Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #680003 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-04-04 23:36 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-04-17 01:29 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-04 23:36 -0700
Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-05 16:25 -0700
Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-05 18:47 -0700
Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-06 13:05 -0700
Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-06 19:12 -0700
Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-07 12:58 -0700
Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-08 20:19 -0700
Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 13:35 -0700
Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 16:00 -0700
Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 17:54 -0700
Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 17:09 -0700
Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-11 16:29 -0700
Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-12 14:15 -0700
Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-12 20:17 -0700
Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 23:08 -0700
Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-15 21:03 -0700
Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-16 00:23 -0700
Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-16 13:25 -0700
Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-16 17:05 -0700
-PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-17 01:29 +0000
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-04 23:36 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition |
| Message-ID | <8e61b0c0-bb88-4542-a3ca-58bbb04e28aa@googlegroups.com> |
Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 13:58:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: Page40, 5-3 TRUE CORRECT MATH NEEDED by Physics in order to do the Table of Elementary Physics Particles /Oval not ellipse//textbook 8th ed. From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 21:58:22 +0000 Page40, 5-3 TRUE CORRECT MATH NEEDED by Physics in order to do the Table of Elementary Physics Particles /Oval not ellipse//textbook 8th ed. 5-3 Oval is a Conic Section, never the ellipse Now a second mathematics error affects physics tremendously in geometry. For mathematicians as of 2017 are blind and unable to recognize what is a circle from ellipse from an oval. And it is critical in Electricity Magnetism that a physicist be able to know if he/she is dealing with a circle, a ellipse or an oval, critical, and critical in doing the Elementary Particles of Physics, or physics in general, because if you cannot understand that you have an OVAL, not an ellipse in physics, well, you fail. Conics = oval, 4 Experiments 4th experiment Re: -World's first proofs that the Conic section is an Oval, never an ellipse// yes, Apollonius and Dandelin were wrong 1st EXPERIMENT:: Fold paper into cone and cylinder, (I prefer the waxy cover of a magazine). Try to make both about the same size, so the perspective is even. Now tape the cone and cylinder so they do not come undone in the scissor or paper cutter phase. A paper cutter is best but dangerous, so be careful, be very careful with paper cutter. Make the same angle of cut in each. and the best way of insuring that is to temporary staple the two together so the angle is the same. Once cut, remove the staples. Now we inspect the finished product. Hold each in turn on a sheet of paper and with a pencil trace out the figure on the flat piece of paper. Notice the cylinder gives an ellipse with 2 Axes of Symmetry, while the conic gives a oval because it has just one, yes 1 axis of symmetry. > > > > That was my first experiment. > Easy and fast experiment, and gets the person able to make more cones and cylinders in a rush. Only fault I have of this experiment is that it leaves a scissors mark-- a vertex so to speak. But it is fast and easy. The proof is in the comparison. Now the cut should be at a steep enough angle. If you cut straight across, both will be circles, so make a steep cut. > > > > 2nd EXPERIMENT:: get a Kerr or Mason canning lid and repeat the above production of a cone and cylinder out of stiff waxy paper (magazine covers). Try to make the cone and cylinder about the same size as the lid. Now either observe with the lid inside the cone and cylinder, or, punch two holes in the cone and cylinder and fasten the lid inside. What you want to observe is how much area and where the area is added to make a section. So that in the cylinder, there is equal amount of area to add upwards as to add downwards of the lid, but in the cone, the area upwards added is small, while the area added downwards is huge new area. Thus the cylinder had two axes of symmetry and is an ellipse, while cone is 1 axis of symmetry and is an oval. > This experiment is the best for it immediately shows you the asymmetry of an axis, where the upward needs little area to fill in any gap and the downward needs an entire "crescent shaped area add-on to the circle lid. 3rd EXPERIMENT:: Basically this is a repeat of the Dandelin fake proof, only we use a cylinder. Some tennis balls or ping pong balls come in see through plastic cylinder containers. And here you need just two balls in the container and you cut out some cardboard in the shape of ellipse that fits inside the container. You will be cutting many different sizes of these ellipses and estimating their foci. Now you insert these ellipse and watch to see the balls come in contact with the foci. Now, you build several cones in which the ellipses should fit snugly. Trouble is, well, there is never a cone that any ellipse can fit inside, for only an oval fits inside the cones. > > This experiment is cumbersome and takes much precision and good materials. It is just a repeat of the Dandelin work on this topic, and one can easily see how the Dandelin fake proof is constructed-- he starts off with assuming the figure is an ellipse. Which tells us, he never had a good-working-model if any at all. For you cannot stuff a ellipse inside a cone. You can stuff a ellipse inside a cylinder. So this suggests the entire Dandelin nonsense was all worked out in the head and never in hands on actual reality. So, in this experiment, we give a proof that Dandelin was utterly wrong and that it is a cylinder that you can stuff a ellipse sandwiched by two identical spheres-- one upper and one lower. The only amazing part of the Dandelin story is how an utterly fake proof could have survived from 1822, and not until 2017 is it thoroughly revealed as ignorant nonsense. One would think in math, there is no chance such a hideously flawed proof could even be published in a math journal, and if anything is learned from Dandelin, is that the math journal publishing system is a whole entire garbage network. A network that is corrupt and fans fakery. > 4th EXPERIMENT:: this is a new one. And I have it resting on my coffee table at the moment and looking at it. It comes from a toy kit of plastic see through geometry figures, cost me about $5. And what I have is a square pyramid and a cone of about the same size. Both see through. And what I did was rest the square pyramid apex on top of the cone apex, so the cone is inside the square pyramid. Now I wish I had a rectangular box to fit a cylinder inside the box. But this toy kit did not have that, but no worries for the imagination can easily picture a cylinder inside a rectangular box. Now the experiment is real simple in that we imagine a Planar Cut into the rectangular box with cylinder inside and the cut will make a rectangle from the box and a ellipse from the cylinder. Now with the cut of the square pyramid that contains a cone inside, the square pyramid is a trapezoid section while the cone is a oval section. If the cut were parallel to the base, the square pyramid yields a square and the cone yields a circle. This experiment proves to all the dunces, the many dunces who think a conic section is an ellipse, that it cannot be an ellipse, for obviously, a cone is not the same as a cylinder. > > Now this 4th Experiment is a delicious fascinating experiment, for it reveals to us another proof that the conic section is a oval. For the square-pyramid section is a Isosceles Trapezoid, and what is so great about that, is we can take a cone and place inside of the cone a square pyramid and then place a second square pyramid over the cone, so the cone is sandwiched in between two square pyramids. Now the square pyramids are tangent to the cone at 4 line segments, 8 altogether for the two, and what is so intriguing about the tangents is that it allows us to quickly develop a analytic geometry that the cone section must be a oval in order for the two square pyramids to be both isosceles trapezoids as sections. Conics = oval, 2 proofs, synthetic, analytic Synthetic Geometry & Analytical Geometry Proofs that Conic section = Oval, never an ellipse-- World's first proofs thereof by Archimedes Plutonium _Synthetic Geometry proofs that Cylinder section= Ellipse// Conic section= Oval First Synthetic Geometry proofs, later the Analytic Geometry proofs. Alright I need to get this prepared for the MATH ARRAY of proofs, that the Ellipse is a Cylinder section, and that the Conic section is an oval, never an ellipse PROOF that Cylinder Section is an Ellipse, never a Oval:: I would have proven it by Symmetry. Where I indulge the reader to place a circle inside the cylinder and have it mounted on a swivel, a tiny rod fastened to the circle so that you can pivot and rotate the circle. Then my proof argument would be to say--when the circle plate is parallel with base, it is a circle but rotate it slightly in the cylinder and determine what figure is produced. When rotated at the diameter, the extra area added to the upper portion equals the extra area added to bottom portion in cylinder, symmetrical area added, hence a ellipse. QED Now for proof that the Conic section cannot be an ellipse but an oval, I again would apply the same proof argument by symmetry. Proof:: Take a cone in general, and build a circle that rotates on a axis. Rotate the circle just a tiny bit for it is bound to get stuck or impeded by the upward slanted walls of the cone. Rotate as far as you possibly can. Now filling in the area upwards is far smaller than filling in the area downwards. Hence, only 1 axis of symmetry, not 2 axes of symmetry. Define Oval as having 1 axis of symmetry. Thus a oval, never an ellipse. QED The above two proofs are Synthetic Geometry proofs, which means they need no numbers, just some concepts and axioms to make the proof work. A Synthetic geometry proof is where you need no numbers, no coordinate points, no arithmetic, but just using concepts and axioms. A Analytic Geometry proof is where numbers are involved, if only just coordinate points. Array:: Analytic Geometry proof that Cylinder section= Ellipse//Conic section = Oval, never ellipse Now I did 3 Experiments and 3 models of the problem, but it turns out that one model is superior over all the other models. One model is the best of all. That model is where you construct a cone and a cylinder and then implant a circle inside the cone and cylinder attached to a handle so that you can rotate the circle inside. Mine uses a long nail that I poked holes into the side of a cylinder and another one inside a cone made from heavy wax paper of magazine covers. And I used a Mason or Kerr used lid and I attached them to the nail by drilling two holes into each lid and running a wire as fastener. All of this done so I can rotate or pivot the circle inside the cylinder and cone. You need a long nail, for if you make the models too small or too skinny, you lose clarity. ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Cylinder Section is a Ellipse:: E __ .-' `-. .' `. / \ ; ; | G c | H ; ; \ / `. .' `-. _____ .-' F The above is a view of a ellipse with center c and is produced by the Sectioning of a Cylinder as long as the cut is not perpendicular to the base, and as long as the cut involves two points not larger than the height of the cylinder walls. What we want to prove is that the cut is always a ellipse, which is a plane figure of two axes of symmetry with a Major Axis and Minor Axis and center at c. Side view of Cylinder EGFH above with entry point cut at E and exit point cut at F and where c denotes the central axis of the cylinder and where x denotes a circle at c parallel with the base-circle of cylinder | | | | E | | | | |x c |x | | | | | | |F | | | | | | | So, what is the proof that figure EGFH is always an ellipse in the cylinder section? The line segment GH is the diameter of the circle base of cylinder and the cylinder axis cuts this diameter in half such that Gc = cH. Now we only need to show that Fc = cE. This is done from the right triangles cxF and cxE, for we note that by Angle-Side-Angle these two right triangles are congruent and hence Fc = cE, our second axis of symmetry and thus figure EGFH is always an ellipse. QED Array proof:: Analytic Geometry proof that Conic section= Oval// never ellipse ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Conic Section is a Oval, never an ellipse:: A ,'" "`. / \ C | c | D \ / ` . ___ .' B The above is a view of a figure formed from the cut of a conic with center c as the axis of the cone and is produced by the Sectioning of a Cone as long as the cut is not perpendicular to the base, and as long as the cut is not a hyperbola, parabola or circle (nor line). What we want to prove is that this cut is always a oval, never an ellipse. An oval is defined as a plane figure of just one axis of symmetry and possessing a center, c, with a Major Diameter as the axis of symmetry and a Minor Diameter. In our diagram above, the major diameter is AB and minor diameter is CD. Alright, almost the same as with Cylinder section where we proved the center was half way between Major Axis and Minor Axis of cylinder, only in the case of the Conic, we find that the center is half way between CD the Minor Diameter, but the center is not halfway in between the Major Diameter, and all of that because of the reason the slanted walls of the cone cause the distance cA to be far smaller than the distance cB. In the diagram below we have the circle of x centered at c and parallel to base. The angle at cx is not 90 degrees as in cylinder. The angle of cAx is not the same as the angle cBx, as in the case of the cylinder, because the walls of the cone-for line segments- are slanted versus parallel in the cylinder. Triangles cAx and cBx are not congruent, and thus, the distance of cA is not equal to cB, leaving only one axis of symmetry AB, not CD. / \A x/ c \x B/ \ Hence, every cut in the Cone, not a hyperbola, not a parabola, not a circle (not a line) is a Oval, never an ellipse. QED (that means, end of proof) Physicists, no matter in what section of physics, whether astronomy, plasma physics, EM theory, thermodynamics, optics, you name it. If they are using incorrect, muddleheaded and fake math, that their subject is never going to be correct. Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon of 231Pu ::\ ::|:: /:: ::\::|::/:: _ _ (:Y:) - - ::/::|::\:: ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. 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 in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium Commentary:: I am really trying to beat this deadline of ending this textbook in 2017, for I do not want to go into January 2018. I am saving 2018 for writing the mathematics textbook TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS. Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 13:14:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: how do uncharged photons become charged photons Re: how battery really works, proof electricity is photons not electrons From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 21:14:27 +0000 > how do uncharged photons become charged photons Re: how battery really works, proof electricity is photons not electrons > Alright, it does not take long for anyone seriously studying electrodynamics and Maxwell equations to notice that circles (closed loop) and perpendicular play a key role. The math of EM involves circle, sphere and perpendicular. --- quoting Wikipedia --- A sphere is uniquely determined by four points that are not coplanar. More generally, a sphere is uniquely determined by four conditions such as passing through a point, being tangent to a plane, etc. This property is analogous to the property that three non-collinear points determine a unique circle in a plane. --- end quote --- > Now 4 points determine 1 unique sphere and from that unique sphere, 2 corresponding cubes are formed. The inscribed cube inside the sphere and the circumscribed cube outside the sphere. > I suspect this is what i need to unify photon with neutrino. > It is easy to cut in half a Double Transverse Wave and have two different types of photons, one charged photon of 1/2 spin, of .5MeV charge energy that is either +1 or -1 charge. > But how is one to cut in half a longitudinal wave and have 2 neutrinos instead of one neutrino? Here we look at the Volta pile and see it is a longitudinal wave as alternating silver discs and zinc discs. So if we pulled out all silver discs we form a new longitudinal wave. > Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 18:13:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: explaining the truth about lightening-bolt strikes Re: how do uncharged photons become charged photons From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 02:13:47 +0000 > explaining the truth about lightening-bolt strikes Re: how do uncharged photons become charged photons > >But how is one to cut in half a longitudinal wave and have 2 neutrinos instead of one neutrino? Here we look at the Volta pile and see it is a longitudinal wave as alternating silver discs and zinc discs. So if we pulled out all silver discs we form a new longitudinal wave. > > Alright, I want to solve this before January 1, 2018. So, forgive me of the speed. > Earlier I wrote this about the photon, its geometry as a Double Transverse Wave;; > Alright, looking at a photon head-on it is __|__ | 4 vector waves, each of the 4, each a B field, all transverse at 90 degree angles. Looking at the Light Wave or photon from the side we have ^^^^^ vvvvv. In xy plane And the same configuration in xz plane To compose a Double Transverse Wave of Destructive Interference. Destructive Interference is important for it makes whatever is "waving" be a point particle traveling at the speed of light at the center of the 4 vectors. ^^^^^ vvvvv in xy plane and perpendicular ^^^^^ vvvvv in xz plane the math of which is sine + offset cosine, where sine and cosine can be semicircle waves or ellipse waves. > photons as purely a B field and no Electric component unless the destructive-interference puts a Voltage along that very center line of motion. If that center line is voltage, means, destructive interference is required. > So, it is easy to see how we can split a photon in half which each half being a Single Transverse Wave and having a .5 MeV charge energy. Where the original photon had a 1 MeV charge energy. > So, the 1 MeV photon that is Double Transverse and uncharged looks like this:: __|__ | And the single transverse wave photon that has a .5MeV charge energy looks like this head-on |__ Most photons would be Double Transverse. The Magnetic Monopole is a .5MeV or larger, of a Single Transverse Wave Photon. > Now, spin is the same as charge with a factor involved, and so, a monopole is looping back around into a closed loop. > Now the reason we see a Doppler Redshift of light is not because of speed at source, but because the photon that makes those spectral lines are from Magnetic Monopole Photons. So redshift of light is all due to whether the spectral lines are from Single Transverse waves or Double Transverse waves. > Now the problem is to solve neutrinos with longitudinal waves. How can I solve that? Here the problem is getting 1/2 of a longitudinal wave and yet still be a longitudinal wave. > With photons being Double Transverse we easily cut it in half and get a Single Transverse, still behaving like photons with transverse waves. > But with Longitudinal Waves, how do I cut them in half where the two halves are still longitudinal waves. > Looking at the Volta battery pile of alternating silver with zinc round plates, it occurred to me that if we just remove silver into one pile and just zinc into a second pile that we retain longitudinal wave framework and have 1/2 in each. We can consider the silver longitudinal wave as positive and the zinc longitudinal wave as negative. > In this manner, we can build either a charged photon or a charged neutrino, and where we have both a uncharged or neutral photon and a neutral neutrino. > And the transverse and longitudinal preserve the two characteristics of EM theory-- circles involved and perpendicular involved. We always need those two features. > Now in 3rd Dimension the photon and neutrino would be cylinders, and if monopoles would have to be closed cylinders = torus. > So far, I stand by my Easiest Proof that electricity and electric current are magnetic monopoles of photons that are charged photons. The experiment is simple-- pull a plug of an appliance that is in operation, out of the wall receptacle fast, and notice a large light flash. That tells you the current is not electrons in motion, but rather the current is magnetic monopoles of .5 MeV in motion. So, when you see that light flash you are observing electricity or the electric current. When you see lightening bolt strikes or flashes in the weather outside, you are seeing what electricity is, you are actually observing the electric current as magnetic monopoles. Old Physics would make up this stupid idiotic prattle about electrons bunching up in clouds, and flowing to the ground and on their way ionize gas molecules which gives the light flash. How utterly stupid and where the term nattering nutters probably came from. > Lightening bolts are caused from Magnetic Monopoles of dressed up photons with charge energy of .5MeV or larger. So that Lightening is not about motion of electrons, but about motion of photons as monopoles. > AP > On Friday, December 22, 2017 at 11:31:42 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.math: explaining how batteries really work (electrochemistry) when electric current = monopoles = charged photons > How the battery in electrochemistry really works is that the anode and cathode form poles of a magnet and a magnetic field is then formed and because the electrolyte is liquid, or gel or paste, it vibrates and causes the "thrusting motion" in Faraday's Law. All electricity is produced by magnets thrust in closed loop, for electric current is magnetic monopoles, never electrons in motion. > > On Friday, December 22, 2017 at 11:30:11 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.math: proof electric current is photons of .5MeV charge energy // how some photons are monopoles while others are neutral (also neutrinos). > So far the easiest proof that electric current is monopoles as dressed up photons with .5MeV of charge energy, is the pulling of a electric plug from socket and noticing a light (a photon) flash. If it were electrons making electricity, you would not see light flashes. > AP
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-05 16:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4f08b3d7-0939-4a32-b8ac-ec7eb1f8d5f4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #680003 |
Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 15:56:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: Page41, 5-4 TRUE CORRECT MATH NEEDED by Physics not fake math /Calculus & Infinity//textbook 8th ed. From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 23:56:51 +0000 Page41, 5-4 TRUE CORRECT MATH NEEDED by Physics not fake math /Calculus & Infinity//textbook 8th ed. Page41, 5-4 TRUE CORRECT MATH NEEDED by Physics not fake math /Calculus & Infinity//textbook 8th ed. Now it was bad enough that Old Math could not even see that the Oval was the conic, never the ellipse, and imagine what that is like for researching the elementary particles of physics, thinking you have a ellipse when in truth you have a oval and applying the hideously wrong mathematics and ending up with false conclusions. This is a grave problem of Old Math, they refuse to fix and mend their mistakes and errors and they rather-- teach students fake math, then to come outright, forthright and say "we made a mistake" and will fix it. No, Old Math is corrupt math and they rather make money from selling their fake texts rather than fix things. But worse than a mess up with Conics, worse is the Old Math entire Calculus is trash, for the mistakes abound. And it is almost criminal-teaching that students are subjected to the "limit concept". About 1817, Cauchy started to use a Limit concept for he was sick and tired of students asking him "how in the world can you get area for integral when those rectangle widths go to zero. So, to shut the students up, those wise students, the Limit was created. Not that it had any truth or reality, but it effectively shuts up real smart students, because the professor can always say, -- you do not understand the limit. What should have happened in math history was that the concept of infinity should have been nailed down, by a borderline between finite and infinite numbers. Once you nail down a borderline for infinity, well, you easily go back to Calculus and there you have immediately a nonzero infinitesimal. The smallest positive number that exists. That, my friend gives you a true blue Calculus. And Physics, of all sciences, more so than mathematics, needs a true blue Calculus, for that is what Laws of Physics are all about-- given such and such conditions, such numbers, then the derivative of calculus predicts the future conditions. Laws of Physics are about motion, and you plug in certain number parameters in Calculus, and it predicts the future outcome of those motions. But if your Calculus is phony baloney in large part, then you have trouble in doing true physics. Now with the Calculus, the mathematicians are far too much a country club of rascals that pay more attention to money grubbing of textbooks, than to fixing mistakes in calculus. It costs these professors too much time and work to fix calculus, then to just sit back and rake in the money. And what it costs in students, is wasted time-- often years of wasted time by doing pathetic abhorrent fake math of Limit concept, and by never recognizing that to well define Finite concept or define Infinity concept, you need a borderline between the two concepts. And, here, again, where the physicists have been far out in front of mathematicians in realizing that infinity of mathematics is a pile of junk, for physicists learned early in the 1900s of quantum mechanics that the world was discrete, there were holes in between numbers of physics, there was no continuum. And later the physicists had to get rid of infinities by a process they called Renormalization. But were the mathematicians ever paying any attention? No, of course not, for they were far too busy raking in money from fake math textbooks, far too busy trying to become famous in math for doing crazy problems-- and never fixing the mess mathematics was in. They kept on teaching utterly absurd crap like Cantor's infinities, only because it was bandwagon, easy to teach and rake in more money. So, mathematicians of the 1900s and up to 2017 were losers of true math, were money grubs and not mathematicians at all. The physicists had a better handle on what math to use that was true, and sort of ignored the ignorant mathematicians with their crazy Limit, their crazy infinity, their idiotic continuum. Calculus was far too important for the physicists to ignore, so the physicists carried Calculus forward. And now, by 2017, the mathematicians are forced to fix and correct their lousy mess. 5-4 CALCULUS corrected and you need to combine with Grid System Coordinate System posted under decimals above. Why no continuum and no curves exist in Math, so that the Calculus can exist, and does exist. Calculus is based upon there being Grid points in geometry, no continuum, but actually, empty space between two neighboring points. This is called Discrete geometry, and in physics, this is called Quantum Mechanics. In 10 Grid, the