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

Groups > sci.math > #416350 > unrolled thread

5AP is considering writing the definitive textbook on Physics, seeing that Halliday & Resnick no longer holds up

Back to article view | Back to sci.math

Contents

  5AP is considering writing the definitive textbook on Physics, seeing  that Halliday & Resnick no longer holds up Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 20:52 -0700
    why the electron must be 105 MeV, not the minuscule .5MeV Re: 5AP is considering writing the definitive textbook on Physics, seeing  that Halliday & Resnick no longer holds up Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 21:29 -0700
      why the electron must be 105 MeV, not the minuscule .5MeV Re: 5AP is considering writing the definitive textbook on Physics, seeing  that Halliday & Resnick no longer holds up Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 01:40 -0700
        Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-26 12:56 +0000

#416350 — 5AP is considering writing the definitive textbook on Physics, seeing that Halliday & Resnick no longer holds up

5Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 13:07:24 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: AP is considering writing the definitive textbook on Physics, seeing
 that Halliday & Resnick no longer holds up-- flawed and mired by Old Math and
 GR & Big Bang
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 20:07:25 +0000

AP is considering writing the definitive textbook on Physics, seeing that Halliday & Resnick no longer holds up-- flawed and mired by Old Math and GR & Big Bang

I am considering rewriting Physics, because of the poor Logic and Math. We can say that the Stewart text on Calculus was the best that flawed Old Math could do. Yet, all of that is trash because it was based on a Continuum and based on a Limit and based on no-definition of what infinite means. Stewart's Calculus is trash and only pollution to the mind, in mathematics. 

But then again, because the past 100 years in physics has been the worship of General Relativity and of gravity and Big Bang, we can also say, physics teaching for the past 100 years has been mostly trash. 

Looking at Halliday & Resnick, FUNDAMENTALS OF PHYSICS, 3rd ed, 1988, Table of Contents 

Chapter 1 Measurement 
Chapter 2 Motion in a Straight Line 
Chapter 3 Vectors 
Chapter 4 Motion in a Plane 
Chapter 5 Forces and Motion-1 
Chapter 6 Forces and Motion-2 
Chapter 7 Work and Energy 

We can consider those first seven chapters are all based upon the phony and fake understanding of Calculus, that phony calculus of Old Math. So that with New Math and its TRUE Calculus, would also, immensely affect Old Physics, with better understanding of Physics. 

This is so, so, very true, because it is obvious and easy to see that we have dolts in physics-- Steven Weinberg, Leon Lederman, Murray Gell-Man, Sheldon Glashow, Edward Witten, who thought and believed all their life career in physics, that you could have proton 938MeV, electron .5MeV and have angular momentum to allow for the Chemistry covalent bonding with an electron at .5MeV. So dumb in physics intuition was all physicists of the past 100 years, that the Real Proton was 840 MeV, Real Electron = Muon = 105 MeV and that ratio of 8 to 1 does give a angular momentum of the electrons to allow for a Chemistry bonding. The .5MeV particle was none other than Dirac's Magnetic Monopole, and sad to say, even Dirac was-- too poor in understanding and knowing-- what is Angular Momentum. 

So, I think I must be the one to rewrite the first 7 chapters of Physics textbooks, so as to bring Physics into New Physics that is true physics. 

But it will have to wait until after 2019, say 2020 for my plate is full with Teaching True Mathematics text. 

AP




Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 13:38:20 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: units Re: AP is considering writing the definitive textbook on
 Physics, seeing  that Halliday & Resnick no longer holds up-- flawed and
 mired by Old Math and  GR & Big Bang
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 20:38:20 +0000


units Re: AP is considering writing the definitive textbook on Physics, seeing that Halliday & Resnick no longer holds up-- flawed and mired by Old Math and GR & Big Bang

But as I wait until 2020 to write the definitive text on physics-- other than the Atom Totality text. I should start to fill in what is to come. 

H&R gives this for their text: 

Looking at Halliday & Resnick, FUNDAMENTALS OF PHYSICS, 3rd ed, 1988, Table of Contents 

Chapter 1 Measurement 
Chapter 2 Motion in a Straight Line 
Chapter 3 Vectors 
Chapter 4 Motion in a Plane 
Chapter 5 Forces and Motion-1 
Chapter 6 Forces and Motion-2 
Chapter 7 Work and Energy 

And in Chapter 1, I must do "units" 

Units, units units-- how many times have I said that physics and units are the most important tool. Unless you are squared away with units, you will never be a physicist. And the error that most novices and cranks make is generally a error of units. 

