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

Groups > sci.physics > #691839 > unrolled thread

AP is considering writing the definitive textbook on Physics, seeing that Halliday & Resnick no longer holds up-- flawed and mired by Old Math and GR & Big Bang

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  AP is considering writing the definitive textbook on Physics, seeing  that Halliday & Resnick no longer holds up-- flawed and mired by Old Math and  GR & Big Bang Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 13:19 -0700
    units Re: AP is considering writing the definitive textbook on Physics, seeing  that Halliday & Resnick no longer holds up-- flawed and mired by Old Math and  GR & Big Bang Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 13:38 -0700
      Re: units Re: AP is considering writing the definitive textbook on Physics, seeing  that Halliday & Resnick no longer holds up-- flawed and mired by Old Math and  GR & Big Bang Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 16:52 -0700
        Re: units Re: AP is considering writing the definitive textbook on Physics, seeing  that Halliday & Resnick no longer holds up-- flawed and mired by Old Math and  GR & Big Bang Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 17:45 -0700
          Why not call it angular energy rather than angular momentum Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 18:04 -0700
            In angular momentum we have mass/time is the analog of distance/time Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 18:52 -0700
    Re: AP is considering writing the definitive textbook on Physics, seeing  that Halliday & Resnick no longer holds up-- flawed and mired by Old Math and  GR & Big Bang Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-06-25 14:56 -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) - 2018-06-26 02:34 +0000

#691839 — AP is considering writing the definitive textbook on Physics, seeing that Halliday & Resnick no longer holds up-- flawed and mired by Old Math and GR & Big Bang

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 13:07:24 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: AP is considering writing the definitive textbook on Physics, seeing
 that Halliday & Resnick no longer holds up-- flawed and mired by Old Math and
 GR & Big Bang
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 20:07:25 +0000

AP is considering writing the definitive textbook on Physics, seeing that Halliday & Resnick no longer holds up-- flawed and mired by Old Math and GR & Big Bang

I am considering rewriting Physics, because of the poor Logic and Math. We can say that the Stewart text on Calculus was the best that flawed Old Math could do. Yet, all of that is trash because it was based on a Continuum and based on a Limit and based on no-definition of what infinite means. Stewart's Calculus is trash and only pollution to the mind, in mathematics. 

But then again, because the past 100 years in physics has been the worship of General Relativity and of gravity and Big Bang, we can also say, physics teaching for the past 100 years has been mostly trash. 

Looking at Halliday & Resnick, FUNDAMENTALS OF PHYSICS, 3rd ed, 1988, Table of Contents 

Chapter 1 Measurement 
Chapter 2 Motion in a Straight Line 
Chapter 3 Vectors 
Chapter 4 Motion in a Plane 
Chapter 5 Forces and Motion-1 
Chapter 6 Forces and Motion-2 
Chapter 7 Work and Energy 

We can consider those first seven chapters are all based upon the phony and fake understanding of Calculus, that phony calculus of Old Math. So that with New Math and its TRUE Calculus, would also, immensely affect Old Physics, with better understanding of Physics. 

This is so, so, very true, because it is obvious and easy to see that we have dolts in physics-- Steven Weinberg, Leon Lederman, Murray Gell-Man, Sheldon Glashow, Edward Witten, who thought and believed all their life career in physics, that you could have proton 938MeV, electron .5MeV and have angular momentum to allow for the Chemistry covalent bonding with an electron at .5MeV. So dumb in physics intuition was all physicists of the past 100 years, that the Real Proton was 840 MeV, Real Electron = Muon = 105 MeV and that ratio of 8 to 1 does give a angular momentum of the electrons to allow for a Chemistry bonding. The .5MeV particle was none other than Dirac's Magnetic Monopole, and sad to say, even Dirac was-- too poor in understanding and knowing-- what is Angular Momentum. 

So, I think I must be the one to rewrite the first 7 chapters of Physics textbooks, so as to bring Physics into New Physics that is true physics. 

But it will have to wait until after 2019, say 2020 for my plate is full with Teaching True Mathematics text. 

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH 
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu 


                ::\ ::|:: /:: 
                 ::\::|::/:: 
                     _ _ 
                    (:Y:) 
                     - - 
                 ::/::|::\:: 
                ::/ ::|:: \:: 
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. 
            . \ .  . | .   /. 
           . . \. . .|. . /. . 
              ..\....|.../... 
               ::\:::|::/:: 
---------------      ------------- 
--------------- (Y) ------------- 
---------------      -------------- 
               ::/:::|::\:: 
              ../....|...\... 
           . . /. . .|. . \. . 
            . / .  . | .   \ . 

