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

Groups > sci.physics > #688528 > unrolled thread

18//45thru46// alpha = e^2/hbar*c also predicts a major particle of physics-- the Pion, and, Faraday's law has a limitation on speed of bar magnet

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  18//45thru46// alpha = e^2/hbar*c also predicts a major particle of physics-- the Pion, and, Faraday's law has a limitation on speed of bar magnet Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 14:34 -0700
    Pions are just multiples of muons and the muon in linear momentum is 105MeV and in Angular Momentum is 137MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-03 17:50 -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) - 2018-06-04 01:24 +0000
      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) - 2018-06-04 01:56 +0000

#688528 — 18//45thru46// alpha = e^2/hbar*c also predicts a major particle of physics-- the Pion, and, Faraday's law has a limitation on speed of bar magnet

18//45thru46// alpha = e^2/hbar*c also predicts a major particle of physics-- the Pion, and, Faraday's law has a limitation on speed of bar magnet
 

Well there is the pion between 135 and 140 MeV and the pion does decay into the muon. 

So the Pion itself is the major particle in Physics and we can call it the Angular Momentum Muon whereas the muon at 105 MeV is the linear momentum muon. 


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 

Newsgroups: sci.physics 
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2018 18:25:34 -0700 (PDT) 

Subject: correction: speed of muon inside atoms//New Chemistry replacing Old 
 Chemistry, all replaced since real electron is the muon 
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> 
Injection-Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2018 01:25:34 +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 

Newsgroups: sci.physics 
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2018 21:45:37 -0700 (PDT) 

Subject: 7//43thru46 speed of muon inside atoms//New Chemistry replacing Old 
 Chemistry, all replaced since real electron is the muon 
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> 
Injection-Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2018 04:45:37 +0000 


7//43thru46 speed of muon inside atoms//New Chemistry replacing Old Chemistry, all replaced since real electron is the muon 

Be interesting to know what the muon as bar magnet speed is inside a atom or molecule. 

There should be some indication of muon speed inside atoms from the speed of galaxies, since the night sky is the electron of 231Pu Atom Totality. 

A report by Science Daily, 2015/03 "The unbound star, named US708, is traveling at 1,200 kilometers per second-- the fastest speed ever recorded for such an object in our galaxy-- meaning it is not held back by gravity and will eventually leave the Milky Way." 

I dare not use galaxy speeds, the fastest recorded, because, well, their entire theory-- Hubble constant-- doppler redshift, is phony baloney. So I cannot use galaxy speeds. What I can use is star speeds inside galaxies, use the speeds of Solid Body rotation speeds. Can I get solid body rotation of star speeds that comes close to the speed of light? I do not know. I do know the 1,200 kilometers per second is a firm fact and can use it. But I think some of these star speeds in Solid Body Rotation can get a lot higher. 

Newsgroups: sci.physics 
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2018 22:50:00 -0700 (PDT) 

Subject: is a factored 1,200 km/sec the speed of muon inside atoms//New 
 Chemistry replacing Old Chemistry, all replaced since real electron is the muon 
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> 
Injection-Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2018 05:50:00 +0000 


is a factored 1,200 km/sec the speed of muon inside atoms//New Chemistry replacing Old Chemistry, all replaced since real electron is the muon 

Now speed of light is 300,000 km /sec and this star US708 is going at 1,200 km /sec 

Could the muon inside of helium atom be traveling the equivalent relative speed given a factor inside a proton torus of helium? We can understand the .5MeV magnetic monopole is traveling almost the speed of light, but the muon mass is 105 MeV proton is 840MeV and so is 1,200 km/sec factored to scale the correct speed of the muon acting as a thrusting bar magnet in Faraday law. 

AP 

Newsgroups: sci.physics 
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2018 23:02:32 -0700 (PDT) 

Subject: is a factored 1,200 km/sec the speed of muon inside atoms//New 
 Chemistry replacing Old Chemistry, all replaced since real electron is the muon 
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> 
Injection-Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2018 06:02:33 +0000 

is a factored 1,200 km/sec the speed of muon inside atoms//New Chemistry replacing Old Chemistry, all replaced since real electron is the muon 

Now if we divide 300,000 by 1,200 is 250 some significant constant of Faraday law. I know 137 is inverse fine structure. 

Now if we were to find the fastest star speed at 2,190 km/sec thinking the star is near the upper limit of remaining in one piece 
Then i would be pleased to think such a speed is the actual speed of the muon inside all atoms. 

AP 


On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 1:49:30 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
star with speed 1,200km/sec; and trying to decipher what the speed is of the muon as bar magnet in every atom//New Chemistry where real electron = 105MeV, real proton = 840MeV, .5MeV was Dirac's magnetic monopole 

Now the fine structure constant is alpha = electric charge ^2 / hbar*c 

And hbar is equal to h/(2*pi) 

What this does is give me the inverse fine structure constant as 2*137 = 274. 

