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

Groups > sci.physics > #686918 > unrolled thread

30-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// we take the S orbital as a radius & circumference / P orbital of 6 as the 6 sides of cube to do Chemistry bonding

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  30-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// we take the S orbital as a radius & circumference / P orbital of 6 as the 6 sides of cube to do Chemistry bonding Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 09:28 -0700
    30-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// we take the S orbital as a radius & circumference / P orbital of 6 as the 6 sides of cube to do Chemistry bonding Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 11:42 -0700
      Re: 30-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// term "stealing" replaced by "bond" or "bonding" Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 19:35 -0700
        31-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// fun to see how "bond" is defined in Old Chemistry, versus New Chemistry Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-24 22:09 -0700
          31-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// fun to see how "bond" is defined in Old Chemistry, versus New Chemistry Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 00:52 -0700
            31-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// fun to see how "bond" is defined in Old Chemistry, versus New Chemistry Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 01:12 -0700
              31-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// fun to see how "bond" is defined in Old Chemistry, versus New Chemistry Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 01:39 -0700
                32-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// Centripetal force versus Centrifugal--orbital versus pseudoorbital Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 10:00 -0700
                  33-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// since Universe is one big atom of 231Pu, is it a astronomy Coil with thrusting bar magnet? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 10:37 -0700
                  Re: 32-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// at maximum, 6 valence muons surrounding a center Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 11:26 -0700
                    Re: 32-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// at maximum, 6 valence muons surrounding a center Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 18:00 -0700
                      34-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// definition of "Bond" in chemistry; Bond in New Chemistry is a stealing not sharing of valence muons Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 22:08 -0700
                        35-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// diamagnetism and paramagnetism will reveal where the extra valence muons go into a pseudo-orbital Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 22:50 -0700
                          35-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// diamagnetism and paramagnetism will reveal where the extra valence muons go into a pseudo-orbital Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 00:08 -0700
                          35-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// diamagnetism and paramagnetism will reveal where the extra valence muons go into a pseudo-orbital Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 00:12 -0700
                            Re: 35-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// diamagnetism and paramagnetism will reveal where the extra valence muons go into a pseudo-orbital Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 09:34 -0700
                              Re: 35-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// diamagnetism and paramagnetism will reveal where the extra valence muons go into a pseudo-orbital Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 09:45 -0700
                                Re: 35-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// diamagnetism and paramagnetism will reveal where the extra valence muons go into a pseudo-orbital Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 10:40 -0700
                                  Re: 35-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// diamagnetism and paramagnetism will reveal where the extra valence muons go into a pseudo-orbital Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 10:43 -0700
                                  Re: 35-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// diamagnetism and paramagnetism entire field started over Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 11:01 -0700
                              Re: 35-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// rewriting the theory of diamagnetism and paramagnetism Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 14:58 -0700
                                Re: 35-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// is charge, geometrically a hook? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 21:16 -0700
                                  Re: 35-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// is charge, geometrically a hook? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-26 23:30 -0700
                                    36-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// Proofs that Chemistry is more about protons than about electrons Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 07:32 -0700
                                      37-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// redoing over the Rutherford foil experiments and proving him, somewhat wrong Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 09:23 -0700
                                        37-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// astronomy follows the theory of atoms as torus, for the Ring in third layer Perseus Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 12:37 -0700
                                          Re: _Burse calls 25 years crazy-- Manfred Einsiedler, Paul Embrechts, Giovanni Felder of ETH, no picture diagram of Calculus proof// still believing proton is 938MeV electron .5MeV when they are 840MeV, 105MeV moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-27 20:24 +0000
                                            Moroney says-- no manners here--  Charlie Baker, Louis Deslauriers, John Doyle, Cora Dvorkin can't do percentages//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 13:38 -0700
                                              Re: Archimedes Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-27 20:55 +0000
                                          Re: 37-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// astronomy follows the theory of atoms as torus, for the Ring in third layer Perseus Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 13:45 -0700
                  Re: Archimedes Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-25 18:48 +0000

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#687239 — Re: 35-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// rewriting the theory of diamagnetism and paramagnetism

On Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 11:35:00 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> So here is a list from the web but whether they are truly that as listed is highly questionable.
> 
> N2-- diamagnetic
> 
> O2-- paramagnetic
> 
> CO2-- paramagnetic
> 
> O3-- diamagnetic
> 
> CO-- diamagnetic
> 
> C4 graphite -- diamagnetic
> 
> C5 diamond-- diamagnetic
> 
> B2-- paramagnetic
> 

And add on

BF-- diamagnetic

I see I need to rewrite the entire theory of diamagnetism and paramagnetism, because, the real electron of atoms is a muon and rarely ever leaves its attendant proton, and the electron acts as the Faraday bar magnet while the proton and neutron become the Faraday closed loop coil.

