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

Groups > sci.physics > #688385 > unrolled thread

3//43thru46 speed of muon inside atoms//New Chemistry replacing Old Chemistry, all replaced since real electron is the muon

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  3//43thru46 speed of muon inside atoms//New Chemistry replacing Old Chemistry, all replaced since real electron is the muon Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-02 18:25 -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) - 2018-06-03 01:55 +0000

#688385 — 3//43thru46 speed of muon inside atoms//New Chemistry replacing Old Chemistry, all replaced since real electron is the muon

3//43thru46 speed of muon inside atoms//New Chemistry replacing Old Chemistry, all replaced since real electron is the muon


On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 12:32:22 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
43- Revisit of the Argument, that the covalent bond of Chemistry cannot exist unless the electron MeV is close to that of the proton MeV

Recently, I would say a month ago, a poster asked me in a roundabout manner, why a electron as .5MeV would fail to give a 938 MeV proton the covalent bond, such as in H2, due to angular momentum. Where I had often said, only a electron= muon that you can have chemistry covalent bond starting at 105 MeV for electron and proton at 840 MeV of a 8 times difference not a 1876 times difference. My answer to him is not yet satisfactory to me, for I want my answers, be such, that even a High School student can understand why. So this page and others are going to make that explanation with utmost clarity. 

I am driving to seek with utmost clarity, that only with a factor of 8 times, muon = electron = 105MeV and proton = 840 MeV does chemistry exist, otherwise, it cannot exist. 

--- quoting my earlier post --- 
1936, Anderson & Neddermeyer discover the muon particle of 105 MeV. I do not know what year they found out it weighed 105 MeV.  Probably the same year they discovered it. 

Now, the big question is why are the minds of physicists so backwards, so empty of Logical thought, because when the proton was discovered by Rutherford in 1917 and could measure its mass to be roughly 940 MeV and then Thomson's particle of .5MeV. So, the puzzling question is from 1917 to 2017 is a span of time of 100 years, and the astonishment that in those 100 years, every physicist, every chemist knew of the Covalent bond of chemistry, every one of them knew what angular momentum was, or had a reasonable notion of what angular momentum means-- at least we thought they knew, yet not a single scientist ever had the thought run through their mind-- stop a minute-- how can a covalent bond of chemistry exist if the proton was 938 versus .5MeV electron ?? How, how is that possible. When that is only possible if the proton was 840 versus 105 MeV. Is the simple and short answer-- no physicist in the 20th century had a good decent logical mind to think straight, to think clear. 
--- end quote --- 


Reader, -- here I return to this problem of making the understanding of why it is impossible for an atom to exist if the electron is .5MeV yet proton is 938MeV with angular momentum, why such numbers are impossible for physics. And that the true factor is a factor of 8, where electron=muon = 105MeV and proton is 840 MeV, all because of angular momentum. 

--- quoting an earlier post 23-Maximum Electricity Coil theory// World's most simple explanation of Angular Momentum --- 


Linear Momentum-- mv on a straightline 

Angular Momentum-- mv in a area from a center point 

There, that is not too difficult is it, and immediately we see that Chemistry bonding of covalent is impossible to have Angular Momentum with proton at 938 MeV with a particle of .5MeV as electron for that can never be enough AREA involved, but when you have electron = muon = 105 MeV, then 105 to 840 for proton is a ratio of 1 to 8 and can give substantial Area for Angular Momentum. 

Recap:: Linear Momentum-- worry only about mv in a straightline. Angular Momentum, we have mv but it is multiplied by an Area. 

--- end quote --- 

And repeating another old post in this Memoir-textbook, for it stresses the huge central role that "units" play in physics or any other hard science. Units, units units, I cannot stress that enough, that you understand or misunderstand physics depends on your understanding of units. Units to physics is what numbers are to mathematics, or what lines are to geometry, if I can make that analogy. 

Newsgroups: sci.math 
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 10:22:07 -0700 (PDT) 

Subject: top ten most stupid definitions in Old Physics-- the winner is--- 
 Angular Momentum (AP sets it to right) 
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> 
Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 17:22:08 +0000 

top ten most stupid definitions in Old Physics-- the winner is--- Angular Momentum (AP sets it to right) 


I think the winner would be Angular Momentum. 

