Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #680121 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-04-06 11:33 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-04-24 19:22 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 47 — 3 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
+True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-06 11:33 -0700
Re: +True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-06 14:55 -0700
Re: +True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-06 19:11 -0700
Re: +True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-07 11:36 -0700
Re: +True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-07 15:06 -0700
Re: +True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-08 14:04 -0700
Re: +True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 16:01 -0700
Re: +True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 16:20 -0700
Re: +True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 21:35 -0700
Re: +True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-11 14:02 -0700
Re: +True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Peter Pan <pan@172.16.1.1> - 2018-04-13 06:59 +0800
Re: +True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-13 05:59 +0000
Re: +True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-12 20:13 -0700
Re: +True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 12:28 -0700
Re: +True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 19:44 -0700
Re: +True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-15 21:01 -0700
Re: +True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-16 00:21 -0700
Re: +True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-16 11:57 -0700
Re: +True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-16 13:26 -0700
Re: +True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-16 18:44 -0700
Re: +True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 11:00 -0700
Re: +True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 16:02 -0700
Re: +True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-17 18:44 -0700
Re: +True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 11:35 -0700
Re: +True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-18 21:12 -0700
Re: +True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 14:48 -0700
Re: +True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-19 16:52 -0700
Re: +True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-22 21:15 -0700
Re: +True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 13:25 -0700
Re: +True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-23 15:02 -0700
Re: +True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 11:17 -0700
Re: +True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-24 19:30 -0700
Re: +True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 14:04 -0700
Re: +True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-25 18:31 -0700
Re: +True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 12:15 -0700
Re: +True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-26 14:21 -0700
Re: +True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 14:25 -0700
Re: +True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 15:18 -0700
Re: +True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 16:49 -0700
Re: +True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-27 18:55 -0700
#39&40 True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 08:23 -0700
#40 history of my discovery of Dirac's magnetic monopole// True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 09:44 -0700
#39&40 True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 10:45 -0700
#39 Capacitor Reactance explained as .5MeV particle is monopole// True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-29 15:23 -0700
#39 Old Physics could never explain AC current // True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-30 13:54 -0700
#40 Old Physics could never explain AC current // True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 21:02 -0700
Re: +True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-24 19:22 +0000
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-06 11:33 -0700 |
| Subject | +True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV |
| Message-ID | <27155681-99af-454a-9dde-fa6c588622c5@googlegroups.com> |
True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV History Preface:: On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 4:12:07 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics: A history Preface to this textbook Re: TRUE CHEMISTRY, textbook, 2018 Now this book needs a Preface, to sort of tell people what it was like in the time period of 1897 when JJ Thomson discovered a .5MeV particle and then going on to believe he discovered the "electron of atoms", when in fact, what he discovered was the Magnetic Monopole of atoms. Yet the entire Scientific Community, whether physics, chemistry, biology, all were duped into thinking this .5MeV particle was the integral electron of atoms. So from 1897 until 2017 when I discovered the Real Electron = muon = 105 MeV, that community of scientists all fell duped to thinking electron= .5 MeV. Of course, that changes all of electricity, as we understood it in 1897 through 2017. So some time in the future, few people will understand what took place from 1897 through 2017, when all scientists thought the atom was a proton at 938MeV, neutron 940MeV and electron at .5MeV. Of course, my very first proof of the Real Electron is 105 MeV was instantaneous to my mind--chemical bonding, chemical bonding-- is it possible to have covalent bonding with 938 to .5 ?? For if the Real Electron is 105 MeV then the Real Proton cannot be 938, but had to be 840MeV, and then, chemical bonding covalent of 105 versus 840, all makes sense. This entire discovery was caused by a noting in 2016, that it takes 9 muons to make a proton (plus or minus less than 1%) To me, in science, I know all physics has outside "noise" and so when you say plus or minus less than 1%, means to me, anyway, that 9 muons = 1 proton. Now, sorry, but it took me another year from 2016 to 2017, to say-- Real Proton = 840 MeV. Sadly, to discover that 9 muons = 1 proton in 2016, took another year in 2017 to subtract 105 from 945 to see that the Real Proton was 840MeV. And the instantaneous proof that came to my mind, is, well, you just cannot have Chemistry, the Chemical bond of covalent, if the electron is .5MeV and the proton 938MeV, for the angular-momentum is just not there to make covalent bonding. If the Real Electron is 105MeV and Real Proton is 840MeV then you have sufficient numbers of MeV for angular momentum to create covalent bonding in atoms. But let me in this preface tell the story of how Electricity was imagined to be from 1897 to 2017. Electricity with the electron assumed as .5 MeV and proton at 938 MeV, that electricity in this view was seen as a electron particle that is wishy washy, here now, gone a second later flowing in a wire as electricity. In the new true view of electricity, electron = 105 MeV, proton = 840 MeV, it is rare for that electron of hydrogen atoms to ever leave its proton, and what electricity is-- is this monopole particle that assumes either a +1 or -1 charge and is fickle, for it can be attached to a hydrogen atom and with little to no encouragement, go flying off along a copper wire. Only, flying is a metaphor, for the Monopole is a photon or a neutrino dressed up (superposition) with .5MeV charge energy. So the monopole is a wave, a closed loop wave that becomes the shape of the closed loop wire itself. At the moment, I am rebuilding a crystal radio set I had as a Xmas gift from my father way back in about 1968. You see, the radio wave is a magnetic monopole, it is not an electron out of some atom. I need to build this Preface into a good logical history expose of how feeble was the understanding and teaching of What the Real Electron was in science from 1897 to 2017. How utterly feeble it is, to have millions of students around the world sitting in classes, hearing the teacher, the instructor saying that the electron is a .5MeV particle that runs along copper wires and yields electricity. When the real truth is, that electrons are very heavy particles of 105 MeV, 1/8 the mass of the proton at 840 MeV, and it is rare, extremely rare that this massive Real Electron ever leaves its proton, but that these magnetic monopoles flit around, flit here, flit there, flit almost everywhere, and these monopoles are electricity. AP Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 13:32:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: 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 21:32:28 +0000 Proofs that the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV, and that the .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole, after all Experimental PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon by Archimedes Plutonium PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon 1st proof is chemical bonding cannot exist with momentum of 938 versus .5MeV Chemical Bonds are covalent, ionic, metallic. You simply cannot get atoms to bond if the electron is thought of as the .5MeV particle, only with a muon at 105 MeV and the proton at 840 MeV with neutron at 945 MeV do you have the physics of angular momentum that allows bonding in Chemistry. The .5MeV particle was, all along a magnetic monopole of a photon with .5 MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy. 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 Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu ::\ ::|:: /:: ::\::|::/:: _ _ (:Y:) - - ::/::|::\:: ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. . \ . . | . /. . . \. . .|. . /. . ..\....|.../... ::\:::|::/:: --------------- ------------- --------------- (Y) ------------- --------------- -------------- ::/:::|::\:: ../....|...\... . . /. . .|. . \. . . / . . | . \ . http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-06 14:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <479ebd80-a289-4728-9f1c-9d1430007ff6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #680121 |
#2page #2page 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 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. 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 On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 1:08:56 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics: direct observance some years back in Poland of a 840 Mev particle Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV 2nd proof with the direct observance some years back in Poland of a 840 Mev particle along with 105 MeV particle of the hydrogen atom. Hello, well i found the below on the internet. I need a 840MeV particle that is the Real Proton. I have asked to look for it in the production of Muons. Is the below a production of muons along with 840 MeV particles? Quoting Indication For A Broad J(pc) = 2++ Meson At 840-mev Produced In The Reaction Pi- P ---> Pi+ Pi- N At High |t| K. Rybicki, I. Sakrejda (Cracow, INP) 1985 - 10 pages Z.Phys. C28 (1985) 65-74 DOI: 10.1007/BF01550250 Abstract (Springer) The reaction π−p→π+π−n has been studied at 17.2 GeV/c and 63 GeV/c. A partial wave analysis shows a fairly broad (∼250 MeV) resonance at about 840 MeV. This object, already visible in moments of the angular distribution, is produced in theD wave with helicitym=2 via unnatural exchange. The cross section for the reaction π−p→D2U(840)n is only by an order of magnitude lower than that of ϱ(770) and falls likepLAB−2.1±0.3. We have not been able to explain this object by systematic experimental effects like acceptance and/orN* reflections; neither is the nature of the resonance (if real) clear to us. --- end quote --- Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu ::\ ::|:: /:: ::\::|::/:: _ _ (:Y:) - - ::/::|::\:: ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. . \ . . | . /. . . \. . .|. . /. . ..\....|.../... ::\:::|::/:: --------------- ------------- --------------- (Y) ------------- --------------- -------------- ::/:::|::\:: ../....|...\... . . /. . .|. . \. . . / . . | . \ . http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-06 19:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <38cdaede-a785-4445-b3c4-90563398e091@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #680140 |
#3page #3page On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 12:45:04 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics: 3rd proof-- pull plug out of electrical socket and notice light flash. That flash of light was the magnetic monopoles as photons with charge energy of .5MeV, for the monopoles compose all electric currents. beta decay as monopoles, not electrons On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 5:59:14 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics: Old Physics clowns could not distinguish between beta decay and electricity Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 12:48:31 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > 3rd proof-- pull plug out of electrical socket and notice light flash. That flash of light was the magnetic monopoles as photons with charge energy of .5MeV, for the monopoles compose all electric currents. > > Now it seems to have escaped everyone's attention ever since JJ Thomson discovered the .5MeV particle, and since 1900 with the discovery of radioactivity and about the very same time, the Thomson discovery of this .5 MeV particle. The LOGICAL attention, that if the electron was .5MeV, then it is not distinct from beta radioactive decay. In other words, for those ignorant enough to think the electron was .5MeV, those same ignorant scientists would have to say then, that electricity is radioactive beta decay running through copper wires. Not a single person existed from year 1900 to 2017 with a gram of logical commonsense, not a one. For if you believe in radioactive decay, beta decay as the .5MeV particle, and believe that electricity is the flow of these .5MeV particles, then, that very same ignorant person has to believe that radioactive beta decay is electricity of .5MeV particles flowing in copper wire. What LOGICALLY solves this dilemma, is that the .5MeV particle is not the electron but rather Dirac's magnetic monopole, and thus, there is a radioactive decay of monopoles and there is monopoles in electricity, while the Real Electron is 105 MeV and stays put inside an atom tied to its 840 MeV proton, and neither one of them-- the 105 or 840 seldom decay, unless under high enormous energy bombardment. In Old Physics, they had no logical stance to stand on, to distinguish a beta radioactive decay compared to a electricity flow. Such is a world, where scientists operate without a logical mind, but rather, as dumb as a robotic mind trying to deal with physics. A robotic mind would think a .5MeV is radioactivity sometimes, yet , electricity the other times, only a dumb robotic mind would think that. Now the reason I titled this small textbook as Chemists are smarter than Physicists, is because the Chemists by the Danish team:: Positively Charged Phosphorus as a Hydrogen Bond Acceptor Anne S. Hansen, Lin Du and Henrik G. Kjaergaard* are the first scientists to make that beautiful experimentation that the Real Electron cannot be a .5MeV particle. And what will now happen is that other Chemists will lead more and more experiments on different atoms verifying Kjaergaard. Physicists are far and away, far too dumb to ever realize their .5MeV particle as never the Real-Electron, for physicists are like clown acts at a circus, they are trained to do one dumb act and simply cannot ponder and think-- "could there be a mistake in identifying the real electron". Physicists are far too stupid to ask-- did I get the Real True Electron. On Monday, February 19, 2018 at 2:48:25 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.math: distinguish between beta decay and electricity Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV Quoting from Wikipedia Radioactive decay (also known as nuclear decay or radioactivity) is the process by which an unstable atomic nucleus loses energy (in terms of mass in its rest frame) by emitting radiation, such as an alpha particle, beta particle with neutrino or only a neutrino in the case of electron capture, gamma ray, or electron in the case of internal conversion. A material containing such unstable nuclei is considered radioactive. Certain highly excited short-lived nuclear states can decay through neutron emission, or more rarely, proton emission. --- end quote --- I may have to do a whole new periodic table of elements before this textbook is complete. It depends on features of matter such as carbon that makes graphite and carbon that makes diamond. What I mean to say here, is that the features of a element in chemistry is all about the electrons, for chemistry is mostly the study of electrons of atoms, but then when you have muons as the real electron and you have monopoles acting on atoms, it makes chemistry a whole new science to have to juggle the characteristics of muon and monopole. So that the periodic table must include muon along with monopoles. AP Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu ::\ ::|:: /:: ::\::|::/:: _ _ (:Y:) - - ::/::|::\:: ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. . \ . . | . /. . . \. . .|. . /. . ..\....|.../... ::\:::|::/:: --------------- ------------- --------------- (Y) ------------- --------------- -------------- ::/:::|::\:: ../....|...\... . . /. . .|. . \. . . / . . | . \ . http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-07 11:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <98d42e51-63d6-4b62-ab32-c2a7750e1b59@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #680153 |
#4page #4page On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 7:07:49 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics: 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 Identity Crisis when it occurs in physics Now in life, we humans in social gatherings often have Identity Mistakes, I myself can barely remember someones name, just minutes after being told-- a Robert becomes a John, a Clara becomes a Karen to me, just minutes. And even facial recognition becomes blurred. But in science, especially physics, a Identity Mistake means big big trouble ahead. Now if we consider Columbus as a geologist, his identity mistake was to think his Americas were actually India, the Indian subcontinent near Asia. So, that was a whopping big error, and actually to this date, do not know when Columbus himself realized those land masses was nowhere near India. Did he realize years later after 1492, that the Americas was a mistaken identity of India? So, how long was it, after 1492, that people realized it was a new continent and not the Asia or India. Did it take hundred years? Now in Chemistry, when chemists were discovering the new elements, there were many mistaken identities, where they thought they had a pure element, but turns out they had a compound. But in Physics, mistaken identity, especially the building blocks of an atom-- proton, electron, neutron, to have a mistake of what the Real Electron is-- is the muon = 105 MeV, a mistake like that, can set the entire physics enterprise backwards for thousands of years if kept. And not only physics, but all the other sciences depend on Atomic Physics. So, why, why, oh why, was every physicist of the last 117 years, so blithering logically stupid? As I so often said before, to be a expert a master in Physics, you must master MOMENTUM. Momentum is the key concept of physics, and if you cannot master momentum, you are not worthy of physics. And, so, you have Covalent Bonding in Chemistry, and here comes a physicist that says the electron is .5MeV and the proton is 938MeV. If you mastered momentum, and angular momentum in this instance, you would immediately recognize, that a Covalent bonding in chemistry cannot exist if the electron is .5 while proton is 938 MeV. You can have covalent bonding if the electron is 105 versus 840MeV for the proton. A ratio of 105 to 840 allows for covalent bonding. So, what gives for physics from 1900 to 2017, was everyone out-to-lunch, on-vacation? AP 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. Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu ::\ ::|:: /:: ::\::|::/:: _ _ (:Y:) - - ::/::|::\:: ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. . \ . . | . /. . . \. . .|. . /. . ..\....|.../... ::\:::|::/:: --------------- ------------- --------------- (Y) ------------- --------------- -------------- ::/:::|::\:: ../....|...\... . . /. . .|. . \. . . / . . | . \ . http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-07 15:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a0f91b0e-52fe-4b20-a3d7-ace8b1be606d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #680210 |
#5page #5page 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 everytime a atom is unbalanced in charge, is due to a buildup of monopoles on that atom. Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu ::\ ::|:: /:: ::\::|::/:: _ _ (:Y:) - - ::/::|::\:: ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. . \ . . | . /. . . \. . .|. . /. . ..\....|.../... ::\:::|::/:: --------------- ------------- --------------- (Y) ------------- --------------- -------------- ::/:::|::\:: ../....|...\... . . /. . .|. . \. . . / . . | . \ . http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-08 14:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e96833ab-3919-4a13-b615-83f0f136605a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #680240 |
#6page #6page 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? On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 9:40:59 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics: solving muon magnetic moment anomaly 11th Proof. Solving the Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly, alongside proton radius shrunk --- 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 --- Now in re-reading that Ars article on proton radius shrinking when a hydrogen atom of 840 MeV proton with electron = 105 MeV and then a second muon is tried to be compounded-- will of course, shrink the proton radius for the two muons with 1 proton all three are centered at the center of the proton. But in re-reading was mentioned an anomaly I was not familiar with-- Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly. And reading some results of that, I find surprizing for it was Feynman who claimed Electrodynamics was the supreme physics theory in accuracy of prediction. But the anomaly is off by a mere .1%, which seems very very small to be not even an anomaly. Trouble is, the electron of Old Physics was found to be so accurate as to be described as physic's most precise finding ever, and that makes the .1% discrepancy ever so much larger. Now, I was able to explain away the proton radius anomaly because the proton is not 938 MeV but is 840 MeV and the electron is not the .5MeV particle but rather is 105 MeV. So, can I explain away the Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly. I believe I can easily. For if you consider that what Old Physics measured as the electron magnetic moment was none other than the monopole as a dressed up photon magnetic moment. And it is easily seen that in EM theory the permeability constant is "exact" no uncertainty at 1.26*10^-6 H/m. So, it is no wonder that Old Physics thought their electron magnetic moment in Quantum Electrodynamics was so ultra ultra precise-- for, they never measured the magnetic moment of the electron, but instead a magnetic monopole of the dressed up .5 MeV particle. Then, when it came time to measure the magnetic moment of the muon, the real-true-electron, there is this .1% discrepancy, but there are discrepancies in the proton and neutron etc. So, once we realized the Real Electron is the muon, afterall, there is no magnetic moment anomaly. On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 12:41:50 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics: static electricity makes no sense as removal of electrons Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV 12th proof -- Static Electricity Re: Proofs that the Real Electron=muon Alright, I need a 12th proof, for I do not want to neglect what is probably our first encounter with electricity-- static electricity. As we walk across a carpet and touch something we experience a spark. Trouble with static electricity, is that the concept makes out the atom as a flimsy structure, really really flimsy structure that electrons of atoms can be picked off so easily, and from very many diverse materials. One would think the structure of atoms was built of stronger stuff. And that is what the Electron = Muon concept is about, that it is so very very hard to separate a electron from its atom, just like separating a proton out of a nucleus. So the subject of static electricity is this interloper particle, this surface superficial particle that is easily "whipped up" as the magnetic monopole, just as easy as producing electricity in a Faraday Law demonstration of a thrusting bar magnet in closed loop of wire. For, we can easily imagine that our walk across a carpet is similar to a thrusting bar magnet and then the closed loop wire is when we touch something, having built up some monopoles in our body. Old Physics would say that we picked up electrons on the carpet, and as we touch something, remit that imbalance of electrons. New Physics would say that we picked up magnetic monopoles. Now let us look at other static electric experiments. For when we rub a glass rod (+1) with silk, or rub a plastic rod (-1) with wool. Here again, Old Physics would say we pick off electrons of atoms. New Physics would say, no, the atoms are still composed of all their electrons and protons. The only thing changed with the rubbing is that energy of the rub transfers to the magnetic monopole energy-- packets of .5MeV monopoles of charge energy. And the energy of rubbing becomes monopoles. These are those closed Lines of Force of a magnet, and the moment we touch something these stored up monopoles, flow from our body to that of the touched object. How is that a proof the electron = muon? Simple, in that the carpet, or plastic rod (-1) with wool or glass rod (+1) with silk, are materials that are electrically neutral substances, for the rubbing action was transformed not into free electrons, but was formed into monopoles. These substances remain electrically neutral, and the only change is that the rub created magnetic monopoles-- some + charged monopoles, some - charged monopoles, and these monopoles are superficial to the atoms where they formed. Static Electricity is merely stored monopoles. Monopoles are conservation of energy, for the rubbing had to be transformed into some energy packets and that is-- monopoles of charge energy. In the experiment of where we pick up bits of paper from either the glass rod or the plastic rod due to static electricity. What is happening here, is that the rod is not involved with the Real Electrons of atoms, but is involved with the superficial surface charged particle that is the magnetic monopole. Now the electroscope is explained much much easier with magnetic monopoles rather than the silly electrons on one leaf pushing away the electrons on the second leaf. For consider instead a closed loop line of force between the two leafs /\ O Where the leafs start out as || Then comes the charged rod of monopoles sending down a monopole closed loop O that pushes apart the two leafs. Now i have two gold leafs and if true should leave the push apart looking more like this () rather than this /\. And that is what i have () Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu ::\ ::|:: /:: ::\::|::/:: _ _ (:Y:) - - ::/::|::\:: ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. . \ . . | . /. . . \. . .|. . /. . ..\....|.../... ::\:::|::/:: --------------- ------------- --------------- (Y) ------------- --------------- -------------- ::/:::|::\:: ../....|...\... . . /. . .|. . \. . . / . . | . \ . http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-09 16:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2dc1d524-9879-44b4-8038-b825bd3212cf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #680367 |
