Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #691385 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-06-20 11:58 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-09-23 12:53 -0700 |
| Articles | 19 on this page of 39 — 3 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 11:58 -0700
Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 13:39 -0700
Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 13:19 -0700
Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-26 20:07 -0700
Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-06-28 15:12 -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) - 2018-06-29 03:16 +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) - 2018-06-29 03:19 +0000
Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-07-01 12:26 -0700
Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-07-04 12:37 -0700
Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-07-07 09:27 -0700
Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-07-08 17:31 -0700
Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-07-10 15:39 -0700
Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-07-13 16:44 -0700
Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-07-16 14:30 -0700
Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-07-17 21:18 -0700
Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-07-20 14:47 -0700
Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-07-25 21:15 -0700
Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-07-29 12:19 -0700
Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 09:20 -0700
Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-07-31 09:21 -0700
Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-08-03 12:18 -0700
Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-08-05 18:40 -0700
Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-08-07 18:03 -0700
Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 14:05 -0700
page1 True Chemistry Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-08-16 12:49 -0700
Re: page1 True Chemistry Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-08-18 09:22 -0700
Re: page1 True Chemistry Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-08-22 16:11 -0700
Re: page1 True Chemistry Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-08-25 22:25 -0700
Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-26 05:30 +0000
Re: page1 True Chemistry Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-08-28 22:30 -0700
Re: page1 True Chemistry Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-09-03 14:38 -0700
Re: page1 True Chemistry Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 15:49 -0700
Re: page1 True Chemistry Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-09-09 13:41 -0700
Re: page1 True Chemistry Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 07:30 -0700
Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-12 19:14 +0000
Re: page1 True Chemistry Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-09-16 14:50 -0700
Re: page1 True Chemistry Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-09-20 00:44 -0700
Re: page1 True Chemistry Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Andy Smith <invalid@example.com> - 2018-09-20 07:44 -0700
Wish Leon Lederman well on his fight with Alzheimers-- news his family selling medals for treatment, thanks for the contributions to physics science, Leon!!! Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-09-23 12:53 -0700
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-03 12:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d838189f-3356-4d6b-99ea-e2fb9604539d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #696506 |
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 23:35:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Bethe's starpower depends on a 1 in 1 billion chance Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 07:35:00 +0000 Bethe's starpower depends on a 1 in 1 billion chance Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole Quoting Wikipedia below, on how the Sun mostly shines out energy. However, the huge problem is that daft scientists who believe in this nonsense-- must explain how it is that a proton undergoes this fusion with a probability of taking place in 1 in 1 billion years. You see, our Sun shines profusely, yet physicists of Old Physics think this dependable profuse shining has a mechanism of 1 in 1 billion. This is the silly Bethe Solar fusion. The AP Starpower is based on the Faraday Law, that each and every atom inside the Sun, everyone of them has protons composed of 8muons, where 1 proton = 8muons, and where the electron = 1 muon and the .5MeV particle is not the electron, but a magnetic monopole. Every proton inside the Sun is doing a Faraday Law mechanism where it is a 8 muon closed loop wire and the electronMuon is a bar magnet that moves inside the proton and creates a electricity of a monopole that flows in the proton. The proton can emit this monopole outside its atom and eventually escape the Sun and find its way to hitting Earth. What the Faraday law in the Sun is doing is eating up Space, and converting it into magnetic monopoles. Now, any reader can read and believe in the farfetched silly and stupid Bethe Solar fusion with its 1 in 1 billion chance of being successful. Or, they can read AP's way of stars shining, that each and every proton inside a star is doing the Faraday law and creating monopoles out of the Space the star occupies. We see stars shining each and every minute, each and every day. Do you honestly believe the dependability, the reliability of stars shining depends on a probability of 1 in a billion, or, do you believe in AP's view-- every proton inside a star is making sunlight, making photons. --- quoting Wikipedia --- followed by the beta-plus decay of the diproton to deuterium: 2 2He → 2 1H + e+ + ν e with the overall formula: 1 1H + 1 1H → 2 1H + e+ + ν e + 0.42 MeV This first step is extremely slow because the positron emission of the diproton to deuterium is extremely rare (the vast majority of the time, the diproton decays back into two hydrogen-1 unbound protons through proton emission). This is because the emission of the positron is brought about by the weak nuclear force, which is immensely weaker than the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force. The half-life of a proton in the core of the Sun before it is involved in a successful proton–proton fusion is estimated to be about one billion years, even at the extreme pressures and temperatures found there. Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 23:55:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Bethe's starpower depends on a 1 in 1 billion chance Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 07:55:50 +0000 Re: Bethe's starpower depends on a 1 in 1 billion chance Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 1:35:03 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Quoting Wikipedia below, on how the Sun mostly shines out energy. However, the huge problem is that daft scientists who believe in this nonsense-- must explain how it is that a proton undergoes this fusion with a probability of taking place in 1 in 1 billion years. You see, our Sun shines profusely, yet physicists of Old Physics think this dependable profuse shining has a mechanism of 1 in 1 billion. This is the silly Bethe Solar fusion. The AP Starpower is based on the Faraday Law, that each and every atom inside the Sun, everyone of them has protons composed of 8muons, where 1 proton = 8muons, and where the electron = 1 muon and the .5MeV particle is not the electron, but a magnetic monopole. Every proton inside the Sun is doing a Faraday Law mechanism where it is a 8 muon closed loop wire and the electronMuon is a bar magnet that moves inside the proton and creates a electricity of a monopole that flows in the proton. The proton can emit this monopole outside its atom and eventually escape the Sun and find its way to hitting Earth. What the Faraday law in the Sun is doing is eating up Space, and converting it into magnetic monopoles. > Now my critics would immediately jump up and down and say-- well, if that is true, why is planet Earth not shining for its atoms have protons and electrons doing the Faraday Law. Why is Earth not shining? And that is a good question. And perhaps I have no fast immediate answer other than to say, you need the momentum in a hot kinetic energy environment such as the Sun and stars. Realize, that when you do the Faraday Law with a slow moving magnet, you get little current. Now, my theory of Faraday Law causing stars to shine, not the feeble fusion in stars. If correct, then there is the good chance that large planets, like Jupiter have some "glow" or enormous radio noise of photons in the radio wave frequency. So we have on Jupiter, much radio noise but little to account for what makes Jupiter's radio wave noise. So the Faraday mechanism easily would say that some of the protons on Jupiter have a rapid motion electron=muon act as a bar magnet creating a monopole but a monopole not large like the sun, but rather radio photons. Also, the Faraday Law Mechanism of stars shining would easily explain why the hottest part of the Sun is not its center but its outer surface. AP Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 00:08:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: Faraday mechanism explains Atomic Bombs better Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 08:08:18 +0000 Faraday mechanism explains Atomic Bombs better Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole And, alas, something I never thought I would involve with, atomic bombs. It is thought that in a fusion bomb, that atoms are fusing to create the enormous energy. But, there is always required a fission bomb explode before it sets off the fusion part of the bomb. But, what I contend is that, although some fusion is occurring but what is really happening is that the fission part of the bomb raises the kinetic energy of the protons and their electrons=muons to perform Faraday Law and that the explosion is a maximization not of fusing protons, but rather of creating much Faraday Law electricity as monopoles. Now a quick test of this Faraday mechanism would be to analyze the gamma radiation in a fusion bomb explosion. Does the gamma radiation fit with fusion of protons or does it fit with Faraday Law as electricity in gamma monopoles. I would guess that if Faraday Law is at work here, not fusion that you would have immensely more gamma radiation than what fusion would say. AP Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 01:17:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Faraday mechanism explains Atomic Bombs better Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 09:17:26 +0000 Faraday mechanism explains Atomic Bombs better Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole Looking for anomalies in hydrogen bombs-- Volume 60, Issue 1 March 1955 Pages 45–52 Effects of radioactive debris from nuclear explosions on the electrical conductivity of the lower atmosphere Authors D. Lee Harris First published: March 1955Full publication history DOI: 10.1029/JZ060i001p00045 View/save citation Cited by (CrossRef): 14 articles Check for updates Citation tools Abstract An increase in the ionization near the ground due to the fall-out from a radioactive cloud formed by a nuclear explosion will increase the conductivity and lower the potential gradient in the lower atmosphere. Records of atmospheric conductivity and potential gradient from the Tucson Magnetic Observatory are compared with records of the deposition of atomic debris on the ground following the Nevada tests. The observed changes are not inconsistent with values computed from theoretical considerations. Most of the effects are confined to a very shallow layer, within a few meters of the ground. Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 01:29:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Faraday mechanism explains Atomic Bombs better Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 09:29:10 +0000 Faraday mechanism explains Atomic Bombs better Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole Now here is a remarkable website arguing that Mars had a Hydrogen bomb explosion. I would argue that his isotope studies are evidence of the Faraday Law inside of atoms and not that of fusion. Evidence for a Large Anomalous Nuclear Explosions in Mars Past PDFspsr.utsi.edu › articles › EvidenceforaLar... by JE Brandenburg Hydrogen bombs are boosted by fission of a uranium or thorium casing ~50% of ... Delayed neutrons. Acidalia debris. Gamma rays. Before event. Immediately after event. Present old surface old surface old surface. Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 12:23:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Faraday mechanism explains Atomic Bombs better Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 20:23:01 +0000 Faraday mechanism explains Atomic Bombs better Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole Now here is more information on that Mars hypothetical nuclear explosion:: of course i am going to comment line by line explaining that in nuclear fusion there is little to no fusion going on but rather a Faraday Law --- quoting --- By Tara MacIsaac, Epoch Times Mars has a high concentration of the gas isotope Xenon 129 in its atmosphere. Xenon 129 is produced by nuclear reactions. The surface of the red planet also has an excess of uranium and thorium. These conditions are likely the result of two large anomalous nuclear explosions on Mars in the past, argues propulsion scientist Dr. John Brandenburg in a 2014 paper, titled “Evidence of a Massive Thermonuclear Explosion on Mars in the Past.” On Earth, in Oklo, Gabon, uranium was extracted in 1972 and found to have unusual properties. Natural uranium deposits all contain about 0.7 percent U235. The isotope U235 in the Oklo mine, however, showed at levels around 0.6 percent, suggesting the U235 had already been “burned.” Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 20:23:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: Revolutionary idea-- Sun and starpower are Faraday's Law turning Space into monopoles, fusion is just a tiny fraction of starpower 1/1000 From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 04:23:51 +0000 Revolutionary idea-- Sun and starpower are Faraday's Law turning Space into monopoles, fusion is just a tiny fraction of starpower 1/1000 Revolutionary idea-- Sun and starpower are Faraday's Law turning Space into monopoles, fusion is just a tiny fraction of starpower 1/1000 Please do not hold me to the 1/1000, it maybe something like 10^-6 rather than 10^-3. There is no doubt in the world that fusion exists, and that fission, even more so, exists. But, what I have discovered is that the Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV and that tiny particle .5MeV is Dirac's Magnetic Monopole. What that means for energy of the world, is that every atom is a Faraday Law Demonstration of every hydrogen atom system inside an atom. Every proton with its muon, every neutron, are constantly doing a Faraday law and producing electricity inside the atom, producing magnetic monopoles. And these monopoles can either stay inside the atom or flow out as radiation. This is where stars and our Sun get their power, their energy. There is a tad bit of fusion, but not very much, certainly not as much to let the Sun shine as it does every day of our life. Now how is the Faraday Law conducted inside atoms? A proton is 8 muons and when formed into a octagon ring, the proton is a closed loop wire, leaving the electronmuon as a bar magnet thrust through the proton ring creates a current-- a magnetic monopole that either stays inside the atom or moves out and becomes sunlight. Now, all atoms are Faraday law machines, so why does not Earth or Moon or Jupiter shine like a Star? Well, a astro body has to get large enough to get hot enough so that the kinetic energy of its atoms reach a temperature in which the electronmuon moves fast enough through its protons to produce radiation of star shine. But this monopole creation occurs in all atoms and although not star light, some of these monopoles are radio waves, and Jupiter has a large radio emission. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-05 18:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c877b47d-72f2-48da-aeda-370afc71ea53@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #696916 |
mmmmmmmmmmmmm Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 22:51:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: Revolutionary idea-- Sun and starpower are Faraday's Law turning Space into monopoles, fusion is just a tiny fraction of starpower 1/1000 From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 06:51:29 +0000 Below is a report from government NASA on radio emissions from Jupiter. The Faraday Law of atoms causes stars to shine and causes planets to emit radio waves. --- quoting NASA --- Jupiter does emit radio waves of a different sort at frequencies above 100 MHz. These are the decimetric radio waves and are believed to be emitted by extremely energetic electrons moving at close to the speed of light close to the planet near its equator. (Decimetric means tenth of a meter since the wavelength of this type of radio emission is several tenths of a meter). Jupiter's rotation period was confirmed and other properties of the magnetic field including its axial tilt were determined using decimetric radio observations. Recently the Hubble Space telescope has been used to observe Jupiter's aurora in the ultraviolet and has found evidence of the powerful currents that are flowing between Jupiter and Io. These spacecraft are confirming some explanations of Jupiter radio emission but are also discovering new radio phenomena that raise many more questions. Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 23:45:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: Revolutionary idea-- Sun and starpower are Faraday's Law turning Space into monopoles, fusion is just a tiny fraction of starpower 1/1000 From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 07:45:52 +0000 So, let us do a little bit of philosophy here before turning to bed. We have a universe made of one big atom 231Pu containing mass and space. The mass is other atoms. We have stars that turn Space into more mass via Faraday law of an atom's muons thrusting through an atom's protons and creating monoples-- turning Space into new matter. Is that appealing? A 231Pu Atom Totality becoming a new generation Atom Totality. Let us weigh that with Life in biology. Is it acceptable that a generation of life can be happy that their kind, their species lived, prospered and multiplied, and built a new generation to carry into the future? I can accept that purpose for biology life. But for all of the universe, i somehow am expecting more than just growth. More than just growing from 231Pu into say element 96 then the next one etc etc. I think every human can be happy to know their life is carried on by a future generation as the meaning of life. But it seems that the cosmos as a whole needs something more in its future, more than just growth. So, here we go from science to philosophy to religion. For we need something more than just growth to bigger and bigger, to cycle to cycle. We need something of love, to make the whole thing valuable and worthy of the journey. And i cannot think of a better analogy than humanity and plants and animals. The Atom Totality is like God compared to humans and humans are like God compared to the animals and plants. If in the growth of humans into the future it is recognized that our growth cannot proceed unless we carry all the plants and animals with us, not extincting them to make more room for more humans. In like manner of the Atom Totality, instead of a future of ever bigger Atom Totality with lifeforms perishing in numerous cycles, what if the formula of God was that the Atom Totality becomes humanity, a humanity that carried all the plants and animals like a Noah's Ark onto the doorstep of God, where in an instant of time physics and biology entwined as one God. And then, let the cycle of matter and life begin all over again. AP Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 13:01:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: experiment for NASA Re: Revolutionary idea-- Sun and starpower are Faraday's Law turning Space into monopoles, fusion is just a tiny fraction of starpower 1/1000 From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 21:01:07 +0000 experiment for NASA Re: Revolutionary idea-- Sun and starpower are Faraday's Law turning Space into monopoles, fusion is just a tiny fraction of starpower 1/1000 On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 12:51:33 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Below is a report from government NASA on radio emmisions from Jupiter. The Faraday Law of atoms causes stars to shine and causes planets to emit radio waves. > I do not know if NASA does experimental science? If they do, I entice them into this one. > --- quoting NASA --- > > Jupiter does emit radio waves of a different sort at frequencies above 100 MHz. These are the decimetric radio waves and are believed to be emitted by extremely energetic electrons moving at close to the speed of light close to the planet near its equator. (Decimetric means tenth of a meter since the wavelength of this type of radio emission is several tenths of a meter). Jupiter's rotation period was confirmed and other properties of the magnetic field including its axial tilt were determined using decimetric radio observations. > > Recently the Hubble Space telescope has been used to observe Jupiter's aurora in the ultraviolet and has found evidence of the powerful currents that are flowing between Jupiter and Io. > > These spacecraft are confirming some explanations of Jupiter radio emission but are also discovering new radio phenomena that raise many more questions. EXPERIMENT:: Now, I am going on just pure intuition and a tiny bit of experience in radio physics. So here goes. Find a tower of metal, whether used or not used. It is a antennae of sorts. Find out if that antennae by its sheer composition emits a radio signal. I would guess yes because it is composed of metal atoms and those atoms are doing the Faraday Law. Now the planet Jupiter is a large body of atoms doing the Faraday Law and would be expected to emit much radio waves. Our metal antennae is a small body, but still doing the Faraday Law. Now here, in this experiment I am backing into, the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation CMBR and what that is, is not the stupid silly Big Bang, but is the fact that all atoms of the entire cosmos is doing a Faraday Law and all those atoms, everyone of them is "leaking out radio waves" of however tiny and small which goes to make up the CMBR. But here, all I want is a Experiment that proves any given object has atoms which is doing Faraday law and which has a tiny "radio wave noise". AP Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 13:37:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: Call it Dirac Radioactivity or call it RSMMM Re: Revolutionary idea-- Sun and starpower are Faraday's Law turning Space into monopoles, fusion is just a tiny fraction of starpower 1/1000 From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 21:37:30 +0000 Call it Dirac Radioactivity or call it RSMMM Re: Revolutionary idea-- Sun and starpower are Faraday's Law turning Space into monopoles, fusion is just a tiny fraction of starpower 1/1000 Somewhat amazing that year 2014 was an amazing year in Chemistry Research, two experiments or observations took place in 2014 that is revolutionary science experiments. The one took place in Denmark with Dr. Kjaergaard discovering that two positive charges attract one another of hydrogen and phosphorus. To make a long story short, Kjaergaard is confirming that the Real Electron = 105 MeV and Real Proton = 840MeV and that little .5MeV particle is a magnetic monopole. That is the upshot of Kjaergaard's hugely important experiment in Denmark in 2014. In another part of the world in 2014, Dr. Brandenburg was finding out that xenon was too much concentrated in Mars, the planet, and otherwise levels of U235 in ore deposits were too high. Now, Dirac had two major science issues going for him most of his life-- magnetic monopoles and what he called a New Radioactivity-- how the world grows. You see, for Dirac, the Big Bang is science fiction, for Dirac sensed that the Universe grows from some form of radioactivity. Dirac, in all his life, never found the monopole, but, it was under his nose all the time. For in 1897, JJ Thomson discovered a particle of .5MeV and the sad part about Thomson's discovery, is that he had not found the electron, which he thought this .5MeV particle was, but rather, he had found Dirac's monopole. Only by 1936 with Anderson and Neddermeyer was the REAL ELECTRON discovered, only no one realized it until 2017, by me, who saw that 9muons = 1 proton plus or minus .7% 945/938. So, Dirac's monopole was there all along, and only by 2014 with Kjaergaard in Denmark do we start to see a massive experiment undertaking to see the theory that Real Electron = 105MeV and that Maxwell theory of EM has no force of repel, for EM has only attract force and we were fooled by Pauli Exclusion as a denial of same space occupancy. Columbus was fooled when he thought he landed in China or India. And physicists were fooled in thinking there is EM repel, when it is just denial of same space. And physicists were fooled in thinking that tiny .5MeV was the electron. Then on to Dirac's New Radioactivity, how the universe grows. The Universe never had a Big Bang-- that is childish poppycock idea. The Universe grows bigger and more massive by a form of Radioactivity. And the mechanism is Faraday's Law. The proton is 8 muons and forms a proton closed loop wire. The muon acts like a bar magnet and as it thrusts through the proton wire creates a monopole. This is turning Space into energy/matter. So if the universe starts out as 1 Hydrogen atom, that Faraday Law on one proton one muon keeps creating monopoles which are saved and collected inside that atom of hydrogen until it has eaten up enough Space that the monopoles saved add up to a neutron. Now we have 2protons2muons doing the Faraday Law, eating up space and eventually creating a tritium atom, etc etc. So, when Dr. Brandenburg sees xenon in abundance on Mars, it is not from a nuclear fusion bomb explosion, nor is the African U235 a past long ago bomb explosion remnant, no. What these isotope anomalies really are, is the working of Dirac's New Radioactivities. I like to call it Radioactive Spontaneous Magnetic Monopole Materialization, RSMMM. The "spontaneous" part of the process is that Faraday's Law is not the movement of electrons in a proton that consists of 8 muons, no, the 8 muons are needed to form a octagon of geometry to be a wire. So the spontaneous part of RSMMM is the fact that Faraday's Law requires a current, and the only particle to be a current inside a proton is a magnetic monopole. Now I am not saying all Magnetic Monopoles = .5MeV, for even radio waves are monopoles and are of eV not MeV. But, the greatest story of this Faraday Law, is that our Sun and stars shine, not because of Fusion, but because every atom in our Sun is doing a Faraday Law thrusting of muon through proton and even of proton through orbital muons, both ways-- proton through muons and muon through proton. And the enormous photons produced by Faraday's Law is what makes stars shine. There is a tiny contribution by fusion, but if stars had to depend on fusion alone, our universe would be mostly dark black, with only tiny tiny glow from fusion activity. Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 12:23:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Faraday mechanism explains Atomic Bombs better Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 20:23:01 +0000 Faraday mechanism explains Atomic Bombs better Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole Now here is more information on that Mars hypothetical nuclear explosion:: of course i am going to comment line by line explaining that in nuclear fusion there is little to no fusion going on but rather a Faraday Law --- quoting --- By Tara MacIsaac, Epoch Times Mars has a high concentration of the gas isotope Xenon 129 in its atmosphere. Xenon 129 is produced by nuclear reactions. The surface of the red planet also has an excess of uranium and thorium. These conditions are likely the result of two large anomalous nuclear explosions on Mars in the past, argues propulsion scientist Dr. John Brandenburg in a 2014 paper, titled “Evidence of a Massive Thermonuclear Explosion on Mars in the Past.” On Earth, in Oklo, Gabon, uranium was extracted in 1972 and found to have unusual properties. Natural uranium deposits all contain about 0.7 percent U235. The isotope U235 in the Oklo mine, however, showed at levels around 0.6 percent, suggesting the U235 had already been “burned.” On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 7:38:10 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.math: Sun and Stars shine, not due to fusion, but due to protons and muons convert Space into energy/matter via Faraday Law Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 19:37:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: does oxygen have a cut above the other first 8 elements? Re: Sun and Stars shine, not due to fusion, but due to protons and muons convert Space into energy/matter via Faraday Law From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 03:37:06 +0000 does oxygen have a cut above the other first 8 elements? Re: Sun and Stars shine, not due to fusion, but due to protons and muons convert Space into energy/matter via Faraday Law Now, I believe the muon can be a closed loop wire once there is 8 muons in the orbital of an atom. That would mean element oxygen, where carbon is 2 muons short, and neon is 2 muons advanced. Now can the 10 muons in neon offer neon more stability in a Faraday demonstration? Anyway, the Oxygen atom has 8 orbital muons which means its nucleus of 8protons and 8neutrons can be a bar thrusting magnet through that of the 8 orbital muons. So in a Faraday Law Demonstration every single proton is a 8 muons configured into a closed loop proton wire. 1proton = 840MeV = 8muons, where 1muon = 105MeV. So, in hydrogen there is only one way for a Faraday demonstration-- the orbital muon thrusting through the 8 muons of the single proton. But in Oxygen there are 8 orbital muons that can form a closed loop wire, call it a orbital-muon-wire and the protons and neutrons can thrust through the 8 orbital muons producing even more magnetic monopoles than just the monopoles formed from the muons acting as bar magnet thrusting through the protons. So, what I wonder is, if oxygen being the first such element that can produce monopoles from not just proton wires but from orbital muons as wires, wondering if that ability by oxygen is why oxygen is so very special over the other first 8 elements? I know through out Old Chemistry, there is much to do about "oxidation" and oxidation states. But is oxygen recognized for its supreme ability to Faraday Law Demonstrations, which the other first 8 elements simply cannot perform? Does it give oxygen a significant edge above and beyond hydrogen helium lithium Beryllium, Boron Carbon Nitrogen?? What say you-- Old Chemistry-- did oxygen have a cut above these others? AP Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 22:43:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: does oxygen have a cut above the other first 8 elements? Re: Sun and Stars shine, not due to fusion, but due to protons and muons convert Space into energy/matter via Faraday Law From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 06:43:17 +0000 does oxygen have a cut above the other first 8 elements? Re: Sun and Stars shine, not due to fusion, but due to protons and muons convert Space into energy/matter via Faraday Law Alright one property of oxygen that needs explanation by Faraday law theory is its combustible nature. Here i would need to explain its neighbor fluorine also, but then, have to explain why reactivity seems to all shut down with neon. So is the fact that the orbital muons now are Faraday demonstrable at 8 and 9 cause huge reactivity but at 10 appear to shut down. I may have to sleep on this one. But one superlative of oxygen is that it is the 3rd most abundant element in Cosmos after hydrogen and helium. So the fact that 16O has a orbital muon wire is likely the cause of such abundance in Dirac's New Radioactivity So how can orbital muon wire explain how neon shuts down reactivity? Here i may need to define reactivity via Maxwell theory-- something about the deformation of 8 or 9 orbital muons to become a 10 orbital muon of neon. AP Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 22:58:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: does oxygen have a cut above the other first 8 elements? Re: Sun and Stars shine, not due to fusion, but due to protons and muons convert Space into energy/matter via Faraday Law From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 06:58:04 +0000 does oxygen have a cut above the other first 8 elements? Re: Sun and Stars shine, not due to fusion, but due to protons and muons convert Space into energy/matter via Faraday Law Now here i am going to question the famous Rutherford experiment the one in which he shot particles at a gold or metal leaf and where some of those particles recoiled back, telling Rutherford that nearly all the mass is concentrated in the nucleus. I suspect that experiment needs repeating for the first 26 elements especially oxygen fluorine neon for i suspect the center of those atoms are almost empty of protons and where the protons are more likely found in the muon orbital cloud to enhance the making of orbital cloud wire for Faraday law. I think it is hard to repeat Rutherford on non metals but not impossible. AP Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 23:37:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: Faraday law atomic theory Re: Sun and Stars shine, not due to fusion, but due to protons and muons convert Space into energy/matter via Faraday Law From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 07:37:48 +0000 Faraday law atomic theory Re: Sun and Stars shine, not due to fusion, but due to protons and muons convert Space into energy/matter via Faraday Law Now a key feature of Faraday Law atomic theory is that the protons and muons are aligned for maximum production of monopoles. Where 1proton =8muons and 1neutron =1proton +1 muon. Now this is a job for Dirac or Tesla, not me if given, 20 protons 20 muons configure those as wires and bar magnet to yield maximum current inside a neon atom. Do the same of 19protons 19muons for fluorine and finally 16 protons 16 muons for oxygen. I suspect many of the protons will be in orbitals along with orbital muons and a somewhat vacant center of the atom in order to achieve maximum Faraday production of monopoles. Now the helium atom would have 4 protons 4muons and those 4protons would be 4x8= 32 muons. So, how to arrange 36 muons for maximum Faraday law. And, helium is the most stable of all inert gases all elements for that sake. Now 36 is a perfect square, so let me check on neon, we have 20x8= 160 plus 20 is 180. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-07 18:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a7914414-a072-4718-8f2d-e8045c7eb480@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #697172 |
nnnnnnnnnnnnn Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 00:02:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Faraday law atomic theory Re: Sun and Stars shine, not due to fusion, but due to protons and muons convert Space into energy/matter via Faraday Law From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 08:03:00 +0000 Faraday law atomic theory Re: Sun and Stars shine, not due to fusion, but due to protons and muons convert Space into energy/matter via Faraday Law Now i wish Tesla or Dirac was here to do this, Feynman. For helium i have 32 muons from the 4 protons and 4 more muons for a total of 36 particles to configure into a maximum Faraday law production of magnetic monopoles. Is it best to use 2 of the 36muons as bar magnet leaving 34 muons to build a coil of 8muons of 4 windings but that leaves 2 extra muons. What if we make the bar magnet 4 muons. Would the windings be in the nucleus? I think so because you get more monopole current the tighter the magnet is thrust through (so Rutherford was right). Now look at oxygen, 16protons, 16muons is 144 total muons, another perfect square. More tomorrow,,, time for a milk shake and the fascinating mystery of the milk shake -- milk tastes good, but place cold milk-- has to be cold into a flask and vigorously shake so you get a lot of milk foam and now you improved the taste of milk by 10 fold over. How can air do that? AP Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 02:16:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: AP's Periodic Table of Atoms in light of the fact Real Proton= 840MeV, Real Electron= 105MeV, the .5MeV= monopole From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 10:16:47 +0000 AP's Periodic Table of Atoms in light of the fact Real Proton= 840MeV, Real Electron= 105MeV, the .5MeV= monopole Alright, i am slowly working away on this. Old Chemistry and Old Physics had a table where their proton and electron had no job, no task to perform, as if their proton and electron could sit along and lie on a beach and do nothing. In AP's table the proton = 8muons and forms a nuclear closed loop wire and the electronmuon acts as a bar magnet in Faraday's Law where the two constantly produce a electric current of monopoles in the proton. So the construction of the AP table is a task for a electrical engineer more than a physicist. Because each proton and each neutron is like a wire loop and each electronmuon like a bar magnet (or vice versa) and in the case of oxygen you hand the ee 16 protons each composed of 8 muons and hand him 16 electronmuons and tell him to arrange those so he gets the maximum electric current (monopoles) in a Faraday Law demonstration. Now i am looking in electrical engineering if there is some sort of maximum efficient arrangement for 16 closed loop wires and 16 bar magnets. Is it best to have one Faraday kit or better to have 16 kits. AP Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 02:39:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: AP's Periodic Table of Atoms in light of the fact Real Proton= 840MeV, Real Electron= 105MeV, the .5MeV= monopole From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 10:39:25 +0000 So let us say you were God creating the chemical elements and you create proton and muon and you want these two to obey one law Faradays law. Now you are God and the master electrical engineer. And as you create each element, each element is the maximum amount of electric current produced from the proton wire and electronmuon magnet, or, electronmuon wire and protons as bar magnet, or both. So as God ee. For hydrogen you are handed 1proton and 1 muon and God arranges them to yield maximum current of monopoles. Now God is handed 2 protons, 2muons and again arranges them to make maximum current. Every atom is thus dealt with. Now finally God arranges all these atoms -- 295 in total -- arranges them so there is family resemblance in columns. What will this table look like? In 3rd dimension is it the surface