first few numbers are 0, .1, .2, .3, etc. That means there does not exist any number between 0 and .1, no number exists between .1 and .2. Now if you want more precise numbers, you go to a higher Grid like that of 100 Grid where the first few numbers are 0, .01, .02, .03, etc. Calculus in order to exist at all, needs this empty space between consecutive numbers or successor numbers. It needs that empty space so that the integral of calculus is actually small rectangles whose interior area is not zero. So in 10 Grid, the smallest width of any Calculus rectangle is of width .1. In 100 Grid the smallest width is .01. But, this revolutionary understanding of Calculus does not stop with the Integral, for having empty space between numbers, means no curves in math exist, but are ever tinier straight-line segments. It also means, that the Derivative in Calculus is part and parcel of the function graph itself. So that in a function such as y = x^2, the function graph is the derivative at a point. In Old Math, they had the folly and idiocy of a foreign, alien tangent line to a function graph as derivative. In New Math, the derivative is the same as the function graph itself. And, this makes commonsense, utter commonsense, for the derivative is a prediction of the future of the function in question, and no way in the world can a foreign tangent line to a point on the function be able to predict, be able to tell where the future point of that function be. The only predictor of a future point of a function, is the function graph itself. If the Calculus was done correctly, conceived correctly, then a minimal diagram explains all of Calculus. Old Math never had such a diagram, because Old Math was in total error of what Calculus is, and what Calculus does. The fundamental picture of all of Calculus are these two of a trapezoid and rectangle. In fact, call the picture, the FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS, Picture Trapezoid for derivative as the roof-top of the trapezoid, which must be a straight-line segment. If it is curved, you cannot fold it down to form a integral rectangle. And the rectangle for integral as area. From this: B /| / | A /----| / | | | |____| The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative) so that it can be hinged at A, and swiveled down to form rectangle for integral. To this: ______ | | | | | | --------- And the derivative of x= A, above is merely the dy/dx involving points A and B. Thus, it can never be a curve in Calculus. And the AB is part of the function graph itself. No curves exist in mathematics and no continuum exists in mathematics. In the above we see that CALCULUS needs and requires a diagram in which you can go from derivative to integral, or go from integral to derivative, by simply a hinge down to form a rectangle for area, or a hinge up to form the derivative from a given rectangle. Why in Old Math could no professor of math ever do the Calculus Diagram? Why? The answer is simple, no-one in Old Math pays attention to Logic, and that no-one in Old Math was required to take formal Logic when they attended school. So a person bereft of Logic, is never going to find mistakes of Logic and think clear and think straight. ---------------- Borderline between Finite and Infinite Now this mistake in not having a correct Infinity in math, affects the Calculus by a large measure, a large degree. It is impossible to have a correct calculus, when you have a bozo-kook understanding of what is infinity. This is probably the biggest mistake in all of pure mathematics for it affects all other mathematics. Of course the other sciences, especially physics rarely needs to know what the correct proper infinity is. However, it does show up frequently in the best physics-- quantum electrodynamics, in which it is often used to eliminate infinities that crop up in calculations. This physics math procedure is called Renormalization-- getting rid of the infinities. The trouble with Old Math, is, well, they were terribly shoddy in logic, in thinking straight and clear. For a logical person, knows, that if you have a concept of finite versus infinite, the only way to handle those two concepts is to realize a border must go between them so that you can tell if any given number is finite or infinite. Otherwise, there is no infinity, if there is no borderline. There is only one way you can have a concept of finite, by having a concept of infinity, and the only way you can have both, is that a borderline exists between them. I have pinpointed that borderline from tractrix-circle analysis, from algebraic analysis of algebraic completeness, and from angles of regular polyhedra. The borderline in microinfinity is 1*10^-604 and in macroinfinity is 1*10^604. The easiest way to see the borderline is to see where pi digits ends in a three zero digits in a row. 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286 208998628034825342117067982148086513282306647093844609550582231725359408128481 117450284102701938521105559644622948954930381964428810975665933446128475648233 786783165271201909145648566923460348610454326648213393607260249141273724587006 606315588174881520920962829254091715364367892590360011330530548820466521384146 951941511609433057270365759591953092186117381932611793105118548074462379962749 567351885752724891227938183011949129833673362440656643086021394946395224737190 702179860943702770539217176293176752384674818467669405132000 Since the Universe 3rd dimension, one would suspect that where pi digits are there first three digits in a row of 000, that such would be the borderline at infinity. Now, for physics, that infinity is 1*10^604 for large and 1*10^-604 for the small, makes perfect sense, since in physics, it is extremely, extremely difficult to find anything above 10^200 or smaller than 10^-200, to give the reader a sense of proportion. If a physicists or other science goes to math for information and knowledge of infinity, well, what they see from mathematics before 2017 is nothing more than just piles of you know what. Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon of 231Pu ::\ ::|:: /:: ::\::|::/:: _ _ (:Y:) - - ::/::|::\:: ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. 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 in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium Commentary:: > Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 23:41:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: Expanding on the proof that electric currents, electricity is all due to magnetic monopoles of charged photons, never that of electrons flowing From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 07:41:19 +0000 > > Expanding on the proof that electric currents, electricity is all due to magnetic monopoles of charged photons, never that of electrons flowing > Expanding On the Proof that Electric Current is not electrons, but rather Magnetic Monopoles > Alright, the best proof so far is that when pulling a plug of a electric cord with appliance running from out of the wall socket, there is a flash of light. This proves that electric current is not the motion of electrons, for electrons are really the muons, and the tiny particle of .5MeV that we were deceived into thinking was the electron, is after all the magnetic monopole that Dirac sought most of his life for. Dirac thought the magnetic monopole was of charge of 137/2 the charge of a proton. Turns out, the monopole is a photon dressed up with .5MeV of charge energy, not rest mass energy. > And so it is the Monopole that makes electricity, makes current flow, and the electron=muon and proton are just bystanders watching the action. Although the electron=muon and proton are causes of the .5MeV charged photon = magnetic monopole, the role of electrons and protons is not active role in electricity. > So, pull that plug out of the wall socket to a running appliance and notice that large flash of lightwaves, of photons. That is the current in electricity. > Now back in 3 December I set up an experiment to prove that Magnetic Lines of Force can create electricity without moving the magnet, which implies those lines of force are photons. > Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 03:26:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: just 2 magnets giving me a permanent voltage-- proof the .5 MeV is a monopole From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2017 11:26:02 +0000 > > just 2 magnets giving me a permanent voltage-- proof the .5 MeV is a monopole > This year i discovered the Real Electron is 105 MeV and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. A monopole not with .5meV of rest-mass but with .5 MeV of charge energy. > If true it should have a reading of a permanent DC voltage from two powerful nearby stationary magnets, 3cm apart on a magnet board. I have a costly multimeter. Now as I measure one magnet individually the meter jumps in value but settles on 0 reading rapidly. > However, if I put one electrode on one magnet and the other electrode on second magnet I get a permanent reading of .002 volts dc. > The way I interpret this (maybe i am wrong) is that the lines of force of one magnet with lines of force from other magnet are .5MeV particles causing a voltage, permanent voltage. In other words, one bar magnet is acting as the thrust of Lines of Force, upon the Lines of Force of the second bar magnet. Two bar magnets stationary and performing Faraday's Law. > This, if true, may serve as proof that the .5MeV thought to be electron is after all a magnetic monopole. > I have an expensive Fluke multimeter and powerful neodymium magnets. > AP > Now, the proof that electricity is magnetic monopoles of .5MeV charge energy or greater, is an easy proof with the household current of pulling a plug out of wall socket. But can we prove it with smaller current, such as batteries? Of course with a car battery it is easy but dangerous, for it can kill you. That if we place a screwdriver near one terminal we see the light flash. Now, do not perform that experiment, but have a mechanic skilled in car batteries perform it for you, for it is dangerous, _very dangerous_, as I myself learned the hard way, yes, and never again will I even attempt it, for it could stop your heart. > So, now we want to go down in battery voltage to say a 9 volt battery. And ask the question, can we see a light flash at the terminals? I suspect not. In all my handling of various batteries, except the car battery, I have never noticed a light flash. > I have noticed often the light flashes from Wimshurst generators and from my van de Graaf generator, and the van de Graaf is enough voltage to knock you down. > And I suspect not with the 1.6 Volt batteries. > Nor do I suspect you can see the light flash with my two stationary magnets setup. But, can we get the two most powerful magnets, stationary and separated by some centimeters apart and not only notice a DC current but also, by separating them can we get a light flash? I do not know what the world's two most powerful magnets are. And repeat the experiment I performed above. > AP > Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 12:53:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: Bohr model of atom// now AP model of atom From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 20:53:58 +0000 > > Bohr model of atom// now AP model of atom > Indeed, I said that Real Electron = muon =105 MeV > Real Proton =840 MeV > The .5 MeV particle is the Magnetic Monopole the substance of electricity > Changes everything both in physics and chemistry > What we thought was the Bohr model of the atom turns out to be a model of just the monopole > So we need a new true model > I could use JJ Thomson's plum pudding but i need a food that is more accurate and more widely used. > Now this is difficult because of the proportions of > 840 to 105 to .5 > Call it the AP sandwich model of the atom > Let us do the hydrogen atom. > The monopoles would be tiny crackers, thin crackers just big enough to get your thumb and opposable finger to hold the sandwich. The proton is a razor thin slice of salami and the electron is a slice of cheese that is 8 times larger than the salami slice. > > Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 14:26:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: Bliss Free Logic told me in 1968 that atoms can be known by electron count, not just proton,,,, From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 22:26:58 +0000 > > Bliss Free Logic told me in 1968 that atoms can be known by electron count, not just proton Re: 2nd proof electric current is caused .5MeV photons dressed up as monopoles > Now, let me tell you a story here, another bending of your ears, for I am going back in time in my own life, to when I learned chemistry. I did not learn much chemistry in High School, for the teacher was easy on us, and thus, little learning. But when I got to College, things were 100% different for freshman chemistry class was demanding and challenging. But anyway, somewhere between High School and College Chemistry, I had the idea that the elements of the Periodic Table were by the electron count just as well as the proton count. In other words, you say uranium and that means an element with 92 electrons or you say helium and that means an element with 2 electrons. To, me, in a bliss free world of just pure logic, it made sense that the elements were the number of electrons, or, as in school, it is the number of protons. In bliss free logic, either one will do. > But, in College Chemistry, you cannot have elements by electron count, because, well, because you have all these ions running around, so you have Uranium+4 meaning it has 4 less electrons than 92 electrons, and it is not radium element 88. > Uranium+4 is a ion of uranium with 88 electrons and is not element 88 but still uranium with 92 protons. > Likewise, Li+1 is not helium atom of 2 electrons but still a lithium atom with only 2 electrons, 3 protons. > However, with the discovery of .5MeV is not an electron but rather a photon with dressed up charge energy of .5MeV to be a magnetic monopole. > And so, all of chemistry and their ions study, is all seen to be false knowledge. Seen as fake knowledge. > The Li+ means it still has just 3 electrons=muons and that the + is a magnetic monopole of + charge added onto a neutral lithium atom. > In this new light and new understanding, we can most definitely get back to what I called Bliss Free Logic when I first started to learn Chemistry in College of about 1968. In 1968, my Logic was telling me-- "now, we can identify an atom by how many protons it has, and, how many electrons it has" But no, not in college chemistry because of ions. > But no, that bliss free logic could not work and I could not pass Chemistry if I kept saying-- the extra charge is magnetic monopole not an extra electron or missing an electron. > Now I related the true story of my inability to ever understand how the Electrochemical battery really worked. I just took it on faith that the teacher somehow knew better and that my mind was not grasping it. Turns out, my mind was better than the teachers, that electrochemical batteries had to operate on a Faraday Law, and that meant it was a magnet, and not that silly poppycock of electrons in motion. And, here again, my Bliss Free Logic turns out to have been correct all these years later. That any and every atom can either be recognized by how many protons it has, or, if you like, how many electrons it has. It is extremely, extremely difficult to separate an electron=muon from any atom. And so, the Chemical Periodic Table is based not only on proton count but if you prefer on Electron count. > And that means all of ion theory, is about the accumulation not of electrons or loss of electrons, but about magnetic monopoles, those .5MeV particles. > And this is what the Bohr model of that atom was strictly about, not about the proton and electron, but merely the small avenue of understanding of Magnetic Monopole behavior. > AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-05 18:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d8a1999e-3ecd-4fa3-8dca-7499771b4216@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #680061 |
Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 19:53:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: Page42, 5-5 TRUE CORRECT MATH NEEDED by Physics /trigonometry corrected & irrationals do not exist//textbook 8th ed. From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 03:53:29 +0000 Page42, 5-5 TRUE CORRECT MATH NEEDED by Physics /trigonometry corrected & irrationals do not exist//textbook 8th ed. Page42, 5-5 TRUE CORRECT MATH NEEDED by Physics /trigonometry corrected & irrationals do not exist//textbook 8th ed. 5-5 Trigonometry corrected and Irrationals do not exist at all Now one of the functions most often used in physics and science are the trigonometric functions. But, have the mathematicians made any mistakes with them? One would think not, since trig has been used for hundreds if not thousands of years. Trouble is, in math, when you do not have a logical mind, you miss errors. Here is a huge huge error of Trigonometry, only because, mathematicians rarely have a logical mind. It involves the shape of sine and cosine. Now, do not get me wrong, not all sine and cosine functions are semicircle shape. All sine and cosine start out as semicircle in the unit circle, but as soon as you change frequency, period, amplitude or wavelength, or any other parameters, the sine and cosine become ellipse waves. All sine and cosine in unit circle start out as semicircle waves. The sinusoid shape is fictional, it never existed. Sine & Cosine are semicircle waves, not sinusoidal They come to math, and physics, but they come without Logic, barren of logic, deplete of logic, never any logic in their tools of the trade. They define sine as opposite/hypotenuse. Good so far. They know of the unit circle with hypotenuse as 1. Good again. They then blunder, so pitifully, so badly, so poorly, and so early on. I mean even a child can understand the first few steps. And they blunder badly for they spuriously assign 180 degrees to be 3.14.... Why? Why assign 180 degrees as 3.14... when you already defined sine as opposite/hypotenuse with unit circle forcing 180 degrees to be 2, since 90 degrees is 1 of unit circle. You see what happens when you do science without logic-- you become a village idiot fool. Now, here is a huge huge big lesson to learn. It is big, and most professors of mathematics never learned it, for if they had learned it, they would not make this mistake in trigonometry of a "Sinusoid shape wave". The lesson is simple and easy, but no math professor ever learned it-- You never have unequal axes in doing mathematics. Your x,y,z axes always are the same. Your axes are always the same. You never have one axis different from another, or, you are not doing mathematics. All axes must be the same. Sure, in commercials they have pie charts and they have bar diagrams where one axis is numbers and the other is candy bars or something else. That is not mathematics. And in Trigonometry, if your x axis is angles, and your y axis is numbers, you are NOT doing mathematics. To do Mathematics-- axes are always the same. If you had had just a gram of Logical intelligence could see that the unit circle forces sine to define 180 degrees as being a diameter of 2. Thus making the sine graph and cosine graph to be a SEMICIRCLE Wave graph. Second proof that sine and cosine are semicircle waves:: This proof has a hands on experiment involved. Take a close look at a screen door spring, and verify it is wound up circles per windings. Experiment:: make a 2nd dimension graph of semicircle wave. Cut out the semicircles but leaving them in one piece so you can bend and fold. Now, fold the sheet of cut out semicircles to begin to approach a spring of circle windings. Now, do the same with the idiotic Old Math's sinusoid shape wave. Can you form a spring, without vertices, a vertex at each joint and which those joints are physics vulnerable to cracking and breaking apart. Theorem Statement:: A spring in mathematics is a winding of semicircle waves and is the sine function and cosine function wound from 2nd dimension into 3rd dimension. Proof Statement:: Only a semicircle wave can be wound from 2nd dimension into 3rd dimension and be free of vertices, (weak spots). Only a circle is free of vertices when attaching half waves. ---------------------- 5-5 Irrational numbers do not exist, and never did Now you would think that Physics never needs to know the difference between rational number and irrational number. But you be surprised to know that when no irrational number exists, the numbers 3.14…. and 2.71 as two separate numbers being rational only, is the closest that mathematics can come to two related numbers, 22/7 with 19/7, matching the Atom Totality of 22 subshells in 7 shells and 19 subshells occupied. Here is a concept unknown to mathematicians about pi and "e", the concept of simultaneous relatedness. When we see no irrational exists, then pi and "e" are connected fully. Many Errors of what Numbers exist. Why no Irrationals exist-- lowest terms, anthyphairesis (an Ancient Greek term for the process of reciprocal subtraction) Why No Irrationals exist, and why pi and 2.71… are rational numbers-- as easy as Decimal Number representation-- they have a denominator power of 10. I mean really, that constitutes a full fledged proof that no irrationals exist. For every number can be placed in a Decimal Representation. The moment you state the number-- it has a integer denominator, an integer numerator-- hence -- rational. End of proof. Why No Irrationals exist, and why pi and 2.71… are rational numbers Old Math, and their "Lowest Terms Error" although don't tell them-- proved that 1/2 is irrational Re: analyzing why the Ancient Greek proof that sqrt2 is irrational is flawed Alright, let me get started on the proof that 1/2 is irrational number using the invalid method of Ancient Greeks that sqrt2 is irrational, only because, the method is invalid. Earlier I showed how a definition of Lowest Term for p/q needed to be extended to include a number in Rationals in decimal representation. So, what is the Lowest Term for 1/2 in 10 Grid, for it would be .1/.2 and then the next lowest is .2/.4, etc etc. So, let us run through a proof that 1/2 is a Irrational number using the proof method of Ancient Greeks. Proof:: Suppose 1/2 is Rational. And now, put 1/2 in Lowest terms and it is thus, in lowest terms. But now, taking 2 and dividing it into 1 __________ 2| 1.00000.... = .50000..... and then dividing 2 by 2 _________ 2|2.00000..... = 1.0000..... And now, we have 1/2 in Lowest terms as .5/1. But now, hold on a minute, let us divide .5 by 2, then 1 by 2, giving us .25 and .5 respectively. Since we can never get a Lowest Term for the Rational number 1/2, means a contradiction, hence 1/2 is irrational. So, of course the above is flawed and flawed in the same way the method was used to prove sqrt2 is irrational, when truly sqrt2 is rational. What went wrong? What went wrong is a bad definition-- Lowest Terms. The proof that sqrt2 is Rational, simply involves observation for that In 10 Grid, sqrt2 = 1.42 X 1.42 = 2.0 (oh, you question the 2.0164, you question the "164", well in 10 Grid, the only digits that exist are the ten place value and that is 2.0. In 100 Grid, sqrt2 = 1.415 X 1.415 In 1000 Grid, sqrt2 = 1.4143 X 1.4143 and on and on. Sqrt2 and all sqrt root numbers are Rationals. Even pi and 2.71.... are rational numbers. Anthyphairesis Re: Stillwell gave another phony proof sqrt2 irrational Re: analyzing why the Ancient Greek proof that sqrt2 is irrational is a flawed On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 6:06:01 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 3:50:43 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > > > > That is the only one proof in all of mathematics-- an argument based on a definition of Lowest Terms. > > Apparently there is a second proof of sqrt2 irrational. A far more challenging proof to see if phony. > Apparently there was a second proof, but whether it was known by Euclid, by Archimedes, I rather doubt it. > It is seen in Stillwell's Mathematics and Its History, 3rd ed. 2010, page 45. In the same book, page 12 is the Lowest Terms phony proof. > > Now looking at that alleged proof on page 45, it says and I quote. > > " We notice that the rectangle remaining after step 2, with sides sqrt2-1 and 2-sqrt2 = sqrt2(sqrt2-1), is the same shape as the original, though the long side is now vertical instead of horizontal. It follows that similar steps will recur forever, which is another proof that sqrt2 is irrational, incidentally." > > Does Stillwell expect readers to "read his mind". Why would a recurrence ever make Stillwell think that was a proof of sqrt2 is not able to be P/Q where P and Q are Counting Numbers. Why? Is it because two rational sides would cancel out in a square further down the line? And, if so, then the reason this proof is nonrecurring is only because, well, you use a symbol of sqrt2 that cannot commingle with actual numbers. If you call a number a symbol, call it S, call it Y, obviously you cannot get rid of it. > > Now this one is going to be challenging for me to show it is phony. But it is easy if we demand sqrt2 be written as a number, not some abstract symbol. Once we demand that a number in decimal representation or in fractions be forced upon rather than a "just a symbol sqrt2", then the phoniness of the proof is immediately apparent. Because, that forcing demands sqrt2 be written as 1.42 = 142/100 in 10 Grid or written as 1.415 = 1415/1000 in 100 Grid, etc. Writing sqrt2 in a number, then it behaves like all other Rationals, for it is a rational. > > You see, the rub on sqrt2 that Old Math installed is the same mistake they made with 1/3. They want 1/3 be .33333....., when, if called to be logical, 1/3 is .3333...33(+1/3) what Newton called the Compleat Quotient. > nice proof that no irrationals exist, simple fact that all numbers are Decimal represented and thus a denominator of power of 10 Re: analyzing why the Ancient Greek proof that sqrt2 is irrational is a flawed Now, here is a Commonsense proof that No Irrationals exist. It is not formal, it is not flowery or pilfered with abstractions. It is a proof that an old grandma or grandpa would understand and recognize, even if their thinking is impaired in old age. It is a proof that young kids would be proud of owning. For it is a proof that since 3000 years ago, humanity has thought there was something known as "irrational number" and only now, today, realizes that there are no irrational numbers. That irrational numbers was a grand fake of fakeries. We could say the Grand Canyon of mathematics fakeries. Theorem Statement:: Rational numbers exist, but Irrationals do not exist. Proof Statement:: Once we are able to have a Decimal Number system we can build all the numbers via Grids and using a math-induction element and adding that element successively to build the numbers. They are all Decimal numbers, meaning that their place-value is established. So that say for instance .003, or 3.14159..... are all rational numbers because, depending on what place value you want to talk about, it is 3/1000 or 314159/100000. In other words, writing a number in Decimal Representation alone, proves the number is a Rational for the denominator is always a power of 10. And since decimal numbers are ALL POSSIBLE DIGIT ARRANGEMENTS, means that all numbers are a Rational. QED Now, there is one possible exception to this rule or proof. The imaginary number of square root of -1. Is it even a number? I am going to say it is not a number, because all numbers have to come from Math induction on a induction element, be it 1 for Counting Numbers, be it .1 for 10 Grid, or .01 for 100 Grid, etc etc. So where does that leave us with sqrt -1. I suggest that i is not a number but an angle, a symbol for an angle. What angle is it? Not 90 degree for that is +1. I suggest i = sqrt-1 is the angle 180 degrees that lies in 2nd and 3rd quadrants. 5-5 COMPLETING A DIVISION CORRECTLY such as 1/3 = .3333..33(+1/3) Newton, way back in the 1600s called it "Compleat Quotient", but that was some 400 years ago, and do you mean to tell me, that in 400 years time no-one had a good enough logical mind since Newton, that everyone since Newton was a failure of Logic when it comes to division? Everyone gets this much ______ 3| 10000 = 3333+1/3 and then, everyone falls to pieces, into some pit of stupidity on this ______ 3|1.0000 = .3333(+1/3) They fall to pieces, because they think, in their stupid little minds that ______ 3|1.0000 = .3333….. and forget about any remainder So that truly, 1/3 as a decimal is not, is never .3333..... but rather 1/3 = .33333..33(+1/3) Where we always realize a remainder in division must always be tacked on. Now the above is important in that it eliminates the obnoxious idea put forth by half-brains in math that 1 = .9999…. The number 1 never equals .9999…. but it does equal .9999..99(+9/9). So, half-brains of math, time to run for the hills. Explaining why most modern mathematicians are logically brain-dead-- simply because in modern day times, students are not forced to take logic-- to learn how to think straight and think clearly. If I had my way. Every Freshmen at College is required to take Introduction to Logic, for, it is only commonsense that Colleges and Universities do see that thinking straight and thinking clearly is top priority. And, if I had my way, the science majors all have to take a second year of logic called Symbolic Logic, because every day as a -- scientist -- the most important tool is logic. Just ask me! COMMENTARY:: On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 11:49:01 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.math: We should be able to tell what atom is involved by Electron count, just as proton count//Bohr model was more about monopoles, than about actual atoms > Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 22:24:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: correcting ION theory, for it is in tatters From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 06:24:59 +0000 > correcting ION theory, for it is in tatters > Now this second experiment is all about the idea, that if electrons were in motion in electric current, not magnetic monopoles, then we have to ask the question as to how many electrons can be removed from an atom and still be an atom of that element? Or, better yet, how many electrons can be added to an atom and still be the original atom of its proton count. > In Old Chemistry, they thought that there is no end to stripping away the electrons or adding more electrons of that puny tiny .5MeV particle. > In New Chemistry, all the talk about ions is just talk about Magnetic Monopoles which are photons of .5MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy. > Proofs that the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV, and that the .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole, after all by Archimedes Plutonium 13 PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon by Archimedes Plutonium Proofs that the Real Electron=muon and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall 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. 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 --- 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. 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 --- 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. 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. 7th proof the Maxwell Equations are not symmetrical without current being the flow of magnetic monopoles. 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 everthing 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 () 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 Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon of 231Pu ::\ ::|:: /:: ::\::|::/:: _ _ (:Y:) - - ::/::|::\:: ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. 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 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 13:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1b2972b0-1822-4f6f-8673-96374c806558@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #680078 |
Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 20:19:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: Page43, 5-6 CORRECT MATH NEEDED by Physics to do gravity= EM /math of circle versus parabola & Theory of 9 //textbook 8th ed. From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 04:19:55 +0000 Page43, 5-6 CORRECT MATH NEEDED by Physics to do gravity= EM /math of circle versus parabola & Theory of 9 //textbook 8th ed. Page43, 5-6 CORRECT MATH NEEDED by Physics to do gravity= EM /math of circle versus parabola & Theory of 9 //textbook 8th ed. 5-6 TRUE CORRECT MATH NEEDED by Physics in order to understand gravity is EM /math of circle versus parabola/ And, the theory of 9 Now, one would think that all the mathematicians and physicists knew the difference between a circle and ellipse versus a parabola. You would think that Newton on down to 2016, all physicists and mathematicians would know the correct mathematics of an open curve as a parabola and a closed curve as a circle or ellipse. You would think that, it is impossible for Newton to have made such a huge mistake with mathematics that gravity is according to Newton's math and according to General Relativity math, that gravity is a parabola, not a closed curve that gravity requires. And, this huge mistake surfaces in astronomy as of the 1970s onwards, when spiral galaxies were seen with solid body rotation, and then the fools of science hypothesized dark matter, dark energy, when those very same fools were using a mathematics that gravity had the math of a open curve parabola. Let me show you what I am talking about. 6). Fixing the huge math error of gravity in Old Physics Now let us shift to 2nd dimension geometry for a moment and we have this. Circle x^2 + y^2 = 1 Ellipse x^2/a^2 + y^2/b^2 = 1 Parabola x^2 - y = 1 Now, in Old Physics, they had gravity as F= Gm1*m2/d^2 They wanted gravity as either circle or ellipse, for they saw planets orbit in closed loops. Now here is a huge huge flaw of Old Physics, something that even Newton by 1687, himself should have caught and corrected, and if not Newton, surely James Clerk Maxwell by 1860 should have caught the math error. Unfortunately neither caught the huge math error. And why did no-one in the 1900s catch the mistake? Why? You see, the huge error is that a math formula for a closed curve has to end up looking like this: Y = (kAA + jBB)/ d^2 To be a Closed Curve, the numerator needs at least two terms, not one term but two terms. If the numerator has just one term, it is a Parabola open curve, and we all know gravity is a closed curve. Now this is a lesson in itself, a sort of like morality lesson or Aesop's Fable lesson, that you cannot find a mistake or flaw of science, if that flaw is going to overturn the entire subject matter. What I mean is say Newton or Maxwell had known that gravity could not be F= Gm1*m2/d^2 but had to be F= kAA/d^2 + jBB/d^2. Suppose they had discovered that, then the problem is, they had nothing in physical reality to give meaning to that math correction. They knew not that the Sun was revolving around a galaxy with planets in helical motion, nor did they have any idea that gravity was electromagnetism. So, even if, Newton or Maxwell, realized the math was wrong, they could not link physical reality to a correct math of F= kAA/d^2 + jBB/d^2. It spoils not only Newton's gravity law but spoils the entire General Relativity. What I am talking about, is the math of Newton's gravity and General Relativity is a math of just one term kAA/d^2 and that math is a open curve such as a parabola. The math needed for a closed curve for gravity is of at least two terms in the numerator such as (kAA + jBB)/d^2. So that gravity is sufficient to be a closed loop, a circle or a ellipse. And this is shocking as to how such a math error escaped all physicists and mathematicians until 2016 when I solved it in this textbook. Gravity that is F= m(a1 + a2 + a3) and not F = ma. Gravity that is F = (kAA+jBB +hCC)/d^2. Gravity that is the same as EM to allow for Solid Body Rotation and V proportional to R, proportional to 1/R and to 1/R^2 and all in between. 5-6 The Theory of 9 Alright, mathematics never was able to unify what numbers goes with angles. Old Math thought that 90 degrees as a right-angle was just an arbitrary selection, for someone in Old Math believed you could just as well pick 100 degrees as being the right angle and all other angles multiplied by a factor to put them to right. And, Old Math made a huge mistake in trigonometry for they defined sine alright as opposite/hypotenuse, but then they degenerated into idiocy by thinking that 180 degrees was 3.14… leading to their fakery of a sinusoid wave. When you define sine as opposite/hypotenuse and examine the unit circle, then 90 degrees is 1, thus, forcing 180 degrees to be 2, never 3.14…. But, what about all the other angles, for the unit circle cannot define all the other angles, and so, we need a system in Mathematics that connects numbers with angles. We need a Natural System. And Remember, remember well, that you can never have an axes of angles while the other axes are numbers, that axes have to all be the same, or else, you are no longer doing mathematics. You are doing some commercial, not math. So, what is this THEORY OF 9. The theory of 9 connects numbers with angles. And it comes from none other than the Atom Totality, the 231Pu Atom Totality. Remember the Atom Totality is plutonium single atom that makes up the entire world and it has a 5f6. This 5f6 is the night sky of stars and galaxies, those little white dots are actually bits and pieces of the last 6 muons= electrons. And recall that Decimal Number system is because of that 5 in 5f6 and the 2 in 2x3= 6. So Decimals are special numbers, and the last whole number before you get to 10 is 9. Before you get to 100 is 99, and before you get to 1000 is 999. So you kind of get a sense of 9 being special because 10 is special. So the "9" is the last whole number before you start to use the "1" and the "0" digits to make more numbers. In that sense, the last whole number before you reuse the digits to make new numbers is important. The number 3 as in 3x3=9 is in the 5f6. Now, without further ado, I refer the reader to a website that explains the theory of 9 so well, for it has graphics and pictures that I simply cannot do here. I mentioned in the first post of a Youtube reference to Genevieve Parry and the specialness of the number 9. Here is that reference and she does a excellent graphic. The Sacred Geometry of 9 - YouTube ► 2:59 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAc_2tBu0T0 Aug 20, 2015 - 3 min - Uploaded by Genevieve Parry 3 6 9 - "If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to ... What I like the reader to focus on from that website is the idea that 9 collapses into the center but also, the number 9 expands outward and leaving a vacuum. So the number 9 is related to Quantum Mechanics as a duality number-- for it expands outward -- Uncollapsed Wavefunction and it also collapses to a single point in the center-- Collapsed Wavefunction. In a sense, the number 9 is the number for duality, and is the Schrodinger Equation for math arithmetic. I say that because, you can see, that the measure of angles comes all down to the fact that they sum to 9. Now, those in Old Math, those pitiful geezers will jump all over this by calling it numerology, for geezers are losers in life and want to complain when anyone gets ahead. And the complaint by geezers is that any number system has its own "9" before it reaches a "10", such as in binary 01 before 10 (which is 2 in binary) that the geezers would say 01 behaves like 9 does in decimal system. But Parry addressed this in her film clip by asking "is it numerology". I answer and pommel the geezers by noting that decimal system is very unique of all systems and throws out all other systems. That the decimal system is uniquely fit to do science. So, watching the clip, we see that in Physics and in Mathematics, 9 is a very special number, for it is the number for the Schrodinger Wave Equation, of a Collapsed or Uncollapsed Wavefunction. So the meaning of RestMass in Physics follows a table of 9. For the Real Proton is 840 MeV and the neutron is thus 840 + 105 = 945 MeV. A hydrogen atom is 9 muons = proton + electron = hydrogen atom. As shown in the film, the angles collapse towards the center, while the regular polygons have the center become more and more a vacuum-- and also Gauss's law of electricity where charge migrates from the center regions to the outer surface. So, the theory of Rest Mass and why the Muon is the Real Electron, not the .5 MeV monopole, is because with the proton at 840 MeV and the Muon at 105 MeV totals to 945 MeV and our familiar crucial number 9. What it means, is that all rest mass particles are constructed from a mathematics of 105 MeV and 105/3 MeV. What is the .5 MeV "little electron"? Remember, it is the magnepole, the charge of a magnet as +1 charge or -1 charge. The .5 MeV is not the electron but a monopole charge. Theory of 9 unifies angles with plain numbers. For the angle of 1 in unit circle in trigonometry of sine, is 90 degrees. No other number fits being a right angle than the number 90, the 9 and 0 for 9+0 = 9. Notice that half of 90 degrees is 45 degrees and it is 4+5=9. Take half of 45 and you have 22.5 degrees, and notice you have 2+2+5= 9. So on and so forth. But once watching the Parry Youtube film clip, i can easily see that 9 unifies angles with plain numbers and that a right angle as 90 degrees was not an arbitrary selection. So, I wondered if 9 has some geometry significance, and found this YouTube site by Genevieve Parry. Let me try to outline her themes: 360 is 3 + 6 = 9 180 is 1 + 8 = 9 90 is 9= 9 45 is 4 +5 = 9 22.5 is 2+ 2 + 5 = 9 11.25 is 1 + 1+ 2 + 5 = 9 5.625 is 5 + 6 + 2 + 5 = 9 + 9 2.8125 is 2 + 8 + 1 + 2 + 5 = 9 + 9 So does it go on forever in 9s, and is there some good math explanation? Only that of Atom Totality. Then she goes the other way of multiplying using regular polygons: 60 x 3 is 180 is 1 + 8 = 9 90 x 4 is 360 is 1 +8 = 9 108 x 5 is 540 is 5 + 4 = 9 120 x 6 is 720 is 7 + 2 = 9 135 x 8 is 1080 is 1 + 8 = 9 So, even the 7 gon with angles 128(4/7) follows the pattern of 7 X 128(4/7) = 896 + 4 = 900 and the 11-gon with 147(3/11) X 11 = 1620. The message I get from all of this is that Numbers in Mathematics have a concept of Duality ingrained in the numbers themselves, and that 9 exemplifies that duality of being Everything and simultaneously, being Nothing. Now, also, this 9 pattern should prompt us to discover that a Number Representation of Decimals is a preferred representation, above and beyond any other representation such as binary or 3-base etc. So Genevieve goes in two directions, bisecting then multiplying and using polygons and diameters, as can be seen in her YouTube film, where she comes to a astounding conclusion that 9 is a dual number where all is focused in the center of the circle when using diameters and all is outside the inner reaches of the circle when using the perimeters of the regular polygons. So she has a "dense center" using diameters and a vacuum center when using regular polygons, and dense outer layer using polygons. Now in that Parry's Youtube clip is mentioned a quote from Tesla The Sacred Geometry of 9 Genevieve Parry 4,312 views SUBSCRIBE18 664 Published on Aug 20, 2015〄 3 6 9 - "If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe." - Nikola Tesla Have you ever wondered why there are 360 degrees in a circle? This short video distills a lot of information about numbers, geometry and the relationship between them. Category Education License Standard YouTube License Without the Internet, I would never have found the geometry significance of the number 9. Number 9 as duality number and why base 10 is favored over all other base representations. History of my discovery 1 proton = 9 Muons was 2016, then by 2017 realized Real-Proton = 833MeV, Real Electron= 105MeV Looking back at my posts to find where I conceived of the idea 9Muons = 1 Proton. Apparently from the post below of August 2016, it was around that time. Big, big, very big discoveries in either math or physics can be found by paying attention to what equals another. In this case, in physics, one must realize that in Physics experiments, if we get 99% near one another, means they are the same. But then fruitcake physicists have a mental block, and they only see equality when something is exactly the same-- having a piss poor mind that cannot realize experiments have fluctuations. History of my discovery 1 proton = 9 Muons was 2016, then by 2017 realized Real-Proton = 840MeV, Real Electron= 105MeV Now, what is the proof that Real Electron is the muon at 105 MeV? The proof is simple and two words-- Chemical Bonding. You cannot have a Chemistry using the electron at .5 MeV, cannot have covalent bonds, nor ionic bonds, nor even metallic bonds, especially metallic bonds. You need the Electron to be 1/8 the rest mass of the Proton, in order to have Chemistry. So what is this little guy the .5 MeV electron? What the hell is it? And, I think it is the photon or neutrino with a charge. So that we can have photons and neutrinos with charge. Looking at H&R 1986, they have the pion at 135 and 139 MeV, straddled by +- charge and 0 charge pions. The pion meson tells me that photons can have charge. And so the .5MeV particle is not the electron of Chemistry, but rather, is some charge carrier particle. Probably a Magnetic Field Line of Force, perhaps the magnetic monopole, and that the monopole Dirac computed as being 137/2, that perhaps the smallest magnetic monopole is .5 MeV, and the largest are the Mesons. So, the picture is slowly emerging, that the Electron that Chemistry needs, requires and uses is the Muon of 105 MeV, and the proton is not a 938 MeV particle but a 840 MeV particle. The .5 MeV is some form of carrier charge particle, perhaps the magnetic monopole in its lowest energy form. Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 11:50:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: is the proton that of 9 muons packed together? The 200 rest mass Rule /textbook 7th ed From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 18:50:59 +0000 >is the proton that of 9 muons packed together? The 200 rest mass Rule /textbook 7th ed > >Seems like a few weeks ago I wrote this about rest mass, and the rule of 200: > >Two Sequences I want a formula for: > >1st Sequence 0.51, 105.7, 135, 139.6, 493.7, 497.7, 548.8 > >2nd Sequence 938.3, 939.6, 1116, 1189, 1192, 1197, 1315, 1321, 1672 > >If you are wondering where these numbers come from, they come from PHYSICS, Halliday & >Resnick, 1986, page A27 and are the electron-like rest masses and proton-like rest masses. > >Electron, Muon, Pion, K meson, Eta meson > >Proton, Neutron, Lambda, Sigma, Xi, Omega > >This almost reminds me of astronomy, solar system of the spacing distance of planets per the >Titius Bode Formula. I would be very happy to get a Titius Bode type of formula rule for particle >rest mass. > (snipped) > >And the question of why 940 MeV for proton? While electron is a meagre .51 MeV. Now let me put >a thought out that may pan out, but not likely. Think of the proton of rest mass as 940 MeV and >consider that the muon is 105 MeV and that 9 Muons packed together makes a proton. Now that >sounds so far off the beaten tracks, because how could you assemble 9 negative charges to be a >single positive charge? > >But there is a charming aspect to that idea, that the muon is the rest-mass giver. Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon of 231Pu ::\ ::|:: /:: ::\::|::/:: _ _ (:Y:) - - ::/::|::\:: ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. 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 in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium Commentary:: Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 15:55:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: solving the Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly, alongside proton radius shrunk Re: 42Page42, 5-5 Atom Totality Universe textbook From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 23:55:45 +0000 > > 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. > AP > Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 16:14:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: 10th proof Re: solving the Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly, alongside proton radius shrunk From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 00:14:24 +0000 > > 10th proof Re: solving the Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly, alongside proton radius shrunk > Now, can I get a 10th proof that the Real Electron is the muon and Real Proton is 840 MeV particle and that the tiny puny particle of .5 MeV was a magnetic monopole all along and this monopole is a dress-up, or dressed down photon with .5MeV of charge energy, not to be mistaken as rest-mass energy. > Can I get a 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. 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. > AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-06 19:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3790d536-35ea-4622-b10b-0aaee9a36eb0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #680129 |
Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 21:38:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: page44, 5-7/ Solving the Table of Elementary Particles of Physics / Atom Totality textbook 8th ed. From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 05:38:49 +0000 page44, 5-7/ Solving the Table of Elementary Particles of Physics / Atom Totality textbook 8th ed. 5-7 Solving the Table of Elementary Particles of Physics / Atom Totality textbook 8th ed. First let me show you the Table of Old Physics, how it looked like back in 1986. Here I am attempting to replicate Halliday & Resnick's 1986 PHYSICS textbook page A27 titled Particles of Physics LEPTONS .5 electron, 105 muon, electron's neutrino 0, Muon's neutrino 0 (in MeV rest mass) charge +- electron, +- muon, neutrinos 0 MESONS 139 pion, 135 pion , 493 K meson , 497 K meson, 548 Eta-meson charge +- pion, 0 pion, +- K meson, 0 K meson, 0 Eta-meson BARYONS 938 proton, 939 neutron, 1116 Lambda, 1189 Sigma, 1192 Sigma, 1197 Sigma charge +- proton, 0 neutron, 0 Lambda, + Sigma, 0 Sigma, - Sigma more BARYONS 1315 Xi, 1321 Xi, 1673 Omega charge 0 Xi , +- Xi, +- Omega Now let me add some that were missing in H&R of 1986, and found many years later LEPTONS 1784 tau electron charge +-1 tau electron Recent BARYONS recent 2 Omegas at 6054 and 6165 MeV Recent Higgs boson 125,000 MeV and here we already see how utterly contradictory is the Standard Model, for it has huge rest mass, yet it is the Standard Model saying they travel at the speed of light. Physicists who abide by the Standard Model, have zero logical minds. ------------------------------ So, for the first time in physics history, we assemble the Table of Elementary Particles of Physics as they truly are. And we explain the why. The Standard Model of this physics topic was just a "substitute theory" for it is better to have some crappy theory with many leaking holes, than to have nothing at all. With my discovery that the Real Electron = Muon and that the .5 MeV particle is a photon or neutrino dressed up with a .5 MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy. Makes all the difference in the world, for the above table is now just a integer multiples of the listed energies. A proton is just 8 muons circled in a octet ring, a closed loop of subatomic wire (if you like to think of it that way). The photon and neutrinos are no longer huge mysteries, but far more clear as to their functions-- they carry the charge, so that the .5 MeV is a Magnetic Monopole that causes current and causes electricity. So, with my discovery, huge advance in understanding Elementary Particles of Physics-- for the first time. From knowing that the EM force unifies all the forces of physics, and thus the strong nuclear force is merely a scaled up version of the EM force of chemistry. What is going on in the nucleus of atoms, is the same thing going on in the electrons=muons of Atoms. In other words, what goes on in Chemistry goes on in the Elementary Particles. The nucleus of atoms is a chemistry scene, only instead of atoms and electrons=muons bonding, we have elementary particles bonding. So, we already have a Table of Chemical Elements, and that means the Table of Elementary Physics Particles is going to be a scaled down version of the Chemical Elements. In Chemistry, the elements are a adding of one more proton to the previous element to make a new element. In Elementary Particles, it is the adding of one more muon=electron to make a new rest mass particle. So now, how is this going to solve the Table of Particles? First we realize that the Real Proton is 840 MeV, and Real Neutron is 945 MeV and the Real Electron= muon = 105 MeV. What is the .5 MeV with -1 charge particle that Old Physics saw so much of, and was fooled into believing it was the electron? It is the charge of a magnetic field, the magnetic pole is charged and a magnet has both +1 pole and -1 pole and so this .5 MeV particle was a magnepole, or monopole. It was never a electron nor a positron, but the magnet pole, a monopole if you like to call it that. Magnepole = monopole is the charge of one pole of a magnetic field. It is a photon with charge, not with rest mass. In all the times physicists measured the .5 MeV, they were never measuring rest mass, but rather, they were measuring a .5 MeV energy that was charge. And, this .5 MeV charge energy of the monopole is the exact same as the 1/2 spin number of elementary particles, the quantum number m_s. It just so happens that the units of electron-volts coincides with m_s. So in the Table, the correct table of Physics Elementary Particles should look like this:: PHOTONS .5 MeV magnepoles = monopoles, all other Photons, ranging from radio waves on up to mesons and beyond. Including all the Neutrinos for neutrinos are just photons that are longitudinal waves not double transverse waves. LEPTONS 105 muon= electron, tau-electron 1785 +- charge MESONS 139 pion, 135 pion , 493 K meson , 497 K meson, 548 Eta-meson charge +- pion, 0 pion, +- K meson, 0 K meson, 0 Eta-meson BARYONS 840 proton, 945 neutron, 1116 Lambda, 1189 Sigma, 1192 Sigma, 1197 Sigma charge +- proton, 0 neutron, 0 Lambda, + Sigma, 0 Sigma, - Sigma more BARYONS 1315 Xi, 1321 Xi, 1672 Omega charge 0 Xi , +- Xi, +- Omega Recent BARYONS recent 2 Omegas at 6054 and 6165 MeV Recent Higgs boson 125,000 MeV The key formula is Real Electron= muon =105 MeV And then, Real Proton = 840 MeV, Neutron= 945 MeV And then, Magnetic Monopole = .5 MeV and is the source of current and electricity The heavier baryons are add-ons of muons and mesons Mesons are energetic photons or neutrinos Neutrinos = Photons = Mesons and differing only as to whether they are longitudinal waves or double transverse waves. And what the table does not show is a special photon of 105/3 = 35 MeV. I request all physicists in particle-accelerators to look for this 35 MeV particle, it should be found easily. Maybe some physicists have already stumbled across this special photon, or neutrino or meson particle. For it is the key building block of say the pions in that 105 MeV + 35 MeV = pion. Three key photon energies, NOT REST MASS, are .5 MeV as the photon magnepole that is charged and is the magnetic pole = monopole with both -1 and +1 charge, remember the .5 MeV is energy, not rest mass, and researchers can easily be fooled by this. Another key photon is the 105/3 MeV, and have to wait to see if already discovered. And the third key photon is the 137 MeV pion, which is the inverse fine structure constant number 137. Dirac was wrong in thinking monopole was 137/2 charge, for it is really just .5 MeV, the quantum spin number m_s of the 4 quantum numbers N, L, m_L , and m_s. So, basically the picture that is unfolding as the Periodic Table of Elementary Particles is a mirror image repeat of the Chemical Elements Table. The Proton can be considered as Hydrogen the neutron is helium then the lambda is lithium then the sigma is beryllium etc etc. If we were to have a microscope on the proton itself we would see a octagon of 8 muons and successive particles would be the increment adding of one more muon and for p, d, f the adding of 1 more muon with a meson combination. So that we can find a elementary particle of rest-mass that is the analog of cesium or of nickel or of tin or of argon or of curium etc. The table of elementary particles of physics is merely a zoomed down version of the Table of chemical elements, only instead of being based on the "proton" it is based on the Real Electron = muon. Now, that seems kind of ironic. That the chemistry elements are based on adding protons, but the Elementary Particles of Physics are based on adding 1 more muon-- but, maybe that is symmetry in action. Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon of 231Pu ::\ ::|:: /:: ::\::|::/:: _ _ (:Y:) - - ::/::|::\:: ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. 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 in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium Commentary-- It is worth repeating what lead me to the discovery that the Real Electron= muon. Back in 2016, I was pondering over the numbers of the Elementary Particles known. And I spotted the number of 938MeV for the rest-mass of proton and 105MeV for muon. And the lights came on for me, for if we think of the proton as 945 MeV with muon 105, then we see a clear 9 times relationship. But, it was not until 2017, that I realized the proton had to be 840 with muon as 105 MeV to realize the Real Electron = muon. Now I suppose there is no Logical Rule in physics that says, if checking numbers and one number is 9 times another with a discrepancy of less than 1%, means those two numbers are related such that one is built from the smaller. I do not know if science has some sort of Logic-rule, that if the numbers come that close together, you are looking at one being built from the other. Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 11:50:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: is the proton that of 9 muons packed together? The 200 rest mass Rule /textbook 7th ed From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 18:50:59 +0000 > > >is the proton that of 9 muons packed together? The 200 rest mass Rule /textbook 7th ed > >Seems like a few weeks ago I wrote this about rest mass, and the rule of 200: > >Two Sequences I want a formula for: > >1st Sequence 0.51, 105.7, 135, 139.6, 493.7, 497.7, 548.8 > >2nd Sequence 938.3, 939.6, 1116, 1189, 1192, 1197, 1315, 1321, 1672 > >If you are wondering where these numbers come from, they come from PHYSICS, Halliday & >Resnick, 1986, page A27 and are the electron-like rest masses and proton-like rest masses. > >Electron, Muon, Pion, K meson, Eta meson > >Proton, Neutron, Lambda, Sigma, Xi, Omega (snipped) . . . >And the question of why 940 MeV for proton? While electron is a meagre .51 MeV. Now let me put >a thought out that may pan out, but not likely. Think of the proton of rest mass as 940 MeV and >consider that the muon is 105 MeV and that 9 Muons packed together makes a proton. Now that >sounds so far off the beaten tracks, because how could you assemble 9 negative charges to be a >single positive charge? > >But there is a charming aspect to that idea, that the muon is the rest-mass giver. > >AP --- end of old 2016 post which lead to the discovery that the Real Electron = muon.--- > Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 20:41:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: 44page44, 5-7/ Solving the Table of Elementary Particles of Physics / Atom Totality textbook 8th ed. From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 04:41:15 +0000 > > Now let me add more commentary to this page of Tables of Elementary Particles for I recently bought 4th ed of Halliday Physics 1992, pages A-8 thru A-9. > Now they give the tau particle 1784 Mev rest-mass and if it had been just 1 more would have been exactly 17x 105, or 17 muons exactly. > So there is probably no logic rule that says -- if you come this close in numbers means that the tau particle is made up of 17 muons, just plain ordinary commonsense tells you so. > Looking for more close calls we have the Omega baryon 1673 MeV as almost 16 muons. We have the Upsilon meson at 9460 as 90 muons. > Now we explain the entire table is a building of new particles using 105 MeV as basis with some fractional increments. > As for the Quarks and field-particles-- a total waste of time and crap. > Now the table shows photon with spin 1 and charge 0. Now that is true for a photon when not a magnetic monopole, but when a monopole it can be spin 1/2 and charge .5 MeV. > Now the omega and delta baryons show some strange charge and spin. But, not to worry for as we build these particles of higher rest mass, they are compounded earlier particles. > AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-07 12:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <487c197e-130d-4887-a5ab-1dbd41309f56@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #680154 |
Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 11:18:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: page46, 6-2/ Deriving Pauli Exclusion and Aufbau Principles / PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE/8th ed. From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 19:18:24 +0000 page46, 6-2/ Deriving Pauli Exclusion and Aufbau Principles / PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE/8th ed. page46, 6-2/ Deriving Pauli Exclusion and Aufbau Principles / PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE/8th ed. I think the proper order for deriving the Old Physics principles from EM theory is this order: 1) Dirac & Schrodinger Equations 2) Perpetual Motion 3) Uncertainty, Complementarity, and Superposition, Correspondence Principles 4) Pauli Exclusion & Aufbau Principles 5) Fusion Barrier Principle That ordering follows what I believe is the easiest derivations first and the hardest near the end. Now an Overview of Quantum Mechanics is appropriate, right about here. What was Quantum Mechanics? It was a theory in search of "who it really was". During the 1900s as QM was borne and flourished, it was all just a parcel of principles and rules. It was not a actual theory of physics but a collection of rules to apply in certain situations. But, as the Atom Totality theory emerged starting 1990, then QM would begin to be seen as a subset of Electromagnetism. That Quantum Mechanics is a gaggle of rules that are found to lie within or a subset of the EM-Maxwell Equations. And this chapter is trying to pull together how those QM rules are fetched out of the EM-Maxwell and AP Equations. In short, QM is a subset of EM physics. In this page I need to derive Pauli Exclusion Principle, which I had done so, many years back and need to hunt that down. The Pauli Exclusion Principle is actually another form of Same Space Occupancy which in Old Physics was seen as a like-charges repel, but is in fact a wholly different concept and that like charges actually attract one another as seen in electrons=muons congregating outside the nucleus, as protons congregate to form a nucleus, and as monopoles congregate to form capacitance and flow of monopoles in wires, making electricity. Now here, with our newly discovered Real Electron as the muon, we must also review capacitors. For capacitors are the storage of the .5 MeV magnepole= monopoles. So in this new understanding, that Capacitors are the storage not of electrons for those are muons, but rather the storage of photons that are charged with .5 MeV energy. The Pauli Exclusion Principle is intriguing and challenging for the AP-Maxwell Equations to derive. The toughest, so far as I can determine at this moment is the Aufbau principle which would require the Faraday Law in conjunction with the Ampere/Maxwell Law to form a 3rd dimension circuit, where the circuits attract to cause to form a atom. This gets into the geometry of atoms of the periodic chemical table. And here we can do an experiment to ease our way into the theory. We get numerous wires, 2 for the S, and 6 for the P and 10 for the D and 14 for the F subshells. Now we measure the attraction of 2 wires, of 6 wires of 10 wires of 14 wires via the Ampere law of parallel currents attract. Now I think the pairing of electrons=muons in sub-orbitals, Hund's Rule, is also derived from Ampere law. Basically, to derive the Aufbau from AP Equations involves taking each atom and seeing the nucleus as a bar magnet in Faraday's law and the electron=muon going around in a circle from the bar magnet, and the current of the electron=muon causing a Ampere-Maxwell law to arise with a displacement current and the magnets of the Ampere law causing the nucleus to have a current and motion. The constant trade-off with the Faraday law and Ampere law of a nucleus and surrounding electrons=muons, in a complex and complicated interlocking action and reaction, we end up with an Aufbau. Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon of 231Pu ::\ ::|:: /:: ::\::|::/:: _ _ (:Y:) - - ::/::|::\:: ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. 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 in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium Comments:: my mind is always teaming with ideas, and one idea relating to a previous chapter is the idea that the formula of helix motion is somewhat equal to a logarithmic function, and I need to explore that idea. What I need to find out if that formula also, resembles logarithmic function Looking for something like this Ln(t) = jxx/b^2 + kyy/c^2 + hzz/d^2 Looking for something of a hybrid of Log function and circle helix function Trying to marry the two I do not need exactness, but if I can make them come close together. What I need to find out if that formula also, resembles logarithmic function Looking for something like this Ln(t) = jxx/b^2 + kyy/c^2 + hzz/d^2 Looking for something of a hybrid of Log function and circle helix function Trying to marry the two I do not need exactness, but if I can make them come close together Comments:: alright, the EM gravity is a Logarithmic function G= Ln(x) it is not an inverse square, because it has to contain three different types of forces V proportional R, proportional to 1/R, proportional to 1/R^2. In the above pages I referred the reader to spiral galaxy rotation curves to see these 3 different types. But let me try to draw a Ln(x) function and break it into three types. ^ __-__-_---- | + 1/R^2 | + 1/R | / | / R |/_________________> graph of both spiral galaxy rotation curve and graph of the Ln(x) function of math scooted up into the 1st Quadrant Only (and one can reflect that the exp(x) function is scooted over in the 1st Quadrant). Now, looking at Ln(x), does it in any way shape or form look like a 1/4 of a circle? It does so, but with some imagination of a stretched circle. So this indicates to me, that we can break apart the Ln function into three strips to approximate the Ln function and it being, of course, the Coulomb law, the gravity law, all stacked three different pieces as one force law. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-08 20:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ee2a8b20-059c-47fe-bf4a-d9bffc36a2e2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #680226 |
Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 11:51:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: page47, 6-3/ Deriving Fusion Barrier Principle from AP-Maxwell Equations/ textbook, 8th ed. From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 19:51:30 +0000 page47, 6-3/ Deriving Fusion Barrier Principle from AP-Maxwell Equations/ textbook, 8th ed. page47, 6-3/ Deriving Fusion Barrier Principle from AP-Maxwell Equations/ textbook, 8th ed. Deriving Fusion Barrier Principle from AP-Maxwell Equations First, what is the Fusion Barrier Principle, FBP? And what is its history? Its history starts 1997 with a discussion with Dr. Rick Spielman:: > > --- quoting a old post of mine of 1997 wherein I discovered what would be the Fusion-Barrier-Principle --- From: Archimedes.Pluton...@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.engr,sci.physics Subject: Fusion Power breakeven is theoretically impossible Date: 21 Aug 1997 16:04:28 GMT Organization: PLutonium College Lines: 159 Distribution: world Message-ID: (5thouc$prt$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> In article (33FA0AB3.6...@worldnet.att.net> Rick Spielman (rbsp...@worldnet.att.net> writes: [many snips] >Your are referring to two of physics' basic "assumptions" or postulates upon >which Thermodynamics (in the case of the Third Law) and the Special Theory >of Relativity (postulate of the constancy of the speed of light) are >founded. They are not basic truths, as such do not exist in physics. These >are assumptions that lead to a consistent and predictive view of the >universe. I do not want to stray off course with other theories. This one theory is big enough and basically it says that there will never be a fusion power plant and so confine myself to that theory. >ICF has many classified aspects only because much of the detailed physics >knowledge in ICF would lead to the ability to fabricate fusion weapons. ICF >operates quite differently than typical fusion weapons. I suspect that was the reason no-one tried to engineer a Teller mini fusion bomb power plant. Not because it was the most logical next step to understand fusion power but because everyone involved were "scared" of the security aspects. That the fusion bomb building knowledge would get into unfriendly hands. >Edward Teller suggested the concept of mini nukes generating electrical >power many years ago. The concept will easily work. The issue is not >scientific or engineering, it is environmental. I understand Dr. Teller is still alive? Encyc says he was born Jan 1908 and that would make him close to 90, but is his mind alert still now? Did he detail how to construct a nuclear reactor, a whole power plant to harness mini fusion bombs? If so, I would like to see it. For I have the suspicion that it is theoretically impossible to harness fusion energy. That the amount of energy to achieve fusion is greater than any electricity produced by that fusion. I suspect that no mini fusion bomb power plant can achieve breakeven. Definition of Breakeven from STARPOWER: Breakeven: The point at which the fusion power generated in a plasma equals the amount of heating power that must be added to the plasma to sustain its temperature. I suspect that fusion engineering will never deliver a single watt of electricity more than what it costs to make it. I suspect that we are stuck with fission power as the *only greater than breakeven nuclear power source*. Unless matter to antimatter can be discovered in the future. And whether matter to antimatter can be harnessed. >You are confusing physics/engineering and economic concerns. Tokamaks are >inherently low beta, low Q devices. This means that they must be very large >to generate energy. I don't wnat to get into circulating power fractions. >The construction cost would be huge. In addition, the use of DT fuel will >end up activating the hardware causing a real nuclear waste problem. This >overall drives the cost up. If we were willing to pay the price and damn >the environment we could have fusion today. I am not confusing economics with this issue. I am searching to see whether fusion is theoretically possible to harness. And all indications so far point to it being impossible. The logical course of action here is to see if a nuclear power plant of minifusion bombs will deliver greater than a fission reactor power alone. If a fusion/fission reactor always delivers less than a pure fission reactor, then this implies that fusion power plants are all less than breakeven. > > > If Sonobubbles have fusion which is it linked to, that of tokamak > > design or muon type of fusion? >More like ICF Thanks Rick. It is not necessary for Mother Nature to have all types of fusion categorized as either a Sun or tokamak or ICF. Each fusion could be different. It matters not to 2 hydrogen nuclei how they are brought together into union. But at that level one ought be able to envision and compute the parameters of successful fusion. In that way, one can get a theoretical picture of what all fusion reactions must have in common. There is a microscopic science that all fusion reactions must possess and yet the macroscopic science can have a plethora of ways of achieving that microscopic state. Muon fusion is different from tokamak, different from ICF, different from fusion bomb detonations. But there is a microscopic state in which you have parameters that determine fusion and where all these differences disappear. Unless there is probability involved. And I say there is probability involved. > > > Rick, has anyone seriously tried to engineer a series of the >smallest > > fusion bombs to make electricity? Perhaps a pressure chamber will make > > the bombs even smaller. >Yes but not for electricity. >Dr. Rick B. Spielman >Sandia National Laboratories It appears to me that the quest for fusion power has been a shoddy planned quest. Having controlled fission and making fission bombs and then fusion bombs, only the fusion bombs are a mix of fission+fusion. That the quest neglected to consider and ponder the possibility that a fusion power plant is or is not possible. That the quest for reasons unknown to me, but I suspect for the good reason of security from terrorists or military evils has not done the necessary next step in the search for fusion power. That of researching the viability of a mix of fission and fusion. Anyone, even a ten year old kid can come to commonsense reason that when you climb a high steps that it is rather foolish to be skipping intermediate steps. Before spending 40 billion dollars for the past 40-50 years on pure fusion power. It stands to reason that since we already have a fusion bomb in existence that we should investigate fully whether that fusion bomb can deliver 1 watt of electricity from greater than breakeven energy? I mean you do not have to be a wise Ben Franklin to know that if you assume that a minifusion bomb power plant is workable and never take the time to build one to make sure of the theory, that you may get into trouble. Perhaps now by 1997 we can research this minifusion power plant without the fear of security? Perhaps not? But it seems to me, by logical commonsense that if a mixture of fission+fusion cannot achieve breakeven that the pure 100% fusion as what the tokamaks and ICF are researching will also fail. If a mixture of fission-fusion fails, I see no hope in a pure fusion succeeding. Did Dr. Teller detail his minifusion bomb power plant and where in the literature can I find it? The world has already spent nigh 40 billion dollars and nigh 40-50 years on pure fusion, neglecting the intermediate logical step of researching a minifusion bomb reactor. Considering that , it would be irrational, and goofy to go ahead with ITER , tokamaks and ICF. Put ITER, tokamaks, and ICF on indefinite postponement until a minifusion bomb reactor is thoroughly checked-out. I believe once this is done a surprizing result will be found. That fusion power breakeven is impossible, both theoretically and in practice. So, do the logical commonsense thing next, build a minifusion bomb reactor and see if it gives breakeven. I am not a betting man, but my bet would be no. --- end quoting old 1997 post --- > > The Fusion Barrier Principle was discovered by AP circa 1997 while TFTR and JET were trying to make hot fusion (like the fusion in the Sun) work by big tokamak machines heating up isotopes of hydrogen to fuse together. The nearest to breakeven was JET and was muon cold fusion experiments by Nagamine and both reached almost 2/3 breakeven. Since 1997, it is planned for a huge tokamak called ITER which is yet to be constructed. But hopefully they will read the FBP and realize they are throwing away a lot of time and money which could be better employed in Geothermal Energy by tapping into volcanoes and other geothermals. The Fusion Barrier Principle says that the Faraday law is 1/3 less in energy content than the Ampere law. So if you want to commercialize fusion energy, you will never succeed for to control any machine that harnesses fusion, you spend more than 1/3 more in energy to control the machine than any energy output. My first proof of the FBP in late 1990s was simple, ultra, ultra simple for it was to simply show that the Ampere Law was a cylinder in energy content while the Faraday law was a sphere in energy content and a volume comparison is that a sphere has only 2/3 the volume of a cylinder. The cylinder has 1/3 more of a volume than does the sphere. And that in fusion production, you always need the Faraday law to produce the energy, and then you need the Ampere law to contain that which you produced. Obviously you cannot reach break-even for you throw away 1/3 energy. It is still a very viable proof today, for we can sense that in the Ampere law you start with a electric current as given. Whereas the Faraday law, you start with a bar magnet and wire coil and have to do work to produce electric current, so you can easily see that Ampere has a larger energy content than does Faraday. In 1997, I was experimentally proving FBP, and by doing so, I realized the EM theory can be reduced to a far more simple form, that the laws, the 4 dynamic laws can be reduced to geometrical laws. The essence of EM theory is "going around in a circle". The law of magnetism-- must have two poles-- a dipole in essence creates a circle. The law of electricity-- can be monopole-- creates linear momentum and not necessarily have to go around in a circle. Faraday's law becomes a magnet and loops of wire creates a sphere. Ampere's law becomes a loop of wire for current to pass, creates a cylinder. FBP says that EM theory governs fusion energy and that one of the laws-- Faraday law creates energy while the other law -- Ampere law controls the machine in order to create the energy. So the amount of energy coming out of the machine is given by Faraday law and the amount of energy put into the machine to keep it together and working properly is Ampere Law. Faraday Law gives only 2/3 energy at maximum, while Ampere law requires 1 in energy to run. So no machine is ever going to go beyond a output of more than 2/3 and every machine of fusion is going to lose or waste 1/3 energy to produce 2/3 energy. FBP means fusion will never reach break-even because the energy to control the machine exceeds the output by at least 1/3. Proof of the FBP First think of a sphere enclosed or nested inside a cylinder and the volume of the sphere is 2/3 that of the cylinder. The dynamic laws are Faraday/Lenz law and the Ampere/Maxwell law. The energy content of the Faraday/Lenz law is no more than 2/3 the energy content of the Ampere/Maxwell law. In other words, Ampere/Maxwell law has 1/3 more energy content than the Faraday/Lenz law. The Coulomb force comes out of the Faraday/Lenz law which is the force that is overcome in fusion. Yet the forces needed to control a fusion machine are the Ampere/Maxwell law. So to control fusion, takes a machine that costs 1/3 more in energy than that which is produced by fusion. So commercial fusion can only ever be 2/3 breakeven. In the latest SCIENCE magazine of 24 June2016, on page 1498, titled "Fusion laser may never ignite" is a rare example of where scientists and magazine editors use logic in their reasoning and actions. What this article is about, is to have physicists first think about if fusion can break-even, if ever, rather than a mindless chase of ever larger and costly machines. So these scientists are just now starting to look if fusion has a barrier principle-- of which I discovered in the late 1990s. What I discovered as the Fusion Barrier Principle is that the Faraday/Lenz law is deficient by1/3 less energy than the Ampere/Maxwell law. The one law produces the fusion events while the other controls the machine. So, commercial fusion will never exceed 2/3 break even. Now I hope these scientists, when they come to realize the truth of FBP, that they have the honesty and decency to give AP credit for work done long time ago. I do not do science for others to steal my work. Many scientists have the habit of stealing without giving proper credit. Now in 2016, I found another proof of FBP where I find the numbers 2/3 and 1/3 in the Maxwell theory. It is called Eddy Currents Experiment, where you have a copper tube and you drop a magnet slug down the tube and it is slow to fall down because of Lenz law in Faraday law. When we drop a plain steel slug, not magnetized we have normal speed of gravity. When we drop the magnet slug it takes 3 times as long to fall. Here again, one of these two laws Faraday or Ampere is 1/3 larger in energy content and it is this larger energy law that controls the fusion machine. In my Experiments, called eddy currents of a falling magnet in a copper tube versus a plastic tube, the copper has a Lenz law resistance of 1/3. I have to make the copper tube be 3 times longer to match the plastic tube where the LED comes on. This is important for the Fusion Barrier Principle, in that all machines built to control fusion, allow breakeven to only reach 2/3 breakeven. Now when people read about the Fusion Barrier Principle, the scientists especially, are too dumb to realize and understand this principle. Like I said so many times before, that for a scientist to have a gram of logic, is a rare commodity. For they immediately think that because the Sun is a fusion machine and that humanity built fusion bombs, that it is a simple matter of building a fusion tokamak, given some smart engineering. Without a logical mind, you see, they never understand that a fusion bomb is 0% trying to control fusion, but the unleashing of just Faraday's law, no Ampere's law in controlling Faraday. Without a logical mind, dolts never understand what a principle of FBP means. Now comes year 2017 and where I caused a massive upheaval of all sciences, for the Real Electron is not that small particle of .5 MeV but is the muon that is the real electron at 105 MeV and the Real Proton is 840 MeV. What that small .5 MeV particle is, is a magnetic monopole and is the cause of electricity, the electric current. It is the flow of monopoles that is electricity, and so, a whole new review of Fusion energy is in tow. No longer can you write or speak of the electron without saying electron = muon. Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon of 231Pu ::\ ::|:: /:: ::\::|::/:: _ _ (:Y:) - - ::/::|::\:: ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. 