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

Groups > sci.physics > #631076 > unrolled thread

Re-doing all physics starting off with F=m(a1+a2), not F=ma, 8th ed Atom Totality

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Re-doing all physics starting off with F=m(a1+a2), not F=ma, 8th ed Atom Totality Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 08:44 -0700
    Re-doing all physics starting off with F=m(a1+a2), not F=ma, 8th ed Atom Totality Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 14:57 -0700
      Re-doing all physics starting off with F=m(a1+a2), not F=ma, 8th ed Atom Totality Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 02:02 -0700
        Re-doing all physics starting off with F=m(a1+a2), not F=ma, 8th ed Atom Totality Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 15:42 -0700
          Newton forgot the Product Rule of Calculus Re: Re-doing all physics starting off with F=m(a1+a2), not F=ma, 8th ed Atom Totality Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 22:37 -0700
            Newton forgot the Product Rule of Calculus Re: Re-doing all physics starting off with F=m(a1+a2), not F=ma, 8th ed Atom Totality Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 01:01 -0700
              Newton forgot the Product Rule of Calculus Re: Re-doing all physics starting off with F=m(a1+a2), not F=ma, 8th ed Atom Totality Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 15:38 -0700
                True genesis of the Universe Re: 8th ed Atom Totality Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 18:57 -0700
                  making all astronomy be the accounting of either Faraday or Ampere laws Re: 8th ed Atom Totality Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 22:30 -0700
                    ASTRO DATA TABLE Re: making all astronomy be the accounting of either Faraday or Ampere laws Re: 8th ed Atom Totality Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 01:02 -0700
                      Re: ASTRO 2nd of DATA TABLE Re: making all astronomy be the accounting of either Faraday or Ampere laws Re: 8th ed Atom Totality Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-05-02 00:30 -0700
                        Re: ASTRO 2nd of DATA TABLE Re: making all astronomy be the accounting of either Faraday or Ampere laws Re: 8th ed Atom Totality moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-02 14:28 +0000
                        SOLAR SYSTEM DATA TABLE Re: 8th ed Atom Totality Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-05-02 14:55 -0700
                          Repeat of experiment-- attract is 14% stronger repel Re: 8th ed Atom Totality Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-05-02 20:46 -0700
                            Re: Repeat of experiment-- attract is 14% stronger repel Re: 8th ed Atom Totality Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-05-02 22:59 -0700
                              Re: Repeat of experiment-- attract is 14% stronger repel Re: 8th ed Atom Totality Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 00:06 -0700
                                there is no repel force in EM theory, just a deny principle Re: Repeat of experiment-- attract is 14% stronger repel Re: 8th ed Atom Totality Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 00:42 -0700
                                  Re: there is no repel force in EM theory, just a deny principle Re: Repeat of experiment-- attract is 14% stronger repel Re: 8th ed Atom Totality Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 15:57 -0700
                                    Re: there is no repel force in EM theory, just a deny principle Re: Repeat of experiment-- attract is 14% stronger repel Re: 8th ed Atom Totality benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-05-03 19:46 -0400
                                      Re: there is no repel force in EM theory, just a deny principle Re: Repeat of experiment-- attract is 14% stronger repel Re: 8th ed Atom Totality Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-05-03 22:47 -0500
                                        Re: there is no repel force in EM theory, just a deny principle Re: Repeat of experiment-- attract is 14% stronger repel Re: 8th ed Atom Totality moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-04 14:40 +0000
                                    Re: there is no repel force in EM theory, just a deny principle Re: Repeat of experiment-- attract is 14% stronger repel Re: 8th ed Atom Totality Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 20:14 -0700
                                      Re: there is no repel force in EM theory, just a deny principle Re: Repeat of experiment-- attract is 14% stronger repel Re: 8th ed Atom Totality Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 11:19 -0700
                                        Re: there is no repel force in EM theory, just a deny principle Re: Repeat of experiment-- attract is 14% stronger repel Re: 8th ed Atom Totality Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2017-05-04 23:43 -0700
                                          Re: there is no repel force in EM theory, just a deny principle Re: Repeat of experiment-- attract is 14% stronger repel Re: 8th ed Atom Totality benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 17:20 -0400
                                Re: Repeat of experiment-- attract is 14% stronger repel Re: 8th ed Atom Totality moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-03 14:29 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#631076 — Re-doing all physics starting off with F=m(a1+a2), not F=ma, 8th ed Atom Totality

Hopefully today is a better day. Yesterday i was shaken by my beloved cat put down for virus disease. Reminding me my time is short also.

But in this 8th edition i need to see gravity full and clear. A understanding of gravity that no human has ever seen before. Where gravity is the very same thing as electricity and magnetism. And it is not as if there were meagre clues, but to the contrary, it is as if humanity is a stupid species that needs a sledgehammer to realize the obvious.

Now, if the planets were solid body rotation about the Sun-- think of that, then Newton in late 1600s would have had to start his Principia, not with F=ma for that would have fallen far short of the truth of reality. Instead Newton would have had to strengthen F to be F=m(a1+a2).

You see Newton's F=ma is a force that is the strength of a parabola and far too weak for the Earth to go around the Sun. What Newton needed was a force strong enough to make a full loop around and that force is the math of a ellipse or circle, not a parabola.

Newton needed the math of (kAA + jBB) / d^2

What Newton had and also Coulomb had was the mere parabola math of

kAA / d^2

The Rings of Saturn as solid body rotation were not known to Newton in the late 1600s, nor the fact that most stars, yes most stars in the Cosmos move in solid body rotation in spiral galaxies.

So physics as of 2017 has to start all over again, as if 2017 is the year Newton sat down and wrote F=ma, only now, it is F = m(a1+a2) where forces have enough strength to make a full loop.

AP

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#631148

Alright good, i am going to need my astronomy table of the Solar System and its two most important speeds-- speed of orbits and speed in Space.

AP

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

#631226

Now i need to make a table of facts data of the solar system, a table that is one of the major jobs of the science of astronomy to constantly update and to send missions into space whose prime goal is to fill in gaps of the table. The table being a job master on astronomers and engineers. Long gone are the days we send out probes the collect data willy nilly of unimportant things.

AP

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

#631312

 Now i need to show that if Newton had known the Maxwell Eq. Before writing F=ma 

That he would have written it F = m(a1 +a2) because that is what force is when you start physics with the Maxwell theory. 