Product Rule of Calculus  (fgh)' = f'gh + fg'h +fgh' 
Quotient Rule of Calculus  (f/gh)' = (f'gh - fg'h - fgh')/(gh)^2 

velocity or speed = m/s 

acceleration = m/s^2 

linear momentum kg*m/s 

angular momentum = kg*m^2/s 

frequency = 1/s 

Force = kg*m/s^2 

Torque = moment arm * Force 

Current = i = dq/dt where q is charge and this can be written where t = seconds 

Pressure = kg / m*s^2 

Energy = kg*m^2 / s^2 

Power, or radiant flux = Energy times frequency, = kg*m^2 / s^3 

Quantity of Electricity, charge, Coulomb = C = A*s 

Inertia ML^2 

Energy = Force x distance = work = ML^2T^-2 

Kinetic Energy = 1/2 mv^2 =  1/2 ML^2T^-2 

Force = mass x acceleration = ma = MLT^-2 

velocity = LT^-1 

acceleration = LT^-2 

energy = ML^2T^-2 

force = MLT^-2 

frequency = T^-1 

momentum = MLT^-1 

Pressure = ML^-1T^-2 

Power = ML^2T^-3 

Entropy = ML^2T^-2 

Resistance = kg*m^2 /A^2*s^3 

electric current = i = A 

Angular momentum L = m^2/(A*s) 

Magnetic Field =  kg /A*s^2 

Voltage  = kg*m^2 /A*s^3 

velocity or speed = m/s 

acceleration = m/s^2 

angular momentum = m^2/s 

frequency = 1/s 

Force = kg*m/s^2 

Pressure = kg / m*s^2 

Energy = kg*m^2 / s^2 

Power, or radiant flux = Energy times frequency, = kg*m^2 / s^3 

Quantity of Electricity, charge, Coulomb = C = A*s 

Inertia ML^2 

Energy = Force x distance = work = ML^2T^-2 

Kinetic Energy = 1/2 mv^2 =  1/2 ML^2T^-2 

Force = mass x acceleration = ma = MLT^-2 

velocity = LT^-1 

acceleration = LT^-2 

energy = ML^2T^-2 

force = MLT^-2 

frequency = T^-1 

momentum = MLT^-1 

Pressure = ML^-1T^-2 

Power = ML^2T^-3 

Entropy = ML^2T^-2 

Magnetic Field =  kg /A*s^2 = kg /C*s 

Charge = C = A*s 

Voltage  = kg*m^2 /A*s^3 = kg*m^2 /C*s^2 

Pressure = kg/m*s^2 

Force = kg*m/s^2 

Power = kg*m^2/s^3 

Resistance = kg*m^2 /A^2*s^3  = kg*m^2 /C *A*s^2 

Capacitance = A^2*s^4/ kg*m^2 

velocity or speed = m/s 

acceleration = m/s^2 

angular momentum proportional m^2/s 

frequency = 1/s 

Force = kg*m/s^2 

Pressure = kg / m*s^2 

Energy = kg*m^2 / s^2 

Power, or radiant flux = Energy times frequency, = kg*m^2 / s^3 

Quantity of Electricity, charge, Coulomb = C = A*s 

Voltage is the (a) Electric Potential, the (b) Potential Difference and (c) Electromotive Force and all of which has the Units of W/A =  kg*m^2/A*s^3 

Capacitance = farad = C/V = A^2*s^4 / kg*m^2 

Electrical Resistance = ohm = kg*m^2 /A^2*s^3 

Conductance = A/V = A^2*s^3 / kg*m^2 

Magnetic Flux = V*s = kg*m^2 /A*s^2 

Magnetic Field = tesla = kg /A*s^2 

Resistance = kg*m^2/A^2*s^3 

Inductance =  kg*m^2 /A^2*s^2   

velocity = LT^-1 

acceleration = LT^-2 

energy = ML^2T^-2 

force = MLT^-2 

frequency = T^-1 

momentum = MLT^-1 

Pressure = ML^-1T^-2 

Power = ML^2T^-3 

Entropy = ML^2T^-2 

The above is a list of some important units. 

