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

Groups > sci.physics > #691897 > unrolled thread

3AP is considering writing the definitive textbook on Physics, seeing that Halliday & Resnick no longer holds up

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  3AP is considering writing the definitive textbook on Physics, seeing  that Halliday & Resnick no longer holds up Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 20:50 -0700
    3AP is considering writing the definitive textbook on Physics, seeing  that Halliday & Resnick no longer holds up Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 21:37 -0700
      3AP is considering writing the definitive textbook on Physics, seeing  that Halliday & Resnick no longer holds up Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 01:37 -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 12:56 +0000
          Paul Joss, Marty Walsh, Charlie Baker, Vera Kistiakowsky, Earle Lomon -- do you Encourage Moroney to every day come attack AP for doing math and physics? Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 13:32 -0700
        until we experimentally measure the maximum electricity coil mass of magnet versus mass coil Re:.. writing the definitive textbook on Physics, seeing  that Halliday & Resnick no longer holds up Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 07:49 -0700

#691897 — 3AP is considering writing the definitive textbook on Physics, seeing that Halliday & Resnick no longer holds up

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. 

AP




Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 13:38:20 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: 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
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 20:38:20 +0000


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 

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 

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 17:45:12 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: 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
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 00:45:12 +0000

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 

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 18:52:34 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: In angular momentum we have mass/time is the analog of distance/time
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 01:52:35 +0000

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 


Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 20:24:36 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Is the EM force 1/64 compared to strong nuclear at 1 Re: 2AP is
 considering writing the definitive textbook on Physics,...
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 03:24:36 +0000


Is the EM force 1/64 compared to strong nuclear at 1 Re: 2AP is considering writing the definitive textbook on Physics,...


> Newsgroups: sci.physics 
> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 18:52:34 -0700 (PDT) 
> 
> Subject: In angular momentum we have mass/time is the analog of distance/time 
> From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> 
> Injection-Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 01:52:35 +0000 
> 
> 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. 
> 

Source-- Feynman's Lecture on Physics 

        Table 2-3.  Elementary Interactions 
        Coupling                Strength*                        Law 
Photon to charged particles   ~10 -2             Law known 
Gravity to all energy               ~10 -40      Law known 
radioactive decay                   ~10 -5         Law partially known 
Mesons to baryons               ~1      Law unknown (some rules known) 
*The strength is a dimensionless measure of the coupling constant involved 
in each interaction ( ~ means approximately equal to). 


So I wonder if Feynman's 1/100 for EM versus 1 for Strong Nuclear is more accurately 1/64, from the ratio of 105MeV muon versus 840MeV for proton. 

So is the strength of EM really 1/64, not 1/100 

AP 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#691902

Few minutes ago I wrote: 
> 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. 
> 

Source-- Feynman's Lecture on Physics 

        Table 2-3.  Elementary Interactions 
        Coupling                Strength*                        Law 
Photon to charged particles   ~10 -2             Law known 
Gravity to all energy               ~10 -40      Law known 
radioactive decay                   ~10 -5         Law partially known 
Mesons to baryons               ~1      Law unknown (some rules known) 
*The strength is a dimensionless measure of the coupling constant involved 
in each interaction ( ~ means approximately equal to). 


So I wonder if Feynman's 1/100 for EM versus 1 for Strong Nuclear is more accurately 1/64, from the ratio of 105MeV muon versus 840MeV for proton. 

So is the strength of EM really 1/64, not 1/100 

So now, what would be the strength of the EM force listed by Feynman if the electron were the .5MeV particle and proton was 938 MeV, for would Feynman have had to list it as .5x.5 = .25MeV and 938x938 = 879,844MeV divided by .25 = 4*10^6 so instead of 1/100 (which I think is 1/64 to be more accurate) we would have the EM force as 2*10^-7 compared to Strong Nuclear. 

AP

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

#691915

No it is not a mistake on my part as a friend pointed out. 

