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

Groups > sci.physics > #710004 > unrolled thread

Re: 2017, 8th ed. The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium

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: 2017, 8th ed. The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-27 19:19 -0700
    Re: 2017, 8th ed. The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-28 12:52 -0700
      Re: 2017, 8th ed. The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-29 09:49 -0700
        Re: 2017, 8th ed. The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-29 17:02 -0700
          Re: 2017, 8th ed. The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-30 10:58 -0700
            Re: 2017, 8th ed. The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-10-31 12:08 -0700
              Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-31 23:41 +0000
              Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-01 00:08 +0000

#710004 — Re: 2017, 8th ed. The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 10:44:34 -0800 (PST)

Subject: PAGE9, 1-9, More evidence proving Atom Totality, blackbody
 radiation//, Bell Inequality/textbook 8th ed 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2017 18:44:35 +0000

PAGE9, 1-9, More evidence proving Atom Totality, blackbody radiation//, Bell Inequality/textbook 8th ed 2017

Alright, in these pages I want to do more major physical supporting evidence that the Universe is a large plutonium atom totality. 

Now here I am going to need a current day description of what most physicists believe is true of the Universe but in fact is utter false and nonsense. So I need a name for this current widespread held falsehood. I could just call it Big Bang, but that leaves out too much for it is the Big Bang along with the Einstein General Relativity that are fakeries. So I call it the Big Bang Einstein General Relativity BBEGR, which sounds like "beggar". 

I call the Atom Totality Universe as the theory that destroys BBEGR. Atom Totality has 9 key observations, experiments and facts that do this destroying of BBEGR, and they are these nine. 
1) Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is blackbody, meaning cavity, meaning a structure 
2) Bell Inequality is true and thus the Universe is quantum mechanical-- meaning it is the inside of an atom 
3) Solid Body Rotation can exist only in a Universe in which Electromagnetism EM runs the Universe as seen in the EM theory, and so a universe operated by EM theory is a universe of an atom. In fact, recently it was seen that the North Pole of Saturn was a hexagon, like the hexagons of snowflakes caused by EM as Van der Waals force.
4) Strong Nuclear Force is another EM force of Chemical Bonding only scaled higher 
5) the Dirac Sea of positrons works only in an Atom Totality Universe 
6) Gravity is EM gravity which means the Universe is electricity and magnetism, which further means the universe is an atom. In other words, gravity as EM runs astronomy. The Coulomb force varies over a range of forces R to 1/R to 1/R^2. 
7) The so called Doppler Redshift as a aftermath of the Big Bang, is not a Doppler Redshift at all but due to the fact that the monopole of .5 MeV is a charged photon, and the charge either shifts the spectral lines red or blue.
8) Our Sun is Hollow, because of Gauss's law of electricity-- charges move to outer surface, implying gravity is electricity & magnetism, and since gravity is EM, means the Universe is a structure for only Atoms provide for EM
9) Doppler Redshift has nothing to do with Doppler effect. The Doppler effect works on sound waves, never light waves. What is happening with Redshift of light waves is because of the magnetic monopole carries a charge energy of .5 MeV, whether + or - charge on a photon or neutrino. So, when spectral lines of elements are shifted, either blue or redshift is all because of magnetism, magnetic monopoles.

I call the Atom Totality Universe the theory that destroys BBEGR by these 9 key observations, experiments and facts that do this destroying of BBEGR because of structure versus no structure. Atom Totality is a structure, whereas Big Bang is no structure.  An entity with Structure means the Universe has to be something, not a "nothing" for which an explosion, supposedly, to fill up. BBEGR has no structure but a amorphous non-structure from an explosion. 

Now, for the reader, let me tell you the big major difference between Atom Totality and BBEGR, if not clear to the reader already. The big difference is the BBEGR is a theory that has the Universe as a structureless entity. The Atom Totality has the universe as being a Structure, and the only plausible structure is a Atom itself. Not an onion as in Ancient times, and not a elephant or turtle carrying a flat surface that holds the Universe as in Ancient times. The only reasonable plausible Structure is a single big atom. 

1) the blackbody radiation in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation CMBR. This destroys BBEGR because it is "blackbody radiation". If it were not blackbody, BBEGR could reign supreme. And it is totally ironic that CMBR was used, when first discovered, as a supporting evidence of the Big Bang Explosion. But when first discovered, it took a long time to realize it was blackbody and although most physicists should have discarded the Big Bang the moment it was found blackbody, BBEGR was too far entrenched with its muddle headed wrongness. 