AP   

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

#631328 — Newton forgot the Product Rule of Calculus Re: Re-doing all physics starting off with F=m(a1+a2), not F=ma, 8th ed Atom Totality

On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 5:42:13 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Now i need to show that if Newton had known the Maxwell Eq. Before writing F=ma 
> 
> That he would have written it F = m(a1 +a2) because that is what force is when you start physics with the Maxwell theory. 
> 
> AP

If we look at the Maxwell Equations and theory, the two dynamic laws of Faraday and Ampere, you see, both are a math of differential equations that require a sum on the right side of equation due to the Product Rule of Calculus::

... to the Faraday law written correctly should be: 

(f*g)' = f'g + fg' + constant    Product Rule of differentiation 

The way to get three terms on the rightside of equation is the Product Rule and that means just simple differential Calculus, not the stir-crazy manifolds and line integrals and Stokes and other nonsense. 

Thrusting bar magnet through coil = current + magnetic field (Lenz) + constant for spin.

And it must be noted that friction in the World, basically boils down to Lenz magnetic field. Friction, resistance, impedance, action reaction, all boil down to a Lenz magnetic field in opposition to a original magnetic field.

it is a sad shame, that Faradays law can exist from 1860s to 2016, while no-one sees that it does not even have a Lenz law incorporated in it. Sad that we can deliver a equation for water flow or temperature gradients, but we cannot recognize that Faraday's law math is absent of Lenz law.

All we need is just the plain and simple Product Rule of Differential Calculus. All we need is a derivative of two multiplied functions of (fg)' = f'g + g'f + C, where C is a constant. So that both Faraday and Ampere laws have three terms on rightside of equation. 

So, what happens when you take the derivative of V*R^-1, V is voltage, R is resistance 

(V*R^-1)' = V'*R^-1  +  V*(R^-1)' 

I wrote that in 2016, and now I need it in 2017 to show that Newton's definition of Force F =ma
is lacking of two accelerations rather than being one acceleration. That F = m(a1 + a2) is what Physics force is truly.

AP

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

#631336 — Newton forgot the Product Rule of Calculus Re: Re-doing all physics starting off with F=m(a1+a2), not F=ma, 8th ed Atom Totality

Now i amnot going to start the 8th edition until i clearly have in mind how Gravity = EM. Before i said gravity = magnetism, but now i need electricity also.

Now do not get me wrong, mass has a key role in gravity, for obvious reason mass is the amount of negative and positive charge involved. And the physics fools of the past dismissed EM in gravity by saying the cosmic EM was *neutral* and that when EM is neutral it has no role in gravity. The huge trouble with that complacent idea is neutral or not, charges have voltage as Space itself and magnetism has magnetic field as space.

AP

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

#631460 — Newton forgot the Product Rule of Calculus Re: Re-doing all physics starting off with F=m(a1+a2), not F=ma, 8th ed Atom Totality

Alright i have glimmers of sight of solving gravity = EM

It is a pretty picture

It is an idea i had so many times before

An idea of the Maxwell Equations once they fully register in the mind, dating back to college physics

We learn the Faraday and Ampere law, and realize one picks up where the other drops off. A moving magnet creates electric current and the current creates a moving magnet

The sun is like the moving magnetism creating the current planets. The current planets creating new magnetism creating the moons and rings

Or, the sun is the current, creating magnetism which is the planets, which in turn since it is moving magnetism creates more new current which is the moons and rings.

What exists in the world is matter and mass-- atoms. And once you have existence you need to be doing something-- motion. And that motion is perpetual motion of going around in circles.  

A magnet creates current and that current creates another magnet which in turn starts the cycle over again. 

If gravity is what Newton or General Relativity say it is, it would have grinded to a halt soon after it (cosmos) was borne.

What gravity is-- is the Faraday law flowing seamlessly into the Ampere law and that flowing into Faraday law-- a cosmic perpetual motion.

We cannot build a electrical device where we go from Faraday to Ampere back to Faraday and so on for a long time since we have friction resistance etc etc

But inside an atom we have perpetual motion where faraday law and ampere law continually cycle through one another.

Our universe itself is one big atom and Faraday cycles through Ampere laws and we call it gravity.

AP

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

#631515 — True genesis of the Universe Re: 8th ed Atom Totality

So imagine we can sit someplace and watch how the Universe is borne, created, and lives, what would we see.

We would see a hydrogen atom of its 1 electron going around its 1 proton. Thus we have existence of something-- 1 thing a hydrogen atom. And its occupation being electron going around a proton. But it has a job to perform-- it must build more atoms with its talent of going around.

AP

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

#631527 — making all astronomy be the accounting of either Faraday or Ampere laws Re: 8th ed Atom Totality

So I need to know if the Sun is moving through Space with the planets going around the Sun much like a magnetic field going around electrons in electricity and these sites tell me that it is a 60 degree inclination of the planets. Now Saturn has a 30 degree inclination of its Rings relative to Saturn's forward motion;;;;


Is the Solar System Really a Vortex? - Universe Today
https://www.universetoday.com/.../is-the-solar-system-really-a-vortex/‎
Jul 8, 2012 ... Is this really how the Solar System works? (Rendering by DjSadhu) ... Solar system “vortex” gif (by DjSadhu). What it purports to show is the ...
Vortex motion: Viral video showing Sun's motion through galaxy is ...
www.slate.com/.../vortex_motion_viral_video_showing_sun_s_motion_ through_galaxy_is_wrong.html‎
Mar 4, 2013 ... No, Our Solar System is NOT a “Vortex” ... Sometimes the planets really are ahead of the Sun as we orbit in the Milky Way, and sometimes trail ...
Why is the Solar Helical (Vortex) model wrong? - Astronomy Stack ...
https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/.../why-is-the-solar-helical-vortex- model-wrong‎
ref: Youtube video The helical model - our solar system is a vortex ... That thing - universetoday.com/107322/is-the-solar-system-really-a-vortex - sums it up.
The helical model - our solar system is a vortex - YouTube

► 3:21
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jHsq36_NTU
Aug 24, 2012 - 3 min - Uploaded by DjSadhu
This is a non-conventional view of our solar system that is different from the standard 'flat ...
The Helical Model - vortex solar system animation | DjSadhu.com
www.djsadhu.com/the-helical-model-vortex-solar-system-animation/‎
221 thoughts on “The Helical Model – vortex solar system animation”. Carol Levine says: December 18, 2012 at 4:04 pm. Thank you for that explanation. Really ...