Now, before we discuss horrible terrible definitions in Old Physics, first we must get a handle on how stupid and flaky this gaggle of scientists were and could be-- a potential of stupidity. A perspective of how idiotic scientists can be, and get to. 

So we had JJ. Thomson in 1897 discover a particle of .5MeV and calling it the electron, later, in 1919 Rutherford discovered a particle 938 MeV and he called it the proton. 

Now, did either Thomson or Rutherford, or all the physicists thereafter from 1897 to 2017 ever question whether-- "perhaps we have them mis-identified". Did anyone of the physicists from 1897 to 2017 sit down at a desk or bench or lounge and think for one minute-- can a .5MeV particle and 938 MeV particle create the covalent bond, the ionic bond, the metallic bond of chemistry? Why, why was every physicist from 1897 to 2017 so absolutely dumb and ignorant about not identifying the correct electron = muon = 105 MeV and the Real Proton = 840 MeV. Why could no physicist from 1897 to 2017 realize the truth about the Real-Electron, Real Proton? 

An answer to that question lies in the fact that one of the most hideous definitions in Old Physics was angular momentum. Not a single physicist from 1897 to 2017 understood a proper correct definition of Angular Momentum. Not a one, because if they did, there would not have been a time lapse of 120 years to realize the .5MeV particle of Thomson was Dirac's magnetic monopole. 

Take a look at any Old Physics definition of Angular Momentum and see how crazy a bunch of physicists can get. Even Halliday and Resnick have a dirtbag fool definition of Angular Momentum on page 263 Fundamentals of Physics, 3rd ed, 1988. Look in Wikipedia for another foolish definition. 

It is as if no physicist until year 2017 could ever make a true proper, intelligent definition of angular momentum. A definition that even a High School student can understand and appreciate. 

So, here is the AP definition of Angular Momentum 

velocity or speed = m/s 

acceleration = m/s^2 

angular momentum = m^2/s 

frequency = 1/s 

Simply, simply do a list of units, units for velocity, units for acceleration, units for frequency, thus, the units m^2/s is angular momentum. 

Define linear momentum as units, then define angular momentum by units. 

The crap that is seen in all Old Physics textbooks is crap, because it is not a definition starting from units. It is what some bozo physicist of the 20th century, who never saw that .5MeV was a monopole and could never realize the covalent bond exists when 105 to 840 MeV is involved in angular momentum. 

AP 




On Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 2:19:56 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
44- Revisit of the Argument, that the covalent bond of Chemistry cannot exist unless the electron MeV is close to that of the proton MeV

Reader, let me tell you what it was like for most professors of science whilst I lived from 1990 to this day in 2018. Most professors-- about 90% I would say were so lacking in any form of logical abilities, that they ascending to being a "professor of science" by a repeat or rehash of verbal soup of terminology. They learn by memory these concepts of long words strung together which mean almost nothing. Just pick up a science journal, and attempt to make any sense of what those guys are talking about. This gets to the reader thinking-- "these guys are smart" but in truth, their garbled verbage soup is to mask their ignorance of science and doing science. 

To be knowledgeable about any science, means you can explain it to a High School student who knows almost nothing on the topic. The reason professors of science write these horrible journal reports and can never explain in simple language to a High School student is because of the way science work is conducted from 1990 to present. It is constructed that you be obfuscating and be obscure, and be illogical for you never knew what being logical was, in the first place. And so someone offering a journal article to a science journal that would be understood by a High School student, that article would be rejected by all science journals from 1990 to present. Why rejected? Because the professors of science and the editors of science, all of them lack any ability to think logically, to think clearly. And so if I were to offer any of my research reports to any science journal, it would be rejected because the editors of these journals fail to ever explain science that a High School student can understand and it shows that editor to be a quack of science-- for he can never do science that anyone can understand.

So, here, what I am going to do, is explain to a High School student, why having a electron at .5MeV and proton at 938 MeV, that it is impossible to have Chemistry of the covalent bond to exist due to angular momentum using .5 and 938. Just impossible to have chemistry at all. 