The Old Physics and Old Chemistry idea of a electron as a .5MeV particle just makes no sense in terms of diamagnetism and paramagnetism. So a whole new theory needs be put in place. A theory that a unpaired muon (and this gets at the Hund's rule and Aufbau), the theory of electrons is not so much about the electron, as it is about the attendant proton. An unfilled electron, or unpaired electron, means a proton cannot complete a full torus. One proton is half of a torus coil, and we need two protons at all times to complete a torus coil. If we have a electron=muon alone, means we have a proton alone and that is only 1/2 completed torus. And it is this isolated-alone muon with a 1/2 torus coil that gives rise to electromagnet charge seen as paramagnetism.

Now in the singular nitrogen atom, we have 3 valence muons alone and thus 3 protons as 1/2 built torus of the 2P causing N to be paramagnetic, extremely paramagnetic. Whereas now N2, has filled the 2P with 3 +3 valence muons and thus is diamagnetic.

I better go slow on the new theory of paramagnetism and diamagnetism if I know what is good for me.

So looking at that list above, is there any pattern beginning to emerge? For singular atoms we can have the rule that if odd numbered protons (forget the electrons for it is the protons that need pairing to form a full torus coil. If there is odd number of protons, it is paramagnetic. If there is even number of protons on singular atoms, does not automatically make them diamagnetic because as in the case of oxygen, with 4 valence muons in 2P they still have 2P_x with 2 muons, but 2P_y has 1 muon and 2P_z has 1 muon. That is, if the Hund Rule is obeyed. But a rule is not a universal truth. So in Oxygen although even number of protons, in the 2P orbital of singular atom oxygen we have the unpaired P_y and P_z suborbitals.

There is a pattern emerging in the molecules. If the 2P is filled and extra muons are left over such as in O2, CO2, then these extra muons that form into pseudo S orbitals cause them to be paramagnetic. For some reason that I do not see at the moment, the pseudo orbital does not complete a torus coil of its protons.

More later,,,,

AP

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

#687297 — Re: 35-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// is charge, geometrically a hook?

On Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 4:58:58 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 11:35:00 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 
> > So here is a list from the web but whether they are truly that as listed is highly questionable.
> > 
> > N2-- diamagnetic
> > 
> > O2-- paramagnetic
> > 
> > CO2-- paramagnetic
> > 
> > O3-- diamagnetic
> > 
> > CO-- diamagnetic
> > 
> > C4 graphite -- diamagnetic
> > 
> > C5 diamond-- diamagnetic
> > 
> > B2-- paramagnetic
> > 
> 
> And add on
> 
> BF-- diamagnetic
> 
> I see I need to rewrite the entire theory of diamagnetism and paramagnetism, because, the real electron of atoms is a muon and rarely ever leaves its attendant proton, and the electron acts as the Faraday bar magnet while the proton and neutron become the Faraday closed loop coil.
> 
> The Old Physics and Old Chemistry idea of a electron as a .5MeV particle just makes no sense in terms of diamagnetism and paramagnetism. So a whole new theory needs be put in place. A theory that a unpaired muon (and this gets at the Hund's rule and Aufbau), the theory of electrons is not so much about the electron, as it is about the attendant proton. An unfilled electron, or unpaired electron, means a proton cannot complete a full torus. One proton is half of a torus coil, and we need two protons at all times to complete a torus coil. If we have a electron=muon alone, means we have a proton alone and that is only 1/2 completed torus. And it is this isolated-alone muon with a 1/2 torus coil that gives rise to electromagnet charge seen as paramagnetism.
> 

And there-in I suspect I have the theory, the theory all nailed. Charge is where the torus geometry is half completed, and that would be in the shape of a hook, a half circle.

We generally think of charge as a force, a force acting on something else. But when we want charge as geometry, it is a half torus, a half circle, a hook.

Does this tell us anything about a photon?


