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

Groups > sci.math > #421295 > unrolled thread

Interface in Chemistry with bonding 1/2torus+1/2torus = 1 full torus// and magnetic monopoles bonding-- dissolve salt in water

Back to article view | Back to sci.math

Contents

  Interface in Chemistry with bonding 1/2torus+1/2torus = 1 full torus// and magnetic monopoles bonding-- dissolve salt in water Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 21:12 -0700
    electrolysis, dissolve and torus bonding Re: Interface in Chemistry with bonding 1/2torus Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 22:57 -0700
    Re: Interface in Chemistry with bonding 1/2torus+1/2torus = 1 full torus// and magnetic monopoles bonding-- dissolve salt in water Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-08-17 15:09 -0700
      true chemical bonding 1/2torus+1/2torus = 1 full torus// and magnetic monopoles bonding-- dissolve salt in water Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 10:08 -0700
        Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-18 22:01 +0000

#421295 — Interface in Chemistry with bonding 1/2torus+1/2torus = 1 full torus// and magnetic monopoles bonding-- dissolve salt in water

In dissolving, apparently the 1/2torus of Na disengages from the 1/2torus of CL

And apparently are surrounded by 3 H2O molecules for the Na+ and by 3 H2O molecules for the CL-

So in New Chemistry, the major bonding mechanics is 1/2torus + 1/2torus to make a full torus, that is covalent bonding, and metallic bonding and also ionic bonding.

But then there is a stratified layers of other forms of bonding-attraction such as the Magnetic Monopoles and in dissolving, apparently the Magnetic Monopoles can overpower the 1/2torus + 1/2torus bond, and sever the bond and release the two atoms to form a Magnetic Monopole bonding.

Let me remind myself what the proof was that NaCL was a 1/2torus +1/2torus = 1 full torus bond. The proof of that is Na comes as a silvery white metal, meaning its atoms are bonded together in the torus mode.


On Wednesday, August 15, 2018 at 8:34:34 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Have to explain Dissolve (dissolution) in this new theory of bonding as 1/2torus + 1/2torus = 1full torus 

I have to explain Dissolve (dissolution) in this new theory of bonding as 1/2torus + 1/2torus = 1full torus. I think the explanation is real easy, for in this New Chemistry we have several items of force in play. We have the Faraday Law making muon with attendant proton as a big force, a bonding force, then we have the lessor or minor forces of EM of the magnetic monopole, so that the Na atom and the CL atom in salt when dissolved in water is due to the interplay of magnetic monopoles. 

Does the 1/2torus of Na + 1/2torus of CL detach and then reattach with the 1/2torus of H or the two 1/2toruses of O ? So that in NaCL we have a full 1 torus, and then in dissolve we have the Na 1/2 torus going with the H2O and the CL 1/2 torus migrating with the H2O. So how to explain dissolution? 


On page 69 of Oxtoby Nachtrieb, 1990, shows a picture of NaCL, saying 

Figure2-12 
The reaction between sodium and chlorine proceeds very slowly until the addition of a drop of water sets it off. Sparks then fly, the reaction vessel becomes hot, and a white powder of sodium chloride form on the walls of the flask. 

From the Internet (Middle School Chemistry) 
--- quoting --- 
Water can dissolve salt because the positive part of water molecules attracts the negative chloride ions and the negative part of water molecules attracts the positive sodium ions. The amount of a substance that can dissolve in a liquid (at a particular temperature) is called the solubility of the substance. 
--- end quote --- 

CO2 comes in 8 isomers// theory of chemical bonding is two 1/2 tori joining to be 1 full torus 

AP

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#421307 — electrolysis, dissolve and torus bonding Re: Interface in Chemistry with bonding 1/2torus

Alright, so in chemistry bonding is the major force as that of unpaired muons with their attendant proton, they form 1/2torus, and to form a full torus, one unpaired muon with attendant proton bonds with another muon with attendant proton to form a full torus. This is what happens in H2 and in H2O. You have 1/2toruses become full complete toruses.

But now we come to another EM phenomenon of Chemistry, that of magnetic monopoles. They also are the cause of bonding, only not as strong as the torus bonding. We see magnetic monopoles in the dissolving of salt in water, or of sugar in water.