#7page #7page On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 5:07:26 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics: Kjaergaard's famous Danish experiment of 2014 Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV 13) Proof came in February 2018 for AP's ion theory, that ions are monopoles .5MeV either +1 or -1 charge, attached to a 840MeV proton and 105MeV muon as hydrogen. Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 19:37:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: H+1 bonds to P+1 Re: EXPERIMENTAL PROOF Re: Hydrogen is the very best way to prove AP's ION theory Re: proving AP's ion theory From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 03:37:37 +0000 H+1 bonds to P+1 Re: EXPERIMENTAL PROOF Re: Hydrogen is the very best way to prove AP's ION theory Re: proving AP's ion theory The below is a famous experiment of 2014, very famous because it opens a flood gate of new understanding of both Physics and of Chemistry for it proves these 5 points of issue:: 1) That in Electricity Magnetism there is only a force of attraction, and all scientists were confused because what they thought was "repel" is merely a "denial of same space occupancy-- Pauli Exclusion" for exclusion is not the same as repel. 2) The real electron of atoms is a 105 MeV particle called the muon and the Real-proton is 840 MeV 3) The particle that is .5MeV we always thought was the electron way back since JJ Thomson in 1897, turns out, that this .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole, which is a photon or neutrino with a .5MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy. 4) The Real Electron and Real Proton rarely ever escape a atom, but what does escape and what is in almost all transactions of atoms is the monopole which can be either +1 or -1 of .5MeV. 5) The Real Electron is firmly bonded to the proton as 105 MeV with 840 MeV, for which the proton itself is composed of 8 muons. The neutron is actually 945 MeV and is a proton + muon + some other particles. Kjaergaard's experiment is the first of what will become a cascade of chemistry experiments that all will prove the above 5 points of interest. On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 5:07:26 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics: Kjaergaard's famous Danish experiment of 2014 Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV 13) Proof came in February 2018 for AP's ion theory, that ions are monopoles .5MeV either +1 or -1 charge, attached to a 840MeV proton and 105MeV muon as hydrogen. Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 19:37:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: H+1 bonds to P+1 Re: EXPERIMENTAL PROOF Re: Hydrogen is the very best way to prove AP's ION theory Re: proving AP's ion theory From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 03:37:37 +0000 H+1 bonds to P+1 Re: EXPERIMENTAL PROOF Re: Hydrogen is the very best way to prove AP's ION theory Re: proving AP's ion theory Below is an experiment done in Denmark where it is shown that H+1 bonds to P+1 ions, proving not only that the Muon is the real-electron and that ions are magnetic monopoles, but, in addition, proving that like charges attract, for in Nature, attraction force is the only force existing and that what appears to be repel is merely-- denial of same space occupancy. Positively Charged Phosphorus as a Hydrogen Bond Acceptor Anne S. Hansen, Lin Du and Henrik G. Kjaergaard* Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 5, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters Vol. 5: , Issue. 23, : Pages. 4225-4231 Publication Date (Web): November 19, 2014 https://doi.org/10.1021/jz502150d Scientists discover impossible hydrogen bond | ScienceNordic sciencenordic.com/scientists-discover-impossible-hydrogen-bond Mar 25, 2015 ... Scientists have discovered a new type of hydrogen bond which was previously considered impossible or at least highly improbable. "The discovery is significant because hydrogen bonds are such a fundamental part of both chemistry and biology," says Professor Henrik Kjærgaard from the Department of ... ScienceNordic Scientists discover impossible hydrogen bond March 25, 2015 - 06:25 By: Lise Brix Professor Henrik Kjærgaard and his colleagues have demonstrated that a new kind of hydrogen bond can occur between a hydrogen atom and a phosphorous atom. Pictured here is Kjærgaard in his lab at the University of Copenhagen. (Photo: University of Copenhagen)Scientists have discovered a new type of hydrogen bond which was previously considered impossible or at least highly improbable. "The discovery is significant because hydrogen bonds are such a fundamental part of both chemistry and biology," says Professor Henrik Kjærgaard from the Department of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen. "They form the basis of biological molecules and it’s for instance hydrogen bonds that determine the boiling point of water." He led the new study, which has been published in the Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters. At Aarhus University, chemistry professor Jeppe Olsen is surprised.... (snipped) Olsen points out that not only have Kjærgaard and his colleagues found the new hydrogen bond in experiments -- they have also provided "an excellent explanation" of the discovery. The theory behind the discovery is that the atoms' charge is not uniformly distributed around their surface -- which is how simplified models say they do. “Our discovery emphasises that the charge around the surface of an atom is not uniform. If there was a positive charge all the way around the phosphorous atom this hydrogen bond wouldn't be possible. But it is. This must mean that the charge is not uniformly distributed around the atom -- you might say that there are tiny pockets of negative charge around the phosphorus atom," says Kjærgaard. The discovery of the special hydrogen bonds was made in experiments with infrared spectroscopy -- a method used by scientists to obtain knowledge about molecules and their vibrations by irradiating them with infrared light. AP writes:: Sorry, but the explanation of why this bonding exists is because there is no force of repulsion in Electricity Magnetism, only attraction. There is denial of same space occupancy which is known as the Pauli Exclusion Principle. But what will really force everyone in science to accept the idea that the real electron = 105MeV is when you break apart the hydrogen proton into a 840 MeV particle plus a 105 MeV muon. I suspect this has already happened in Poland-- Quoting Indication For A Broad J(pc) = 2++ Meson At 840-mev Produced In The Reaction Pi- P ---> Pi+ Pi- N At High |t| K. Rybicki, I. Sakrejda (Cracow, INP) 1985 - 10 pages Z.Phys. C28 (1985) 65-74 DOI: 10.1007/BF01550250 Abstract (Springer) The reaction π−p→π+π−n has been studied at 17.2 GeV/c and 63 GeV/c. A partial wave analysis shows a fairly broad (∼250 MeV) resonance at about 840 MeV. This object, already visible in moments of the angular distribution, is produced in theD wave with helicitym=2 via unnatural exchange. The cross section for the reaction π−p→D2U(840)n is only by an order of magnitude lower than that of ϱ(770) and falls likepLAB−2.1±0.3. We have not been able to explain this object by systematic experimental effects like acceptance and/orN* reflections; neither is the nature of the resonance (if real) clear to us. --- end quote --- Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu ::\ ::|:: /:: ::\::|::/:: _ _ (:Y:) - - ::/::|::\:: ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. . \ . . | . /. . . \. . .|. . /. . ..\....|.../... ::\:::|::/:: --------------- ------------- --------------- (Y) ------------- --------------- -------------- ::/:::|::\:: ../....|...\... . . /. . .|. . \. . . / . . | . \ . http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-10 16:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3d88647e-5d03-48f9-a4e0-be0a61a05158@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #680533 |
#8page #8page On Thursday, March 1, 2018 at 12:29:30 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics: Thermodynamics has to be completely unified to electricity/magnetism True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Thermodynamics only makes sense when both heat by radiation is the same as heat by convection, all being monopoles. So that the glow of green in a radium watch dial, is the same as the glow of red in a electric heater, both are emitting magnetic monopoles. Thermodynamics has to be completely brought into the rest of the house of physics and seen as fully that of electricity and magnetism. On Saturday, March 3, 2018 at 7:34:39 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics: Radioactivity has to be redone,completely True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Radioactivity has to be completely redone. It is rare that you remove a proton=840MeV and a electron=105MeV. Most radioactivity involves the .5MeV particle , the magnetic monopole of Dirac. Then the most radioactivity besides the monopole is the helium nucleus, and the neutron. So a total rewrite of radioactivity is in the works. rewrite the Sun fusion process True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV The process of fusion in the Sun and stars needs rewritten, for when Real Electron = 105MeV and Real Proton = 840MeV, that most of what we thought was fusion and fission is actually just the routine interplay of magnetic monopoles of .5MeV. Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 14:18:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2018 22:18:09 +0000 AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Today starts a new Periodic Table of Chemical Elements based on the idea that 1 Proton = 8 Muons in a Faraday Law Configuration. Call it the Archimedes Plutonium Table of Chemical Elements. Now I need the OCTET for Chemistry, which is a single proton built from 8 Muons poor drawing of Octagon showing its 8 muons = 1 Proton 7 8 6 1 5 2 4 3 The Periodic Chemical Table starts, not with Hydrogen, but starts with a Proton being a octagon of muons, 8 muons. Now we include the 9th particle-- the ElectronMuon which is the moving bar magnet in Faraday's Law 7 8 6 1 9th 5 2 4 3 The picture above is the ElectronMuon 9th of every Proton in every atom. The ElectronMuon is Faraday's bar magnet that moves in and out of the Proton that the Proton itself is a Closed Loop Wire formed by 8 Muons in a octagon shape. So, the First Chemical Element in the Periodic Table is the Proton as a 8 Muons in a octagon shape, and with a 9th Muon as the ElectronMuon of an atom-- every and any atom. On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 5:52:49 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook Now this idea revolutionizes all the chemical elements, because it makes us realize that everything about Atoms is a Faraday Law. So Carbon has 6 protons and 6 ElectronMuons forming a Faraday Law wire loop and bar magnets, and the neutrons providing the same. So, an electrical engineer given wire loops and bar magnets would make that pile of loops and magnets into the most efficient Faraday Law Demonstration. On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 6:24:34 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook What the AP periodic table of elements allows is the inclusion of isotopes. On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 7:21:09 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics: table that includes isotopes Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 6:24:34 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics: > What the AP periodic table of elements allows is the inclusion of isotopes. So, the neat thing about 1 Proton = 8 Muons and the ElectronMuon as 9th muon of all atoms protons and electrons, is that every Atom is a assemblage of Muons into a Closed Loop Wire with an electronMuon as bar magnet. And then, of course, the Magnetic Monopole, a photon or neutrino dressed up with a .5MeV charge energy of either +1 or -1 charge. Now how does the Faraday law create a monopole? Well, it is not the Muon traveling in the proton octagon closed loop wire, for the Muon is the bar magnet. And what travels in the proton-as-wire is a monopole. And if this monopole is too energetic, it leaves the proton-wire and we perceive it as a monopole radioactive decay. AP Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 22:35:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: is H2O behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 06:35:29 +0000 On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 9:55:41 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics: is H2O behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook how water is like fluorine isotope Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook Now way way back in sci.physics history, i believe it was sometime in the 1990s i spoke of a concept of hydrogen atom systems that composes all atoms. The idea basically was there are no neutrons and each proton is linked to a muon (of course back then i thought the electron was .5 MeV). In Hydrogen Atom Systems theory i called it HYASYS, the hydrogen atom would have number and mass of 1, helium would be 4. Oxygen would be atomic mass and number 16, and Fluorine (i keep mixing the spelling with the food flour) is 19F, but, there is a isotope of Fluorine as 18F. We can see how the AP Element Table accommodates isotopes for each isotope is a specific number of HYASYS. In HYASYS theory, every atom is composed not of protons, electrons=105MeV but only a proton + muon. But a curious feature appears in that water, H2O would have 18 HYASYS matching fluorine hyasys of 18F. Only realize the 2 H are bonded to oxygen while the 18F is a single atom. But no escaping the fact that in both you have a Faraday Law acting on 9 x 18 muons in total, where 1 proton = 8muons. In HYASYS, all atoms are just a specific number of MUONS, so for Water molecule, H2O is 162 Muons. And for isotope 18F, is 162 Muons that compose 18F. Now 19F, the most common atom of fluorine is in total 171 Muons. So, can any chemist today-- make a case that water behaves like fluorine isotope 18F? We all know water has some unique properties but so does fluorine. AP Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 22:48:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: is H2O behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 06:48:23 +0000 Re: is H2O behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 12:35:32 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > how water is like fluorine isotope Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook > > Now way way back in sci.physics history, i believe it was sometime in the 1990s i spoke of a concept of hydrogen atom systems that composes all atoms. The idea basically was there are no neutrons and each proton is linked to a muon (of course back then i thought the electron was .5 MeV). > > In Hydrogen Atom Systems theory i called it HYASYS, the hydrogen atom would have number and mass of 1, helium would be 4. Oxygen would be atomic mass and number 16, and Fluorine (i keep mixing the spelling with the food flour) is 19F, but, there is a isotope of Fluorine as 18F. > > We can see how the AP Element Table accommodates isotopes for each isotope is a specific number of HYASYS. In HYASYS theory, every atom is composed not of protons, electrons=105MeV but only a proton + muon. > > But a curious feature appears in that water, H2O would have 18 HYASYS matching fluorine hyasys of 18F. Only realize the 2 H are bonded to oxygen while the 18F is a single atom. > Now, looking up that of 18F, says (Wikipedia) it has a half-life of 109.8 minutes which is oodles and oodles of time to study it. But more important, it says it turns into 18Oxygen. In other words, 18F is H2O in a transitory, phase state. AP Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu ::\ ::|:: /:: ::\::|::/:: _ _ (:Y:) - - ::/::|::\:: ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. . \ . . | . /. . . \. . .|. . /. . ..\....|.../... ::\:::|::/:: --------------- ------------- --------------- (Y) ------------- --------------- -------------- ::/:::|::\:: ../....|...\... . . /. . .|. . \. . . / . . | . \ . http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-10 21:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3224cfd7-8daf-4b75-874c-1a0d1a178fc4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #680692 |
#9page #9page FARADAY LAW is the building Principle of Chemistry, and the world for that sake NEED MY OLD HYASYS AND RSNM Theories back again Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 22:48:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: is H2O behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 06:48:23 +0000 Re: is H2O behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 12:35:32 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > how water is like fluorine isotope Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook > > Now way way back in sci.physics history, i believe it was sometime in the 1990s i spoke of a concept of hydrogen atom systems that composes all atoms. The idea basically was there are no neutrons and each proton is linked to a muon (of course back then i thought the electron was .5 MeV). > > In Hydrogen Atom Systems theory i called it HYASYS, the hydrogen atom would have number and mass of 1, helium would be 4. Oxygen would be atomic mass and number 16, and Fluorine (i keep mixing the spelling with the food flour) is 19F, but, there is a isotope of Fluorine as 18F. > > We can see how the AP Element Table accommodates isotopes for each isotope is a specific number of HYASYS. In HYASYS theory, every atom is composed not of protons, electrons=105MeV but only a proton + muon. > > But a curious feature appears in that water, H2O would have 18 HYASYS matching fluorine hyasys of 18F. Only realize the 2 H are bonded to oxygen while the 18F is a single atom. > Now, looking up that of 18F, says (Wikipedia) it has a half-life of 109.8 minutes which is oodles and oodles of time to study it. But more important, it says it turns into 18Oxygen. In other words, 18F is H2O in a transitory, phase state. Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 01:27:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: the world in a science metaphor ? Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 09:27:39 +0000 the world in a science metaphor ? Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook And, let us try a second one of these. We compound iron 56Fe with chromium 52Cr and the total number of HYASYS, hydrogen atom systems is 108. Now the atom that has 108 HYASYS is Silver 108Ag Does the compound Fe+Cr resemble in chemical features that of silver Ag ? This test maybe easier than the test of H2O with HYASYS of 2+16 = 18 and the atom that matches 18 HYASYS is the rare Fluorine of 18F If true, to some degree, we can include chemical compounds into the Table of Periodic Elements. Because, really, Chemistry boils down to nothing but the laws of electromagnetism of a magnet thrust through a closed loop of wire. Philosophically, well, it is hard to imagine that the purpose of the Universe at large is a magnet thrusting through a closed loop wire. To think, that the entire Universe amounts to a magnet thrust through wire and current flows. In a sense, the magnet is father, the wire is mother, and out flows the baby current. Is this the world in a metaphor? AP Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 02:00:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: is H2O behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 10:00:46 +0000 Re: is H2O behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook Now when i wrote that several hours ago, i was not really thinking about that of 18F turning into 18Oxygen for which if you think of the electron as the .5 MeV particle it is easy to accept you had Fluorine that converted to oxygen. But when you see the proton at 840 MeV electron at 105MeV, you have to question whether 18F ever existed at all, and was a H2O water molecule. AP Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 02:18:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: is H2O behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re:AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 10:18:05 +0000 Re: is H2O behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook Alright there is more trouble in that magnesium 23 converts to sodium 23 in Old Chemistry. In New Chemistry it was never magnesium but rather instead was NaH a hydrogen bonded to sodium. So here we are seeing compounds classified as being single atoms. Also found that fluorine can be a liquid-- so i wonder if 18F was a water molecule and never a fluorine atom. AP Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu ::\ ::|:: /:: ::\::|::/:: _ _ (:Y:) - - ::/::|::\:: ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. . \ . . | . /. . . \. . .|. . /. . ..\....|.../... ::\:::|::/:: --------------- ------------- --------------- (Y) ------------- --------------- -------------- ::/:::|::\:: ../....|...\... . . /. . .|. . \. . . / . . | . \ . http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-11 14:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <544fec57-c0f0-42fb-97b4-4286cc0e0e97@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #680723 |
#10page
#10page
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 03:03:36 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: is H2O behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re: AP's Periodic
Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 11:03:36 +0000
Re: is H2O behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook
Alright the heaviest element to date is 295element118 it resembles the noble gas Radon86
Now in New Chemistry we define an Element as total number of Hyasys, hydrogen atom systems inside a particle. So the first four elements are 1H , 2H, 3H, 4He
That is hydrogen, deuterium, tritium, helium.