> Now in the singular nitrogen atom, we have 3 valence muons alone and thus 3 protons as 1/2 built torus of the 2P causing N to be paramagnetic, extremely paramagnetic. Whereas now N2, has filled the 2P with 3 +3 valence muons and thus is diamagnetic.
> 
> I better go slow on the new theory of paramagnetism and diamagnetism if I know what is good for me.
> 
> So looking at that list above, is there any pattern beginning to emerge? For singular atoms we can have the rule that if odd numbered protons (forget the electrons for it is the protons that need pairing to form a full torus coil. If there is odd number of protons, it is paramagnetic. If there is even number of protons on singular atoms, does not automatically make them diamagnetic because as in the case of oxygen, with 4 valence muons in 2P they still have 2P_x with 2 muons, but 2P_y has 1 muon and 2P_z has 1 muon. That is, if the Hund Rule is obeyed. But a rule is not a universal truth. So in Oxygen although even number of protons, in the 2P orbital of singular atom oxygen we have the unpaired P_y and P_z suborbitals.
> 
> There is a pattern emerging in the molecules. If the 2P is filled and extra muons are left over such as in O2, CO2, then these extra muons that form into pseudo S orbitals cause them to be paramagnetic. For some reason that I do not see at the moment, the pseudo orbital does not complete a torus coil of its protons.
> 
> More later,,,,
> 

So the new theory of diamagnetism and paramagnetism involves really the proton, where the proton is only 1/2 of a completed torus and in the shape of a hook, seeking the other 1/2 of the torus by having another proton nearby.

And this is all about dipole and monopole. We are very used to magnetism being dipole, 1/2 line of force goes from pole to opposite pole, then the line of force goes to original pole-- 1/2 circle to full circle. So the .5MeV particle the Dirac Magnetic Monopole, its function inside atoms and molecules is to complete the circle of those alone-protons.

And, when we view .5MeV particles, we usually see them curving around.

AP

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

#687307 — Re: 35-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// is charge, geometrically a hook?

Alright good progress, and said i had to go slow on this.

So the definition of diamagnetic in New Chemistry has nothing to do with the electrons = muons, only to do with the attendent proton, in that a proton all alone is only a 1/2 built torus, a half circle, and the photons coming out of this 1/2 torus is electric charge, hence Paramagnetism.

Diamagnetism is thus simple and easy— all the protons are fully built as a whole torus with no charge coming out of them.

This suggests two urgent and important experiments— prove each muon is tagged uniquely to a attendant proton. Prove protons pair up.

AP

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

#687331 — 36-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// Proofs that Chemistry is more about protons than about electrons

On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 1:30:16 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Alright good progress, and said i had to go slow on this.
> 

No, this is excellent, excellent  progress.

> So the definition of diamagnetic in New Chemistry has nothing to do with the electrons = muons, only to do with the attendent proton, in that a proton all alone is only a 1/2 built torus, a half circle, and the photons coming out of this 1/2 torus is electric charge, hence Paramagnetism.
> 

Now can attendant be spelled attendent, but more important, is there a Physics term for "attendant", and, is it "bond". So that the muon is bonded to the proton, or, proton bonded to the muon. But that is highly unlikely for this would be the Faraday Law of Physics and we do not say the bar magnet is bonded to the coil, or, do we?

So, this would be highly highly a pressing question of Logic. In the Faraday Law, is there bonding of the bar magnet to the closed loop wire. Perhaps there is, and this would be the most primitive form of "Bond" in physics or chemistry, sort of a "axiom of bonding".

You, see, I have to go real slow on all of this, for, not to miss anything.

> Diamagnetism is thus simple and easy— all the protons are fully built as a whole torus with no charge coming out of them.
> 

You see, I am reversing all of Old Chemistry, by reversing I mean, what Old Chemistry thought the electron was doing and causing, is now, -- what the proton is doing and causing, and thus, Chemistry is the study of protons, more than the study of electrons. I have to go slow on this.


> This suggests two urgent and important experiments— prove each muon is tagged uniquely to a attendant proton. Prove protons pair up.
> 

In all the history of Chemistry, and believe you me, it has a long and cherished history, but, chemistry has never had a Logical person review the subject of chemistry. Everyone who ever played the game of chemistry in their life, never looked at chemistry with a "logical mind". Ever since I sat in Freshman Chemistry classes at UC, university, 1968 and was taught that the size of the atoms of elements gets smaller as you go from hydrogen to helium, gets smaller as you go from lithium to neon, was a revolt in my logical mind. It never rested as true in my logical mind. There was a calming aspect though in 1968, calming in the fact that as you go down the column of periodic table, the size increases, so, as you go from hydrogen to cesium the size increases, as you go from helium to xenon the size increases. But that still leaves CounterIntuitive as you go from lithium to neon size gets smaller.

