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

Groups > sci.physics > #687964 > unrolled thread

3//42-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// the assault upon CO2, whether there is a animal CO2 different from fire CO2

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  3//42-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// the assault upon CO2, whether  there is a animal CO2 different from fire CO2 Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 10:14 -0700
    corrected copy Re: 3//42-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// the assault upon CO2, whether  there is a animal CO2 different from fire CO2 Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 10:28 -0700
      can animal CO2 versus fire CO2 be proven by simply a IR thermometer? Re: 3//42-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// the assault upon CO2, whether  there is a animal CO2 different from fire CO2 Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 11:14 -0700
        can animal CO2 versus fire CO2 be proven by simply a IR thermometer? Re: 3//42-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// the assault upon CO2, whether  there is a animal CO2 different from fire CO2 Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 12:04 -0700
          list of paramagnetic and diamagnetic Re: can animal CO2 versus fire CO2 be proven by simply a IR thermometer? Re: 3//42-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// the assault upon CO2, whether  there is a animal CO2 different from fire CO2 Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-05-31 14:05 -0700
    Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-31 21:19 +0000

#687964 — 3//42-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// the assault upon CO2, whether there is a animal CO2 different from fire CO2

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 22:44:22 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: 42-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// the assault upon CO2, whether
 there is a animal CO2 different from fire CO2
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 05:44:22 +0000


42-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// the assault upon CO2, whether there is a animal CO2 different from fire CO2

Alright, now I am comfortable in doing this assault. Mind you, we await the experimental results from taking a miniature greenhouse and vacuum out all air, and replace with animal CO2 and the common constituents of air, and in a second greenhouse do the same except pump in only fire CO2. We monitor if the plants in animal CO2 live and prosper while in the other, the fire CO2, the plants die or barely grow. We have to wait for that experiment, but in the meantime, we can have the theory all set to go.

Theory of CO2, for it has valence muons of 2+4+4, which fills the 2P, and has 4 muons extra or left over. Those 4 valence muons with attendant 4 protons form two pseudo or faux orbitals. The main molecule of CO2 is a large torus composed of the 2P filled, and inside that large torus are two smaller toruses acting as bar magnets of the 2S orbital and inside that 2S torus is the 1S torus. So we have 1S torus inside 2S torus inside 2P torus, all three doing the Faraday Law of producing electricity of magnetic monopoles. That electricity gets stored in a neutron and when that neutron grows to 945 MeV it causes one of the atoms to become a higher atomic numbered element. But now, let us see what happened to those 4 left-over muons forming two faux orbitals. Those 4 muons with their 4 protons form either a 1S faux with 2S faux orbital or form a 2S faux with a 3S faux, or form a 1S faux with a 3S faux, all of which are torus. The faux orbitals are different from the real 1S or 2S because those have 2 protons each but also have neutrons, like a helium atom whereas the faux 1S and faux 2S have just 2 muons and 2 protons each and the faux orbitals are like balls that circumnavigate around the filled 2P torus creating more electricity by thrusting through the 2P torus from its outside exterior. Where the real 1S and 2S are tori bar magnets inside of 2P, the faux 1S and faux 2S are bar magnets thrusting through the 2P torus from its exterior.

Remember in this theory every atom and molecules is configured to make maximum electricity, given the number of subatomic particles present. And here is where radioactivity comes into existence. It is present, when that configuration of producing maximum electricity causes destruction of the toruses in producing electricity. Atoms and molecules that are radioactive, or unstable molecules, produce so much electricity, with their thrusting tori bar magnets that they break apart in radioactive decay. This is why alpha particles are a major form of radioactive decay, because faux orbitals are alpha particles, that get away from their 2P torus they were bonded to.

Now here we can perform another experiment-- find out if alpha particles come in a variety of masses, fractional masses of a helium atom with its 2 protons 2 neutrons and 2 muons, for the faux 1S can come in just 2 protons each 840 MeV and 2 muons each 105 MeV. Also, in accelerators, has there ever been witnessed a helium type atom which is composed of just two 945 MeV or 1890 MeV mass. Has there ever been reported a 1890 MeV mass particle thought to be a alpha particle? If so, well the proof that protons are actually 840MeV and never 938 MeV, the proof is already in.

