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

Groups > sci.physics > #687390 > unrolled thread

27-30Maximum Electricity Coil theory// Breakthrough-- using Aufbau where the Aufbau is a torus geometry

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  27-30Maximum Electricity Coil theory// Breakthrough-- using Aufbau  where the Aufbau is a torus geometry Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-27 14:35 -0700
    Re: Archimedes Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-27 23:09 +0000

#687390 — 27-30Maximum Electricity Coil theory// Breakthrough-- using Aufbau where the Aufbau is a torus geometry

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 12:00:31 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: 27-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// Breakthrough-- using Aufbau
 where the Aufbau is a torus geometry
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 19:00:31 +0000


27-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// Breakthrough-- using Aufbau

Finally hit a breakthrough, and, let me happily note, that what I am doing independently in math at this very moment is doing geometry of conic sections, cylinder sections, and there is no way in the world that the Mind and brain are chemicals sloshing around to form ideas or memory, and what the mind and brain truly are-- are a pipe to the godhead of the Atom Totality, a radio receiver to the Nucleus of the Atom Totality, because, well, my research is coming to an intersection of my math currently going on blending perfectly and exactly with my physics I am trying to conquer. Two independent strains of research meeting is impossible unless all thoughts of all minds were messages sent from the godhead.

Earlier I spoke of the Torus of Tokamaks being maximum possible electricity as a geometry design. That means the Nucleus and interior of all atoms is a torus geometry. For physics of atoms would not know how to make partial electricity, fractional electricity,-- Nature only does maximum electricity.

So now, looking at CHEM ONE, 2nd ed., Waser, Trueblood, Knobler, 1980, page 327, Figure 16-3 Schematic Energy-Level Diagram for a Many-Electron Atom

That picture on page 327 is actually a Aufbau, but is something more, for if you look closely and carefully the 1s to 2s to 2p to 3s to 3p to 4s to 3d to 4p to 5s to 4d to 5p to 6s to 4f to 5d

If you look carefully you can make out that the Aufbau as geometry is a TORUS.

AP



Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 13:32:13 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: 28-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// Breakthrough-- using Aufbau
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 20:32:13 +0000

28-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// Breakthrough-- using Aufbau

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 12:50:58 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS// Breakthrough in Conic Sections along with Physics
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 19:50:59 +0000

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS// Breakthrough in Conic Sections along with Physics

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS// Breakthrough in Conic Sections along with Physics//chapter 4 

Now I am doing physics simultaneously with math of conic sections, totally separate and independent of one another, except I have run into a intersection of the two, at this moment. This intersection is supporting evidence that the mind and brain of intelligent life is not chemically based machine, but is rather a radio receiver machine that picks up ideas and thoughts from out-of-body, photons shot from the Nucleus of the Atom Totality that gives every creature his/her/its ideas and thoughts of what to do next. Superdeterminism, no free will. 

So, I was looking for Maximum Electricity in a geometry configuration and found it in the tokamak Torus geometry and if you look at the Aufbau of elements, the chart of energy levels, you can make out that this Aufbau is itself a torus geometry. 

Now, a Cylinder is plane Euclidean geometry for if we take a plane sheet of paper and with one circular fold we have a cylinder. Now, if we could take that cylinder and bend it around without breaking or tearing it we would have a torus. With paper that is impossible but with closed loops as a cylinder with gaps in between consecutive loops we easily form a torus from a cylinder. And that is what Faraday coil is-- gaps between successive closed loops. 

Now, we constructed a Cylinder from a flat plane sheet of paper. Can we construct a cone from a flat plane sheet of paper? The question I am asking here is a devious question on my part, for if we had a cone of paper and cut it on one cut from base to height tip of cone in a straightline cut, can we fold that cut cone to lie perfectly flat? We can do the same thing with a cylinder, cut it, and it is a plane itself. But what is the cut cone? Is it ever able to be a flat Euclidean surface? Or is there some integral curvature to a cone, that a cone is impossible to lie flat in Euclidean geometry? And what do we call this integral curvature of cone? Do we call it as in physics-- a Cylinder has 0 spin while a cone has an intrinsic 1/2 spin. 