of a cone where hydrogen is the apex. Or is it a 2nd dimension shape of a circuit board where gaps exist to house capacitors and other parts, not just wires and magnet. Is our present day Table a reflection of a circuit board in electronics. AP Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 03:46:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: AP's Periodic Table of Atoms in light of the fact Real Proton= 840MeV, Real Electron= 105MeV, the .5MeV= monopole From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 11:46:50 +0000 Alright, so here, if we take the old table and include each of the d and f rows, realizing the p is 4 more than s, d is 4 more than p, f is 4 more than d. Include them all without cut-outs, and if we were to bend this table, it forms a cone with hydrogen as apex. Now does a cone have significance in engineering or Faraday Law? It has significance if you want to amplify a wave. Can ww consider amplification as equal to maximization? For the periodic table is a maximal Faraday Law current. And so the table that represents a integer maximal Faraday law takes the shape of the cone surface. So if we were to plot the table on a cone surface the position of one element relative to its neighbors, reflects similar properties. Now there is a caution to old chemistry in that many elements are more similar to its neighbor in a row than its neighbor in a column. But the awkward shape of the old table is that it was a cone laid flat. AP Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 13:45:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: New Chemistry Table-- two superimposed cones Re: AP's Periodic Table of Atoms in light of the fact Real Proton= 840MeV, Real Electron= 105MeV, the .5MeV= monopole From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 21:45:06 +0000 New Chemistry Table-- two superimposed cones Re: AP's Periodic Table of Atoms in light of the fact Real Proton= 840MeV, Real Electron= 105MeV, the .5MeV= monopole Alright, I think I have the breakthrough I need to do the AP Table of Atoms, to replace the old chemistry Table. The Old Chemistry Table of Elements, lacked the understanding that Atoms are tiny Faraday Law Machines. Their purpose is to do the Faraday Law which converts Space into energy/matter as a magnetic monopole, the reason for converting Space is to make more Atoms. Life in biology is essentially a process of growth and increase. But that is also the purpose of Atoms-- grow and increase. And the growth mechanism is Faraday's law, the increase mechanism is Faraday's law. In Old Chemistry, their Table is essentially-- think of the electron as .5MeV a little ball, and the proton is 938 MeV a larger ball and that these two balls in hydrogen do nothing, then helium is 4 tiny balls with 4 massive balls doing nothing, then lithium is 7 tiny balls with 7 massive balls doing nothing. That is Old Chemistry table building. And the only thing Old Chemists did, was worry about the family resemblance that helium resembled neon that resembled argon, that lithium resembled sodium that resembled potassium etc etc. In New Chemistry, we see the Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840 MeV and that little guy of .5MeV was not an electron but was Dirac's Magnetic Monopole. And what this does, is create a whole new different picture of a atom, any atom, because the enormous activity always going on inside an atom where the 105 particle is a bar magnet and the 840 particle is actually 8 muons that form a atomic wire closed loop and these two particles 105 and 840 are constantly doing a Faraday Law of creating atomic electricity of magnetic monopoles. Old Chemistry was lazy idling of atomic particles, New Chemistry is for all purposes a constant activity of Faraday's law. And so the Atoms Table is the first atom with just 1muon 1 proton, the second atom is 2muons2protons, the third atom is 3muons3protons, the fourth atom is helium with 4 protons, 4 muons, all the way up to element 118 with 295protons, 295muons. All atoms are a configuration to maximize a Faraday Law inside that atom, that means, some numbers are able to arrange themselves far better than others, such as Helium is far better able to carry out Faraday's law than is tritium or lithium. Now I spoke last night that the best Geometry picture of the Table of Atoms is a cone surface. Let me elaborate on that by doing the Old Chemistry Table only I use just one letter of the element to get in the s,p,d,f orbitals H H L B B C N O F N NM A S P S C A K C S T V CM F C N C Z G G A S B K more later but the form is shaping up, and the way in which we can have helium neon argon krypton then hydrogen lithium sodium be all under one another in family resemblance columns is to cut out those elements on a flat plane and bend to be a CONE. Now, for me, growing up and learning about conic sections for the first time, I was worried about something in conic sections-- why on earth would you stack one cone onto another cone at their apex?? Why oh why would you do a crazy thing like that-- was my first thoughts on seeing conic sections. Is there ever really a need to have cones stacked in order to gain valuable knowledge and understanding in the world around us? The only reason we do such an unnatural silly thing as to stack one cone onto another cone at the apex is so that we can include hyperbolas. If it were not for hyperbolas, we would never do a conic stacking. So, I saved that bit of information of my youth in education, never really thinking any more about it, until last night. You see, the geometry of a single cone is the best geometry for the Table of Atoms, for the New Periodic Table of Chemical Elements, on a cone surface because the rows increase but the columns need to be together. One cone, mind you, but, now we still have a problem with a single cone, because, well Hydrogen makes up over 90% of the Cosmos and many elements are so rare, that why should they have a accounting of the same size of block as does hydrogen. So we need a New Table that factors in the abundance of the Elements. We should not have the same size of block for hydrogen as say technetium 43Tc. So, the New Table is going to have 295 Atoms arranged numerically in order, but also, the size of block they get is according to the Cosmic abundance. So, how to do that correctly? Well getting back to my story, as a youth I thought it crazy to stack two cones on their apex just to get hyperbolas. But, now that craziness is going to help me out here. But I need not stack on apex, what I need is two cones where the base of one cone is the apex of the other equal cone. You see, superimpose the two cones. The Ancient Greeks could never do this as well as what we can do it today with computer graphics. We can do this in our imagination but physically we can mold a plastic cone to intersect another plastic cone such that the base of one is where the apex of the other exists. So our New Table where Hydrogen is alone as the apex of one cone and the base of the second cone as cosmic abundance. Helium is up there close to hydrogen as the base in abundance but close to hydrogen in the other cone as apex. So now, we take a cut of these two cones melded together that is a cut where both cones have a circle cross section (now I wonder if the circles are a constant in area-- something for the mathematicians to work out, whether area of C1 + area of C2 = a constant k no matter where the cut is performed. And if the Ancient Greeks had had this superimposed two equal cones, I am sure they would have discovered the relationship of the two circle areas.) Anyway the s,p,d,f rows are now able to be scaled to abundance of those elements. And once we scale them, I suspect the New Table of All Atoms becomes a two cones superimposed. P.S. I also need mathematicians to figure out, what are the conic sections of these two superimposed cones bring, I mean a cut not parallel to base. If my imagination serves me correctly, it would be two Ovals almost like two circles, one inside the other. But the parabola cut is a mystery and whether a hyperbola exists in this new two conics, if a hyperbola exists, then we can finally, finally, get rid of the old conic section of stacking at apex. AP On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 4:03:13 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.math: Now the best graphic i could spot from Google of these two nested opposite cones was this site-- The Centre Holds: Beauty, Art & the God Who is There. | the Center “Drakes Bay” ceramic version of oil painting of God’s original creation. Christopher MacDonald ©2002 Azotus Arts. Turning and turning in the widening gyre The falcon cannot hea… On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 4:18:31 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.math: Now looking at a lot of images for two cones nested forming what i would call a complex cylinder since the ends are equal. But here is an experiment easily performed at home-- two ice cream cones. One set on table at its base the other on apex held by a steady hand and putting the two close together forms a parallelogram in 2nd D. Now imagine the one going inside the other where the base of one is now the apex of the other. I do not know if math gave a name to this object I want to say-- spool, such as a spool of sewing thread AP Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 17:40:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: called Double Gyres Re: New Chemistry Table-- two superimposed cones From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 01:40:58 +0000 called Double Gyres Re: New Chemistry Table-- two superimposed cones On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 7:27:02 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Now here quoting a website of YeatsVision.com that not only gives a good picture of two nested intersecting cones but says they have a name. > I am not sure this is the literary Yeats. Often, literary figures never dabble in mathematics > -- quoting > > > The Double Gyres > > The Double Gyre Horizontal > Yeats's thought is fundamentally dualistic and, although the single gyre contains a fundamental dualism in the two boundaries of its form, the base and the apex, it is more natural for Yeats to use a doubled form. Since the apex or minimum of one element implies the maximum of its dualistic opposite, these double cones intersect so that the two gyres are the complementary opposites of each other. Re: called Double Gyres Re: New Chemistry Table-- two superimposed cones AP writes: Now looking at those computer pictures I easily see the Double Cones intersecting where apex is at base does produce a hyperbola. Now, what I am exploring is whether this depiction of two cones is far superior than Old Math's dummy depiction of apex to apex. Because, well, I suspect New Chemistry's Table of Chemical Elements is a Double Cone Intersection. I need to investigate whether the hyperbolas produced from cones apex to apex are the same as hyperbolas from cones apex to base. If they are the same, then I suspect apex to base cones are far far superior not just because of Chemistry Table, but because, well a apex to base double cones is either a generalization of the Cylinder, or the Cylinder is a generalization of the double cones. What I mean here, is that the parallelogram is a generalization of the rectangle. The final word is still not out, whether Old Math had discovered this figure a long time ago and given it a name, other than double-gyre. And it is nice and fitting, that the mathematician who discovered the Oval was a Conic section, never the ellipse, is back again fixing even more Conic Section theory, which the Old Math community was too stupid to ever see or fix. So let us give a nice rounded applause to our hero, AP. AP Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 18:19:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: columns family resemblance challenged Re: New Chemistry Table-- two superimposed cones Re: AP's Periodic Table of Atoms From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 02:19:56 +0000 columns family resemblance challenged Re: New Chemistry Table-- two superimposed cones Re: AP's Periodic Table of Atoms Now here I need to take a break or momentary pause, not that I am tired, but because I need more facts to move on ahead. I need a fact of Chemistry about the concept of family resemblance in columns of the Mendeleev Chart of Elements. I know that was a motivation for discovery to Mendeleev that the gases helium, neon, argon, krypton were substances that looked similar behaved similar, and we take any column and see much the same sort of concept of "family resemblance". However, as much in life as in science, we can take a good concept that stretches just too far. So I am skeptical of this need for columns of family resemblance. And what I have in mind, is that somewhere that concept completely falls apart in the Old Chemistry Table. I do not mean that surprise-- we find a noble gas next to a metal like iron. Nothing like that. What I mean is where in the Old Chemistry table of elements, does the elements next to a particular element in a row, behave and resemble that element rather than the elements of the family column? I think the answer is Fe iron that, at Cr, Mn, Fe, Co behave and resemble Fe more than does Ru. Os. And even harder to say C is related to family members Sn and Pb, than to say Fe is related to Cu. Not sure of that but have to check up on it. So, what I am saying here, is that halfway in the first d orbital of elements, that the family resemblance of columns breaks apart. And that a new Table of Elements(Atoms) no longer has to insist a Atom fall in the column of previous atoms. This also brings up the interesting question of some Electrochemical feature of every Atom, in the Faraday Law, that categorizes where that Element belongs in the Table. Say for instance, simple conduction of electricity. AP Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 20:15:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: New Chemistry Table-- two superimposed cones Re: AP's Periodic Table of Atoms in light of the fact Real Proton= 840MeV, Real Electron= 105MeV, the .5MeV= monopole From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 04:15:21 +0000 Re: New Chemistry Table-- two superimposed cones Re: AP's Periodic Table of Atoms in light of the fact Real Proton= 840MeV, Real Electron= 105MeV, the .5MeV= monopole On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 3:45:12 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: (snipped) Now, let me go out a little further on the Old Periodic Table where each element is given just its first letter and each row starts with a alkali metal and ends in a noble gas H H L B B C N O F N NM A S P S C A K C S T V CM F C N C Z G G A S B K R S Y Z NM T R R P A C I S S T I X C B L C P N P S E G T D H E T Y L H T W R O I P A H T P B P A R F R A T P U N P AC B C E FM N L U U U U U UU U U U UU U U U Now it is a relief for once to see the table in full without breaks and bottom panels just because the paper is not big enough to hold them in one unbroken pattern. Now, of course, I am speculating that a double cone, one inside the other reversed so the apex end is at the base end. \/\/ /\/\ that is 2 cones with apex at base, 2 cones intersecting at midcircle Now the reason this is a good speculation is the atomic number represents the apex as hydrogen in one cone but the base of other represents the fact hydrogen makes up 90% of the universe. The next level down from hydrogen is helium alone and makes up 8% of the abundance of all elements so would be near the apex in one cone and hold a significant surface area of the other cone about 1/10 of that of hydrogen. Now we get to the exciting part. The rows L B B C N O F N then NM A S P S C A then K C S T V CM F C N C Z G G A S B K then R S Y Z NM T R R P A C I S S T I X then C B L C P N P S E G T D H E T Y L H T W R O I P A H T P B P A R then F R A T P U N P AC B C E FM N L U U U U U UU U U U UU U U U should follow a mathematical formula of decreasing abundance, not each element, but the entire row abundance. And it is a double cone geometry, that can depict atomic number versus abundance. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-13 14:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7458c85c-ea8c-494d-9194-5eebe8db08d5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #697532 |
ooooooooooooooooo Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 13:06:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Scientific American, MAR2018, page53, hexacarbonyl Re: repeat the Rutherford experiment for I think maybe the nucleus of gases are spread out From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 20:06:49 +0000 Scientific American, MAR2018, page53, hexacarbonyl Re: repeat the Rutherford experiment for I think maybe the nucleus of gases are spread out On Sunday, March 11, 2018 at 12:58:07 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Now here i am going to question the famous Rutherford experiment the one in which he shot particles at a gold or metal leaf and where some of those particles recoiled back, telling Rutherford that nearly all the mass is concentrated in the nucleus. > Mind you this is just a guess, that many of the atoms nucleus, does not lie in the center of the atom carrying most of the mass. I suspect the inert gases and the first p row of elements have their protons and neutrons mostly in rings outside the center of those atoms. Unfortunately Rutherford only did his work on metal-- gold and there, most of the mass is in the center. > I suspect that experiment needs repeating for the first 26 elements especially oxygen fluorine neon for i suspect the center of those atoms are almost empty of protons and where the protons are more likely found in the muon orbital cloud to enhance the making of orbital cloud wire for Faraday law. > > I think it is hard to repeat Rutherford on non metals but not impossible. > Time for a modern day repeat of Rutherford, only this time with a inert gas, or say oxygen, hydrogen for I suspect the nuclei of these elements are in a ring around the center, not directly in the center. So sort of like the plum pudding model of Thomson, only arranged in an order of like a wire, not random and chaotic. Time to repeat Rutherford. Now, fortunately for me, I have Scientific American March 2018, talking about the Table of Elements and talking about element 106 where it lives for about 10 seconds and was able to form a compound of Element 106 with carbon monoxide to form a hexacarbonyl of Element 106. Now, this is fortuitous because I was having problems with getting neon oxygen fluorine and helium to obey the Faraday Law in a maximum amount of production of monopoles. And after reading that snippet of hexacarbonyl, I realized what my solution must be. Now recently I spoke of that the Old Chemistry Table of Elements needed revision and what I dreamed up was a double cone, with apex to base intersecting at midsection, rather than the silly contraption in Old Math of two apex together. Apex to base is far far better because it is stable when built, and, besides, it is a generalization of the cylinder. For think of the cylinder as a routed out, carved out midsection, like a double cone spool. But, anyway, reading hexacarbonyl I saw a vision of where the NEW TABLE OF ATOMS must go. Not to a double cone, but rather to Ampere's Law as geometry and Ampere's law is a torus of electric current and then the magnetic field of a torus around a torus. Get out any picture of Ampere's law and you will immediately recognize that geometry where you use the right-hand rule. Now, I keep the Old Chemistry picture of the Table, keep it all, for it is rather excellent and good. I forget about a 3rd D table or any changes to the 2nd D table. But, where the big changes