Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #706601 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-10-07 19:10 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-10-08 14:03 +0000 |
| Articles | 3 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: **Happy Plutonium Day page54, 7-5, Purpose and meaning of life in Atom Totality/ PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 8th ed. Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 19:10 -0700
page2 Re: **Happy Plutonium Day page54, 7-5, Purpose and meaning of life in Atom Totality/ PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 8th ed. Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 20:56 -0700
Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-08 14:03 +0000
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-07 19:10 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: **Happy Plutonium Day page54, 7-5, Purpose and meaning of life in Atom Totality/ PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 8th ed. |
| Message-ID | <9bdff66f-38fa-424f-b418-e142981eee7a@googlegroups.com> |
On Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 2:06:10 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: > What a truly sad day for all of physics. The start of the destruction > of sci.physics. What are you and Barry Shein and kibo singing this year, Moroney. Is it the endearing Rock of Ages-- Atom Plutonium, fissioned for me, let me hide, myself in thee,,,,,,, Let the water H2O and the CO2, from thy 5f6 which flowed,,,,, Be of proton and the electron, save me from the radioactive decay,,,,, Atom Plutonium fissioned for me, let me hide, myself in thee 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]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-07 20:56 -0700 |
| Subject | page2 Re: **Happy Plutonium Day page54, 7-5, Purpose and meaning of life in Atom Totality/ PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 8th ed. |
| Message-ID | <3517c311-baab-4dca-bfee-aa59f513bcc0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #706601 |
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]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-08 14:03 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test |
| Message-ID | <ppfo36$kti$6@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #706611 |
Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails: >Moroney says: Racist Physicists, Barry Barish, Kip Thorne, Rainer Weiss, >John M. Kosterlitz, F Duncan M. Haldane, David J. Thouless, Arthur B. >McDonald, Takaaki Kajita// fail in Chemistry bonding for it cannot exist >when proton=938MeV, electron=.5MeV So you are now lying about what I say? I am glad you like for me to reply to your posts, and asked for me to do it again!
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web