And that the minimum ratio of electron to proton is of the form 105MeV electron versus a 840 MeV proton.

About a month ago, someone asked me why is Chemistry impossible to exist when electron is .5MeV and proton 938 MeV. I answered him, but my answer was not clear enough so that even a High School student can readily grasp the meaning of it all; see it clearly.

It is not enough for me to say. Linear Momentum is m*v where you multiply and have linear straightline mathematics, math in and on a straightline.

And Angular Momentum is m*v only multiplied by an area, not by a straightline. That is still far and away too complicated and complex for the High School student. A professor of science would immediately dig into mathematics far beyond the comprehension of High School.

When you truly understand a science, means you can bring it down to any level you want to bring it. You can bring it to the High School student, or bring it to the college Freshman or college graduate, or even the experts on the subject. When you really do not understand the science at hand, you can only prattle off some math, where the subconscious mind is saying "hide the fact you do not understand this piece of science."

So, what is Angular Momentum? It is m*v multiplied by area from a central point or axis.

What is Linear Momentum? It is m*v, and it is on a straightline of form Y= mx + b.

Angular Momentum is the same as Linear Momentum, until you multiply m*v by a "area"

So, if I had .5MeV as linear momentum and 938 MeV as linear momentum it would be .5MeV = m*v and 938 MeV = m*v on a certain specific line of Y= mx +b.

However, if I had .5MeV angular momentum and 938MeV angular momentum it would be .5MeV = m*v*(an area), and 938MeV = m*v*(an area).

Now, a square has area of side x = x^2, a rectangle has area of L*W, length times width.

And a square area can be found to equal the area by finding a number such that 4 times the side equals the side squared.

So take for instance a square of side 3. Its area is 3^2 = 9. That number 9 as area can also be found by taking the side 3 and multiply by 4, since a square has 4 equal sides, and we have 3*4= 12, but we wanted 9, so we multiply 3*4*(factor) so that we end up with 9 , not 12. The factor here is 9/12 = 3/4.

Now we can do the same for a hexagonal area, or a octagon area, where we multiply by a factor of its side to achieve the area knowing the side length.

Note that the units again:


velocity or speed = meters/second 

linear momentum = mass * (meters/seconds)

angular momentum units = meters^2/seconds

angular momentum = mass * (meters^2/seconds)

See the area in angular momentum, but not in linear momentum?

Linear Momentum is just meters, whilst Angular Momentum is meters^2.

So, now, back to .5 versus 938 and why that cannot be true. Versus 105 compared to 840 and why chemistry and physics can exist on 105 to 840, but not .5 to 938.

For 105 to 840 is a factor of 8, where a 8 as in a octagon, but a .5 to 938 is a factor of 1876, a polygon of 1876 equal sides.

More later,,,,,, but getting it narrowed down, by explaining that angular momentum is like a octagon compared to a 1876-polygon-- where geometry is angular momentum. Not quite there yet for the High School student, although she/he are beginning to grasp why 1876 is ludicrous.

AP

On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 12:46:04 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

So, here I am trying to explain to students of High School what angular momentum is compared to linear momentum and that why a Atom of its proton and electron cannot be 938 MeV versus .5 MeV for such angular momentum could not allow for Chemistry to have covalent bonding. Problem is that no-one in 20th century physics, nor 19th century physics actually truly understood what angular momentum was. No-one understood it, or else they would have realized .5MeV for electron and 938 for proton cannot support bonding between atoms. And they would have then looked for another particle as being the true electron.

What stumps most people about angular momentum is that we really do not see how surrounding area can play a role in a particle of mass in motion. We can see how a particle in motion has linear momentum as it moves in a straightline, until acted upon by a force. But we cannot visualize how area surrounding a particle in motion plays a role on the particle. We think of angular momentum as going around in a circle, and we offer the skater analogy. We offer all the math placed upon angular momentum, but still, deep down we do not understand it.

The linear momentum is not conserved in Nature, but Angular Momentum is conserved, which indicates to us, that Angular Momentum is more fundamental and contains linear momentum as a derivative thereof, Linear Momentum is a subset of Angular Momentum.