Now, further, can we lie a Cone flat, if we are given 2 straightline cuts, perhaps 4 straightline cuts where those 4 are somewhat triangle shaped? 

Now this is important for my physics, of torus and electricity, because the fill in of gaps between closed loops of the wire coil, so you can fold a cylinder to be a torus, those gaps are somewhat similar to the cone not being able to lie flat. 

So, what the Torus shape for maximum electricity, is the Aufbau, and each new proton and muons that build the elements, those are windings of a coil, and the gaps between proton windings, that empty space gap is the neutron windings. 

And the bar magnet which I have had a difficult time of understanding finally becomes clear, or more clear. The bar magnet to make maximum electricity in Faraday's law are all the lower energy levels themselves folded into a torus and that is the bar magnet. So for instance the first energy level of 1s in helium is a torus and then in beryllium is a 2s torus with the 1s torus inside it acting as bar magnet, then for 2p of neon, is a torus that has 2s torus inside 2p and the 1s torus inside of 2s. This makes sense if you want Maximum Electricity of Faraday law. And, it makes sense in that the Chemical Bond is a completion of a torus, such as say N2 molecule, where the partial filled torus of one Nitrogen atom's 2P is filled by the second nitrogen atom. Where one of the Nitrogen atom's 2P is a full torus with its 1S inside 2S inside the filled 2P and adjacent is the second Nitrogen atom as a torus of just 2S with 1S inside. This gets rid of Lewis structure altogether as merely a erroneous mnemonic device. 

Now for O2 we have one O filled of its 2P with toruses 2s and 1s inside the 2P torus, but with the second oxygen we have the 2S torus filled with 1S torus inside, but we have 2 extra valence muons left over and what they do is form a second 2S, call it the 2S_x and 2S_y. 

So, Chemistry bonding is altogether new and different, as a torus design. 

AP 


Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 13:37:46 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: 28-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// Breakthrough-- using Aufbau
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 20:37:46 +0000

One of the most famous of all science experiments but now we put it through more rigorous testing to prove Maximum Electric Coil. 

—-quoting Wikipedia —- 

The Geiger–Marsden experiment(s) (also called the Rutherford gold foil experiment) were a landmark series of experiments by which scientists discovered that every atom contains a nucleus where all of its positive charge and most of its mass are concentrated. They deduced this by measuring how an alpha particle beam is scattered when it strikes a thin metal foil. The experiments were performed between 1908 and 1913 by Hans Geiger and Ernest Marsden under the direction of Ernest Rutherford at the Physical Laboratories of the University of Manchester. 



29-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// Internal parts of atoms and how the chemical bond is formed


CHEM ONE, 2nd ed., Waser, Trueblood, Knobler, 1980, page 327, Figure 16-3 Schematic Energy-Level Diagram for a Many-Electron Atom

So let me try to duplicate what that Figure 16-3 looks like

                                      5d                   4f
                                   - - - - -             - - - - - - -
   __6s
              _ _ _5p
                                     4d
                                  - - - - -
   __5s
              _ _ _4p
                                     3d
                                  - - - - -
   __4s
              _ _ _3p


   __3s

 
              _ _ _2p


 __2s





 __1s

y-axis low to high energy

x-axis  L = 0    1,    2,      3

Now the reason I went ahead and drew the above of the Aufbau, is that it is a 2dimensional diagram of what I believe is a 3 dimensional torus. I believe the shape of each atom is a torus, where the highest energy level is the largest overall torus and all others are nested inside one another. So for example neon is 1s^2 2s^2 2p^6 meaning that the 2p^6 is the biggest and outer torus of neon, having the 1s nested inside the 2s toruses, and these two toruses nested inside the 2p where the 2p is the coil of neon and the bar-magnet of neon is the two nested toruses of 1s and 2s, going around the bigger torus as a bar magnet and creating new magnetic monopoles.

Now this provides us with some geometry figure when atoms bond into molecules, take for example O2. We have two oxygen atoms of 1s^2 2s^2 2p^4 and when they bond together we have 1s^2 2s^2 2p^6 + two valence electrons. Where do those two valence electrons go? They could go to forming a 3s torus and having the O to O bond be a 1s^2 2s^2 2p^6 torus inside that of a 3s torus. So in this situation you have for O2 bonding

two 1s toruses nested inside
two 2s torusus nested inside 
one 2p^6 torus nested inside
one 3s torus formed from the two left over muons

Or, alternatively, the two left over muons with there attendent protons can be a third 2s torus, all of which these toruses are nested inside one another.