come is the ALGEBRA of the Table of Elements. The Algebra changes drastically. This is a picture of the Old Chemistry table (using just one letter to make uniform spacing, and all the s,p,d,f rows are where they should be, not this sad cut-out view, but all intact.) H H L B B C N O F N NM A S P S C A K C S T V CM F C N C Z G G A S B K R S Y Z NM T R R P A C I S S T I X C B L C P N P S E G T D H E T Y L H T W R O I P A H T P B P A R F R A T P U N P AC B C E FM N L U U U U U UU U U U UU U U U So, what did the hexacarbonyl do for my insight? Well, for one we raise hydrogen above helium to be a single whole row and have helium be a single whole row to have 8 rows in total H H L B B C N O F N NM A S P S C A K C S T V CM F C N C Z G G A S B K R S Y Z NM T R R P A C I S S T I X C B L C P N P S E G T D H E T Y L H T W R O I P A H T P B P A R F R A T P U N P AC B C E FM N L U U U U U UU U U U UU U U U The number 8 is a crucial critical number in all of physics, for it is 1proton= 8muons. Now, I do not know if 8 shows up in the Maxwell Equations, I do know 137 shows up, but, does 8 show up? It must in the form of the s,p,d,f Now last night, I was struggling to find how to make MAXIMUM Faraday Law upon oxygen, fluorine, neon and helium to explain them as protons as wires and muons as bar magnet. And here is where the hexacarbonyl image comes to my rescue. Notice that if we think of the entire ROW of chemical elements as the wire that the oxygen-neon row and the sulfur-argon row is 8 Now, the next two rows are the iron-krypton and the silver-Xenon row. Now, they look like those rows have no magic number 8. And here is where the algebra sinks in. When we have a d row, we make the p elements as 3 and the d elements as 5, so that we have 3+5 = 8. That Algebra is indicative of the Ampere Law, that half of the d and half of the p are going into magnetism, while the other half is going into electric monopole current. Now, the table has two rows of s, two rows of p, two rows of d, and two rows of f. The Algebra works on the f row, where 14/2 = 7 and now we need a 1 to make 7+1 = 8. So what happens in the f row is that 7 for magnetism, 7 for electricity and the s provides the 1 as 2/2. So, in d row, the s orbital is masked, while the p and d are cut in half. In f row, the d and p orbitals are masked, while the f and s are cut in half. Mind you, this algebra is all for the sake of 8. Why 8? Well the short answer is proton = 8 muons. A longer answer is symmetry of magnetism versus electricity in the Ampere Law. Now, getting back to the first two rows, the single hydrogen and the single helium of the second row. For hydrogen it is 8 in the form of a single proton is 8 muons forming a closed loop wire and where that orbital muon must be magnetism of Ampere law along with the bar magnet of Faraday Law. For helium has 36 muons in total, 32+4. But 36 is also 9x4, and hydrogen is 9 muons. The view of hydrogen is it is the atom of the monopole, and the helium atom is the atom of the dipole. The geometry view of helium is a perfect sphere, the geometry view of hydrogen is a ellipse of its magnetism to electricity. Now in mathematics we have another ALGEBRA that is very much similar to the above Algebra, it is the Regular Polyhedra and there again we have 6 items, pyramid, tetrahedron, hexahedron, octahedron, dodecahedron, icosahedron. The algebra of regular polyhedron so much are analogs of the Table of Chemical Elements. AP On Sunday, March 11, 2018 at 3:26:18 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.math: solving what the New Periodic Table of Chemical Elements is-- where rows are Ampere's law and columns are Faraday Law Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 16:16:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: RSMMM builds not only atoms, but molecules Re: Faraday law atomic theory Re: Sun and Stars shine, not due to fusion, but due to protons and muons convert Space into energy/matter via Faraday Law From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 23:16:54 +0000 RSMMM builds not only atoms, but molecules Re: Faraday law atomic theory Re: Sun and Stars shine, not due to fusion, but due to protons and muons convert Space into energy/matter via Faraday Law RSMMM builds not only atoms, but molecules Re: Faraday law atomic theory Re: Sun and Stars shine, not due to fusion, but due to protons and muons convert Space into energy/matter via Faraday Law Now the most abundant top three elements are hydrogen, helium, oxygen. I think something on the order of 90%, 8% for hydrogen and helium and then all the rest at 2% combined. So in the theory of RSMMM, Dirac's New Radioactivities, what happens is that a atom of hydrogen via the Faraday Law, produces monopole electric current. This current can remain inside the atom or travel outside. If it remains, it can accumulate monopoles and those monopoles can become a muon itself, a rest mass particle of 105 MeV. Now, in a good hydrogen atom it can build not only 1 muon but 8 of them over time in monopole production, thus, with 8 muons built, that hydrogen atom built a proton. It can continue to build on this second proton inside the original hydrogen atom until that proton is a neutron and so the starting out hydrogen atom has transformed into a deuterium atom, in the same manner it can keep building until it becomes a tritium or even a helium atom. So with the slow process of building monopoles in a hydrogen atom it becomes deuterium to tritium to helium. But let us look at oxygen with its 16 HYASYS, it has 16 hydrogen atom systems all of which is building a maximum electric current of magnetic monopoles, a oxygen atom can build a muon much faster than a hydrogen atom builds a muon. Now in HYASYS and RSMMM theory, we see the lines of distinction between a molecule and an atom gets blurred. Can we really tell apart if a water molecule H2O is 18HYASYS is a regular normal oxygen atom that has built two new protons from monopoles apart from water molecule? You see, the only real difference here is that 18O or even 18F, both are 16O with two more protons with 2 muons attached. In a sense, the building of all the Elements from Faraday Law, is hard to tell apart from chemical compounds. Water can come from oxygen binding with two hydrogen, or, water can come from a oxygen atom which builds two more protons and two muons, all inside itself. So many, very many astronomers and cosmologists have pondered and asked the question of where does all this water come from? Especially Earth? Well, we know oxygen is the most abundant element after hydrogen and helium, so that as oxygen builds more elements, it is going to build 18O which looks like a single atom, but, can be easily seen as water. So, here we begin to see the Table of Elements be more than just elements/isotopes, we begin to see the table as the Table of Compounds also. Methane is CH4 and we view it as five atoms bonded together. But with New Chemistry, we begin to recognize that as carbon is doing a Faraday Law production of monopoles, it builds up enough monopoles for that carbon atom to have 4 hydrogen HYASYS. So the concepts of fusion in chemistry, physics and the concept of bonding in chemistry become awfully blurred, because those compounds can be got from just a single atom that grows by monopole production inside itself. Now, some may say, this violates conservation of energy, and like Dirac, would say-- well, what of it. One consolation though, is that Faraday Law turns Space into monopoles. We normally do not think of Space having mass, but we can think of space as having energy. And so when you produce a monopole, you take energy that is Space itself and turn it into rest mass. We often hear everyone agree that electrons inside atoms are in perpetual motion and not bothered by that. But is perpetual motion any better and easier to accept than is violation of conservation of energy. I mean, if you accept perpetual motion why block acceptance of violation of conservation of energy. Perpetual Motion is a violation of conservation of energy. AP Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 20:15:19 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: solving what the New Periodic Table of Chemical Elements is-- where rows are Ampere's law and columns are Faraday Law From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 03:15:19 +0000 Re: solving what the New Periodic Table of Chemical Elements is-- where rows are Ampere's law and columns are Faraday Law Alright i am interested on whether there is a squared relationship involved. Hydrogen has 1 HYASYS so 9 muons, a perfect square Deuterium 2 hyasys 18 muons Tritium 3 hyasys 27 muons Helium 4 hyasys 36 muons, a perfect square Lithium 7 hyasys 63 muons Beryllium 9 hyasys 81 muons, a perfect square Boron 11 hyasys 99 muons Carbon 12 hyasys 108 muons Nitrogen 14 hyasys 126 muons Oxygen 16 hyasys 144 muons, a perfect square Fluorine 19 hyasys 171 muons Neon 20 hyasys 180 muons AP Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 22:07:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: solving what the New Periodic Table of Chemical Elements is-- where rows are Ampere's law and columns are Faraday Law From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 05:08:00 +0000 Re: solving what the New Periodic Table of Chemical Elements is-- where rows are Ampere's law and columns are Faraday Law On Sunday, March 11, 2018 at 3:26:18 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Scientific American, MAR2018, page53, hexacarbonyl Re: repeat the Rutherford experiment for I think maybe the nucleus of gases are spread out > > On Sunday, March 11, 2018 at 12:58:07 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > Now here i am going to question the famous Rutherford experiment the one in which he shot particles at a gold or metal leaf and where some of those particles recoiled back, telling Rutherford that nearly all the mass is concentrated in the nucleus. > > > > Mind you this is just a guess, that many of the atoms nucleus, does not lie in the center of the atom carrying most of the mass. I suspect the inert gases and the first p row of elements have their protons and neutrons mostly in rings outside the center of those atoms. Unfortunately Rutherford only did his work on metal-- gold and there, most of the mass is in the center. > > > > I suspect that experiment needs repeating for the first 26 elements especially oxygen fluorine neon for i suspect the center of those atoms are almost empty of protons and where the protons are more likely found in the muon orbital cloud to enhance the making of orbital cloud wire for Faraday law. > > > > I think it is hard to repeat Rutherford on non metals but not impossible. > > > > Time for a modern day repeat of Rutherford, only this time with a inert gas, or say oxygen, hydrogen for I suspect the nuclei of these elements are in a ring around the center, not directly in the center. So sort of like the plum pudding model of Thomson, only arranged in an order of like a wire, not random and chaotic. Time to repeat Rutherford. > > Now, fortunately for me, I have Scientific American March 2018, talking about the Table of Elements and talking about element 106 where it lives for about 10 seconds and was able to form a compound of Element 106 with carbon monoxide to form a hexacarbonyl of Element 106. > > Now, this is fortuitous because I was having problems with getting neon oxygen fluorine and helium to obey the Faraday Law in a maximum amount of production of monopoles. And after reading that snippet of hexacarbonyl, I realized what my solution must be. > > Now recently I spoke of that the Old Chemistry Table of Elements needed revision and what I dreamed up was a double cone, with apex to base intersecting at midsection, rather than the silly contraption in Old Math of two apex together. Apex to base is far far better because it is stable when built, and, besides, it is a generalization of the cylinder. For think of the cylinder as a routed out, carved out midsection, like a double cone spool. > > But, anyway, reading hexacarbonyl I saw a vision of where the NEW TABLE OF ATOMS must go. Not to a double cone, but rather to Ampere's Law as geometry and Ampere's law is a torus of electric current and then the magnetic field of a torus around a torus. Get out any picture of Ampere's law and you will immediately recognize that geometry where you use the right-hand rule. > > Now, I keep the Old Chemistry picture of the Table, keep it all, for it is rather excellent and good. I forget about a 3rd D table or any changes to the 2nd D table. But, where the big changes come is the ALGEBRA of the Table of Elements. The Algebra changes drastically. > > This is a picture of the Old Chemistry table (using just one letter to make uniform spacing, and all the s,p,d,f rows are where they should be, not this sad cut-out view, but all intact.) > > > H H > L B B C N O F N > NM A S P S C A > K C S T V CM F C N C Z G G A S B K > R S Y Z NM T R R P A C I S S T I X > C B L C P N P S E G T D H E T Y L H T W R O I P A H T P B P A R > F R A T P U N P AC B C E FM N L U U U U U UU U U U UU U U U > > So, what did the hexacarbonyl do for my insight? > > > Well, for one we raise hydrogen above helium to be a single whole row and have helium be a single whole row to have 8 rows in total > So here we have 1Proton = 8Muons and 1 neutron= 9Muons Further we have 1HYASYS = 9Muons, where HYASYS means hydrogen atom system Now it could be, just could be that no more elements can exist beyond Element 118, could be, for that would mean we have a totally new row, a 9th row. Some reasoning for this-- an upper limit to holding 8 muons as proton and 1 orbital muon as electron is reached with 295 HYASYS. > H > H > L B B C N O F N > NM A S P S C A > K C S T V CM F C N C Z G G A S B K > R S Y Z NM T R R P A C I S S T I X > C B L C P N P S E G T D H E T Y L H T W R O I P A H T P B P A R > F R A T P U N P AC B C E FM N L U U U U U UU U U U UU U U U > To me, that would be a nice table for in a way the rows remind me of a closed loop wire in Faraday law and the column are the bar magnet. But Ampere's law needs obeying and the Table is looking much like Amperes law in that the rows are the electric wire and wrapped around the wire with the right-hand rule is magnetic field. > The number 8 is a crucial critical number in all of physics, for it is 1proton= 8muons. Now, I do not know if 8 shows up in the Maxwell Equations, I do know 137 shows up, but, does 8 show up? It must in the form of the s,p,d,f > > Now last night, I was struggling to find how to make MAXIMUM Faraday Law upon oxygen, fluorine, neon and helium to explain them as protons as wires and muons as bar magnet. And here is where the hexacarbonyl image comes to my rescue. > > Notice that if we think of the entire ROW of chemical elements as the wire that the oxygen-neon row and the sulfur-argon row is 8 > > Now, the next two rows are the iron-krypton and the silver-Xenon row. Now, they look like those rows have no magic number 8. And here is where the algebra sinks in. When we have a d row, we make the p elements as 3 and the d elements as 5, so that we have 3+5 = 8. That Algebra is indicative of the Ampere Law, that half of the d and half of the p are going into magnetism, while the other half is going into electric monopole current. > > Now, the table has two rows of s, two rows of p, two rows of d, and two rows of f. The Algebra works on the f row, where 14/2 = 7 and now we need a 1 to make 7+1 = 8. So what happens in the f row is that 7 for magnetism, 7 for electricity and the s provides the 1 as 2/2. > > So, in d row, the s orbital is masked, while the p and d are cut in half. > > In f row, the d and p orbitals are masked, while the f and s are cut in half. > > Mind you, this algebra is all for the sake of 8. Why 8? Well the short answer is proton = 8 muons. A longer answer is symmetry of magnetism versus electricity in the Ampere Law. > > Now, getting back to the first two rows, the single hydrogen and the single helium of the second row. > > For hydrogen it is 8 in the form of a single proton is 8 muons forming a closed loop wire and where that orbital muon must be magnetism of Ampere law along with the bar magnet of Faraday Law. > > For helium has 36 muons in total, 32+4. But 36 is also 9x4, and hydrogen is 9 muons. The view of hydrogen is it is the atom of the monopole, and the helium atom is the atom of the dipole. > > The geometry view of helium is a perfect sphere, the geometry view of hydrogen is a ellipse of its magnetism to electricity. > > Now in mathematics we have another ALGEBRA that is very much similar to the above Algebra, it is the Regular Polyhedra and there again we have 6 items, pyramid, tetrahedron, hexahedron, octahedron, dodecahedron, icosahedron. The algebra of regular polyhedron so much are analogs of the Table of Chemical Elements. > > So let us compare Table of Elements with Table of Regular Polyhedra edge face vertex tetrahedron 6 4 4 pyramid 8 5 5 cube 12 6 8 octahedron 12 8 6 dodecahedron30 12 20 icosahedron 30 20 12 Notice how they are duals, cube has 6 faces, 8 vertices while dual octahedron has 8 faces 6 vertices Now find the duality in the Table of Elements since magnetism is dual to electricity 1st row s hydrogen 1+8 = 9 1 muon + proton(8muons) 2nd row s helium 1+8 =9 1 muon + proton(8muons) 3rd row s+p 2+6 =8 4th row s + p 2+6=8 5th row s/2 + d/2 +p/2 = 1 + 5 + 3 = 9 6th row s/2 + d/2 + p/2 = 1 + 5+3 = 9 7th row s/2 + f/2 = 1 +7 = 8 (p becomes degenerate) 8th row s/2 + f/2 = 1 +7 = 8 (p becomes degenerate) The algebra of Regular Polyhedra remind us as a analog of the Algebra of Table of Elements, where the Faraday law and Ampere law act like rows as wires and columns as magnetic field lines of force. AP Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 23:04:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Jupiter growing protons in its hydrogen Re: Revolutionary idea-- Sun and starpower are Faraday's Law turning Space into monopoles, fusion is just a tiny fraction of starpower 1/1000 From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 06:04:11 +0000 Jupiter growing protons in its hydrogen Re: Revolutionary idea-- Sun and starpower are Faraday's Law turning Space into monopoles, fusion is just a tiny fraction of starpower 1/1000 On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 10:23:57 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Revolutionary idea-- Sun and starpower are Faraday's Law turning Space into monopoles, fusion is just a tiny fraction of starpower 1/1000 > > Please do not hold me to the 1/1000, it maybe something like 10^-6 rather than 10^-3. > > There is no doubt in the world that fusion exists, and that fission, even more so, exists. > > But, what I have discovered is that the Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV and that tiny particle .5MeV is Dirac's Magnetic Monopole. What that means for energy of the world, is that every atom is a Faraday Law Demonstration of every hydrogen atom system inside an atom. Every proton with its muon, every neutron, are constantly doing a Faraday law and producing electricity inside the atom, producing magnetic monopoles. And these monopoles can either stay inside the atom or flow out as radiation. This is where stars and our Sun get their power, their energy. There is a tad bit of fusion, but not very much, certainly not as much to let the Sun shine as it does every day of our life. > So now, is there some kind of means of an atom to store the magnetic monopoles until they reach a point where they add up to being a "new proton"? Looking at hydrogen tritium decays, I see a radioisotope of .018 MeV. For molybdenum I see .04MeV, for barium I see .03MeV. So, what I am thinking is that as the atom orbital muon causes a creation of a monopole by passing through the 8 muons of its proton, forming a monopole of .018MeV. How does that monopole become put into storage? Is an atom like a capacitor that can store monopoles? So, then we need 840/.018 = 46,667 such events of creation of a monopole and stored inside the atom. A capacitor is usually two metal plates with a nonconductor in between. So is an atom structure able to be a capacitor. Now Jupiter is said to have metallic hydrogen and is a electrical conductor, just perfect for storing monopoles inside atoms until they "grow to be a proton". Perhaps this is the reason Jupiter is the largest planet, with all that mass/matter production by its huge amount of metallic hydrogen. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-16 12:49 -0700 |