But now getting on with the High School student, explaining why .5 cannot go with 938 MeV. And here we have to explain to the High School student a little of what is a chemical bond, although many High Schools still teach chemistry. A chemical bond is not like a glue that you stick one atom to another as a glue holds them together. The covalent bond of Chemistry is where one atom shares its contents with another atom and this sharing, or stealing by one atom of the subatomic particles of another atom, this sharing or stealing contents between two atoms is the covalent bond. Like in dinitrogen N2, two atoms of nitrogen or like in carbon dioxide CO2 three atoms C and O and O sharing or stealing the contents from one another and this sharing or stealing is the covalent bond. Or like in water H2O of its three atoms, form a polar covalent bond where the oxygen atom steals much of the electron of the two hydrogen atoms, and shares the hydrogen atoms proton.

Now we are getting closer to where we can explain to the High School student and the college professor of chemistry or physics, why the electron cannot be .5MeV versus proton 938 MeV. So we think of bonding in chemistry as sharing or stealing, either one of those, and best is sharing to explain angular momentum where the oxygen atom in water shares the two hydrogen atoms contents of its electrons and this sharing (or stealing) ends up being a "bond", for the sharing is perpetual, until something forces them to disconnect, forces the oxygen to give back the electrons of the hydrogen atoms.

So sharing is the better concept to think of as bonding to explain why electron is not .5 whilst proton is 938 MeV.

Now let us take Linear Momentum, and you have a electron with .5 MeV linear momentum and a proton with 938 MeV linear momentum. The proton is 1876 times greater of linear momentum than the electron. So what happens when a 938 mass ball collides with a tiny .5 mass ball, a golf ball collides with a ping pong ball at rest? Well the ping pong is pushed to wherever the golf ball pushes it as if it were not even there. Or what happens when the ping pong collides with a golf ball sitting at rest, and here the golf ball remains at rest as if the ping pong did nothing for it is deflected since the golf ball has most of the mass of the two. That was linear momentum and angular momentum is much the same only instead of straightline motion we have motion that is circular and is with area.

Now we can start explaining. So if the chemical covalent bond is a sharing and the proton is 938 versus .5 MeV, then the sharing of the electrons of two hydrogen in water by the oxygen atom, is as if the electrons were not there at all and that the only particles to think about is the 938 MeV proton.

On the other hand, if the electron was muon at 105 MeV and we subtract 105 from 945 (what 938 wants to be) we get for the proton 840 MeV. A ratio difference of 8 times, not 1876 times ratio. Now to class for the High School student we bring the basketball of mass 625 grams and a BB whose mass is a mere .33 grams close to the ratio of 1876 difference. And bring to class the roundest lime you can find and the roundest large orange both which you can roll and that orange is 8 times more massive than the lime to class. Roll the lime into the orange and there is a response in the orange and you should see some reaction, and roll the orange into the lime and you should see some reaction. The same goes for angular momentum.

So that when you have proton being 8 times mass of muon as electron, each can affect one another. But when you have proton 1876 that of electron, you have not the angular momentum to establish a sharing a bonding.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 21:38:12 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: 45-Census on Life since human civilization started // animal CO2 is
 faux 1S, faux 2S, fire-CO2 involves faux 3S orbital
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2018 04:38:13 +0000


45-Census on Life since human civilization started // animal CO2 is faux 1S, faux 2S, fire-CO2 involves faux 3S orbital

Alright, I am hoping the laser guided IR thermometer reading this morning-- 33.9 C in highway polluted grass. 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. Where with its 1.7 degree C higher in auto exhaust grass on the highway versus grass away from the highway is a measure of suffocation of grass by fire CO2-- a lack of photosynthesis activity in fire-CO2 grass. I am hoping it is a proof that plants cannot utilize fire-CO2, only utilize animal CO2. And I wish researchers will quickly establish there is 3 different isomers of CO2. Because, if true, we need to save as many wild animals as possible so as to get plants their breathable CO2.

Now recently in two magazines is a report by Dr. Bar-On of the Weizmann Institute of a Census of Life on Earth, by The Economist, 26May2018, page72, and by Ron Milo of Weizmann by NewScientist, 26May2018, page8, titled "Half of Earth's life has vanished" with opening sentence "The amount of living matter on Earth has fallen by half since the beginning of human civilization."