  
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ 
whole entire Universe is just one big atom 
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies 

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.      

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. 

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe         
Archimedes Plutonium 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#691842 — units Re: AP is considering writing the definitive textbook on Physics, seeing that Halliday & Resnick no longer holds up-- flawed and mired by Old Math and GR & Big Bang

But as I wait until 2020 to write the definitive text on physics-- other than the Atom Totality text. I should start to fill in what is to come.

H&R gives this for their text:

Looking at Halliday & Resnick, FUNDAMENTALS OF PHYSICS, 3rd ed, 1988, Table of Contents 

Chapter 1 Measurement 
Chapter 2 Motion in a Straight Line 
Chapter 3 Vectors 
Chapter 4 Motion in a Plane 
Chapter 5 Forces and Motion-1 
Chapter 6 Forces and Motion-2 
Chapter 7 Work and Energy 

And in Chapter 1, I must do "units"

Units, units units-- how many times have I said that physics and units are the most important tool. Unless you are squared away with units, you will never be a physicist. And the error that most novices and cranks make is generally a error of units.

Product Rule of Calculus  (fgh)' = f'gh + fg'h +fgh' 
Quotient Rule of Calculus  (f/gh)' = (f'gh - fg'h - fgh')/(gh)^2 

velocity or speed = m/s 

acceleration = m/s^2 

linear momentum kg*m/s 

angular momentum = kg*m^2/s 

frequency = 1/s 

Force = kg*m/s^2 

Torque = moment arm * Force 

Current = i = dq/dt where q is charge and this can be written where t = seconds 

Pressure = kg / m*s^2 

Energy = kg*m^2 / s^2 

Power, or radiant flux = Energy times frequency, = kg*m^2 / s^3 

Quantity of Electricity, charge, Coulomb = C = A*s 

Inertia ML^2 

Energy = Force x distance = work = ML^2T^-2 

Kinetic Energy = 1/2 mv^2 =  1/2 ML^2T^-2 

Force = mass x acceleration = ma = MLT^-2 

velocity = LT^-1 

acceleration = LT^-2 

energy = ML^2T^-2 

force = MLT^-2 

frequency = T^-1 

momentum = MLT^-1 

Pressure = ML^-1T^-2 

Power = ML^2T^-3 

Entropy = ML^2T^-2 

Resistance = kg*m^2 /A^2*s^3 

electric current = i = A 

Angular momentum L = m^2/(A*s) 

Magnetic Field =  kg /A*s^2 

Voltage  = kg*m^2 /A*s^3 

velocity or speed = m/s 

acceleration = m/s^2 

angular momentum = m^2/s 

frequency = 1/s 

Force = kg*m/s^2 

Pressure = kg / m*s^2 

Energy = kg*m^2 / s^2 

Power, or radiant flux = Energy times frequency, = kg*m^2 / s^3 

Quantity of Electricity, charge, Coulomb = C = A*s 

Inertia ML^2 

Energy = Force x distance = work = ML^2T^-2 

Kinetic Energy = 1/2 mv^2 =  1/2 ML^2T^-2 

Force = mass x acceleration = ma = MLT^-2 

velocity = LT^-1 

acceleration = LT^-2 

energy = ML^2T^-2 

force = MLT^-2 

frequency = T^-1 

momentum = MLT^-1 

Pressure = ML^-1T^-2 

Power = ML^2T^-3 

Entropy = ML^2T^-2 

Magnetic Field =  kg /A*s^2 = kg /C*s 

Charge = C = A*s 

Voltage  = kg*m^2 /A*s^3 = kg*m^2 /C*s^2 

Pressure = kg/m*s^2 

Force = kg*m/s^2 

Power = kg*m^2/s^3 

Resistance = kg*m^2 /A^2*s^3  = kg*m^2 /C *A*s^2 

Capacitance = A^2*s^4/ kg*m^2 

velocity or speed = m/s 

acceleration = m/s^2 

angular momentum proportional m^2/s 

frequency = 1/s 

Force = kg*m/s^2 

Pressure = kg / m*s^2 

Energy = kg*m^2 / s^2 

Power, or radiant flux = Energy times frequency, = kg*m^2 / s^3 

Quantity of Electricity, charge, Coulomb = C = A*s 

Voltage is the (a) Electric Potential, the (b) Potential Difference and (c) Electromotive Force and all of which has the Units of W/A =  kg*m^2/A*s^3 