A parallel history could be said of the like to like charge as repelling with Thompson in 1904 proposing the plum pudding model and then Rutherford in 1911 shattering the like to like repelling by finding the atom congregates electrons=muons outside the nucleus and congregates protons as the nucleus. So instead of trashcanning the like to like as repelling, the physicists kept on believing in their wrongness. 

Alright I did a little exploring to find some historical dates on CMBR and found that the Big Bang is circa 1927 and a Cosmic Background Radiation is about 1950 to present but not until 1990 with the COBE satellite was it known that the Radiation was blackbody at 2.71 K. 

The moment it was announced and shown Blackbody CMBR, is the moment that any physicist with a gram of logic would have realized that the Universe itself is a Structure and so the Big Bang with General Relativity is not a theory of the cosmos, but flawed and trash. 

Everytime evidence comes in, saying the Universe is a "structure" is another mounting piece of evidence in favor of the Atom Totality theory. 

Of the list of 9 major evidences supporting the Atom Totality, I now delve into (2) Bell Inequality that showed that Bohr's Quantum Mechanics was true but that Einstein's physics of General Relativity was false. Here again, the Universe is Quantum Mechanical which means the Universe is a structure, or cavity, or a container of sorts and thus implying Atomic, which means the Universe is a single big atom. 

Now the Bell Inequality along with CMBR are cosmic features of quantum mechanics, meaning the Universe has to be an Atom to sustain these quantum features. In CMBR, the single Cosmic Atom is a large container or Structure of this cosmic atom. And the Bell Inequality is further evidence that the Cosmos is quantum, not the Structureless BBEGR. 

Now this theory of the Bell Inequality seems totally off the deep end. But only for a second. Because if you start learning about John Bell, Einstein/Rosen/Podalsky and Bohr, you start learning how Einstein with BBEGR was found wrong against Bohr and Bell with Quantum Mechanics dominating the physics of the Universe. 
The John Bell Inequality which decided EPR-thought- experiment. Was Einstein correct or was Quantum Mechanics correct? 
What Bell found out after Aspect did the experiments, is that QM was 
correct and Einstein was wrong. BBEGR is wrong. 
But then the interpretation of Bell Inequality had begun. And what 
Bell concluded was that there was just one way in which to get rid of 
speed faster than light and the Bell experiment to hold true. Bell, 
found one way to solve the problem-- Superdeterminism. 
--- quoting what Archimedes Plutonium gave as a Wikipedia entry on 
Superdeterminism -- 
SUPERDETERMINISM 
 Physicist John S. Bell as 
referenced by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_S._Bell is noted 
mostly for his Bell Inequality Theorem which shows us that Quantum 
Physics is not just restricted to the microworld but that Quantum 
Physics stretches clear across the Cosmos. John Bell not only 
discovered the Inequality for which experimental physicists such as 
Alain Aspect could then test to see if Quantum Mechanics stretches 
across the Cosmos, but one of John Bell's contributions to science is 
rarely noted. And John Bell does not discuss this contribution in 
printed material but seems to have conveyed it on the BBC television 
in interviews. It is my opinion that the concept of Superdeterminism 
is John Bell's finest contribution to physics, and much more important 
than his Bell Inequality, even though it required his Inequality to 
come to his concept of Superdeterminism. As far as I know from the 
history of physics, the concept of Superdeterminism begins with John 
Bell because it requires John Bell's Inequality Theorem. And the 
concept of Superdeterminism is probably John Bell's greatest single 
contribution to science. 
Here is John Bell defining what Superdeterminism is: 
--- Bell stated on the BBC --- 
"There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and 
spooky action at a distance. But it (Superdeterminism) involves 
absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free 
will. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just 
inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our 
behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the "decision" by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. 
There is no need for a faster than light signal to tell particle A what 
measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, 
including particle A, already "knows" what that measurement, and its 
outcome, will be." 
--- end Bell quote --- 
--- further statement by John Bell to the BBC on Superdeterminism --- 
"The only alternative to quantum probabilities, superpositions of 
states, collapse of the wavefunction, and spooky action at a distance, 
is that everything is superdetermined. For me it is a dilemma. I think 
it is a deep dilemma, and the resolution of it will not be trivial; it will require a substantial change in the way we look at things." 
--- end Bell quote--- 

