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

Groups > sci.physics > #704980 > unrolled thread

The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 19:43 -0700
    Re: The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 12:37 -0700
      Re: The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-09-29 10:14 -0700
        Re: The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-09-29 17:32 -0700
          Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-30 01:59 +0000
          Re: The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 11:32 -0700
            Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-30 19:18 +0000
              MIT's Michael Artin, Martin Bazant, Bonnie Berger, Roman Bezrukavnikov, Alexei Borodin, why cannot Moroney admit 938 is not 12% short of 945 ? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-09-30 14:38 -0700

#704980 — The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition

The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition

The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition
with the discovery the Real Electron = 105 MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole


The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook 
by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017 

These are the final days of 2017 and I have a one last chance opportunity to run through the entire textbook with comments. I have found that "comments" are an essential ingredient in writing a textbook, for the author can reflect at juncture points, any changes or thoughts of the moment. Comments give flexibility to an otherwise rigid text, and rigidity is something to abhor in science. If you do not like change, well, writing a science text is not for you. So by commenting at the end of pages, this gives the author that needed flexibility, and warns him of what to write in a future edition. 


Newsgroups: sci.math 
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 18:18:07 -0800 (PST) 

Subject: Page1, 1-1, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + AP-Maxwell-Equations-Describing 
 Physics, 8th ed. 
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> 
Injection-Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 02:18:07 +0000 


Page1, 1-1, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + AP-Maxwell-Equations-Describing Physics, 8th ed. 

PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE 
by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017 


Preface: 

Now I said I wanted Clarity, Comprehension, and Logical Flow in this textbook and keep that foremost in mind. In a way, after all these years, 24 of them, I seem to have learned -- how to write a science textbook. By writing preliminary pages and then constant editing. They say practice makes perfect. 

I think this textbook should be of Brevity also, and with the smallest amount of pages possible, under 100 pages. I do not want to ramble on. 

I think the first chapter should have many pictures, have some pictures in mind, for pictures with ideas are the most comprehensive teaching, and the first two chapters should be pictures with history to put things in perspective. 


page1, 1-1 Pictures of Atom-Totality-Universe 

I cannot show pictures except ascii-art in sci.physics, so I refer the reader to the many textbooks listed that shows pictures of what electrons (electron=muon) of an atom looks like. 

A large proportion of people reading this textbook, think that an electron=muon is one round ball that revolves around a proton-neutron nucleus of an atom. They are far from the true reality of what the electron=muon looks like. And most people are aghast or stunned to find out that the electron=muon looks like millions of fine grained glass dust evenly spread over a confined space, which in physics is called the electron-dot-cloud. 

One of my earliest ascii-art of the last electron=muon of plutonium was this: 

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH 
ELECTRON=muon 

                ::\ ::|:: /:: 
                 ::\::|::/:: 
                     _ _ 
                    (:Y:) 
                     - - 
                 ::/::|::\:: 
                ::/ ::|:: \:: 

        One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And 
each dot represents another galaxy. 

Look in a quantum physics textbook or a chemistry textbook for pictures of what an electron=muon looks like. An electron=muon is many white dots surrounding a nucleus. This is commonly called the "Electron Dot Cloud". 

Now, look at the night sky and replace those shining galaxies, shining stars, with the white dots of an electron=muon cloud. And there you have the Atom Totality Universe theory in a picture. 

It was on 7 November 1990, woken from sleep that I discovered the Atom Totality Universe and the picture from textbooks that I was thinking of in my mind during the discovery was the Halliday & Resnick picture of what the electron=muon of an atom looks like. And I hope the reader himself/herself looks up that picture in Halliday & Resnick textbook PHYSICS, Part 2, Extended 
Version , 1986, of page 572. 
  
In the 1990s I did a survey in mathematics of math professors doing a Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof in which 84% of them failed to deliver a valid proof, which can be seen in my Correcting Math textbook of 2016. And the reason I bring that issue up is perhaps I should do a survey in physics, or, all the sciences, asking someone to draw a picture of the electron=muon of a hydrogen atom on a piece of paper with pencil. Will most fail? 

Looking at Halliday & Resnick textbook PHYSICS, Part 2, Extended Version , 1986, on page 572. This is a large electron=muon cloud dot picture for which I quote the caption. 

  CHAP.26 CHARGE AND MATTER. 
     Figure 26-5 
      An atom, suggesting the electron 
      cloud and, above, an enlarged view 
      of the nucleus. 
--- end quoting --- 

You see, the dots of the electron=muon cloud, its billions upon billions of dots, is one electron=muon itself. An electron is perhaps 10^180 dots that comprise the electron=muon. 

And on the historic day 7 November, 1990, having awoken from sleep and remembering that picture in Halliday & Resnick, did I discover the Atom Totality Universe theory. I put together the idea that the dots of the electron dot cloud are actual galaxies and stars in the night sky. 

The dots of the electron dot cloud are actual mass chunks or pieces of one electron=muon. 

So that if we had a survey test of scientists, especially physicists, would they draw the hydrogen atom of one electron=muon and one proton as this: 

o  . 

Where the electron=muon is a ball going around a tiny ball of a proton nucleus? Probably that is their picture of an electron=muon, and, their understanding of what a proton and electron=muon are, -- some spheres going around one another. 

They probably would never draw a picture like this for an electron=muon: 

       ...... 
   .............. 
..................... 
..................... 
   .............. 
        ...... 

The picture of an electron=muon that was instrumental in my discovering the Atom Totality Universe theory is the one by Halliday & Resnick. That picture of the atom with dots caught my attention long before 7 Nov 1990 and it was on that day in 7 Nov1990 where I connected the dots of the electron dot cloud with actual galaxies and stars, and planets, etc. Thus this picture was instrumental in the discovery of the Plutonium Atom Universe theory. But let me emphasize strongly here that none of the electron cloud dot pictures, that I have seen, really show clearly the night sky of shining galaxies and stars. The discovery of a new theory sees more than what is contained in past wisdom and adds something new and pushes it into the new wisdom. 

I had seen many pictures of electron cloud dot patterns mostly in chemistry books and even in movies and TV. And it was stunning to me for the first time when I understood the electron=muon was not some small ball figure circling around a nucleus, but rather a huge number of dots was the actual electron=muon itself. And this stunning understanding is probably lacking in most scientists even a lot of physicists, but not so much chemists since they encounter pictures of electrons more often than others. So that if this survey of drawing what a hydrogen atom looks like of its 1 electron=muon with 1 proton nucleus were given to scientists and professors, would any of them draw something resembling a dot cloud? I think few if any. It is in their psyche to think the electron=muon is a tiny ball going around the proton nucleus, just like Earth going around the Sun. 

