, which Vespucci was the first European to discover. In all likelihood the ships took a quick run still farther south, along the coast of Patagonia to the Golfo de San Juli n or beyond. His ships returned by an unknown route, anchoring at Lisbon on July 12, 1502. This voyage is of fundamental importance in the history of geography in that Vespucci himself became convinced that the lands he had explored were not part of Asia but a New World. Unlike Columbus, who, to his death, clung to the idea that he had found the shores of Asia, Vespucci defined what had indeed been found — and for this he has been rightfully honored. 

End quote.   

The above implies that from 1492 to 1502 the world still thought the new land was China- India and Amerigo Vespucci said it was a new continent. 

Now I believe Vespucci as the first one to realize that the landmass Columbus discovered was a new continent and took the world 10 years from start to finish to realize the mistaken identity.

Should it take Physics over 117 years to realize a mistaken identity of the electron, for the Real Electron is 105 MeV and the .5 MeV particle is the monopole.

Consider the arena where Columbus, Vespucci played in, continents, landmasses, economies and exploitation, whereas physics and science arenas are mostly about truth and knowledge, where a small set of people play. Columbus played on a larger stage involving far more people. So, could it be that when commerce plays on a stage, a mistaken identity takes only 10 years to be corrected. But when physics has mistaken identity, it takes 117 years to uncover? Is it because, when you have too many people educated to think all alike, that it takes 117 years to correct, but when you have a pool of people, none of them adhering to one idea, that it takes just 10 years to fathom the truth.

One last thing on Columbus is that he was C.C. and J.J. Thompson, and then Amerigo Vespucci for which America got its name was AV, and Archimedes Plutonium is AP. From CC to AV took 10 years, but from Thompson to AP took 2017 - 1897 = 120 years. Does that mean I get the rights and privileges to name the Real Electron the "archimuon", for the real electron is not involved in electricity, but rather the monopole is. And the real electron pretty much stays at home along side the 840 MeV proton. So the proton and the archimuon make up matter with the magnetic monopoles running as electricity of atoms.

Now, where does the Archimuon spend most of its time in the atom? Probably most of the time is bonded to the proton so you have a 105 plus 840 bonded together two particles.

On Monday, February 19, 2018 at 8:35:22 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.math:
radius of hydrogen proton shrinks too much Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV

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 --- 


On Monday, February 19, 2018 at 9:52:18 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:

only way to explain how a battery works Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV

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. 

On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 12:40:26 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.math:
spin is charge and charge is spin Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV

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. 


On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 3:29:39 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:

Maxwell Equations are asymmetrical unless you have monopole Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV

7th proof the Maxwell Equations are not symmetrical without current being the flow of magnetic monopoles. Dirac spent most of his life venturing for the existence of the magnetic monopole, so that electricity is a quantized energy, to give substance to the phenomenon of electricity. Well, it turns out that in life, often, what we are so desperately searching for, is right under our very nose, but just too blind to see it. The .5MeV particle we thought was the electron is in fact a photon or neutrino dressed up with a .5MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy. And the Real true Electron is the muon at 105 MeV. So, what bothered Dirac about the magnetic monopole is the Maxwell Equations end up being asymmetrical and that bothered Dirac immensely and he kept pushing forward and forward to find that monopole.

On Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 3:29:49 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.math:
Ion theory does not support electron being .5MeV 


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. 

Brief course on IONS in New Physics, for all of Physics and Chemistry are changed with the revelation that the REAL ELECTRON is the muon particle and REAL PROTON is 840 MeV. 

So, this pretty much changes everything in chemistry, everything. 

Ion states 
oxidation states Fe -4 to +7 although +2, +3 most common 

Now, Fe+2 means the iron atom has 2 magnetic monopoles of + charge present 

The Fe-2 ion of iron means it has 2 magnetic monopoles of - charge present 

The hydrogen atom has ions of -1 to +1, H+1 means it has 1 proton of 840MeV, 1 electron of 105 MeV, and one magnetic monopole of +1 charge of .5MeV 

H-1 means a hydrogen atom as ion has 1 proton of 840 MeV, 1 electron of 105 MeV and one magnetic monopole of -1 charge of .5MeV 

Oxygen has oxidation states (ion states) of +2, +1, -1, -2. 

O+2 means oxygen with 8 protons each of 840 MeV, 8 electrons each of 105 MeV, and 2 magnetic monopoles each of +1 electric charge of .5MeV 

So, as I was saying so much before, how silly and stupid physicist were to think for a single moment, that you take loads and loads of classroom time studying momentum, and at the end of it all, you think the atom is a electron of .5MeV while proton is 938 MeV and you expect chemical bonding to occur under those circumstances. If you had a marble as the electron and a bowling ball as the proton, how in heaven's name are you so deranged in thinking that the momentum of the marble and bowling ball is going to form chemical bonds? 

But the flip side of that ignorance is ION theory. To think for one moment, that an iron atom can lose 7 electrons, yes, mind you, 7 whole electrons and you got to be a crazy physicist /chemist to think that you still have an iron atom. A logical person, a logical chemist, would say, Fe+7 is a iron atom that has 26 protons each 840MeV and 26 electrons each 105 MeV and what the +7 is, is 7 magnetic monopoles each of +1 charge at .5MeV apiece. 