Now, does this work with the experiment result of Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden? A alpha particle is the same as a helium atom in New Physics, for the .5MeV particle is not the electron but a surface particle-- a magnetic monopole, so for all purposes, alpha particles are still helium atoms. And those that bounced off gold atoms and can hurdling back in the experiment, were hitting not some nucleus of a atom, but rather, they were hitting up against the toruses that keep traveling around in circles inside the largest torus. They, the alpha particles were hitting the bar magnets inside the largest torus as a coil with windings. Now the shape of the O2 molecule with its extra two valence muon would make either a larger 3s torus or make a 2p^6 torus with one more monopole inside the big torus.

Experiments should be able to decide the question. But modern physics is already moving into this direction with what are called "halo neutrons" outside the nucleus. And I think by re-doing the old gold foil Rutherford experiment with other target atoms and molecules, we should be able to confirm the above.

And slowly but surely I am getting back to the question of what does CO2 look like and whether it has at least to very different isomers. So, CO2 would have 4 extra valence muons, once the 2p^6 is filled. And where do these 4 extra muons with attendant protons go? Do they make a 3s torus then start making a 3p torus? Or do the four extra muons with attendant protons go back to making two more 1s and 2s toruses?

Can molecules have duplicate 1s and 2s orbitals? Maybe atoms by themselves cannot duplicate a 1s and 2s , but these are molecules of CO2.

If they can duplicate, then I see at least 4 different isomers for CO2,

one being duplicates of 1s and 2s
one being a duplicate of 2s and a new 3s
one being a duplicate of 1s and a new 3s
one being a new 3s and starting 3p toruses

And then we can say that animal CO2 is probably the lowest energy CO2 molecule.

Very hopeful, very reassuring because if animal CO2 is what plants require and cannot use fire CO2 of burning fossil fuels, means that it is imperative we save all large wild animals, save them from extinction as we thus-- save ourselves.

Now, recently, and inadvertently I have done some rather minor experiments. Whenever I see a insect in the house, butterfly, moth, ant, spider, millipede, lots of lady bugs, I trap them in a jar and release outdoors, by next day if not sooner. Sometimes they get pretty stressed out in the glass jar--peanut butter, if left too long. So I am guessing they have taken up most of the oxygen and replaced with CO2. So I leave a crack open in the jar. Which gives me the idea of having a jar with a plant in it
and somehow having some insect inside the jar and see if the plant flourishes compared to a jar with plant with no CO2 replenishment and another jar with plant that is fed fire CO2. Perhaps we can prove Animal CO2 versus fire CO2 with just simple easy jars.


AP

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

Alright, great great great progress so far. And last night got me to thinking about the "Cubic Set" of transuranium atoms.

On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 2:24:29 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Alright the CO molecule is a perfect test case of torus as atomic and molecular geometry, for the CO fills the 2P orbital exactly with 6, and a wonderment why CO is not more stable of a bond than CO2.
> 
> Now i cannot draw large circles so pretend these rectangles are toruses
>            |———
> ———|          |
> |          |          |
> |          |          |
> ———|          |
>            |———|
> 
> Where the smaller is C and larger is O
> 
> And by giving up C two muons to O makes the 2P of O a complete 2P torus, leaving behind in C two toruses of 2s and 1s and whether inside O torus of 2P are now two 1s tori and two 2s tori all four of which keep circling the O 2P torus producing magnet monopoles via Faraday law.
> 
Now I am sure most of you serious of physics has the book The Elements Beyond Uranium, Seaborg-Loveland, 1990, and on page 73 shows the "general set" and then the "cubic set". And the authors tell us this:

--- quoting pages 71-72 ---
In Table 3.1, we show two commonly used sets: (a) the general set which simply arises from solving the Schrodinger equation for the hydrogen-like atom) and (b) the cubic set which is derived from three orbitals from the original general set (f_z^3, f_z(x^2-y^2) and f_xyz) and linear combinations of the remaining four orbitals. The cubic set has the desirable property of giving the crystal field splittings in cubic, tetrahedral, and octahedral symmetry (that is, symmetries involving triply degenerate orbitals) while the general set is most useful in treating tetragonal trigonal, and other symmetries involving double degenerate orbitals.