So, what can make that Counterintuitive all go away, all disappear and be logical, yes logical? Easy, say the Proton is Chemistry, not electron, so that from hydrogen with its 1/2 torus built, is enlarged with photon emission of electricity, whereas helium is a completed torus, no enlargement. And lithium is half built toruses, so it is enlarged, but by the time you reach oxygen, fluorine and neon, you built all toruses completed them and filled them, producing all the electricity inside the filled neon 2P orbital. That explains, logically why size goes smaller from lithium to neon.

And size also helps explain the PROOFS, the two proofs, with the aid of another truth, the Metals, occupy about 75% of the table, and the Metals are the S, D, and F orbitals. Here again, counterintuitive for we see the metals as being dense, and being dense-- especially osmium iridium, it is counterintuitive that they would be the densest and be metal when the size of the Noble Gases are the smallest size, yet would be larger atomic numbers as Radon, Rn. Logically, Radon should be the densest element and not even a gas, speaking logically. And thus, that is resolved again, by realizing, Chemistry is not about the electron as muon but about the Proton, more so than the electron.

All of these counterintuitive facts, facts we cannot deny, cannot dismiss, all of them disappear when we realize Chemistry is the subject most focused upon protons of atoms, for the protons are the coil in the Faraday Law. Old Chemistry ignored the proton and placed the science upon the behavior of the electron. Of course Old Chemistry was stupid in thinking the electron was the .5MeV particle when truly it is the 105 MeV particle, but that aside, New Chemistry places the Proton as the particle whose behavior is the bulk of the science of Chemistry.

But now, let us prove those two proofs asked for-- (1) each proton has a attendant muon or each muon is tagged with a specific proton (2) it is protons that pair, not electrons= muons and it is protons that follow Hund's rule and Aufbau.

We can prove (1), (2) from simple observation, using (a) atom sizes (b) metals and metal behavior.

(1) Proof that specific proton is attended by specific muon, coil attended by bar magnet. Proof-- metals are dense, meaning mass per volume is larger than a gas atom, lithium is dense metal, whereas neon is gas, yet larger atomic number. And size of lithium is much larger than neon and helium. This implies the 3rd muon of helium is outside and exterior to the 1S orbital of helium. This implies the 1/2 built torus of the 3rd muon of lithium is the 3rd proton and thus, each muon has an attendant proton.

Another proof of (1) is the Rutherford gold foil experiment where the alpha particles bounce back to the alpha gun, having being recoiled by a dense object-- gold atom. A 180 degree recoil of a alpha particle is not where all the protons and neutrons are in a packed together nucleus, but rather, the impact of a alpha particle upon a 1S, or 2S or 2P or 3S, etc torus inside the gold atom, is the cause of the 180 degree recoil, and this allows for the size of say Fe to be smaller than K or Ca atoms. So the recoil of a alpha particle at 180 degrees is not due to a packed small nucleus, but due to a gold atom having many toruses inside a largest torus, and those smaller toruses perpetually going around in a Faraday law and by happenstance a incoming alpha particle collides with a 2S torus or a 2P torus or a 3S torus all of which are inside one another.


(2)Proof that protons are pairing and following Hund's rule and Aufbau.  
Proof-- obviously true for hydrogen for it has 1 muon and 1 proton so they are tagged to one another. Now for helium of its 2 muons, 2 protons. In radioactive decay-- you often see alpha particles-- 2 protons, seldom if ever 1 proton in radioactive decay, meaning the 2 protons are bonded, they come in pairs.

AP

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

#687343 — 37-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// redoing over the Rutherford foil experiments and proving him, somewhat wrong

The Rutherford Geiger Marsden gold foil experiment of 1908 to 1913, the experiment that proves the nucleus of atoms is where most of the mass lies and is small, compact and dense.

Here is an experiment that proves Rutherford is wrong. Wrong on the nucleus being where most of the mass lies, and wrong on the idea that protons neutrons lie in some small dense compact space called a nucleus.

The picture of the true atom, is that of Faraday Law where protons and neutrons form toruses, that is why hydrogen atom is larger than helium, and why lithium atom is far larger than neon. What Rutherford and Geiger and Marsden saw in 1913 was a torus inside a torus inside a larger torus and they mistook this alpha particle recoil as coming from all the protons and neutrons in the center, when in truth, the alpha particle recoiled from bouncing off a 1S or 2S or 2P or 3S toruses all nested inside one another that just happened to come in contact with an incoming alpha particle. These inner toruses are the bar magnet of Faraday's law and these inner tori deflected the incoming alpha particle.

