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

Groups > sci.physics > #688493 > unrolled thread

-1//42thru44 do the Maxwell Eq. say anything about speed of bar magnet and its breakup//Maximum Electricity Coil theory

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  -1//42thru44 do the Maxwell Eq. say anything about speed of bar magnet and its breakup//Maximum Electricity Coil theory Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 11:30 -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 18:37 +0000

#688493 — -1//42thru44 do the Maxwell Eq. say anything about speed of bar magnet and its breakup//Maximum Electricity Coil theory

-1//42thru44 do the Maxwell Eq. say anything about speed of bar magnet and its breakup//Maximum Electricity Coil theory

If i have this correct, the Maxwell Equations say nothing about the speed of the thrusting bar magnet. For here I have now followed that line of ideas up to US708 star moving at 1095km/sec (although Geier et.al. say 1200km/sec)

Is the speed of 1095km/sec the speed at which a star cannot exist and bust apart? That is, a speed in which Chemical bonding and gas plasma can no longer "hold together" but gets discarded in the track of where the object is moving.

I am not aware of any limitations in the old Maxwell Equations. In fact, to the contrary, the faster the thrusting of bar magnet in Faraday Law, the more electricity is produced. But I think in the AP-Maxwell Equations, the Faraday law is limited with an upper bound speed.

AP


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

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.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 11:14:26 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: 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
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 18:14:26 +0000

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

- show quoted text -
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 

On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 2:05:01 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

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] 

On Thursday, May 31, 2018 at 4:05:16 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

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 







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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#688495 — Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test

Archimedes Plutonium fails:

<several ad hominems by Archie snipped>

And you *continue* to repost your ad hominems against me, all the while
projecting your ad hominems on me!

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web