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

#631542 — ASTRO DATA TABLE Re: making all astronomy be the accounting of either Faraday or Ampere laws Re: 8th ed Atom Totality

Alright, in the 8th edition, I need a chapter that does just the data and facts of Solar System objects. As an ongoing job and duty of astronomers to constantly refresh revise and update the data of our Solar System. Just today I was informed that the speed of the Sun in the Galaxy was not 220km/second but rather 230km/second.

This is what I mean by constant revising. So that anyone can go to this Astronomy Data and pull up whatever is needed.

This is my best data::


Now that Utexas site delivers this table with my
own modifications in the third column. These precessions are in
arcseconds/year
and thanks to Richard Fitzpatrick 2009/07/28 for
having this website. Basically I am after the
**observed precession** for that is the most
important number.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Mercury, 5.75 observed, 5.50 theor, +0.25 deviat
Venus, 2.04 observed, 10.75 theor, -8.71 deviat
Earth, 11.45 observed, 11.87 theor, -0.42 deviat
Mars, 16.28 observed, 17.60 theor, -1.32 deviat
Jupiter, 6.55 observed, 7.42 theor, -0.87 deviat
Saturn, 19.50 observed, 18.36 theor, +1.14 deviat
Uranus, 3.34 observed, 2.72 theor, +0.62 deviat
Neptune, 0.36 observed, 0.65 theor, -0.29


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



Sun, average density 1.4 gm/cm^3 but core is 150 gm/cm^3 and where
core is equal to about 0.2 solar radii

MEAN DENSITIES

Mercury, 5.4 gm/cm^3, metal core is 42% of volume


Venus, 5.2 gm/cm^3, metallic core


Earth, 5.5 gm/cm^3, metal core 17% volume


Moon, 3.3 gm/cm^3, iron core


Mars, 3.9 gm/cm^3, iron sulfide core


---------
Jupiter, 1.3 gm/cm^3, rocky core that is 12-45 Earth
mass and 3 to 15% of Jupiter's total mass


Saturn, 0.7 gm/cm^3, (less dense than water), rocky
core 9 to 22 times Earth mass

Uranus, 1.2 gm/cm^3, rock core

Neptune, 1.6 gm/cm^3, rock core of iron, nickel, silicates

Pluto, 2.1 gm/cm^3, rock core


--------
Satellites of Jupiter:


Io, 3.5 gm/cm^3, iron core


Europa, 3.0 gm/cm^3, iron core


Ganymede, 1.9 gm/cm^3, Fe and FeS iron core


Callisto, 1.8 gm/cm^3, silicate core


_____


Saturn satellite


Titan, 1.8 gm/cm^3 silicate core

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



--- quoting from 
  http://www.indiana.edu/~g302/planets.pdf. 
 --- 
 Solar System Composition 
 Metals 
 Oxides 
 Mass 
 Diameter 
 Fe, Ni 
 SiO 
 2 
 ,MgO,FeO 
 Name 
 (10 
 27 
 g) 
 (10 
 3 
 km) 
 % 
 (10 
 27 
 g) 
 % 
 (10 
 27 
 g) 
 Sun 
 1,990,000 
 0.1 
 0.2 
 Mercury 
 0.33 
 4.88 
 50 
 0.16 
 50 
 0.17 
 Venus 
 4.87 
 12.11 
 30 
 1.46 
 69 
 3.36 
 Earth 
 5.97 
 12.76 
 29 
 1.73 
 69 
 4.12 
 Mars 
 0.64 
 6.79 
 10 
 0.06 
 90 
 Asteroids 0.0002 
 15 
 3x10 
 -5 
 85 
 1.7x10 
 -4 
 Jupiter 
 1900 
 143.2 
 4 
 80 
 9 
 170 
 Saturn 
 570 
 120 
 7 
 40 
 14 
 80 
 Uranus 
 88 
 51.8 
 8 
 7 
 17 
 15 
 Neptune 
 103 
 49.5 
 6 
 6 
 14 
 14 
 --- end quoting from 
  http://www.indiana.edu/~g302/planets.pdf. 
 --- 


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




So I went looking around for rotation periods and tilt, today. 
--- from this website --- 
http://cseligman.com/text/sky/rotationvsday.htm 
                    Rotation period 
Mercury           58.6 days 
Venus            -243.0 days 
Earth              23 hours 56 minutes 
Moon              27.3 days 
Mars                24 hours 37 minutes 
Jupiter             9 hours 55 minutes 
Saturn             10 hours 32 minutes 
Uranus          -17 hours 14 minutes 
Neptune         16 hours 6 minutes 
Pluto                -6 days 9 hours 
Angle of tilt on axis: 
Mercury 0 degrees 
Venus -3 degrees 
Jupiter 3 degrees 
Uranus -82 degrees 
Pluto -72 degrees 
Earth 23.5 degrees 
Mars 25 degrees 
Saturn 27degrees 
Neptune 30 degrees 
--- From a different website, I needed to know the rotation period of 
the Sun --- 
from a source: 
Sun rotation period is approx 25 days 
Next, I needed the data on the satellites of the gas giants of their 
rotation-period and tilt: 
From Wikipedia data: 
                       Rotation period 
Ganymede synchronous with orbit 7.1 days, with tilt 0 degrees 
Callisto synchronous with orbit 16.7 days, 0 degrees 
Io synchronous 1.7 days, 0 degrees 
Europa synchronous with orbit 3.5 days, 0 degrees 
Titan synchronous 15.9 days, 0 degrees tilt 
Moon synchronous 27.3 days 
Finally, I was suspicious that comets would also have rotation periods 
so 
went looking and found this site: 
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~meech/rot.html 
Apparently the nucleus of comets has a rotation period 
and this website gives rotation periods of about 7.6 hours to 
15.0 hours on a list of comets studied. 
Can I draw any conclusions so far? 
Probably too premature, but I do notice the rotation period of our Sun 
closely 
matches that of the Moon. I also notice that the tilt on axis of Earth 
is closely matched by that of Mars, Saturn, Neptune. I remember a 
theory that the Moon collided with Earth very early in the history of 
Earth some 4 billion years ago and due to that collision, the theory 
went on to proffer that the tilt of Earth was caused. So I seriously 
doubt that Earth Moon collision when Mars is so much identical in tilt 
to Earth. 
I do notice a pattern starting to emerge in that the inner planets 
rotation period is in days whereas the gas giants are in hours. This 
would be like saying that the inner planets have stopping grow fast 
with Dirac new radioactivities and are old astro bodies whereas the 
gas giants are young astro bodies and are growing fast with new cosmic 
rays and cosmic gamma ray bursts. 
But I need to find out more data and to analyze much more on this. 
What is hopeful is that rotation period can eventually be the best 
guide in astronomy as to a "age of a astro body." So that if we have a 
fastly rotating galaxy, then it is a young galaxy and if we have a 
galaxy with not much rotation at all, then it is very old. 
Even applied to clusters of galaxies. 
One of the gravest weakness of modern astronomy is the lack of 
measuring for age and perhaps this rotation period linked to age is 
going to open up alot of new data. 