Now, with my newfound knowledge that the CALCULUS true calculus is based upon the geometry of the Trapezoid, I hope to make clear--WHAT IS ANGULAR MOMENTUM, because, well, every physicist of the 1900s and into 2017, never understood what angular momentum was all about. If anyone understands Angular Momentum, they would instantly recognize that you cannot have the electron be .5MeV proton 938MeV and yet have Chemistry bonding of covalent bond. 

So, if I do nothing else in math-physics but make it clear what Angular Momentum truly is, well, I have done a mountain in physics. 

AP 

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 16:44:56 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Y=mx+b will make clear Angular Momentum Re: 2AP is considering
 writing the definitive textbook on Physics, seeing  that Halliday & Resnick
 no longer holds up-- flawed and mired by Old Math and  GR & Big Bang
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 23:44:56 +0000

Y=mx+b will make clear Angular Momentum Re: 2AP is considering writing the definitive textbook on Physics, seeing that Halliday & Resnick no longer holds up-- flawed and mired by Old Math and GR & Big Bang

Ever since J.J. Thomson discovered the electron in 1897 and found it had a mass of .5MeV. And all the physicists in the world, including my favorite Dirac, none of them could see a disparity there, a anomaly, a mistake, a contradiction to Angular Momentum. All of the physicists from 1897 to 2017, a span of 120 years time, not a single physicist nor chemist for that matter. Ever realized that you cannot have the electron be .5MeV proton be 938MeV and still have Chemistry covalent bonding. So low of an IQ in logic did all physicists and chemists have from 1897 to 2017. 

The only way that Chemistry covalent bonding exists, is if the real electron were the muon at 105MeV, proton at 840MeV, a ratio of 1 to 8, and then, in that ratio can you have existing the Chemistry covalent bond. And 8 is also an important number in Lewis diagram structure, for it is 8 that has -- on par energy levels of the 2S and 2P orbitals. 

You see, the problem of scientists from 1897 to 2017 is no-one, even my hero Dirac, understood what Angular Momentum was, what it meant, and how it works. For if they did, they would have instantly realized-- the electron cannot be .5MeV with proton at 938 MeV. And there, Dirac would have his magnetic monopole-- for the .5MeV particle was his sought for monopole. And that makes a whole lot of sense, does it not-- because Dirac wanted a monopole for the sake of, yes, the sake of electricity is quantized, and what better place to look for the monopole than this .5MeV particle. 

So, I need to write and rewrite the Physics math, for Old Physics relied on Old Math. And Old Math had no true calculus-- they had trash garbage calculus. You cannot understand Angular Momentum unless you have True Calculus. 

And it starts with UNITS of physics, and then it looks at one function in particular -- the function for a line in mathematics-- Y = mx + b 

From that line we get True Calculus which gives us the trapezoid figure and from that we turn to angular momentum. 

So in those units above we see velocity is d/t, distance divided by time which is slope or derivative 

We see acceleration is d/t^2 

We see momentum is mv or mass x velocity 

We see angular momentum is mass*mass divided by time m^2/t 

So, that is pretty hard to swallow, to stomach, to take in. And we can see why all physicists from 1897 to 2017 failed on identification of the true electron, because, well m^2/t is tough tough to fathom. 

But I believe the Trapezoid figure as true calculus and the line formula Y = mx + b will open that cloud of fog open it wide. 

AP 

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 17:45:12 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Re: units Re: AP is considering writing the definitive textbook on
 Physics, seeing  that Halliday & Resnick no longer holds up-- flawed and
 mired by Old Math and  GR & Big Bang
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 00:45:12 +0000

Re: units Re: AP is considering writing the definitive textbook on Physics, seeing that Halliday & Resnick no longer holds up-- flawed and mired by Old Math and GR & Big Bang

Alright so, let us take the plunge. 

Let us reveal Angular Momentum like never before. 