Now a burning question is whether every number from 1 to 295 has an element?
So in Old Chemistry there were 118 elements with their isotopes. In New Chemistry there are 295 elements and isotopes do not exist.
Now many elements are going to have duplicates such as we discussed 18O and 18F and in case of duplicates we get rid of one by indicating one is a compound of hydrogen. Where 18F is H2O of 16O.
So i think i have a table from 1 to 295 unique table verified by chemical experiments. Then the question is going to be if this table retains family resemblance of columns once we form into a table. Will the former isotopes have some family resemblance?
And will the Aufbau paradox of 20 out of 94 elements not in compliance go away?
AP
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 14:22:35 -0800 (PST)
Subject: why HYASYS is important in New Chemistry Re: AP's Periodic
Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 22:22:35 +0000
why HYASYS is important in New Chemistry Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook
- show quoted text -
Well, there is something endearing about the HYASYS theory, Hydrogen Atom Systems, in that a Atom needs its proton and electron=muon, both together at all times for the atom to exist properly. In Old Chemistry, Old Physics, the electron is seen as some vagrant vagabond-- here today, gone tomorrow, seen as not essential to any proton. But in HYASYS, the Electron= 105 and Proton= 840MeV, the two are essential to be together-- creating Faraday's Law inside an atom.
Back in 1995, I realized the HYASYS theory but had no idea that the Real Electron = 105MeV and I was as dumb as the next guy in chemistry or physics, thinking the electron was .5MeV.
AP
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 15:17:43 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: why HYASYS is important in New Chemistry Re: AP's
Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 23:17:43 +0000
Re: why HYASYS is important in New Chemistry Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook
Need to totally review what the Strong Nuclear Force is in light of Real Electron = 105 MeV, Real Proton= 840 MeV and magnetic monopole = .5MeV
Decades past I solved what the Strong Nuclear force was, by simply noting the Scale, where the eV in chemical bonding of electrons becomes by scale, MeV in the nucleus. You see the distances in the nucleus is 10^6 smaller, and MeV to eV is 10^6 difference, so my solution was-- in nucleus the protons have a bonding just as electrons have a bonding along the exterior of the nucleus.
That SOLUTION still holds regardless of the fact that the electrons are muons. But, how does that fit with the idea that the muon is a Faraday law bar magnet and the proton a closed loop wire?
Is the solution to the Strong Nuclear Force, simply the fact that only Attraction exists in EM theory, and no argument of a 10^6 scale factor is needed? Is not the solution to the Strong Nuclear Force just simply the fact that all particles, no matter what charge they carry is an attraction force. And so the Strong Nuclear force was a fiction force much like centripetal centrifugal.
AP
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 14:55:39 -0800 (PST)
Subject: I need my old HYASYS theory to make the New Table of Chemical
Elements Re: Third experiment: Strong Nuclear Force is nuclear
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 22:55:40 +0000
I need my old HYASYS theory to make the New Table of Chemical Elements Re: Third experiment: Strong Nuclear Force is nuclear
Well, Todd was a friend of mine back in the mid 1990s, and is a pleasure to respond to his reply in 2018, after the immense, huge discovery that the Real Electron is 105 MeV with its attendant proton at 840 MeV.
My Hyasys theory of 1995 is stronger than ever, for all atoms need a close association of their muons with protons-- as active Faraday Law participants. In Old Chemistry and Old Physics, we really have a utterly pathetic look and view of the electron and proton inside an atom-- a view of -- they do nothing-- because the minds of physicists pre2017 was the mind of a child holding a tiny ball as electron and larger ball for proton doing nothing. Whereas New Chemistry, requires the muon and proton to at least do the Faraday Law.
On Wednesday, October 11, 1995 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-5, Todd Pedlar wrote:
> Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
> >In article <45b9o9$ral@news.acns.nwu.edu>
> >Todd Pedlar <todd@numep1.phys.nwu.edu> writes:
> >
> >> But did you read any of his posting? Either you did, and are ignoring the
> >> facts, or you simply glossed over the parts which threaten your ideas. The
> >> Uncertainty Principle disallows a system of proton and electron forming
> >> the system which we observe as the neutron. This has been pointed out to
> >> you several times now, and still you ignore it.
> >
Todd needs to rethink this. I am sure Todd would agree that the Maxwell Equations are obeyed by Atom and their subatomic particles. In a world where both Todd and I thought the electron was .5MeV is a different world than when the Real Electron = 105 MeV inside an atom, and so, a Faraday Law of a Helium Atom would require all 4 of its Hydrogen Atom Systems to be a Proton as a closed wire loop and where the Muon is a bar magnet that moves inside the wire loop of proton producing a monopole.
> > The Uncertainty Principle does not threaten HYASYS in the least, in
> >fact it supports it. Where is the highest electron probability for the
> >hydrogen atom? Answer: greater than 90% in dead center of the proton.
> >Thus the bundling up of the electron of hydrogen inside the proton and
> >the proton inside the neutron is supported by UP.
>
> As someone else has pointed out, there is zero probability for the electron
> to be found at the center of the proton in a hydrogen atom. - the 90 percent
> you quote is for the electron to be found within the Bohr radius.
>
> According to the Uncertainty Principle, were the electron to be bound within
> the nucleon radius of ~1 fm, it would have a momentum uncertainty of:
>
> delta p = hbar/2 delta x = (6.6 x 10^{-22} MeV s)/(2x10^{-15} m)
> = (3.3 x 10^{-7} MeV/c)(3 x 10^{8})
> ~ 100 MeV/c.
>
Uncertainty Principle is only mumbo jumbo talk when you know almost nothing of what is going on.
I plan to go to Sioux Falls sometime soon, and we can bring in Uncertainty all we want-- whether I drive safely, whether the weather is good, do I take the correct exit? But the important thing is talk about the Certainty of things-- it is a city 2 hours drive away, and it is a trip I must make.
Todd is mistaking Uncertainty as facts of physics, mistaking what really goes on, with what can go wrong. Mistaking for what really is, for what can be imagined.
> Isn't that a bit disturbing? This is the kind of reasoning which long ago
> put to rest the theory that the neutron is a combination of proton and
> electron. You might call this reasoning old fashioned and musty, but it
> is solid theoretically.
>
> >
> >> The spin of the neutron is 1/2, this is undisputed. Two spin 1/2 particles
> >> can in no way combine to form a spin 1/2 system. QED, that's that, and
> >> there is no doubt about it. Your theory is dead.
> >
> > The neutrino has zero rest mass, zero electric charge, and spin 1/2
> >in units of h/(2pi). All neutrons decay into proton, electron,
> >antineutrino all of which have either spin +1/2 or -1/2 such that the
> >combination of say +1/2 add -1/2 add +1/2 results in +1/2. Spin is no
> >threat to HYASYS. But to the quark theory, how is it Todd, that an
> >electron comes out of every neutron decay. This implies that the
> >electron is either a quark or a quark composite. Thus, the quark theory
> >is very limited or dead.
>
> So then you're saying now that the neutron is a bound system of proton,
> electron and neutrino? Does every particle which decays have to be
> primordially composed of its decay products? Sounds like that's what you're
> saying. That proposition is utterly unsound. What composes a tau, which can
> decay dozens of different ways?
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> Todd K. Pedlar ! Phone: (708) 491 - 8630
> Grad Student, Dept o' Physics ! Fax: (708) 491 - 8627
> Northwestern University ! Email: todd@numep0.phys.nwu.edu
> Fermilab Experiment E835 ! toddp@fnalv.fnal.gov
> ! WWW: http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
>
> %SYSIN-F-NOCFE, system input disabled, unable to locate coffee
I discovered what unifies Strong Nuclear Force with Coulomb force, in that the electron inside a Neutron spills out in the nucleus of an atom and goes running around holding protons glued to other protons in a Coulomb force.
Well, I have to review that discovery all over again, in light of the fact that the Real Electron is a Muon itself.
In light of the fact that there is no Repel force in electromagnetism, all is Attract force only, and that the *sensation of repel in two magnets* is not repel at all but a concept of denial of the same space occupancy. Repel in Old Physics was a imagination gone wrong-- for what is sensed is not a repulsion force, but a denial that you can get any closer-- Pauli Exclusion. Pauli Exclusion principle is not a repel force, but a state of condition, that you cannot move two objects closer together.
In this sense, we see that electrons love being together around the outside of proton nuclei. We see that protons love being together with other protons in a nucleus. This tells the man women of common sense, there is no force of repel in EM theory, in the world for that matter, of that sake. The world we live in has only Attraction force and denial of same space occupancy.
What HYASYS brings to the table of science, is the idea that electron and proton exist in some "working relationship" such as the Faraday Law, and that electron and proton do not exist as in Old Physics, where one is a tiny ball doing nothing and the proton another tiny ball doing nothing.
AP
Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu
::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ . . | . /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
--------------- -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
--------------- --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / . . | . \ .
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Pan <pan@172.16.1.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-13 06:59 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <n2pvcdlej9lb1mpcudj2h7e4epfc0ehcfa@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #680800 |
Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> wrote: > Now a burning question is whether every number from 1 to 295 has an element? > > So in Old Chemistry there were 118 elements with their isotopes. In New Chemistry there are 295 elements and isotopes do not exist. > > Now many elements are going to have duplicates such as we discussed 18O and 18F and in case of duplicates we get rid of one by indicating one is a compound of hydrogen. Where 18F is H2O of 16O. Does the shit you spew actually make some kind of sense to you? Or are you just telling the world you're over the edge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-13 05:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <papgvg$80o$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #680879 |
Peter Pan <pan@172.16.1.1> writes: >Does the shit you spew actually make some kind of sense >to you? Or are you just telling the world you're over >the edge. It's called "logorrhea".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-12 20:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cbb573e6-14eb-4d41-8b9a-5681eff0e6b6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #680800 |
#11page #11page Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 18:17:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: steering dumb physicists to realize the truth about 18F Re: is H2O behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re:AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2018 02:17:16 +0000 steering dumb physicists to realize the truth about 18F Re: is H2O behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 12:48:26 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > > > But a curious feature appears in that water, H2O would have 18 HYASYS matching fluorine hyasys of 18F. Only realize the 2 H are bonded to oxygen while the 18F is a single atom. > > > > Now, looking up that of 18F, says (Wikipedia) it has a half-life of 109.8 minutes which is oodles and oodles of time to study it. But more important, it says it turns into 18Oxygen. In other words, 18F is H2O in a transitory, phase state. > Now let us examine that 109.8 minutes decay of a rare form of Fluorine 18F, for it says 97% decay is beta+ into 18O and here is a supreme idiocy of Old Physics, Old Chemistry in that they silly think a .5MeV particle (what they thought was the electron) is going to slip into the nucleus and convert a proton 938MeV into a neutron of 940 MeV and emit a positron +1 charge .5MeV particle. Trouble with Old Chemistry, Old Physics, none of the would be professors ever took Logic to learn to think straight, clear and correctly, but misfits of logical reasoning. The New Physics, New Chemistry sees that the Real Electron=105MeV, Real Proton= 840MeV and are always tied up with each other, so there is no sneeking back into the nucleus of a real electron to become a 945 neutron. In New Physics, the Electron and Proton have to be in Maxwell theory constant activity, they are not tiny balls doing nothing most of the time in an atom, no, the electron and proton are committing Faraday's Law constantly, where either the 105 acts as bar magnet or the 8Muons= 1 Proton acts as a closed loop wire in Faraday's law or vice versa. You see, in Old Physics, those fools had the electron and proton lounging on some atomic scale beach sipping sodas. In New Physics, the electron and proton are constantly demonstrating the Faraday law of thrusting the electron into the closed wire of the 8Muons=1 proton and producing a current in that proton as wire, the current is a .5MeV magnetic monopole. So in Old Physics view, the electron is .5MeV lounging around sitting around doing nothing and all of a sudden goes plunging into the nucleus to bind with a proton and become a neutron. In New Physics, every proton and muon is actively involved in doing Faraday's law, one thrusting as bar magnet into the other producing a .5MeV magnetic monopole. So, in 18F, it was never a Fluorine atom at all, for its 18 HYASIS hydrogen atom systems each doing a Faraday Law, so the 18 HYASYS were almost the same as 16O bonded to 1H plus 1H. And what I like for the Chemists to do is redo all their experiments on 18F and see for themselves that 18F was never fluorine but in reality was a water molecule of 16O bound to two hydrogen atoms. Now Kjaergaard in Denmark a chemist used infrared spectroscopy to discover that H+ atoms will bond to other +1 charged atoms, in other words, physics has no like charges repel. So I am wondering if Chemists today can repeat the experiments on 18F to see if 18F is really H2O, and never was a Fluorine atom. > > But no escaping the fact that in both you have a Faraday Law acting on 9 x 18 muons in total, where 1 proton = 8muons. In HYASYS, all atoms are just a specific number of MUONS, so for Water molecule, H2O is 162 Muons. And for isotope 18F, is 162 Muons that compose 18F. Now 19F, the most common atom of fluorine is in total 171 Muons. > > > > So, can any chemist today-- make a case that water behaves like fluorine isotope 18F? We all know water has some unique properties but so does fluorine. > > > > So in Old Physics, Old Chemistry, they really really need to get away from their hideous notion that the electron is a .5MeV tiny ball and the proton is a 938 MeV more massive ball and the two balls just do nothing most of the time. They have got to get to a point of realization that every proton and electron are actively engaged with one another, and the only viable activity is -- Faraday's Law. AP Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 18:40:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: purpose of life-- create new atoms//purpose of the World?-- convert Space into mass (new atoms)? Re:AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2018 02:40:19 +0000 purpose of life-- create new atoms//purpose of the World?-- convert Space into mass (new atoms)? Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 3:27:44 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > And, let us try a second one of these. We compound iron 56Fe with chromium 52Cr and the total number of HYASYS, hydrogen atom systems is 108. Now the atom that has 108 HYASYS is Silver 108Ag > > Does the compound Fe+Cr resemble in chemical features that of silver Ag ? > > This test maybe easier than the test of H2O with HYASYS of 2+16 = 18 and the atom that matches 18 HYASYS is the rare Fluorine of 18F > > If true, to some degree, we can include chemical compounds into the Table of Periodic Elements. > > Because, really, Chemistry boils down to nothing but the laws of electromagnetism of a magnet thrust through a closed loop of wire. > > Philosophically, well, it is hard to imagine that the purpose of the Universe at large is a magnet thrusting through a closed loop wire. To think, that the entire Universe amounts to a magnet thrust through wire and current flows. In a sense, the magnet is father, the wire is mother, and out flows the baby current. Is this the world in a metaphor? > > Now sometimes when we sit aside and reflect deeply, it pays off. Many times I said that philosophy is science, only where science has no good answers, so that philosophy is at the edge of where science ends and then mostly exploratory ideas are offered to come up with answers. Two words that describes Philosophy, is "exploratory guess". Three words to describe Science, is "best accepted truth". Now, it is Science that says the Electron and Proton are doing a constant Faraday Law, the 105 MeV and 840 MeV particles doing Faraday Law and the result is the production of a .5MeV magnetic monopole. So in a Helium atom of its 4 protons and 4 muons, each 4 systems yielding four magnetic monopoles, constantly. Is the final picture of the World. The purpose of Life in an Atom Totality is to create new elements that stars cannot create, as we created Elements 95 through 118 recently. Life is Cold Stars creating new atoms that hot stars cannot fuse in creating. But, that is the purpose of Life, and philosophy would say that the purpose to the entire World, including life inside that World is merely to execute the Faraday's law, proton and electron doing a thrusting bar magnet in closed loop wire producing electric current. But now, if Philosophy examines that just a bit closer, Faraday's Law is not so empty, not so simple and rather mundane to be a Purpose of the World itself. If Life's purpose is to create new atoms, then look at what the Faraday Law does, it creates new matter, mass from Space. For the thrusting bar magnet into a closed loop wire ends up creating a particle that flows in the wire. This monopole is usually .5MeV, usually -1 charge but can be +1 charge. So, the Purpose of Life is to create new atoms. Is the Purpose of the World, to convert Space into creating new particles out of the space where Faraday's law operates. So, in other words, are atoms in existence to convert Space into making more and newer atoms. The purpose of Life is to make new Atoms, and so it is reasonable to think the purpose of Atoms themselves is to convert Space into creating new atoms. This idea is embodied in another one of my old theories I dubbed as (named) RSNM, radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. For I applied for a patent on RSNM devices circa 1994. RSNM is a offshoot of Dirac's New Radioactivity as described in his book Directions in Physics. So, I need to resurrect not only HYASYS but also RSNM, as theories vital to New Physics. AP Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu ::\ ::|:: /:: ::\::|::/:: _ _ (:Y:) - - ::/::|::\:: ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. . \ . . | . /. . . \. . .|. . /. . ..\....|.../... ::\:::|::/:: --------------- ------------- --------------- (Y) ------------- --------------- -------------- ::/:::|::\:: ../....|...\... . . /. . .|. . \. . . / . . | . \ . http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-13 12:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0f0ef0c5-f930-4b86-8eb2-31a6101253fc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #680913 |
#12page #12page Recalling OLD POSTS on HYASYS and RSNM From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) Subject: Unifying EM , Strong Nuclear Force, and gravity (Hyasys) Date: 1996/03/27 organization: PLutonium College newsgroups: sci.astro,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag Unifying EM , Strong Nuclear Force, and gravity (Hyasys) In article <4j7iqf$r...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes: > Such as for instance, a neutron is > thought to be EM neutral but it has a tiny surface charge because a > neutron has a hydrogen atom kicking around inside of it, and the > electron and proton of the subneutron is the reason the neutron has a > surface charge. This surface charge of the neutron is the lowest > possible state and is what we usually think of as gravity. Note that > gravity is 10^40 weaker than EM. So then, in my remaking of the > universal forces of the universe, gravity is none other than the lowest > state, the lowest possible EM conditions. Given a totally neutral body > an astro body ideally neutral with no magnetic field then all the > neutrons and all the neutral particles when sum totalled are not > electrically neutral but have the lowest of low EM, which is gravity. This relies on my HYASYS theory that all neutrons are Hydrogen Atom Systems inside. Thus there are two types of electrons, normal in atoms and nuclear when compressed into neutrons or nuclei. These nuclear electrons are the glue the binding force of protons in the nuclei. Neutrons have a slight tiny surface charge. PHYSICS WORLD recently did an article and will quote it soon. Thus, in terms of HYASYS, there are no 0 charged particles but all Neutral particles have at least a tiny surface charge reflecting the nuclear electron and proton of Hyasys inside it. The Van Der Waals force is similar to the neutron surface charge. Van Der Waals is on the order of 1/r^6 (if memory serves me) and gravity is 1/r^2 but gravity is with mass and Waals is with EM so that if I can reconcile the Van Der Waals with gravity in force strength, then I may have experimental set-up already proving that gravity indeed is the lowest form of EM, and unlike Andrei Sakharov who thought that gravity was a "Side Effect of EM" . Sakharov was indeed on the correct path of recognizing that gravity was ultimately EM but Sakharov never had the nuclear electron to guide him. Thus, if I can show that Van Der Waals is the lowest EM and that it is of the same range in force strength to gravity, then I will have proved that gravity is Hyasys of nuclear electrons. I will need to clarify why when surface charge on say the neutron is only attractive. Perhaps when EM goes into its lowest state--- this gravity state --- that nuclear electrons interact-- exchange photons only with protons and thus is attractive. I think if memory serves, the Van Der Waals is also only attractive. This is all very beautiful because within firmly established knowledge and concepts is all three forces EM, Strong Nuclear and gravity all reduced down to just EM. Where EM of Maxwell is in the middle range, and the lowest of low EM is surface charge on neutral particles such as neutrons which is really gravity, and the upper range is the nuclear electrons of Hydrogen Atom Systems in the nuclei binding protons. If true, and I am confident it is, the quest for the graviton was a birdbrain quest, because gravity is none other than the Lowest Quantum State of EM. The gravity of the Earth for the Sun would then consider all the particles summed for the Earth and Sun as say all neutrons (idealizing all the particles as neutral particles), then summation over all those neutrons of their slight surface charge and envision Faraday Lines of Force for the summation of neutron surface charges. That summation should equal what was previously computed through the inverse square law. Again, I say I need to make clearer why it is always attractive, somehow nuclear electrons exchange only with protons and vice versa. The perturbations of Mercury are thus explained better than even GR because of the Magnetic Field of the Sun and Mercury are not included in the purely summation of neutrons (idealizing all particles as 0 average charge, ie, making them all neutrons) whereas we know there are many ions in the Sun and Mercury has a Magnetic Field. I must work on making verifiable experiments. But it is hard because the force of gravity is so weak and it is hard to point to surface charge as the culprit and not mass. Thus I should look for some 'Effect' that if the theory is correct that surface charge is what gravity is, then some effect should be observable wherein if it were solely mass that makes gravity then the effect should never occur or would not make sense. I am dreaming up experiments AP From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) Subject: Third experiment: Strong Nuclear Force is nuclear electrons Date: 1995/09/26 organization: Plutonium College newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.particle,sci.chem Third experiment: Strong Nuclear Force is nuclear electrons In article <447haf$s...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes: > > The Strong Nuclear Force now is really protons sharing energetic > electrons at a very close range. Thus the nucleus of an atom is sort of > like a metallic bond sort of a deal. Neutrons are not just hydrogen atoms but are energetic hydrogen atoms. When the neutron is in the nucleus what happens is that the hydrogen atom inside the neutron uses the electron of the hydrogen atom and it is a nuclear electron which has no space or size, converted into energy as per fine-structure variable of electron being within the nucleus. These nuclear electrons hold all the protons including the protons of the hydrogen atom of the neutrons, hold all the protons together. Third experimental test. Since it is the nuclear electrons which is the glue so to speak in holding protons together, then in say an atom of neon of its 10 protons, never is it capable of labelling those 10 protons against the neutrons. In other words in all atoms beyond hydrogen, the protons are neutrons at one moment and protons at the next, and vice versa. Any experiments performed so far which colloborates my above? If nuclear electrons and hyasis were not the case then a neutron inside a nucleus would not have the tendency to become protons and back to neutrons and vice versa, but rather instead remain their original identity as a proton or neutron and not flip back and forth. AP From: Archimedes...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) Subject: Strong nuclear force explained for the first time Date: 1995/09/26 organization: PLUTONIUM COLLEGE newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.particle,sci.chem Strong nuclear force explained for the first time I thought it would come first by finding some window into the nucleus such as spectral lines was the window for chemistry. I was wrong. It was here all along and math equations for strong nuclear force or interaction will come. The quest for knowledge of the Strong Nuclear force will embark from the foundations that hydrogen atoms are the most basic and fundamental particle in existence. A neutron is a hydrogen atom inside itself with extra energy. Photons and neutrinos are derivatives of hydrogen atom systems. A muon decays into two neutrinos and a electron meaning that a muon was merely an extra energetic electron. Those two neutrinos were very energetic to take away the 105 MEV by the way. The Strong Nuclear Force now is really protons sharing energetic electrons at a very close range. Thus the nucleus of an atom is sort of like a metallic bond sort of a deal. But what about the size of the electron? Good question. In an atom of helium 4@2 for instance there are two normal electrons around the nucleus of 2 protons and 2 neutrons. Those 2 helium electrons are enormous in space as compared to say the whole of the nucleus. Now let us examine the nucleus of its 2 protons and 2 neutrons. Those 2 neutrons are really 2 Hydrogen Atom Systems HYASYS. Those 2 hyasys have energetic electrons. Now what happened to the sizes of those 2 hyasys electrons, well, it is well known that the fine structure variable varies asymptotically because of distance from bare charge. In this way, the strong nuclear force is merely the energy conversion of a normal electron down to the size of an electron in a nuclear electron. What holds the protons together up to around element 100 (Coulomb repulsion) is the fact that the strong nuclear force or interaction is merely the sharing of tiny nuclear electrons between the protons. When a muon is ever observed it is the emergence for a brief 10^-6 sec of a energetic nuclear electron. There should be some explanation from HYASYS as to why the 105 MEV of the muon, perhaps that is where the asymptotic fine structure constant varies sharply. Should this all be correct, it implies that muons come in a variable MEV and not just a 105.66 MEV Under HYASYS, there really exists only two forces or two interactions and those two are EM and Radioactivity. Radioactivity is equal to weak interaction plus spontaneous neutron materialization (see Dirac's book DIRECTIONS IN PHYSICS) AP Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu ::\ ::|:: /:: ::\::|::/:: _ _ (:Y:) - - ::/::|::\:: ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. . \ . . | . /. . . \. . .|. . /. . ..\....|.../... ::\:::|::/:: --------------- ------------- --------------- (Y) ------------- --------------- -------------- ::/:::|::\:: ../....|...\... . . /. . .|. . \. . . / . . | . \ . http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-13 19:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <820b2ea5-e2f9-44ef-8130-dc4b3f7db452@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #680961 |
#13page #13page Recalling OLD POSTS on HYASYS and RSNM Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 00:38:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: recalling my HYASYS theory of mid1990s because I need it now, more than ever Re: Strong nuclear force explained for the first time From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 08:38:28 +0000 Re: recalling my HYASYS theory of mid1990s because I need it now, more than ever Re: Strong nuclear force explained for the first time Now here is a post on 20SEPT1995 which I think I will use to build back my file on HYASYS. Of course, all those years before 2017, I thought like everyone else that the electron was .5MeV and proton was 938 MeV, and by 2017 the awakening occurred that the Real Electron = 105 MeV with its proton at 840 MeV and that tiny particle of .5MeV was Dirac's magnetic monopole, all along. Much like Christopher Columbus sailing in 1492, thinking he landed in India or China, when in reality, he discovered two new continents. So I need HYASYS theory because the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements has to include Isotopes, because ATOMS are structure that obeys the laws of electricity magnetism and so a Proton at 840 MeV is a structure that is a closed loop wire of 8 muons, and the electron muon is the bar magnet-- or, vice versa, for I may have that turned around backwards. And so we see ATOMS in a whole new, brand new light, as particles that are "doing the Maxwell laws of physics" From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics. electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.particle Subject: All atoms are Hydrogen Atom Systems -> Superposition Principle Date: 20 Sep 1995 00:37:44 GMT Organization: Plutonium College Lines: 45 Message-ID: (43nnoo$elv@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> All atoms are hydrogen atom systems (hasys). By system I mean it is a hydrogen atom + extra energy. When the extra energy term is 0, then it is just a ordinary hydrogen atom. A neutron is a hydrogen atom with extra energy. The Superposition Principle of QM, is merely an equivalent statement to the fact that all matter is the linear equations sums of Hydrogen Atom Systems. Reverse, if all atoms were not the sum total of Hydrogen Atom Systems, eg, 231PU, plutonium is merely 231 Hydrogen Atom Systems, then, physics esq Quantum Physics would have never had a Superposition principle. In other words, I have reduced the Superposition Principle of QM, and the fact that physics is linear, linear, linear partial differential equations, is because all matter, all atoms are built up from one building block Hydrogen Atom Systems. The reason neutrons act as glue for the protons is because the neutron shares that electron inside it with neighboring protons. The nucleus is sort of like a "metallic bond". The Superposition Principle == Hydrogen Atom Systems. Now, the bleeding gutter snipes of physics will be quick to spew "well what about quarks?" And I tell you what is about quarks. Quarks are merely the fact that in math, there exists 3 and only 3 geometries-- Riem, Eucl, and Loba and when you have an entity that is not ever reducible down further, or incapable of being further cut, like a proton, then it reveals all 3 possible geometries simultaneously. Quarks are not physics reality. Quark are merely the statement that a particle like a proton is bundled up into the 3 and only 3 existing geometries simultaneously. So do not bother about the mindrot of quarks when talking about the real physics, that of Hydrogen Atom Systems. And don't drivel about a electron beam or proton beam being protons and electrons in "isolation". That is circus clown physics. The Bell Inequality evinces that proton and electron are always tied or correlated. If Hydrogen Atom Systems is not true, then the Superposition Principle of QM plus the Conservation of Charge plus the Bell Inequality are not true. AP PART 1 of 3 I need my old RSNM theory and HYASYS theory in light of discovery Real Electron=105MeV, Real Proton=840MeV, the .