Somehow it was the Halliday & Resnick picture which jolted my mind into the discovery stage and although in that picture the white dots are far too dense to look like the night sky of shining galaxies and stars it was enough that they were white dots and that helped tremendously. In most of the other pictures of the electron dot cloud they are black dots or blue dots set 
against a light or white background, or they are too fuzzy as shown in a page from the Encyclopedia Britannica. 

And, on that fateful day of 7NOV1990, my day was spent in finding out what chemical element would fit the best as our Atom Totality Universe. Was it uranium, or plutonium? 

After 7NOV1990 I have searched many texts to find other pictures which have dot pictures of the electron cloud. 

Pictures speak a thousand words as the old saying goes, but better yet, pictures remain in the mind longer than written words. 
The Atom Totality Universe is very easy to explain and this ease is credit to the theory that it is the truth. When truth comes to physics the ideas are immediate, quick, connecting to past great ideas. For as Feynman said in his Feynman Lectures text in the first chapter where he places the Atomic Theory as the greatest physics idea of all time, and what I do here, is extend the Atomic theory to its utmost reach-- the universe in total is but one big atom. 

So on page 6-11 of Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume I, 1963, has a picture of the electron cloud, and quoting the caption: 
Fig.6-11. A way of visualizing a hydrogen atom. The density (whiteness) of the cloud represents the probability density for observing the electron. 
--- end quoting --- 

Well, on my fateful morning of 7 November 1990, I was interpreting those dots more than just probability numbers, but that the electron=muon was those dots and that the dots represent a mass chunk or piece of the electron=muon. Of course, the nucleus of a cosmic atom would have most of the mass, and so, the cosmic atom would be huge for the electron space and massive for the nucleus. 

So, if I did a survey on scientists, asking them to draw a electron=muon, would anyone in the survey get it correct by stipling dots or would they draw some round ball as the electron=muon? 

This is the dot picture I used in sci.physics and other newsgroups of Internet. 

                         94th ELECTRON=muon OF 231PU 

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

                ::\ ::|:: /:: 
                 ::\::|::/:: 
                     _ _ 
                    (:Y:) 
                     - - 
                 ::/::|::\:: 
                ::/ ::|:: \:: 

        One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. 

A larger version of what a plutonium atom looks like 
with its 5f6 as that of 12 lobes or as a dodecahedron: 

            . \ .  . | .   /. 
           . . \. . .|. . /. . 
              ..\....|.../... 
               ::\:::|::/:: 
---------------      ------------- 
--------------- (Y) ------------- 
---------------      -------------- 
               ::/:::|::\:: 
              ../....|...\... 
           . . /. . .|. . \. . 
            . / .  . | .   \ . 

Archimedes Plutonium 

Comments:: Since in 2017, I discovered that the Real Electron is the muon of 105 MeV and the so called little electron of .5MeV was in fact a charge energy, not rest mass and is a photon with charge, and is the magnetic monopole, which I call the magnepole. That has caused me to make clear where ever I write electron, to signify that the electron is a muon. This is huge huge change in Chemistry, for the chemical bond cannot exist with the electron as .5MeV, for it needs a 105 MeV as electron, and the Real Proton in physics is 840 MeV, and neutron is 945 MeV. 

AP

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#705081

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 19:55:05 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Page2, 1-2, pictures of the PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE 8th ed. 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 03:55:05 +0000

Page2, 1-2, pictures of the PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE 8th ed. 2017

Now the inspiration for me to make this ascii art electron=muon dot cloud picture 

                         94th ELECTRON=muon OF 231PU 

               Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH 
ELECTRON=muon

                ::\ ::|:: /:: 
                 ::\::|::/:: 
                     _ _ 
                    (:Y:) 
                     - - 
                 ::/::|::\:: 
                ::/ ::|:: \:: 

        One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. 

A larger version of what a plutonium atom looks like 
with its 5f6 as that of 12 lobes or as a dodecahedron: 

            . \ .  . | .   /. 
           . . \. . .|. . /. . 
              ..\....|.../... 
               ::\:::|::/:: 
---------------      ------------- 
--------------- (Y) ------------- 
---------------      -------------- 
               ::/:::|::\:: 
              ../....|...\... 
           . . /. . .|. . \. . 
            . / .  . | .   \ . 

of the 5f6 of 231plutonium comes from the old textbooks by White and then Seaborg & Loveland. 

The above is similar to a picture from White's text on atomic spectra. For few books try to show what the 5f6 looks like. H. E. White in his textbook  INTRODUCTION TO ATOMIC SPECTRA, 1934, page 71, uses a spinning top to make pictures of what atomic orbitals look like. And he shows a picture of the electron=muon of plutonium as white dots against a black background, but the white dots, like Halliday and Resnick are too dense of white. 

The white dots should be spread out more on the scale of what we see in the night sky of white dots of stars and galaxies. The night sky that we see is just the space and mass of the last two electrons=muons of 231PU, our observable Universe. 

The shape of the 5f6 of plutonium is seen in White's Atomic Spectra, and is seen again in The Elements Beyond Uranium, Seaborg & Loveland, 1990, page 73, and again seen on page 76, not as a dot pattern but just as a overall shape. 

This is a beautiful irony in the history of physics. To unravel what the atom looked like, was earnestly pursued in the early 1900s by such as J.J. Thomson, Rutherford, Bohr and others, and the atom was conceived as a miniature Solar System with the electrons=muons as miniature planets revolving around a Nuclear Sun. But then, later in the 1900s say around 1930's with White's Atomic Spectra, we see the electron=muon was seen more as a dot cloud picture, then a revolving ball. 

That is what Feynman is beginning to show in his Volume III, Feynman Lectures on Physics, 1965, page 19-12 in his diagram of the 2s, then 3p then 4d of hydrogen wave functions, which of course means a picture of what the electron=muon looks like. Feynman in this picture on page 19-12 does not use dots but rather squiggly curves, but that is better than the wrong picture of a electron=muon as a round ball revolving around a nucleus. Feynman also shows the atom on page 6-11, Volume I, as a dot cloud. 