| Subject | page1 True Chemistry Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test |
| Message-ID | <a09ff668-1e34-41b9-b1fb-995e173345ff@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #692604 |
page1 TRUE CHEMISTRY-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV , by Archimedes Plutonium History Preface:: A history Preface to this textbook Re: TRUE CHEMISTRY, textbook, 2018 Alright, this textbook is written as a Memoir, in that I am writing it as a notebook, my daily activity, an historical accounting, along with a textbook of facts of True Chemistry. Both a textbook on True Chemistry and a historical accounting, both combined into one. So you will see many dates of posts throughout this Memoir. Now this book needs a Preface, to sort of tell people what it was like in the time period of 1897 when JJ Thomson discovered a .5MeV particle and then going on to believe he discovered the "electron of atoms", when in fact, what he discovered was the Magnetic Monopole of atoms. Yet the entire Scientific Community, whether physics, chemistry, biology, all were duped into thinking this .5MeV particle was the integral electron of atoms. So from 1897 until 2017 when I discovered the Real Electron = muon = 105 MeV, that community of scientists all fell duped to thinking electron= .5 MeV. Of course, that changes all of electricity, as we understood it in 1897 through 2017. So some time in the future, few people will understand what took place from 1897 through 2017, when all scientists thought the atom was a proton at 938MeV, neutron 940MeV and electron at .5MeV. Of course, my very first proof of the Real Electron is 105 MeV was instantaneous to my mind--chemical bonding, chemical bonding-- is it possible to have covalent bonding with 938 to .5 ?? For if the Real Electron is 105 MeV then the Real Proton cannot be 938, but had to be 840MeV, and then, chemical bonding covalent of 105 versus 840, all makes sense. This entire discovery was caused by a noting in 2016, that it takes 9 muons to make a proton (plus or minus less than 1%) To me, in science, I know all physics has outside "noise" and so when you say plus or minus less than 1%, means to me, anyway, that 9 muons = 1 proton. Now, sorry, but it took me another year from 2016 to 2017, to say-- Real Proton = 840 MeV. Sadly, to discover that 9 muons = 1 proton in 2016, took another year in 2017 to subtract 105 from 945 to see that the Real Proton was 840MeV. And the instantaneous proof that came to my mind, is, well, you just cannot have Chemistry, the Chemical bond of covalent, if the electron is .5MeV and the proton 938MeV, for the angular-momentum is just not there to make covalent bonding. If the Real Electron is 105MeV and Real Proton is 840MeV then you have sufficient numbers of MeV for angular momentum to create covalent bonding in atoms. But let me in this preface tell the story of how Electricity was imagined to be from 1897 to 2017. Electricity with the electron assumed as .5 MeV and proton at 938 MeV, that electricity in this view was seen as a electron particle that is wishy washy, here now, gone a second later flowing in a wire as electricity. In the new true view of electricity, electron = 105 MeV, proton = 840 MeV, it is rare for that electron of hydrogen atoms to ever leave its proton, and what electricity is-- is this monopole particle that assumes either a +1 or -1 charge and is fickle, for it can be attached to a hydrogen atom and with little to no encouragement, go flying off along a copper wire. Only, flying is a metaphor, for the Monopole is a photon or a neutrino dressed up (superposition) with .5MeV charge energy. So the monopole is a wave, a closed loop wave that becomes the shape of the closed loop wire itself. At the moment, I am rebuilding a crystal radio set I had as a Xmas gift from my father way back in about 1968. You see, the radio wave is a magnetic monopole, it is not an electron out of some atom. I need to build this Preface into a good logical history expose of how feeble was the understanding and teaching of What the Real Electron was in science from 1897 to 2017. How utterly feeble it is, to have millions of students around the world sitting in classes, hearing the teacher, the instructor saying that the electron is a .5MeV particle that runs along copper wires and yields electricity. When the real truth is, that electrons are very heavy particles of 105 MeV, 1/8 the mass of the proton at 840 MeV, and it is rare, extremely rare that this massive Real Electron ever leaves its proton, but that these magnetic monopoles flit around, flit here, flit there, flit almost everywhere, and these monopoles are electricity. AP Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 13:32:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 21:32:28 +0000 Proofs that the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV, and that the .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole, after all Experimental PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon by Archimedes Plutonium 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. Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 18:28:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: short history of subatomic particles of Physics Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 01:28:07 +0000 short history of subatomic particles of Physics Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook In my textbook True Chemistry, those new early pages, I need a chronology of history of how we viewed atoms, their constituent elementary particles, and electricity. For the blame as to not knowing the .5MeV particle was not the electron but a magnetic monopole, is the conceit of the minds of physicists, or should be say the naivety of the minds of physicists is that they were blown away by +1 and -1 charge. If we had taken off the table the electric charge. Then when JJ Thomson discovered this 1897 particle of .5MeV, if electric charge was not a issue, then Thomson, in my opinion would have realized it could not be the electron. So let me make a rough sketch of the history involved, the pertinent history. 1861-1864, Maxwell wrote " A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field"-- a complete theory of electricity tying together magnetism, as EM, electromagnetism theory. Perhaps the single greatest physics book, or book in general, before the Atom Totality textbook. 1897, J.J. Thomson discovers a .5MeV particle, with a -1 charge, which he names as electron, thinking it is the electron of atoms, which, it turns out by 2017 is the Dirac magnetic monopole, and the muon is the real-electron. 1913, the Bohr model of the Atom, which gives no working role for its elementary subatomic particles of proton, electron, neutron, photon (of which the magnetic monopole is a photon with a charge energy-- or a neutrino with charge energy). Sadly, the Bohr model is lacking any sort of physical role for these subatomic particles, other than to say, let there exist a proton, let there exist a electron. It is this lack of a job or role or working marching order for subatomic particles that should have alerted all chemists, all physicists, that they have a looney tune model of the atom. In the true model of the Atom, come 2017, is that the elementary particles are doing a Faraday Law and Ampere Law sort of like a dance, a job, a commitment for their existence, inside the Atom, conducted by those protons and muons. Where protons as a coil and muon electron as a bar magnet creates new monopoles, converting Space into monopoles, and stored in neutrons as capacitors, which a hydrogen atom grows to become a deuterium atom etc etc. In other words, the creation of new atoms and heavier atoms is the job of existing atoms. 1917-1920, Rutherford discovers the proton of what he thought was 938 MeV 1931, Dirac with a paper on magnetic monopoles which in order to satisfy the quantization of electricity, which implies that monopoles must exist. 1932, Chadwick discovered the neutron of 945 MeV. Now they discovered these particles, like the neutron and proton but would have to wait years before they refined their masses on how much mass they had. 1936, Anderson & Neddermeyer discover the muon particle of 105 MeV. I do not know what year they found out it weighed 105 MeV. Now, the big question is why are the minds of physicists so backwards, so empty of Logical thought, because when the proton was discovered by Rutherford in 1917 and could measure its mass to be roughly 940 MeV and then Thomson's particle of .5MeV. So, the puzzling question is from 1917 to 2017 is a span of time of 100 years, and the astonishment that in those 100 years, every physicist, every chemist knew of the Covalent bond of chemistry, every one of them knew what angular momentum was, or had a reasonable notion of what angular momentum means-- at least we thought they knew, yet not a single scientist ever had the thought run through their mind-- stop a minute-- how can a covalent bond of chemistry exist if the proton was 938 versus .5MeV electron ?? How, how is that possible. When that is only possible if the proton was 840 versus 105 MeV. Is the simple and short answer-- no physicist in the 20th century had a good decent logical mind to think straight, to think clear. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-18 09:22 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: page1 True Chemistry Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test |
| Message-ID | <d484ed88-8cdf-4fd8-9e75-12c4eced8dfb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #698762 |
page2 Experimental Proofs and Definitions Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 23:00:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 06:00:28 +0000 Now here is a new proof that belongs in the first page. Now chemistry is all about the nature and behavour of the last electrons of atoms, while the protons and neutrons of atoms play little role in chemistry. So well if that malarkey is true then the electrons flowing in copper should turn copper wire into nickel wire. Should turn iron atoms into manganese. And why is it not doing such? Because the .5MeV particle is not the electron but a magnetic monopole and the real-electron = muon of atoms stays firmly in place with Real Proton=84MeV. In New Chemistry atomic number is the same if you count Real Electron =105MeV or count protons. AP Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 12:44:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: definition of Chemistry is all wet behind the ears in Old Chemistry Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 19:44:41 +0000 definition of Chemistry is all wet behind the ears in Old Chemistry Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV - hide quoted text - On Monday, March 19, 2018 at 1:00:31 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Now here is a new proof that belongs in the first page. > > Now chemistry is all about the nature and behavour of the last electrons of atoms, while the protons and neutrons of atoms play little role in chemistry. So well if that malarkey is true then the electrons flowing in copper should turn copper wire into nickel wire. Should turn iron atoms into manganese. > > And why is it not doing such? Because the .5MeV particle is not the electron but a magnetic monopole and the real-electron = muon of atoms stays firmly in place with Real Proton=84MeV. > > In New Chemistry atomic number is the same if you count Real Electron =105MeV or count protons. > Alright, when I went to college in 1968, Univ Cincinnati, taking Freshman Chemistry (may have been sophomore year?) one of the first things we learned from the instructor is that Chemistry is about the electrons, the last few electrons of any atom. I remember the book used was Mortimer's Chemistry: A Conceptual Approach. I no longer have the textbook edition I used, but a later edition, the 4th ed. of Mortimer, 1979. Now, Mortimer attempts to define Chemistry on page 1 by saying : "Chemistry may be defined as the science that is concerned with the characterization, composition, and transformation of matter. This definition, however, is far from adequate." Further on, Mortimer writes: "The focus of chemistry, however, is probably the chemical reaction." Trouble is, though Mortimer never defines or tells us what "chemical reaction" is. And probably the reason the UC instructor said words to the effect-- "Chemistry is about the behavior of the last electrons of atoms." And so, what we have here, in terms of Logic, we have a massive contradiction, a massive counterintuitive definition of Chemistry. So if the science of Chemistry is basically, not all but the bulwark of chemistry is the study of the last electrons in any atom, then in electricity flow in copper, with Old Chemistries stupid notion the electron is the .5MeV particle, then, right before your very eyes, all copper wire should turn to nickel wire because is the nickel atom has 28 electrons and the copper has 29 electrons, as the electron flows into the appliance, it deprives all the copper atoms of an electron and thus, making those copper atoms become nickel atoms, even though they still have 29 protons. You see, the only way to resolve Old Chemistry's dilemma, is to consider, that the .5MeV particle was never the electron at all, but was Dirac's Magnetic Monopole that Dirac strived to find in his lifetime for the monopole was the carrier of electricity. Electricity is not the flow of electrons, but the flow of magnetic monopoles-- those, .5MeV particles. The Real Electron, like the Real Proton hardly ever move outside the atom they are confined in. It takes enormous amount of energy to move any electron inside an atom and that is because the Real Electron is 105MeV, what is called the muon in physics, and the Real Proton is 840MeV. So, Old Chemistry-- every book that assumes the electron is .5MeV is now a defunct worthless trash book. Old Chemistry starts off their science with a crazy contradiction, a counterintuitive definition of Chemistry-- for they say-- Chemistry is about the last electrons of atoms, yet their ideas would thus cause copper wire to change into nickel wire by just the flow of electricity. When the Real Electron = muon, it stays behind with its 840MeV proton, securely fastened to the proton, and what is flowing as electricity is a .5 MeV magnetic monopole. AP Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 14:32:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: new early page of textbook, explaining the hole in Old Chemistry Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 21:32:04 +0000 new early page of textbook, explaining the hole in Old Chemistry Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook - hide quoted text - On Monday, March 19, 2018 at 2:44:48 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > On Monday, March 19, 2018 at 1:00:31 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > Now here is a new proof that belongs in the first page. > > > > Now chemistry is all about the nature and behaviour of the last electrons of atoms, while the protons and neutrons of atoms play little role in chemistry. So well if that malarkey is true then the electrons flowing in copper should turn copper wire into nickel wire. Should turn iron atoms into manganese. > > > > And why is it not doing such? Because the .5MeV particle is not the electron but a magnetic monopole and the real-electron = muon of atoms stays firmly in place with Real Proton=84MeV. > > > > In New Chemistry atomic number is the same if you count Real Electron =105MeV or count protons. > > > > Alright, when I went to college in 1968, Univ Cincinnati, taking Freshman Chemistry (may have been sophomore year?) one of the first things we learned from the instructor is that Chemistry is about the electrons, the last few electrons of any atom. I remember the book used was Mortimer's Chemistry: A Conceptual Approach. I no longer have the textbook edition I used, but a later edition, the 4th ed. of Mortimer, 1979. > > Now, Mortimer attempts to define Chemistry on page 1 by saying : "Chemistry may be defined as the science that is concerned with the characterization, composition, and transformation of matter. This definition, however, is far from adequate." Further on, Mortimer writes: "The focus of chemistry, however, is probably the chemical reaction." Trouble is, though Mortimer never defines or tells us what "chemical reaction" is. And probably the reason the UC instructor said words to the effect-- "Chemistry is about the behavior of the last electrons of atoms." > > And so, what we have here, in terms of Logic, we have a massive contradiction, a massive counterintuitive definition of Chemistry. So if the science of Chemistry is basically, not all but the bulwark of chemistry is the study of the last electrons in any atom, then in electricity flow in copper, with Old Chemistries stupid notion the electron is the .5MeV particle, then, right before your very eyes, all copper wire should turn to nickel wire because is the nickel atom has 28 electrons and the copper has 29 electrons, as the electron flows into the appliance, it deprives all the copper atoms of an electron and thus, making those copper atoms become nickel atoms, even though they still have 29 protons. > > You see, the only way to resolve Old Chemistry's dilemma, is to consider, that the .5MeV particle was never the electron at all, but was Dirac's Magnetic Monopole that Dirac strived to find in his lifetime for the monopole was the carrier of electricity. Electricity is not the flow of electrons, but the flow of magnetic monopoles-- those, .5MeV particles. > > The Real Electron, like the Real Proton hardly ever move outside the atom they are confined in. It takes enormous amount of energy to move any electron inside an atom and that is because the Real Electron is 105MeV, what is called the muon in physics, and the Real Proton is 840MeV. > > So, Old Chemistry-- every book that assumes the electron is .5MeV is now a defunct worthless trash book. Old Chemistry starts off their science with a crazy contradiction, a counterintuitive definition of Chemistry-- for they say-- Chemistry is about the last electrons of atoms, yet their ideas would thus cause copper wire to change into nickel wire by just the flow of electricity. When the Real Electron = muon, it stays behind with its 840MeV proton, securely fastened to the proton, and what is flowing as electricity is a .5 MeV magnetic monopole. > Sad that I have to go to physics to get a good enough definition of a chemical reaction. I go to Feynman Lectures on Physics, 1963, page 1-6 and 1-7 --- quoting --- Chemical reactions In all of the processes which have been described so far, the atoms and the ions have not changed partners, but of course there are circumstances in which the atoms do change combinations, forming new molecules. This is illustrated in Fig. 1-8. A process in which the rearrangement of the atomic partners occurs is what we call a chemical reaction. --- end quoting Feynman --- I have not located any author who comes outright saying "Chemistry is basically the study of the last electrons of atoms". But the above is as close as we need to get on the fact that Old Chemistry