A quick glance at my tables, here, I see a D-meson with 1869 MeV, which decays into a kaon and eventually a muon, and many many pions. Apparently the D-meson is actually two protons of 840 MeV each and two muons, and the muons come out as two muons but the two protons bundled inside a D-meson those two protons are each composed of 8 muons apiece-- for-- our calculator shows that 840 divided by 105 means a proton is 8 muons. But as a D-meson decays, we do not see 8+8 muons from 2 protons, what we see is a multiple of pions of around 135 MeV. So now 2x840= 1680 and if we divide that by 135 is about 12.44, but if we divide by 140 for pion we have 12 exactly. So, these faux 1S and 2S orbitals are seen as "primitive helium atoms" that end up decaying into 2 muons and 12 pions.

Alright, well, let us dive into this research on what isotopes exist for CO2. Old Chemistry had just one form of CO2 as paramagnetic and as linear geometry with the silly Lewis structure of 
 . .       . .
:O=C=O:

That was Old Chemistry, the chemistry that even misidentified what the real electron was-- a electron = muon = 105MeV, not the magnetic monopole which is .5MeV. And the real proton = 840MeV, not the 938 MeV. When you make mistakes like that, well, it is hopeless for you to know what true carbon dioxide really is.

In New Chemistry, the CO2 is of three different isotopes, meaning three different geometries. Each geometry of CO2 acts far different from the others. And I hope the experiments reveal that one of the isotopes is Animal CO2 while another isotope is Fire CO2 and which plants cannot use the fire CO2 for much of anything. This has huge huge importance for biology and politics and Global Warming as well as chemistry and physics.

So what is the true diagram structure of CO2 isotopes, if not linear?

Well, the CO2 molecule has valence muons of 2+4+4 = 10 and thus 6 of them fill the 2P torus with the 1S torus inside the 2S torus inside the 2P largest torus. But, with the extra 4 muons left-over, they are toruses outside exterior to the 2P main largest torus. Two of the extra muons forms either a 1S faux orbital or a 2S faux orbital or a 3S faux orbital. 

So, one isotope of CO2 is a 2P with exterior 1S faux and 2S faux

Another isotope of CO2 is a 2P with exterior of 2S faux and 3S faux

And lastly a isotope of CO2 is 2P with exterior of 1S faux and 3S faux

Since we have two faux orbitals exterior to 2P, means that CO2 is never linear but always triangular molecule. And this would make huge commonsense in Plants breathing, to think that they breathe a linear molecule rather than breathe a planar triangle shaped molecule. (Just the same as can be said of O2 breathing by animals, for O2 has one faux orbital and a exterior orbital is not linear but planar triangle shape, to be linear molecule you need to be something like N2 or CO).

So, in these researches, we must definitely wait for the experiments to be performed-- does a greenhouse with animal CO2 make plants flourish but with fire CO2 kills the plants.

Then we can probe what is animal CO2 isotope? Is it the 1S faux with 2S faux? And then, fire CO2 always involves a 3S faux.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 23:05:38 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Doing the CO2 Experiment of animal CO2 versus fire CO2 in using small
 glass jars
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 06:05:39 +0000


Doing the CO2 Experiment of animal CO2 versus fire CO2 in using small glass jars

- show quoted text -
I am thinking if getting glass jars where I vacuum out all the air, by filling them with water and letting the water seep out as I overturn the jar, onto a plant in a pot, and have connected tubes that I can breathe out my own CO2 for the plant inside the jar. Coincident is another jar which the tubes I supply fire CO2 from that of a burning something I have not yet decided. I am going to use a weed in the experiment. And need also a hose attachment to get the plant water. 

I cannot wait around for months or years for others to do the crucial experiment. 

AP

Looking in the literature for clues as to what the experiment may bring. I see there is good documentation that lichens are absent from urban areas where car exhaust fumes are high. The nitrous oxide and sulfur compounds are blamed for lichen demolishment. But what about the fact that CO2 maybe of three isotopes, and that fire CO2 is harmful to plants, choking them from the animal CO2 they need. The lichen scarcity in urban areas dates back to the 1850s and earlier. But what about other plants?

Well it appears some have studied the orange groves near Los Angeles for many decades and found that orange trees only grow to about 1/2 their productivity in an urban air environment. Some have blamed nitrous oxide, some have sulfur dioxide, and even ozone is blamed. But no-one ever blamed a isotope of CO2, fire CO2, where animal CO2 is the faux 1S and 2S orbitals while fire CO2 has a 3S faux orbital. So, is the cause of 1/2 productivity of Orange Tree plants near urban areas, due to fire CO2, is an open question. This gives me some indication of what I can expect to find in jar experiments of weeds, that fire CO2 stunts their growth by 1/2. Keep this in mind. 