Now in High School, 1964 to 1968 I studied physics with a textbook of PSSC, I believe the 2nd edition, and I do not recall, ever a picture of what a atom looks like, except perhaps in a film in that PSSC course. Shame that you can have a entire physics course in High School and escape the learning of what an "atom, its electron=muon" looks like. So that if I had been required to take a survey of what an atom and electron=muon looks like in High School, I would have drawn this picture: 

o . 

or this 

o O 

depending on whether I thought the individual electron=muon was larger than the nucleus material. 

Thinking the electron=muon was a ball "o" going around a tiny nucleus of "."

So, how fortunate for me, that before 1990, I had bought PHYSICS: Halliday & Resnick Part 2, Extended Version, 3rd edition, 1986, because without that picture on page 572, I probably would not have discovered the Atom Totality theory, and never have posted to the Internet of any science or math. Would have had no reason to post on Internet, ever. How one picture, changed the course of my life. 

And, speaking more, that PHYSICS: Part 2 Extended Version, Halliday & Resnick, 1986, page 1194, shows pictures of the p-orbitals which are not too dense in dots, and perfect for translating the dots as galaxies and stars. Of course there is the Old Physics interpretation of the dots making the electron cloud represent 90% of finding the electron, as a electron-ball (muon ball), according to Born interpretation, but according to my interpretation those dots represent 90% of the actual electron=muon mass, the electron=muon itself smashed up into fine matter and evenly scattered around the nucleus. 

And of course, in High School, I read the Time-Life book MATTER, 1963, Lapp, which on page 118 was my intuition of what the electron=muon, and atom looks like as tiny balls revolving around a nucleus, but on page 125 shows a different picture as the dot-cloud for the electron. 

So, what if we set in place this Survey, a survey where you ask a scientist, handing him/her a sheet of paper and asking the scientist to draw a picture of a electron=muon, going around a nucleus, the hydrogen atom. Draw it. 

Would 90% draw a ball going around a smaller ball or a larger ball: 

o . 

o O 

Or, would there be no one taking the survey that does a dot cloud. 

Certainly, if I were given the survey test at any time up to 7 November 1990, I would have drawn a ball going around another ball, much the same as Time Life's book MATTER on page 118. And even though, I had taken Chemistry classes in University and seen dot cloud pictures in chemistry books, it did not sink into my mind, that the electron=muon was a dot cloud, not a ball going around. 

Now in this page I need to cover the Born Interpretation of the Atom and its electron=muon, and talk about Collapsed and Uncollapsed Wave function. Because the electron=muon that moves in wires in electricity is the collapsed wavefunction, but here, is it electrons=muons moving in the wire, or is it charged photons= magnepoles the .5MeV moving in wires. But the electron=muon in an atom is in the dot cloud form, the uncollapsed wavefunction. The Universe as one big atom of plutonium is in the Uncollapsed form. 

Much later in this book we can see that Collapsed Wavefunction is electricity, and the Uncollapsed Wavefunction is magnetism. Collapse magnetism and you get electricity (Faraday law), collapse electricity and you get magnetism (Ampere law).

The Born Interpretation is one among many interpretations. His interpretation is that the electron=muon is always a ball figure, tiny ball that revolves around a atomic nucleus, and the dots are the probability of finding this ball at that specific dot. 

It is rather funny, how the novice, the greenhorn, the stupid and silly of physics people see something like "the Born Interpretation" and forget what the word "interpretation" means. They immediately replace the word "interpretation" to be that of "dictatorial, fascist reality". They do not understand that in science, we can have interpretations.

My interpretation is different from Born, for the electron dot cloud. My interpretation is that the electron=muon is smashed into pieces just as we smash a glass ball into fine glass powder or dust and spread those fine glass particles in Space. So for Born, the dots are only a parking lot space for a electron=muon ball. For me, the dots are actual pieces of the electron=muon. So every atom that exists, every particle that exists is a dot in the electron=muon dot cloud. We can expand the dots to be large dots as a galaxy, or star and so as we look in the night sky we see white dots, and those white dots are parts of the last electron=muon dot cloud of the Plutonium Atom Totality. 

My first encounter of what electron=muon looks like has to be the Time-Life book MATTER on page 118 and 125, although I would not remember the dot cloud picture on page 125, only the ball picture on 118. This was probably when I was 15 years old. 

My next encounter of what the electron=muon as a dot cloud would be circa 1966-1967 in my High School physics class where I saw a film of PSSC which showed the electron cloud as many white dots. 

The next encounter of the electron=muon as a dot cloud would be in college chemistry class of a textbook by author Mortimer in 1968-69. 

I have the fourth edition of Mortimer, Chemistry: A Conceptual Approach, 1979, not the edition I used in 1969. But these are very similar texts. And on page 45 shows the 2s orbital of helium in blue dots. It is a real good picture, but it was the Halliday & Resnick picture in PHYSICS text that discovered the Atom Totality theory. 

Now I have other chemistry texts that I bought after the discovery of the Atom Totality and out of curiosity and desire to compare, I mention them. Perhaps I should do a survey on scientists, asking them to draw a hydrogen atom of its electron=muon and proton, and see if any of them do a dot-cloud picture. 

So here are some texts that I bought after the historic 7 November 1990 discovery. 

CHEM ONE, by Waser, Trueblood, Knobler, 1980, sad to say, really do not have a dot-cloud picture of the electron=muon. The best they do is a ball type figure on page 317. 

Brown, LeMay, Bursten, 5th ed. Chemistry: The Central Science, 1991 on page 188 and 189 shows the dot cloud of electrons (muons) of the 1s, 2s, and 3s, and the 2p, and good pictures where the dots are in blue. 

You see, the stumbling block of dot clouds is that people are going to think a single dot is the electron, when in fact all those dots are one electron (one muon). 

Oxtoby, Nachtrieb in their Principles of Modern Chemistry, 2nd ed., 1990, page 505 do a 1s, 2s, 3s in blue dots that are too dense and fuzzy. And on pages 506 and 507 show the p and d orbitals but the blue dots are too dense and you would think it is a solid blue. 

Wehr, Richards, Adair, 4th ed. Physics of the Atom, 1984, and shame on them for I could not find one single picture of the electron as a dot cloud. I could not find a picture of the "atom", for which this entire book is devoted. Sort of like writing a book on the history of a person and neglecting to install a picture of the person. Otherwise, this text is excellent and have often used it for reference. 

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

                ::\ ::|:: /:: 
                 ::\::|::/:: 
                     _ _ 
                    (:Y:) 
                     - - 
                 ::/::|::\:: 
                ::/ ::|:: \:: 

One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. 
 