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole Now here is a better copy of my 1993 RSNM theory which I applied a patent for. My purpose in reposting this is because I need both RSNM and HYASYS theories for making out the New Periodic Table of Chemical Elements Newsgroups: sci.physics From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) Subject: Neutron Materialization Devices, Fusion Energy Engineered: a patent Message-ID: (CBxFJ7.1GF@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Date: 17AUG1993, 23:21:06 GMT + Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) Subject: Neutron Materialization Devices; fusion energy engineered, this is a patent Message-ID: (CBxFMx.1Ix@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1993 23:23:20 GMT Lines: 226 + Newsgroups: sci.physics From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) Subject: Re: Neutron Materialization Devices, Fusion Energy Engineered: a patent Message-ID: (CC2Eoq.GCI@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> References: (CBxFJ7.1GF@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 15:50:49 GMT Lines: 348 + Newsgroups: sci.physics From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) Subject: Re: Neutron Materialization Devices, Fusion Energy Engineered: a patent Message-ID: (CC2ErM.GGp@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> References: (CBxFJ7.1GF@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 15:52:33 GMT Lines: 185 + Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) Subject: Re: Neutron Materialization Devices; fusion energy engineered, this is a patent Message-ID: (CC2zDn.EnL@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> References: (CBxFMx.1Ix@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 23:17:44 GMT Lines: 343 + Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) Subject: Re: Neutron Materialization Devices; fusion energy engineered, this is a patent Message-ID: (CC35wI.Hv1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> References: (CBxFMx.1Ix@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1993 01:38:42 GMT Lines: 372 Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) wrote: NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION DEVICES Inventor: Ludwig Plutonium (legal name as of 08/8/91), previous name Ludwig van Ludvig Assignee: none Ser. No.: 07/737,170 Filing Date: 07/29/91 Reformatted filing: 11JUNE1993 Related U.S. Application Data This is a reformatted, revised application of my 07/737,170. References Cited U.S. Patent Documents ?? concerning muon catalyzed fusion, Alvarez et al at Berkeley ?? concerning cold fusion, Pons, Fleischmannn et al Utah U. ?? concerning cold fusion, Hagelstein & MIT 5,076,971 12/1991 W.A. Barker Other Publications 1* FEYNMAN LECTURES ON PHYSICS Volume I page 2-10, 1963 2* Directions in Physics P.A.M. Dirac, 1975 on pages 76-78 3* Cold Nuclear Fusion The electronlike particles called muons can catalyze nuclear fusion reactions, eliminating the need for powerful lasers or high-temperature plasmas. The process may one day become a commercial energy source Scientific American JUL1987 by J. Rafelski and S.E. Jones, pages 84-89. 4* Bursting a Theory on Gamma-Ray Flashes , Science News 28SEP91 page 196. 5* Jumps in Star Speeds Perplex Astronomers , Science Times of THE NEW YORK TIMES 15SEP92, pages C1 and C9.. 6* Cold Fusion -- One Year Later , Energy & Technology Review (E&TR) OCT1990, pages 1-17. 7* Upper bounds on Ícold fusion' in electrolytic cells , Nature 23NOV89 by D.E.Williams et al, pages 375-384. 8* Measurement and Analysis of Neutron and Gamma-Ray Emission Rates, Other Fusion Products, and Power in Electrochemical Cells Having Pd Cathodes, Journal of Fusion Energy Vol. 9, No. 2, 1990 by D. Albagli et al, pages 133-148. 9* Lukewarm reception for Japanese cold fusion , New Scientist 31OCT92, page 10. 10*Mercury the impossible planet? , New Scientist 1June1991 pages 26-29. 11*The Cosmic Synthesis of Lithium, Beryllium and Boron , Scientific American May 1987, by V.E. Viola and G.J. Mathews pages 39-45 12* PHYSICS OF THE ATOM , 1984,Wehr,Richards, Adair page 366 13* The Character of Physical Law Feynman 1965 page 129 14* Quantum Profiles J. Bernstein, 1991. 15* The Dartmouth 11May1993 page 7 discussing which of the Nobel prizes in physics were wrong and which of the Fields prizes were wrong. 16*PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY : THE UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY, BIOLOGY AND MATHEMATICS 7Nov90. 17* Muffling Umklapp; researchers beat the heat using pure ice, Scientific American SEP90 page 169. 18* Growth of large, high quality diamond crystals at General Electric, American Journal of Physics NOV91 page 1005-1007. 19* A denser, more perfect diamond , Science News 2NOV91 page 287. 20* The ace of diamonds packs them in , New Scientist 9NOV91 page 26. 21* McGRAW-HILL ENCYCLOPEDIA of Science & Technology Vol. 10, 7th Ed. 1992 magnetohydrodynamics pages 327-335 22* CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics 71st edition 1991 pages 10-264 to 10-267 ABSTRACT Detailed in the textbook Feynman Lectures on Physics the physics laws for the strong nuclear force were unknown, and radioactivities (weak nuclear) were only partially known. As of 7Nov90, I assert to know the complete law for radioactivities. The 4 quantum interactions (1) nuclear strong (2) radioactivities (3) electromagnetic (4) gravitation, are more fully explained than the present art of physics. There are 3 components to radioactivities, and these are (1) radioactive decay (2) radioactive growth, and (3) radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. Radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization is the largest in terms of relative coupling strength of the three. Processes to induce radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization results in the engineering of devices for the purpose of harnessing excess heat energy. Numerous physical evidences in support of radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization are detailed below such as (a) muon catalyzed fusion, (b) heat from electrochemical cells of cold fusion experiments, and (c) cosmic gamma ray-bursts. Given the fuller explanation of radioactivities, then processes are followed which induces radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. Devices (apparatuses) are engineered to induce radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization for the purpose of harnessing excess heat energy. Devices ranging from battery sized neutron materialization devices, on up to full scale neutron materialization nuclear power plants are engineered. NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION DEVICES BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION These are not perpetual motion devices but rather the derivation and utilization of radioactivities energy not understood before. The first observers of radioactivity circa late 1800's and early 1900's thought that since some of these radioactive elements were hot, e.g., uranium is warm in the hands and polonium will burn a hole through your hands, and continued to glow in the dark, e.g., radium salts glow green in the dark, that this new phenomenon was perpetual motion. Because of these unexplained radiations, the many new observers of radioactivity were quick to think that this new form of energy was perpetual motion, or violated conservation of energy-mass, or violated other physical laws. Only with quantum theory was radioactivity well understood to accord with theory and experimentation, and regarded as one of the 4 interactions (forces) of physics. Note: the concept interaction comes from Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) and is superior to the concept of force from Classical Physics. I mostly use the concept interaction in this application; reason: quantum physics is the correct physics. The discovery of radioactive decay (rd) occurred 1896, when Becquerel discovered radioactivity from uranium. It required 60 years after the discovery of radioactivity before the uses of radioactivity were applied in producing nuclear power. Fission radioactivity was technologically used in the engineering of nuclear reactors which generates nuclear power, post 1956. The discovery of radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization (rsnm) occurred in late 1990 by myself, Ludwig Plutonium (legal name change 08/8/91 from that of Ludwig van Ludvig). Then in early 1991, I discovered what induces rsnm and subsequently submitted this patent application. The technological use of rsnm will be controlled cold fusion energy by the engineering of Neutron Materialization Power Plants. Quantum mechanics via the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (UP), 1927, predicts virtual particles from out of nowhere which last for only a brief period of time. Virtual particles can be electrons, positrons, neutrons, and even molecules, but generally they are not heavier than electrons. Particle detectors, gas bubble chambers, and CERN confirm the postulation of virtual particles. The pinnacle of modern science up to my teachings was Quantum Electrodynamics (QED). According to QED, the vacuum is filled with electron-positron fields. Real electron-positron pairs are created when photons interact with these fields. Virtual electron-positron pairs, however can also exist for short quantum instants of time via UP. In late 1990, I realized that not only do virtual particles exist but that virtual particles were the first clue of particle materialization from out of nowhere and specifically of neutron materialization. The extension of virtual particles to that of actual materialized particles, and specifically to that of neutrons. Neutrons spontaneously materialize from out of nowhere as a form of radioactivity. This radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization (rsnm) is another form of radioactivities which until 1990 was undiscovered, and the ample evidences, (see below), for rsnm were unrecognized as such. I call it radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization, and I assert it is the major component of the radioactivities interaction (R). There are two other components to radioactivites and these are radioactive decay (rd) and radioactive growth (rg). Feynman in FEYNMAN LECTURES ON PHYSICS Volume I page 2-10, 1963 gives the following (my edited) account of the 4 interactions (forces) of physics with a comparison of relative coupling strengths in the table below: "There seem to be just four kinds of interaction between particles which , in the order of decreasing strength, are the strong nuclear interaction, electromagnetic interactions, electroweak interaction, and gravity. The photon is coupled to all electromagnetic interactions and the strength of the interaction is measured by some number which is 1/137. The detailed law of this coupling is known and is quantum electrodynamics QED. Gravity is coupled to all energy and this law is also known. Then there is the electroweak interaction which causes the neutron to disintegrate into proton, electron, and neutrino. This law is only partly known. The strong nuclear interaction, the meson-baryon interaction, has a strength of 1 on this scale and the law is completely unknown, although there are some known rules such as the number of baryons does not change in any reaction. " 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). I change some of Feynman's teachings in the table, giving thus : (A) renaming weak nuclear as radioactivities (R). (B) radioactivities (R) consists of 3 components--(1) radioactive decay (rd), (2) radioactive growth (rg), and (3) radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization (rsnm) (C) R is only slightly weaker than the strong nuclear (SN), and the proper listing of the 4 interactions according to strength is 1) strong nuclear, 2) radioactivities 3) electromagnetic 4) gravitation. Before these teachings, the weak nuclear interaction was considered to consist of only two components, i.e., radioactive decay and radioactive growth. I assert that the weak nuclear interaction is an incomplete interaction law (or force law). What was thought of as the weak nuclear interaction before my teachings is only a small part, a small component of the overall radioactivities interaction. The radioactivities interaction consists of 1) radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization, plus 2) radioactive decay (weak nuclear), plus 3) radioactive growth (weak nuclear). Before my teachings in the art of physics 1990, the weak nuclear was vaguely understood as radioactive decay with only a notion of radioactive growth. And leaving out the most important form of radioactivity, that of radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization in order to make the interaction law or (force law) complete. When rd plus rg is added to rsnm, then I assert the interaction (force) law for radioactivities is complete. Thus the complete radioactivities (R) interaction looks like this: R = rd+rg+rsnm. Let me define rd and rg below. Radioactive growth (rg) is when an atom transmutates (transforms) by increasing in atomic number Z, such as when a uranium atom transmutates to a neptunium atom or when a neptunium atom transmutates to a plutonium atom. Radioactive growth is when the original atom goes higher in atomic number. Radioactive growth is when a neutron in the nucleus of an atom transforms into a proton, electron, and neutrino, increasing the atomic number of the original atom. The original atom before the radioactive growth had atomic number Z and after the radioactive growth has atomic number Z+1. Radioactive decay (rd) is when any atom of an atomic number Z transmutates to an atom/s of lower atomic number. For example, when uranium decays to lead and neon. Before 1990, the weak nuclear interaction was known as comprising only radioactive decay and radioactive growth. Shortly after 07/11/1990, I had postulated radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization (rsnm) from Dirac's book Directions in Physics 1975. Special note to the reader of the future: Although I have recalibrated the calendar giving it a scientific basis by starting the year 0000 with the year of the discovery of the element plutonium via nucleosynthesis, that year was 1940 in the old calendar. I choose not to use the new science calendar within this patent application for it may tend to confuse and put an extra burden on the patent examination. Using a science calendar, then the year of the Plutonium Atom Totality discovery is 0050 vice 1990 and the first year of this patent application for Neutron Materialization Devices was 0051 vice 1991. I apologize to those future generations in having to read the un-science of my generation, but they can well understand that Ludwig Plutonium lived in a time when the average person could not give a single math proof nor write out Maxwell's equations. Future generations can understand that Ludwig Plutonium by 0053 lived when sentiment and religion, vice math and physics dominated the planet Earth. Future generations will convert all the years to this new science calendar. P.A.M. Dirac specifically asserted spontaneous materialization of particles from out of nowhere in his book Directions in Physics 1975 on pages 76-78. His book states, and I quote: "Now, according to the Large Number Hypothesis, all these very large dimensionless numbers should be connected together. We should then expect that total mass /proton mass = 10^78 proportional time^2 Using the same argument again, we are therefore led to think that the total number of protons in the Universe is increasing proportionally to time^2. Thus, there must be creation of matter in the Universe, a continuous creation of matter." (Continued.) "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. (Continued.) If there is new matter continually being created, the question arises: "where is it created?" There are two reasonable assumptions which one might make. One is that the new matter is continually created throughout the whole of space, and in that case, it is mostly created in intergalactic space. I call this the assumption of additive creation. Alternatively, one might make the assumption that new matter is created close by where matter already exists. That newly created matter is of the same atomic nature as the matter already existing there. This would mean that all atoms are just multiplying up. I call that the assumption of multiplicative creation." Dirac in his book discusses particle materialization out of nowhere can occur either additive or multiplicative. Dirac proposed particle materialization. I specifically propose neutron materialization and that this neutron materialization occurs both additive and multiplicative simultaneously. I had surmised from Dirac's book by late1990 that something must induce rsnm, but what the induction was I did not discover until 1991. Shortly thereafter submitting the patent application. Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu ::\ ::|:: /:: ::\::|::/:: _ _ (:Y:) - - ::/::|::\:: ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. . \ . . | . /. . . \. . .|. . /. . ..\....|.../... ::\:::|::/:: --------------- ------------- --------------- (Y) ------------- --------------- -------------- ::/:::|::\:: ../....|...\... . . /. . .|. . \. . . / . . | . \ . http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-15 21:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <53eef1b8-01db-47d0-bbe4-f6626a3e479c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #681003 |
#14page
#14page
Recalling OLD POSTS on HYASYS and RSNM
PART 2 of 3
PHYSICAL EVIDENCES FOR SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION.
(1) MUON CATALYZED FUSION. The conventional physics community is in
agreement over this form of fusion and readily accepts it. It was theoretically
proposed by Frank and Sakharov in the late 1940's. Then Alvarez et al at
Berkeley experimentally observed muon catalyzed fusion. These observations
have now passed into physics facts, unlike electrochemical test tube cold
fusion which is presently hotly contested and not yet established as fact.
Muon catalyzed fusion is the pivotal experiment to my theoretical
understanding of what induces radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization. But where as the physics community thinks that in muon
catalyzed experiments that muatoms of hydrogen isotopes bring about after
several quantum steps the fusing together of atoms of helium, there
theoretical thinking is wrong. What is really going on are several quantum
steps of radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization.
Muon Catalyzed Fusion is physically Muon Induced Radioactive
Spontaneous Neutron Materialization. Instead of requiring a changing electric
potential difference V with a VandeGraaff machine, or running a changing
electric current i through atoms to yield rsnm. It is the muon itself which
already supplies the changing V or the changing i. Changing is important for
the induction of rsnm. As important as in the laws of electromagnetism. For
example, in Faraday's law of induction a changing magnetic field is required.
And in Ampere's law of induction as extended by Maxwell, a changing electric
field or current are required.
Now consider a muon. A muon is just an extended electron, a big electron.
When a muon forms a muatom, the muon in the muatom is its own variable
VandeGraaff machine already within the muatom. Or a muon is a variable
electric current within the muatom. Hence when there are muons in any
particular sample of hydrogen isotopes, some of those muons will induce
spontaneous materialization of neutrons from out of nowhere resulting in a
net energy to the whole system.
(2) Uniform Cosmic Gamma Ray-bursts as reported from data by
NASA's Gamma Ray Observatory. Gamma rays are mostly highly energetic
protons. Gamma Ray-bursts are seen uniformly throughout the sky yet there
are no stellar objects for which these gamma rays can be assigned as the
source having generated the gamma ray. Since no stellar objects produce these
high intensity gamma rays, they are supportive evidence of spontaneously
materialized neutrons which radioactively decay into energetic protons, and
energetic electrons.
Most of the cosmic gamma ray-bursts are of the energy frequency of
hydrogen nuclei. Meaning that in space neutrons are spontaneously materialized
from out of nowhere and then decay into proton, electron, neutrino system
yielding the observed gamma rays. The uniformity of cosmic gamma
ray-bursts is explained because spontaneous neutron materialization is a
uniform process, as uniform as the uniform process of the Cosmic
Background Microwave Radiation. The uniformity explanation entails my
revolutionary theory of the Plutonium Atom Totality. That our observable
universe is just the 94th electron, the last electron of one atom of the
plutonium isotope 231, which acts as a quantum cavity, a quantum blackbody
cavity. Here I can easily get too far afield by explaining why the Cosmic
Background Radiation is relentlessly uniform with a blackbody temperature
of 2.71 K. Why the night sky is dark because it is a quantum blackbody
cavity. Why the speeds of stars are quantized, because the stars are inside
a quantum blackbody cavity-- the last electron of 231Pu. But instead I refer
the interested reader to my textbook, Encl 4.
It is noted here that the uniformity of cosmic gamma ray-bursts were
discovered after I had submitted my patent application in July of 1991. It is
seen that as time goes on, supporting evidence for spontaneous neutron
materialization increases.
(3) The History of Cold Fusion is summarized as such: F. Paneth and
K. Peters in Berlin in 1926; J. Tanberg of Sweden 1927; M. Fleischmann and
S. Pons et al in Utah in 1989. But what I have new to tell the world is that it is
not a fusion process. It is radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization.
Noone before me in the history of the world has ever proposed that neutrons
come into existence spontaneously, induced through a changing electric
current i or induced by a changing electric potential V. Previous to my art, the
cold fusion experiments were conducted under false theory, hence their
experiments turned out unpredictable.
The History of Electrochemical Cold Fusion is one in which none of the
pioneers realized the correct theory-- that neutrons spontaneously
materialize, and materialize more often when induced by means of a changing
electric current i or a changing electric potential V. I claim to know better how
both electrochemical cold fusion and hot fusion work.
Cold Fusion, test tube experiments were reported by Fleischmann & Pons
et al, 1989. The current community of physics professors are mostly virulently
opposed to the claims of cold fusion. That community holds little credence in
cold fusion. But it is a fact that there are many corporate funded research
programs ongoing into cold fusion, to name a few, GE fusion research, NTT
researchers, and Fleischmann & Pons laboratory in France.
I contend the better part of wisdom would hold that there is something
going on in these electrochemical cold fusion experiments. That there is
something going on in these experiments of cold fusion is what I assert is
rsnm. And if the experimenters would switch fuel masses from heavy water
and palladium to that of a better fuel mass of hydrogen or a mixture of
hydrogen isotopes applying either changing i or changing V, then rsnm will be
seen with predictable results.
I assert that if these experiments are conducted with the view of
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization, and not a process of fusing
atoms, not fusion. Then the experiments will become clear and the results
predictable.
(snipped)
(4) The origin of the Sun and the planets in our Solar System, I assert, is
by radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. Earth is growing more
massive every day, every hour, at a rate which is not difficult to measure. The
physics and astronomy community assigns this known fact of the growing
accretion of the Earth to only one account, that of the sweep of Earth in its
orbit collecting cosmic gas, dust, and objects. I assert that Earth is growing
more massive daily by two accounts, one from the outer space planetary
sweep, but more importantly from the other account of rsnm occurring in the
interior of Earth induced through the changing electric current i and changing
electric potential V inside Earth. When astronomers try to reconcile the
account figure for Earth's daily mass accretion from cosmic sweep alone, it
is not enough. I assert that the daily mass accretion by Earth is equal to the
Earth's accretion from outer space plus Earth's internal accretion by rsnm.
The outer space accretion is small in comparison to the internal accretion.
Sea floor spreading, continental drift are a consequence of radioactive
spontaneous neutron materialization in the Earth's center. The Earth of the
past was a smaller planet explaining well Wegener's Gondwanaland and
Continental Drift theory.
The current conventional community of astronomers and physicists
subscribe to some cosmic gaseous cloud approximately 5-10 billion years ago
from which the protosun and protoearth formed. This is what conventional
astronomy panders off.