I know angular momentum is kg*meter*meter/ seconds

But what is distance inside a atom

So for electrons and protons angular momentum can be seen as mass*mass*frequency

Linear momentum is mass*velocity

For large objects we have distance and area. For atomic and molecular we have mass^2

That was not a mistake on my part, yesterday, but a reconciliation of Y =mx+b is linear momentum but the integral is angular momentum and the (m/2)x^2 +bx that x^2 is not meters^2 but mass^2

AP

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

#691920 — Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test

Physics Failure Archimedes Plutonium fails:

> No it is not a mistake on my part as a friend pointed out. 

Yes it was a mistake on your part to attack me again.

Don't fail again.

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

#691948 — Paul Joss, Marty Walsh, Charlie Baker, Vera Kistiakowsky, Earle Lomon -- do you Encourage Moroney to every day come attack AP for doing math and physics? Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole

On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 7:56:27 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Physics Failure 

Paul Joss, Marty Walsh, Charlie Baker, Vera Kistiakowsky, Earle Lomon -- do you Encourage Moroney to every day come attack AP for doing math and physics? Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole

On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 10:29:18 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> Back to attacking, 


Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test Group: sci.math (Member) 
... too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test. More repost of ad hominem against me. Do you need to be punished? 
Jun 2 by Michael Moroney 


Gary Feldman, Marty Walsh, Charlie Baker,Douglas Finkbeiner, Melissa Franklin -- Moroney asks why you keep failing with identity of Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole 


AP writes: Google has abuse, but what good is that when it cannot recognize a 26 year long stalker Moroney with his ad hominem bully stalking-- never any math or physics. I have asked Google to engineer a delete key to original authors of threads, so that would eliminate bully stalkers, if the author so desires. 

Paul Joss, Marty Walsh, Charlie Baker, Vera Kistiakowsky, Earle Lomon -- Moroney asks why you keep failing with identity of Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole 
  

> 
> percentage for Moroney, 938 is what percent short of 945 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> > 
> > Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon. 
> > Hardly "exactly" 9 muons. 
> 
> Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> > 
> > Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572.  A proton is about the mass 
> > of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short. 
> 
> AP writes: 
> Does the state of Massachusetts ever have education reviews. For here is a stalker of Moroney for 25 years-- obsessive stalker of AP, and only AP, says he is a electrical engineer yet never admits to mistakes that 938 is not 12% short of 945, but only .7% short, less than 1% short. So what kind of engineer is it from Barry Shein's std.com, that cannot even do a percentage correctly and never admits to mistakes, only stalks and harasses other people who do know math and science. 
> 
> Why is std.com so hateful of the tv program THIS OLD HOUSE, when I have learned so much from that show. 
> 