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ 
whole entire Universe is just one big atom 
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies 

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts in peace and quiet.    

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

Comments:: In 2016, I discovered that the muon was about 9 times the proton rest mass of 105 to 938 MeV, which is less than 1% difference of exactitude. In physics, when such quantities are so close, that we can address them as equal. But it was not until 2017, that I turned that discovery into its great grand conclusion that affects all of science, for the Real Electron is the muon of 105 MeV and the so called little electron of .5MeV was in fact a charge energy, not rest mass and is a photon (or neutrino) with charge, and is the magnetic monopole, which I call the magnepole. That has caused me to make clear where ever I write electron, to signify that the electron is a muon. This is huge huge change in Chemistry, for the chemical bond cannot exist with the electron as .5MeV, for it needs a 105 MeV as electron, for momentum sake of the covalent, ionic and metallic bonding, and the Real Proton in physics is 840 MeV, and neutron is 945 MeV.

AP

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

#705159

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 21:43:11 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Page3, 1-3, What is the Atomic theory of Matter// PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE
 8th ed. 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 05:43:12 +0000


Page3, 1-3, What is the Atomic theory of Matter// PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE 8th ed. 2017


The Atomic Theory of science is perhaps the oldest science theory that is true, 2200 years ago, that basically was as true then as it is today without much changing or altering. It was first offered by the Ancient Greeks starting with Leucippus and then his most famous student of Democritus, and then followed by Epicurus, and then to Titus Lucretius who wrote a poem on the Atomic theory. Hard to imagine that poetry comes into the most famous science theory of all science theories. 

I cannot think of a single science theory that survived the test of time as well as the Atomic Theory. Large parts of Newtonian physics, his gravity law of 1687 lasted just a mere 330 years when AP's EM Gravity replaced it. So by comparison we have a Atomic theory mostly unchanged for 2200 years and a gravity theory replaced that lasts only 330 years. 

So the Atomic Theory is special in the history of science, for its duration and for it being the center of physics and chemistry. In later pages, I argue the Atomic theory is the center of mathematics and logic also. 

So what is the Atomic Theory of Democritus and what is it today? 

Democritus said words to the effect: "The only things that exist are atoms and the void". 

Now I ask you. None of us dispute that whenever we point to a material 
object we know it is composed of atoms. When we point to mass and 
matter we know it is composed of atoms. Even the gases and air we 
breathe on Earth are made of atoms. 

And what is the modern day Atomic Theory, and here I point to the statement of Feynman: 

--- quoting --- 
The Feynman Lectures on Physics, 1963 
page 1-2 
If, in some cataclysm, all of scientific knowledge were to be destroyed, and only one sentence passed on to the next generations of creatures, what statement would contain the most information in the fewest words? I believe it is the Atomic hypothesis (or the atomic fact, or whatever you wish to call it) that All things are made up of atoms-- little particles that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another. 
--- end quote --- 

So we have no trouble with either Democritus or Feynman in understanding the Atomic theory. But there is trouble, and the trouble comes when we ask what about the Universe itself as a entity, a structure. Is it a non-entity and structureless. Or, is it a atom, a single atom which would complete the Logic. Which would push the Atomic theory of Democritus and as the Feynman statement, push the Atomic Theory to its ultimate and total maximum, to its end conclusion of pushing to the idea that if All things are atoms, then the Universe itself, being a thing, must be an atom. 

Archimedes Plutonium after 1990 said " All Matter is made up of singular atoms, and the Universe, matter itself, has to be one big atom".  What chemical element is this Universe we live in? That was the gigantic question on my mind the morning of 7NOV1990 when I discovered the Atom Totality theory. What chemical element is the Universe.

The greatest criticism towards scientists is their lack of logic. Their inability to assemble or recognize a logical argument and how they stick to their dirty error filled opinion, rather than accept logic. A chief blame of this lack of logic is that the schools of higher education never require logic as a prerequisite to being a scientist. Most scientists have never taken formal logic in their university schooling, and learned how to start to think clearly. This forces me to amplify these first pages, seeing the horrible lack of logic in sci.physics as I introduced this in sci.physics in Spring of 2016.

And the second greatest shortfall of scientists is their logical inability to correctly *interpret* the experiment data or observation data. I spoke of the Born Interpretation of the atom electron=muon earlier, but the interpretation of science data is a frightening lack of ability by most. How they so easily misinterpret the data, which is evident in a later page on the subject of a repelling force or a denial of the same space occupancy of two bar magnets.

When I was a teenager in school there was a joke spreading around. I hate the joke because it involves the torture of animals such as a grasshopper, and I request no-one does this joke for it is a sin to torture animals, sin, sin, sin. But I never heard any joke more apt to describe a scientist lacking a logical mind. The joke goes like this-- a scientist studies grasshoppers and says "jump hopper jump" and the hopper jumps. Then the scientist pulls off one of the hoppers legs and says "jump hopper jump" and the hopper jumps a little bit with its remaining leg. Finally the scientist pulls off the other large leg and says "jump hopper jump" and the hopper just stands there. So the scientist concludes that by pulling off the two large legs of grasshopper makes the hopper deaf in his ears. Now we all laugh at that joke because the truth is the hopper cannot jump because his means of jumping is removed. But you would be surprised that much of modern day science is the misinterpretation of the facts, data, and observations. Much of astronomy with its fakery of black holes, dark matter, dark energy is misinterpretation. Much of particle physics with its fakery of Higgs boson is misinterpretation of particle tracks. The recent gravity waves device of LIGO, is a misinterpretation of data.

So, Logic is a terrible mess by most scientists, and I recommend they take formal logic courses in University to help them think better, to think more clearly.

Well, Feynman makes two mistakes in his Lectures on the Atomic theory.

His first mistake is using a nonscientific term "thing" when he should have used a science term of "matter". Matter is one of the chemical elements of hydrogen, helium, lithium on up to plutonium and the transuranium atoms. The periodic table of chemical elements lists all the atoms of matter, which according to Wikipedia numbers now 118 chemical elements to date. 

Now you can have matter that is a compounding of atoms, such as water is three atoms of H2O with two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen. And matter has three states of matter-- solid, liquid and gas. (Plasma is not a state of matter but a form of electromagnetic EM radiation).