Now a proof that Rutherford was wrong is simply repeat his set-up using copper foil or silver foil instead of gold foil or use even more dense, lead foil or the less dense iron foil, and what you will find with careful experiments, is that the pattern of recoil of the incoming alpha particle reflects the number of orbitals that are inside the atoms, not the idea that the nucleus is where all the protons and neutrons lie. But rather, the recoil is from hitting a perpetual motion bar magnet of a 1S or 2S or 2P or 3S orbitals as bar magnets which could be just about anywhere thrusting around the larger torus.

Can I make a analogy? I can, for Rutherford take a person throwing a tennis ball at an atom, and where the tennis ball comes flying back at him, and Rutherford deciding that the tennis ball hit a compact building in the center, a small compact building. But AP throws the tennis ball and it comes back at AP, and AP deciding that the tennis ball hit some small vehicle that was driving around inside the atom (bar magnet thrusting around a closed loop (protons and neutrons make a torus). So Rutherford chose the building that the ball hit and recoiled back. AP chose the small car (bar magnet) was hit and recoiled.

If AP is correct, means the Thomson Plum Pudding Model is actually more accurate a view of atoms than is the Rutherford compact dense nucleus.

AP

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

#687375 — 37-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// astronomy follows the theory of atoms as torus, for the Ring in third layer Perseus

37-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// astronomy follows the theory of atoms as torus, for the Ring in third layer Perseus

Alright so if the inside of all atoms is a Faraday law with protons and neutrons as coils and electrons= muons as bar magnet, would mean that in astronomy if we look far distant enough we should see rings as loops of wire of coils as galaxies and we should see many galaxies into clusters the further out we look. And this happens to be the case as seen below in those mappings.

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 22:03:28 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: first job of Cosmology-- tell us if the galaxies are patterned or not
 #1566 New Physics #1916 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 05:03:29 +0000

first job of Cosmology-- tell us if the galaxies are patterned or not #1566 New Physics #1916 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Alright, if the Maxwell Equations are the axioms over all of physics, it means the Big Bang theory is nothing but big baloney nonsense. If the Maxwell Equations are the axioms, it means the galaxies are patterned in such a way that the Maxwell Equations governs them. 

So the first job of Cosmology is to know the Universe is Space with galaxies inside and to see if these galaxies are patterned. If the Big Bang is true, there is no pattern other than a explosion a long time ago. If the Universe is Maxwell driven, the galaxies are part of one big atom, the Atom Totality and they form a pattern of a Ring with Voids and with a Nucleus where most of the mass of the Universe lies. 

So far, we have some evidence coming in, and especially from Jarrett of Caltech who spotted a Ring of galaxies in the 3rd layer: 

--- quoting --- 
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/papers/LSS/ 
The third layer (0.01 < z < 0.02) is dominated by the P-P supercluster (left side of image) and the P-I supercluster extending up into the ZoA terminating as the Great Attractor region (notably Abell 3627) disappears behind a wall of Milky Way stars. An intriguing "ring" or chain of galaxies seems to circle/extend from the northern to the southern Galactic hemisphere (see also Figure 1). It is unknown whether this ring-like structure is physically associated with the cosmic web or an artifact of projection. 
--- end quoting --- 

But if we play around and manipulate these Voids, I sense there are not just 1 Ring of galaxies but 2 Rings. 

A ring of galaxies is a electron in a Atom Totality. 


The Voids are shown here: 
  
http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/nearsc.html 

http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/wnearsc.gif 
  

If we switch back and forth of the above two pictures we can make out 2 rings: 


Ring is formed from Pavo-Indus Supercluster, Perseus-Pisces Supercluster, Abell 3627, 
Columba Supercluster 

Fornax Void 
Columba Void 
Canes-Major Void 
Sculptor Void 

Ring formed from Hercules Supercluster, Leo Supercluster, 
Microscopium Void 
Capricornus Void 
Corona Borealis Void 

Some hours ago I wrote in sci.physics: 

Cosmology shows the Universe to be Rings and Voids of Maxwell Equations #1565 New Physics #1915 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed 

- show quoted text - 
In the earlier post of above I illustrated the Voids, so that if the Maxwell Equations are the axioms over all of Physics, then astronomy of the night sky should show the cosmos as a thin large Ring which is the last electron of the 231 Pu Atom Totality and outside or inside that Ring is Voids. Now the Universe may show 2 Rings or even 6 rings depending on the 5f6 of plutonium for the F subshell has 6 electrons and so we may be able to see parts of all 6 electron rings. 