> 
> Why is std.com such a antiscience ISP, with Moroney hating percentage problem, hating geothermal-- is std.com the worst isp for science in Boston, or is Barry Shein topped by someone else? 
> 
> 
> President: L. Reif (electrical engineer) 
> 
> MIT physics dept 
> William Bertozzi, Robert Birgeneau, Hale Bradt, Bernard Burke, George Clark , Jeffrey Goldstone, Thomas Greytak, Lee Grodzins , Paul Joss, Vera Kistiakowsky, Earle Lomon*, Irwin Pless, Paul Schechter, James Young* 
> 
>    /\-------/\ 
>    \::O:::O::/ 
>   (::_  ^  _::) 
>    \_`-----'_/ 
> You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Boston? 
> And, even though you-- professors of physics, want to remain stupid in Real Electron=105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, and .5MeV was Dirac's magnetic monopole, your students deserve better. 
> 
> Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach percentages correctly-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole 
> 
> President Larry Summers 
> 
> Harvard Physics dept 
> Jacob Barandes, Howard Berg, Michael Brenner, Adam Cohen, Eugene Demler, Michael Desai 
> Louis Deslauriers, John Doyle, Cora Dvorkin*, Gary Feldman, Douglas Finkbeiner, Melissa Franklin, Gerald Gabrielse, Howard Georgi, Sheldon Glashow, Roy Glauber, Jene Golovchenko, Markus Greiner, Roxanne Guenette, Girma Hailu, Bertrand Halperin, Lene Hau 
> Thomas Hayes, Eric Heller, Jason Hoffman, Jenny Hoffman, Gerald Holton, Paul Horowitz, John Huth, Arthur Jaffe, Daniel Jafferis, Efthimios Kaxiras, Philip Kim, John Kovac, Erel Levine 
> Mikhail Lukin, Logan McCarty, L. Mahadevan, Vinothan Manoharan, Eric Mazur, Masahiro Morii 
> David Morin, Julia Mundy, Cherry Murray, David Nelson, Kang Ni, Hongkun Park, William Paul 
> Peter Pershan, Mara Prentiss, Lisa Randall, Matthew Reece, Subir Sachdev, Aravinthan Samuel, Matthew Schwartz, Irwin Shapiro, Isaac Silvera, Andrew Strominger, Christopher Stubbs, Cumrun Vafa, Ronald Walsworth, David Weitz, Robert Westervelt, Richard Wilson 
> Tai Wu, Amir Yacoby, Susanne Yelin, Xi Yin 
> 
> 
> Can someone in the Boston area make sure this numbskull is never a science teacher in Boston-- and the damage he can do to a classroom 
> 
> Mike Moroney, science failure-- on geothermal 
> 
> 
> (1) 
> On Monday, May 9, 2016 at 12:15:22 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> > 
> > There are some places here that use "geothermal" for heating and cooling 
> > but even these are solar power in disguise.  They pump water from wells 
> > from where the temperature is the average over many years and extract heat 
> > from it (in the winter) and dump heat into it (in the summer) and pump the 
> > water back into the ground.  The water is about 55F out of the ground. 
> 
> 
> 
> (2) 
> On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 1:31:27 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:   
> 
> > 
> > >Just as a point of order, what you described is not geothermal. What 
> > >you've just described is thermal balancing with water, using water 
> > >cooler than air from the water table to cool a building in the summer, 
> > >and using water warmer than air from the water table to warm a building 
> > >in the winter. 
> > 
> > In other words, glorified solar energy.  Solar energy stored and averaged 
> > out over many, many years. 
> > 
> 
> (3) 
> On Friday, December 23, 2016 at 8:44:12 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> > 
> > Admit it, you were fooled by a "This Old House" type show where they 
> > use a high-tech sounding buzzword to impress people who don't know any 
> > better. 
> > 
> > Just answer one question, if you can.  If it's really geothermal, why 
> > is the temperature only 51 degrees, but in Iceland, where there's real 
> > geothermal, they're accessing temperatures of hundreds of degrees? 
> 
> 
> (4) 
> > On Friday, December 23, 2016 at 10:40:09 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> > > 
> > > Pretty cool, fossil solar energy! 51 degrees, the average of summer and 
> > > winter temperatures for hundreds or even thousands of years, depending 
> > > on how deep they go. 
> > > 
> > > Too bad you do have to use real energy to run the heat pump, although it 
> > > is much better than simply using that energy to make heat. 
> > 
> 
> (5) 
> On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 12:30:56 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> > 
> > It's amusing how he can't handle that at all. Just like he can't 
> > handle the concept of permafrost when he goes off on geothermal 
> > energy.  All he can do is attack. 
> 
> (6) 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 12:21:15 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: 
> 
> > geothermal heat energy is 99% from the sun where he was (unsure where, 
> > Mass. I think) 
> > 
> > Now tell us where Permafrost comes from. 
> > 
> > p.p.s. I was searching because I am actually looking into getting 
> > geothermal heat. Fossil solar energy is a great resource! 
> 
> 
By Archimedes Plutonium 
------------------------- 

SEE PICTURE DIAGRAM of FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS below, professors hate teaching this for it shows their "limit calculus to be a joke" 

PICTURE DIAGRAM OF FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS 

By April 2015, was there for the first time a picture diagram proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC, not just an analysis argument, but a geometry proof (see below). Old Math could never assemble a picture diagram of the FTC. All they could do is argue with limit concept an analysis argument, never a geometry proof of FTC. 