is a Contradiction in Terms, and that Old Chemistry is Counterintuitive, if it wants people to believe that the electron is .5MeV, proton is 938 MeV and neutron is 940 MeV. In my discovery that the Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton= 840MeV, and neutron = 945MeV, leaving behind the .5MeV particle as Dirac's magnetic monopole. My discovery of all of that, stems from a day in 2016 when looking at tables of masses of elementary particles, I saw the muon at 105 and the proton at 938 MeV and said to myself, -- lo and behold, that is less than 1% of being 9x105 = 945. I said to myself, lo and behold 945/938 = 1.007, or, in percentage is .7%, less than 1%, and to me, that means they are really equal, that 9muons = 1 proton. So, with that magnificent discovery in 2016 that a proton was just 9 muons, I did not assemble that beautiful discovery just yet, that the proton had to be actually just 840 MeV. Leaving me to wonder in 2017, what in the world is the .5MeV if the real-electron=105MeV, real proton = 840 MeV and thus, in 2017, I soon realized the vagabond tiny particle .5MeV was what Dirac was chasing after all his life, and ironic he was a electrical engineer before becoming a theoretical physicist. Anyway, with the discovery that these .5MeV particles were never the electrons of atoms, I sought for proofs that the Real Electron was 105MeV and the first proof I thought of was the bonding of Chemistry, the angular momentum needed to bond a Covalent bond or Ionic bond or Metallic bond. Those bonds could never occur when the proton to electron is 938 versus .5 MeV. Bonding in Chemistry needs a ratio of at least 8 to 1, as in 840 to 105 MeV. So that was my first proof. But reflecting on this history, now in March of 2018, I need to revamp the entire Old Chemistry. Because, well, Chemical Atoms can be classified far far far better with Atomic Number = number of muons inside an atom. Chemistry is better when we say that carbon is 6 muons, that hydrogen is 1 muon that helium is 2 muons, instead of this silly proton count of atoms. For Chemistry, basically is all about the actions and reactions of the real electron = muon. And the muons in atoms are almost, just as secure in that atom as the protons of that atom. If you think it is terribly difficult to remove a proton from an atom, well, it is almost as difficult to remove the muon from that atom. So the Chemical Table of Elements based on atomic number = number of protons, is better served, if it is based on atomic number = number of muons. And thus, the hideous conclusions of Old Chemistry, that you can have a copper wire conducting electricity thinking it is the flow of electrons out of the copper atoms, a truly truly hideous notion, because in reality, the flow of electricity is never the flow of electrons, but the flow of magnetic monopoles-- the particle that Dirac needed to make electromagnetism a fully complete and symmetrical theory. For without the magnetic monopole, EM theory had a huge hole in it, a fake theory until that hole was plugged. So, see for yourself, for if Old Chemistry is correct then electricity in a copper wire would turn it into a nickel wire. But it never does that, because electricity was never about electrons flowing, it was about monopoles flowing and the copper wire remains as copper. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-22 16:11 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: page1 True Chemistry Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test |
| Message-ID | <f0aa366e-0b73-4224-b3ae-7bbb9e6dc02a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #699059 |
page3 Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 15:12:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: radioactive Beta decay is 105 not .5 MeV Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 23:12:00 +0000 radioactive Beta decay is it 105MeV or .5 MeV Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV On Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 3:36:00 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV > > So logically incoherent have Physicists become, so incoherent. Incoherent is a polite term for crazy, for physicists have become babbling crazy fools. They would have you believe that Beta decay in Radioactivity is the decay of electrons as .5 MeV particles. That means, the electric current in any electric wire is Radioactive beta decay. How silly is that? So, do the babbling crazy fools ever consider that if Electrons = .5MeV, then a current in a wire is Radioactive Decay. Give me any 10 outstanding physicists today, any 10, and, even all put together have not one gram of Logical thought among them. If you think the electron is the .5MeV particle, then your radioactive decay is all messed up and screwy. If you think the Real Electron = 105 MeV, then, you have a modicum of a logical mind, because when the Real Electron = 105 MeV, it seldom ever comes out of its parent-atom. It seldom comes out unless you apply high energy to the atom to force it apart from its 840 MeV proton. Thus, when you have a neutral atom and force that atom to emit or eject a 105 MeV particle, then, then, you have Radioactive Beta Decay. But, the run of the mill photon with .5MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy, is not any Radioactive Decay. I am going to have to rewrite the entire textbook on Radioactive Decay. AP On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 1:08:56 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics: direct observance some years back in Poland of a 840 Mev particle Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV 2nd proof with the direct observance some years back in Poland of a 840 Mev particle along with 105 MeV particle of the hydrogen atom. Hello, well i found the below on the internet. I need a 840MeV particle that is the Real Proton. I have asked to look for it in the production of Muons. Is the below a production of muons along with 840 MeV particles? Quoting Indication For A Broad J(pc) = 2++ Meson At 840-mev Produced In The Reaction Pi- P ---> Pi+ Pi- N At High |t| K. Rybicki, I. Sakrejda (Cracow, INP) 1985 - 10 pages Z.Phys. C28 (1985) 65-74 DOI: 10.1007/BF01550250 Abstract (Springer) The reaction π−p→π+π−n has been studied at 17.2 GeV/c and 63 GeV/c. A partial wave analysis shows a fairly broad (∼250 MeV) resonance at about 840 MeV. This object, already visible in moments of the angular distribution, is produced in theD wave with helicitym=2 via unnatural exchange. The cross section for the reaction π−p→D2U(840)n is only by an order of magnitude lower than that of ϱ(770) and falls likepLAB−2.1±0.3. We have not been able to explain this object by systematic experimental effects like acceptance and/orN* reflections; neither is the nature of the resonance (if real) clear to us. --- end quote ---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-25 22:25 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: page1 True Chemistry Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test |
| Message-ID | <000e40fa-7044-432b-9e30-344af0d4d1b3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #699626 |
page4 More Experimental Proofs On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 12:45:04 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics: 3rd proof-- pull plug out of electrical socket and notice light flash. That flash of light was the magnetic monopoles as photons with charge energy of .5MeV, for the monopoles compose all electric currents. beta decay as monopoles, not electrons On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 5:59:14 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics: Old Physics clowns could not distinguish between beta decay and electricity Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 12:48:31 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > 3rd proof-- pull plug out of electrical socket and notice light flash. That flash of light was the magnetic monopoles as photons with charge energy of .5MeV, for the monopoles compose all electric currents. > > Now it seems to have escaped everyone's attention ever since JJ Thomson discovered the .5MeV particle, and since 1900 with the discovery of radioactivity and about the very same time, the Thomson discovery of this .5 MeV particle. The LOGICAL attention, that if the electron was .5MeV, then it is not distinct from beta radioactive decay. In other words, for those ignorant enough to think the electron was .5MeV, those same ignorant scientists would have to say then, that electricity is radioactive beta decay running through copper wires. Not a single person existed from year 1900 to 2017 with a gram of logical commonsense, not a one. For if you believe in radioactive decay, beta decay as the .5MeV particle, and believe that electricity is the flow of these .5MeV particles, then, that very same ignorant person has to believe that radioactive beta decay is electricity of .5MeV particles flowing in copper wire. What LOGICALLY solves this dilemma, is that the .5MeV particle is not the electron but rather Dirac's magnetic monopole, and thus, there is a radioactive decay of monopoles and there is monopoles in electricity, while the Real Electron is 105 MeV and stays put inside an atom tied to its 840 MeV proton, and neither one of them-- the 105 or 840 seldom decay, unless under high enormous energy bombardment. In Old Physics, they had no logical stance to stand on, to distinguish a beta radioactive decay compared to a electricity flow. Such is a world, where scientists operate without a logical mind, but rather, as dumb as a robotic mind trying to deal with physics. A robotic mind would think a .5MeV is radioactivity sometimes, yet , electricity the other times, only a dumb robotic mind would think that. Now the reason I titled this small textbook as Chemists are smarter than Physicists, is because the Chemists by the Danish team:: Positively Charged Phosphorus as a Hydrogen Bond Acceptor Anne S. Hansen, Lin Du and Henrik G. Kjaergaard* are the first scientists to make that beautiful experimentation that the Real Electron cannot be a .5MeV particle. And what will now happen is that other Chemists will lead more and more experiments on different atoms verifying Kjaergaard. Physicists are far and away, far too dumb to ever realize their .5MeV particle as never the Real-Electron, for physicists are like clown acts at a circus, they are trained to do one dumb act and simply cannot ponder and think-- "could there be a mistake in identifying the real electron". Physicists are far too stupid to ask-- did I get the Real True Electron. On Monday, February 19, 2018 at 2:48:25 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.math: distinguish between beta decay and electricity Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV Quoting from Wikipedia Radioactive decay (also known as nuclear decay or radioactivity) is the process by which an unstable atomic nucleus loses energy (in terms of mass in its rest frame) by emitting radiation, such as an alpha particle, beta particle with neutrino or only a neutrino in the case of electron capture, gamma ray, or electron in the case of internal conversion. A material containing such unstable nuclei is considered radioactive. Certain highly excited short-lived nuclear states can decay through neutron emission, or more rarely, proton emission. --- end quote --- I may have to do a whole new periodic table of elements before this textbook is complete. It depends on features of matter such as carbon that makes graphite and carbon that makes diamond. What I mean to say here, is that the features of a element in chemistry is all about the electrons, for chemistry is mostly the study of electrons of atoms, but then when you have muons as the real electron and you have monopoles acting on atoms, it makes chemistry a whole new science to have to juggle the characteristics of muon and monopole. So that the periodic table must include muon along with monopoles. AP On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 7:07:49 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics: Identity Crisis when it occurs in physics Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV//.5MeV was Dirac's monopole Identity Crisis when it occurs in physics Now in life, we humans in social gatherings often have Identity Mistakes, I myself can barely remember someones name, just minutes after being told-- a Robert becomes a John, a Clara becomes a Karen to me, just minutes. And even facial recognition becomes blurred. But in science, especially physics, a Identity Mistake means big big trouble ahead. Now if we consider Columbus as a geologist, his identity mistake was to think his Americas were actually India, the Indian subcontinent near Asia. So, that was a whopping big error, and actually to this date, do not know when Columbus himself realized those land masses was nowhere near India. Did he realize years later after 1492, that the Americas was a mistaken identity of India? So, how long was it, after 1492, that people realized it was a new continent and not the Asia or India. Did it take hundred years? Now in Chemistry, when chemists were discovering the new elements, there were many mistaken identities, where they thought they had a pure element, but turns out they had a compound. But in Physics, mistaken identity, especially the building blocks of an atom-- proton, electron, neutron, to have a mistake of what the Real Electron is-- is the muon = 105 MeV, a mistake like that, can set the entire physics enterprise backwards for thousands of years if kept. And not only physics, but all the other sciences depend on Atomic Physics. So, why, why, oh why, was every physicist of the last 117 years, so blithering logically stupid? As I so often said before, to be a expert a master in Physics, you must master MOMENTUM. Momentum is the key concept of physics, and if you cannot master momentum, you are not worthy of physics. And, so, you have Covalent Bonding in Chemistry, and here comes a physicist that says the electron is .5MeV and the proton is 938MeV. If you mastered momentum, and angular momentum in this instance, you would immediately recognize, that a Covalent bonding in chemistry cannot exist if the electron is .5 while proton is 938 MeV. You can have covalent bonding if the electron is 105 versus 840MeV for the proton. A ratio of 105 to 840 allows for covalent bonding. So, what gives for physics from 1900 to 2017, was everyone out-to-lunch, on-vacation? AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-26 05:30 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test |
| Message-ID | <pltduj$qnf$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #700008 |
Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails: > Let us hype and sensationalize Gay-Logic, as observed here in sci.math-- "Us", Gay Plutonium? You are the only one attempting to turn these groups into a gay pickup bar and accusing everyone else of being gay, you and nobody else! "Us" is plural, meaning more than one person, not just you!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-28 22:30 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: page1 True Chemistry Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test |
| Message-ID | <5048b36b-4807-454a-bd57-93a2f8953bbe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700008 |
page5 On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 8:25:06 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics: Re: Identity Crisis when it occurs in physics Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV//.5MeV was Dirac's monopole - show quoted text - On Quora, someone tells us this:: Quoting:: The idea that Columbus died thinking he had found only islands off the coast of Asia is a myth. It is clear from his own writings that he realized he had encountered a new continent. On his third voyage (1496), Columbus for the first time encountered the coast of South America, in what is now Venezuela, at a point where the Orinoco River enters the sea. He originally assumed this was a large island. But a few days later, he came to the conclusion that no island could produce the quantity of fresh water which he observed at the mouth of the Orinoco, and concluded, “I believe this is a very large continent which until now has remained unknown” (“Yo estoy creído que esta es tierra firma, grandísima, de que hasta hoy no se ha sabido” in Las Casas, Historia, vol 2, p. 264). On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 9:51:23 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics: Re: Identity Crisis when it occurs in physics Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV//.5MeV was Dirac's monopole On stackexchange we have a differing view and one i am inclined to accept Quoting:: Under Portuguese auspices he completed a second expedition, which set sail from Lisbon on May 31, 1501. After a halt at the Cape Verde Islands, the expedition traveled southwestward, reached the coast of Brazil, and certainly sailed as far south as the Río de la Plata, which Vespucci was the first European to discover. In all likelihood the ships took a quick run still farther south, along the coast of Patagonia to the Golfo de San Juli n or beyond. His ships returned by an unknown route, anchoring at Lisbon on July 12, 1502. This voyage is of fundamental importance in the history of geography in that Vespucci himself became convinced that the lands he had explored were not part of Asia but a New World. Unlike Columbus, who, to his death, clung to the idea that he had found the shores of Asia, Vespucci defined what had indeed been found — and for this he has been rightfully honored. End quote. The above implies that from 1492 to 1502 the world still thought the new land was China- India and Amerigo Vespucci said it was a new continent. Now I believe Vespucci as the first one to realize that the landmass Columbus discovered was a new continent and took the world 10 years from start to finish to realize the mistaken identity. Should it take Physics over 117 years to realize a mistaken identity of the electron, for the Real Electron is 105 MeV and the .5 MeV particle is the monopole. Consider the arena where Columbus, Vespucci played in, continents, landmasses, economies and exploitation, whereas physics and science arenas are mostly about truth and knowledge, where a small set of people play. Columbus played on a larger stage involving far more people. So, could it be that when commerce plays on a stage, a mistaken identity takes only 10 years to be corrected. But when physics has mistaken identity, it takes 117 years to uncover? Is it because, when you have too many people educated to think all alike, that it takes 117 years to correct, but when you have a pool of people, none of them adhering to one idea, that it takes just 10 years to fathom the truth. One last thing on Columbus is that he was C.C. and J.J. Thompson, and then Amerigo Vespucci for which America got its name was AV, and Archimedes Plutonium is AP. From CC to AV took 10 years, but from Thompson to AP took 2017 - 1897 = 120 years. Does that mean I get the rights and privileges to name the Real Electron the "archimuon", for the real electron is not involved in electricity, but rather the monopole is. And the real electron pretty much stays at home along side the 840 MeV proton. So the proton and the archimuon make up matter with the magnetic monopoles running as electricity of atoms. Now, where does the Archimuon spend most of its time in the atom? Probably most of the time is bonded to the proton so you have a 105 plus 840 bonded together two particles.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-03 14:38 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: page1 True Chemistry Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test |
| Message-ID | <3306ca25-404c-40cd-a642-eaa28ad42d9b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #700342 |