The Voids are shown here: 
  
http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/nearsc.html 

http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/wnearsc.gif 
  

The Ring is shown here, and hopefully Jarrett has not torn down his website, for fear that AP is making 
too much use and progress of his pages (some scientists can be pretty petty) : 

--- quoting --- 
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/papers/LSS/ 
The third layer (0.01 < z < 0.02) is dominated by the P-P supercluster (left side of image) and the P-I supercluster extending up into the ZoA terminating as the Great Attractor region (notably Abell 3627) disappears behind a wall of Milky Way stars. An intriguing "ring" or chain of galaxies seems to circle/extend from the northern to the southern Galactic hemisphere (see also Figure 1). It is unknown whether this ring-like structure is physically associated with the cosmic web or an artifact of projection. 
--- end quoting --- 

Archimedes Plutonium 
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium 
whole entire Universe is just one big atom 
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies 

AP

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

#687377 — Re: _Burse calls 25 years crazy-- Manfred Einsiedler, Paul Embrechts, Giovanni Felder of ETH, no picture diagram of Calculus proof// still believing proton is 938MeV electron .5MeV when they are 840MeV, 105MeV

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

>One would have thought Switzerland had plenty of time to teach its young 
>some manners and morals, and not be a screaming crazy like Burse to the 
>world.

What about your own manners?

Jan comments on the absurdity of Apple high level managers mucking with
your phone (why would they care about you?) and why you are unable to cut
out an ellipse, and you attack him? And what's this with the stalker lists
again? Does Jan have anything to do whatsoever with ETH Zurich other than
being in the same country? That's completely illogical! I thought you had
a logical mind?

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

#687381 — Moroney says-- no manners here-- Charlie Baker, Louis Deslauriers, John Doyle, Cora Dvorkin can't do percentages//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole

On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 3:24:16 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
Re: _Burse calls 25 years crazy-- Manfred Einsiedler, Paul Embrechts, Giovanni Felder of ETH, no picture diagram of Calculus proof// still believing proton is 938MeV electron .5MeV when they are 840MeV, 105MeV
>What about your own manners?

Michael Moroney writes: 
1:35 AM (37 minutes ago) 
> posting for what? 25 years now, and 
>not a single post of any serious science. All his posts are attacks on 
>other posters or babbling nonsense. 


percentage for Moroney, 938 is what percent short of 945 


On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon. 
> Hardly "exactly" 9 muons. 

Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 

> 
> Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572.  A proton is about the mass 
> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short. 

AP writes: 
Does the state of Massachusetts ever have education reviews. For here is a stalker of Moroney for 25 years-- obsessive stalker of AP, and only AP, says he is a electrical engineer yet never admits to mistakes that 938 is not 12% short of 945, but only .7% short, less than 1% short. So what kind of engineer is it from Barry Shein's std.com, that cannot even do a percentage correctly and never admits to mistakes, only stalks and harasses other people who do know math and science. 

Why is std.com so hateful of the tv program THIS OLD HOUSE, when I have learned so much from that show. 

Why is std.com such a antiscience ISP, with Moroney hating percentage problem, hating geothermal-- is std.com the worst isp for science in Boston, or is Barry Shein topped by someone else? 


President: L. Reif (electrical engineer) 

MIT physics dept 
William Bertozzi, Robert Birgeneau, Hale Bradt*, Bernard Burke, George Clark , Jeffrey Goldstone, Thomas Greytak, Lee Grodzins , Paul Joss, Vera Kistiakowsky, Earle Lomon, Irwin Pless, Paul Schechter, James Young 

   /\-------/\ 
   \::O:::O::/ 
  (::_  ^  _::) 
   \_`-----'_/ 
You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Boston? 
And, even though you-- professors of physics, want to remain stupid in Real Electron=105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, and .5MeV was Dirac's magnetic monopole, your students deserve better. 

Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach percentages correctly-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole 