A picture diagram proof of FTC changes all of calculus and thus, changes all of mathematics for it requires a infinity borderline to produce an actual number for the  infinitesimal, and that number is the inverse of the infinity borderline. Requiring a infinity borderline to produce the infinitesimal changes all of mathematics, and throwing out the limit concept. By changing all of Calculus and thus correcting mathematics, all of math before 2015 was just trash math. 

Picture Diagram needed for Fundamental Theorem of Calculus 

Why no continuum and no curves exist in Math, so that the Calculus 
can exist, and does exist 

by Archimedes Plutonium 

Calculus is based upon there being Grid points in geometry, no 
continuum, but actually, empty space between two neighboring points. 
This is called Discrete geometry, and in physics, this is called 
Quantum Mechanics. In 10 Grid, the first few numbers are 0, .1, .2, 
.3, etc. That means there does not exist any number between 0 and .1, 
no number exists between .1 and .2. Now if you want more precise 
numbers, you go to a higher Grid like that of 100 Grid where the first 
few numbers are 0, .01, .02, .03, etc. 

Calculus in order to exist at all, needs this empty space between 
consecutive numbers or successor numbers. It needs that empty space so 
that the integral of calculus is actually small rectangles whose 
interior area is not zero. So in 10 Grid, the smallest width of any 
Calculus rectangle is of width .1. In 100 Grid the smallest width is 
.01. 

But, this revolutionary understanding of Calculus does not stop with 
the Integral, for having empty space between numbers, means no curves 
in math exist, but are ever tinier straight-line segments. 

It also means, that the Derivative in Calculus is part and parcel of 
the function graph itself. So that in a function such as y = x^2, the 
function graph is the derivative at a point. In Old Math, they had the 
folly and idiocy of a foreign, alien tangent line to a function graph 
as derivative. In New Math, the derivative is the same as the function 
graph itself. And, this makes commonsense, utter commonsense, for the 
derivative is a prediction of the future of the function in question, 
and no way in the world can a foreign tangent line to a point on the 
function be able to predict, be able to tell where the future point of 
that function be. The only predictor of a future point of a function, 
is the function graph itself. 

If the Calculus was done correctly, conceived correctly, then a 
minimal diagram explains all of Calculus. Old Math never had such a 
diagram, because Old Math was in total error of what Calculus is, and 
what Calculus does. 

The fundamental picture of all of Calculus are these two of a 
trapezoid and rectangle. In fact, call the picture, the 

FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS, Picture 

Trapezoid for derivative as the roof-top of 
the trapezoid, which must be a straight-line segment. If it is curved, 
you cannot fold it down to form a integral rectangle. And the 
rectangle for integral as area. 

From this: 
        B 
        /| 
      /  | 
 A /----| 
  /      | 
|        | 
|____| 


The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative) 
so that it can be hinged at A, and swiveled down to form rectangle for 
integral. 

To this: 

______ 
|         | 
|         | 
|         | 
--------- 

And the derivative of x= A, above is merely the dy/dx involving points 
A and B. Thus, it can never be a curve in Calculus. And the AB is part 
of the function graph itself. No curves exist in mathematics and no 
continuum exists in mathematics. 

In the above we see that CALCULUS needs and requires a diagram in 
which you can go from derivative to integral, or go from integral to 
derivative, by simply a hinge down to form a rectangle for area, or a 
hinge up to form the derivative from a given rectangle. 