So, what the Bell Inequality did was further support the idea the Universe as a Whole is a Structure, a Cavity, or a Container and the only plausible structure is a big atom as the Universe. The Bell Inequality, like the blackbody CMBR support the Atom Totality theory and throws out the BBEGR. 
The only thing needed for Bell Inequality is the idea of a region of the Cosmos that contains the Nucleus of the Atom Totality, which controls the rest of the Cosmos. 
Physicists rarely mention the concept of superdeterminism and how it 
solves the problems of Quantum Mechanics. They do not mention it 
partly because it disrupts the Big Bang Theory, since it makes no 
sense that a Big Bang Universe can have superdeterminism. 
John Bell lived under the Big Bang Theory, but if he had lived into the 1990s there arose a rival theory to the Big Bang, called the Atom Totality. 
The problem John Bell had with Superdeterminism is that there is no 
mechanism in the Big-Bang theory to make Superdeterminism work. In the Atom-Totality theory, there is a mechanism in that the Nucleus of the 
Atom-Totality does all the ordering up of every event that takes place 
in the Cosmos. The Nucleus pulls the strings of every event that 
takes place in the entire Universe. The year that John S. Bell died, 
1990, is the year in which the Atom-Totality theory was born. 
One ramification of the Bell Inequality and superdeterminism is the explanation of how the brain and mind work, of course that is psychology and not pure physics, but let me amble down that road while here on superdeterminism. 
In the Brain Locus theory, the mind is like a radio receiver which is 
only one atom or one molecule and the rest of the brain tissue goes to 
executing whatever the messages shot from the Atom Totality Nucleus 
into the brain. The photons and neutrinos carry these messages. So that all life is puppets whose every action, thought was shot from the Nucleus into our brain locus and we execute that message.   


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 comfort and quiet.     

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

COMMENTS:: Now I am looking for the easiest experiment in Chemistry bonding or in Physics Spectral lines that the true electron is the muon at 105 MeV and not the .5 MeV monopole particle which is a photon or neutrino with a charge energy of .5, not a rest-mass energy. Looking for anomalies, I found the Zeeman anomaly.

Now i picked this up from nyu.edu 

However, there is an anomalous Zeeman effect which shows up particularly for atoms with odd atomic number $Z$ (hydrogen, for example). In such cases, it is found that the number of Zeeman sub-levels is actually even rather than odd. This cannot be explained within the normal Zeeman theory. However, it suggests the possible existence of an angular momentum like quantity that can take on half-integer values. 

--- end quote--- 

What i am asking is whether this anomaly is explained by the fact the true electron is the muon at 105 MeV and not the monopole particle of .5 MeV. 

AP

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#710114

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 16:05:59 -0800 (PST)

Subject: PAGE10, 1-10, Evidence proving Atom Totality, Solid Body Rotation
 PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE, 8th ed. 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2017 00:05:59 +0000

PAGE10, 1-10, Evidence proving Atom Totality, Solid Body Rotation PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE, 8th ed. 2017

Now I delve into the fact that Solid Body Rotation exists only from EM theory where we have Velocity proportional to radius for magnetic-monopoles=current, making a circuit in the Faraday/Lenz law. Currently, Big Bang, General Relativity BBEGR is trying to explain solid body rotation with a silly "dark matter" dark mass, dark energy, when all you really need to know is that the forces of physics are all unified as a EM force which has a range of force strength from r, to 1/r, to 1/r^2 (which, in final analysis is a Logarithmic force not an inverse square). There, problem solved. That motion in a Observable Universe which is an electron dot cloud of an Atom Totality would be motion of the EM theory which allows for motion as V= r, solid-body, and V proportional to a constant 1/r, and V proportional to 1/r^2.

There has been a uproar of worry over solid body rotation found in spiral galaxies for about 5 decades now, that many spiral galaxies have solid body rotation of their stars close in to the nucleus of the galaxy. But there has been much too much neglect of assessing our own solar system for the Saturn Rings are likely to be Solid Body Rotation in part, or full. So, not only is there solid body motion in spiral galaxies but likely here in our own solar system.