Y=mx +b 

Derivative is m, slope is derivative 

Interpret it as velocity in physics 

Now take integral of Y=mx +b 

(m/2)x^2 +bx 

We have an x^2 and the quick interpretation would be Kinetic Energy as 1/2mv^2 

But another interpretation would consider the x^2 to mean mass^2 instead of velocity^2 

AP 

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 18:52:34 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: In angular momentum we have mass/time is the analog of distance/time
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 01:52:35 +0000

In angular momentum we have mass/time is the analog of distance/time

On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 8:04:24 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> And then stipulate that momentum only comes in a linear form. 
> 
> Call it Angular Energy and it maybe what potential energy was in Old Physics. 
> 

No, Angular Momentum is good, better than Angular-Energy. So let us stick with Angular Momentum, and consider that in Linear Momentum of mass*(d/t) in Angular Momentum we have mass*(mass/t) where we consider the difference betwee Linear and Angular is that of d/t versus mass/t. 

This is very very difficult to comprehend that mass/time is the same as distance/time. Because, well, the mass is in pieces and parts and is spinning around, whereas in linear momentum the mass is in a "whole" and is moving forward in d/t. 


> Funny how today we here near Sioux City are experiencing a Nor’Easter, a cyclone rain that keeps spinning around and around. 
> 
> Should we call it Angular Momentum, or is Angular Energy better? 
> 
> You see for linear momentum we have motion of the v in mv 
> 
> But in angular momentum we have mass*mass divided by time. 
> 
> Hardly— what you would call motion, unless you consider that mass/time is motion as distance/time 
> 

The Nor'Easter is a good example of Angular Momentum in that the clouds of rain have a mass "in whole" and divided by time cause rainfall. 

And a month or so ago, someone was asking me how I know that proton 938MeV and electron at .5MeV is impossible to create a Chemistry covalent bond. And I gave him a long answer which missed the mark. 

Today that answer is easily seen. 

If the electron was .5MeV and with Angular Momentum of mass*mass/time then a covalent bond of H2, dihydrogen would be angular momentum of .5MeV * .5MeV = .25 MeV whereas if the electron = 105MeV we have the covalent bond being 105MeV *105MeV = 11,025MeV Angular Momentum, making sense with the protons of helium nucleus as angular momentum of 840MeV*840MeV = 705,600MeV a difference of 1 to 64 times. 

You see, the electron at .5MeV in a bond with another .5MeV is just not enough to sustain a bond. 

AP 


Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 20:24:36 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Is the EM force 1/64 compared to strong nuclear at 1 Re: 2AP is
 considering writing the definitive textbook on Physics,...
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 03:24:36 +0000


Is the EM force 1/64 compared to strong nuclear at 1 Re: 2AP is considering writing the definitive textbook on Physics,...


> Newsgroups: sci.physics 
> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 18:52:34 -0700 (PDT) 
> 
> Subject: In angular momentum we have mass/time is the analog of distance/time 
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> 
> Injection-Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 01:52:35 +0000 
> 
> In angular momentum we have mass/time is the analog of distance/time 
> 
> On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 8:04:24 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> > And then stipulate that momentum only comes in a linear form. 
> > 
> > Call it Angular Energy and it maybe what potential energy was in Old Physics. 
> > 
> 
> No, Angular Momentum is good, better than Angular-Energy. So let us stick with Angular Momentum, and consider that in Linear Momentum of mass*(d/t) in Angular Momentum we have mass*(mass/t) where we consider the difference betwee Linear and Angular is that of d/t versus mass/t. 
> 
> This is very very difficult to comprehend that mass/time is the same as distance/time. Because, well, the mass is in pieces and parts and is spinning around, whereas in linear momentum the mass is in a "whole" and is moving forward in d/t. 
> 
> 
> > Funny how today we here near Sioux City are experiencing a Nor’Easter, a cyclone rain that keeps spinning around and around. 
> > 
> > Should we call it Angular Momentum, or is Angular Energy better? 
> > 
> > You see for linear momentum we have motion of the v in mv 
> > 
> > But in angular momentum we have mass*mass divided by time. 
> > 
> > Hardly— what you would call motion, unless you consider that mass/time is motion as distance/time 
> > 
> 
> The Nor'Easter is a good example of Angular Momentum in that the clouds of rain have a mass "in whole" and divided by time cause rainfall. 
> 
> And a month or so ago, someone was asking me how I know that proton 938MeV and electron at .5MeV is impossible to create a Chemistry covalent bond. And I gave him a long answer which missed the mark. 
> 
> Today that answer is easily seen. 
> 
> If the electron was .5MeV and with Angular Momentum of mass*mass/time then a covalent bond of H2, dihydrogen would be angular momentum of .5MeV * .5MeV = .25 MeV whereas if the electron = 105MeV we have the covalent bond being 105MeV *105MeV = 11,025MeV Angular Momentum, making sense with the protons of helium nucleus as angular momentum of 840MeV*840MeV = 705,600MeV a difference of 1 to 64 times. 
> 
> You see, the electron at .5MeV in a bond with another .5MeV is just not enough to sustain a bond. 
> 