AP

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

#631694 — Re: ASTRO 2nd of DATA TABLE Re: making all astronomy be the accounting of either Faraday or Ampere laws Re: 8th ed Atom Totality

MORE DATA TABLE OF SOLAR SYSTEM::


Alright, let give you a new rule for the distance spacing of planets.
A rule
that follows a Coulomb or gravity force law. Where we consider that
the
Titius Bode Rule above for the inner planets and the satellites of
Jupiter
to be secondary spacings and not primary spacings.

Let me call this new Rule the Plutonium-Titius-Bode Rule:

1 + 2^2 =3D 5
2 + 3^2 =3D 11
3 + 4^2 =3D 19
4 + 5^2 =3D 29

Now here are the actual distance spacings of Jupiter to Neptune

Jupiter =3D 5.2 Au
Saturn =3D 9.5 Au
Uranus =3D 19.1 Au
Neptune =3D 30.0 Au

Now if I carried it out to a fifth planet beyond Jupiter I would have
5 + 6^2 =3D 41
which is not bad for Pluto at actual 39.4 Au.

The bad thing about the Titius Bode Rule is that it was one formula
for two
different planetary groupings. I call them CellWell1 and CellWell2.


So here is the old Titius Bode Rule
(0 + 4)/10 = 0.4 for Mercury (in Au)
(3 + 4)/10 = 0.7 for Venus
(6 + 4)/10 = 1.0 for Earth
.
.
.

Here is the newest AP-Titius-Bode Rule which applies
only to CellWell2 of Jupiter and beyond, whereas the
old Titius Bode Rule really only applied to the inner planets
and the moons of Jupiter.

1 + 2^2 = 5 for Jupiter (in Au)
2 + 3^2 = 11 for Saturn
3 + 4^2 = 19 for Uranus
4 + 5^2 = 29 for Neptune
5 + 6^2 = 41 for Pluto
6 + 7^2 = 55 for Kuiper Belt
7 + 8^2 = 71

Now I looked to see how well matched those numbers are
with actual distances, and they match far better than the
old Titius-Bode Rule.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



--- quoting from Dirac's excellent little book Directions in Physics, 
1978, page 77 --- 

This continuous creation of matter must be looked upon as something 
quite independent of known physical processes. According to the 
ordinary physical processes, which we study in the laboratory, matter 
is conserved. Here we have direct nonconservation of matter. It is, if 
you like, a new kind of radioactive process for which there is 
nonconservation of matter and by which particles are created where 
they did not previously exist. The effect is very small, because the 
number of particles created will be appreciable only when we wait for 
a very long time interval compared with the age of the Universe. 

--- end quote --- 

Now Dirac goes on to discuss whether New Radioactivity is additive or 
multiplicative. 

But my concern is whether we can turn the Periodic Table of Chemical 
Elements around to show that **radioactive growth** occurs equally to 
that of radioactive decay. For we commonly think of finding a sample 
of uranium with lead and then go on to assume or presume that all the 
lead came from the uranium decaying into lead, whereas there is the 
other possibility that some of the lead was created from a lower 
atomic numbered element and that some of the uranium was created from 
lower atomic numbered element such as lead itself. So that when we 
find a sample of U238 with half life of 4.5 billion years and find 
half the sample is U238 and the other half is lead, we jump to the 
false conclusion of 4.5 billion years old, whereas in fact, it was 
likely to be 6 billion years old since some of the lead turned into 
U238 and some of the thallium and mercury turned into lead. 

So we need, in chemistry and physics a brand new chart or table 
showing us the pathways of Radioactive Growth due to Dirac's New 
Radioactivity. 

Now I began to make a list of mean density gram/cm^3 of planets and 
satellites: 

Venus 5.2 
Earth 5.51 
Mars 3.93 

Vesta asteroid 3.45 
Ceres asteroid 2.07 

Jupiter 1.32 
Saturn 0.68 
Uranus 1.27 
Neptune 1.63 
Pluto 2.03 

gas giant satellites 
Ganymede 1.93 
Titan           1.87 
Europa       3.01 
Io                3.52 

Our own Moon  3.34 

Now taking a close look at this table, if we consider some satellites 
such as Europa and Io as having been "captured metal asteroid", then 
the rest of the table divides into two. Where we have the Sun and 
inner planets with the Moon as being 10 billion years old and growing 
via Dirac's New Radioactivity, whereas the outer planets, the gas 
giants as being a mere 5 billion years old and their density is 
evidence of this younger age. 

So that physicists need to prepare a table for Radioactive Growth 
alongside our presently existing table of radioactive decay pathways. 