Capacitance = farad = C/V = A^2*s^4 / kg*m^2 

Electrical Resistance = ohm = kg*m^2 /A^2*s^3 

Conductance = A/V = A^2*s^3 / kg*m^2 

Magnetic Flux = V*s = kg*m^2 /A*s^2 

Magnetic Field = tesla = kg /A*s^2 

Resistance = kg*m^2/A^2*s^3 

Inductance =  kg*m^2 /A^2*s^2   

velocity = LT^-1 

acceleration = LT^-2 

energy = ML^2T^-2 

force = MLT^-2 

frequency = T^-1 

momentum = MLT^-1 

Pressure = ML^-1T^-2 

Power = ML^2T^-3 

Entropy = ML^2T^-2 

The above is a list of some important units.

Now, with my newfound knowledge that the CALCULUS true calculus is based upon the geometry of the Trapezoid, I hope to make clear--WHAT IS ANGULAR MOMENTUM, because, well, every physicist of the 1900s and into 2017, never understood what angular momentum was all about. If anyone understands Angular Momentum, they would instantly recognize that you cannot have the electron be .5MeV proton 938MeV and yet have Chemistry bonding of covalent bond.

So, if I do nothing else in math-physics but make it clear what Angular Momentum truly is, well, I have done a mountain in physics.

AP

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

#691868 — Re: units Re: AP is considering writing the definitive textbook on Physics, seeing that Halliday & Resnick no longer holds up-- flawed and mired by Old Math and GR & Big Bang

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 16:44:56 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Y=mx+b will make clear Angular Momentum Re: 2AP is considering
 writing the definitive textbook on Physics, seeing  that Halliday & Resnick
 no longer holds up-- flawed and mired by Old Math and  GR & Big Bang
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 23:44:56 +0000

Y=mx+b will make clear Angular Momentum Re: 2AP is considering writing the definitive textbook on Physics, seeing that Halliday & Resnick no longer holds up-- flawed and mired by Old Math and GR & Big Bang

Ever since J.J. Thomson discovered the electron in 1897 and found it had a mass of .5MeV. And all the physicists in the world, including my favorite Dirac, none of them could see a disparity there, a anomaly, a mistake, a contradiction to Angular Momentum. All of the physicists from 1897 to 2017, a span of 120 years time, not a single physicist nor chemist for that matter. Ever realized that you cannot have the electron be .5MeV proton be 938MeV and still have Chemistry covalent bonding. So low of an IQ in logic did all physicists and chemists have from 1897 to 2017. 

The only way that Chemistry covalent bonding exists, is if the real electron were the muon at 105MeV, proton at 840MeV, a ratio of 1 to 8, and then, in that ratio can you have existing the Chemistry covalent bond. And 8 is also an important number in Lewis diagram structure, for it is 8 that has -- on par energy levels of the 2S and 2P orbitals. 

You see, the problem of scientists from 1897 to 2017 is no-one, even my hero Dirac, understood what Angular Momentum was, what it meant, and how it works. For if they did, they would have instantly realized-- the electron cannot be .5MeV with proton at 938 MeV. And there, Dirac would have his magnetic monopole-- for the .5MeV particle was his sought for monopole. And that makes a whole lot of sense, does it not-- because Dirac wanted a monopole for the sake of, yes, the sake of electricity is quantized, and what better place to look for the monopole than this .5MeV particle. 

So, I need to write and rewrite the Physics math, for Old Physics relied on Old Math. And Old Math had no true calculus-- they had trash garbage calculus. You cannot understand Angular Momentum unless you have True Calculus. 

And it starts with UNITS of physics, and then it looks at one function in particular -- the function for a line in mathematics-- Y = mx + b 

From that line we get True Calculus which gives us the trapezoid figure and from that we turn to angular momentum. 

So in those units above we see velocity is d/t, distance divided by time which is slope or derivative 

We see acceleration is d/t^2 

We see momentum is mv or mass x velocity 

We see angular momentum is mass*mass divided by time m^2/t 

So, that is pretty hard to swallow, to stomach, to take in. And we can see why all physicists from 1897 to 2017 failed on identification of the true electron, because, well m^2/t is tough tough to fathom. 

But I believe the Trapezoid figure as true calculus and the line formula Y = mx + b will open that cloud of fog open it wide. 

AP

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

#691873 — Re: units Re: AP is considering writing the definitive textbook on Physics, seeing that Halliday & Resnick no longer holds up-- flawed and mired by Old Math and GR & Big Bang

Alright so, let us take the plunge.