--- end quoting The Elements Beyond Uranium ---

Now I am somewhat stuck here with figuring out, in a chemical bond, what goes inside the largest torus when atoms bond. And what the Cubic Set does, is hold out the promise of making sense of it all.

By serendipity last night, I made a square diagram (above) of a torus, two toruses in fact to model CO molecule. That was a good fortune to me, because I noticed last night that a Cube has 6 faces and the P orbital has the number 6.

The S orbital has the number 2, and what geometry figure of 3rd dimension has the number 2 ? Well of course we do not have to think long before we realize a sphere is 2 geometry of its radius and then circumference. A cube is the number 6 for 6 faces.

So, the geometry of the P orbital is 6 in cube, and the geometry of the S orbital is 2 in sphere.

So now, Hydrogen is 1 in 1 S orbital meaning that we have just a radius, and if we go to helium we have 2 in 1S, meaning we have a completed sphere of radius with circumference. 

So we have two hydrogen atoms bonded, H2, and what is that geometrically? It is the radius of one hydrogen and the circumference of the second hydrogen forming a sphere.

But in helium the sphere formed is a true sphere like this O, whereas in H2, the radius + circumference, radius of one H and the circumference of second H is like this )---

Now to neon, for neon is a full atom not a molecule and the P orbital is a cube of 6 faces. So the cube is the torus, only with assigned 6 faces. Cube and torus are interchangeable. So neon is element 10 and is composed of 3 toruses, the 1s torus inside the 2s torus and those two inside the 2p torus-- for neon is a single atom. Toruses inside toruses to operate Faraday's law in making newly created magnetic monopoles to grow the neon atom into a larger atomic number atom.

Now, we examine N2 molecule, for it has 3 valence muons and in combining them as N2, they fill the P orbital. So, pictorially the P orbital is a torus of a cube of 6 faces, that means each nitrogen has just 3 faces of the P orbital and when bonded as N2, then the 1s torus inside the 2s torus stays inside the P orbital of one of the nitrogen atoms while the 1s inside 2s toruses remains outside the other nitrogen atom and attached to the cube surface of the P orbital torus. A cube with 1s,2s inside and a sphere of 1s,2s attached to the outside of the 2P cube.

So the difference between Neon atom and N2 molecule is that the neon atom has 1s inside 2s toruses which is inside a 2P cube. While N2 has a 1s inside 2s inside a 2P cube and a 1s inside a 2p attached to the outside surface of the 2P cube. You see, the one nitrogen atom stole the 3 valence muons of the other nitrogen atom to complete the cube.

So now, let us try CO molecule. Here we have the oxygen atom with 4 valence muons stealing the 2 valence muons of carbon atom leaving CO as a 1s inside a 2s torus inside a 2P torus of oxygen with attached carbon atom to the surface of the cube 2P, and its carbon 1s inside a 2s of carbon. Similar to N2 only in N2 3 valence and 3 valence were involved and in CO, 2 valence and 4 valence were involved, but in both, the ending geometry is about the same of a sphere attached to a cube and the cube has a sphere inside it.

Now we move on to O2, with its 4 valence muons in each oxygen atom. We need just 2 muons to form a filled 2P orbital. So one of the oxygen atoms steals away the 2 muons from the other oxygen atom forming a 2P filled cube with a 1s torus inside a 2s torus and both inside the 2P filled cube. That leaves the other oxygen atom with 1s torus inside 2s torus but with 2 extra muons with their attendant protons. Where do these 2 extra muons go? The likely answer is that the 2 extra muons and attendant protons forms the 3s orbital with the 1s inside the 2s inside the 3s. Thus the end result of O2 molecule is a 1s inside 2s inside a 2P cube, and attached outside is a 1s inside 2s inside 3s toruses. A filled 3s behaves like the magnesium atom. Is there any evidence, any whatsoever that O2 acts like magnesium? I made a search and found nothing for the search engines are all geared for magnesium oxide. What I want to know is, if O2 molecule is any way share the traits and similarity to magnesium atom. Maybe an experienced chemist can vouch for that.