Now I am going to comment on this in the days ahead, quoting some more and referencing these two reports.

But, what I plea for all scientists to do, is make it a priority study, a priority research to find out for sure, if CO2 has three isomers and that animal-CO2 is the only CO2 plants can use, and all that CO2 from burning fossil fuel is useless to plants and only suffocates plants. For as in the reports of Census of Life, the plants have been halved, cut in half since human civilization began.

Have we terribly misled ourselves into thinking that plants will flourish with all the fossil fuel burning making CO2 more abundant, when in fact, if fire CO2 is never utilized by plants, then just the opposite, that plants are being destroyed through fossil fuel burning.

AP

There is a lot I do not know about Coral, for instance, I thought of them more as a plant than a animal, but they are in the animal kingdom. Some details of why coral seem to be both animal and plant is given by Wikipedia:

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2018 10:03:22 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: 2//45-Census on Life since human civilization started // animal CO2
 is  faux 1S, faux 2S, fire-CO2 involves faux 3S orbital
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2018 17:03:23 +0000


Quoting Wikipedia: 
Although some corals are able to catch small fish and plankton using stinging cells on their tentacles, most corals obtain the majority of their energy and nutrients from photosynthetic unicellular dinoflagellates in the genus Symbiodinium that live within their tissues. These are commonly known as zooxanthellae. Such corals require sunlight and grow in clear, shallow water, typically at depths less than 60 metres (200 ft). Corals are major contributors to the physical structure of the coral reefs that develop in tropical and subtropical waters, such as the enormous Great Barrier Reef off the coast of Queensland, Australia.

On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 12:17:43 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Now i wonder if the key mechanism of coral bleaching is because fire CO2 suffocates the algae inside coral. 

—- source Wikipedia —- 
Coral bleaching occurs when coral polyps expel algae that live inside their tissues. Normally, coral polyps live in an endosymbiotic relationship with the algae and that relationship is crucial for the coral and hence for the health of the whole reef.[1] Bleached corals might continue to live for some time. But as the algae provide the coral with up to 90% of its energy, after expelling the algae the coral begins to starve.[2] After bleaching, some corals may recover, while some die. Above-average sea water temperatures caused by global warming have been identified as a leading cause for coral bleaching worldwide.[2] Between 2014 and 2016, the longest global bleaching events ever were recorded. 

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2018 10:48:04 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: 1/2 of all life disappeared-- CO2 is probably the toxic poison doing
 it Re: 2//45-Census on Life since human civilization started // animal CO2 is
  faux 1S, faux 2S, fire-CO2 involves faux 3S orbital
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2018 17:48:05 +0000


1/2 of all life disappeared-- CO2 is probably the toxic poison doing it Re: 2//45-Census on Life since human civilization started // animal CO2 is faux 1S, faux 2S, fire-CO2 involves faux 3S orbital

- show quoted text -
Now I really do not need to set up a jar experiment with land plants if Coral reef dying is due to fire-CO2, for the experiment is all there plain to see-- bleaching. And about the only experiment that needs to be followed up, is a chemistry-physics mass spectroscopy type of experiment that proves CO2 has three different ISOMERS. And two of those three different isomers are fire CO2 involving a faux 3S orbital which suffocates plants, not enriching plants at all but suffocating plants. If true, then fire-CO2 is much like the analog of CO for animals in that CO, carbon monoxide suffocates animals if too much makes its way into the body of an animal. 

So, here, we have an emergency SCIENCE EXPERIMENT to be performed, drop all other science experiments and tell us if CO2 is 3 distinct different isomers, for humanity itself may go extinct without knowing the truth of CO2. 

In that census of Life by the Weizmann Institute shown on The Economist 26May2018 is a bar graph. Plants have 450, humans have .06 while all of wild birds have .002 and all of wild mammals have .007. I could have sworn there seemed to be a lot more birds than that. The aquatic invertebrates have .09 which is the phylum Cnidaria which the corals belong to; and I wonder how much of the .09 is the corals in specific, for all of animals comprise just 2.5 of the total biomass. 