But perhaps I can also make observations of the medium strip along the highway, of the grasses and weeds that grow there. Is the greenery along highways as green as woods greenery, or less polluted stretches. Seems to me, someone should be able to devise a measuring instrument like my IR thermometers, infrared temperature thermometers, and bounce a laser beam on highway strips and non highway greenery. And I expect what they find with this instrument testing for photosynthesis activity, what they find with such a testing devise, is that the plants along highways are 1/2 more yellow than green versus the greenery not near highway as being far more "green than yellow". If that is true, then we can stop blaming nitrous oxide, sulfur dioxide, ozone and start blaming the fact of fire CO2 is causing plants to be choked.

AP

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#687968 — corrected copy Re: 3//42-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// the assault upon CO2, whether there is a animal CO2 different from fire CO2

Looking in the literature for clues as to what the experiment may bring. I see there is good documentation that lichens are absent from urban areas where car exhaust fumes are high. The nitrogen dioxide NO2 and sulfur compounds are blamed for lichen demolishment. But what about the fact that CO2 maybe of three isotopes, and that fire CO2 is harmful to plants, choking them from the animal CO2 they need. The lichen scarcity in urban areas dates back to the 1850s and earlier. But what about other plants?

Well it appears some have studied the orange groves near Los Angeles for many decades and found that orange trees only grow to about 1/2 their productivity in an urban air environment. Some have blamed nitrogen dioxide, some have sulfur dioxide, and even ozone is blamed. But no-one ever blamed a isotope of CO2, fire CO2, where animal CO2 is the faux 1S and 2S orbitals while fire CO2 has a 3S faux orbital. So, is the cause of 1/2 productivity of Orange Tree plants near urban areas, due to fire CO2, is an open question. This gives me some indication of what I can expect to find in jar experiments of weeds, that fire CO2 stunts their growth by 1/2. Keep this in mind. 

But perhaps I can also make observations of the medium strip along the highway, of the grasses and weeds that grow there. Is the greenery along highways as green as woods greenery, or less polluted stretches. Seems to me, someone should be able to devise a measuring instrument like my IR thermometers, infrared temperature thermometers, and bounce a laser beam on highway strips and non highway greenery. And I expect what they find with this instrument testing for photosynthesis activity, what they find with such a testing devise, is that the plants along highways are 1/2 more yellow than green versus the greenery not near highway as being far more "green than yellow". If that is true, then we can stop blaming nitrogen dioxide NO2, sulfur dioxide SO2, ozone O3, and start blaming the fact of fire CO2 is causing plants to be choked.

AP

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

#687982 — can animal CO2 versus fire CO2 be proven by simply a IR thermometer? Re: 3//42-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// the assault upon CO2, whether there is a animal CO2 different from fire CO2

On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 12:28:05 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Looking in the literature for clues as to what the experiment may bring. I see there is good documentation that lichens are absent from urban areas where car exhaust fumes are high. The nitrogen dioxide NO2 and sulfur compounds are blamed for lichen demolishment. But what about the fact that CO2 maybe of three isotopes, and that fire CO2 is harmful to plants, choking them from the animal CO2 they need. The lichen scarcity in urban areas dates back to the 1850s and earlier. But what about other plants?
> 
> Well it appears some have studied the orange groves near Los Angeles for many decades and found that orange trees only grow to about 1/2 their productivity in an urban air environment. Some have blamed nitrogen dioxide, some have sulfur dioxide, and even ozone is blamed. But no-one ever blamed a isotope of CO2, fire CO2, where animal CO2 is the faux 1S and 2S orbitals while fire CO2 has a 3S faux orbital. So, is the cause of 1/2 productivity of Orange Tree plants near urban areas, due to fire CO2, is an open question. This gives me some indication of what I can expect to find in jar experiments of weeds, that fire CO2 stunts their growth by 1/2. Keep this in mind. 
> 
> But perhaps I can also make observations of the medium strip along the highway, of the grasses and weeds that grow there. Is the greenery along highways as green as woods greenery, or less polluted stretches. Seems to me, someone should be able to devise a measuring instrument like my IR thermometers, infrared temperature thermometers, and bounce a laser beam on highway strips and non highway greenery. And I expect what they find with this instrument testing for photosynthesis activity, what they find with such a testing devise, is that the plants along highways are 1/2 more yellow than green versus the greenery not near highway as being far more "green than yellow". If that is true, then we can stop blaming nitrogen dioxide NO2, sulfur dioxide SO2, ozone O3, and start blaming the fact of fire CO2 is causing plants to be choked.
> 

Now the reason I bought IR thermometers last year was because I wanted to see for myself the GreenHouse Effect and Global Warming, and clouds really do show that greenhouse effect.

