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

Groups > sci.physics > #700095 > unrolled thread

Re: Murray Gell-Mann flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test

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.

Contents

  Re: Murray Gell-Mann flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-08-26 19:54 -0700
    Re: Murray Gell-Mann flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-08-30 13:27 -0700
      Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-08-30 21:18 +0000
      Re: Murray Gell-Mann flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 15:57 -0700
        Re: Murray Gell-Mann flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-09-07 15:24 -0700
          Re: Murray Gell-Mann flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 00:26 -0700
            Re: Murray Gell-Mann flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 19:13 -0700
              Re: Murray Gell-Mann flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-09-17 15:08 -0700
                Re: Murray Gell-Mann flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-17 15:19 -0700
                  Re: Murray Gell-Mann flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-17 23:37 +0000
                    Re: Murray Gell-Mann flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-17 17:47 -0700
                Re: Murray Gell-Mann flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 16:51 -0700
                  Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-22 02:25 +0000

#700095 — Re: Murray Gell-Mann flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test

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.


AP

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#700488

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]

#700498 — Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails:

>On Thursday, 30 August 2018
>Michael Moroney writes:
>8:27 AM (7 hours ago)

>,,,,, "Total Failure" ,,,,,


>Mark Kisin, Peter Kronheimer, Jacob Lurie of Harvard--total failures says 

What, you still can't respond without multiple stalker lists or your 
cubbyhole pet? Are you autistic or something?

You said you had a proof the ellipse is not a conic section. Let's see it,
without the stalkerlists, and also leave your pet in its cubbyhole.

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

#701142

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]

#701620

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]

#701920

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]

#702576

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]

#703222

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]

#703226

On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 3:08:42 PM UTC-7, 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

Our physics is a junk pile that doesn't need to be learned.
It is the absolute opposite. It doesn't qualify. But the new
is objective instead. That is the only empowering knowledge.
Who needs to take a test? Some people don't need an education
to do better than everyone else producing new objective science.

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#703250

<mitchrae3323@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 
> Our physics is a junk pile that doesn't need to be learned.
> It is the absolute opposite. It doesn't qualify. But the new
> is objective instead. That is the only empowering knowledge.
> Who needs to take a test? Some people don't need an education
> to do better than everyone else producing new objective science.
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch
> 

Mitch, that’s just crazy talking. 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#703256

On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 4:37:20 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Our physics is a junk pile that doesn't need to be learned.
> > It is the absolute opposite. It doesn't qualify. But the new
> > is objective instead. That is the only empowering knowledge.
> > Who needs to take a test? Some people don't need an education
> > to do better than everyone else producing new objective science.
> > 
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> > 
> 
> Mitch, that’s just crazy talking. 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

You are part of the junk pile Roy Masters.

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

#703967

page12

FARADAY LAW is the building Principle of Chemistry, and the world for that sake

NEED MY OLD HYASYS AND RSNM Theories back again


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. 




Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 01:27:38 -0800 (PST)

Subject: the world in a science metaphor ? Re: AP's Periodic Table of
 Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 09:27:39 +0000


the world in a science metaphor ? Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook

And, let us try a second one of these. We compound iron 56Fe with chromium 52Cr and the total number of HYASYS, hydrogen atom systems is 108. Now the atom that has 108 HYASYS is Silver 108Ag 

Does the compound Fe+Cr resemble in chemical features that of silver Ag ? 

This test maybe easier than the test of H2O with HYASYS of 2+16 = 18 and the atom that matches 18 HYASYS is the rare Fluorine of 18F 

If true, to some degree, we can include chemical compounds into the Table of Periodic Elements. 

Because, really, Chemistry boils down to nothing but the laws of electromagnetism of a magnet thrust through a closed loop of wire. 

Philosophically, well, it is hard to imagine that the purpose of the Universe at large is a magnet thrusting through a closed loop wire. To think, that the entire Universe amounts to a magnet thrust through wire and current flows. In a sense, the magnet is father, the wire is mother, and out flows the baby current. Is this the world in a metaphor? 

AP 


Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 02:00:45 -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 10:00:46 +0000


Re: is H2O behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook

Now when i wrote that several hours ago, i was not really thinking about that of 18F turning into 18Oxygen for which if you think of the electron as the .5 MeV particle it is easy to accept you had Fluorine that converted to oxygen. But when you see the proton at 840 MeV electron at 105MeV, you have to question whether 18F ever existed at all, and was a H2O water molecule. 

AP 



Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 02:18:05 -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 10:18:05 +0000


Re: is H2O behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook

Alright there is more trouble in that magnesium 23 converts to sodium 23 in Old Chemistry. 

In New Chemistry it was never magnesium but rather instead was NaH a hydrogen bonded to sodium. 

So here we are seeing compounds classified as being single atoms. 

Also found that fluorine can be a liquid-- so i wonder if 18F was a water molecule and never a fluorine atom. 

AP


Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 03:03:36 -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 11:03:36 +0000


Re: is H2O behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook

Alright the heaviest element to date is 295element118 it resembles the noble gas Radon86 

Now in New Chemistry we define an Element as total number of Hyasys, hydrogen atom systems inside a particle. So the first four elements are 1H , 2H, 3H, 4He 

That is hydrogen, deuterium, tritium, helium. 

Now a burning question is whether every number from 1 to 295 has an element? 

So in Old Chemistry there were 118 elements with their isotopes. In New Chemistry there are 295 elements and isotopes do not exist. 

Now many elements are going to have duplicates such as we discussed 18O and 18F and in case of duplicates we get rid of one by indicating one is a compound of hydrogen. Where 18F is H2O of 16O. 

So i think i have a table from 1 to 295 unique table verified by chemical experiments. Then the question is going to be if this table retains family resemblance of columns once we form into a table. Will the former isotopes have some family resemblance? 

And will the Aufbau paradox of 20 out of 94 elements not in compliance go away? 

AP

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

#704007 — Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails:

>Moroney's Gay B&B near Boston loves AP's theory that Real Proton = 840 
>MeV with electron= muon and .5MeV was Dirac magnetic monopole. Does 

Archie, I am so glad that you finally asked me to discuss all your posts
with you! We can start with discuss your sudden projections, where you
accuse others of your own issues. Like in this very sentence, you accuse
me of liking your stoopid proton=840 MeV/electron=muon nonsense because
you like your own nonsense, you accuse me of being gay because you are
gay. You also accuse Konyberg of being depressed and a math failure
because you're depressed math failure.

So let's talk about all your issues. First, you are projecting much more
than you did before. Projection is a symptom of various forms of insanity.
Secondly, what you project is quite relevant. So apparently you are a
depressed gay math failure who likes your own false proofs. I do hope
you see a professional who can help you with all your issues.

>AP writes:: no, what I want is for you to be "banned from sci.math,
>sci.physics" as an insane stalker--

This is something else we can discuss. For some strange reason you always
thought discussing things in a discussion group was 'stalking' somehow.
I am glad you finally asked me to discuss stuff with you!

>Drs.L. Reif, Victor Kac, Irwin Pless of MIT, teach percentages correctly--

>MIT math dept.

>Michael Artin, Martin Bazant, Bonnie Berger, Roman Bezrukavnikov, Alexei

We can also discuss your stalker lists, in particular why you always post
stalker lists. Is it really autism at work? It sure is stoopid and
retarded!

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web