Let us reveal Angular Momentum like never before.

Y=mx +b

Derivative is m, slope is derivative

Interpret it as velocity in physics

Now take integral of Y=mx +b

(m/2)x^2 +bx

We have an x^2 and the quick interpretation would be Kinetic Energy as 1/2mv^2

But another interpretation would consider the x^2 to mean mass^2 instead of velocity^2

AP

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

#691874 — Why not call it angular energy rather than angular momentum

And then stipulate that momentum only comes in a linear form.

Call it Angular Energy and it maybe what potential energy was in Old Physics.

Funny how today we here near Sioux City are experiencing a Nor’Easter, a cyclone rain that keeps spinning around and around.

Should we call it Angular Momentum, or is Angular Energy better?

You see for linear momentum we have motion of the v in mv

But in angular momentum we have mass*mass divided by time.

Hardly— what you would call motion, unless you consider that mass/time is motion as distance/time

AP

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

#691876 — In angular momentum we have mass/time is the analog of distance/time

On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 8:04:24 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> And then stipulate that momentum only comes in a linear form.
> 
> Call it Angular Energy and it maybe what potential energy was in Old Physics.
> 

No, Angular Momentum is good, better than Angular-Energy. So let us stick with Angular Momentum, and consider that in Linear Momentum of mass*(d/t) in Angular Momentum we have mass*(mass/t) where we consider the difference betwee Linear and Angular is that of d/t versus mass/t.

This is very very difficult to comprehend that mass/time is the same as distance/time. Because, well, the mass is in pieces and parts and is spinning around, whereas in linear momentum the mass is in a "whole" and is moving forward in d/t.


> Funny how today we here near Sioux City are experiencing a Nor’Easter, a cyclone rain that keeps spinning around and around.
> 
> Should we call it Angular Momentum, or is Angular Energy better?
> 
> You see for linear momentum we have motion of the v in mv
> 
> But in angular momentum we have mass*mass divided by time.
> 
> Hardly— what you would call motion, unless you consider that mass/time is motion as distance/time
> 

The Nor'Easter is a good example of Angular Momentum in that the clouds of rain have a mass "in whole" and divided by time cause rainfall.

And a month or so ago, someone was asking me how I know that proton 938MeV and electron at .5MeV is impossible to create a Chemistry covalent bond. And I gave him a long answer which missed the mark.

Today that answer is easily seen. 

If the electron was .5MeV and with Angular Momentum of mass*mass/time then a covalent bond of H2, dihydrogen would be angular momentum of .5MeV * .5MeV = .25 MeV whereas if the electron = 105MeV we have the covalent bond being 105MeV *105MeV = 11,025MeV Angular Momentum, making sense with the protons of helium nucleus as angular momentum of 840MeV*840MeV = 705,600MeV a difference of 1 to 64 times.

You see, the electron at .5MeV in a bond with another .5MeV is just not enough to sustain a bond.

AP

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

#691857

On Monday, June 25, 2018 at 1:19:06 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Newsgroups: sci.math
> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 13:07:24 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> Subject: AP is considering writing the definitive textbook on Physics, seeing
>  that Halliday & Resnick no longer holds up-- flawed and mired by Old Math and
>  GR & Big Bang
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Injection-Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 20:07:25 +0000
> 
> AP is considering writing the definitive textbook on Physics, seeing that Halliday & Resnick no longer holds up-- flawed and mired by Old Math and GR & Big Bang
> 
> I am considering rewriting Physics, because of the poor Logic and Math. We can say that the Stewart text on Calculus was the best that flawed Old Math could do. Yet, all of that is trash because it was based on a Continuum and based on a Limit and based on no-definition of what infinite means. Stewart's Calculus is trash and only pollution to the mind, in mathematics. 


I guess Jimmy Stewart should have kept to acting!

Double-A

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

#691883 — Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test

Not very smart....

Archimedes Plutonium fails:

>I have please asked Google to engineer a delete key to original authors of
>threads-- so they can delete rabid stalkers like Burse, Moroney

>Google, please give original authors of a thread the power to delete any
>followup post to that thread. Moroney is a 26 year long stalker, whose
>only message is I hate your guts and say anything to oppose you.

>Please engineer a delete key to make sci.math a level playing field, where
>original authors can develop their ideas in one thread, not be hassled and
>bullied by gangs of stalkers whose only game is ad hominem and get you
>kicked out or run away. And if you have a crazy like Moroney, let him
>start his own thread and poop all over the walls there.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web