The present physics community believes that the daily mass accretion of
the Earth must all come from the cosmic sweep of gas, dust, and objects. It is
so sad that physics and astronomy subscribe so much to interstellar gas. They
go even further by subscribing importance to intergalactic gas. They wish to
explain the origin of our Sun and our planets to a primordial gas cloud. It is so
sad that modern physics has reached the heights of quantum theory, and yet
the accepted explanation to such important questions as the origin of planets
and the origin of the stars is still back in the caveman-realm-of-thought of
dust and gas clouds. Readers must ask themselves whether gas clouds should
be a reasonable science explanation for much in physics and astronomy. Cosmic
gas cloud hypothesis is highly suspect.
The real truth I posit for the origin of planets and stars, and again I am
ahead of my time, is that the Sun is a dot of the Schroedinger wave equation.
A dot of the probability density distribution, a dot of the electron cloud for the
94th electron of the 231 Plutonium Atom Totality. Dots of the electron cloud
are loci where large quantity of radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization
occur. Protosun and Protoearth started out as a dot of the Schroedinger wave
equation,i.e., a collection of atoms, which grew via rsnm to our presently
observed Sun and planet Earth. This again leads into my revolutionary theory of
the Plutonium Atom Totality, and I will not stray afield here but refer the
interested reader to my enclosed textbook for more understanding.
(5) The anomalous facts concerning the planet Mercury. The planet
Mercury has 2 outstanding anomalous facts: 1) huge iron core and 2) a
magnetic field. Conventional physics and astronomy are dumbfounded in
explaining these two facts. But an easy and clear explanation is rsnm. The
planet Mercury as all planets are dots of the electron cloud of the 94th
electron of plutonium. Dots of the Schroedinger wave equation is where
electromagnetic potential and current exists, and wherever it exists there
occurs rsnm.
(6) The case of the light chemical elements emitted from the middle of
the planet Earth, e.g., helium, lithium are inexplicable by science previous to
1990, in that these elements should have escaped a long time ago, yet they
continue to spew forth in steady amount. The community of physicists and
geologists have no explanation. I have the explanation with radioactive
spontaneous neutron materialization, since rsnm makes neutrons which some
decay into hydrogen and rsnm takes some hydrogen and forms helium and
with helium rsnm sometimes forms lithium. So there is a continual production
and escape of newly formed light elements from the middle of the Earth.
(7) The case for the light chemical elements and their anomalous quantity
found in stars. The light elements of lithium, beryllium, and boron are found in
too large of a proportion in stars to be accountable by fusion. For stars are so
hot that these light elements would have been burned-off and the theoretical
rate of creation by hot fusion of new lithium, beryllium, and boron are too low
to what is actually observed. Here again is another disagreement of hot fusion
theory with respect to the observables, i.e., more lithium, beryllium, and boron
in stars than what there should be. And yet there are not enough light
elements in the intergalactic regions of space. In summary, where the light
elements are found in abundance-- hot stars they should not be there, and
where they are not found in abundance-- intergalactic space, there should be
more of them there.
The explanation for these anomalous facts is easy once radioactive
spontaneous neutron materialization is seen as the active working process.
In intergalactic space there is little to no changing electric potential V or
changing current flow i, and so there is little neutron materialization to form
these light elements. But in stars, it is not so much that they are hot and
burn off the light elements but that stars continually create via neutron
materialization these light elements because of the highly changing V and i of
star plasmas.
(8) The cosmic abundance elements, and the uniform distribution of the
chemical elements in the observable universe in the proportions that they are
observed is strong evidence in support for the process of radioactive
spontaneous neutron materialization. Again the physics community explains
the uniformity due to gaseous intergalactic clouds as a result of supernovae.
But supernova are rare events.
(9) The observation that when electric current i flowing through wires
or through a light bulb filament or incandescent lamps are hot and eventually
the wires or filaments or other parts wear-out due to the high temperatures.
Those high temperatures are a result of radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization when i varies. And before these teachings, it was inexplicable
as to how atoms of zinc Z=30 contaminated copper Z=29 wire, or atoms of
rhenium Z=75 contaminated light bulb filaments or heating coils made of
tungsten Z=74 in these materials after running electric current in the
materials. With rsnm it is a direct consequence that a copper wire will have
atoms of zinc, and a tungsten filament or heater will have atoms of rhenium
after running a changing electric current i through, because there is
radioactive growth of some of the original atoms because of rsnm. Check
chemical analysis of spent electric wires and filaments by General Electric,
Philips, Siemens, et al.
(10) Although the missing 2/3 count of neutrinos from the Sun is not
direct evidence of spontaneous neutron materialization, it is direct evidence
that the currently accepted theory of hot fusion is incorrect. Why is there a
missing 2/3 count? I contend that there is not a missing count of neutrinos.
The mistake the physics community makes is that the 4 forces are misapplied
in the theory. That when strong nuclear and gravity are considered to the 100%
exclusion of radioactivities and electromagnetism then the measured neutrino
count accords with theory. Vice versa, if radioactivities and electromagnetism
are considered to the 100% exclusion of strong nuclear and gravity, then the
actual measured neutrino count accords with theory. The 2/3 missing neutrino
count from the Sun is indirect support for spontaneous neutron materialization
since the neutrino count of the Sun puts the Sun and all stars, all plasma
physics into quantum physics. The 4 interactions (forces) of physics have to be
treated as 2 groups of 2 interactions as quantum complementary duals. The
Complementary Principle states: The wave and the particle aspects of a
quantum entity are both necessary for a complete description. However, both
aspects cannot be revealed simultaneously in a single experiment. The aspect
that is revealed is determined by the nature of the experiment being done.
The 1/3 actual count of neutrinos from the Sun accords well with theory once
the theory makes predictions from the use of either SN and G, excluding R and
EM, and vice versa.
Consider hot fusion of the Sun. And consider the neutrinos coming from
the Sun. What is the nature of the neutrinos emitted through hot fusion from
the Sun? What is the nature of hot fusion? Is hot fusion partially that of strong
nuclear force, radioactivities force, electromagnetic force, and the force of
gravity all at once? Or is hot fusion only the strong nuclear and gravity forces
to the exclusion of the radioactive and electromagnetic forces? If one sets-up
experimental apparatuses which measure neutrinos emitted from the Sun via
the strong nuclear and gravity forces to the exclusion of radioactivities and
electromagnetic forces, then that count will by different from the count
theorized when all 4 forces are considered at once.
(11) Patent 5,076,971 W.A. Barker 12/1991 Method for Enhancing
Alpha Decay in Radioactive Materials . This method is true in practice but the
theory outlined by W.A. Barker is false. The true theory behind this invention
is spontaneous neutron materialization which transmutates some of the
original atoms into other radioactive atoms which then decay more quickly
then what the original atom was, decay into stable atoms. W.A. Barker is
wrong when he asserts that rates of radioactive decay are mutable and
can be enhanced, and a better term other than enhancing is alteration.
Alteration of some of the original atoms in a sample. An elementary
physics text will confirm with me that rates of radioactive decay are
immutable: PHYSICS OF THE ATOM , 1984,Wehr, Richards, Adair on page
366 states
"In showing that radioactive radiations came from uranium metal, Becquerel
worked with many uranium salts and the metal itself. He used these materials
crystallized, cast, and in solution. In every case it appeared that the radiations
were proportional to the concentration of the uranium. It has been found that
this proportionality between radiation intensity and uranium concentration
continues unchanged through variations of temperature, electric and magnetic
fields, pressure, and chemical composition. Since the radioactive behavior of
uranium is independent of the environment of the uranium atom or its
electronic structure, which changes from compound to compound, the
radioactive properties of uranium were attributed to its nucleus."
(snip)
Dirac would agree from his book Directions in Physics that
spontaneous neutron materialization is a direct violation of the
conservation of energy-mass. But conservation violation is nothing new,
for example: (i) It was experimentally shown that the conservation of
parity was violated in 1956 by Lee and Yang. (ii) And later it was
experimentally shown that charge conjugation multiply parity (CP) were
not conserved. See 1964 Cronin and Fitch. (iii) It is now thus
inferred by assuming if time reversal multiply charge conjugation multiply
parity (TCP) is a good symmetry, that time reversal symmetry is violated.
The conservation of time reversal symmetry means that if time could run
backwards, would it be acceptable to the laws of physics?
My textbook and this patent application both assert that the
conservation of energy-mass is continually violated by the universe at
large. The universe at large has to grow somehow? The present
community of physics professors believe the most likely scenario of
growth is the Big Bang model of the universe. I say that model is wrong.
The observable universe, what we think of as the universe at large, is
only the last electron of one atom of plutonium. The planet Earth is inside
a Plutonium Atom Totality, a part of the 94th electron cavity. The
Plutonium Atom Totality grows by radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization.
(snipped)
My textbook PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY : THE UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS,
CHEMISTRY, BIOLOGY AND MATHEMATICS 7Nov90, gives broader discussion of
radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization and quantum principles which
are broadly relevant to this patent application. My textbook asserts a
combined generalization of the uncertainty principle, complementary principle,
exclusion principle, and superposition principle in which it formulates
spontaneous materialization of neutrons out of nowhere occurs throughout
the observable universe both additive and multiplicative simultaneously. I
bring-up my textbook because the idea and theory of radioactive neutron
materialization was discovered by me during the course of writing this
textbook in 1990. This patent application is a direct result of my
theoretical physics thinking about the Plutonium Atom Totality. If it were not
for this discovery of the atom totality, and the textbook I would have never
discovered radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization.
What technical difficulties are there in rsnm devices?
1) It is very difficult to measure the exact count of a specific number
of atoms. And extremely difficult to measure the specific count of neutrons
of those counted atoms. Measuring exact counts of atoms and the neutrons
of those atoms before running a changing electric current i or changing
electromagnetic potential V through those atoms and checking the count
afterwards is extremely difficult and never exact.
2) It is extremely difficult, and perhaps theoretically impossible to
manufacture a slab of a 100% isotope of an element, whether stable or
radioactive, and in the case of hydrogen gas a container of pure hydrogen.
It seems as if there is always contamination by other isotopes. This
contamination is in fact support of my claim of radioactive spontaneous
neutron materialization. That rsnm results in all samples as being impure
and never reaching 100% purity. See reports on GE striving to manufacture
a 100% pure carbon isotope diamond. In theory, I assert the impossibility
of ever achieving 100% purity is another formulation of the Uncertainty
Principle of quantum physics.
3) The best fuels for Neutron Materialization Power Plants are hydrogen
isotopes, but hydrogen isotopes are very explosive and dangerous to work
around when running either a changing electric current i or a changing
electromagnetic potential V through.
Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu
::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ . . | . /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
--------------- -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
--------------- --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / . . | . \ .
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-16 00:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <38331058-129a-4418-82bb-e8b39d3fca41@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #681188 |
#15page
#15page
Recalling OLD POSTS on HYASYS and RSNM
PART 3 of 3
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
There are 4 and only 4 interactions. These are (1) Strong Nuclear (SN)
(2) Gravitation (G) (3) Radioactivities (R), and (4) Electromagnetism (EM).
There are 4 and only 4 quantum principles. These are (1) Uncertainty
(UP) (2) Complementary (CP) (3) Superposition (SP), and (4) Pauli (PP).
The Complementary Principle states: The wave and the particle aspects
of a quantum entity are both necessary for a complete description. However,
both aspects cannot be revealed simultaneously in a single experiment. The
aspect that is revealed is determined by the nature of the experiment being
done.
By the fact of CP there exists at least 1 group of complementary duals.
This 1 group consists of particle and wave. Where particle + wave = the whole
description. I propose other groups of CP.
Taking the 4 interactions as 2 groups of complementary duals. Then one
group is Strong Nuclear and Gravity, represented as SN+G = whole description.
The other group is Radioactivities (R) and Electromagnetism (EM), represented
as R+EM = whole description.
Applying CP to starpower. Starpower is physically measurable as either
SN+G with never any R nor ever any EM. Or, starpower is physically measurable
as either R+EM with never any SN nor ever any G.
Thinking quantumwise, hot fusion of our Sun is a measurement from
experimental set-ups for SN+G, and excluding all of R+EM. But our Sun can be
measured as a huge radioactivities pile R along with electromagnetism EM,
written as R+EM for a complete description. This complete description of
R+EM must exclude all of SN+G.
According to CP since SN+G = whole description, and R+EM = whole
description. Then the relative coupling strengths of the 4 interactions
has the mathematical equivalence as thus SN+G=R+EM.
The relative coupling strength of SN is highest and if assigned the
value 1 then gravity is experimentally measured at 10^-40 . But,
1 + 10^-40 is for all practical purposes still 1. The fact that SN+G ~1
implies that since SN+G=R+EM, then R+EM ~1.
Since EM has a relative coupling strength to SN of .01, implies that R is
.99. For all practical purposes then, R almost equals SN.
But according to Feynman's Table of 1963, the weak nuclear
(radioactive decay) has a relative coupling strength of 10-5. Since relative
coupling strength for radioactive growth is even less than radioactive decay
implies that there must exist another form of radioactivities other than rd
and rg to complete the interaction law. Since in hot fusion processes of
SN+G, hydrogen is transmutated into helium. And hydrogen which has only
1 proton and 1 electron (essentially a 1 neutron system) transmutated into
helium containing 2 protons, 2 neutrons, and 2 electrons (essentially a 4
neutron system). Then the form of radioactivities which completes the
radioactivities interaction (R) is radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization (rsnm). In the case of hydrogen transmutation to helium,
there are 3 neutrons spontaneously materialized with one of those neutrons
decaying, subsequent proton capture, electron capture. So, rsnm has the
relative coupling strength of nearly .99, almost the same as SN at 1.
I give Feynman's 1963 Table with my 1991 reinterpretation considering
quantum principles applied to the 4 interactions:
New Table for Elementary Interactions
Coupling Strength Law
Photon to charged particles ~ .01 Law known
Gravity to all energy ~ 10^-40 Law known
radioactivities rsnm+rd+rg ~ .99 Law known
Mesons to baryons ~ 1 Law still unknown but more rules known
Compare my table with that of Feynman's Table given above. The
largest change is in the category of radioactivity. Feynman's of 1963
is this: radioactive decay ~10 ^-5 Law partially known .
What I assert as new to the art of physics is that I drastically change
Feynman's Table as given in 1963 and accepted all the way up to 1991. I
change the art of physics through the application of quantum principles.
An atom can act either energylike or timelike, and it exists in a
probabilistic quantum state until a measurement is made. If energylike
property is measured, the atom behaves like energy, and if a timelike
property is measured, the atom behaves like time. Whether the atom is
energylike or timelike is not well defined until the experimental conditions
are specified. Bohr asserted that the set-up of a device determines what
is measured. To measure mostly one of two noncommutative properties
then the device must be so set-up such that "an influence on the very
conditions which define the possible types of predictions regarding the
future behavior of the system." Rewording Bohr's thought to radioactive
spontaneous neutron materialization devices is: to measure mostly rsnm
instead of electromagnetism requires the set-up of devices in which rsnm
prevails over electromagnetism.
The relative coupling strength of SN compared to EM is about 100 to 1.
This implies that the relative coupling strength of SN compared to R is about
100 to 99. The periodic chart of chemical elements is evidence in agreement
with these numbers. Element 100 is at the limit of statistical half-life to
Spontaneous Fission stability since that is the relative coupling strength of
SN to EM. Spontaneous Fission half-life instability rapidly increases with
atomic number Z=99, element 99, implying that SN is balanced by R+EM
when Z=100.
Dirac proposed particle materialization in his book Directions in Physics.
Specifically I propose neutron materialization and that this neutron
materialization occurs both additive and multiplicative simultaneously.
Neutron materialization occurs most often in stars in their hydrogen plasmas.
Stars are magnetohydrodynamic plasmas obeying laws of electromagnetism.
I refer the reader to magnetohydrodynamics, McGRAW-HILL ENCYCLOPEDIA
of Science & Technology Vol. 10, 7th Ed. 1992 magnetohydrodynamics pages
327-335.
I assert that a star in magnetohydrodynamics is radioactivities and
electromagnetism. Hot fusion is looking at a star as predominantly SN with
the quantum complementary dual of G. When a physicist wants to measure
the dynamics of starpower with what is known as hot fusion, then the
physicist must consider only the complementary duals of SN+G to the
100% exclusion of R+EM. But if the same physicist wanted to measure the
dynamics of starpower using R+EM, then he must exclude 100% all
interactions of both SN and G. Before 1991 a physicist trying to explain
stellar dynamics by using strong nuclear and gravity and then mixing in the
weak nuclear force and electromagnetic force was wrong. Stellar dynamics
using only strong nuclear and gravitation is correct once all radioactivities
and electromagnetism are excluded. The strong nuclear force is the main
component of hot fusion. Hot fusion is described for the Sun where P is a
proton, E an electron, N a neutron. The reaction in the Sun is
P+ (P+ E- + antineutrino) into PN
PN + P into
PNP+ gamma ray
PNP+ PNP into
NPNP+ P+ P + energy
But what I am teaching and this is new to the art, is that a star is
measurable quantum mechanically by the complementary duals of
radioactivities and electromagnetism. Stellar dynamics using only
radioactivities and electromagnetism is correct once all strong nuclear
and gravity are excluded. Our Sun then is seen as a radioactive pile with
electromagnetism going on. Within this scheme then magnetohydrodynamics
plasma fields come into the calculations. The Sun and stars are no longer
seen as hot fusion spheres but instead radioactive spheres. Where rsnm
is the main activity. This activity is described for the Sun where P is a
proton, E an electron, N an already existing neutron, N* a spontaneous
materialized neutron. The reaction in the Sun is
P into PN*+ energy then
PN into PNN*+ energy then
PNN* into PNP+ gamma ray
PNP into
N*PNP+ energy
What induces radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization? Since
radioactivities is the quantum complementary dual to the electromagnetic,
then induction for rsnm is to run either a changing electric current i or a
changing electric potential difference V through a fuel mass. Any fuel
mass will work but some are better than others. The best fuel mass are
hydrogen and isotopes of hydrogen. The second best fuel mass are the
radioactive isotopes.