One of the pathways of growth appears to be heavy water in comets 
where there is sparse density, but that radioactive growth of heavy 
water is uncommon where there is greater density such as in Earth 
oceans. So that if you had water on a comet, it is likely to grow into 
heavy water whereas that same water on Earth is Dirac new radioactive 
growth unlikely to happen. So physicists need to start preparing 
Radioactive Growth pathway tables. Such a table should explain why 
thorium and uranium are so strangely abundant in the cosmos when it 
should not be so abundant. 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




Sun 230 km/s orbital speed around Milky Way 
Mercury, 0.24 yr orbital period, 47.87 km/s orbital speed 
Venus, 0.61 yr orbital period, 35.02 km/s orbital speed 
Earth, 1 yr orbital period, 29.78 km/s orbital speed 

Mars, 1.8 yrs orbital period, 24.07 km/s orbital speed 

Jupiter, 11.86 yrs orbital period, 13.07 km/s orbital speed 

Saturn, 29.45 yrs orbital period, 9.69 km/s orbital speed 

Uranus, 84.32 yrs orbital period, 6.81 km/s orbital speed 

Neptune, 164.79 yrs orbital period, 5.43 km/s orbital speed 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Mercury magnetic field strength 1% of Earth or 300 nT 

Venus magnetic field strength is 10^-5 times Earth 

Earth magnetic field strength 3x10^4nT to 6x10^4nT 

Moon magnetic field strength is 1 to 100 nT 

Mars magnetic field strength is 10^-4 times Earth 
I should include the spin of these astro bodies as equatorial 
rotation 
velocity: 

Mercury 11km/h 

Venus 6km/h 

Earth 1,674 km/h 

Moon 18 km/h 

Mars 868 km/h 
Axial tilt (from wikipedia) 
Mercury 2.11 degrees 

Venus 177.3degrees Venus is rotating the reverse of other planets, 
retrograde rotation 

Earth 23degrees ; 
Moon 1.5 degrees to ecliptic 

Mars 25.19 degrees 

Jupiter 3.13 degrees 

Saturn 26.73 degrees 

Uranus 97.77 degrees 

Neptune 28.32 degrees 


Alright, let me keep adding to the magnetic fields of planets table: 
Jupiter's magnetic field 14X larger than Earth's 

Saturn magnetic field about the same as Earth 

Uranus an asymmetrical magnetosphere 0.23 gauss 

Neptune similar to Uranus only 0.14 gauss 

AP

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

#631703 — Re: ASTRO 2nd of DATA TABLE Re: making all astronomy be the accounting of either Faraday or Ampere laws Re: 8th ed Atom Totality

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

>Let me call this new Rule the Plutonium-Titius-Bode Rule:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

The Crackpot Index

25. 20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about
    the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.) 

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

#631752 — SOLAR SYSTEM DATA TABLE Re: 8th ed Atom Totality

Alright when I went to college in the late 1960s early 1970s in math we had something called CRC tables, chemical rubber company tables of math, all sorts of facts on math. Now we need a similar book whose whole message is tables on facts and data of the Solar System. And it we need it so that each year some better numbers are given for many of the facts and data. Such as the numbers given by all the robots out there and sending their data back to Earth.


ASTRO DATA TABLE Re: making all astronomy be the accounting of either Faraday or Ampere laws Re: 8th ed Atom Totality

Alright, in the 8th edition, I need a chapter that does just the data and facts of Solar System objects. As an ongoing job and duty of astronomers to constantly refresh revise and update the data of our Solar System. Just today I was informed that the speed of the Sun in the Galaxy was not 220km/second but rather 230km/second. 

This is what I mean by constant revising. So that anyone can go to this Astronomy Data and pull up whatever is needed. 

This is my best data:: 


Now that Utexas site delivers this table with my 
own modifications in the third column. These precessions are in 
arcseconds/year 
and thanks to Richard Fitzpatrick 2009/07/28 for 
having this website. Basically I am after the 
**observed precession** for that is the most 
important number. 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

Mercury, 5.75 observed, 5.50 theor, +0.25 deviat 
Venus, 2.04 observed, 10.75 theor, -8.71 deviat 
Earth, 11.45 observed, 11.87 theor, -0.42 deviat 
Mars, 16.28 observed, 17.60 theor, -1.32 deviat 
Jupiter, 6.55 observed, 7.42 theor, -0.87 deviat 
Saturn, 19.50 observed, 18.36 theor, +1.14 deviat 
Uranus, 3.34 observed, 2.72 theor, +0.62 deviat 
Neptune, 0.36 observed, 0.65 theor, -0.29 


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 



Sun, average density 1.4 gm/cm^3 but core is 150 gm/cm^3 and where 
core is equal to about 0.2 solar radii 

MEAN DENSITIES 

Mercury, 5.4 gm/cm^3, metal core is 42% of volume 


Venus, 5.2 gm/cm^3, metallic core 


Earth, 5.5 gm/cm^3, metal core 17% volume 


Moon, 3.3 gm/cm^3, iron core 


Mars, 3.9 gm/cm^3, iron sulfide core 


--------- 
Jupiter, 1.3 gm/cm^3, rocky core that is 12-45 Earth 
mass and 3 to 15% of Jupiter's total mass 


Saturn, 0.7 gm/cm^3, (less dense than water), rocky 
core 9 to 22 times Earth mass 

Uranus, 1.2 gm/cm^3, rock core 

Neptune, 1.6 gm/cm^3, rock core of iron, nickel, silicates 

Pluto, 2.1 gm/cm^3, rock core 


-------- 
Satellites of Jupiter: 


Io, 3.5 gm/cm^3, iron core 


Europa, 3.0 gm/cm^3, iron core 


Ganymede, 1.9 gm/cm^3, Fe and FeS iron core 


Callisto, 1.8 gm/cm^3, silicate core 


_____ 


Saturn satellite 


Titan, 1.8 gm/cm^3 silicate core 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 



--- quoting from 
  http://www.indiana.edu/~g302/planets.pdf. 
 --- 
 Solar System Composition 
 Metals 
 Oxides 
 Mass 
 Diameter 
 Fe, Ni 
 SiO 
 2 
 ,MgO,FeO 
 Name 
 (10 
 27 
 g) 
 (10 
 3 
 km) 
 % 
 (10 
 27 
 g) 
 % 
 (10 
 27 
 g) 
 Sun 
 1,990,000 
 0.1 
 0.2 
 Mercury 
 0.33 
 4.88 
 50 
 0.16 
 50 
 0.17 
 Venus 
 4.87 
 12.11 
 30 
 1.46 
 69 
 3.36 
 Earth 
 5.97 
 12.76 
 29 
 1.73 
 69 
 4.12 
 Mars 
 0.64 
 6.79 
 10 
 0.06 
 90 
 Asteroids 0.0002 
 15 
 3x10 
 -5 
 85 
 1.7x10 
 -4 
 Jupiter 
 1900 
 143.2 
 4 
 80 
 9 
 170 
 Saturn 
 570 
 120 
 7 
 40 
 14 
 80 
 Uranus 
 88 
 51.8 
 8 
 7 
 17 
 15 
 Neptune 
 103 
 49.5 
 6 
 6 
 14 
 14 
 --- end quoting from 
  http://www.indiana.edu/~g302/planets.pdf. 
 --- 