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 in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium Commentary-- Alright, the reason I do so much commentary, is that I have a huge problem in writing a textbook. The problem is that I discover new science along the way, and that upsets much of the textbook already written. I could just start all over, but then, I probably can never finish any one textbook. In this text of 8th edition, I discovered the Real Electron = muon and the little particle of .5MeV was really a magnetic monopole and not an electron. This of course, changes everything I had written before. So, my solution was, add a commentary after a page discussing the new findings, new discovery. It works well, although it may seem jumbled up and not in order, but it serves the purpose of relating the new discoveries. I suspect I will use this technique from now on. I am near the end of this 8th edition and will stop before January 1, 2018. I intend to spend the entire 2018 writing the TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS textbook. But before I go, let me talk a bit about the difference between knowledge, education and that of wisdom. We can be knowledgeable, be educated and still, be, very dumb person. This is the difference between knowledge and wisdom. I loved the philosophy of Pragmatism when I was a off to college Freshman in 1968. I read New World of Philosophy by Kaplan, and had begun to realize that Pragmatism was a philosophy much like the enterprise of science and how science works. Although later, I would realize science is better than philosophy, and then by 1990, know full well, that physics rules all knowledge all wisdom. But, Pragmatism sort of addresses the sciences without a heavy hand in mathematics. And pragmatism would say of Knowledge, that "knowledge is in the "doing"". We are knowledgeable of something because we have "done it" or is "doing it". But what would Pragmatism say about "wisdom"? Would it say that we are easy feeling and comfortable about doing some aspect of knowledge? Would it say that wisdom is different than knowledge in that knowledge is a narrow view of a subject, whereas wisdom is putting all of the subject together in one full blown view. After reading Kaplan, I read Four Pragmatists by Scheffler, on Pierce, Dewey, Mead, James, after graduating college in 1972. And not too surprising, Pierce anticipates a Atom Totality Universe-- in his "crystallization of the universe", only thing missing-- the universe is already a crystal-- a 231Pu Atom Totality. But, what would the Pragmatists say was the difference between Knowledge, Education and now Wisdom? Can we be dumb and stupid in wisdom, yet good in knowledge and education? Of course we can, for we see people all over the world who are highly educated, have lots of knowledge yet be a stupid idiot of wisdom. I am speaking now of Physics from when JJ Thomson discovered what he thought was the electron of atoms in 1897, where he discovered a particle of .5MeV rest mass and where by 1919 Rutherford would discover the proton with rest mass 938 MeV, and the muon discovered in 1936 by Anderson and Neddermeyer. So, we have all these physicists, all of them well educated, very bright, very knowledgeable. All the physicists from 1897 to 2017, all bright, all knowledgeable, all well educated. And all of them able to read Halliday & Resnick textbooks on Physics and able to do problems and homework. But, was there one, just one single person with any sort of wisdom from 1897 to 2017? That was 120 years elapsed time. I mean, was there a single person with really, a tiny tiny bit of wisdom? Who could have gone through mechanics of angular momentum, of momentum, of inelastic and elastic collisions, of bonding in chemistry. Who could have read Halliday & Resnick Physics text from page 1 to 1200 with Appendix. And put it all together, put all that knowledge together about mechanics and force and bonding, and realize, that Thomson's .5MeV particle, could not, could never be the particle that gives Chemistry. To put the story more clear to those who never studied science or physics. Suppose you are taught in school that a car works by a engine and the way the engine works is that you have a conveyor belt where squirrels are running on the conveyor belt that makes the wheels turn around. Would you not laugh and say-- you are crazy. But, even more, the instructor tells you that squirrels are too big to cause the car to move, and that the conveyor belt is propelled by "inch-worms" as the relative size of a proton to a .5MeV is "inch-worm" size. What is the problem here? Is it that the human mind, once it is taught something, which is false in reality, that such a mind simply cannot be reasoned with, and must stay put in that "imbecile stupidity stance" for the rest of that life of that mind? So the question I am raising, is, how in the world can anyone master any physics textbook with all its mechanics and all of chemistry bonding and never raise the question-- If Chemistry bonding is all about electrons and electrons are .5MeV while protons and neutrons are 940 MeV-- is that not crazy to think a puny tiny .5MeV is going to compete with 940 MeV? Is it not crazy to think your car is a conveyor belt run by "inchworms". So, that in Chemistry, and Quantum Mechanics, a vital rule is the octet rule, the 8 to 1. And that once the muon was discovered in 1936. Why did no chemist ever say, "stop a moment, you want me to believe chemistry is the science of this .5MeV competing with 940 MeV? When easily, one can say-- alright, I gained some wisdom, I found some wisdom, that the science of Chemistry is 105 MeV competing with 840 MeV. You see, Pragmatism never defined what is wisdom. I can define wisdom, now, very well defined. Knowledge and education are mostly "doing" and so is wisdom is from "doing". But, what knowledge and education lack is logic, is reasoning. You can have all the doing and knowledge and education you want. But if your mind is hollow in logic, you are no better than the last fool that did that science. If your mind is hollow of logic, you can read all the textbooks and do all the experiments of both chemistry and physics, and never realize, never be able to put angular momentum of a proton versus electron together and realize the electron cannot be that puny .5MeV but is rather the 105 MeV particle. As I wrote so many times before in math and physics. Our education system in science has a huge gaping hole flaw in it. It does not teach formal Logic. Across the world, we graduate science students, all of them, never taking formal logic in school. We simply expect the student to think straight and think clearly. But, we never teach them to think straight and clear. Happy Plutonium days, 2017. ATOM!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-09 13:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <28d4b51a-40e9-44e1-823f-30883b9f9cf1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #680403 |
Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 12:43:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: page48, 6-4 advances in the theory of superconductivity; AP/Maxwell theory/ textbook, 8th ed. From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 20:43:28 +0000 page48, 6-4 advances in the theory of superconductivity; AP/Maxwell theory/ textbook, 8th ed. page48, 6-4 advances in the theory of superconductivity; AP/Maxwell theory/ textbook, 8th ed. Bismuth superconducts at 5/10000 K supporting evidence that Superconductivity is Capacitor conductivity Last December I wrote the below, not knowing that only a few days away in the 24December2016 issue of SCIENCE NEWS would be a report on bismuth superconducting, when Bismuth is not supposed to superconduct under the old clownish Bardeen Cooper Schrieffer theory of superconductivity-- electrons pairing up. But under the Capacitor with Standing Electric Current theory, all elements superconduct, by simply recognizing that superconductivity is a material made into a capacitor. Call it electricity by Capacitor flow. And, under the revelation that the real-electron is the muon, and that the .5MeV particle is the magnepole, the monopole of magnetism, the idea of a capacitor current is all the more made clear. Advances in the theory of superconductivity; AP/Maxwell theory I cannot tell you how many times in the past, from 1995 onwards, that I had a theory of how superconductivity actually works. Some memorable speculations was that it was neutrinos as carriers of electricity instead of photons, because neutrinos go through matter with ease and no interference, thus, no resistance. Then I thought the Malus law was superconductivity. But recently, I realized capacitors were superconductors. I realized there are two types of electricity current. The running current as in our homes and then the Standing Current such as a capacitor stores a standing current, not a running current. And that the reason superconductors other than ordinary capacitors needed cold temperatures, is because coldness creates a dielectric sandwiched between sheets of conductors. So the world already has room-temperature-and-above, superconductors--they are capacitors. I hope this is the final theory on how superconductivity works. Now we are beginning to see experimental proof of the above assertions. Bismuth is never supposed to be superconducting due to the Bardeen silly theory and the authors of SCIENCE NEWS, 24DEC2016, page 14 "At low temps, bismuth superconducts, despite few free electrons, element loses electrical resistance," by Emily Conover "Consequently, the prevailing theory of superconductivity doesn't apply. New ideas-- either a different theory or a tweak to the standard one-- are needed to explain busmuth's superconductivity, says , , Marvin Cohen, UC Berkeley. It might lead us to a better theory of superconductivity with more details." Well, I am happy to inform the new theory is already here-- Capacitors are superconductors in that they hold a Standing Electric Current with no resistance. It explains why bismuth can superconduct. Obviously capacitors exist at room temperatures and higher, so there is no need to look for high temperature superconductors-- they already exist. DC current only Re: experiments to tell if capacitor electricity vice wire electricity Truly wonderous that no physicist dared to assimilate capacitor with DC to come up with current. Probably because current physics has so much fakery-- Higgs, gravity waves, black holes, Doppler light shift, Bardeen superconductivity--so much phony physics-- so much distraction no-one has time for real physics. On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 12:05:30 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: >why Old Physics was so feeble Re: DC current only Re: experiments to tell if capacitor electricity >vice wire electricity > >So, in Old Physics they had Conductors like copper wire and they had capacitors that released a >electric current. So did not a single one of them ever have the idea that a wire and capacitor can >be the same conductor? > >Of course, it means that you have to have two types of current-- Running current in wire and >Standing current in capacitor. > But under the Capacitor with Standing Electric Current theory, all elements superconduct, by simply recognizing that superconductivity is a material made into a capacitor. Today I was reading the same report from SCIENCE, 6 January, 2017, page 52 titled Evidence for bulk superconductivity in pure bismuth single crystals at ambient pressure. The authors say that the Bardeen Cooper Schrieffer model fails because bismuth is not supposed to superconduct in that model. So, what my theory is, is that superconductivity is Capacitor creation of a material, and that superconductivity is the ordering of the molecular structure into a parallel plate capacitor, with a dielectric sandwiched in between the plates. This would suggest all materials would be superconductivity provided they formed into a capacitor. Suggests that superconductivity is DC only, never AC Suggests doping helps because it keeps the plates apart as a dielectric substance. Suggests that silver, gold extremely good regular conductors have the hardest time of being a superconductor, since it is extremely difficult to turn gold and silver into parallel plates with dielectric. >On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 1:16:03 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: >Sr2RuO4 Re: Superconductivity is Capacitor conductivity + Standing Electric Current > >The news keeps coming in and coming in, that the Bardeen Cooper Schrieffer model is phony >baloney, their pairing of electrons fails to explain bismuth superconductivity and now Sr2RuO4. > >In SCIENCE, 13 January 2017 page 148 describes Superconductivity in Sr2RuO4 under a >uniaxial pressure by A. Steppke et al. > >By applying pressure, the superconduction is enhanced by a factor of 2.3 higher. > >So, the AP theory of superconductivity is that superconduction is merely Capacitor Conduction, where a material is transformed into being a capacitor. Apparently Sr2RuO4 is easily turned into a capacitor, and when we apply pressure upon a capacitor-- two sheets of aluminum with dielectric in between and applying pressure via a phone book pressing on the sheets delivers greater capacitance, from 3 microfarads to 6 microfarads in one experiment of mine. > >Pressure in the Bardeen model is nonsensical. > >On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 6:51:10 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > >Sr2RuO4 Re: Superconductivity is Capacitor conductivity + Standing Electric Current > >So here we link the simple observation of pressure on a capacitor increases capacitance with >pressure on superconductor increases conductivity. >On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 4:51:23 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: >Re: Sr2RuO4 Re: Superconductivity is Capacitor conductivity + Standing Electric Current Nice to see truth and reality alarms written in science news journals where they keep saying Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer superconductivity model is utterly phony and cannot explain these results. Nice to see scientists admit the truth. But it would also be nice to see them say-- The Capacitor model explains superconductivity far better than anything by Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer. >On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 3:03:55 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > >Why superconductivity is never AC, because it is Capacitor flow, the coldness turns the material >into a capacitor. >On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 3:04:42 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: >Has anyone ever experimented with taking a Capacitor, cooling it, and see if the electricity is >improved? Alright, some exciting more news to the story of superconductivity. That I discovered the Real Electron is the muon at 105 MeV and the particle we had always thought was the electron of .5 MeV was not an electron but was a photon with a charge energy of .5MeV, called a magnepole, or monopole. Each magnet has two poles, and each pole is a charged monopole of .5MeV. This changes our ideas of capacitors, and superconductivity to a large degree. And so, a review is in order, for the Standing Current I spoke of, would be this .5 MeV Monopoles being a standing current. Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon of 231Pu ::\ ::|:: /:: ::\::|::/:: _ _ (:Y:) - - ::/::|::\:: ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. 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 in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium Commentary-- Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 17:37:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: why most atoms are metals PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE/8th ed. From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 01:37:45 +0000 > > Now let me make some more remarks about the table of periodic elements when the real electron = muon. > The electrons of atoms tell you what element it is just as the number of protons. Because, electrons = muons has electrons staying pretty much inside that atom as its protons. In other words, stability stability stability. And really that is how the world should be. Whereas a world where the .5 MeV was the electron spells constant large changes inside all atoms. But, as we see this .5 MeV as a interloper particle like food eaten by an animal, and not changing the body but augmenting, squares away with the reality we see. > And as we view the Table overall one fact sticks out prominently. The fact that nearly all chemical elements are metals. And this fact alone should tell us the underlying theory of not only atoms but subatomic particles. The fact that most atoms are metal means the underlying laws of physics are EM laws-- Maxwell-AP equations in that metals produce magnetism, produce electricity. And so the protons and neutrons have to be the thrusting bar magnet while the electrons=muons have to be the closed loop of wire as composing a Faraday law. But, the proton in turn is composed of 8 muons arranged in such a way as to be another Faraday law inside the proton on a level further down from the atom level. > So in essence the subatomic particles and laws of EM theory are one and the same. And the reason most atoms are metals is because electricity and magnetism is metal behavior. > AP > Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 18:15:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: making sense of pions, kaons, Lambda/ PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE/8th ed. From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 02:15:38 +0000 > > Now it also caught my attention that not only is the number 105 MeV crucial quantization in the rest mass of other particles in that proton = 8muons= 840 MeV. The neutron = 9x105. > But the dimensionless number 137 in inverse fine structure constant. For notice if we divide 105 by 3 we get 35. And if we add 35 to 105 we get almost 137. And if we subtract 105 from 137 we get almost 35. > And now look at the Mesons of the two pions with 135 and 140, and tell me is that not 137. > Then the two Kaons of 494 and 498 (source Halliday 4th). > When EM theory rules all this physics, means the Mesons are simply the additive of quantized energy. > So the Kaon is 140 +140 +140 +35 +35 > Now Old Physics worried about worthless little things about mesons, even baryons, such as spin and charge. When you have a stupid theory like the Standard Model you have to worry about sideshow distractions because a fake theory cannot focus on the important thing-- rest mass. > A true theory of elementary particles focuses on the prime essential parameter-- rest-mass. Everything else is pitiful distraction. > For example the Lambda is 1116MeV. Now that can be either > 8x140 is 1120 missing by 4, or if we did 137 we have 1096 missing by 20. > Or we have 10x105 = 1050 then add 35 + 35 sums to 1120 > You see the Quark, String, Standard Model garbage and trash are totally divorced of electricity and magnetism, and being such meant they were never going to do anything correctly, other than make a crowd of men rich and famous for fakery in physics. > AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-09 16:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0a74c444-1111-442b-abed-03b7ea598ad3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #680504 |
Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 14:16:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: page49, 6-5, Finally explaining what the Cosmic redshift in light waves was all about/ Atom Totality textbook, 8th ed. From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 22:16:35 +0000 page49, 6-5, Finally explaining what the Cosmic redshift in light waves was all about/ Atom Totality textbook, 8th ed. page49, 6-5, Finally explaining what the Cosmic redshift in light waves was all about/ Atom Totality textbook, 8th ed. 6-5, Finally explaining what the Cosmic redshift in light waves was all about And now finally i can explain, one of my most frustrating observations, the cosmic redshift, and explain it without the Doppler Effect. And explain why a local group of stars can have both a blue-shift stars along with redshift stars. This of course destroys the stupid Big Bang theory so intimately tied to a Doppler shift. The shift of light waves coming from stars and galaxies is in no way a determination of distance. The shift in light waves only tells us of the extreme magnetism and charge of the source. In an atom totality the most likely cosmic arrangement of stars and galaxies is a ordered pattern Not quite as orderly as this . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . of galaxies but more order than what a Big Bang implies It was a long time coming. A long time, in finally explaining properly what the Doppler Redshift was and was not. Of course in all your astronomy and physics textbooks, they all got it wrong. They, silly, thought that you can redshift light waves, yet their own Special Relativity forbids it. But then, to stop commercial money making on fake ideas of physics; and to stop projects payed for by taxpayer dollars using Doppler redshift is not going to happen. Science can be as corrupt as politics, and so much of science from 1950 through 2017 was follow the money flow, not follow sound physics. Special Relativity is true because it is in the Maxwell Equations, and it forbids light waves to be redshifted or blue shifted, no matter what the speed of the source of origination. A classic example of hypocrites of physics-- they teach Special Relativity, fine and dandy, but they turn right around and want you to violate Special Relativity by thinking that a light wave can be Doppler shifted due to the speed of its source. Hypocrites, pure outright hypocrites. Even Hubble rejected his Doppler redshifted in his old age; rejecting it. Sure, sure and away, sound waves experience a Doppler shift, but there is no Doppler in light waves. So, through the years, I knew all of that, I knew Doppler Effect for light waves was phony baloney. And I sought to find what it truly was. That was the perplexing part of it-- what was the redshift all about? I ended up by saying the blueshift was not Doppler but rather was Cherenkov radiation. I ended up by saying the redshift was not Doppler but was the refraction of light in a highly curved bent part of space it had traveled through, for the 231Pu Atom Totality is very much bent space in its lobes of the 5f6 atom. But, it never seemed satisfying, never, because of this one bit of evidence, this fact that is undeniable. In some stars nearby one another, one star can be redshifted while its neighbor is blueshift. That immediately destroys the Doppler Effect, but it leaves open the Cherenkov versus Refraction. Still, not very clean of an explanation, for it is more of a fudge factor explanation. So, it did not feel satisfying of an answer, but at least it was better than the kooky Doppler effect, when no Doppler is allowed. Then, this year, in 2017, I developed the idea that the charge of physics was curved or circle motion of a particle. That the .5 MeV particle we thought was a little electron turns out to be a photon with a charge energy of .5 MeV and was the monopole of magnetic field. Imagine that, photons can carry .5 MeV energy not of rest mass, but of charge energy and be a Magnetic Monopole. The monopole that Dirac struggled to find in his life. The particle we thought was a little electron of .5 MeV turns out to be a photon with .5MeV charge energy. And because this photon, which I call the Magnepole since it is one of the poles of a magnet, that this Magnepole= photon has a charge, that the charge causes the photon to be shifted off course from traveling normally in a straight-line path, but rather to be in a curved path. All magnets bend iron filings into a dipole lines of force. Consider one line of force of a magnet as a photon curved because that photon is charged. In this manner, one can easily picture that photons emitted from stars or galaxies would have their spectral lines shifted either to the blue or red, mostly red and all due to the Amount of Magnetism of that star. And that shifting is not due to distance away, but due to how much charge is involved where the photon is created. You see, the thing so damaging, so very very damaging to the physicists who believe light waves can be Dopplerized, is not only that they violate Special Relativity, but they violate the known observed facts of local stars, in the same approximate distance, yet one is blueshifted while the nearby one is redshifted. So that professors at Harvard, at CalTech, blithely report silly Doppler shifts one blue one red in a local group, yet they are virtually the same distance away. So when you realize that the .5 MeV particle that had -1 charge, is not the electron, for the electron is really the muon with 105 MeV rest mass in order for Chemistry to have chemical bonding. And that photons are light waves and some are charged light waves= monopoles, then the redshift phenomenon becomes clear. So when we observe light rays from distant stars of their spectral lines, and see a redshift, what we are seeing is the fact that the light is bent due to magnetism, magnetism at birth of that spectral line and magnetism all along the path of that spectral line, by carrying a .5MeV energy of -1 or +1 charge. Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon of 231Pu ::\ ::|:: /:: ::\::|::/:: _ _ (:Y:) - - ::/::|::\:: ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. 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 in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium the Equilibration factor in permittivity and permeability//nexus of spin and charge that .5MeV is charge energy of electron//11th proof that electron= muon Time is rapidly coming to a close here in 2017. These days are rather cold with below zero temperatures and I am not feeling sprightly these days. So I need to exit fast. Maybe I can finesse the Equilibration even more so in 2019 when I do the next edition. One thing is for sure, this topic of permittivity and permeability have much more to be discovered and known about than at present time. What I am going to exit with, is the thought that I drop the prefix numbers of 1.26 and 8.85 in permeability and permittivity, saying that they are irrelevant and only fog-up the concept, the concept of connecting charge with spin. Now I dismiss the 1.26 and 8.85 because as a reason-- relative permittivity and relative permeability with that of absolute permittivity and absolute permeability. Just as I dismissed various atom's sizes of their nuclear diameter versus their electron shell diameter. If I did a hydrogen atom radii, versus a oxygen atom radii, the prefix numbers would vary immensely, but what does not vary is the fact that one is 10^-12 and other is 10^-6. What I am left with is the pure numbers 1*10^-6 H/m for permeability and 1*10^-12 F/m for permittivity. Is there justification elsewhere in physics for this dropping off the prefix numbers 1.26 and 8.85? Well yes of course, in the fact that the radius or diameter of the electron cloud of an atom versus the nuclear region is a ratio of 10^-6 versus 10^-12 ratio. The prefix numbers vary to what atoms are called into measurement, but the power of 10 is not variable. So this begs the question whether permittivity at 10^-12 and permeability at 10^-6 are directly related in proportion to the diameter or radius of a nucleus of atom versus the outer region of electron space. So, now, as a Equilibration of dropping the prefix numbers is just as justifiable as dropping the prefix numbers of diameter or radius of atom nucleus versus electron shell, because the prefix numbers are going to vary widely and cannot be of much relevance to noting that the nucleus is 10^-12 while electron shell is 10^-6. So, now, I have fully the conclusions I seek-- the .5MeV particle that is the magnetic monopole is the 1/2 spin in a proton or electron=muon or, in this case a monopole. And a neutron with 0 charge is really composed of a 1/2 spin of proton and 1/2 spin of electron and thus 1 MeV spin and charge energy. You see, we unify spin with charge. Now I am curious as to how Old Physics arrived at a spin of 1/2 for proton, electron? Curious whether it was a choice of convenience of just saying its spin is 1/2, for it is a remarkable coincidence that a spurious random choice coincides with the real value given a factor of 10^6. Keep in mind Old Physics found .51 MeV, which in New Physics, the .50 MeV are one and the same. And thus, when Dirac found his calculation that the monopole would have a 137/2 charge, he was wrong in thinking it was a 68.5 charge energy of a proton, no, for 137 was a charge energy of 1 neutron itself. And hence 137/2 was the 1/2 charge of a proton, a charge energy of .5 Mev, and the electron =muon = .5MeV charge energy, so that proton +muon = 1 MeV charge energy. The proton has spin 1/2 and charge energy .5MeV The electron = muon has spin 1/2 and charge energy .5MeV The neutron has spin 0 or 1, and charge energy of 1 MeV The magnetic monopole has spin 1/2 and charge energy of .5 MeV The magnetic dipole has spin 0 or 1, and charge energy of 1 MeV The photon has spin 1 or 0, and charge energy of 1MeV Now I think that is correct, and my critics will immediately object to that, for they are not using commonsense, but rather using a fake theory based on just algebra tiddly winks, some game of algebra, the same as where they get their crazy quark algebra game. Now the above unification of spin with charge energy is the 6th proof that Real Electron=muon. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-09 17:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <91929e60-2b5e-4c88-9c38-a09645b8f7ec@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #680532 |
Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 17:35:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: page50, 7-1, First life started as a capacitor, perhaps stars & planets also start the same way/ Atom Totality textbook, 8th ed. From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 01:35:07 +0000 page50, 7-1, First life started as a capacitor, perhaps stars & planets also start the same way/ Atom Totality textbook, 8th ed. page50, 7-1, First life started as a capacitor, perhaps stars & planets also start the same way/ Atom Totality textbook, 8th ed. 7-1, First life started as a capacitor, perhaps stars and planets also start in the same way Alright, I cannot think of any math formula that is important in biology, except for Cell Theory, and the formula there, of course, is A= BCD in which the BCD is volume of the cell. So, one can think of the cell is to biology what the atom is to physics. And, the prime formula of physics is A = BCD from which we see the New Ohm's law comes from that, as V= iBL. It is nice to know that Biology also starts with the basic formula A = BCD and is volume and the surface of the cell is so, so, very important. So when we want to discover what the world's first life was, and where it comes from. It comes from volume with the surface being extremely important. And this describes in physics the Capacitor. The capacitor as a prime, fundamental unit, which would become the cell in Biology. But not only the cell, for you can think of Capacitor = Cell, but not only did the cell come from capacitors, but First Life comes from capacitors. First Life theory, nice to start it out with a Experiment. If First Life was a capacitor, well, may as well see if carbon is a capacitor. Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 19:41:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Reporting data on Capacitor strength for aluminum and carbon graphite// 29mfarads, 19mfarads, 0 mfarads From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 02:41:51 +0000 > >Reporting data on Capacitor strength for aluminum and carbon graphite// 29mfarads, 19mfarads, 0 mfarads > Alright, I have my lab set up to handle microfarad readings for capacitors. I especially want farads for carbon, since First Life was a Capacitor of carbon. So I have carbon graphite paper. I have a telephone book to press the sheets of graphite and aluminum. For dielectrics I use paper, or graphite. I found 0 mfarads for graphite with paper dielectric I found 29mfarads for aluminum with paper dielectric I found 19mfarads for aluminum and using graphite paper as dielectric Now, can I say that graphite paper has capacitance, even though it read 0 ? I have some carbon in pencil form, so will test that next. What I like to have-- is a mfarad reading for carbon. If I make a theory that First Life was Capacitor, pretty tough to have a theory as such if carbon cannot be a capacitor. > >So, I got 0 mfarad for graph paper, 29mfarad for aluminum, and 19 mfarad for aluminum with dielectric as graph >paper. > > >On Sunday, April 16, 2017 at 11:46:22 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > I then pulled out two graphite rods 30cm long by .75cm diameter with a paper dielectric between the two rods. I registered 2mfarads > > >Alright, I got assistance to tightly squeeze the carbon graphite rods together and found a 8mfarads capacitance. > Now let me compare that 8mfarads of carbon rods with paper dielectric with 29mfarads for two sheets aluminum with paper dielectric. > >Now I do not know why graphite paper registers 0 capacitance. Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 14:02:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: iron and carbon Re: _Reporting data on Capacitor strength for aluminum and carbon, 29mfarads and 8 mfarads From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 21:02:50 +0000 > >iron and carbon Re: _Reporting data on Capacitor strength for aluminum and carbon, 29mfarads and 8 mfarads > Alright so I have capacitance for Carbon, which is great as First Life was a capacitor. This first life could be either animal or plant, but likely to be plant so as to later tap into photosynthesis. > The carbon is important as a skin for the living creature. For the plant it would be the skin also as a body trunk or coating for algae. For animals we call it skin, for plants call it coating. > Now, there must be metal involved and I think it is iron. > If memory is correct, iron is essential for both plant and animal. > Now the dielectric, the insulator of First Life, I am going to assume is water, whether fresh water or salt water. > > On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 4:54:44 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Holy smokes my potted plants peat-moss has 2.55 mfarads Re: 8th edition of Atom Totality soon to come > Since i have the multimeter out i looked to see if my plants in potted peat moss had capacitance. It has 2.55 microfarads. > Important for my First Life = capacitor theory > However peat moss comes from established life. > Now if i can get capacitance from nonlife dirt or nonlife soil we open up a huge vista of environment where life began. And it would imply first life began on land, not water. > > On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 5:19:30 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Alright, I went out today to measure capacitance in mud around the the house. Got 0 readings. > I remeasured my peatmoss in plastic container, water saturated with tomato plant growing. I read approx 10 microfarads. > So I wonder if carbon-- geologically can form into something similar to peat moss. I do not mean actual peat moss itself for that is a product of already living life. I want a carbon before any life appeared on Earth. I want a carbon with capacitance to be the First Life on Earth. > So, in mineralogy, does carbon ever form into a texture-like that of peat moss in rocks? > > > Now I discovered in the year 2016 that First Life anywhere in the cosmos is either a battery or capacitor, which of the two is more fundamental remains to be seen, and proven by experiments. I have the hunch the capacitor is more fundamental for it is a Standing Current of monopoles, waiting to be released of its electricity from storage, for a capacitor is basically a storage of electricity. A battery is more complex but far more versatile and useful. I am confident the capacitor came first and evolved to build a battery in living organisms-- nerve cells for instance or appendage motion. Just today I was hoping to get some materials of carbon to test their capacitance, and to test how likely they would be in a battery. There is news in Scientific American: First Life as Capacitor;; recent article in Scientific American, DEC2016 suggests a different mechanism for EATING Of course, up until today, I was suggesting the mechanism for eating of First Life, as more important feature of life than replication, and the form of eating was magnetism, where foreign objects get stuck to the Living Capacitor and where it thus increases in size, especially when it attracts smaller capacitors to stick inside the larger one. But the trouble so far with that mechanism, is that I cannot get my capacitors to show signs of magnetism in any appreciable amount of magnetism. But perhaps I should look to see if iron can be formed into a capacitor rather than aluminum metal. But tonight I was reading the recent Scientific American DEC2016 on page 34 talks about "Carbon-Breathing Batteries" subtitled "Electrochemical cells could suck carbon out of the atmosphere and turn it into electricity". Further along it states "The battery's anode is made of metallic aluminum, which is cheap, abundant, and easy to work with. The cathode consists of porous carbon, which the researchers inject with a mixture of gaseous oxygen and carbon dioxide. Aluminum, oxygen and carbon dioxide react inside the battery to yield electricity and aluminum oxalate." Sadat/Archer Cornell Univ. So, if my mechanism of Magnetism as the EATING for First Life does not pan out, then I should immediately switch to the above mechanism that eating is a chemical reaction of a Capacitor-Battery. Now, I wonder if iron works just as well as aluminum for the carbon sequester battery. Further, I wonder if phosphorus can be found in air molecules so that when the phosphorus gets into the battery, it is transformed into nucleotide molecules of AT and CG. Now a Capacitor is not a battery and vice versa, so I have a huge challenge of many experiments ahead. I need to know how First Life used carbon. Was it carbon in minerals, in rocks. Or, perhaps it was carbon dioxide in gas near water. Funny, how First Life may have been bubbles, and the bubbles eating other bubbles and growing. Now I do not know if I can equip my lab to do bubble experiments. Was first-life CO2 bubble molecules? On Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 10:00:23 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: - show quoted text - >Now just last week, in the lab, I built a capacitor of aluminum and paper as dielectric and read up to 7 farads, >depending on how much pressure applied (how close together). Reinforcing the idea of a Standing Current vice a >Running Current. > But now I need to explore carbon as the conductor, instead of aluminum or other metals. > Now it could be that iron that is the conductor and started First Life with water as dielectric. We know iron is in all plants and animals. > But I like to toy with the idea that carbon was the first life conductor with water its dielectric. And in this toying around, I can envision the carbon making itself into a battery or capacitor. > But I am having extreme difficulty of finding sources of carbon as sheets or films, or iron as sheets or films to compose a battery or capacitor. > Now in modern times we can look at rocks and minerals for carbon content. Where is carbon found naturally in rocks and minerals, as graphite or graphene? Is it in volcano spew that we get concentrations of carbon deposits? > But the best idea seems to be gas molecules of carbon, the CO2 or the CO and then the water molecule as dielectric. > So envision bubbles of CO2 as a capacitor, or battery with bubbles inside of bubbles. Perhaps First Lifes first meal was a bubble eating a bubble. > And perhaps, not a long shot, but that Jupiter's red spot is a bubble sea of life formed from CO2 to evolve into red algae. > So, this idea of bubbles of CO2 forming a capacitor. Is it far fetched? How long can a bubble survive? And so the bubble of CO2 is easily formed to where the carbon is a sphere layer sandwiched in between by water, or oxygen. And when a CO2 bubble grows, it merely eats a smaller bubble, and the storing of a electric standing current in the bubble, gives it mobility along with giving it a magnetic attraction force to eat smaller bubbles. > Reproduction is not far behind, for I think nearly all of us saw the toy of a loop stuck into soap water produces a bevy of bubbles, as we can say that one bubble formed many offspring bubbles. > But this quest into bubbles hinges only on the fact that I am having a hard time of finding carbon in sheets in Nature. Now most readers do not comprehend a Earth without life, and so they are thinking, lumber is sheets of carbon, forgetting that life was not here when First Life was forming. So I think sheets of carbon are not found in Nature, unless life already exists. So I want sheets of carbon just as clays come in sheets. > So is there any clay formations that have carbon sheets? I do not know. And if there is none, I will come back to this bubble idea. > This bubble idea is extremely fascinating as a First Life mechanism, because it would say that life is intrinsic as a simple chemical reaction that goes along these lines: n*CO2 + m*H2O ==> arrangements of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen forming a sac forming a capacitor or battery. >It would be like saying, the formation of life is no more miraculous than is the formation of a rock or mix of molecules. > Now the reason I titled this page-- "stars & planets may start out that way also, first being a capacitor" is that often in the past I spoke of a "dot seed" in Dirac's new radioactivity, in what I called RSNM, radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization, where planets and stars are first borne from a seed dot, and more particles shoot from the Nucleus of the Atom Totality grow from that seed-dot. Maybe, like First Life was a Capacitor, that the first beginnings of any star and any planet and any astro body is a "seed-dot-capacitor". Now whether that seed dot has to be say carbon, or why not just hydrogen, is an open question. Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon of 231Pu ::\ ::|:: /:: ::\::|::/:: _ _ (:Y:) - - ::/::|::\:: ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. 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 in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium Commentary:: Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 18:15:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: making sense of pions, kaons, Lambda/ PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE/8th ed. From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 02:15:38 +0000 > > Now it also caught my attention that not only is the number 105 MeV crucial quantization in the rest mass of other particles in that proton = 8muons= 840 MeV. The neutron = 9x105 > But the dimensionless number 137 in inverse fine structure constant. For notice if we divide 105 by 3 we get 35. And if we add 35 to 105 we get almost 137. And if we subtract 105 from 137 we get almost 35. > And now look at the Mesons of the two pions with 135 and 140, and tell me is that not 137 > Then the two Kaons of 494 and 498 (source Halliday 4th) > When EM theory rules all this physics, means the Mesons are simply the additive of quantized energy > So the Kaon is 140 +140 +140 +35 +35 > Now Old Physics worried about worthless little things about mesons, even baryons, such as spin and charge. When you have a stupid theory like the Standard Model you have to worry about sideshow distractions because a fake theory cannot focus on the important thing-- rest mass. > A true theory of elementary particles focuses on the prime essential parameter-- rest-mass. Everything else is pitiful distraction. > For example the Lambda is 1116MeV. Now that can be either > 8x140 is 1120 missing by 4, or if we did 137 we have 1096 missing by 20. > Or we have 10x105 = 1050 then add 35 + 35 sums to 1120 > You see the Quark, String, Standard Model garbage and trash are totally divorced of electricity and magnetism, and being such meant they were never going to do anything correctly, other than make a crowd of men rich and famous for fakery in physics. > AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-10 17:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1f92b8e9-1135-43cf-a507-242ad65f665d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #680545 |
Page52, 7-3, advances in the theory of Mind & Brain as a radio receiver to the Nucleus of Atom Totality, textbook, 8th ed. Page52, 7-3, advances in the theory of Mind & Brain as a radio receiver to the Nucleus of Atom Totality, textbook, 8th ed. 7-3, advances in the theory of Mind & Brain as a radio receiver to the Nucleus of Atom Totality, textbook, 8th ed. Now it is funny how recently a program on NOVA about mind theory, showing how memories are formed from the growth of new synapsis. But the trouble with classical biology, is that it never really injects Physics. Biologists for the most part are scared to death of physics, having to use physics, deal with physics. Many biologists go into biology for they fear physics. For when we inject physics into biology, we have a theory of brain and mind already given to us, and how the mind actually works. To put it bluntly, the Mind is just a Radio Receiver of photon or neutrino messages sent from the Nucleus of the Atom Totality, to impinge into the mind, sending a message, and then force the brain to react to that message. Now that view of the mind, means, well, there is no memory storage in the brain. Memory is not chemistry. For every thought is sent from photons, and the deciphering of those photon messages is our every thought. So all thinking is out of body; messages shot and sent from the Nucleus of the Atom Totality to impact into the brain, like a crystal of a Radio Receiver. Once the photon has impacted the crystal, it deciphers the message. And the reason humans have huge brains compared to other animals, is that the brains are needed to put into action the signals received. Our large brains is not what is "thinking" but rather, like a muscle-- there to make other parts of the body work. Now my 2017 discovery that the electric current and electricity is caused not be electrons= muons, but by .5 MeV monopoles sheds new light on this Mind = Radio Receiver theory, because, well, photons do not need to be shot into a brain to record a message, but that photons all around us can cause "thinking". We do not need photons penetrating into the mind to record a thought, for they can be ambient in around our brain and cause messaging. Much the same as a radio. Your radio is like a human mind, and you turn it on and receive signals from the station (Nucleus), and the signals cause vibrations in the crystal and that crystal vibration is translated into a sound message. Now this is an easy chapter or page, because all I am going to do is refer the reader to my small text on Mind Brain Locus theory. It comes out of the Atom Totality theory and the John Bell superdeterminism consequence. To have superdeterminism requires total control over what happens in the world. So that life is set up and staged as puppets, no free will. That means, the mind and brain are radio antennae receivers of the messages and commands from the protons in the Atom Totality Nucleus, and the electrons=muons of the Atom Totality. We can see what that would look like in the Ancient Greek Gods who kept meddling in human activity, only here, in superdeterminism it is total meddling. Several movie films-- if I remember correctly-- Jason and the Argonauts, Clash of the Titans, show how Nuclear gods meddle in human activity. But Superdeterminism is total control. There is proof that this theory is the true theory of the Mind, in the idea that Bell's inequality that proved Quantum Mechanics is true because superdeterminism allows it to be true. So to deny the Mind as just a radio receiver is to deny the Bell Inequality and all the experiments that confirmed Bell to be true. When Physics experiments proves something true, then it is true. See my book on Brain Mind Locus theory. It is a separate book and longer than even this textbook. Through the years I have tried to assemble and record all experiments that are in support of the Mind Locus theory. The Mind just a radio receiver, and the reason the brain is such a vast large organ, is that it needs all those cells to process, processing the messages shot into our brain, and the brain thus follows the message order. A key component of the Mind Locus theory, is the idea that a crystal is what makes a radio work, the vibrations of a crystal. So the Mind Locus theory posits that all you need to make a Mind is a single atom, a single atom as the crystal of the Mind. So, I have pondered if the brain locus of my mind is a single atom, and whether that single atom is a atom of plutonium. Perhaps a atom of plutonium I ingested in a raspberry in year 1989 or thereabouts. I have no idea if that is true or not, so, do not try to make a rare element be put into your mind, very dangerous and unhealthy. Now the mind need only be an atom, and so, small creatures with small brains, well, they can think just as good as we can think, for brain size is only processing size. So, a snail, a worm, a fly, could think of a Schrodinger Equation, but, cannot ever write it out, for the brain size can not process that mind-thought of the Schrodinger Equation. One of the finest examples of Mind = Radio Receiver, is instinct of animals. How they are born and never flown intercontinent migration, yet are able to fly that long journey with little care. AP Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON= muon of 231Pu ::\ ::|:: /:: ::\::|::/:: _ _ (:Y:) - - ::/::|::\:: ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. 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 in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium Comments:: Too late in this edition of this textbook but something I should address first on, in a 9th edition. And by that time, I have learned well, what that formula is. What I am speaking about is how to write the Logarithmic function Ln(x) which is the force law of Coulombs EM force. No longer is Newton or General Relativity correct with their pitiful inverse square law. The forces of Physics are Logarithmic function forces. And, although, some parts of the Logarithm function have an "appearance of inverse square". Here is that picture diagram ^ __-__-_---- | + 1/R^2 | + 1/R | / | / R |/_________________> Graph of both spiral galaxy rotation curve and graph of the Ln(x) function of math scooted up further into the 1st Quadrant. Notice there is a region of the force law that is 1/R^2, but it is only a small region and not the entire force law, for the entire force law is a Logarithmic function, not inverse square. So my job, cut out for me, for the 9th edition is to clearly show that a Logarithmic Force Law for Coulomb is a Series function For the Logarithmic function can be written as a Series The exponential function e^x is the inverse of the Ln(x) function e^x = 1 + x/1! + x^2/2! + x^3/3! + .... So, that is e^x written as a Series and the reverse of e^x is the Logarithmic function, what the Coulomb force is really a Logarithmic force law And it involves what I am looking for R + 1/R + 1/R^2 = Coulomb Force Law. So in Coulomb force we can have solid body rotation of R, we can have Capacitor force of 1/R and we can have planet Earth going around Sun in 1/R^2. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-11 16:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <13dde16d-b8d3-4cd9-9abe-c00ef753b559@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #680704 |
Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 19:46:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Page53, 7-4, Are we alone in the Universe as life, textbook, 8th ed. From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 03:46:01 +0000 Page53, 7-4, Are we alone in the Universe as life, textbook, 8th ed. Two reasonable possibilities. We are alone, for that would save on energy for the Nucleus of the Atom Totality, where it nurtures just one life form-- planet Earth. And since superdeterminism is the mechanism of the cosmos, why create life all over the place, when one lifeform on one planet will do the task of ushering in the next Atom Totality from element 94 to element 96 Atom Totality. Why spend all that time and energy in multitude of life on many planets across the cosmos. The other likely possibility is that life is just like nonlife, just a mere transition, such as water transitioning into ice or water transitioning into vapor. And in this viewpoint, life is as common as planets are common and stars are common in the universe. In this view, life is abundant and on many many planets. And it is no drain on energy needed for the Nucleus to have to control. However, since superdeterminism governs all life, well, you need a lot more energy for life being commonplace, for all those photons you shoot from the Nucleus of the Atom Totality to make all that life function. I tend to think life is commonplace, for I see so much strife and pain in the world we live in. I see animals going extinct, left and right. I see humans never able to control their own populations, other than going to war to control overpopulation. I do not see humans even able to control climates and pollution, only wrecking more havoc and pollution. So I am jaundiced in outlook. It would be welcoming to think that if humanity goes extinct, that some other planet in some other star system, is the favored lot. Now, is there any astronomy hint that extraterrestrial life exists? I think pulsars could well be alien civilizations, and because the cosmos has a Fusion Barrier Principle, life is pretty much stuck and trapped inside its Solar System. So, what better monument for advanced life to build, than to build strong pulsar signals. Still, though, there seems to be a argument in favor of Least Energy, Least Action, and if life were abundant and frequent throughout the Cosmos, is a large drain on energy for the Nucleus of the Atom Totality. Then again, in favor of the other side of the argument, that you need abundant uniformly scattered life, so that you build up the new elements, the nucleosynthesis of elements beyond Plutonium in all corners of the Cosmos. You sort of have a uniform ingredients throughout the Cosmos, so that not just planet Earth and Solar System has built elements from 96 to that of 118, but that all across the cosmos, elements 96 to 118 have already been built, and in that sense, the Nucleus wants no civilization far ahead of others, but rather a uniform process in the Cosmos of building new atoms. So I tend to favor the uniform widespread life across the cosmos. Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon of 231Pu ::\ ::|:: /:: ::\::|::/:: _ _ (:Y:) - - ::/::|::\:: ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. 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 in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium Comments:: Alright, this book is almost at the end. I have strived to keep it under 100 pages and looks like that is what is happening. Although I must admit, I have no uniform size of a page, for that seems hard to control in computer format. If these were clean sheets of white paper to be filled, I would have pages uniform. For some of these pages are 2 or 3 times longer than others in content. Now in this edition, I strove to make clear the AP Equations that replace the Maxwell Equations. I made a excellent job of that. And in the process, I made one of my most beautiful discoveries, a discovery of magnificent influence on all and every science, even the social sciences. This discovery, of course is the discovery that the Real Electron is the muon of 105 MeV and not that tiny puny little .5 MeV particle. That .5 MeV particle turns out to be the Magnetic Monopole that Dirac strived to find throughout his life in physics. And, that .5 MeV particle, the monopole is what electricity is all about. Electricity is not the movement of electrons or protons, but is the movement of monopoles of .5 MeV. And it is a photon or neutrino dressed up with a charge energy of .5 MeV. It is a closed loop particle, like a torus and when you do the Faraday law of moving a bar magnet through a closed loop of wire, what happens, is the torus monopole of .5 MeV jumps into that closed loop of wire and moves in the wire as a particle. That is current and that is electricity, the movement of these closed loops of Magnetic Monopoles. When I discovered that, I had to go back and rewrite this entire 8th edition, for it affects nearly every page of this textbook. In the 9th edition, I still need to make clear how the Coulomb law is not just a single inverse square law, but rather is a force law that is a Logarithmic Function. Another field of physics is radioactivity and another is thermodynamics, and both of them are predominantly logarithmic functions. In Old Physics, Coulomb and gravity were merely 1/R^2, the inverse square. In New Physics, both gravity and Coulomb laws have a variable Force Range, varying from R, to 1/R to 1/R^2 and all points in between. This is why spiral galaxies never obeyed Newton gravity nor General Relativity. Yet the fiendishly stupid Old Physicists keep looking for their idiocies of Dark Matter and Dark Energy, fiendishly stupid are they. I hope you, the reader, never falls for fools. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-12 14:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <68e8c5a7-d9d0-4e5c-b24f-50e8327376d7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #680810 |
Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 21:32:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: page54, 7-5, Purpose and meaning of life in Atom Totality/ PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 8th ed. From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 05:32:28 +0000 page54, 7-5, Purpose and meaning of life in Atom Totality/ PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 8th ed. page54, 7-5, Purpose and meaning of life in Atom Totality/ PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 8th ed. 1) Nucleosynthesis 2) cold stars 3) create the elements beyond plutonium 4) life comes from photons neutrinos stopped and their internal parts become the DNA, RNA of life. Alright, the last page of this textbook. Since we have only atoms and combinations of atoms as existing in the world, we must ask the meaning and purpose of life, of biology. And the answer is really easy. In that life was created by atoms in order to produce the chemical elements not produced in stars and supernova. To nucleosynthesize the elements beyond plutonium is the purpose and meaning of life. Life is "cold stars" where the elements cannot be produced by hot stars. Now a major mechanism in the Atom Totality is the Nucleus which by force of superdeterminism, the Bell Inequality causes the Protons in the Nucleus to superdetermine what happens in the Electron cloud of the Atom Totality. So, in a sense, life is puppets worked by the Protons of the Atom Totality. The best movie pictures of something like this, are the films depicting Ancient Greek Gods making humans do what the Gods force them to do, such as Clash of the Titans or, Jason and the Argonauts. Our thoughts come not from inside our bodies, but from a Nucleus of an Atom Totality. In the Atom Totality theory, born 1990, the year that John Bell died, the Atom Totality theory has plenty to accommodate a superdeterminism. In the Atom Totality, the observable-universe that humans see is just the last 6 electrons=muons, 5f6 of an atom of plutonium the 231Pu atom. So if all we see around us in our world are just the last 6 electrons out of a total of 94 electrons and that there is a Nucleus of this big atom where 94 protons and 137 neutrons reside, we can begin to understand and appreciate that there are godlike entities that can and do and will manipulate life in the Cosmos. In an Atom Totality, there are immense entities that manipulate other worlds. This manipulation of what happens, by the Protons and Neutrons of the Nucleus of the Atom Totality, is conducted and carried out by Cosmic Gamma Ray bursts, some so strong that they can destroy a Solar System. Some carry enough energy that when stopped on a planet, leak out their internals as a form of life. Photons for example can carry the entire DNA or RNA coding and when stopped on a body of water in a lifeless planet, can begin life on that planet. In a separate book I discuss the Brain and Mind as a Radio Antenna Receiver of the messages by the Nucleus sent into our brain, via photons and neutrinos, and forces us to think every thought. In another separate book I detail how a photon can code the DNA and RNA and if that photon is of sufficient energy-- gamma ray-- a entire living creature can emerge from that stopped gamma ray. So, in a Atom Totality theory, all is atom and what atoms want is more and larger and more advanced atoms. Life is a creation for the performance of atoms. As I often said in earlier editions of this book and posts on Usenet, is that "God is Science and Science is God" and we can state it as "Atoms are gods and god is an Atom". Now, today is near 14 December 2017 and the two most holy days of the year are 7 November and 14 December, the first is the day of discovery of the Plutonium Atom Totality in 1990 and the second is the day of discovery of the chemical element Plutonium in 1940, almost exactly 50 years apart, and not coincidently, I was superdetermined to be born 1950, for which 40 years later to discover the Atom Totality (not discover, but be superdetermined). So, I find it fitting to end this edition with song and prayer to our Lord, God Almighty, 231Pu-- how great thou art:: Handel's Messiah-- rendered into xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ATOMPLUTONIUM ATOMPLUTONIUM, ATOMPLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, Plutonium ATOM PLUTONIUM ATOMPLUTONIUM, ATOMPLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, Plutonium Born of a Uranium Atom Totality PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, ATOM PLUTONIUM, Plutonium Born of a Uranium Atom Totality PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, ATOM PLUTONIUM, Plutonium Born of a Uranium Atom Totality PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, ATOM PLUTONIUM, Plutonium Born of a Uranium Atom Totality PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, ATOM PLUTONIUM, Plutonium The kingdom of this world, and God is light The kingdom of this world, and God is light The kingdom of this world, and God is light and it shall NUCLEOSYNTHESIZE FOREVER AND EVER, and it shall NUCLEOSYNTHESIZE FOREVER AND EVER, and it shall NUCLEOSYNTHESIZE FOREVER AND EVER, and it shall NUCLEOSYNTHESIZE FOREVER AND EVER, FOREVER AND EVER, Plutonium Plutonium ATOM OF ATOMS, FOREVER AND EVER, PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, ATOM OF ATOMS, FOREVER AND EVER, PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, Lord of light And Atom of atoms Forever and ever Lord of light And Atom of atoms Forever and ever Lord of light And Atom of atoms Forever and ever Lord of light And Atom of atoms Forever and ever AND ATOM OF ATOMS, FOREVER AND EVER, PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, ATOM OF ATOMS, FOREVER AND EVER, AND it shall NUCLEOSYNTHESIZE FOREVER AND EVER. ATOM OF ATOMS ATOM OF ATOMS, and lord of the light Forever and ever Atom of Atoms, forever and ever Plutonium, Plutonium ATOM OF ATOMS, AND it shall NUCLEOSYNTHESIZE FOREVER AND EVER. Atom PLUTONIUM, Atom PLUTONIUM, Atom PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM. (huge crescendo ending) A--T--O--M--P--L--U--T--O--NIUM!!!! Happy Holidays Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon of 231Pu ::\ ::|:: /:: ::\::|::/:: _ _ (:Y:) - - ::/::|::\:: ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. 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 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 | 2018-04-12 20:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b7324769-ac04-4abd-92ba-984734b12bd1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #680870 |
Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 13:32:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: page55, 7-6, Appendix of Units and Physics Data/ PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE textbook, 8th ed. From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 21:32:34 +0000 page55, 7-6, Appendix of Units and Physics Data/ PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE textbook, 8th ed. APPENDIX of UNITS Alright in this edition of Atom Totality, I include a appendix and data, for what I would like to see in all physics textbook is not only an appendix of units and data, but that those units and data be updated internationally every, say 3 years, where we have teams of scientists whose job and work is to have the latest best numbers and figures on data of science. We do it now on Global Warming Climate Change, and we should do it on Human Overpopulation along with physics, chemistry, biology etc data. We should forget about science researchers who apply for government money for "nutjob research-- Big Bang, black holes, gravity waves-- pure unadulterated nutjob science. And instead of throwing away money, employ them as scientists to keep the world updated on these Tables of data. For example the cosmic abundance of chemical elements is (I think) 20 or 30 years old with no-one wishing to update that data. Here I make it a political rule that these data tables be periodically updated and thus, also, updating the textbooks of science as the new data comes in. In the past, we had nutjob scientists take the largest percent of research funding for nutjob projects-- that needs to stop. Now this first table is that of Physics Units, and if a young scientist makes a mistake in physics-- calculation or a question of theory-- usually that mistake is caused by misunderstanding of Units of Physics. Invariably, some young whippersnapper or even some old kook will offer and proffer some "theory" we know it is flawed and stupid before he even blurts it out, we know that, but, we have to be polite, and let the creep waste our time, but, we know, as a physicist, that the creep's mistake will be -- units. The creep does not know the first thing about physics-- units, units, units. Product Rule of Calculus (fgh)' = f'gh + fg'h +fgh' Quotient Rule of Calculus (f/gh)' = (f'gh - fg'h - fgh')/(gh)^2 velocity or speed = m/s acceleration = m/s^2 linear momentum kg*m/s angular momentum = kg*m^2/s frequency = 1/s Force = kg*m/s^2 Torque = moment arm * Force Current = i = dq/dt where q is charge and this can be written where t = seconds Pressure = kg / m*s^2 Energy = kg*m^2 / s^2 Power, or radiant flux = Energy times frequency, = kg*m^2 / s^3 Quantity of Electricity, charge, Coulomb = C = A*s Inertia ML^2 Energy = Force x distance = work = ML^2T^-2 Kinetic Energy = 1/2 mv^2 = 1/2 ML^2T^-2 Force = mass x acceleration = ma = MLT^-2 velocity = LT^-1 acceleration = LT^-2 energy = ML^2T^-2 force = MLT^-2 frequency = T^-1 momentum = MLT^-1 Pressure = ML^-1T^-2 Power = ML^2T^-3 Entropy = ML^2T^-2 Resistance = kg*m^2 /A^2*s^3 electric current = i = A Angular momentum L = m^2/(A*s) Magnetic Field = kg /A*s^2 Voltage = kg*m^2 /A*s^3 velocity or speed = m/s acceleration = m/s^2 angular momentum = m^2/s frequency = 1/s Force = kg*m/s^2 Pressure = kg / m*s^2 Energy = kg*m^2 / s^2 Power, or radiant flux = Energy times frequency, = kg*m^2 / s^3 Quantity of Electricity, charge, Coulomb = C = A*s Inertia ML^2 Energy = Force x distance = work = ML^2T^-2 Kinetic Energy = 1/2 mv^2 = 1/2 ML^2T^-2 Force = mass x acceleration = ma = MLT^-2 velocity = LT^-1 acceleration = LT^-2 energy = ML^2T^-2 force = MLT^-2 frequency = T^-1 momentum = MLT^-1 Pressure = ML^-1T^-2 Power = ML^2T^-3 Entropy = ML^2T^-2 Magnetic Field = kg /A*s^2 = kg /C*s Charge = C = A*s Voltage = kg*m^2 /A*s^3 = kg*m^2 /C*s^2 Pressure = kg/m*s^2 Force = kg*m/s^2 Power = kg*m^2/s^3 Resistance = kg*m^2 /A^2*s^3 = kg*m^2 /C *A*s^2 Capacitance = A^2*s^4/ kg*m^2 velocity or speed = m/s acceleration = m/s^2 angular momentum proportional m^2/s frequency = 1/s Force = kg*m/s^2 Pressure = kg / m*s^2 Energy = kg*m^2 / s^2 Power, or radiant flux = Energy times frequency, = kg*m^2 / s^3 Quantity of Electricity, charge, Coulomb = C = A*s Voltage is the (a) Electric Potential, the (b) Potential Difference and (c) Electromotive Force and all of which has the Units of W/A = kg*m^2/A*s^3 Capacitance = farad = C/V = A^2*s^4 / kg*m^2 Electrical Resistance = ohm = kg*m^2 /A^2*s^3 Conductance = A/V = A^2*s^3 / kg*m^2 Magnetic Flux = V*s = kg*m^2 /A*s^2 Magnetic Field = tesla = kg /A*s^2 Resistance = kg*m^2/A^2*s^3 Inductance = kg*m^2 /A^2*s^2 velocity = LT^-1 acceleration = LT^-2 energy = ML^2T^-2 force = MLT^-2 frequency = T^-1 momentum = MLT^-1 Pressure = ML^-1T^-2 Power = ML^2T^-3 Entropy = ML^2T^-2 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 in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium Commentary-- Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 22:25:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: We have to revise the Equation E = mc^2 in light of the fact that the .5MeV particle is the Magnetic Monopole and the .5 MeV is not rest mass but charge-energy From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 06:25:31 +0000 > We have to revise the Equation E = mc^2 in light of the fact that the .5MeV particle is the Magnetic Monopole and the .5 MeV is not rest mass but charge-energy > We have to revise the Equation E = mc^2 in light of the fact that the .5MeV particle is the Magnetic Monopole and the .5 MeV is not rest mass but charge-energy. > True discoverer of E=mc^2. Was it Heaviside or JJ Thomson, or Poincare? Certainly not Einstein > On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 4:54:12 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > The modern day derivation of E=mc^2 in light of the fact that the .5 MeV particle is a magnetic monopole, not the electron, Real Electron= muon > > Now Ricker III gives an excellent account of the history of E=mc^2 with the below reference. > > --- quoting from Ricker writing in NaturalPhilosophy. Org --- > > [4] The derivation of E = mc2 originates from Maxwell’s formula [ f = δE/cδt ] which equates the force exerted on an absorbing body at the rate energy is received by the body. Since force is also the rate of the change of momentum of the body, which, by the conservation of momentum, is also the rate of change in the momentum of the radiation, the momentum lost by the radiation is equal to 1/c times the energy delivered to the body, or M = E/c. If the momentum of the radiation of a mass is M times the velocity c of the radiation, the equation m = E/c2 is derived. > > -- end quote --- > > What Ricker is pointing out is that the only true proof of E=mc^2 comes from the Maxwell Equations and thus Einstein's version is flawed since he did not appeal to the Maxwell Equations. > > Would you look at that, look at that from Ricker, NaturalPhilosophy.org > --- quoting --- > [8] Thomson’s use of the formula has not escaped the notice of at least some modern physics textbooks. In Fundamentals of Physics by Halliday, et al, they state: “A decade before Einstein published his theory of relativity, J. J. Thomson proposed that the electron might be made up of small parts and that its mass is due to the electrical interaction of the parts. Furthermore, he suggested that the energy equals mc^2 (John Wiley, fourth edition, p. 735). > --- end quote --- > I do not have that edition. > But if true, then either Heaviside or JJ Thomson discovered E=mc^2 first. > I bet on Heaviside for his mind mastered the Maxwell Equations better than anyone except Maxwell himself. And, besides, Heaviside used E = mc^2 and that is full evidence that Heaviside discovered the equation for how can one use an equation, and not discover it. > And I suspect that JJ Thompson easily got notes and writings of Heaviside, as Thomson explored the atom. > Perhaps it is worth going through all of Maxwell to see whether he-- for some reason or other-- derived the equation first. And is so, well, that closed the case, for if Maxwell happened upon E = mc^2, it is his discovery, since the only way to that equation is through the Maxwell equations. > > Alright that was some of the history of E=mc^2. And I showed how modern day times can easily derive it without using the Maxwell Equation by simply noting the mathematics involved of Calculus. > That the integral of momentum mv is that of 1/2mv^2, simple as that. Now if the velocity is a constant speed of light, the integral is not just a triangle area of 1/2 base*height, but rather is the full area of the square involved and the area of square is base*height, or c*c and thus mc^2. > But, now, in light of the new discovery that .5MeV is not the true electron but a magnetic monopole with charge energy of .5MeV we have to inspect the equation E = mc^2 all over again. > And I think I have a quick and easy solution for that messy entanglement. Remember earlier in this text, I discussed how New Physics needs a duality of Force definition. One Force definition is Newton's old F = ma. That is good, except that force definition is only useful when a body has actual rest mass. But photons have no rest mass, for all they have is energy, and we are worried about charge energy. So, for a photon we cannot use E = mc^2. So earlier, a gave a dual definition of force as that of dQ/dt where Q is charge, the rate of change of charge per time. A calculus of dQ/dt. Please review my earlier chapter on dq/dt. So, here we have, thus, a second equation that represents energy which has no rest mass involved, but rather charge energy (or spin energy) and the new equation is E = Qc^2. > AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-13 23:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <462d547b-7c60-4556-a9e5-44ae7232e8c1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #680914 |
Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 13:41:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: page56, 7-7, Appendix of Astronomy, Physics Data/ PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE textbook, 8th ed. From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 21:41:40 +0000 page56, 7-7, Appendix of Astronomy, Physics Data/ PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE textbook, 8th ed. ASTRO DATA TABLE Alright, in the 8th edition, I need a chapter that does just the data and facts of Solar System objects. As an ongoing job and duty of astronomers to constantly refresh revise and update the data of our Solar System and astronomy in whole. When I first went to College in 1968 to study and major in math, we had a CRC book, Chemical Rubber Company of pages upon pages of formulas and data, which was revised very often. We need something of that nature in Science, especially Physics. Now, of course Halliday and Resnick did a beautiful job in their Physics textbooks, but we need those tables ongoing with revisions. Just recently I was informed that the speed of the Sun in the Galaxy was not 220km/second but rather 230km/second. This is what I mean by constant revising. So that anyone can go to this Astronomy Data and pull up whatever is needed. This is my best data:: Sun 230 km/s orbital speed around Milky Way Mercury, 0.24 yr orbital period, 47.87 km/s orbital speed Venus, 0.61 yr orbital period, 35.02 km/s orbital speed Earth, 1 yr orbital period, 29.78 km/s orbital speed Moon , 27 days orbit, 1 km/s orbital speed Mars, 1.8 yrs orbital period, 24.07 km/s orbital speed Jupiter, 11.86 yrs orbital period, 13.07 km/s orbital speed Saturn, 29.45 yrs orbital period, 9.69 km/s orbital speed Uranus, 84.32 yrs orbital period, 6.81 km/s orbital speed Neptune, 164.79 yrs orbital period, 5.43 km/s orbital speed Now that Utexas site delivers this table with my own modifications in the third column. These precessions are in arcseconds/year and thanks to Richard Fitzpatrick 2009/07/28 for having this website. Basically I am after the **observed precession** for that is the most important number. xxxxxxxxxxx Mercury, 5.75 observed, 5.50 theor, +0.25 deviat Venus, 2.04 observed, 10.75 theor, -8.71 deviat Earth, 11.45 observed, 11.87 theor, -0.42 deviat Mars, 16.28 observed, 17.60 theor, -1.32 deviat Jupiter, 6.55 observed, 7.42 theor, -0.87 deviat Saturn, 19.50 observed, 18.36 theor, +1.14 deviat Uranus, 3.34 observed, 2.72 theor, +0.62 deviat Neptune, 0.36 observed, 0.65 theor, -0.29 xxxxxxxxxxx Sun, average density 1.4 gm/cm^3 but core is 150 gm/cm^3 and where core is equal to about 0.2 solar radii MEAN DENSITIES Mercury, 5.4 gm/cm^3, metal core is 42% of volume Venus, 5.2 gm/cm^3, metallic core Earth, 5.5 gm/cm^3, metal core 17% volume Moon, 3.3 gm/cm^3, iron core Mars, 3.9 gm/cm^3, iron sulfide core --------- Jupiter, 1.3 gm/cm^3, rocky core that is 12-45 Earth mass and 3 to 15% of Jupiter's total mass Saturn, 0.7 gm/cm^3, (less dense than water), rocky core 9 to 22 times Earth mass Uranus, 1.2 gm/cm^3, rock core Neptune, 1.6 gm/cm^3, rock core of iron, nickel, silicates Pluto, 2.1 gm/cm^3, rock core -------- Satellites of Jupiter: Io, 3.5 gm/cm^3, iron core Europa, 3.0 gm/cm^3, iron core Ganymede, 1.9 gm/cm^3, Fe and FeS iron core Callisto, 1.8 gm/cm^3, silicate core _____ Saturn satellite Titan, 1.8 gm/cm^3 silicate core xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --- quoting from http://www.indiana.edu/~g302/planets.pdf. --- Solar System Composition Metals Oxides Mass Diameter Fe, Ni SiO 2 ,MgO,FeO Name (10 27 g) (10 3 km) % (10 27 g) % (10 27 g) Sun 1,990,000 0.1 0.2 Mercury 0.33 4.88 50 0.16 50 0.17 Venus 4.87 12.11 30 1.46 69 3.36 Earth 5.97 12.76 29 1.73 69 4.12 Mars 0.64 6.79 10 0.06 90 Asteroids 0.0002 15 3x10 -5 85 1.7x10 -4 Jupiter 1900 143.2 4 80 9 170 Saturn 570 120 7 40 14 80 Uranus 88 51.8 8 7 17 15 Neptune 103 49.5 6 6 14 14 --- end quoting from http://www.indiana.edu/~g302/planets.pdf. --- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx So I went looking around for rotation periods and tilt, today. --- from this website --- http://cseligman.com/text/sky/rotationvsday.htm Rotation period Mercury 58.6 days Venus -243.0 days Earth 23 hours 56 minutes Moon 27.3 days Mars 24 hours 37 minutes Jupiter 9 hours 55 minutes Saturn 10 hours 32 minutes Uranus -17 hours 14 minutes Neptune 16 hours 6 minutes Pluto -6 days 9 hours Angle of tilt on axis: Mercury 0 degrees Venus -3 degrees Jupiter 3 degrees Uranus -82 degrees Pluto -72 degrees Earth 23.5 degrees Mars 25 degrees Saturn 27degrees Neptune 30 degrees --- From a different website, I needed to know the rotation period of the Sun --- from a source: Sun rotation period is approx 25 days Next, I needed the data on the satellites of the gas giants of their rotation-period and tilt: From Wikipedia data: Rotation period Ganymede synchronous with orbit 7.1 days, with tilt 0 degrees Callisto synchronous with orbit 16.7 days, 0 degrees Io synchronous 1.7 days, 0 degrees Europa synchronous with orbit 3.5 days, 0 degrees Titan synchronous 15.9 days, 0 degrees tilt Moon synchronous 27.3 days Finally, I was suspicious that comets would also have rotation periods so went looking and found this site: http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~meech/rot.html Apparently the nucleus of comets has a rotation period and this website gives rotation periods of about 7.6 hours to 15.0 hours on a list of comets studied. Can I draw any conclusions so far? Probably too premature, but I do notice the rotation period of our Sun closely matches that of the Moon. I also notice that the tilt on axis of Earth is closely matched by that of Mars, Saturn, Neptune. I remember a theory that the Moon collided with Earth very early in the history of Earth some 4 billion years ago and due to that collision, the theory went on to proffer that the tilt of Earth was caused. So I seriously doubt that Earth Moon collision when Mars is so much identical in tilt to Earth. I do notice a pattern starting to emerge in that the inner planets rotation period is in days whereas the gas giants are in hours. This would be like saying that the inner planets have stopping grow fast with Dirac new radioactivities and are old astro bodies whereas the gas giants are young astro bodies and are growing fast with new cosmic rays and cosmic gamma ray bursts. But I need to find out more data and to analyze much more on this. What is hopeful is that rotation period can eventually be the best guide in astronomy as to a "age of a astro body." So that if we have a fastly rotating galaxy, then it is a young galaxy and if we have a galaxy with not much rotation at all, then it is very old. Even applied to clusters of galaxies. One of the gravest weakness of modern astronomy is the lack of measuring for age and perhaps this rotation period linked to age is going to open up alot of new data. MORE DATA TABLE OF SOLAR SYSTEM:: Alright, let give you a new rule for the distance spacing of planets. A rule that follows a Coulomb or gravity force law. Where we consider that the Titius Bode Rule above for the inner planets and the satellites of Jupiter to be secondary spacings and not primary spacings. Let me call this new Rule the Plutonium-Titius-Bode Rule: 1 + 2^2 =3D 5 2 + 3^2 =3D 11 3 + 4^2 =3D 19 4 + 5^2 =3D 29 Now here are the actual distance spacings of Jupiter to Neptune Jupiter =3D 5.2 Au Saturn =3D 9.5 Au Uranus =3D 19.1 Au Neptune =3D 30.0 Au Now if I carried it out to a fifth planet beyond Jupiter I would have 5 + 6^2 =3D 41 which is not bad for Pluto at actual 39.4 Au. The bad thing about the Titius Bode Rule is that it was one formula for two different planetary groupings. I call them CellWell1 and CellWell2. So here is the old Titius Bode Rule (0 + 4)/10 = 0.4 for Mercury (in Au) (3 + 4)/10 = 0.7 for Venus (6 + 4)/10 = 1.0 for Earth . . . Here is the newest AP-Titius-Bode Rule which applies only to CellWell2 of Jupiter and beyond, whereas the old Titius Bode Rule really only applied to the inner planets and the moons of Jupiter. 1 + 2^2 = 5 for Jupiter (in Au) 2 + 3^2 = 11 for Saturn 3 + 4^2 = 19 for Uranus 4 + 5^2 = 29 for Neptune 5 + 6^2 = 41 for Pluto 6 + 7^2 = 55 for Kuiper Belt 7 + 8^2 = 71 Now I looked to see how well matched those numbers are with actual distances, and they match far better than the old Titius-Bode Rule. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --- quoting from Dirac's excellent little book Directions in Physics, 1978, page 77 --- This continuous creation of matter must be looked upon as something quite independent of known physical processes. According to the ordinary physical processes, which we study in the laboratory, matter is conserved. Here we have direct non-conservation of matter. It is, if you like, a new kind of radioactive process for which there is non-conservation of matter and by which particles are created where they did not previously exist. The effect is very small, because the number of particles created will be appreciable only when we wait for a very long time interval compared with the age of the Universe. --- end quote --- Now Dirac goes on to discuss whether New Radioactivity is additive or multiplicative. But my concern is whether we can turn the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements around to show that **radioactive growth** occurs equally to that of radioactive decay. For we commonly think of finding a sample of uranium with lead and then go on to assume or presume that all the lead came from the uranium decaying into lead, whereas there is the other possibility that some of the lead was created from a lower atomic numbered element and that some of the uranium was created from lower atomic numbered element such as lead itself. So that when we find a sample of U238 with half life of 4.5 billion years and find half the sample is U238 and the other half is lead, we jump to the false conclusion of 4.5 billion years old, whereas in fact, it was likely to be 6 billion years old since some of the lead turned into U238 and some of the thallium and mercury turned into lead. So we need, in chemistry and physics a brand new chart or table showing us the pathways of Radioactive Growth due to Dirac's New Radioactivity. Now I began to make a list of mean density gram/cm^3 of planets and satellites: Venus 5.2 Earth 5.51 Mars 3.93 Vesta asteroid 3.45 Ceres asteroid 2.07 Jupiter 1.32 Saturn 0.68 Uranus 1.27 Neptune 1.63 Pluto 2.03 gas giant satellites Ganymede 1.93 Titan 1.87 Europa 3.01 Io 3.52 Our own Moon 3.34 Now taking a close look at this table, if we consider some satellites such as Europa and Io as having been "captured metal asteroid", then the rest of the table divides into two. Where we have the Sun and inner planets with the Moon as being 10 billion years old and growing via Dirac's New Radioactivity, whereas the outer planets, the gas giants as being a mere 5 billion years old and their density is evidence of this younger age. So that physicists need to prepare a table for Radioactive Growth alongside our presently existing table of radioactive decay pathways. One of the pathways of growth appears to be heavy water in comets where there is sparse density, but that radioactive growth of heavy water is uncommon where there is greater density such as in Earth oceans. So that if you had water on a comet, it is likely to grow into heavy water whereas that same water on Earth is Dirac new radioactive growth unlikely to happen. So physicists need to start preparing Radioactive Growth pathway tables. Such a table should explain why thorium and uranium are so strangely abundant in the cosmos when it should not be so abundant. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Sun 230 km/s orbital speed around Milky Way Mercury, 0.24 yr orbital period, 47.87 km/s orbital speed Venus, 0.61 yr orbital period, 35.02 km/s orbital speed Earth, 1 yr orbital period, 29.78 km/s orbital speed Moon , 27 days orbit, 1 km/s orbital speed Mars, 1.8 yrs orbital period, 24.07 km/s orbital speed Jupiter, 11.86 yrs orbital period, 13.07 km/s orbital speed Saturn, 29.45 yrs orbital period, 9.69 km/s orbital speed Uranus, 84.32 yrs orbital period, 6.81 km/s orbital speed Neptune, 164.79 yrs orbital period, 5.43 km/s orbital speed Mercury magnetic field strength 1% of Earth or 300 nT Venus magnetic field strength is 10^-5 times Earth Earth magnetic field strength 3x10^4nT to 6x10^4nT Moon magnetic field strength is 1 to 100 nT Mars magnetic field strength is 10^-4 times Earth I should include the spin of these astro bodies as equatorial rotation velocity: Mercury 11km/h Venus 6km/h Earth 1,674 km/h Moon 18 km/h Mars 868 km/h Axial tilt (from wikipedia) Mercury 2.11 degrees Venus 177.3degrees Venus is rotating the reverse of other planets, retrograde rotation Earth 23degrees ; Moon 1.5 degrees to ecliptic Mars 25.19 degrees Jupiter 3.13 degrees Saturn 26.73 degrees Uranus 97.77 degrees Neptune 28.32 degrees Alright, let me keep adding to the magnetic fields of planets table: Jupiter's magnetic field 14X larger than Earth's Saturn magnetic field about the same as Earth Uranus an asymmetrical magnetosphere 0.23 gauss Neptune similar to Uranus only 0.14 gauss 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 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 21:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d9ef13ab-937c-4161-b4d5-909f1d9d879b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #681012 |
Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 13:51:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: page57, 7-8, Appendix of Chemistry Data & Table of Elementary Particles/ PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE textbook, 8th ed. From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 21:51:21 +0000 page57, 7-8, Appendix of Chemistry Data & Table of Elementary Particles/ PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE textbook, 8th ed. I need a lot of Lewis Diagrams for the table of Elementary Particles. How you build all the particles from using electron=muon = 105 MeV and of course, the magnepole = monopole = .5 MeV of charge-energy, not rest mass. Lewis diagrams with the Real Proton = 840 MeV as built from 8 muons in the law of octet. So in the Table, the correct table of Physics Elementary Particles should look like this:: PHOTONS .5 MeV magnepoles = magnetic monopoles, all other Photons, ranging from radio waves on up to mesons and beyond. Including all the Neutrinos for neutrinos are just photons that are longitudinal waves not double transverse waves. LEPTONS 105 muon= electron, tau-electron 1785 +- charge MESONS 139 pion, 135 pion , 493 K meson , 497 K meson, 548 Eta-meson charge +- pion, 0 pion, +- K meson, 0 K meson, 0 Eta-meson BARYONS 840 proton, 945 neutron, 1116 Lambda, 1189 Sigma, 1192 Sigma, 1197 Sigma charge +- proton, 0 neutron, 0 Lambda, + Sigma, 0 Sigma, - Sigma more BARYONS 1315 Xi, 1321 Xi, 1672 Omega charge 0 Xi , +- Xi, +- Omega Recent BARYONS recent 2 Omegas at 6054 and 6165 MeV Recent Meson, Upsilon 9460 MeV Recent Higgs boson 125,000 MeV The key formula is Real Electron= muon =105 MeV Another key formula is proton = 8 x electron, the octet rule of chemistry and thus the proton itself is a octagon closed loop of 8 electrons=muons forming a Faraday Law closed loop wire as a proton. Here we see the Atom is just the Maxwell-AP equations, but it does not stop there, for each subatomic particle is the Maxwell-AP equations, in turn. 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 in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium Commentary-- Alright, I have huge amount of work cut out for me by the 9th edition, when I get around to that in 2019. I mean huge amount of work, because when it is known that the Real Electron = muon, Real Proton = 840MeV and that .5MeV particle is the current particle in electricity, the magnetic monopole, the particle that Dirac spent most of his physics career searching for, when it was right there, in front of him-- how ironic is that. So by 2019, I need to revamp the Covalent bond, the Ionic bond, the Metallic bond of chemistry. For you see, chemistry is the specialized subject of physics that focuses upon how the electrons of atoms behave. And the moment you realize your electron at .5MeV was never a electron in the first place, well, oops!, throw out all the chemistry textbooks before 2018 and a good time thereafter until textbooks of chemistry are written with the central idea-- Real Electron = muon = 105 MeV. Real Proton = 840 MeV and the .5MeV particle is a charged photon that is the magnetic monopole. Atom ATOM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-16 00:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <875d180d-3be3-4610-a9a8-5ddaf9e5dda0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #681189 |
Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 13:49:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: page58, 7-9, Appendix of Chemistry PERIODIC TABLE OF CHEMICAL ELEMENTS/ textbook, 8th ed. From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 21:49:26 +0000 page58, 7-9, Appendix of Chemistry PERIODIC TABLE OF CHEMICAL ELEMENTS/ textbook, 8th ed. page58, 7-9, Appendix of Chemistry PERIODIC TABLE OF CHEMICAL ELEMENTS/ textbook, 8th ed. No better way of ending this textbook than the very best Chemistry Periodic Table of Chemical Elements. Let it be the inside cover. Let there also be the circular Periodic Table. Someone has devised a circular table of the elements, and let that be shown. Now, can we revise the Periodic Table? I believe so, for we can make a change, that an element is an element not only by number of Protons, the Atomic Number, but the element can also be by the number of electrons=muons as the same Atomic Number. And this opens the long standing question of the decay of the proton. So far, it has never been known for a proton to decay. Well, if we did manage to pry apart a proton, we would have to pry apart 8 muons for a proton is 840 MeV. But, we can pry apart that particle of 938 MeV as the Old Physics, Old Chemistry proton, pry it apart into the 105 MeV real electron and the 840 MeV real proton. So I managed to change one feature of the Old Chemistry table of elements, that Atomic Number coincides with number of electrons an atom has. 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 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 13:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59012c03-523b-44e8-be9c-945b919646f5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #681217 |
Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 12:59:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: 59page59 About Archimedes Plutonium//Plutonium Atom Totality Universe From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2017 20:59:17 +0000 page59 About Archimedes Plutonium//Plutonium Atom Totality Universe page59 About Archimedes Plutonium Well, I was born 1950, in Germany and immigrated when 5 years old with my parents to the USA. Later I was adopted, going to college and then was a mathematics teacher. I went to graduate school and finished with a Masters degree. My occupation was that of investor, real estate and stock market, taking over the business my father left me. I roamed around a lot, never finding what I was "cut out to do", until, finally I started to write a book on the Stock Market and then this science theory of Atom Totality swept me away in 1990. I had always loved science and felt that science was the highest human achievement-- science was truth, and truth was God. So, after decades of wandering, I realized I found my calling and from 1993, anyone can see what I was doing on almost every day of the year ever since August 1993. I usually made at least 3 posts per day since these first two posts of mine in 1993. Now my name was Ludwig Plutonium at that time of August, 1993, and a few years later I would legally change it to its present day name Archimedes Plutonium. The reason is that I believe in reincarnation, and my favorite human being was the Ancient Greek Archimedes. I believe I am him, in the 20th and 21st century. I believe if you do good in life, you will be reincarnated to your best wish in life. Newsgroups: sci.math From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) Subject: Wiles blunders Message-ID: (CBo3EG.3vu@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 22:20:39 GMT Lines: 51 Tabloid presses press for stories like that of apprentice A. Wiles-- " Wiles Masters The Cold Fusion Reporting Technique". Wiles has 1000 pages which 5 other math majors S. Kochen, K. Ribet, H.M. Edwards, B. Mazur, and J. McKay can read. What has the world come to, when an alleged proof is reported as a forgone conclusion because 6 persons jump-up-and-down? Can not the NYT staff recognize self-deluded publicity seekers? What is the limit for math tolerance? When one person from Princeton reports a 10000 page proof and the method of proof is-- readers fatigue. The most important aspect of a math proof is to convince. If Wiles really does have a valid 1000 page proof, then it can be boiled-down to 1 or 2 pages. Wiles can not do that, indicating his proof is another fake. Here are the logical flaws in Wiles's alleged proof. 1) Elliptic curves can not uniquely represent the positive integers 2) Wiles can not even produce Pythagorean triples when the exponent is 2. 3) Fourier Analysis proves that all generalized functions are uniquely representable by sine-cosine. But after transforming Wiles's elliptic curves into the more general mathematics of Fourier Analysis, the net result is that when Wiles wants to show the nonexistence of peculiar elliptic curves, his method implies that the sine-cosine function of Fourier Analysis does not exist. 4) Wiles's method contradicts Fourier Analysis. 5) Wiles's method is indirect nonexistence. Mathematically there are only three viable existence proof methods i) direct existence ii) direct nonexistence iii) and indirect existence. A proof method of indirect nonexistence is impossible. The supercomputer 4-color mapping problem proof is another fake proof because it uses the method of indirect nonexistence. See The Dartmouth 19MAY1992 for my two proofs of the 4-color mapping problem. Forgive these 6 math majors for they are weak in mathematical logic and know not what they do. And be not surprised that some in the math community will eject overboard sine-cosine just to embrace wiles curves. Wiles is wily about publicity, but will he be a test-tube-cry-baby once he realizes that his FLouT sunk? Not all is lost though, because Wiles's blunders creates a very important mathematical conjecture. Call my conjecture Complementary Mathematics (CM) since it originates from the complementary principle of quantum physics. CM states: Math theorems have a duality of proof method, either geometrical or arithmetical, where one excludes 100% of the other (particle-wave duality of quantum mechanics). Hence, the correct geometrical proof of FLT will come only after someone gives the proven equivalent geometrical statement to the arithmetical FLT. The Moebius function proved to be the geometrical equivalent to the Riemann Hypothesis. See my two proofs of the Riemann Hypothesis The Dartmouth 9AUG1991, and my proof of FLT The Dartmouth 16APR1991. The arithmetic proofs of both the Riemann Hypothesis and FLT were achieved through the uniqueness of the number 2. But the geometrical proof of FLT will come only after the equivalent geometrical statement is obtained, and it will be much longer than my 1 page proof of FLT, or my 1 paragraph proof of the World's most outstanding math problem-- the Riemann Hypothesis. This newsgram was published in The Dartmouth under Notices 9JUL1993. Sincerely, LP ------------------------------------------------------------- Newsgroups: sci.math From: Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) Subject: Pi 22/7 & e 19/7 because our Maker is an atom of plutonium Message-ID: (CBoD58.B74@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1993 01:51:07 GMT Lines: 19 Ludwig.Plutonium@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) writes: The most often used numbers throughout math and physics are pi and e. Pi is approx 22/7 and e is approx 19/7. An atom of plutonium has approx 22 subshells in approx 7 shells and approx 19 of those subshells are occupied by electrons at any one instant of time. The observable universe is just the last electron, the 94th electron of 231Pu. The dots of the electron cloud-- one of those dots is the planet Earth, a larger dot is the Sun. An atom totality explains everything-- why quantum physics is bizarre because the totality itself is an atom. Why the night sky Olbers paradox, because the night sky is a blackbody cavity of the 94th electron. Why the microwave background radiation is relentlessly uniform because the 94th electron is a perfect quantum blackbody cavity. Finally Dirac's answer to the inverse fine-structure constant because the 94th electron is a perfect quantum blackbody cavity. Finally Dirac's answer to the inverse fine-structure constant because 231Pu has 137 neutrons. Readers Meet your Maker an Atom of Plutonium. All of the above copyrighted 1990 in my book PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY: THE UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY, BIOLOGY AND MATHEMATICS. ---------------------- page59 About Archimedes Plutonium, well, I am the author of this textbook and many texts listed below. All of them published by Internet, sci.math, sci.physics,sci.geo.geology, sci.econ, and many more newsgroups. In the modern digital era, we can easily and better bypass gatekeepers of publishing. Gatekeepers of publishing were corrupt, not that they knew they were corrupt but the entire system of publishing before 1993 was a corrupt system of publishing, and we see it especially in science. There would never have been this massive science discoveries by Archimedes Plutonium, without the freedom of speech and freedom to publish that the Internet offered by 1993. None of this would have happened without my good fortune of encountering the Internet in 1993. I copyrighted much of my Atom Totality works in newspapers in the early 1990s, and some later on. But without the Internet offering me, that daily postings of my thoughts, not much of my science would have happened. And during my years of discoveries, I knew full well, that by sending any of my work off to what some call "normal publishers" would have been just a vast waste of time. Science publication before 1993 was a cesspool of corrupt gatekeepers. Here is a starting list of books I have published from 1993 to present December 2017. This is but a partial list, and no-one is more surprised of my productivity, than is I myself. I constantly say to my self, I do not deserve this productivity, for I am a flawed human being, just like most of us, and am in need of God's care and blessings. I think the reason I was blessed more than any other human being, is that I found the true God of this world, and the person that finds true God, is given God's blessing more so than others. The same can be said of Michael Faraday who said "Nature is our kindest friend and best critic, in experimental science if we only allow her intimations to fall unbiased on our minds". In other words, what Faraday was referring to is the idea that the laws of science and God were one and the same thing, and that Faraday was seeking God by doing science. Ultimate truth is science truth and is God. I have often posted the expression since 1993, that Science is god, and god is Science. In this year, 2017, the great great blessing was to discover (nay, be handed by God this new understanding) that the Real Electron is 105 MeV, Real Proton is 840 MeV, and that little particle the (.5MeV) was a magnetic monopole. I did not think I would find such a colossal major new discovery after the Atom Totality, but again, as I harken back-- those with the true God on their side, gives more blessings then those not. When you are in the flow, life is flowing with you. Now here is a list:: (1) Atom Totality theory, textbooks, editions 1 through 8, starting 1990 and 8th is 2017. This theory of everything posits that All matter are made up of Atoms and since the Universe is a "matter", the universe is an atom itself. That atom is 231Pu, plutonium. And as we look out onto the night sky of those dots of white that are galaxies and stars, those are just mass hunks of the last 6 electrons of 231Pu. (2) Fusion Barrier Principle, editions 1 and 2, starting 1997. The idea here is that there will never be any fusion commercial power stations, because the laws of Electrodynamics forbid it to happen. One of those laws is the Faraday Law and it is represented by a sphere in energy content, and another law is the Ampere Law represented by a cylinder (torus) and such that if you fit a sphere inside a cylinder the energy content of sphere is 2/3 that of cylinder energy content. It always takes 1/3 more energy to control fusion than what fusion can deliver. For the Ampere law is the control energy and the fusion production is the Faraday law. (3) Mind as a Radio Receiver theory. I called this the Brain Locus theory for many years. Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.psychology.theory, sci.med From: a_plutonium <a_pluton...@hotmail.com> Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 21:35:08 -0700 Local: Sun, Jun 3 2007 11:35 pm Subject: #1 new book: "How the Mind Works; Brain-Locus theory" The basic idea here is that every thought in every mind, every brain is a thought that is out of body. That all thoughts were made in the Nucleus of the atom totality and shot into every brain in the cosmos via photons or neutrinos. So all life is puppets on a string (superdeterminism). (4) RockThrowing Theory-- humans evolved from apes by one day a ape picked up rocks and start throwing them, gaining more food, gaining more mates and more offspring, and gaining more power over rivals. Eventually this throwing ability demanding evolving more upright walk so as to free the hands and arms for throwing, leading to bipedalism. --- quoting what AP originally wrote into Wikipedia entry on bipedalism --- - '''Stonethrowing theory''' - - This theory was presented by Archimedes Plutonium in a 2002 "Internet book" posted to newsgroups of anthropology. It says that humanity evolved mostly under one single mechanism - the throwing of rocks and stones. The ability to throw rocks and stones started sometime about 12 to 10 million years ago with Oreopithecus and evolved and carried on into Orrorin and finally humanity. The theory says that some apelike creature some 10-12 million years ago started throwing rocks and stones at first in the underarm-sling style and later evolving into overarm stiff elbow pendulum-sling style and later evolving into overarm snapping thrust at the elbow. This throwing gave this creature so much more advantages in warding off rivals for mating, in catching food, in warding off predators, in living in the open, etc etc. About 7 million years ago the evolutionary changes of stonethrowing created bipedalism because bipedalism further advanced the proficiency and enhancement of stonethrowing. So without stonethrowing there would not be a biped primate today. - * [[Archimedes Plutonium|Plutonium, Archimedes]], "STONETHROWING THEORY IS THE DOMINANT THEORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY", 2002 "Internet book". (5) Plate Tectonics run not by convection currents but by Vibrations of Earth's core electric motor Textbook, geology, 2nd edition, 2014, All Geology run by Maxwell Equations Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 17:09:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Geology based on Maxwell Equations textbook; 2nd edition, #1 Geophysics From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 00:09:20 +0000 Geology based on Maxwell Equations textbook; 2nd edition, #1 Geophysics Geology based on Maxwell Equations textbook; 2nd edition, #1 Geophysics This is rather a unique Geology textbook for instead of geology based solely on gravity as the "moving force", in this text, it is the Electromagnetic force of Maxwell Equations that governs all that happens in geology. All other geology textbooks of the past and prior to this one were based exclusively on gravity as the moving force of geology. So, the geologist of the future is going to have to be fluent in electromagnetism and the Maxwell Equations in order to be a first rate geologist. I do not get rid of gravity, but rather I see it for what it is worth-- 10^-40 the strength of EM force. In other words, whenever you witness gravity, you are witnessing just a tiny meager minor result of EM forces going on in the total surroundings. Now the 1st edition of this textbook was started by me in the early 2000s by my noticing of pots and pans placed on top of the refrigerator and my constant having to scoot them because of the motor vibrations making the pots fall off. I summed those ideas into posts starting in 2006 as the 1st edition of this textbook with posts like this one: From: "a_plutonium" <a_plu...@hotmail.com> Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.geo.geology,sci.physics.electromag Subject: Model for Continental Drift-- pots on top of refrigerator Re: Earth Core as dynamo yields 6 x 10^16 amperes and Lightning bolts yield 6 x 10^15 amperes Date: 2 Oct 2006 23:40:41 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 49 (6) About 7 new theories in biology (7) Several theories in Sociology (8) Several theories in Economics (9) About 20 textbooks on Mathematics. So vast have I changed mathematics that instead of a 6th edition on Correcting Math, that I will do a TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS in 2018. I have overhauled all of mathematics. So vast of correcting errors in Old Math, that it is reasonable to say, that Archimedes Plutonium "owns mathematics". Overhauling Calculus, numbers, Geometry, Coordinate System, Trigonometry, even the very methods of making proofs (relying on logic), having proved all the major outstanding conjectures such as Riemann Hypothesis, FLT, Collatz, Kepler Packing, you name it. The greatest message AP leaves us with mathematics is what Hardy protested in his book "A Mathematician's Apology" where Hardy asks for someone to relate mathematics directly with physics. And the Atom Totality does that direct relationship, for Numbers only exist because Atoms are numerous, and Geometry only exists, because, well Atoms have shape and size. Thus, the entire subject of Mathematics is but a closet space, subset of physics. Physics is king of science, and mathematics is a backroom servant to physics. (10) I have overhauled all of Chemistry with the discovery that the true electron is the muon and the true proton is 840 MeV and that little particle of .5 MeV is the magnetic monopole. (11) A new book on Science of Art, Science of Poetry, Science of Music (12) A new textbook on LOGIC that completely overhauls all of Old Logic, and finds Old Logic in total error filled disarray. (13) About 10 new theories and textbooks on Biology 1.Photons are perfect DNA 2.Human Cloning 3.Superdeterminism replaces Darwin Evolution 4. Dog domestication because dogs were the first domesticated animal to be eaten . . . (14) Medicine, the metal mercury causing many diseases:: Metal Causing Diseases (Homosexual, Autism, Schizophrenia, Depression, Parkinsons, Alzheimers, Prion) Usenet book published 1996-2007 (first assimilated in April 2007 in sci.med,sci.chem,sci.bio.misc) Chapt1: History of this book Chapt2: earlier metal diseases: lead then mercury then asbestos and now mostly mercury Chapt3: asbestos diseases, a semi-metal disease Chapt4: experimental math-statistical proof that autism (ASU report) is caused by mercury and cadmium and the mechanism is similar to chromium-6 (PBS report) Chapt5: Homosexual Chapt6: Autism Chapt7: Schizophrenia Chapt8: Depression Chapt9: Parkinsons Chapt10: Alzheimers Chapt11: Prion (15) A textbook on Political Science that argues the best form of government is a Science Council, something seen in the Superman movies as a reference point (even though that is science fiction). (16) A textbook on how Geothermal is the Promise of the Future and will make coal/oil/gas and fossil fuels obsolete. (17) A textbook on Human OverPopulation and is a threat to make us go extinct. more later,,,,,,,,, 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 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 17:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6a1aec7a-239c-4a8b-add6-49d9d14161e7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #681308 |
Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 14:36:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: Page60 Auf Wiedersehen until 2017// Atom Totality Universe textbook 8th ed// 2017 From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2017 22:36:34 +0000 Page60 Auf Wiedersehen until 2019// Atom Totality Universe textbook 8th ed// 2017 I end this textbook of 2017 on this last day of the year. I began the book in 2017 hoping to fully formulate the New Maxwell Equations, and that mission was accomplished. It makes the AP-Maxwell equations the centerpiece of all of physics, for it unifies all the forces of physics to be EM forces, electromagnetism forces. Sad that after Maxwell in 1860s formulated the Maxwell equations, there was not one physicist alive from Maxwell until AP, who realized what a gem the Maxwell Equations are. Which only goes to show, that scientists en masse can be as foolish en mass as the general public, following the latest or current hype-- relativity theory. Sad also, because the original Maxwell Equations were endowed with containing Special Relativity. So, scientists are as easy to hornswaggle on goofball paths as is the general public of humanity. But in writing this textbook I happen to fall on what is going to probably be my greatest contribution to chemistry-- that the Real Electron is not that tiny particle of .5MeV rest mass but rather, the muon at 105 MeV is the real electron, and what Dirac was searching for much of his life for, the magnetic monopole, happens to be exactly that .5MeV particle. This discovery, all founded by noticing the rest mass of Old Physics proton at 938 MeV, neutron at 940 MeV, that noticing in 2016 that the muon was "virtually 9 times" the proton, given a tiny less than 1% off. And knowing full well, that these measurements in physics, when they are less than 1% off, means, most of the times, they are identical. So, when starting the 8th edition in early 2017, I had no idea, that I would discover Real Chemistry, Real Electron, Real Proton, and would finally find Dirac's magnetic monopole. For when I started this 8th edition, I too had massively looked for Dirac's monopole and had given up, and had even started the 8th edition convinced Dirac was wrong and that a dipole was the furthest one could break down the study of magnetism, that the monopole could not exist. But when I saw that the Real Electron was the muon, that had me cornered into-- what the heck, what in the world could that .5MeV particle be? And so, I reversed myself, and said, alright, I found Dirac's magnetic monopole-- a photon dressed up with .5MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy. And today, the last day of posting in this edition, I have some more thoughts. Notice the tau particle the next largest electron after the muon at 1784 MeV (Halliday, 4th ed, 1992 extended vol2). Notice, once again that if you had a muon at 105 MeV, Real Proton at 840 MeV you have the tau as being 17 X 105 almost spot on at 1785 and you have the tau 2 X 840 = 1680 as 2 protons then add a muon = 1785 What this math tells us, is the nucleus of atoms of its protons and neutrons is a repeating of chemistry, going on in the nucleus. So the chemistry we see in the world today, is mirror imaged by the nucleus of an atom. Now I am going to use this last page, page 60 to report on physics news items that occur in 2018 and which I can incorporate into the 9th edition of this textbook when I write it in 2019. 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 in peace and quiet. Auf Wiedersehen https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-17 01:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pb3iml$3r4$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #681308 |
Physics Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> babbled: >And today, the last day of posting in this edition, I have some more >thoughts. Notice the tau particle the next largest electron after the >muon at 1784 MeV (Halliday, 4th ed, 1992 extended vol2). Notice, once >again that if you had a muon at 105 MeV, Real Proton at 840 MeV you have >the tau as being >17 X 105 almost spot on at 1785 >and you have the tau 16.8167 times the muon mass is "spot on" to 17 times???? Is that the new Plutonium math or something???? Just like how 8.88 is "exactly" 9 ? FAIL.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web