Feynman's second mistake is to think that EM has a repelling force when in fact EM has only an attraction force. I cover this in detail later on in this textbook.
The Pauli Exclusion Principle is a denial of the same space occupancy. The Meissner effect is denial of same space occupancy. The Hund's Rule in Aufbau principle is denial of same space occupancy. The flow of electrons=magnepoles in a current is not repel but denial of same space occupancy just as the congregating of electrons=magnepoles in a capacitor. It is easy, to think that Nature has a force of repelling, upon watching one magnet oriented in such a way as to seemingly repel a second magnet, but if you examine that situation up closely, you will recognize that there is no repulsion as there really is an attraction, but rather, there is attraction and there is "denial of the same space occupancy", that looks like repulsion. 

I myself was deceived most of my life with thinking there is repelling and repulsion, but there really is not. The concept of Denial of Same Space Occupancy is a subtle concept that is very much close to repelling, repulsion. 

In Hund's Rule, one electron=magnepole does not repel another, for if you remember electricity is the flow of a large number of electrons=magnepoles together in a wire. Or electrons=magnepoles clustering in large numbers together in a capacitor, which should not happen if there was a force of repelling or repulsion. 

Or, most important of all as Rutherford found out in 1911, that electrons=magnepoles cluster together outside the nucleus while protons cluster together to form a nucleus of an atom. So that this sounds not like a force of repulsion, but one of attraction. So how do we dismiss two magnets moving away from one another? We account for this by saying it is denial of same space occupancy.

So, the major error of 19th, 20th, 21st century physics is a inability to recognize what is a repulsion force in physics and what is a "denial of same space occupancy". The Maxwell Equations have only a force of attraction. 

Now, as for the logical syllogism of the Atomic Theory both by Democritus-- Only things existing are atoms and the void, and Feynman-- All things are made up of atoms; both are incomplete and have errors, and are missing the idea with regards to the Universe itself. Neither addresses the Universe itself. 

We include the Universe in the logical syllogism. 

All Matter is made up of Atoms 
These atoms are one of the chemical elements, 
one of the elements of the periodic table 
An atom of chemistry has structure, subatomic particles, 
mass, energy, space and other items 
The Universe itself is matter 
So, the Universe is either a chemical element or is not 
If not, the Atomic Theory is not general, not universal 
but leaves the Cosmos out 
If the Universe is a chemical element, 
the Atomic Theory is thoroughly a Universal Logical Statement 
and the big question remaining is 
what chemical element is the Universe 

No, sorry, I did not try to be poetic as Titus Lucretius with De Rerum Natura.

Syllogism 

(1) Atomic Theory says "all matter is made up of singular atoms" 
 

(2) The Universe itself is matter 


(3) The Universe is either a singular atom or is not a singular atom 


(4) If the Universe is a singular atom then the Atomic Theory is a 
beautiful universal truth pushed to its maximum logical reach 


(5) If the Universe is not a singular atom then the Atomic theory 
has to be modified to include the exception : All matter, except the 
Universe itself, is made up of singular atoms. 




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


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

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

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts in peace and quiet.      

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

Comments:: Now in these pages I need to distinguish between electron=muon and electron=magnepole=magnetic monopole which is the .5MeV photon (or neutrino) that is charged energy of .5 MeV. The electron=muon is the electron inside atoms and is 105 MeV. The electron= muon is not what flows as electricity, but rather, what is electric current is the monopole of .5 MeV. So, regrettably, for a long time into the future in science, we must write electron=muon and electron=monopole to distinguish the two. Then some time in the future, perhaps a 100 years from now, we no longer have to say electron=muon and can say just simply electron as meaning the 105 MeV particle, and can say, just simply the monopole as the .5 MeV particle moving to make electricity.

AP 

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

#705216

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 01:16:29 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Page4, 1-4, The only things that exist are Atoms; PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE
 + AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 8th ed. 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 09:16:29 +0000


Page4, 1-4, The only things that exist are Atoms; PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 8th ed. 2017


So we have Democritus Atomic Theory that the "only things that exist are atoms and the void", and we have the modern day version of "All things are made up of atoms-- little particles that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another". 

And I pointed out that by logic, this theory has one and only one further allowance, for it misses an item, the Universe itself. Is the Universe itself an atom? Can the Universe be such that all things are atoms except for the Universe itself? Can that be logical, for we all must think the Universe is the ultimate in logic. So this is a logical question and allowance that we can push the Atomic Theory one step more, one step further, and say that All things are made up of atoms and the Universe itself is a single big atom. 

In these opening pages, I gave the syllogism with the idea that "All things are made up of atoms" as argument, concluding that the Atomic theory is not a universal law if the Universe was not an atom. 

Science theories are about "universal laws" and the most important science theory of all science theories is the Atomic theory. So if the Universe is not a single atom, one of those elements of the Periodic Chart of Chemical Elements, then the Atomic theory is not a universal law of science or of physics. 

Logic is important, extremely important, for the Universe is a Logical Built Entity. The Universe itself determines what Logic is, what logic is about.

By logic, the Universe is a thing, a item with structure, or, the universe is not a structured thing or item, but structureless. If it has structure, the Universe's only candidate choice of what that structure is -- is an atom itself, one among the many chemical atoms known, from hydrogen to helium to lithium to beryllium to boron to carbon to nitrogen to oxygen, on up to uranium to plutonium and to the elements beyond. And that we have to surmise which chemical element which chemical atom is the Universe itself. But before I do that, let me repeat the Atomic theory Syllogism with the Democritus version of the theory-- "The only things that exist are atoms and the void". 

Now in Atomic theory, the atom is composed of subatomic particles for which the atom has a proton nucleus and electrons=muons revolving around the nucleus and most of the volume of the atom is empty space where photons and neutrinos travel and that space itself is energy, what we can call "the void". We can include atomic nodes-- vacuums of Atoms as voids also. 

In the rival theory of the Atom Totality is the Big Bang theory and not quite sure as to what those believers of Big Bang have for empty space, where their theory presupposes the Universe was empty before the explosion and the explosion is pushing against empty space in some sort of silly philosophical scheme. 

So, let me do the Syllogism with "the only things existing are atoms". 

Atomic Theory Logic Syllogism "the only things that exist are atoms". 

Syllogism 

(1) Atomic Theory says the only things that exist are atoms
(2) The Universe itself exists 
(3) Hence, the Universe is an atom 

Science, true science usually has a completed logic, no loose ends. For the Atomic theory to be a Universal-Law, demands the Universe itself be one of the chemical elements, a singular atom, but a big atom, containing all the other atoms inside itself. 