But today, that experiment testing is proving to be so so very good in another test, of sorts. I want to prove that CO2 comes in at least 3 isomers, that is, three different geometries for that molecule and that plants use only animal CO2 and are choked by fire-CO2 which is formed from combustion of fossil fuels.

So, what I did was run out to the highway and measured the temperature of grass in the medium strip separating the four lanes. I found the temperature to be 33.9 C. Now, I backed off the highway to a plot of grass distant away from the highway and found its temperature to be 32.2 C. Which makes sense, that fire-CO2 isotope would choke plants, that need to breathe animal-CO2 and thus have a higher temperature than grass that was living off mostly animal-CO2 and not being choked and would absorb more radiation in photosynthesis. A difference of 1.7 degrees C.

So, I think I can bypass my experiment and let a speciality laboratory devise the Jar Experiment and watch that fire-CO2 chokes plants and that animal-CO2 is the only CO2 plants can live on.

Trouble with all past reports of lichen in cities, of orange trees near Los Angeles, trouble with those reports is that they blame it all on NO2, or SO2, or O3, and never blame it on the most common pollutant of combustion engines-- fire-CO2.

Time we rectify this science.

AP

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

#687990 — can animal CO2 versus fire CO2 be proven by simply a IR thermometer? Re: 3//42-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// the assault upon CO2, whether there is a animal CO2 different from fire CO2

Quoting Wikipedia

Nitric oxide (nitrogen oxide[3] or nitrogen monoxide) is a colorless gas with the formula NO. It is one of the principal oxides of nitrogen. Nitric oxide is a free radical, i.e., it has an unpaired electron, which is sometimes denoted by a dot in its chemical formula, i.e., ·NO. Nitric oxide is also a heteronuclear diatomic molecule, a historic class that drew researches which spawned early modern theories of chemical bonding.[4]

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

#688004 — list of paramagnetic and diamagnetic Re: can animal CO2 versus fire CO2 be proven by simply a IR thermometer? Re: 3//42-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// the assault upon CO2, whether there is a animal CO2 different from fire CO2

On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 2:05:01 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Quoting Wikipedia
> 
> Nitric oxide (nitrogen oxide[3] or nitrogen monoxide) is a colorless gas with the formula NO. It is one of the principal oxides of nitrogen. Nitric oxide is a free radical, i.e., it has an unpaired electron, which is sometimes denoted by a dot in its chemical formula, i.e., ·NO. Nitric oxide is also a heteronuclear diatomic molecule, a historic class that drew researches which spawned early modern theories of chemical bonding.[4]

Alright need to include NO and others in this list for it was instructive in early theories of the chemical bond.


N2-- diamagnetic 

O2-- paramagnetic 

CO2-- paramagnetic 

O3-- diamagnetic 

CO-- diamagnetic 

C4 graphite -- diamagnetic anomaly but anomaly goes away as we see graphite is really C3, never C4

C5 diamond-- diamagnetic anomaly but anomaly goes away as we see diamond is really C3, never C5

B2-- paramagnetic 

H2O diamagnetic

H2 diamagnetic

D2 diamagnetic

CIF diamagnetic & paramagnetic anomaly

NO paramagnetic

NO2 paramagnetic

SO2 paramagnetic

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

#688009 — Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test

Archimedes Plutonium fails:

>Here is an example from the Internet in sci.math of Ad Hominem of a writer 
>who hates the person he is talking to, and no matter what the topic is, 
>the message is always the same-- I hate your guts.

>On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 2:00:46 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:

>> But can you tell us what is wrong with the following proof that the
>> ellipse is a conic section? After all, you say the ellipse is not a
>> conic section and what Archimedes Plutonium says is true is true, right?

<several other ad hominems by Archie snipped>

You're the one doing the ad hominem here, Archie. And I still see you
still haven't learned not to attack me.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web