But now, focus on Electrolysis, where electric current dissociates the H2 from O in water H2O. Electric current is magnetic monopole current, Old Chemistry thought these were electrons, when in fact they are not, for the true electron in atoms are muons.

So in electrolysis we have the reaction of

H2O --> H2 + 1/2 O2

So in electrolysis we use magnetic monopoles to pull apart the full toruses of H to O to H, those 2 full toruses pulled apart into 1/2 toruses. And the rate of electrolysis in water is slow, very slow.

And it shows and compares the energy of a 1/2 torus bonding and a monopole bonding.

We compare that with the monopole dissociation of Na and CL in salt dissolved in water.

AP

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

#421560

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 15:05:22 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: do plants have mechanisms that dismiss fire-CO2 from entering, only animal-CO2 Re: Plants have boogers like humans— CO2 has 8 isomers
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 22:05:22 +0000

do plants have mechanisms that dismiss fire-CO2 from entering, only animal-CO2 Re: Plants have boogers like humans— CO2 has 8 isomers

On Friday, August 17, 2018 at 4:58:04 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> Quoting a web page on boogers— 
> 
> 
> Your nose is the ultimate lean, green, booger producing machine. Your nose makes mucus to prevent dust and pollen from traveling to your lungs. Some mucus is swallowed (about a quart a day) and some stays nestled in your nose. When you breathe dry air into your nose, that mucus is dried and becomes a booger. 

Now, what I am wondering here, is if plants have some means of preventing fire-CO2 from entering their body, which can only use animal-CO2. 

Perhaps the entrance of CO2 by plants is constructed so that it takes in only animal-CO2 and lets the fire-CO2 not enter. 

AP 

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

#421628 — true chemical bonding 1/2torus+1/2torus = 1 full torus// and magnetic monopoles bonding-- dissolve salt in water

On Saturday, August 18, 2018 at 12:58:10 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
how do plants handle 8 isomers of CO2

Quoting Wikipedia on plant stoma 

Ordinarily, carbon dioxide is fixed to ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate (RuBP) by the enzyme RuBisCO in mesophyll cells exposed directly to the air spaces inside the leaf. This exacerbates the transpiration problem for two reasons: first, RuBisCo has a relatively low affinity for carbon dioxide, and second, it fixes oxygen to RuBP, wasting energy and carbon in a process called photorespiration. 

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 23:17:29 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: how do plants handle 8 isomers of CO2
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2018 06:17:30 +0000

how do plants handle 8 isomers of CO2

Now i wonder in the below if scientists have this misunderstood— that it is not an inefficient process when you factor in the idea CO2 comes in 8 isomers— only one of which is useful to plants. 

Besides it is counterintuitive that the process of evolution evolving into inefficiency. 

So if we interpret the below as the plants way of separating out the isomers of CO2 the animal CO2 from fire CO2 

Further reading and quoting Wikipedia 

The oxygenation reaction of RuBisCO is a wasteful process because 3-phosphoglycerate is created at a reduced rate and higher metabolic cost compared with RuBP carboxylase activity. While photorespiratory carbon cycling results in the formation of G3P eventually, there is still a net loss of carbon (around 25% of carbon fixed by photosynthesis is re-released as CO2)[2] and nitrogen, as ammonia. 

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2018 09:19:30 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: evidence of CO2 isomers-- 25% inefficiency of plant breathing Re: how
 do plants handle 8 isomers of CO2
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2018 16:19:30 +0000

evidence of CO2 isomers-- 25% inefficiency of plant breathing Re: how do plants handle 8 isomers of CO2

Alright, well, AP's theory completely throws out the Lewis diagram, the Lewis structure, for not only does Lewis miss what the Chemical bond actually is-- 1/2 torus + 1/2 torus = 1 full torus as Faraday Law doing maximum electricity. But that Lewis got his numbers all wrong. It is not a convergence to the number 8, no, 8 is not the big number in bonding. The number is 6, that is the big number in all of Chemistry bonding. 

