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

Groups > sci.physics > #691932 > unrolled thread

2why the electron must be 105 MeV, not the minuscule .5MeV Re: 5AP 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

  2why the electron must be 105 MeV, not the minuscule .5MeV Re: 5AP 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 09:11 -0700
    the chemical covalent bond is a joining of two attendant protons into larger coil// the muons joining Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 11:31 -0700
      the chemical covalent bond is a joining of two attendant protons into larger coil// the muons joining Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 12:27 -0700
        the chemical covalent bond is a joining of two attendant protons into larger coil// the muons joining Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 14:08 -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 22:37 +0000

#691932 — 2why the electron must be 105 MeV, not the minuscule .5MeV Re: 5AP is considering writing the definitive textbook on Physics, seeing that Halliday & Resnick no longer holds up

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 21:29:45 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: why the electron must be 105 MeV, not the minuscule .5MeV Re: 5AP is
 considering writing the definitive textbook on Physics, seeing  that Halliday
 & Resnick no longer holds up
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 04:29:46 +0000

why the electron must be 105 MeV, not the minuscule .5MeV Re: 5AP is considering writing the definitive textbook on Physics, seeing that Halliday & Resnick no longer holds up

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

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 01:37:36 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: 3AP is considering writing the definitive textbook on Physics, seeing
  that Halliday & Resnick no longer holds up
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 08:37:37 +0000

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 

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 07:49:48 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: 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
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 14:49:48 +0000

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] | [next] | [standalone]

#691936 — the chemical covalent bond is a joining of two attendant protons into larger coil// the muons joining

What Old Physics had for the chemical covalent bond is just a fuzzy notion of sharing of electrons , those .5MeV particles. 

What New Physics has for the covalent bond is that two valence muons with their two attendant protons-- the proton coils join to form one large coil-- a torus, full torus coil and the two valence muons are the bar magnets that perform the Faraday Law inside the torus of 2 protons. Now do the two muons join to form one magnet or do they remain separate independent magnets? Since the proton coils join up, I would reckon the two muons join up to form one bar magnet. If we picture the muon as a coil magnet instead of a bar magnet, then it is easy to picture two magnet coils joining to form one larger magnet coil.

AP

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

#691939 — the chemical covalent bond is a joining of two attendant protons into larger coil// the muons joining

The silly notions in Old Physics, Old Chemistry, that bonding was “sharing”. Sharing is not even a physical attribute. It is like saying bonding occurs when electrons fall in love and stay together.

On the other hand if you said bonding is the joining together of two separate coils to form one coil, then you have physical reality.

But this all gets back to the main criticism— particles in Old Physics had no function, no task, no job. In New Physics, particles had a job of performing Faraday Law to grow the atom, from element Z to that of Z+1.

AP

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

#691953 — the chemical covalent bond is a joining of two attendant protons into larger coil// the muons joining

And we have to ask the history of the “exchange particle” as all part of the rum-dummy Standard Model.

STANDARD MODEL
a) particles are round balls in atoms performing no tasks or jobs
b) bonding in chemistry of covalent is sharing electrons
c) forces are the exchange of a particle coming from the idea of “sharing”

AP MODEL
a) particles are either a Faraday law magnet or a coil, or monopole or capacitor all doing the Maxwell equations
b) bonding is when 2 protons join their coil into one coil or when 2 electrons = muons join their magnet coil into 1 magnet coil.
c) forces are all EM forces — Coulomb attraction.

AP

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

#691971 — Re: Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the physics lifetime-generation test

No math, no science, Archie Poo has nothing but attacks.

Math and Physics Failure 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