Now, we move onto our most desirable molecule of CO2. Well we are dealing with valence muons of 2, 4, 4 or 10 in all. And we need just 6 to form a 2P cube. We think of the carbon as a cube with just 2 faces and the oxygen as a cube with just 4 faces. Unlike O2 where we had 2 extra muons, in CO2 we have 4 extra muons. So we have many possibilities here, many isomers.

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 19:35:34 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Re: 30-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// term "stealing" replaced by
 "bond" or "bonding"
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 02:35:34 +0000



Re: 30-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// term "stealing" replaced by "bond" or "bonding"

On Thursday, May 24, 2018 at 1:42:41 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> So, here the view of the chemical bond is one of where a cube as torus has a missing face or faces, and steals the missing face from another cube. I should find a physics term for “steals”. 
> 
> 

Alright I spent most of the day doing some gardening, my cucumbers, tomato transplants. Every year my garden improves, from previous, in weeding in topsoil in watering, every year is better, if only our bodies could be like our gardens-- better every year. By the way, I am at 144lbs dieting to get to 137lbs which should be by June sometime-- no more sugar foods. But, anyway, spent the day thinking on what this term in chemistry and physics should be. 

The act of one Nitrogen atom as it bonds with a second nitrogen atom to form N2, is an act of where the first nitrogen atom "steals away" literally confiscates or removes the 3 valence muons with its attendant protons and adds them onto its own 3 valence muons to form a completed torus cube in the first nitrogen atom. The scavenged nitrogen atom is now without a 2P orbital and its insides of a 1S inside a 2S orbitals are stuck to the exterior of the scavenging nitrogen atom-- that is the N2 molecule. 

And the term "stealing" is now replaced with what chemistry calls it, or physics calls it-- The Chemical BOND. Bonding is not a sharing, but bonding is a stealing. 

How could Old Chemistry and Old Physics get this all screwed up? How? Well, easily, because they could not even get which particle is what-- correct. They thought a .5MeV was a electron when the electron is really the muon at 105 MeV and they thought a proton was 938 MeV when it actually is 840 MeV with the electron=muon always there right next to each other-- one a coil, one a bar magnet. 

So how can even Chemistry or Physics have screwed up on what a Bond was? Their crazy silly idea of bond is "sharing" when in truth, bond is "stealing". Well, it is easy to screw up, and screw up big time, because Old Physics, Old Chemistry had no job, no task, no function for any of their particles. When you have no idea of what particles are doing, or performing or what job they have or what task they have or what function they have, well, you dream up impish concepts of bonding is "sharing". 

On the other hand, when you know the particles inside atoms are doing a Faraday Law of a bar magnet thrust through coil producing magnetic monopoles in order to grow the atom, then, then, you can have a good idea of what BONDING is. 

So, when N bonds to N to form N2, what is taking place is the 3 valence muons with their protons of one of the N atoms peels away the 3 valence muons with their 3 protons from the second nitrogen atom to complete a 2P orbital, and the remaining parts of the second nitrogen atom are stuck to the exterior of the first nitrogen atom of its 1S torus inside a 2S torus which is a second bar magnet thrusting through the larger 2P torus of first nitrogen atom-- all making for a Maximum Electricity Coil. 

So, BONDING is the term, not stealing, but then stealing conveys better what is going on. 

This idea that bonding is "sharing" is chemistry in the 1900s when the hippy culture influenced science, hippy chemistry, which managed to seep into the theory of chemistry and physics. A hippy idea that sharing was bonding. 

AP

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#687410 — 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 3:55:06 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:

>> And once again, what about your own manners?

>Moroney says mannerless-- Charlie Baker, Gary Feldman, Douglas Finkbeiner, 
>Melissa Franklin //never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV,

Once again, no manners, Archie. Didn't your mommy and daddy EVER teach
you manners? You complain about people "not doing physics" in sci.physics
yet here you are, no physics, just attack, attack attack. Learn some
manners for once, you failure, and learn some physics, too. And no,
"because I said so!" is NOT a valid science proof.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web