Now re-examine the star with hypervelocity of  US708 going at 1,200 km/sec and dividing 300,000 for speed of light by 1,200 is 250. So 250 is not far from that of 274. 

Can we see in physics that the upper limit of the speed of a star is 300,000/274 = 1,095 km/sec and that the speed of US708 is not really 1200km sec but rather is 1,095 with an error of plus or minus 105km/sec? 

Can we say that any star traveling faster than 1,095 will simply break apart. 

AP 

On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 2:59:56 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 

can any star survive a speed larger than 1095km/sec// is the speed of the electron=muon inside all atoms going at 1095km/sec as evidence by star US708 


Looked it up 

SCIENCE, 6MAR2015, The fastest unbound star in our Galaxy ejected by a thermonuclear supernova, Geier 

1157 +-53 km/sec 

So, we can safely say 1095km/sec is the actual speed 

And then say, no star can survive a speed greater than this 

AP 



> 
> On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 1:49:30 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> star with speed 1,200km/sec; and trying to decipher what the speed is of the muon as bar magnet in every atom//New Chemistry where real electron = 105MeV, real proton = 840MeV, .5MeV was Dirac's magnetic monopole 
> 
> Now the fine structure constant is alpha = electric charge ^2 / hbar*c 
> 
> And hbar is equal to h/(2*pi) 
> 
> What this does is give me the inverse fine structure constant as 2*137 = 274. 
> 
> Now re-examine the star with hypervelocity of  US708 going at 1,200 km/sec and dividing 300,000 for speed of light by 1,200 is 250. So 250 is not far from that of 274. 
> 
> Can we see in physics that the upper limit of the speed of a star is 300,000/274 = 1,095 km/sec and that the speed of US708 is not really 1200km sec but rather is 1,095 with an error of plus or minus 105km/sec? 
> 
> Can we say that any star traveling faster than 1,095 will simply break apart. 
> 
> AP 

I think I hit a goldmine here, an absolute goldmine that connects not only linear momentum with angular momentum 

alpha = e^2 / hbar*c 

For if you examine that carefully, it is a connecting of linear momentum hbar with angular momentum e^2 in that charge is a spin rotation. 

So a goldmine of sorts, for it connects Astronomy to Atomic Physics, in that the maximum speed in linear motion in astronomy is about 1,095 Km/sec  which is derived from 300,000km/sec divided by 137*2. 

Where 137 is the inverse fine structure constant and we pull the factor of 2 out of the hbar to make it just plain h, we revert from angular momentum to linear momentum, and there we have it, 300000/274 = 1095km/sec 

In astronomy, in cosmology, the fastest linear momentum speed you can find will be 1095km/sec 

This is connected to Atomic Physics, in the idea that a star or rock planet moving faster than 1095km/sec will just break up of its body by the sheer speed it is moving through space. 

AP 



The AP-Maxwell Equations

Within the AP equations I can get a limit, upper bound of speed in the Faraday law

1) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field  B = kg /A*s^2 
2) V = i*B*L       New Ohm's law, law of electricity 
3) V' = (i*B*L)'          Ampere-Maxwell law 
4) (V/i*L)'  = B'        Faraday law 
5) (V/(B*L))' = i'      the new law of spin 
6) (V/(i*B))' = L'      the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force 

> Faraday law 
> 
> B' = (V/i*L)' = (V'*i*L - V*i' *L - V*i*L') / (i*L)^2 
> 
> > = ((i_C)iL - VBL -Vi(i_C))/ i^2L^2 
> 
> Now if we assume currents are the same, where i and i_C are the same we reduce Faraday's law to this 
> 
> = 1/L - VB/i^2L - V/L^2 

Given the above justification table, that looks about correct, although I could refine the i_C, the capacitor current with respect to regular current i. 

This is Faraday's law, which gives electricity in the term VB/i^2L and has a Lenz law built in as V/L^2 and a spin term built in as 1/L 

So, within the AP equations the terms -VB/i^2 L - V/L^2 limits the term 1/L

Which makes commonsense, that the bar magnet in Faraday's law cannot be infinite speed but a rather cut-off point such as the speed of light divided by 2*fine structure constant.

This is a speed of 1095Km/sec and is seen in astronomy by star US708 whose speed is that of 1095km/sec.

AP

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#688575 — Pions are just multiples of muons and the muon in linear momentum is 105MeV and in Angular Momentum is 137MeV

Now this gives the Muon two special important numbers, both 105 and 137 MeV, in the linear momentum of the muon outside an atom and in the angular momentum of the muon as a Pion inside the atom (I may have that turned around backwards, for often in physics, we have the things backwards when newly discovered).

So the entire physics elementary particles of the MESONS table are just multiples of the muon.

AP

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

#688577 — 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] | [next] | [standalone]

#688585 — Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test

>Archimedes Plutonium fails:

>Alan was burnt out stub from school in science, and often, burnt out 
>stubbs latch onto the Internet, thinking that they are gifted in science, 
>when in truth, they are logic-misfits 

That is an *excellent* explanation of yourself, Archie!!

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web