Why in Old Math could no professor of math ever do the Calculus 
Diagram? Why? The answer is simple, no-one in Old Math pays attention 
to Logic, and that no-one in Old Math was required to take formal 
Logic when they attended school. So a person bereft of Logic, is never 
going to find mistakes of Logic and think clear and think straight. 

by Archimedes Plutonium 
------------------ 
------------------- 



Proofs that the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV, and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall 

12 PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon 
by Archimedes Plutonium 

Proofs that the Real Electron=muon and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall 
> 
PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon 

1st proof is chemical bonding cannot exist with momentum of 938 versus .5MeV 
Chemical Bonds are covalent, ionic, metallic. You simply cannot get atoms to bond if the electron is thought of as the .5MeV particle, only with a muon at 105 MeV and the proton at 840 MeV with neutron at 945 MeV do you have the physics of angular momentum that allows bonding in Chemistry. The .5MeV particle was, all along a magnetic monopole of a photon with .5 MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy. 

AP 

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

#691924 — until we experimentally measure the maximum electricity coil mass of magnet versus mass coil Re:.. writing the definitive textbook on Physics, seeing that Halliday & Resnick no longer holds up

On Tuesday, June 26, 2018 at 3:37:40 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> No it is not a mistake on my part as a friend pointed out. 
> 
> I know angular momentum is kg*meter*meter/ seconds
> 
> But what is distance inside a atom
> 

We have the electron-dot-cloud and how does one make out distance in that setting.

So I looked into calling it the Angular Energy 1/2mv^2 the counterpart of Kinetic Energy

For in the equation of motion Y = mx + b

The integral is (m/2)x^2 + bx

And so, is the "x^2" distance or mass


> So for electrons and protons angular momentum can be seen as mass*mass*frequency
> 
> Linear momentum is mass*velocity
> 
> For large objects we have distance and area. For atomic and molecular we have mass^2
> 


Source-- Feynman's Lecture on Physics 

        Table 2-3.  Elementary Interactions 
        Coupling                Strength*                        Law 
Photon to charged particles   ~10 -2             Law known 
Gravity to all energy               ~10 -40      Law known 
radioactive decay                   ~10 -5         Law partially known 
Mesons to baryons               ~1      Law unknown (some rules known) 
*The strength is a dimensionless measure of the coupling constant involved 
in each interaction ( ~ means approximately equal to). 

So Feynman says approx 1/100 for EM versus Strong-Nuclear

When we have muon = electron and .5MeV = magnetic monopole, using Y = mx+b

We have (m/2) x^2 + bx integral

Since muon = 105 and proton = 840 MeV we have 1/8*1/8*1/2 = 1/128

So did Feynman mean 1/100 or better yet 1/128

I have asked for experimental evidence of Maximum Electric Coil in Faraday Law wherein we measure the mass of the coil versus mass of the bar Magnet. Therein, is there a ratio of 1 to 8 also?

We do see a ratio of 1 to 8 in Lewis Structure of energy levels, for Lewis went on the idea of 2S plus 2P orbitals are same energy level and thus Lewis had his atoms surrounded by 8 electrons. The AP structure is far different than Lewis in the AP structure is Faraday law with proton as coil and electron = muon = bar magnet.

So here I need experimental proof that 8 or 1/8 is a relationship of Maximum coil to bar magnet in Faraday's Law.


> That was not a mistake on my part, yesterday, but a reconciliation of Y =mx+b is linear momentum but the integral is angular momentum and the (m/2)x^2 +bx that x^2 is not meters^2 but mass^2
> 
> 

It is easy to see that linear momentum mv when taking the integral is 1/2mv^2 is Linear Kinetic Energy and then taking the derivative of Linear Kinetic Energy is momentum mv

So taking the integral of angular momentum kg*v*frequency is what sort of energy? So thus, I proposed that angular momentum inside atoms was mass^2*frequency in Y= mx+b

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web