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 




So I went looking around for rotation periods and tilt, today. 
--- from this website --- 
http://cseligman.com/text/sky/rotationvsday.htm 
                    

Rotation period 

Mercury           58.6 days 

Venus            -243.0 days 

Earth              23 hours 56 minutes 

Moon              27.3 days 

Mars                24 hours 37 minutes 

Jupiter             9 hours 55 minutes 

Saturn             10 hours 32 minutes 

Uranus          -17 hours 14 minutes 

Neptune         16 hours 6 minutes 

Pluto                -6 days 9 hours 
Angle of tilt on axis: 
Mercury 0 degrees 

Venus -3 degrees 

Jupiter 3 degrees 
Uranus -82 degrees 

Pluto -72 degrees 
Earth 23.5 degrees 

Mars 25 degrees 

Saturn 27degrees 

Neptune 30 degrees 
--- From a different website, I needed to know the rotation period of 
the Sun --- 
from a source: 
Sun rotation period is approx 25 days 
Next, I needed the data on the satellites of the gas giants of their 
rotation-period and tilt: 
From Wikipedia data: 
                       
Rotation period 
Ganymede synchronous with orbit 7.1 days, with tilt 0 degrees 

Callisto synchronous with orbit 16.7 days, 0 degrees 
Io synchronous 1.7 days, 0 degrees 

Europa synchronous with orbit 3.5 days, 0 degrees 
Titan synchronous 15.9 days, 0 degrees tilt 
Moon synchronous 27.3 days 
Finally, I was suspicious that comets would also have rotation periods 
so 
went looking and found this site: 
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~meech/rot.html 
Apparently the nucleus of comets has a rotation period 
and this website gives rotation periods of about 7.6 hours to 
15.0 hours on a list of comets studied. 
Can I draw any conclusions so far? 
Probably too premature, but I do notice the rotation period of our Sun 
closely 
matches that of the Moon. I also notice that the tilt on axis of Earth 
is closely matched by that of Mars, Saturn, Neptune. I remember a 
theory that the Moon collided with Earth very early in the history of 
Earth some 4 billion years ago and due to that collision, the theory 
went on to proffer that the tilt of Earth was caused. So I seriously 
doubt that Earth Moon collision when Mars is so much identical in tilt 
to Earth. 
I do notice a pattern starting to emerge in that the inner planets 
rotation period is in days whereas the gas giants are in hours. This 
would be like saying that the inner planets have stopping grow fast 
with Dirac new radioactivities and are old astro bodies whereas the 
gas giants are young astro bodies and are growing fast with new cosmic 
rays and cosmic gamma ray bursts. 
But I need to find out more data and to analyze much more on this. 
What is hopeful is that rotation period can eventually be the best 
guide in astronomy as to a "age of a astro body." So that if we have a 
fastly rotating galaxy, then it is a young galaxy and if we have a 
galaxy with not much rotation at all, then it is very old. 
Even applied to clusters of galaxies. 
One of the gravest weakness of modern astronomy is the lack of 
measuring for age and perhaps this rotation period linked to age is 
going to open up alot of new data. 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

MORE DATA TABLE OF SOLAR SYSTEM:: 


Alright, let give you a new rule for the distance spacing of planets. 
A rule 
that follows a Coulomb or gravity force law. Where we consider that 
the 
Titius Bode Rule above for the inner planets and the satellites of 
Jupiter 
to be secondary spacings and not primary spacings. 

Let me call this new Rule the Plutonium-Titius-Bode Rule: 

1 + 2^2 =3D 5 
2 + 3^2 =3D 11 
3 + 4^2 =3D 19 
4 + 5^2 =3D 29 

Now here are the actual distance spacings of Jupiter to Neptune 

Jupiter =3D 5.2 Au 
Saturn =3D 9.5 Au 
Uranus =3D 19.1 Au 
Neptune =3D 30.0 Au 

Now if I carried it out to a fifth planet beyond Jupiter I would have 
5 + 6^2 =3D 41 
which is not bad for Pluto at actual 39.4 Au. 

The bad thing about the Titius Bode Rule is that it was one formula 
for two 
different planetary groupings. I call them CellWell1 and CellWell2. 


So here is the old Titius Bode Rule 
(0 + 4)/10 = 0.4 for Mercury (in Au) 
(3 + 4)/10 = 0.7 for Venus 
(6 + 4)/10 = 1.0 for Earth 
. 
. 
. 

Here is the newest AP-Titius-Bode Rule which applies 
only to CellWell2 of Jupiter and beyond, whereas the 
old Titius Bode Rule really only applied to the inner planets 
and the moons of Jupiter. 

1 + 2^2 = 5 for Jupiter (in Au) 
2 + 3^2 = 11 for Saturn 
3 + 4^2 = 19 for Uranus 
4 + 5^2 = 29 for Neptune 
5 + 6^2 = 41 for Pluto 
6 + 7^2 = 55 for Kuiper Belt 
7 + 8^2 = 71 

Now I looked to see how well matched those numbers are 
with actual distances, and they match far better than the 
old Titius-Bode Rule. 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 


--- quoting from Dirac's excellent little book Directions in Physics, 
1978, page 77 --- 

This continuous creation of matter must be looked upon as something 
quite independent of known physical processes. According to the 
ordinary physical processes, which we study in the laboratory, matter 
is conserved. Here we have direct nonconservation of matter. It is, if 
you like, a new kind of radioactive process for which there is 
nonconservation of matter and by which particles are created where 
they did not previously exist. The effect is very small, because the 
number of particles created will be appreciable only when we wait for 
a very long time interval compared with the age of the Universe. 

--- end quote --- 

Now Dirac goes on to discuss whether New Radioactivity is additive or 
multiplicative. 