Source-- Feynman's Lecture on Physics 

        Table 2-3.  Elementary Interactions 
        Coupling                Strength*                        Law 
Photon to charged particles   ~10 -2             Law known 
Gravity to all energy               ~10 -40      Law known 
radioactive decay                   ~10 -5         Law partially known 
Mesons to baryons               ~1      Law unknown (some rules known) 
*The strength is a dimensionless measure of the coupling constant involved 
in each interaction ( ~ means approximately equal to). 


So I wonder if Feynman's 1/100 for EM versus 1 for Strong Nuclear is more accurately 1/64, from the ratio of 105MeV muon versus 840MeV for proton. 

So is the strength of EM really 1/64, not 1/100 

AP 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#416352 — why the electron must be 105 MeV, not the minuscule .5MeV Re: 5AP is considering writing the definitive textbook on Physics, seeing that Halliday & Resnick no longer holds up

Few minutes ago I wrote:
> And a month or so ago, someone was asking me how I know that proton 938MeV and electron at .5MeV is impossible to create a Chemistry covalent bond. And I gave him a long answer which missed the mark. 
> 
> Today that answer is easily seen. 
> 
> If the electron was .5MeV and with Angular Momentum of mass*mass/time then a covalent bond of H2, dihydrogen would be angular momentum of .5MeV * .5MeV = .25 MeV whereas if the electron = 105MeV we have the covalent bond being 105MeV *105MeV = 11,025MeV Angular Momentum, making sense with the protons of helium nucleus as angular momentum of 840MeV*840MeV = 705,600MeV a difference of 1 to 64 times. 
> 
> You see, the electron at .5MeV in a bond with another .5MeV is just not enough to sustain a bond. 
> 

Source-- Feynman's Lecture on Physics 

        Table 2-3.  Elementary Interactions 
        Coupling                Strength*                        Law 
Photon to charged particles   ~10 -2             Law known 
Gravity to all energy               ~10 -40      Law known 
radioactive decay                   ~10 -5         Law partially known 
Mesons to baryons               ~1      Law unknown (some rules known) 
*The strength is a dimensionless measure of the coupling constant involved 
in each interaction ( ~ means approximately equal to). 


So I wonder if Feynman's 1/100 for EM versus 1 for Strong Nuclear is more accurately 1/64, from the ratio of 105MeV muon versus 840MeV for proton. 

So is the strength of EM really 1/64, not 1/100 

So now, what would be the strength of the EM force listed by Feynman if the electron were the .5MeV particle and proton was 938 MeV, for would Feynman have had to list it as .5x.5 = .25MeV and 938x938 = 879,844MeV divided by .25 = 4*10^6 so instead of 1/100 (which I think is 1/64 to be more accurate) we would have the EM force as 2*10^-7 compared to Strong Nuclear.

AP

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

#416375 — why the electron must be 105 MeV, not the minuscule .5MeV Re: 5AP is considering writing the definitive textbook on Physics, seeing that Halliday & Resnick no longer holds up

No it is not a mistake on my part as a friend pointed out. 

I know angular momentum is kg*meter*meter/ seconds

But what is distance inside a atom

So for electrons and protons angular momentum can be seen as mass*mass*frequency

Linear momentum is mass*velocity

For large objects we have distance and area. For atomic and molecular we have mass^2

That was not a mistake on my part, yesterday, but a reconciliation of Y =mx+b is linear momentum but the integral is angular momentum and the (m/2)x^2 +bx that x^2 is not meters^2 but mass^2

AP

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

#416397 — Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test

Physics Failure Archimedes Plutonium fails:

> No it is not a mistake on my part as a friend pointed out. 

Yes it was a mistake on your part to attack me again.

Don't fail again.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web