So, what is this chemical element that makes up the Universe? In later pages I give evidence from math and physics, that plutonium, of all the chemical elements, fits the best for the Cosmic Atom that is our Universe. 

So if the Feynman definition of the Atomic theory-- All things are made up of atoms, gives those lacking logic abilities a conniption fit, you can imagine what the Democritus definition of Atomic theory -- only things that exist are atoms, gives them. 

So that the fool of logic with his "all humans are made of cells, hence a human is a cell", or worse yet, "Only things that exist are cells". So, you see, if you train in college to be a physicist or scientist, and never take any formal logic in school, you see how low your thinking can become. A scientist with a low logic IQ, is not a scientist at all, but a fool.

Now a lot of people do not know the history of the Atomic theory, and how such violence was exacted upon Democritus and the later atomists. Every one of Democritus's books were burned, and remarkable that he was not killed for the atomic theory. For it is a vast, vast sweeping idea-- the only things that exist are atoms, and that life is a mere process for atoms, a process like the water that flows from continent to the sea. As I said so often before, that life was put into this world by Atoms, so that life is a cold star, nucleosynthesizing elements beyond plutonium, which cannot be done in hot stars or supernova. The world is here, for atoms, and atoms are in control and in charge, and the world is one big atom. 


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


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

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

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts in peace and quiet.     

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

Comments:: I am slowly but slowly coming to the realization of how huge a change it is with the electron=muon as 105 MeV and the so called little electron = magnepole=monopole of .5 MeV and that the little electron is not an electron at all but rather is a photon or neutrino with a charge of .5 MeV. This of course changes all of physics and all of chemistry. Every thing in physics and chemistry has to be re-thought, re-written. Even the Maxwell Equations the old ones of 1860s was about .5 MeV electrons moving to make electricity, not about monopoles that make electric current. Monopoles as photons or neutrinos with a .5MeV charge energy. Of course, the photon = neutrino can be either +1 charge or -1 charge, what we call in Old Physics a positron or electron, respectively.
Everything, everything in physics and chemistry changes. All because we never realized that the electron inside an atom is the muon. And the electricity flowing in a wire, is not the electron or proton, but is this .5MeV neutrino or photon that is charged as a magnetic monopole, a magnepole. So vast of a change is this discovery, that it could take a 100 years henceforth, to alter all the textbooks and education system to cope with the discovery. Vast vast change.

AP

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

#705234 — Re: Archimedes "Total Failure" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

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

>Imp-parade in sci.math of imps with fake-arguments that ellipse is a conic

>First we start out with a dumb German named Franz hiding behind "Me"

So you *still* don't have any proof that Franz's proof is wrong.
FAIL.

SInce you asked, here it is again!


Below you will find a simple *proof* that shows that certain conic 
sections are ellipses.

Some preliminaries:

Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used 
in the proof:

              ^ x
              |
             -+- <= x=h
         .'   |   `.
        .     |     .
        |     |     |
        '     |     '      
         `.   |   .'
 y <----------+ <= x=0
             
Cone (side view):
                 .
                /|\
               / | \
              /b |  \
             /---+---' <= x = h
            /    |'   \
           /   ' |     \
          / '    |      \
x = 0 => '-------+-------\
        /    a   |        \

Proof:

r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x  and  d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x,  hence

y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.

Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1  ...equation of an ellipse

qed

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

#705343

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 01:48:10 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Page5, 1-5 Two largest errors most people have in thinking about a
 Atom Totality. Atom-Totality-Universe/textbook 8th ed. 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 09:48:10 +0000

Page5, 1-5 Two largest errors most people have in thinking about a Atom Totality. Atom-Totality-Universe/textbook 8th ed. 2017


Alright, if you are guessing that the Cosmic Atom is the chemical element plutonium, you are correct. I have not set up the reader for any surprises. The chemical element that fits the Universe the best is plutonium and especially the isotope of 231Pu. 

Now before I talk of the evidence, both physics and math evidence, let me backpedal a bit here for the reader and explain how all we see in the night sky of stars, galaxies, planets and other objects are parts, and pieces of a last electron=muon of a big gigantic atom of 231Pu. Let me backpedal for all the times I encountered people curious about the theory and what was troubling to them, so awfully troubling that they could not accept the theory.

Imagine the electron=muon as a one solid ball that moves inside an atom, but also, imagine a electron that is shattered to pieces into a large number of dots as pieces of that shattered electron=muon and imagine those pieces placed far apart in Space. 

In as few of words as possible to describe this theory is my signature block for many years of my posts to the Internet: The whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies. 

If you look in a chemistry textbook of what an electron=muon looks like, it is not a ball shaped object but a whole lot of little dots that form a cloud. Physics and Chemistry call it the Electron-dot-cloud. So the Atom Totality theory is basically the idea that the dots of the electron-cloud are galaxies in the night sky, and inside a dot are more dots such as dots for stars, dots for planets, and even smaller dots for animals and plants and humans, until we get to the finest dots of all-- atoms, except the Atom Totality. 

So as you look up in the night sky and see shiny white dots as galaxies and as stars, those white dots are mass-pieces of the last six electrons=muons of 231Plutonium. 

To describe the rival theory of the Big Bang theory would go like this: 
The universe arose from a big explosion. That is the sum total to the Big Bang theory. It is simplistic and does not have much information. It does not tell us why it exploded and the Big Bang theory is not Quantum Mechanics. 

The Atom Totality theory is all Quantum Mechanics for it posits that only atoms, including the Universe itself, exist. And the Atom Totality theory is a consistent theory since it posits that only atoms exist. All matter is composed of atoms but science is neglecting to complete the picture of logic by realizing that the whole entire universe must also be an atom. Quantum Mechanics is atomic physics, physics of the "small" the size of atoms.

The Big Bang theory places all of its information into an "explosion", and 
the Universe is not an entity, a "whole thing" in the Big Bang but some 
amorphous nonentity. The Big Bang is structureless. Whereas the Atom Totality has all the richness of atomic physics to lean on. We can talk about 
size, about shape, about structures such as a nucleus, and Cosmic protons and cosmic electrons=muons. We can talk about a evolution or transformation of atoms, of going from hydrogen to helium to lithium and onwards and upwards to elements 90, 91,92,93,94, etc etc. With the Big Bang we are left speechless and questionless, because there is nothing to talk about other than some explosion allegedly happened. 