But my concern is whether we can turn the Periodic Table of Chemical 
Elements around to show that **radioactive growth** occurs equally to 
that of radioactive decay. For we commonly think of finding a sample 
of uranium with lead and then go on to assume or presume that all the 
lead came from the uranium decaying into lead, whereas there is the 
other possibility that some of the lead was created from a lower 
atomic numbered element and that some of the uranium was created from 
lower atomic numbered element such as lead itself. So that when we 
find a sample of U238 with half life of 4.5 billion years and find 
half the sample is U238 and the other half is lead, we jump to the 
false conclusion of 4.5 billion years old, whereas in fact, it was 
likely to be 6 billion years old since some of the lead turned into 
U238 and some of the thallium and mercury turned into lead. 

So we need, in chemistry and physics a brand new chart or table 
showing us the pathways of Radioactive Growth due to Dirac's New 
Radioactivity. 

Now I began to make a list of mean density gram/cm^3 of planets and 
satellites: 

Venus 5.2 
Earth 5.51 
Mars 3.93 

Vesta asteroid 3.45 
Ceres asteroid 2.07 

Jupiter 1.32 
Saturn 0.68 
Uranus 1.27 
Neptune 1.63 
Pluto 2.03 

gas giant satellites 
Ganymede 1.93 
Titan           1.87 
Europa       3.01 
Io                3.52 

Our own Moon  3.34 

Now taking a close look at this table, if we consider some satellites 
such as Europa and Io as having been "captured metal asteroid", then 
the rest of the table divides into two. Where we have the Sun and 
inner planets with the Moon as being 10 billion years old and growing 
via Dirac's New Radioactivity, whereas the outer planets, the gas 
giants as being a mere 5 billion years old and their density is 
evidence of this younger age. 

So that physicists need to prepare a table for Radioactive Growth 
alongside our presently existing table of radioactive decay pathways. 

One of the pathways of growth appears to be heavy water in comets 
where there is sparse density, but that radioactive growth of heavy 
water is uncommon where there is greater density such as in Earth 
oceans. So that if you had water on a comet, it is likely to grow into 
heavy water whereas that same water on Earth is Dirac new radioactive 
growth unlikely to happen. So physicists need to start preparing 
Radioactive Growth pathway tables. Such a table should explain why 
thorium and uranium are so strangely abundant in the cosmos when it 
should not be so abundant. 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 


Sun 230 km/s orbital speed around Milky Way 
Mercury, 0.24 yr orbital period, 47.87 km/s orbital speed 
Venus, 0.61 yr orbital period, 35.02 km/s orbital speed 
Earth, 1 yr orbital period, 29.78 km/s orbital speed 
 
Mars, 1.8 yrs orbital period, 24.07 km/s orbital speed 

Jupiter, 11.86 yrs orbital period, 13.07 km/s orbital speed 
 
Saturn, 29.45 yrs orbital period, 9.69 km/s orbital speed 
 
Uranus, 84.32 yrs orbital period, 6.81 km/s orbital speed 
 
Neptune, 164.79 yrs orbital period, 5.43 km/s orbital speed 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Mercury magnetic field strength 1% of Earth or 300 nT 
 
Venus magnetic field strength is 10^-5 times Earth 
 
Earth magnetic field strength 3x10^4nT to 6x10^4nT 

Moon magnetic field strength is 1 to 100 nT 
 
Mars magnetic field strength is 10^-4 times Earth 
I should include the spin of these astro bodies as equatorial 
rotation 
velocity: 
 
Mercury 11km/h 
 
Venus 6km/h 
 
Earth 1,674 km/h 

Moon 18 km/h 
 
Mars 868 km/h 
Axial tilt (from wikipedia) 
Mercury 2.11 degrees 
 
Venus 177.3degrees Venus is rotating the reverse of other planets, 
retrograde rotation 
 
Earth 23degrees ; 
Moon 1.5 degrees to ecliptic 
 
Mars 25.19 degrees 

Jupiter 3.13 degrees 

Saturn 26.73 degrees 

Uranus 97.77 degrees 
 
Neptune 28.32 degrees 


Alright, let me keep adding to the magnetic fields of planets table: 
Jupiter's magnetic field 14X larger than Earth's 
 
Saturn magnetic field about the same as Earth 

Uranus an asymmetrical magnetosphere 0.23 gauss 
 
Neptune similar to Uranus only 0.14 gauss 

AP 

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

#631795 — Repeat of experiment-- attract is 14% stronger repel Re: 8th ed Atom Totality

Repeated the experiment of the German company that found attract magnetism is 5-10% stronger than repel.

Last time i did this i found 7% stronger. But under poor conditions since i used unequal magnets.

Under better controls i find the attract is 14% stronger, 3/3.5

AP

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

#631805 — Re: Repeat of experiment-- attract is 14% stronger repel Re: 8th ed Atom Totality

On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 10:46:30 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Repeated the experiment of the German company that found attract magnetism is 5-10% stronger than repel.
> 
> Last time i did this i found 7% stronger. But under poor conditions since i used unequal magnets.
> 
> Under better controls i find the attract is 14% stronger, 3/3.5
> 
> AP

Was looking to see if 85% or 86% comes up again in physics, or its complement 15% or 14% and strangely enough in Bell Inequality.

AP

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

#631811 — Re: Repeat of experiment-- attract is 14% stronger repel Re: 8th ed Atom Totality

Holy, holy,holy, smokes, pi is 3.14 and e is 2.71

2.71/3.14 is 86%

So that attraction in EM follows 3.14.... And Repel is Pauli Exclusion Denial of Same Space Occupancy follows 2.71....

What a beautiful law of physics.

AP

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

#631812 — there is no repel force in EM theory, just a deny principle Re: Repeat of experiment-- attract is 14% stronger repel Re: 8th ed Atom Totality

On Wednesday, May 3, 2017 at 2:06:42 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Holy, holy,holy, smokes, pi is 3.14 and e is 2.71
> 
> 2.71/3.14 is 86%
> 
> So that attraction in EM follows 3.14.... And Repel is Pauli Exclusion Denial of Same Space Occupancy follows 2.71....
> 
> What a beautiful law of physics.
> 
> AP

Alright, I should describe in detail this experiment performed tonight.

It is a repeat of a German Company Magnete of their results that attraction is 5-10% stronger than repel.

In my first experiment I had no assistance, to hold things or to observe and help. And I had strong unequal magnets.

Today I had assistance and I had two equal magnets that were far less strong (neodynium) magnets.