President Larry Summers 

Harvard Physics dept 
Jacob Barandes, Howard Berg, Michael Brenner, Adam Cohen, Eugene Demler, Michael Desai * 
Louis Deslauriers, John Doyle, Cora Dvorkin*, Gary Feldman, Douglas Finkbeiner, Melissa Franklin, Gerald Gabrielse, Howard Georgi, Sheldon Glashow, Roy Glauber, Jene Golovchenko, Markus Greiner, Roxanne Guenette, Girma Hailu, Bertrand Halperin, Lene Hau 
Thomas Hayes, Eric Heller, Jason Hoffman, Jenny Hoffman, Gerald Holton, Paul Horowitz, John Huth, Arthur Jaffe, Daniel Jafferis, Efthimios Kaxiras, Philip Kim, John Kovac, Erel Levine 
Mikhail Lukin, Logan McCarty, L. Mahadevan, Vinothan Manoharan, Eric Mazur, Masahiro Morii 
David Morin, Julia Mundy, Cherry Murray, David Nelson, Kang Ni, Hongkun Park, William Paul 
Peter Pershan, Mara Prentiss, Lisa Randall, Matthew Reece, Subir Sachdev, Aravinthan Samuel, Matthew Schwartz, Irwin Shapiro, Isaac Silvera, Andrew Strominger, Christopher Stubbs, Cumrun Vafa, Ronald Walsworth, David Weitz, Robert Westervelt, Richard Wilson 
Tai Wu, Amir Yacoby, Susanne Yelin, Xi Yin 


Can someone in the Boston area make sure this numbskull is never a science teacher in Boston-- and the damage he can do to a classroom 

Mike Moroney, science failure-- on geothermal 


(1) 
On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 12:15:22 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 

> 
> There are some places here that use "geothermal" for heating and cooling 
> but even these are solar power in disguise.  They pump water from wells 
> from where the temperature is the average over many years and extract heat 
> from it (in the winter) and dump heat into it (in the summer) and pump the 
> water back into the ground.  The water is about 55F out of the ground. 



(2) 
On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 1:31:27 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:   

> 
> >Just as a point of order, what you described is not geothermal. What 
> >you've just described is thermal balancing with water, using water 
> >cooler than air from the water table to cool a building in the summer, 
> >and using water warmer than air from the water table to warm a building 
> >in the winter. 
> 
> In other words, glorified solar energy.  Solar energy stored and averaged 
> out over many, many years. 
> 

(3) 
On Friday, December 23, 2016 at 8:44:12 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 

> 
> Admit it, you were fooled by a "This Old House" type show where they 
> use a high-tech sounding buzzword to impress people who don't know any 
> better. 
> 
> Just answer one question, if you can.  If it's really geothermal, why 
> is the temperature only 51 degrees, but in Iceland, where there's real 
> geothermal, they're accessing temperatures of hundreds of degrees? 


(4) 
> On Friday, December 23, 2016 at 10:40:09 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 

> > 
> > Pretty cool, fossil solar energy! 51 degrees, the average of summer and 
> > winter temperatures for hundreds or even thousands of years, depending 
> > on how deep they go. 
> > 
> > Too bad you do have to use real energy to run the heat pump, although it 
> > is much better than simply using that energy to make heat. 
> 

(5) 
On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 12:30:56 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 

> 
> It's amusing how he can't handle that at all. Just like he can't 
> handle the concept of permafrost when he goes off on geothermal 
> energy.  All he can do is attack. 

(6) 


On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 12:21:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 

> geothermal heat energy is 99% from the sun where he was (unsure where, 
> Mass. I think) 
> 
> Now tell us where Permafrost comes from. 
> 
> p.p.s. I was searching because I am actually looking into getting 
> geothermal heat. Fossil solar energy is a great resource! 


Proofs that the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV, and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall 

12 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. 

AP 

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

#687385 — Re: Archimedes Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

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

>On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 3:24:16 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>What about your own manners?

And once again, what about your own manners? You complain that Jan had
poor manners, yet again you show poor manners as you attack me for
pointing out your poor manners. And what's this with stalker posts
refering to MIT staff? I already told you I have nothing to do with MIT.
How illogical is it to post stalker posts of staff I have nothing to do
with? How illogical is that? What happened to your so-called "Logical
Mind"? Logical people would not do that!

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

#687383 — Re: 37-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// astronomy follows the theory of atoms as torus, for the Ring in third layer Perseus

On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 2:37:06 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 38-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// astronomy follows the theory of atoms as torus, for the Ring in third layer Perseus
> 

That should have been 38, not 37, and corrected in my original.

> Alright so if the inside of all atoms is a Faraday law with protons and neutrons as coils and electrons= muons as bar magnet, would mean that in astronomy if we look far distant enough we should see rings as loops of wire of coils as galaxies and we should see many galaxies into clusters the further out we look. And this happens to be the case as seen below in those mappings.
> 
> Newsgroups: sci.physics
> Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 22:03:28 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> Subject: first job of Cosmology-- tell us if the galaxies are patterned or not
>  #1566 New Physics #1916 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 05:03:29 +0000
> 
> first job of Cosmology-- tell us if the galaxies are patterned or not #1566 New Physics #1916 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
> 

What I am doing here is showing that the astronomy of galaxies is showing up as a Cosmic Coil in Faraday's law