Plants 450 
Bacteria 73 
Fungi 12 
Archaea 7 
Protists 4 
Animals 2.5 
Viruses .2 

The report says there are 7.6 billion humans. 

The report indicates that 1/2 of all life on Earth has vanished since the start of human civilization. 

Now some will point to the fact of farming has cleared forests and jungles, but it does not really explain why 1/2 of all life has vanished. 

What can explain 1/2 vanished is the idea that CO2 comes in a toxic isomer and this toxic fire CO2 suffocates plant life, for plants constitute over 80% of all Earth life and if 1/2 of life has vanished, means, there is a toxic poison killing plants, and not just land clearing by agriculture can account for that. 

AP 

On Friday, June 1, 2018 at 1:36:58 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

1/2 of all life disappeared-- CO2 is probably the toxic poison doing it Re: 2//45-Census on Life since human civilization started // animal CO2 is faux 1S, faux 2S, fire-CO2 involves faux 3S orbital

You see the explanation of 1/2 life vanished can not be accounted for by farming and urbanization for the oceans are losing life faster than the terra firma. That leaves a toxic poison culprit to blame— fire CO2. 

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2018 14:29:16 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: fire CO2- a slow toxic poison Re: 1/2 of all life disappeared-- CO2
 is probably the toxic poison doing it Re: 2//45-Census on Life since human
 civilization started // animal CO2 is  faux 1S, faux 2S, fire-CO2 involves
 faux 3S orbital
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2018 21:29:16 +0000


fire CO2- a slow toxic poison Re: 1/2 of all life disappeared-- CO2 is probably the toxic poison doing it Re: 2//45-Census on Life since human civilization started // animal CO2 is faux 1S, faux 2S, fire-CO2 involves faux 3S orbital

Maximum urgency for this science research experiment-- are there 3 distinct isomers of CO2 an animal CO2 versus two isomers of fire-CO2 where it has a 3S faux orbital. 

The lives of all animals depends on knowing if CO2 produced from fire suffocates plants and thus the animals are intimately linked to the survival of plants. Extinct wild animals, you end up extincting plants and humans along with it. 

Has there ever been a alarm clock of urgency like this before in science? Not really, for the worst we experienced so far is a disease epidemic and Global Warming, but the vanishing of over 1/2 of life on Earth started in ancient history when human civilization began 10s or 100s of thousands of years ago. A slow activating toxic poison-- fire CO2. 

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2018 19:34:59 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: SCIENCE 25May2018 bive the census report on Earth's life-- Plants
 weigh the most, but humans, livestock add up
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2018 02:35:00 +0000


SCIENCE 25May2018 give the census report on Earth's life-- Plants weigh the most, but humans, livestock add up

Now SCIENCE magazine 25MAY2018 joins the crowd of others in reporting the gigatons of carbon of all life on Earth from the Weizmann Institute. 

> 
> Now recently in two magazines is a report by Dr. Bar-On of the Weizmann Institute of a Census of Life on Earth, by The Economist, 26May2018, page72, and by Ron Milo of Weizmann by NewScientist, 26May2018, page8, titled "Half of Earth's life has vanished" with opening sentence "The amount of living matter on Earth has fallen by half since the beginning of human civilization." 
> 

--- Quoting SCIENCE --- 
Milo's group reports this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Humans and their livestock (mostly cattle and pigs) outweigh wild mammals by more than 22-fold, and domesticated fowl surpass all other birds in biomass... 

--- end quote --- 

Just think of that, our domesticated animals are more than all the mammals and birds in the wild. Stunning, but sad. 

SCIENCE never, though, gives a sense of urgency to this report. Nor does SCIENCE add the fact that 1/2 of all biomass in gigatons has vanished since human civilization started. 

I do give urgency, for I think there is more to the answer of 1/2 vanished than increasing farming and urbanization, for I think there is a silent killer of biomass we were never aware of-- fire CO2 is unbreathable by plants and suffocates plants. 

Now, this gives me another idea of a experiment. Take plants along a highly congested freeway, motorway and collect them and analyze them for body content of CO2. If the plant is suffocating from fire-CO2, there should be ample of it in the plants system. Much like a human who died of CO poisoning, can find a lot of CO in the body of the deceased. (That is, I think they can find abundance CO in the death of a victim.) 