page6 On Monday, February 19, 2018 at 8:35:22 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.math: radius of hydrogen proton shrinks too much Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV 4th proof is that the radius of the hydrogen proton shrinks too much when a muon is injected and that contradicts Standard Model. The reason is obvious-- the proton is 840 MeV electron is muon and then you add a second muon. --- Quoting from www, Ars Technica, Researchers orbit a muon around an atom, confirm physics is broken --- So, the proton radius puzzle remains a puzzle. The team behind this new work point to a number of measurements that could potentially help clarify it. Some of them involve better measurements with normal electrons; others involve scattering muons off protons themselves to see if there's an unknown force at work. The latter would tell us whether anything beyond the Standard Model will be needed to explain this puzzle. --- end Quote --- On Monday, February 19, 2018 at 9:52:18 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics: only way to explain how a battery works Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV 5th proof electrochemical battery is not explainable as Faraday law unless you concede the battery is a thrusting bar magnet, and thus, the battery is explained as a dipole magnet of the anode and cathode and the electrolyte solution is the ferromagnetism of spins all lined up. And thus a current in the circuit is because the battery as a thrusting magnet forces monopoles down the circuit wire. On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 12:40:26 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.math: spin is charge and charge is spin Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV 6th proof, spin is charge, and charge is spin and the only particle for that is a ratio of permittivity to permeability as that of 10^-6/ 10^-12 is a charge energy of 10^6 or 1 MeV for photon charge energy, and that leaves the proton, electron=muon, monopole with .5MeV charge energy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-06 15:49 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: page1 True Chemistry Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test |
| Message-ID | <5e69134c-3b54-4de0-adf5-3696c1f7ff8f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #701018 |
page7 On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 3:29:39 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics: Maxwell Equations are asymmetrical unless you have monopole Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV 7th proof the Maxwell Equations are not symmetrical without current being the flow of magnetic monopoles. Dirac spent most of his life venturing for the existence of the magnetic monopole, so that electricity is a quantized energy, to give substance to the phenomenon of electricity. Well, it turns out that in life, often, what we are so desperately searching for, is right under our very nose, but just too blind to see it. The .5MeV particle we thought was the electron is in fact a photon or neutrino dressed up with a .5MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy. And the Real true Electron is the muon at 105 MeV. So, what bothered Dirac about the magnetic monopole is the Maxwell Equations end up being asymmetrical and that bothered Dirac immensely and he kept pushing forward and forward to find that monopole. On Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 3:29:49 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.math: Ion theory does not support electron being .5MeV 8th proof, now, a straightforward proof that the muon is the real-electron can come from ion theory. The trouble is that weeding out a proof of electron = muon, is that we get entangled with the magnetic monopole. So, the proof is simple for ion theory, to prove the muon = real electron. Take for example iron Fe atoms, they are 26 protons, 26 electrons=muons Now iron has ion states of -4, -2, -1, +1, +2, +3, +4, +5 +6, +7 So, suppose the electron = .5MeV particle and not the 105 MeV particle That would mean Iron can exist as iron with 26 protons and only 19 electrons at one extreme and 26 protons and 30 electrons at the other extreme. Now in Maxwell theory, there is a law that enforces Conservation of Energy, called the Lenz law in Faraday law. Otherwise, you have unlimited energy and Nature does not have unlimited energy. So that in atoms, the protons become a thrusting bar magnet and the electrons= real-electrons are the closed loop of wire (inert gases are closed loop wires and why bonding exists is to close the loop of real-electron structure). So, the proof that .5MeV are not electrons, is that iron bonds readily with other iron forming a compound of iron, the metal iron and metallic bond is due to iron atoms wanting to close the loop of their 26 Real Electrons. They close that loop by the metallic bond. That means, the existence of ions from -4 to +7 is unrelated altogether from Electron configuration. That ions are some other particle behavior but not the electron nor proton behavior. The reason iron exists as iron from Fe-4 to Fe+7 is that the particle .5MeV is a surface interloper particle of atoms, it is a add-on particle not the integral electron of atoms. If the monopole were the electron we break conservation of energy by all these interlopers. The reason the chemical table is all built around the inert gases, is because Faraday's law must be obeyed and thus atoms with a closed loop of their electrons seek no bonding of electrons= muons. But atoms that have no closed loop of their muons, seek that closed loop structure and thus, they form covalent, ionic, metallic bonds with other muons of other atoms. Brief course on IONS in New Physics, for all of Physics and Chemistry are changed with the revelation that the REAL ELECTRON is the muon particle and REAL PROTON is 840 MeV. So, this pretty much changes everything in chemistry, everything. Ion states oxidation states Fe -4 to +7 although +2, +3 most common Now, Fe+2 means the iron atom has 2 magnetic monopoles of + charge present The Fe-2 ion of iron means it has 2 magnetic monopoles of - charge present The hydrogen atom has ions of -1 to +1, H+1 means it has 1 proton of 840MeV, 1 electron of 105 MeV, and one magnetic monopole of +1 charge of .5MeV H-1 means a hydrogen atom as ion has 1 proton of 840 MeV, 1 electron of 105 MeV and one magnetic monopole of -1 charge of .5MeV Oxygen has oxidation states (ion states) of +2, +1, -1, -2. O+2 means oxygen with 8 protons each of 840 MeV, 8 electrons each of 105 MeV, and 2 magnetic monopoles each of +1 electric charge of .5MeV So, as I was saying so much before, how silly and stupid physicist were to think for a single moment, that you take loads and loads of classroom time studying momentum, and at the end of it all, you think the atom is a electron of .5MeV while proton is 938 MeV and you expect chemical bonding to occur under those circumstances. If you had a marble as the electron and a bowling ball as the proton, how in heaven's name are you so deranged in thinking that the momentum of the marble and bowling ball is going to form chemical bonds? But the flip side of that ignorance is ION theory. To think for one moment, that an iron atom can lose 7 electrons, yes, mind you, 7 whole electrons and you got to be a crazy physicist /chemist to think that you still have an iron atom. A logical person, a logical chemist, would say, Fe+7 is a iron atom that has 26 protons each 840MeV and 26 electrons each 105 MeV and what the +7 is, is 7 magnetic monopoles each of +1 charge at .5MeV apiece. So, the failure of Physics and Chemistry in the past 100 years, was a failure to recognize what physics is mostly about-- momentum, and that a marble to a bowling ball is not going to be a hydrogen atom or entering into Chemical bonding. A bowling ball with a 1/8 bowling ball, is going to be an atom. And that if you have an atom, it is not going to give up any of its protons or electrons easily, which means the unbalanced charges-- ions of atoms, is not a loss or gain of electrons, for the electrons rarely get out of any atom. But rather the unbalanced charges is due to a particle that Dirac chased after all of his life-- the Magnetic Monopole. And every time a atom is unbalanced in charge, is due to a buildup of monopoles on that atom. On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 5:50:29 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics: Radioactivity rewritten Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV 9th Proof. In Chemistry, it is rare, that a atom loses or gains any Real-Electron=muon. And that is a 9th proof that Real Electron=muon, that beta decay in Old Physics, was not the electron of atoms but the transfer of Magnetic Monopoles. The only real radioactive decay mode is the helium nucleus-- alpha decay and the hydrogen atom decay= 840MeV proton plus its 105MeV electron= muon, which in Old Physics and Old Chemistry would be seen as neutron decay. But there is never a Real Electron decay for that would mean muons spewed out of atoms. Nor do we see protons spewed out of atoms, Real Proton = 840 MeV. The so called hydrogen nucleus of a 938 MeV is not radioactive decay, for it is still a 840 proton + 105 muon = hydrogen atom. So, all the books on Radioactivity need to be rewritten. On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 7:26:52 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics: proton and electron=muon arrangement inside atoms Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV 10th Proof. Well, I spoke of the internal heart or core of the concept of Chemistry, that the proton/s and electron/s are two parts of the Faraday Law. The protons are the thrusting bar magnet and the electrons= muons forms the closed loop of wire. But, however, the proton itself is a closed loop wire due to its being a composition of 8 muons, in a octet of muons, thus the electron-muon is the bar magnet and the proton is the closed loop wire. Either way, Faradays law is preeminent, either the proton is the bar magnet and electron is the closed loop wire or the proton is the closed loop wire and electron is the bar magnet. Essentially that is the heart and core of atomic physics, a replay of Faraday's law with protons and electrons. But, however, the electrons= muons only forms a closed loop wire for Faraday's law in the inert gases, the helium, neon, argon, etc and all other atoms want to have that closed loop configuration. Thus, is borne the Chemistry of bonding. Chemistry is borne. So that one atom without a closed loop configuration bonds with another atom to achieve that goal. So chemistry bonding is that of muons bonded to other muons in different atoms. Now, can these .5 MeV particles fulfill the atoms need to make their muons a closed loop? Obviously not, because ions of atoms such as Fe, iron, swing from -4 to +7 in ions, so that proves ions cannot solve a atom's problem of its electron structure being less than closed loop. Only muons of other atoms can fulfill a atom's need to be closed loop. Which begs the question, how and why are monopoles borne inside of atoms?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-09 13:41 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: page1 True Chemistry Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test |
| Message-ID | <a061b51c-aeec-41af-b07b-5a7c1b4199f5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #701443 |
page8 On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 9:40:59 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics: solving muon magnetic moment anomaly 11th Proof. Solving the Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly, alongside proton radius shrunk --- Quoting from www, Ars Technica, Researchers orbit a muon around an atom, confirm physics is broken --- So, the proton radius puzzle remains a puzzle. The team behind this new work point to a number of measurements that could potentially help clarify it. Some of them involve better measurements with normal electrons; others involve scattering muons off protons themselves to see if there's an unknown force at work. The latter would tell us whether anything beyond the Standard Model will be needed to explain this puzzle. --- end Quote --- Now in re-reading that Ars article on proton radius shrinking when a hydrogen atom of 840 MeV proton with electron = 105 MeV and then a second muon is tried to be compounded-- will of course, shrink the proton radius for the two muons with 1 proton all three are centered at the center of the proton. But in re-reading was mentioned an anomaly I was not familiar with-- Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly. And reading some results of that, I find surprizing for it was Feynman who claimed Electrodynamics was the supreme physics theory in accuracy of prediction. But the anomaly is off by a mere .1%, which seems very very small to be not even an anomaly. Trouble is, the electron of Old Physics was found to be so accurate as to be described as physic's most precise finding ever, and that makes the .1% discrepancy ever so much larger. Now, I was able to explain away the proton radius anomaly because the proton is not 938 MeV but is 840 MeV and the electron is not the .5MeV particle but rather is 105 MeV. So, can I explain away the Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly. I believe I can easily. For if you consider that what Old Physics measured as the electron magnetic moment was none other than the monopole as a dressed up photon magnetic moment. And it is easily seen that in EM theory the permeability constant is "exact" no uncertainty at 1.26*10^-6 H/m. So, it is no wonder that Old Physics thought their electron magnetic moment in Quantum Electrodynamics was so ultra ultra precise-- for, they never measured the magnetic moment of the electron, but instead a magnetic monopole of the dressed up .5 MeV particle. Then, when it came time to measure the magnetic moment of the muon, the real-true-electron, there is this .1% discrepancy, but there are discrepancies in the proton and neutron etc. So, once we realized the Real Electron is the muon, afterall, there is no magnetic moment anomaly. On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 12:41:50 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics: static electricity makes no sense as removal of electrons Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV 12th proof -- Static Electricity Re: Proofs that the Real Electron=muon Alright, I need a 12th proof, for I do not want to neglect what is probably our first encounter with electricity-- static electricity. As we walk across a carpet and touch something we experience a spark. Trouble with static electricity, is that the concept makes out the atom as a flimsy structure, really really flimsy structure that electrons of atoms can be picked off so easily, and from very many diverse materials. One would think the structure of atoms was built of stronger stuff. And that is what the Electron = Muon concept is about, that it is so very very hard to separate a electron from its atom, just like separating a proton out of a nucleus. So the subject of static electricity is this interloper particle, this surface superficial particle that is easily "whipped up" as the magnetic monopole, just as easy as producing electricity in a Faraday Law demonstration of a thrusting bar magnet in closed loop of wire. For, we can easily imagine that our walk across a carpet is similar to a thrusting bar magnet and then the closed loop wire is when we touch something, having built up some monopoles in our body. Old Physics would say that we picked up electrons on the carpet, and as we touch something, remit that imbalance of electrons. New Physics would say that we picked up magnetic monopoles. Now let us look at other static electric experiments. For when we rub a glass rod (+1) with silk, or rub a plastic rod (-1) with wool. Here again, Old Physics would say we pick off electrons of atoms. New Physics would say, no, the atoms are still composed of all their electrons and protons. The only thing changed with the rubbing is that energy of the rub transfers to the magnetic monopole energy-- packets of .5MeV monopoles of charge energy. And the energy of rubbing becomes monopoles. These are those closed Lines of Force of a magnet, and the moment we touch something these stored up monopoles, flow from our body to that of the touched object. How is that a proof the electron = muon? Simple, in that the carpet, or plastic rod (-1) with wool or glass rod (+1) with silk, are materials that are electrically neutral substances, for the rubbing action was transformed not into free electrons, but was formed into monopoles. These substances remain electrically neutral, and the only change is that the rub created magnetic monopoles-- some + charged monopoles, some - charged monopoles, and these monopoles are superficial to the atoms where they formed. Static Electricity is merely stored monopoles. Monopoles are conservation of energy, for the rubbing had to be transformed into some energy packets and that is-- monopoles of charge energy. In the experiment of where we pick up bits of paper from either the glass rod or the plastic rod due to static electricity. What is happening here, is that the rod is not involved with the Real Electrons of atoms, but is involved with the superficial surface charged particle that is the magnetic monopole. Now the electroscope is explained much much easier with magnetic monopoles rather than the silly electrons on one leaf pushing away the electrons on the second leaf. For consider instead a closed loop line of force between the two leafs /\ O Where the leafs start out as || Then comes the charged rod of monopoles sending down a monopole closed loop O that pushes apart the two leafs. Now i have two gold leafs and if true should leave the push apart looking more like this () rather than this /\. And that is what i have ()
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-12 07:30 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: page1 True Chemistry Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test |
| Message-ID | <d1722875-b584-491e-8f61-5b592edb562d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #701870 |