> Alright, if the Maxwell Equations are the axioms over all of physics, it means the Big Bang theory is nothing but big baloney nonsense. If the Maxwell Equations are the axioms, it means the galaxies are patterned in such a way that the Maxwell Equations governs them. 
> 
> So the first job of Cosmology is to know the Universe is Space with galaxies inside and to see if these galaxies are patterned. If the Big Bang is true, there is no pattern other than a explosion a long time ago. If the Universe is Maxwell driven, the galaxies are part of one big atom, the Atom Totality and they form a pattern of a Ring with Voids and with a Nucleus where most of the mass of the Universe lies. 
> 
> So far, we have some evidence coming in, and especially from Jarrett of Caltech who spotted a Ring of galaxies in the 3rd layer: 
> 
> --- quoting --- 
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/papers/LSS/ 
> The third layer (0.01 < z < 0.02) is dominated by the P-P supercluster (left side of image) and the P-I supercluster extending up into the ZoA terminating as the Great Attractor region (notably Abell 3627) disappears behind a wall of Milky Way stars. An intriguing "ring" or chain of galaxies seems to circle/extend from the northern to the southern Galactic hemisphere (see also Figure 1). It is unknown whether this ring-like structure is physically associated with the cosmic web or an artifact of projection. 
> --- end quoting --- 
> 
> But if we play around and manipulate these Voids, I sense there are not just 1 Ring of galaxies but 2 Rings. 
> 
> A ring of galaxies is a electron in a Atom Totality. 
> 
> 
> The Voids are shown here: 
>   
> http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/nearsc.html 
> 
> http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/wnearsc.gif 
  
> 
> If we switch back and forth of the above two pictures we can make out 2 rings: 
> 
> 
> Ring is formed from Pavo-Indus Supercluster, Perseus-Pisces Supercluster, Abell 3627, 
> Columba Supercluster 
> 
> Fornax Void 
> Columba Void 
> Canes-Major Void 
> Sculptor Void 
> 
> Ring formed from Hercules Supercluster, Leo Supercluster, 
> Microscopium Void 
> Capricornus Void 
> Corona Borealis Void 
> 
> Some hours ago I wrote in sci.physics: 
> 
> Cosmology shows the Universe to be Rings and Voids of Maxwell Equations #1565 New Physics #1915 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed 
> 
> - show quoted text - 
> In the earlier post of above I illustrated the Voids, so that if the Maxwell Equations are the axioms over all of Physics, then astronomy of the night sky should show the cosmos as a thin large Ring which is the last electron of the 231 Pu Atom Totality and outside or inside that Ring is Voids. Now the Universe may show 2 Rings or even 6 rings depending on the 5f6 of plutonium for the F subshell has 6 electrons and so we may be able to see parts of all 6 electron rings. 
> 
> The Voids are shown here: 
>   
> http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/nearsc.html 
> 
> http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/wnearsc.gif 
  
> 
> The Ring is shown here, and hopefully Jarrett has not torn down his website, for fear that AP is making 
> too much use and progress of his pages (some scientists can be pretty petty) : 
> 
> --- quoting --- 
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/papers/LSS/ 
> The third layer (0.01 < z < 0.02) is dominated by the P-P supercluster (left side of image) and the P-I supercluster extending up into the ZoA terminating as the Great Attractor region (notably Abell 3627) disappears behind a wall of Milky Way stars. An intriguing "ring" or chain of galaxies seems to circle/extend from the northern to the southern Galactic hemisphere (see also Figure 1). It is unknown whether this ring-like structure is physically associated with the cosmic web or an artifact of projection. 
> --- end quoting --- 
> 
> Archimedes Plutonium 
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium 
whole entire Universe is just one big atom 
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies 
> 
> AP

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

#687073 — Re: Archimedes Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

Cone? Did you say cone? Here's a real cool proof about the cone!

Below you will find a simple *proof* that shows that certain conic 
sections are ellipses.

Some preliminaries:

Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used 
in the proof:

              ^ x
              |
             -+- <= x=h
         .'   |   `.
        .     |     .
        |     |     |
        '     |     '      
         `.   |   .'
 y <----------+ <= x=0
             
Cone (side view):
                 .
                /|\
               / | \
              /b |  \
             /---+---' <= x = h
            /    |'   \
           /   ' |     \
          / '    |      \
x = 0 => '-------+-------\
        /    a   |        \

Proof:

r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x  and  d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x,  hence

y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.

Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1  ...equation of an ellipse

qed

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web