So for CO2, I need a diagram of O as this 

-O- meaning, there are two unpaired muons, making for two 1/2 toruses 

Then for carbon C 

-C- because carbon has two unpaired muons, making for two 1/2 toruses 

So then we have over the P_y and P_z for oxygen and the P_x and P_y for carbon 

That the CO2 molecule is a triangular bonded molecule. I estimated there are 8 possible isomers with those P suborbital permutations. Which one is animal-CO2 ? Well, the lowest in energy to build, whereas the fire-CO2 can be the 7 higher energy CO2 isomers. 


O  =  O 
  \\    // 
     C 

Now, is there any evidence for this? 

Well, last night I quoted Wikipedia: 
"The oxygenation reaction of RuBisCO is a wasteful process because 3-phosphoglycerate is created at a reduced rate and higher metabolic cost compared with RuBP carboxylase activity. While photorespiratory carbon cycling results in the formation of G3P eventually, there is still a net loss of carbon (around 25% of carbon fixed by photosynthesis is re-released as CO2)[2] and nitrogen, as ammonia. " 

And the best explanation for such a re-released, is that the re-released is a CO2 isomer that is unusable. 

Evolution does not, as a process, evolve into inefficiencies. 

AP 

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

#421668 — Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the lifetime-generation test

Once again, it appears you are whining that people are responding to your
posts.  That is completely expected in a discussion group like this one!
You attack myself and several others who respond to your posts (as we are
certainly allowed to). Expect to get replies when you are completely WRONG
like saying the ellipse is not a conic section just because you say so,
when there are multiple math proofs that PROVE the ellipse IS a conic
section.

Do you actually think that if you post "The ellipse is not a conic
section because I said so!" enough times, geometry will suddenly change
so that the ellipse is no longer a conic section? That is so STUPID!
Just like you think if you spam "Let's thank AP for broken trig" 160+
times, people will actually thank you for incorrect trigonometry?
Since you appear to be clueless, I'll give you two free clues: 1) People
don't like incorrect trigonometry (or any other incorrect math) and
2) People do NOT like your spam!

And WHY do you always respond with a variation of the same retarded post,
with stalker lists of uninvolved professors, a repetition of the same
discredited ellipse-not-conic-section claim and that stupid ascii art
cat/owl thing that lives in a cubbyhole? Are you autistic or just
retarded?

Once again, it appears you are trying to project your own gayness onto
myself and several others who respond to your posts. Quit stalking us with
your projected gayness, I for one am NOT interested. Go hang out in a gay
bar or something.

(and watch: Archie will respond to this, in a completely different/new
topic, probably several times, each time including that thing in its
cubbyhole and a stalker list of Harvard/MIT profs who have never heard of
me. I have set foot on the campuses of Harvard and MIT probably a dozen
times in my lifetime, combined)

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

>Peter Kronheimer, Jacob Lurie of Harvard asked by Volney/Moroney
>report-- WHY teach fake-math,

Fake math like " ellipse is never a conic, for ellipse is a
cylinder section"?

Here's the proof!
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
              |
             -+- < xh
         .'   |   `.
        .     |     .
        |     |     |
        '     |     '      
         `.   |   .'
 y <----------+ < x0
             
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



>AP writes:: Is Dan Christensen doing a study on the hypothesis that most
>sci.math, sci.physics stalkers are gay, who failed science and now
>stalking the sci.math, sci.physics due to failure and that somehow,
>homosexuals in science, cannot seem to focus on objectivity-- studying if
>Volney/Moroney 25 year stalker, Dan Christensen 5 year stalker, KON 5
>year stalker, Zelos Malum 2 year stalker, Jan Bielawski 23 year stalker,
>Jan Burse 4 year stalker, Alouatta 2 year stalker, Eastside 2 year
>stalker, whether they are all gay, and whether any of them actually has a
>degree in math.

Why is the failure Archimedes Plutonium trying to turn sci.physics and
sci.math into a gay pickup bar AGAIN? Meanwhile it seems, he is projecting
his own issues with gayness onto me, Volney, Dan C, KON, Zelos, Jan/Jan,
Alouatta and Eastside? Get over it, Failure Plutonium, it is 2018 now, not
1958, so don't project your own "issues" onto us, but learn to accept
them. But don't try to turn these groups into a gay pickup bar like you
did before.

<snip more of Archie's projections>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.math

csiph-web