What I had was a plastic shaped in a L form, only the two sides were equal in distance as a channel or road for the two magnets to follow.

I masking taped a marker for my control magnet of a distance and the approach magnet was masking taped markered so I could easy read the numbers in centimeters.

So, when the two attract magnets were at a distance separation of 3.5 cm they flew together
And, with like poles, they started to move apart at 3 cm separation. 

In other words, attraction is .5 cm stronger.

Very very simple to do experiment. And extremely important, for it is proof that in EM theory, only a force of attraction exists. What we thought was repel, is not repel at all, but is a denial of the same space occupancy, a Pauli Exclusion Principle. When like poles of magnets get close, it is the magnetic fields in both that are denying one another. Remember, it is not repel, but a denial. 

But it is an attraction of unlike. And what that means is that like also attracts, because there is no repel.

The reason that protons form a nucleus is because like charges attract and the reason electrons for all together in the space around the nucleus of an atom is because only attraction exists. But, if you get one electron to close to another, they deny getting any closer.

And the pretty part of this story, is that the number 3/3.5 is a form of 2.71.../3.14....

AP

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

#631880 — Re: there is no repel force in EM theory, just a deny principle Re: Repeat of experiment-- attract is 14% stronger repel Re: 8th ed Atom Totality

Alright, let us see if there is a broad connection of the fact that magnetism attract exists, but repel does not exist and that attract is 14% stronger than DSSO

Let us see if this 14% stronger causes the extreme ellipse shape that we call galaxy filaments.


there is no repel force in EM theory, just a deny principle Re: Repeat of experiment-- attract is 14% stronger repel Re: 8th ed Atom Totality

Alright, I should describe in detail this experiment performed tonight. 

It is a repeat of a German Company Magnete of their results that attraction is 5-10% stronger than repel. 

In my first experiment I had no assistance, to hold things or to observe and help. And I had strong unequal magnets. 

Today I had assistance and I had two equal magnets that were far less strong (neodynium) magnets. 


What I had was a plastic shaped in a L form, only the two sides were equal in distance as a channel or road for the two magnets to follow. 

I masking taped a marker for my control magnet of a distance and the approach magnet was masking taped markered so I could easy read the numbers in centimeters. 

So, when the two attract magnets were at a distance separation of 3.5 cm they flew together 
And, with like poles, they started to move apart at 3 cm separation. 

In other words, attraction is .5 cm stronger. 

Very very simple to do experiment. And extremely important, for it is proof that in EM theory, only a force of attraction exists. What we thought was repel, is not repel at all, but is a denial of the same space occupancy, a Pauli Exclusion Principle. When like poles of magnets get close, it is the magnetic fields in both that are denying one another. Remember, it is not repel, but a denial. 

But it is an attraction of unlike. And what that means is that like also attracts, because there is no repel. 

The reason that protons form a nucleus is because like charges attract and the reason electrons for all together in the space around the nucleus of an atom is because only attraction exists. But, if you get one electron to close to another, they deny getting any closer. 

And the pretty part of this story, is that the number 3/3.5 is a form of 2.71.../3.14.... 

AP

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

#631887 — Re: there is no repel force in EM theory, just a deny principle Re: Repeat of experiment-- attract is 14% stronger repel Re: 8th ed Atom Totality

On 5/3/2017 6:57 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Alright, let us see if there is a broad connection of the fact that magnetism attract exists, but repel does not exist and that attract is 14% stronger than DSSO
>
> Let us see if this 14% stronger causes the extreme ellipse shape that we call galaxy filaments.
>
>
> there is no repel force in EM theory, just a deny principle Re: Repeat of experiment-- attract is 14% stronger repel Re: 8th ed Atom Totality
>
> Alright, I should describe in detail this experiment performed tonight.
>
> It is a repeat of a German Company Magnete of their results that attraction is 5-10% stronger than repel.
>
> In my first experiment I had no assistance, to hold things or to observe and help. And I had strong unequal magnets.
>
> Today I had assistance and I had two equal magnets that were far less strong (neodynium) magnets.
>
>
> What I had was a plastic shaped in a L form, only the two sides were equal in distance as a channel or road for the two magnets to follow.
>
> I masking taped a marker for my control magnet of a distance and the approach magnet was masking taped markered so I could easy read the numbers in centimeters.
>
> So, when the two attract magnets were at a distance separation of 3.5 cm they flew together
> And, with like poles, they started to move apart at 3 cm separation.
>
> In other words, attraction is .5 cm stronger.
>
> Very very simple to do experiment. And extremely important, for it is proof that in EM theory, only a force of attraction exists. What we thought was repel, is not repel at all, but is a denial of the same space occupancy, a Pauli Exclusion Principle. When like poles of magnets get close, it is the magnetic fields in both that are denying one another. Remember, it is not repel, but a denial.
>
> But it is an attraction of unlike. And what that means is that like also attracts, because there is no repel.
>
> The reason that protons form a nucleus is because like charges attract and the reason electrons for all together in the space around the nucleus of an atom is because only attraction exists. But, if you get one electron to close to another, they deny getting any closer.
>
> And the pretty part of this story, is that the number 3/3.5 is a form of 2.71.../3.14....
>
> AP
>
Absolute babbling senile gibberish.

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

#631914 — Re: there is no repel force in EM theory, just a deny principle Re: Repeat of experiment-- attract is 14% stronger repel Re: 8th ed Atom Totality

On 5/3/2017 6:46 PM, benj wrote:
> On 5/3/2017 6:57 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>> Alright, let us see if there is a broad connection of the fact that
>> magnetism attract exists, but repel does not exist and that attract is
>> 14% stronger than DSSO
>>



>> The reason that protons form a nucleus is because like charges attract
>> and the reason electrons for all together in the space around the
>> nucleus of an atom is because only attraction exists. But, if you get
>> one electron to close to another, they deny getting any closer.
>>
>> And the pretty part of this story, is that the number 3/3.5 is a form
>> of 2.71.../3.14....
>>
>> AP
>>
> Absolute babbling senile gibberish.

wait a min.,....  "And the pretty part of this story, is that the number 
3/3.5 is a form of 2.71.../3.14.... "
3/3.5 = 0.85714285714285714285714285714286
2.71/3.14 = 0.86305732484076433121019108280255

they are 0.68529...% different !

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web