Laypersons and nonscientists and even a large proportion of alleged scientists have two major problems and errors with the Atom Totality theory and these two errors are : 
(1) They cannot envision how the universe we see is the inside of one 
big atom. And I get a lot of fools saying that there are only 94 galaxies because of 94 electrons=muons, in plutonium. A lot of fools.
(2) They mistakenly think that since plutonium is radioactive that this 
hinders the theory. They mistakenly think the Plutonium Atom Totality will decay away and -out-goes-the-Universe. Here one minute and gone the next, type of mistake. 

So how do I answer those two most recurring errors that both laypersons and even most trained scientists make as listed in (1) and (2) above? 

I answer them by saying look at a chemistry textbook of the electron- dot-cloud of atoms. Their mistake is that they think the electron is a single ball that goes moving around the nucleus of an atom. It maybe a ball when the atom is collapsed wavefunction such as the moving of electricity in a wire. But an atom that is Uncollapsed wavefunction has its electrons=muons as dot-clouds. The electron=muon is a large cloud around the nucleus of the atom and is a huge number of dots. Each one of those dots is a tiny hunk or piece of the electron=muon. So that if all the dots were put together then the electron=muon would be 
a ball. So now we begin to understand how a plutonium atom of its electrons=muons is the galaxies of the night sky. That each galaxy we see in the night sky is a tiny piece of an electron=muon of the Atom Totality. 

If you examine a chemistry textbook of the 5f6 or the s, or the p or the d or the f orbital of a electron=muon you will see a electron-dot-cloud. That the electron is not a ball but those huge number of dots. If we carry that idea all the way to its end-limit, each atom in the Cosmos is a dot, except for the Cosmic atom itself. Remember the Born Interpretation, each dot was a probability of finding the electron=muon as a ball at that position in the atom. But in the Atom Totality interpretation, each dot is a small tiny atom inside the Atom Totality.

When teaching the electron-dot-cloud in High School or in College, it is perhaps not taught strong enough that all those dots, 10^180 dots are one single distinct electron=muon. And it should be taught that what a huge number is that of 10^180, for most students are unable to grapple with how huge that number is. When I  was in High School I came across an imagery that stuck with me for all these years as to how huge the number 10^9 was, the number 1,000,000,000. For that number is so huge that if a bird landed on Mt.Everest every year to sharpen its beak, that in 10^9 years, there would be no mountain. So if 10^9 is that huge, think what 10^180 is.

Now the night sky of stars and galaxies, it is estimated that there are only 10^11 galaxies and there are only 10^11 stars on average in each galaxy. So that would mean the Cosmos has 10^11 x 10^11, or 10^22 stars, and if we represent each of those stars as a dot we would thence have 10^22 dots. But each star is composed of atoms and a star is typically about 10^30 atoms so that would mean a night sky represented by dots for atoms would have 10^22 x 10^30 = 10^52 dots which is a huge number but a tiny number compared to 10^60 or 10^180 dots. If we included all the other matter in planets and in energy particles we come close to 10^60, not even near 10^180.

So now we can easily envision the Atom Totality theory. We look at the 
night sky of all those dots of light. Some of those dots of light are stars and some are galaxies. And now we look at the chemistry textbook of what an electron=muon looks like and it is a bunch of dots around a nucleus. So that is the crux of the Atom Totality theory, that galaxies and stars (galaxies are just a concentration of stars) are dots of the electron dot cloud and so we are living inside one big atom. And the chemical element that fits the numbers of physics and mathematics the very best is the chemical element plutonium. 

Now to answer the other most often recurring mistake by laypersons and even those who call themselves scientists is the notion that if the Atom Totality was plutonium that it would decay and be gone. The answer I give is that radioactivity is time itself. That our universe, our cosmos would not have time if the Atom Totality were not radioactive, or, at least, it would not have sufficient and ample enough time to run the universe, like a machine that does not run well, or like an animal or plant that does not grow fast enough. Time is merely change of matter in position. If every atom stood still and in place and never changed position relative to all the other atoms, then there would be no time. Life could not exist if every atom were to stand still and not move relative to other atoms. So, to answer why the Atom Totality is a radioactive element is to say that you want the Universe to be a entity that has a lot of change going on and radioactivity provides that change. We see this change every day in Cosmic particles of protons appearing uniformly and of Cosmic gamma ray bursts. Radioactivity of the Atom Totality is what makes stars and planets come into existence in that the daily accretion of particles of radioactivity from the Nucleus of the Plutonium Atom Totality is what gives us our Sun and Earth and Solar System and Milky Way Galaxy. 

Summary: The Atom Totality Theory is easy to state for it simply says that the Universe itself is one big atom and the chemical element that fits the special constants and numbers of physics and mathematics the best is plutonium, specifically 231Pu. When one asks for a similar explanation of the Big Bang theory one gets no description whatsoever other than to say "explosion happened". And the two most often made mistakes about the Atom Totality theory is the error that an electron=muon is a single ball and the error 
that plutonium radioactivity is incompatible or incongruent with an Atom Totality. 


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


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


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

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

Comments:: I am having troubles with electron=muon and electron=magnepole=monopole. Troubles because of that vast changes needed throughout physics and chemistry. The magnepole, the .5MeV is what makes electric current, makes voltage. And trouble visualizing that the electron=muon probably does not move around much inside atoms. I have huge troubles in visualizing how a magnepole= charged photon or charged neutrino, how that magnepole relates to the electron=muon or proton. Remember, I discovered the electron=muon in the last few months of 2017, as I write this textbook, and am now, just going back to edit each page.

AP

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

#705348 — Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

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

>Subject: Re: Texas Rangers ALERT please!!! Who is this Texan spewing 
>violence? Is it kibo-Moroney-shein? Is it alouatta vacationing in Texas? 
>Is it Burse with a Swiss biaxial to Texas?

Have you lost it completely, Archie? Why do you humiliate yourself like
that???

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

#705405 — MIT's Michael Artin, Martin Bazant, Bonnie Berger, Roman Bezrukavnikov, Alexei Borodin, why cannot Moroney admit 938 is not 12% short of 945 ?