Here is a list of some possible fuel mass elements for radioactive
spontaneous neutron materialization. The following data are the electron
binding energies for several elements where the units are electron volts.
The source of this information is CRC Handbook of Chemistry and
Physics 71st edition 1991 pages 10-264 to 10-267:
Hydrogen (1) K 1s 16.0
Helium (2) K 1s 24.6
Oxygen (8) LI 2s 41.6
Argon (18) MIII 3p3/2 15.7
Iron (26) MIII 3p3/2 52.7
Zinc (30) MV 3d5/2 10.1
Krypton (36) NIII 4p3/2 14.1
Rubidium (37) NIII 4p3/2 15.3
Palladium (46) NIII 4p3/2 50.9
Silver (47) NIII 4p3/2 58.3
Cadmium (48) NV 4d5/2 10.7
Xenon (54) OIII 5p3/2 12.1
Cesium (55) OIII 5p3/2 12.1
Barium (56) OIII 5p3/2 14.8
Gold (79) OIII 5p3/2 57.2
Mercury (80) OV 5d5/2 7.8
Thallium (81) OV 5d5/2 12.5
Francium (87) PIII 6p3/2 15
Actinium (89) PIII 6p3/2 ?
Thorium (90) PIII 6p3/2 16.6
Protoactinium (91) PIII 6p3/2 ?
Uranium (92) PIII 6p3/2 16.8
The element mercury, since the binding energy for its last electron is so
low at 7.8 entails that mercury is a better fuel mass for electrochemical
cold fusion cells, vice heavy water.
Like a double-slit Uncertainty Principle experiment, if i or V were known
with 100% accuracy then rsnm would be 0%. In the language of quantum
physics, when the current or potential is fixed then the wavefunction is
collapsed. But when the current i or potential V are variable then the
wavefunction is not collapsed, permitting rsnm to materialize. Thus the
i and V must be variable. On a macroscopic level the answer to how to
induce rsnm is to run a variable i or variable V on a fuel mass such as
hydrogen.
On a microscopic level the answer on how to induce rsnm is that it occurs
most frequently when an additional electron, one more than the number of
protons in the nucleus of that particular atom results. Microscopically, where
rsnm occurs and what induces it is an atom which is topheavy with an additional
electron beyond its chemical element number of electrons, thus exciting the
materialization of a neutron from out of nowhere. For example, a hydrogen
atom has only 1 electron and 1 proton, but for an instant-of-quantum-time a
hydrogen atom can have 2 electrons and 1 proton. Or in the case of a plutonium
atom with 94 electrons and 94 protons, it can for an instant-of-quantum-time
have 95 electrons, but still have only 94 protons and remain still a plutonium
atom. A hydrogen atom with 1 electron and 1 proton, if when another electron
is added to the hydrogen atom system then for that instant-of-quantum-time
this hydrogen atom consists of 2 electrons and 1 proton. The additional
electron quantum mechanically induces rsnm in the nucleus. Subsequently,
this neutron, having materialized, can either stay as a neutron in the original
atom system, or radioactively decay into a proton, electron, and neutrino.
If the materialized neutron remains in the nucleus of the original atom system
of hydrogen, then that hydrogen atom can transform into a helium atom plus
energy subsequent to the materialization of two more neutrons.
The most apparent electron quantum induction for rsnm are star plasmas.
The stars and Sun via plasma matter are vast electron inducers which quantum
mechanically excite, induce rsnm. Our Sun is a device which has both a large
changing electron current i flow and a large changing electric potential V, by
the fact that it is mostly all hydrogen plasma.
Before my teachings the Sun was seen as a large hot fusion device
wherein the theory of hot fusion did not accord with the experimental
observations for the process, e.g., the missing neutrino count. With my
teachings the Sun is seen as a radioactive pile with electromagnetic plasma
and there is no missing neutrino count once the correct theory is matched
with the observations. The 2/3 missing neutrino count was a result of
matching an incorrect theory to the observation.
I assert that when the electrons of an atom are electrically excited by
adding more electrons to the atom such as in a plasma state of matter in
stars, then rsnm occurs. Once a neutron is materialized, it either decays into
a hydrogen atom plus energy or if it materialized inside the nucleus of a
preexisting atom transforming that atom into a different atom or a different
isotope. Any chemical element/s, compounds, or molecules can be quantum
mechanically induced into rsnm. However, hydrogen and hydrogen isotopes are
the best fuels for induction to rsnm, for reason of its 1 electron subshell can
easily accommodate an additional electron and still remain a hydrogen atom,
having 1 proton but 2 electrons. This additional electron induces the atom into
rsnm.
In general, the radioactive elements/isotopes will quantum induce rsnm
faster than nonradioactive elements/isotopes. The reason for this is that
since radioactivities is the complementary dual to electromagnetism that
a prevalence of electrons occurs via radioactive electron decay emission.
Commonly known as beta decay. A sample of radioactive elements emit
their own electrons which can result in electron capture by some of the
atoms in the sample, consequently there is an atom which for a short
quantum time has Z+1 electrons yet a Z number of protons. The rate of
occurrence of rsnm for radioactive elements is governed by half-life
radioactive decay and is based on the formula for radioactive rate of
decay exp-lt. Using Dirac's rate of materialization as time squared
t^2, and substituting t^2 into the radioactive growth and radioactive
decay rate formula results in a normal Gaussian distribution curve.
Thus my invention consists of processes for inducing radioactive
spontaneous neutron materialization, and the devices or apparatuses
engineered for the purpose of deriving energy from rsnm. These devices can
range from the small size such as batteries, a collection of batteries, or test
tube equipment in a science laboratory, such as electrochemical cells, on up to
devices the size of a nuclear power plant. Such a neutron materialization
nuclear power plant will be of a much simpler design over previous fission
reactor power plants or hot fusion reactors since the energy output is not
dependent on fissionable or fusionable products, rather on neutron
materialization. The fuel mass of neutron materialization devices will last
much longer as a fuel since the choice of a fuel can be any chemical
element/s, compounds, or molecules, radioactive or not. A neutron
materialization nuclear power plant can use a nonradioactive element fuel
mass such as iron or hydrogen and thus safer and cleaner. Or a neutron
materialization nuclear power plant can use a less dangerous radioactive
isotope of thorium, uranium, or plutonium for the fuel mass. The fuel mass
will have a changing electric current i flowing, or a changing electric potential
V through it. The best chemical elements to use are hydrogen, and hydrogen
isotopes and the radioactive elements such as plutonium, uranium, thorium,
and californium. Any chemical element/s, compounds, or molecules can
act as a fuel mass. Once a fuel is placed in the containment vessel, a changing
electric current i is run through the fuel mass, or a changing electric potential
V goes through the fuel. The containment vessel is surrounded by a substance
such as water or some other substance which captures the most amount of
heat from radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization.
These nuclear devices are an exploitation of excess heat from rsnm, a
confirmation of quantum mechanical principles of uncertainty and
complementary, but a violation of the conservation of energy-mass. All such
devices constructed will confirm excess heat produced from the
materialization of neutrons out of nowhere and thus will show the violation
of energy-mass conservation.
The changing i or changing V through the fuel mass will induce rsnm
resulting in a net increase in total energy of the isolated system. The
changing i or changing V will cause induction of rsnm resulting in net
increase in total energy going out which will be observable and measurable
as excess heat. The excess heat can then be converted to other usable
forms of energy such as electricity.
I assert that spontaneous neutron materialization is going on all around
us, in stars, in the Earth. Where ever there is the strong nuclear-gravitation
interaction, there is the radioactivities-electromagnetism interaction. The one
group of SN+G is interchangeable and superpositioned with the other group
R+EM. So, what we generally attribute to the forces of the strong
nuclear-gravitation is replaceable or superposed by the
radioactivities-electromagnetism. Before these teachings, a physicist would
look at the Sun and say the Sun is a hot fusion device (strong nuclear force
is the fusing with consequent energy emission) where gravity is pulling in
hydrogen atoms and then fusing hydrogen atoms to make helium atoms with
a resultant energy. I would transpose that idea and say that the Sun is a
radioactivities device (mostly rsnm) where the Sun's matter is in the form of
plasma, and thus the Sun is a large electromagnetic device also with changing
current flow and changing electric potential and so neutrons spontaneously
materialize most of which transmutate into new hydrogen atoms via
radioactive decay, but some hydrogen atoms materializing neutrons inside
their nucleus transmutating into new helium atoms and giving-up excess
energy.
I see the Sun as two pictures in which both are the same only looking at
them from different quantum duals. The one is hot fusion of hydrogen into
helium in the Sun made possible by the gravitational force with strong force.
This is our current conventional view and it is correct if and only if
radioactivities plus electromagnetism were 100% excluded. The other is the
radioactivities and electromagnetism interaction where the Sun is a large
collection of hydrogen atoms where spontaneous neutron materialization
occurs frequently within these hydrogen atoms, transmutating hydrogen into
helium heating the solar system.
The foregoing detailed description of the invention has been presented
for the purposes of illustration and description. It is not intended to be
exhaustive or to limit the invention to the precise form disclosed. Many
modifications and variations are possible in light of the above teaching. It is
intended that the scope of the invention be limited not by this detailed
description, but rather by the claims appended hereto.
My invention covers more than just the precise thing described. It is a
broad theory, and any device that is within the language of the claims is to be
within the coverage of the patent. This is to prevent others from pointing to
specific examples and arguing that the patent is limited to these.
PRIOR DEVICES
None known which are engineered for the purpose of deriving and utilizing
net excess energy from radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization.
Noone has applied the correct theory to either hot fusion energy nor cold
fusion energy. Noone before me has propounded the process of radioactive
spontaneous neutron materialization. And noone before me has had the idea
that running a changing electric current i or an changing electric potential
difference V through a fuel mass, especially hydrogen, hydrogen isotopes or
the radioactive elements such as thorium, protoactinium, uranium, plutonium,
californium will result in a net excess of energy. Net energy in the case of
hydrogen, or hydrogen isotopes not from the chemistry of hydrogen but from
nuclear neutron materialization. And net energy in the case for radioactive
elements, not from the emission products of radioactive decay but from a
new kind of radioactivity-- spontaneous neutron materialization out of
nowhere.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
Radioactivities interaction is comprised of three components-- (1)
radioactive decay (rd) plus (2) radioactive growth (rg) plus (3) radioactive
spontaneous neutron materialization (rsnm). Of these three, rsnm is the
strongest in terms of relative coupling strength.
The electromagnetic interaction is a quantum complementary dual to
the radioactivities interaction. Thus a variable flow of electric current i or a
variable electric potential V through any fuel mass will induce the
materialization of neutrons from out of nowhere and that devises can be
set-up, engineered, and constructed to utilize the energy of neutron
materialization.
CLAIM FOR THE INVENTION
I claim:
1. Devices constructed, engineered, and set-up for the purpose of
deriving, and using net energy from radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization.
2. A method for induction of radioactive spontaneous neutron
materialization comprising:
a changing electric current i flow through the fuel mass
a changing electric potential difference V through the fuel mass.
Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu
::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ . . | . /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
--------------- -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
--------------- --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / . . | . \ .
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-16 11:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <21495cda-7415-4187-b040-2a55d3626784@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #681216 |
#16page #16page Recalling OLD POSTS on HYASYS and RSNM Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 17:38:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: three more history posts of mine needed Re: I need my old RSNM theory and HYASYS theory in light of discovery Real Electron=105MeV From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 01:38:49 +0000 three more history posts of mine needed Re: I need my old RSNM theory and HYASYS theory in light of discovery Real Electron=105MeV AP writes in 2018: below are three more important history posts of mine dealing with both Hydrogen Atom Systems HYASYS and that of RSMM, (called RSNM back then) I need these for history sake in light of the magnificent discovery in 2017 that the Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton=840MeV and the .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole. The below contain mistakes, but the value of HYASYS and RSMM overshadows any mistakes on my part. Newsgroups: sci.chem From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) Subject: ELEMENT 0, THE NEUTRON Message-ID: (CEK6DE.CBx@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1993 03:15:11 GMT Lines: 22 What I especially want to emphasize are any superlatives of the elements, i.e. , the chemical properties and the nuclear properties which each element has which are unique, aside from the fact of the uniqueness of atomic number. Please point out any superlatives which I have overlooked. If there are mistakes in these descriptions please notify me of the mistakes. Element 0, neutron, Xyz, is a subatomic particle which has an overall neutral charge, a 0 charge, but has an internal distribution of charge as revealed through scattering experiments. Neutrons are small magnets allowing for the production of beams of neutrons. Neutrons are indispensable in the building-up of the elements for it is impossible for 2 or more protons to exist in a stable condition in a nucleus (distance range of about 10^-13 cm) without neutrons. The neutron has spin of +1/2 in terms of h/(2pi), and so acts as a fermion. The neutron with atomic mass of 1.008665 has slightly more mass than a hydrogen atom at 1.00794. Of all the atoms, only the hydrogen atom has no neutron. A neutron by itself is very unstable and it quickly radioactively decays into a hydrogen atom system of proton plus electron. The half-life of a neutron is 10.61+ 0.16 minutes, and it radioactively decays into a hydrogen atom. In the free state, neutrons are important as a propagating agent for fission chain reactions. From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.math Subject: Dirk Horst thinks the universe is unbalanced in electric charge Date: 19 Sep 1995 01:31:41 GMT Organization: Plutonium College Lines: 20 Message-ID: (43l6ht$l7n@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> In article (43i9iu$5mf@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> dhorst@ix.netcom.com (Dirk Horst ) writes: > A free neutron decays into a proton and an electron. This is not the > same thing as a Hydrogen atom. A Hydrogen atom is a proton that has an > electron ORBITING it. I doubt that very many free neutron decay events > have the result of forming a hydrogen atom. The proton and electron > are far more likely to "go their own way". If I am wrong on this, I'd > like to hear your sources. I am looking through Feynman or other sources. But, it is my intuition that in a neutron decay, the universe is balanced in charge by seeing quantum physics wise that the neutron was a hydrogen atom inside it. No matter, how separate or which directions the neutron decay must be a hydrogen atom system. In fact, all atoms are simply composed of hydrogen atoms plus added energy. Thus, 231PU is just 231 hydrogen atoms plus energy. Such a conception of all atoms violates no quantum mechanics rules or principles. But the opposite conception implies "free" charge which does violate QM. From: Archimedes.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics. electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.particle Subject: All atoms are Hydrogen Atom Systems -> Superposition Principle Date: 20 Sep 1995 00:37:44 GMT Organization: Plutonium College Lines: 45 Message-ID: (43nnoo$elv@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> All atoms are hydrogen atom systems (hasys). By system I mean it is a hydrogen atom + extra energy. When the extra energy term is 0, then it is just a ordinary hydrogen atom. A neutron is a hydrogen atom with extra energy. The Superposition Principle of QM, is merely an equivalent statement to the fact that all matter is the linear equations sums of Hydrogen Atom Systems. Reverse, if all atoms were not the sum total of Hydrogen Atom Systems, eg, 231PU, plutonium is merely 231 Hydrogen Atom Systems, then, physics esq Quantum Physics would have never had a Superposition principle. In other words, I have reduced the Superposition Principle of QM, and the fact that physics is linear, linear, linear partial differential equations, is because all matter, all atoms are built up from one building block Hydrogen Atom Systems. The reason neutrons act as glue for the protons is because the neutron shares that electron inside it with neighboring protons. The nucleus is sort of like a "metallic bond". The Superposition Principle == Hydrogen Atom Systems. Now, the bleeding gutter snipes of physics will be quick to spew "well what about quarks?" And I tell you what is about quarks. Quarks are merely the fact that in math, there exists 3 and only 3 geometries-- Riem, Eucl, and Loba and when you have an entity that is not ever reducible down further, or incapable of being further cut, like a proton, then it reveals all 3 possible geometries simultaneously. Quarks are not physics reality. Quark are merely the statement that a particle like a proton is bundled up into the 3 and only 3 existing geometries simultaneously. So do not bother about the mindrot of quarks when talking about the real physics, that of Hydrogen Atom Systems. And don't drivel about a electron beam or proton beam being protons and electrons in "isolation". That is circus clown physics. The Bell Inequality evinces that proton and electron are always tied or correlated. If Hydrogen Atom Systems is not true, then the Superposition Principle of QM plus the Conservation of Charge plus the Bell Inequality are not true. Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu ::\ ::|:: /:: ::\::|::/:: _ _ (:Y:) - - ::/::|::\:: ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. . \ . . | . /. . . \. . .|. . /. . ..\....|.../... ::\:::|::/:: --------------- ------------- --------------- (Y) ------------- --------------- -------------- ::/:::|::\:: ../....|...\... . . /. . .|. . \. . . / . . | . \ . http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-16 13:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b75ce64f-4cea-4772-bc94-2e1ba7fe2abf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #681290 |