AP 

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2018 23:14:26 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Reinterpreting this report as fire CO2 suffocating coral
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2018 06:14:26 +0000


Reinterpreting this report as fire CO2 suffocating coral

I am looking for coral reefs suffocated by fire CO2 

Can the below be interpreted as fire CO2 suffocating corals? 

—quoting— 

Response of coral calcification and calcifying fluid composition to thermally induced bleaching stress 
J. P. D’Olivo & M. T. McCulloch 
Scientific Reportsvolume 7, Article number: 2207 (2017) 

Abstract 
Severe, global-scale thermal stress events like those of 1998 and 2016, are becoming more frequent and intense, potentially compromising the future of coral reefs. Here we report the effects of the 1998 bleaching event on coral calcification as well as the composition of the calcifying fluid (cf) from which corals precipitate their calcium carbonate skeletons. This was investigated by using the Sr/Ca, Li/Mg (temperature), and boron isotopes (δ11B) and B/Ca (carbonate chemistry) proxies in a Porites sp. coral. Following the summer of 1998 the coral exhibited a prolonged period (~18 months) of reduced calcification (~60%) and a breakdown in the seasonality of the geochemical proxies. However, the maintenance of elevated dissolved inorganic carbon (DICcf; >×2 seawater) and pHcf (>8.3 compared to seawater ~8.0) even during severe stress of 1998 indicate that a minimum threshold of high aragonite saturation state (Ωcf) of ~14 (~×4 seawater), is an essential pre-requisite for coral calcification. However, despite maintaining elevated levels of Ωcf even under severe stress, coral growth is still impaired. We attribute this to reductions in either the effective active volume of calcification and/or DICcf as bleaching compromises the photosynthetically fixed carbon pool available to the coral. 



Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2018 10:09:03 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: 46-Ionic,Metallic Bond are motion, whereas Covalent is stealing
 electrons static // half a closed loop is motion, gives physics motion
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2018 17:09:04 +0000

46-Ionic,Metallic Bond are motion, whereas Covalent is stealing electrons static // half a closed loop is motion, gives physics motion


If the Faraday law is true, then the geometry of atoms and molecules purpose is to produce Maximum Electricity in a Coil with the muon electron serving as bar magnet. This explains that covalent bond is a stealing of one or more protons (protons more so than muon electrons between atoms). But now we need to explain ionic and metallic bond. All bonds are for the purpose of Maximum Electricity to grow that atom or molecule.

Now this textbook is a Memoir textbook in that I include my personal history in discovery of these ideas. Sometimes ideas earlier are tossed out. If I were to write future editions of this book this would be a separate chapter for the ionic and metallic bond. But here, as memoir we have no chapters-- only a constant flow of ideas, new ideas, and sorting them out.
But the prior chapter was covalent bond with its looming super idea of Maximum Electricity Coil, that would shape the geometry of atoms and molecules as being toruses. Torus inside other torus, all to produce maximum electricity via Faraday law-- for tokamaks are toruses because that is the geometry of squeezing together maximum electricity.

But we saw that hydrogen atom alone is 1 proton with 1 muon, and the proton is 840MeV and muon is 105 MeV with the muon as bar magnet in Faraday law, leaving the proton to form the coil. A proton is itself 8 muons so with only 8 muons to form a coil, those 8 muons can only form a half torus, a monopole torus, think of a donut as a full torus and a donut cut in half as in this shape where you cut O into C or (, is a monopole torus. This is why hydrogen atom alone seeks to never be alone for it seeks its other half and forms H2. How many times in Nature do you see actual H alone? The Sun and stars? But, what you truly never see alone is the 840 MeV proton without its 105 muon electron, unless you see it in a high energy physics machine that breaks the muon from its proton.

So we know the geometry of most atoms and molecules-- toruses, and they seek to be toruses because of that is the maximum means of electricity production to grow the atom or molecule.

But, when not in the shape of a full torus, the atoms and molecules are 1/2 of a torus. H alone is shaped as a 1/2 torus, with its muon doing a Faraday law bar magnet thrust through the 1/2 torus coil.