So, the failure of Physics and Chemistry in the past 100 years, was a failure to recognize what physics is mostly about-- momentum, and that a marble to a bowling ball is not going to be a hydrogen atom or entering into Chemical bonding. A bowling ball with a 1/8 bowling ball, is going to be an atom. And that if you have an atom, it is not going to give up any of its protons or electrons easily, which means the unbalanced charges-- ions of atoms, is not a loss or gain of electrons, for the electrons rarely get out of any atom. But rather the unbalanced charges is due to a particle that Dirac chased after all of his life-- the Magnetic Monopole. 

And every time a atom is unbalanced in charge, is due to a buildup of monopoles on that atom. 


On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 5:50:29 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:
Radioactivity rewritten Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV
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 and the hydrogen atom decay= 840MeV proton plus its 105MeV electron= muon, which in Old Physics and Old Chemistry would be seen as neutron 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. 

So, all the books on Radioactivity need to be rewritten.


On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 7:26:52 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:
proton and electron=muon arrangement inside atoms Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV

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. But, however, the proton itself is a closed loop wire due to its being a composition of 8 muons, in a octet of muons, thus the electron-muon is the bar magnet and the proton is the closed loop wire.

Either way, Faradays law is preeminent, either the proton is the bar magnet and electron is the closed loop wire or the proton is the closed loop wire and electron is the bar magnet. 

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. 

Which begs the question, how and why are monopoles borne inside of atoms?

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

#417181 — Re: are stalkers in sci.math mostly gay? Re: Yves Meyer fails the lifelong Math test-- A Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus

On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 2:54:09 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 3:27:22 PM UTC-5, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> 
> > It's like a deaf-mute 
> 
> Ross says that if he could live to be 10 million years old and only thinking about Real Electron, that Ross is too retarded that he would never have discovered Real Electron = 105MeV and the .5MeV particle was Dirac's Magnetic Monopole

Like you would know what it is even.

--
Jan

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

#412120

On Sunday, April 15, 2018 at 12:55:00 AM UTC-5, Jan wrote:
 > > this is how real mathematics is done.
> > > 
> > > --
> > > Jan
> > 
> > Zelos Malum writes:
> > 1:30 AM (7 hours ago)
> > >You don't sense his sarcasm, do you?
> 
> Just stop posting here. Don't you have anything better to do?
> 
> --
> Jan

Michael Moroney 	writes:
6:08 PM (1 hour ago)


>alouatta....@gmail.com writes 
>12:59 PM (2 hours ago) 

>>Hi moron! 


>AP writes: Alouatta-- they are all dumb, especially you, for to this 

Let's score this fine example of Plutonium failing! 

☑ Archie responds to criticism but is unable to discuss the issue... 
☑ ...Zero new content, in fact... 
☑ ...Giggle Groups screenshot cut and pasted... 
☑ ...with Archie's response posted in the wrong topic... 
☐ ...and to the wrong newsgroup... 
☐ ...multiple times... 
☐ ...enough times to be classified as spam... 
☑ ...in a topic/topics explicitly created by him for doing so... 
☐ ...and Archie even whines about (other) spammers in his spam... 
☑ ...with a subject about flunking a nonexistent test no one ever took... 
☑ ...and the subject mentions totally uninvolved people... 
☑ ...who are university math or physics professors... 
☑ ...at a university supposedly near the person criticizing Archie... 
☐ ...but Archie got the location (and university) completely wrong... 
☑ ...and Archie demands they resign for not teaching his broken math... 
☑ ...and he includes a stalker list of physics and/or math professors... 
☑ ...and STILL can't answer 'why stalker lists of uninvolved profs'... 
☑ ...and Archie's actual response is completely unrelated to the topic... 
☑ ...and the critic's comment has embarrassing (to AP) portion removed... 
☑ ...to the extent the comment is no longer recognizable... 
☐ ...includes random snippets by other critics, spammers or babblers... 
☐ ...which are attributed to yet other critics, spammers or babblers... 
☑ ...followed by yet another repost of the "12 Failures of Plutonium"... 
☑ ...or the "you gotta draw pictures of calculus" repost... 
☑ ...and includes the dumb ascii art cat/owl thing... 
☐ ...as well as ascii art of Archie's butthole... 
☑ ...and Archie doesn't realize ascii art is so 1980s... 
☑ ...and Archie brings up a "mistake" (in his view) from months ago... 
☑ ...which, of course, is not actually a mistake... 
☑ ...and Archie invents yet more "mistakes" (that are not mistakes)... 
☐ ...and Archie really wears out the "a beer short of a 6 pack" joke... 
☐ ...but he still doesn't realize he's about 5 beers short... 
☐ ...and Archie can't get over the shame of messing up percentages... 
☐ ...and Archie is envious that I weighed the electron and he didn't... 
☑ ...he even still thinks 8.88 is "exactly" 9... 
☐ ...and he thinks 16.81 is "spot on" 17... 
☐ ...Archie asks Google Groups to do something they can't do... 
☑ ...One word. Logorrhea.  ... 
☑ ...Google Groups poster. 'Nuf said. 

Archimedes Plutonium Failure score:  25! 

AP writes: I left ... math failures, deee ddaa dee da, in San Francisco, dah dee dah dee daa, high on a hill...
they call for sanity....
Just like where little rain drops fall, dah deeeddaa dda

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web