page9 Famous Experimental Proof done in Denmark, 2014 On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 5:07:26 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics: Kjaergaard's famous Danish experiment of 2014 Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV 13) Proof came in February 2018 for AP's ion theory, that ions are monopoles .5MeV either +1 or -1 charge, attached to a 840MeV proton and 105MeV muon as hydrogen. Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 19:37:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: H+1 bonds to P+1 Re: EXPERIMENTAL PROOF Re: Hydrogen is the very best way to prove AP's ION theory Re: proving AP's ion theory From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 03:37:37 +0000 H+1 bonds to P+1 Re: EXPERIMENTAL PROOF Re: Hydrogen is the very best way to prove AP's ION theory Re: proving AP's ion theory The below is a famous experiment of 2014, very famous because it opens a flood gate of new understanding of both Physics and of Chemistry for it proves these 5 points of issue:: 1) That in Electricity Magnetism there is only a force of attraction, and all scientists were confused because what they thought was "repel" is merely a "denial of same space occupancy-- Pauli Exclusion" for exclusion is not the same as repel. 2) The real electron of atoms is a 105 MeV particle called the muon and the Real-proton is 840 MeV 3) The particle that is .5MeV we always thought was the electron way back since JJ Thomson in 1897, turns out, that this .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole, which is a photon or neutrino with a .5MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy. 4) The Real Electron and Real Proton rarely ever escape a atom, but what does escape and what is in almost all transactions of atoms is the monopole which can be either +1 or -1 of .5MeV. 5) The Real Electron is firmly bonded to the proton as 105 MeV with 840 MeV, for which the proton itself is composed of 8 muons. The neutron is actually 945 MeV and is a proton + muon + some other particles. Kjaergaard's experiment is the first of what will become a cascade of chemistry experiments that all will prove the above 5 points of interest. On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 5:07:26 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics: Kjaergaard's famous Danish experiment of 2014 Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV 13) Proof came in February 2018 for AP's ion theory, that ions are monopoles .5MeV either +1 or -1 charge, attached to a 840MeV proton and 105MeV muon as hydrogen. Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 19:37:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: H+1 bonds to P+1 Re: EXPERIMENTAL PROOF Re: Hydrogen is the very best way to prove AP's ION theory Re: proving AP's ion theory From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 03:37:37 +0000 H+1 bonds to P+1 Re: EXPERIMENTAL PROOF Re: Hydrogen is the very best way to prove AP's ION theory Re: proving AP's ion theory Below is an experiment done in Denmark where it is shown that H+1 bonds to P+1 ions, proving not only that the Muon is the real-electron and that ions are magnetic monopoles, but, in addition, proving that like charges attract, for in Nature, attraction force is the only force existing and that what appears to be repel is merely-- denial of same space occupancy. Positively Charged Phosphorus as a Hydrogen Bond Acceptor Anne S. Hansen, Lin Du and Henrik G. Kjaergaard* Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 5, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters Vol. 5: , Issue. 23, : Pages. 4225-4231 Publication Date (Web): November 19, 2014 https://doi.org/10.1021/jz502150d Scientists discover impossible hydrogen bond | ScienceNordic sciencenordic.com/scientists-discover-impossible-hydrogen-bond Mar 25, 2015 ... Scientists have discovered a new type of hydrogen bond which was previously considered impossible or at least highly improbable. "The discovery is significant because hydrogen bonds are such a fundamental part of both chemistry and biology," says Professor Henrik Kjærgaard from the Department of ... ScienceNordic Scientists discover impossible hydrogen bond March 25, 2015 - 06:25 By: Lise Brix Professor Henrik Kjærgaard and his colleagues have demonstrated that a new kind of hydrogen bond can occur between a hydrogen atom and a phosphorous atom. Pictured here is Kjærgaard in his lab at the University of Copenhagen. (Photo: University of Copenhagen)Scientists have discovered a new type of hydrogen bond which was previously considered impossible or at least highly improbable. "The discovery is significant because hydrogen bonds are such a fundamental part of both chemistry and biology," says Professor Henrik Kjærgaard from the Department of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen. "They form the basis of biological molecules and it’s for instance hydrogen bonds that determine the boiling point of water." He led the new study, which has been published in the Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters. At Aarhus University, chemistry professor Jeppe Olsen is surprised.... (snipped) Olsen points out that not only have Kjærgaard and his colleagues found the new hydrogen bond in experiments -- they have also provided "an excellent explanation" of the discovery. The theory behind the discovery is that the atoms' charge is not uniformly distributed around their surface -- which is how simplified models say they do. “Our discovery emphasises that the charge around the surface of an atom is not uniform. If there was a positive charge all the way around the phosphorous atom this hydrogen bond wouldn't be possible. But it is. This must mean that the charge is not uniformly distributed around the atom -- you might say that there are tiny pockets of negative charge around the phosphorus atom," says Kjærgaard. The discovery of the special hydrogen bonds was made in experiments with infrared spectroscopy -- a method used by scientists to obtain knowledge about molecules and their vibrations by irradiating them with infrared light. AP writes:: Sorry, but the explanation of why this bonding exists is because there is no force of repulsion in Electricity Magnetism, only attraction. There is denial of same space occupancy which is known as the Pauli Exclusion Principle. But what will really force everyone in science to accept the idea that the real electron = 105MeV is when you break apart the hydrogen proton into a 840 MeV particle plus a 105 MeV muon. I suspect this has already happened in Poland-- Quoting Indication For A Broad J(pc) = 2++ Meson At 840-mev Produced In The Reaction Pi- P ---> Pi+ Pi- N At High |t| K. Rybicki, I. Sakrejda (Cracow, INP) 1985 - 10 pages Z.Phys. C28 (1985) 65-74 DOI: 10.1007/BF01550250 Abstract (Springer) The reaction π−p→π+π−n has been studied at 17.2 GeV/c and 63 GeV/c. A partial wave analysis shows a fairly broad (∼250 MeV) resonance at about 840 MeV. This object, already visible in moments of the angular distribution, is produced in theD wave with helicitym=2 via unnatural exchange. The cross section for the reaction π−p→D2U(840)n is only by an order of magnitude lower than that of ϱ(770) and falls likepLAB−2.1±0.3. We have not been able to explain this object by systematic experimental effects like acceptance and/orN* reflections; neither is the nature of the resonance (if real) clear to us. --- end quote ---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-12 19:14 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test |
| Message-ID | <pnboi7$k7g$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #702249 |
Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails: >AP writes: pretty stupid of John Conway to never admit the ellipse is never >a conic, always a cylinder section, when even his students in class can >prove it to John Conway by a cone, cylinder can and circle lid-- the <snip> Poor Archie, still struggling with the conic section problem...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-16 14:50 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: page1 True Chemistry Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test |
| Message-ID | <2eb0ed1d-341f-4cd2-8bbd-822550071e69@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #702249 |
page10 On Thursday, March 1, 2018 at 12:29:30 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics: Thermodynamics has to be completely unified to electricity/magnetism True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Thermodynamics only makes sense when both heat by radiation is the same as heat by convection, all being monopoles. So that the glow of green in a radium watch dial, is the same as the glow of red in a electric heater, both are emitting magnetic monopoles. Thermodynamics has to be completely brought into the rest of the house of physics and seen as fully that of electricity and magnetism. On Saturday, March 3, 2018 at 7:34:39 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics: Radioactivity has to be redone,completely True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Radioactivity has to be completely redone. It is rare that you remove a proton=840MeV and a electron=105MeV. Most radioactivity involves the .5MeV particle , the magnetic monopole of Dirac. Then the most radioactivity besides the monopole is the helium nucleus, and the neutron. So a total rewrite of radioactivity is in the works. rewrite the Sun fusion process True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV The process of fusion in the Sun and stars needs rewritten, for when Real Electron = 105MeV and Real Proton = 840MeV, that most of what we thought was fusion and fission is actually just the routine interplay of magnetic monopoles of .5MeV. Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 14:18:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2018 22:18:09 +0000 AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV Today starts a new Periodic Table of Chemical Elements based on the idea that 1 Proton = 8 Muons in a Faraday Law Configuration. Call it the Archimedes Plutonium Table of Chemical Elements. Now I need the OCTET for Chemistry, which is a single proton built from 8 Muons poor drawing of Octagon showing its 8 muons = 1 Proton 7 8 6 1 5 2 4 3 The Periodic Chemical Table starts, not with Hydrogen, but starts with a Proton being a octagon of muons, 8 muons. Now we include the 9th particle-- the ElectronMuon which is the moving bar magnet in Faraday's Law 7 8 6 1 9th 5 2 4 3 The picture above is the ElectronMuon 9th of every Proton in every atom. The ElectronMuon is Faraday's bar magnet that moves in and out of the Proton that the Proton itself is a Closed Loop Wire formed by 8 Muons in a octagon shape. So, the First Chemical Element in the Periodic Table is the Proton as a 8 Muons in a octagon shape, and with a 9th Muon as the ElectronMuon of an atom-- every and any atom. On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 5:52:49 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook Now this idea revolutionizes all the chemical elements, because it makes us realize that everything about Atoms is a Faraday Law. So Carbon has 6 protons and 6 ElectronMuons forming a Faraday Law wire loop and bar magnets, and the neutrons providing the same. So, an electrical engineer given wire loops and bar magnets would make that pile of loops and magnets into the most efficient Faraday Law Demonstration. On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 6:24:34 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook What the AP periodic table of elements allows is the inclusion of isotopes. On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 7:21:09 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics: table that includes isotopes Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 6:24:34 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics: > What the AP periodic table of elements allows is the inclusion of isotopes. So, the neat thing about 1 Proton = 8 Muons and the ElectronMuon as 9th muon of all atoms protons and electrons, is that every Atom is a assemblage of Muons into a Closed Loop Wire with an electronMuon as bar magnet. And then, of course, the Magnetic Monopole, a photon or neutrino dressed up with a .5MeV charge energy of either +1 or -1 charge. Now how does the Faraday law create a monopole? Well, it is not the Muon traveling in the proton octagon closed loop wire, for the Muon is the bar magnet. And what travels in the proton-as-wire is a monopole. And if this monopole is too energetic, it leaves the proton-wire and we perceive it as a monopole radioactive decay. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-20 00:44 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: page1 True Chemistry Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test |
| Message-ID | <bf690629-3ecc-48ad-8f57-a27cf73c5434@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #702999 |
page11 Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 22:35:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: is H2O behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 06:35:29 +0000 On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 9:55:41 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics: is H2O behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook how water is like fluorine isotope Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook Now way way back in sci.physics history, i believe it was sometime in the 1990s i spoke of a concept of hydrogen atom systems that composes all atoms. The idea basically was there are no neutrons and each proton is linked to a muon (of course back then i thought the electron was .5 MeV). In Hydrogen Atom Systems theory i called it HYASYS, the hydrogen atom would have number and mass of 1, helium would be 4. Oxygen would be atomic mass and number 16, and Fluorine (i keep mixing the spelling with the food flour) is 19F, but, there is a isotope of Fluorine as 18F. We can see how the AP Element Table accommodates isotopes for each isotope is a specific number of HYASYS. In HYASYS theory, every atom is composed not of protons, electrons=105MeV but only a proton + muon. But a curious feature appears in that water, H2O would have 18 HYASYS matching fluorine hyasys of 18F. Only realize the 2 H are bonded to oxygen while the 18F is a single atom. But no escaping the fact that in both you have a Faraday Law acting on 9 x 18 muons in total, where 1 proton = 8muons. In HYASYS, all atoms are just a specific number of MUONS, so for Water molecule, H2O is 162 Muons. And for isotope 18F, is 162 Muons that compose 18F. Now 19F, the most common atom of fluorine is in total 171 Muons. So, can any chemist today-- make a case that water behaves like fluorine isotope 18F? We all know water has some unique properties but so does fluorine. AP Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 22:48:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: is H2O behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 06:48:23 +0000 Re: is H2O behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 12:35:32 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > how water is like fluorine isotope Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook > > Now way way back in sci.physics history, i believe it was sometime in the 1990s i spoke of a concept of hydrogen atom systems that composes all atoms. The idea basically was there are no neutrons and each proton is linked to a muon (of course back then i thought the electron was .5 MeV). > > In Hydrogen Atom Systems theory i called it HYASYS, the hydrogen atom would have number and mass of 1, helium would be 4. Oxygen would be atomic mass and number 16, and Fluorine (i keep mixing the spelling with the food flour) is 19F, but, there is a isotope of Fluorine as 18F. > > We can see how the AP Element Table accommodates isotopes for each isotope is a specific number of HYASYS. In HYASYS theory, every atom is composed not of protons, electrons=105MeV but only a proton + muon. > > But a curious feature appears in that water, H2O would have 18 HYASYS matching fluorine hyasys of 18F. Only realize the 2 H are bonded to oxygen while the 18F is a single atom. > Now, looking up that of 18F, says (Wikipedia) it has a half-life of 109.8 minutes which is oodles and oodles of time to study it. But more important, it says it turns into 18Oxygen. In other words, 18F is H2O in a transitory, phase state. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Smith <invalid@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-20 07:44 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: page1 True Chemistry Re: _Leon Lederman flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test |
| Message-ID | <po0bo1$1ei9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #703624 |
Shut up imbecile.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-23 12:53 -0700 |
| Subject | Wish Leon Lederman well on his fight with Alzheimers-- news his family selling medals for treatment, thanks for the contributions to physics science, Leon!!! |
| Message-ID | <12ae917a-5989-4bd3-ae0e-9ae390a80608@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #703624 |
On Thursday, September 20, 2018 at 2:44:11 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > page11 > > Newsgroups: sci.physics > Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 22:35:29 -0800 (PST) > > Subject: is H2O behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re: AP's Periodic > Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook > From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> > Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 06:35:29 +0000 > > > On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 9:55:41 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics: > is H2O behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook > > > how water is like fluorine isotope Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook > > Now way way back in sci.physics history, i believe it was sometime in the 1990s i spoke of a concept of hydrogen atom systems that composes all atoms. The idea basically was there are no neutrons and each proton is linked to a muon (of course back then i thought the electron was .5 MeV). > > In Hydrogen Atom Systems theory i called it HYASYS, the hydrogen atom would have number and mass of 1, helium would be 4. Oxygen would be atomic mass and number 16, and Fluorine (i keep mixing the spelling with the food flour) is 19F, but, there is a isotope of Fluorine as 18F. > > We can see how the AP Element Table accommodates isotopes for each isotope is a specific number of HYASYS. In HYASYS theory, every atom is composed not of protons, electrons=105MeV but only a proton + muon. > > But a curious feature appears in that water, H2O would have 18 HYASYS matching fluorine hyasys of 18F. Only realize the 2 H are bonded to oxygen while the 18F is a single atom. > > But no escaping the fact that in both you have a Faraday Law acting on 9 x 18 muons in total, where 1 proton = 8muons. In HYASYS, all atoms are just a specific number of MUONS, so for Water molecule, H2O is 162 Muons. And for isotope 18F, is 162 Muons that compose 18F. Now 19F, the most common atom of fluorine is in total 171 Muons. > > So, can any chemist today-- make a case that water behaves like fluorine isotope 18F? We all know water has some unique properties but so does fluorine. > > AP > > > > Newsgroups: sci.physics > Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 22:48:22 -0800 (PST) > > Subject: Re: is H2O behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re: AP's Periodic > Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook > From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> > Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 06:48:23 +0000 > > > Re: is H2O behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook > > On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 12:35:32 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > how water is like fluorine isotope Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook > > > > Now way way back in sci.physics history, i believe it was sometime in the 1990s i spoke of a concept of hydrogen atom systems that composes all atoms. The idea basically was there are no neutrons and each proton is linked to a muon (of course back then i thought the electron was .5 MeV). > > > > In Hydrogen Atom Systems theory i called it HYASYS, the hydrogen atom would have number and mass of 1, helium would be 4. Oxygen would be atomic mass and number 16, and Fluorine (i keep mixing the spelling with the food flour) is 19F, but, there is a isotope of Fluorine as 18F. > > > > We can see how the AP Element Table accommodates isotopes for each isotope is a specific number of HYASYS. In HYASYS theory, every atom is composed not of protons, electrons=105MeV but only a proton + muon. > > > > But a curious feature appears in that water, H2O would have 18 HYASYS matching fluorine hyasys of 18F. Only realize the 2 H are bonded to oxygen while the 18F is a single atom. > > > > Now, looking up that of 18F, says (Wikipedia) it has a half-life of 109.8 minutes which is oodles and oodles of time to study it. But more important, it says it turns into 18Oxygen. In other words, 18F is H2O in a transitory, phase state. > > AP
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web