So what happens to the thrusting muon bar magnet as it reaches the open end?

Picture a C as 1/2 of a torus. So the muon starts at one end of the C and when it reaches the other open end of the C, what happens? Well, have you ever had a slinky toy? It moves. So, when the muon reaches the other end, it moves the entire 1/2 torus of its position in Space, and it creates motion of its proton 1/2 torus tube and the thrusting muon inside.

In H2 molecule, the torus is a full torus and does not do a motion in Space, except for tiny tiny motion. The H single atom is a 1/2 torus and as it reaches the other end, the open other end, it moves the entire atom in Space. Now I am having a difficult time in memory that New Physics has the muon as real electron and so its speed is not fast and the .5MeV particle, the magnetic monopole is near the speed of light for they are photons anyway, carrying a .5MeV charge energy. What is the speed of the muon as electron inside protons as coils? I do not know.

So think of the 1/2 torus that singular Hydrogen is, and the moving muon through the 8 proton windings as a coil, flip flopping the C would mean the hydrogen atom is a wave. So here we begin to see how atoms are particles-- helium is a full torus and need not move, whereas singular H, is forced to move, at what speed, I do not know, for its 1/2 torus in Faraday law forces it to move.

Here we begin to make the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, not so much an abstraction, but a reality of physics being both particle-- a full torus and wave-- a 1/2 torus doing the Faraday Law.

Now in my list of molecules so far, I have done only the covalent bond.


List

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 


In my list so far, above, I was doing all about covalent bonding for CO2 in particular, but now I need to focus on H2 and H alone and that of NO, where the filling of the 2P orbital causes there to be a odd number of muons left over.

In Covalent bonding, we can say that the left over muons are always an even number, so as to create Faux or Pseudo Orbitals, like in CO2 has 2+4+4 = 10 with 4 left over muons, creating 1S faux, 2S faux or 3S faux orbitals.

Now we focus on NO with its 3+4 = 7 and 1 left over muon. This is the same as hydrogen solo with its 1 valence muon and its 1/2 torus geometry.

So, what is the geometry of NO, for is it a 2P filled large torus with 1S inside 2S all inside 2P, then, where is that last 1 proton with 1 muon? Is it a large 1/2 torus that has the entire 2P stuck inside it and doing a Faraday law thrust and thus the entire NO molecule is a wave in motion through Space. Or, is it the 2P  the largest torus and has the 1proton,1muon stuck to the exterior of 2P as a 1/2 torus, reminiscent of the faux 1S and faux 2S stuck to the exterior outside of 2P of CO2.

I do not know as yet. But Ionic bond and Metallic bond are far different from Covalent bond, because we experience the ionic and metallic bond with a sense of motion, especially ionic, since that is the chemistry of batteries, and there has to be motion involved with ions. With the metallic bond, there has to be motion there also, to have this ability of malleable, ductile, and the traveling of electricity-- travel of magnetic monopoles through metal.

What I think is the case, is that in NO, ion, it moves, but not as fast as say H ion.

So, here, with Ionic bond and Metallic bond we glimpse Motion arise in physics and we glimpse where and why we have a principle of either particle or wave.

AP

On Saturday, June 2, 2018 at 4:20:10 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Now re-reading my above earlier post on Ionic bond as motion, I realized that I need to define ion, firstly. In Old Chemistry, ion is defined as a plus or minus overall charge on a atom or molecule. In New Chemistry, we have to re-define "ion" because, well. the real electron is the muon which seldom if ever leaves its attendant proton. Do we define ion in New Chemistry as the amount of magnetic monopoles with charge of .5MeV present or something totally different, such as the hydrogen atom, singularly is neutral but with a 1/2 torus configuration it could be considered a "ion"? I do not know as yet what the best definition of ion is in New Chemistry, and perhaps need to develop more of the chemistry. But I am leaning towards the idea that ion be defined as a geometry, not a charge, but then again, charge itself is geometry as a spin motion of geometry. Maybe we can separate spin motion, geometry, and ion.

AP

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#688392 — Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test

You still haven't stopped your ad hominem attacks against me.

>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:



>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web