MIT's Michael Artin, Martin Bazant, Bonnie Berger, Roman Bezrukavnikov, Alexei Borodin, why cannot Moroney admit 938 is not 12% short of 945 ?

kibo-shein-Moroney 
                              .. 
            .- " `-.   ,..-'''  ```....'`-.. 
           ,      . `.'            '        `. 
         .'   .' `    `           '   `..     ; 
         .   ;  .'                     . `.    ; 
         ;   . '                       `.  .   ' 
          . '                            ` `.  | 
        . '.                                  ' 
       .          0              0            ' `. 
      '                                          ` 
     ;                                            ` 
    .'                                             ` 
    ;                      U                        ` 
    ;    ';                                         ` 
    :   | ;..                                 :`     ` 
    :    `;. ```.                           .-; |    ' 
    '.      `    ``..,                   .'   :'    ' 
     ;       `        ;'..          ..-''    '     ' 
      `       `        ;  ````'''""'  ;      '    ' 
       `       `        ;            ;      '    '  Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572.  A proton is about the mass 
  of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short. 
        `       `        ;          ;      '    ' 
         `       `.       ````''''''      '    ' 
           `       .                     '    ' 
         /  `       `.                  '    '        . 
        /     `       ..            ..'    .'"""""...' 
       /   .`   `       ``........-'     .'` .....''' 
      / .'' ;     `                    .'   ` 
  ...'.'    ;    .' `                .'      ` 
   ""      .'  .' |    `           .; \       ` 
           ; .'   |      `. . . . ' .  \       ` 
           :'     |     '   `       ,   `.     ` 
                  |    '     `      '     `.    ` 
                  `   '       `     ;       `.  | 
                  `.'          `    ;         `-' 
                                `...' 
    

Drs.L. Reif, Victor Kac, Irwin Pless of MIT, teach percentages correctly-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole 


On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
  
  Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon. 
  Hardly "exactly" 9 muons. 
Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: 
  
  Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572.  A proton is about the mass 
  of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short. 

MIT math dept. 

Michael Artin, Martin Bazant, Bonnie Berger, Roman Bezrukavnikov, Alexei Borodin, John Bush, Herman Chernoff, Henry Cohn, Laurent Demanet*, Richard Dudley, Jörn Dunkel, Alan Edelman, Pavel Etingof, Daniel Freedman, Michel Goemans, Vadim Gorin, Harvey Greenspan, Victor Guillemin, Larry Guth, Sigurdur Helgason, Anette Hosoi, David Jerison, Steven Johnson, Victor Kac, Steven Kleiman, Daniel Kleitman, 
 Andrew Lawrie, Tom Leighton, George Lusztig, Arthur Mattuck, Davesh Maulik, Richard Melrose, Haynes Miller, William Minicozzi, Ankur Moitra, Elchanan Mossel, Tomasz Mrowka, James Munkres, Andrei Negut, Aaron Pixton, Bjorn Poonen, Alexander Postnikov, Philippe Rigollet, Rodolfo Rosales, Giulia Saccà, Gerald Sacks, Paul Seidel, Scott Sheffield, Peter Shor, Isadore Singer, Michael Sipser, Jared Speck, Gigliola Staffilani, Richard Stanley, Harold Stark, Gilbert Strang, Daniel Stroock, Goncalo Tabuada, Alar Toomre, David Vogan 

President: L. Reif (electrical engineer) 

MIT physics dept 
William Bertozzi, Robert Birgeneau, Hale Bradt, Bernard Burke, George Clark , Jeffrey Goldstone, Thomas Greytak, Lee Grodzins , Paul Joss, Vera Kistiakowsky, Earle Lomon *, Irwin Pless, Paul Schechter, James Young   

Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach percentages correctly-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole 


Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach percentages correctly-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole 


Harvard Physics dept 
Jacob Barandes, Howard Berg, Michael Brenner, Adam Cohen, Eugene Demler, Michael Desai 
Louis Deslauriers, John Doyle, Cora Dvorkin, Gary Feldman, Douglas Finkbeiner, Melissa Franklin, Gerald Gabrielse, Howard Georgi, Sheldon Glashow, Roy Glauber, Jene Golovchenko, Markus Greiner, Roxanne Guenette, Girma Hailu, Bertrand Halperin, Lene Hau 
Thomas Hayes, Eric Heller, Jason Hoffman, Jenny Hoffman, Gerald Holton, Paul Horowitz, John Huth, Arthur Jaffe, Daniel Jafferis, Efthimios Kaxiras, Philip Kim, John Kovac, Erel Levine 
Mikhail Lukin, Logan McCarty, L. Mahadevan, Vinothan Manoharan, Eric Mazur, Masahiro Morii 
David Morin, Julia Mundy, Cherry Murray, David Nelson, Kang Ni, Hongkun Park, William Paul 
Peter Pershan, Mara Prentiss, Lisa Randall, Matthew Reece, Subir Sachdev, Aravinthan Samuel, Matthew Schwartz, Irwin Shapiro, Isaac Silvera, Andrew Strominger, Christopher Stubbs, Cumrun Vafa, Ronald Walsworth, David Weitz, Robert Westervelt, Richard Wilson 
Tai Wu, Amir Yacoby, Susanne Yelin, Xi Yin 


Harvard Math dept 


Noam Elkies, Dennis Gaitsgory, Robin Gottlieb, Benedict Gross, Joseph Harris, Heisuke Hironaka, Michael Hopkins, Arthur Jaffe, David Kazhdan, Mark Kisin, Peter Kronheimer, Jacob Lurie, Eric Maskin, Barry Mazur, Curtis McMullen, David Mumford, Martin Nowak, Gerald Sacks, Wilfried Schmid, Yum-Tong Siu, Shlomo Sternberg, John Tate, Cliff Taubes, Hugh Woodin, Horng-Tzer Yau, Shing-Tung Yau 



   /\-------/\ 
   \::O:::O::/ 
  (::_  ^  _::) 
   \_`-----'_/ 
You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in Boston? 

And, even though you-- professors of math and physics, want to remain stupid in Physics, your students deserve better. 

Consider, then admit that the Covalent bond of chemistry cannot exist in the world if the electron is considered to be .5MeV for it has not enough Angular Momentum to keep a bond together. The true electron of all atoms has to be of a ratio of 105 MeV to proton of 840MeV in order to have a Covalent bonding in Chemistry. 

And, even though you-- professors of physics/math, want to remain silent and stupid in Real Electron = muon, and true real Calculus with a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, your students deserve better.   


Yes, there Moroney, what did they say-- the power of Sun and stars is not really fusion but is the Faraday Law inside of atoms creating monopoles and turning Space into energy that fuels the Sun and stars. My rough estimate is that fusion only supplies 10% or less of Sun and stars. 

But of course, I could not have discovered the true starpower when under the idiotic idea that the electron was a mere .5MeV when it truly is 105 MeV. 

What answer did they give? 

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web