#17page #17page Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 15:17:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: new understanding of how stars and Sun shine with energy-- RSMM// I need my old RSNM theory and HYASYS theory in light of discovery Real Electron=105MeV From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2018 23:17:58 +0000 new understanding of how stars and Sun shine with energy-- RSMM// I need my old RSNM theory and HYASYS theory in light of discovery Real Electron=105MeV Alright good, the greatest physicist of the 20th century was Dirac. Yet the dumb stupid people in physics followed Einstein. This is a warning to all future generations. If you love science, you probably love a scientist, and if you pick the correct scientist to admire, you probably will succeed. But, if you pick a bozo of science to admire, you probably will end up just frustrated in the end. Dirac had the superior physics mind in the 1900s, and he left with two burning, yes burning questions-- both seen in his Directions of Physics book. The question of Magnetic Monopole, and the question of what I have dubbed RSNM. Now, let me relate to you, my own personal history, so future historians will not mess that up (hopefully). On the month of the discovery of Atom Totality theory in 1990, I first learned of Dirac's Directions in Physics and read it and realized that Dirac was the closest of all physicists to a Atom Totality theory-- with his New Radioactivities, a nonconservation idea in his book. But, I accepted fully his idea of a magnetic monopole and from 1990 on to about 2016 I fully accepted Dirac's monopole, and then, because I could never find this monopole from 1990 to 2016, while writing my book Atom Totality 8th edition, that in 2016 I reversed my stance on the Dirac monopole and gave up, that it did not exist. So from 1990 to 2016 I believed wholeheartedly that Dirac's monopole existed, but because I could not find anything to be the monopole in all those years, I gave up in 2016. But then, in 2016 I discovered that the proton at 938 was just a tiny percentage off of being 945 as 9 muons. To me, a .7% off is like being spot on, for my mind is not clouded as almost every physicist of my generation has a clouded mind. For I know that physics, when it is 945 and experiments fetch 938, is not the experiments that tell the story, but rather the .7% that tells the story. So, in 2016 I was writing the book Atom Totality and had dismissed Dirac's monopole for the first time in my life I dismissed something of Dirac. Even going so far as to say-- you cannot have a monopole and have the Maxwell Equations. That is how far my mind can swing-- totally devoted to Dirac, and once broken swing so vastly in the opposite direction. A good mind in science has to be prepared for swing of thought. Anyway, my discovery of 9muons = 1 proton in 2016 was a big discovery, but sadly, I had to wait another full year before my mind realized, that the Real Proton had to be not 945, but rather had to be 840 MeV, so that a Real Electron = 105 MeV. So in 2016 I discovered the 1 proton = 9 muons. In 2017, my mind was able to process that knowledge in realizing that the .5 MeV particle is not the electron, no, never is the .5 MeV an electron. So, here, in 2017, my mind for the first time subtracted the 105 MeV from the proton at 945 giving me the Real Proton = 840 MeV. So, on that fateful day in 2017, I subtracted 105 MeV from 945MeV and got a Real Proton = 840 MeV and the Real Electron = 105 MeV. How could I instantly justify that? Almost as fast as I discovered that, I realized this had to be true because of Chemistry bonding, for you cannot get a covalent bond in chemistry by pushing around 938 versus .5, that it takes 840 versus 105 for bonding in chemistry. But, for the few days after I had the Real Electron and Real Proton, I was begging for-- what in the world is the .5 MeV particle, if not the electron? Then, I realized good old Dirac was back again, and here is his magnetic monopoles in blazing glory, for they are all around us, all the time. So, that leaves me here in 2018, with Dirac's last-- wish list-- his New Radioactivity, that defies conservation of energy, yes defies conservation and read it yourself in his book Directions in Physics. Dirac's New Radioactivities is what I now call RSNM, radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. Only let me tweak that a bit, for it is too much energy spontaneously created from Nature with a neutron, let me call it the RSMM for Radioactive Spontaneous Monopole Materialization. Every time a muon inside an atom plunges through its 1proton=8muons as a atomic closed wire, obeys Faradays Law and as that muon plunges through, a monopole in that proton is created, now a monopole has energy, and what that monopole energy is coming from is the idea that Space itself is being transformed from being Space, to being a monopole. Now, you get enough of these monopoles created in a heavy atom and out can come a more massive monopole than .5MeV, but even say a gamma ray monopole of 0 charge. Now, what RSMM is going to do, is overturn all our ideas on how Sun shines and Stars shine. In Old Physics, they thought stars and Sun are shining by fusion, converting hydrogen into helium. RSMM says something vastly different, for stars and Sun, most of their energy is the conversion of Space that they travel in, into that of monopoles which is the bulk of their energy that they emit. Stars convert Space into magnetic monopoles. AP Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 19:29:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 03:29:05 +0000 our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole Of course Real Proton= 840MeV. It is impossible for our sun or stars to shine with their energy from fusion alone. If it were fusion alone stars would only shine with energy of 1/1000 what they actually shine with. So where does most of the energy of Sun and stars come from if not via fusion?? The predominant source of energy of Sun and stars comes from the atoms composing the star via Faradays Law of the hydrogen atom systems HYASYS proton+muon inside each atom. 1 proton =8muons forming a closed loop wire and the electronmuon thrusts through the proton wire creating a .5MeV monopole of either 0, -1, +1 charge. And the Sun's rays you soak up are those 0 charged monopoles. Stars convert Space (they travel through) into magnetic monopoles and that is why stars shine for billions of years profusely and at the same time grow larger in size and mass. The theory that fusion is the source of star energy is only a tiny meager 1/1000 of starpower. AP Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu ::\ ::|:: /:: ::\::|::/:: _ _ (:Y:) - - ::/::|::\:: ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. . \ . . | . /. . . \. . .|. . /. . ..\....|.../... ::\:::|::/:: --------------- ------------- --------------- (Y) ------------- --------------- -------------- ::/:::|::\:: ../....|...\... . . /. . .|. . \. . . / . . | . \ . http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-16 18:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <96e1ceda-ac13-4284-b860-8b23b83e535f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #681309 |
#18page #18page Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole When I post from my iphone, I make a lot of spelling and grammar errors. On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 9:29:10 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Of course Real Proton= 840MeV. > > It is impossible for our sun or stars to shine with their energy from fusion alone. If it were fusion alone stars would only shine with energy of 1/1000 what they actually shine with. > So, this raises the question of how old is the Sun and how much hydrogen to helium > So where does most of the energy of Sun and stars come from if not via fusion?? > > The predominant source of energy of Sun and stars comes from the atoms composing the star via Faradays Law of the hydrogen atom systems HYASYS proton+muon inside each atom. > > 1 proton =8muons forming a closed loop wire and the electronmuon thrusts through the proton wire creating a .5MeV monopole of either 0, -1, +1 charge. And the Sun's rays you soak up are those 0 charged monopoles. > > Stars convert Space (they travel through) into magnetic monopoles and that is why stars shine for billions of years profusely and at the same time grow larger in size and mass. > Now humans have been observing the Sun with fancy science equipment for only about 200 years, and in that time would not be asking scientists, has the Sun become less massive due to outpouring of energy every minute of the year. No, that is too small a time period to ask if the Sun is depleting itself due to it shining, or, increasing its mass and size. > The theory that fusion is the source of star energy is only a tiny meager 1/1000 of starpower. > So I went and looked up how much hydrogen and helium is in our Sun-- 91.2% hydrogen and 8.7% helium and the Sun is 4.6 billion years old according to some-- but I believe the sun is 10 billion years old. But, put that aside for now. Let us take a simple estimate, a straightline estimate. If the fusion is the source of Sun and stars shining, and if our Sun was originally close to 99% hydrogen, then about 9% of fusion gives the sun 4.6 billion years worth of shining energy. And thus we have about 11 more periods (remember a straightline estimate) of 4.6 billion years for the Sun to shine and that would be 50.6 billion years into the future of our Sun shining. Now, if we look up in the literature of the zombie-physicists who accept the fusion view of the Sun, they claim the Sun will go into a Red Giant phase in 5.4 billion years from now and essentially shortly thereafter stop shining altogether. So, what I am thinking,, a logical mind at work, is that the Sun and Stars shine not from fusion, which is only a tiny tiny fraction of sunlight, but that the main source of Sun shining is its conversion of Space the Sun travels through, converting space into magnetic monopoles of 0 charge, and some of +1 or -1 charge, all via the Faraday Law, of electron=muon thrust through protons as 8muons arranged as a closed loop wire. So Faraday's law causes the creation of a electric current in the proton = 8 muons, and the electric current is monopoles. Now most of these monopoles escape out of their hydrogen atom system they were born in, escape the Sun's gravity and find themselves in outer space, especially those destined to hit Earth and make Earth warm and doing photosynthesis. Now, here is a possible means of finding out if true that sunlight is via Faraday law converting space into monopoles. According to Fusion, the photons have to go through a elaborate process, but according to Faraday Law, every hydrogen atom is doing the Faraday law, all uniformly doing Faraday law. So, if we measure for consistency of photon flow from the Sun would favor the Faraday Law mechanism. AP Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 23:35:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Bethe's starpower depends on a 1 in 1 billion chance Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 07:35:00 +0000 Bethe's starpower depends on a 1 in 1 billion chance Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole Quoting Wikipedia below, on how the Sun mostly shines out energy. However, the huge problem is that daft scientists who believe in this nonsense-- must explain how it is that a proton undergoes this fusion with a probability of taking place in 1 in 1 billion years. You see, our Sun shines profusely, yet physicists of Old Physics think this dependable profuse shining has a mechanism of 1 in 1 billion. This is the silly Bethe Solar fusion. The AP Starpower is based on the Faraday Law, that each and every atom inside the Sun, everyone of them has protons composed of 8muons, where 1 proton = 8muons, and where the electron = 1 muon and the .5MeV particle is not the electron, but a magnetic monopole. Every proton inside the Sun is doing a Faraday Law mechanism where it is a 8 muon closed loop wire and the electronMuon is a bar magnet that moves inside the proton and creates a electricity of a monopole that flows in the proton. The proton can emit this monopole outside its atom and eventually escape the Sun and find its way to hitting Earth. What the Faraday law in the Sun is doing is eating up Space, and converting it into magnetic monopoles. Now, any reader can read and believe in the farfetched silly and stupid Bethe Solar fusion with its 1 in 1 billion chance of being successful. Or, they can read AP's way of stars shining, that each and every proton inside a star is doing the Faraday law and creating monopoles out of the Space the star occupies. We see stars shining each and every minute, each and every day. Do you honestly believe the dependability, the reliability of stars shining depends on a probability of 1 in a billion, or, do you believe in AP's view-- every proton inside a star is making sunlight, making photons. --- quoting Wikipedia --- followed by the beta-plus decay of the diproton to deuterium: 2 2He → 2 1H + e+ + ν e with the overall formula: 1 1H + 1 1H → 2 1H + e+ + ν e + 0.42 MeV This first step is extremely slow because the positron emission of the diproton to deuterium is extremely rare (the vast majority of the time, the diproton decays back into two hydrogen-1 unbound protons through proton emission). This is because the emission of the positron is brought about by the weak nuclear force, which is immensely weaker than the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force. The half-life of a proton in the core of the Sun before it is involved in a successful proton–proton fusion is estimated to be about one billion years, even at the extreme pressures and temperatures found there. Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 23:55:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Bethe's starpower depends on a 1 in 1 billion chance Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 07:55:50 +0000 Re: Bethe's starpower depends on a 1 in 1 billion chance Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 1:35:03 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Quoting Wikipedia below, on how the Sun mostly shines out energy. However, the huge problem is that daft scientists who believe in this nonsense-- must explain how it is that a proton undergoes this fusion with a probability of taking place in 1 in 1 billion years. You see, our Sun shines profusely, yet physicists of Old Physics think this dependable profuse shining has a mechanism of 1 in 1 billion. This is the silly Bethe Solar fusion. The AP Starpower is based on the Faraday Law, that each and every atom inside the Sun, everyone of them has protons composed of 8muons, where 1 proton = 8muons, and where the electron = 1 muon and the .5MeV particle is not the electron, but a magnetic monopole. Every proton inside the Sun is doing a Faraday Law mechanism where it is a 8 muon closed loop wire and the electronMuon is a bar magnet that moves inside the proton and creates a electricity of a monopole that flows in the proton. The proton can emit this monopole outside its atom and eventually escape the Sun and find its way to hitting Earth. What the Faraday law in the Sun is doing is eating up Space, and converting it into magnetic monopoles. > Now my critics would immediately jump up and down and say-- well, if that is true, why is planet Earth not shining for its atoms have protons and electrons doing the Faraday Law. Why is Earth not shining? And that is a good question. And perhaps I have no fast immediate answer other than to say, you need the momentum in a hot kinetic energy environment such as the Sun and stars. Realize, that when you do the Faraday Law with a slow moving magnet, you get little current. Now, my theory of Faraday Law causing stars to shine, not the feeble fusion in stars. If correct, then there is the good chance that large planets, like Jupiter have some "glow" or enormous radio noise of photons in the radio wave frequency. So we have on Jupiter, much radio noise but little to account for what makes Jupiter's radio wave noise. So the Faraday mechanism easily would say that some of the protons on Jupiter have a rapid motion electron=muon act as a bar magnet creating a monopole but a monopole not large like the sun, but rather radio photons. Also, the Faraday Law Mechanism of stars shining would easily explain why the hottest part of the Sun is not its center but its outer surface. AP Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 00:08:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: Faraday mechanism explains Atomic Bombs better Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 08:08:18 +0000 Faraday mechanism explains Atomic Bombs better Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole And, alas, something I never thought I would involve with, atomic bombs. It is thought that in a fusion bomb, that atoms are fusing to create the enormous energy. But, there is always required a fission bomb explode before it sets off the fusion part of the bomb. But, what I contend is that, although some fusion is occurring but what is really happening is that the fission part of the bomb raises the kinetic energy of the protons and their electrons=muons to perform Faraday Law and that the explosion is a maximization not of fusing protons, but rather of creating much Faraday Law electricity as monopoles. Now a quick test of this Faraday mechanism would be to analyze the gamma radiation in a fusion bomb explosion. Does the gamma radiation fit with fusion of protons or does it fit with Faraday Law as electricity in gamma monopoles. I would guess that if Faraday Law is at work here, not fusion that you would have immensely more gamma radiation than what fusion would say. AP Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 01:17:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Faraday mechanism explains Atomic Bombs better Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 09:17:26 +0000 Faraday mechanism explains Atomic Bombs better Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole Looking for anomalies in hydrogen bombs-- Volume 60, Issue 1 March 1955 Pages 45–52 Effects of radioactive debris from nuclear explosions on the electrical conductivity of the lower atmosphere Authors D. Lee Harris First published: March 1955Full publication history DOI: 10.1029/JZ060i001p00045 View/save citation Cited by (CrossRef): 14 articles Check for updates Citation tools Abstract An increase in the ionization near the ground due to the fall-out from a radioactive cloud formed by a nuclear explosion will increase the conductivity and lower the potential gradient in the lower atmosphere. Records of atmospheric conductivity and potential gradient from the Tucson Magnetic Observatory are compared with records of the deposition of atomic debris on the ground following the Nevada tests. The observed changes are not inconsistent with values computed from theoretical considerations. Most of the effects are confined to a very shallow layer, within a few meters of the ground. Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 01:29:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Faraday mechanism explains Atomic Bombs better Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 09:29:10 +0000 Faraday mechanism explains Atomic Bombs better Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole Now here is a remarkable website arguing that Mars had a Hydrogen bomb explosion. I would argue that his isotope studies are evidence of the Faraday Law inside of atoms and not that of fusion. Evidence for a Large Anomalous Nuclear Explosions in Mars Past PDFspsr.utsi.edu › articles › EvidenceforaLar... by JE Brandenburg Hydrogen bombs are boosted by fission of a uranium or thorium casing ~50% of ... Delayed neutrons. Acidalia debris. Gamma rays. Before event. Immediately after event. Present old surface old surface old surface. Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 12:23:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Faraday mechanism explains Atomic Bombs better Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 20:23:01 +0000 Faraday mechanism explains Atomic Bombs better Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole Now here is more information on that Mars hypothetical nuclear explosion:: of course i am going to comment line by line explaining that in nuclear fusion there is little to no fusion going on but rather a Faraday Law --- quoting --- By Tara MacIsaac, Epoch Times Mars has a high concentration of the gas isotope Xenon 129 in its atmosphere. Xenon 129 is produced by nuclear reactions. The surface of the red planet also has an excess of uranium and thorium. These conditions are likely the result of two large anomalous nuclear explosions on Mars in the past, argues propulsion scientist Dr. John Brandenburg in a 2014 paper, titled “Evidence of a Massive Thermonuclear Explosion on Mars in the Past.” On Earth, in Oklo, Gabon, uranium was extracted in 1972 and found to have unusual properties. Natural uranium deposits all contain about 0.7 percent U235. The isotope U235 in the Oklo mine, however, showed at levels around 0.6 percent, suggesting the U235 had already been “burned.” Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu ::\ ::|:: /:: ::\::|::/:: _ _ (:Y:) - - ::/::|::\:: ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. . \ . . | . /. . . \. . .|. . /. . ..\....|.../... ::\:::|::/:: --------------- ------------- --------------- (Y) ------------- --------------- -------------- ::/:::|::\:: ../....|...\... . . /. . .|. . \. . . / . . | . \ . http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 3 [1] 2 3 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web