Now Solid Body Rotation is probably the best observable evidence the Universe is a single Cosmic Atom because we see so much Solid Body Rotation, that a structureless BBEGR cannot even start to explain other than hypothesize dark matter, dark energy which clearly none has ever been seen. When physics gets a "big observation in" such as solid-body rotation, the physicists would immediately tack on some ad hoc nonsense of dark matter and dark energy, rather than do the logical thing-- look in EM theory for solidbody rotation motion. 

Now let me define Solid Body Rotation as that in which any 2 points in the plane figure have the same distance apart from one another while being rotated. Their rotation or revolving as if they are a solid body. If we paint 2 dots on a music record and then place onto a turntable, those 2 dots will maintain the same figure as the record is moving round and round. 

And many people are surprised, very surprised to find out that our Solar System has plenty of examples of Solid Body Rotation. The Rings of Saturn as the finest single example, of rigid body rotation of SubRings of Saturn. Even Maxwell in the 1860s did some work on the Rings of Saturn, although Maxwell had primitive telescopes back then. And the Meteor Belt is another example, although far less of a percentage of rigid-body rotation than the Saturn subrings. The electromagnetism involved with the Rings of Saturn since ice is a van der Waals force of attraction make them a higher percentage of Solid Body Rotation than the Meteor Belt with its magnetic iron rocks. So we have percentages of solid body rotation where the Saturn subrings could be 75 to 90 percent solid body while the meteor belt be only 50%.

Harold Jeffreys in 1947 wrote a work "The effects of collisions on Saturn's Rings". And in Jeffreys work he states " Maxwell showed that a set of satellites moving in one circle about the planet would be stable, and that all the other suggested types-of-constitution, that he considered would be unstable." So, here we see that what Maxwell proposed was that you can have solid-body rotation of small particles-- ice globules in a thin SubRing of Saturn. Each SubRing is rigid body rotation. Further on, Jeffreys writes: "But a fluid ring could be arbitrarily thin if we abandon the hypothesis of rigid-body rotation, which in itself would suggest a very high viscosity."  Here Jeffreys is wanting the Rings to be a fluid instead of ice globules, but he still has rigid-body-rotation of ice, not water. 

In Electromagnetism theory with AP-Maxwell Equations (next chapter) we see at least three varieties of motion described by V proportional to radius R and known as solidbody motion, and with V proportional to 1/R as seen in Capacitors, and finally the well known force of V proportional to 1/R^2, which--only the last one of these, the 1/R^2 is familiar as the Newton gravity or General Relativity force strength, forgetting and leaving out the other two types, the R and 1/R.

So, how much of Saturn's Rings are solid-body rotation? Is it 75%. How much of the asteroid belt is rigid body rotation? Is it 50%, and would explain why some asteroids, as small as they are have moons such as Ida with Dactyl. It is not because of gravity as 1/R^2 but rather because gravity is EM force that can vary from R to 1/R to 1/R^2, and so, because asteroids are very much magnetic with all that iron the gravity involved is far more than 1/R^2. Same reasoning for Saturn Rings in that ice is a polar molecule of water which is more electromagnetic than other molecules and so the gravity of Saturn Rings is more closer to R or 1/R than to 1/R^2.

Is there anything in our Solar System that is nearly 100% rigid body, or solid body rotation? I believe many of the subrings of Saturn are rigid body rotation. I do not mean all of the Rings collectively is solidbody, but each individual subring is solidbody. And in fact is the cause of gaps between subrings.

Now, we need no high flung mathematics such as what Maxwell tried to give us an answer in 1860s. We can do this with elementary geometry in mind. 

We know the planets around the Sun follow a plane (ecliptic) of the Sun, such as the Rings of Saturn is a plane. So now, in comparison, what if the Solar ecliptic was filled with small planets such as the rings of saturn are ice globules. So, can a structure of a Sun Ring of Planets survive without solid-body rotation? Only unless each planet in a revolution had the same speed as the others and would keep the same spacing distance relative to the others. That means, in effect, rigid body motion of the same planets in the same orbital revolution. That means in a orbital band of revolution, the planets would have to have rigid body revolutions in order not to be colliding with the planet behind and the planet in front. 

Now the planets and the ice globules can have gaps of empty space between subrings where the motion in the further out subring is slower than the inner subring, or, it could be faster, because the only thing that is of concern is the planets or ice within each subring have rigid body motion. The entire Rings are not solidbody but the subrings are solidbody.

So, for Saturn, as Maxwell showed in 1860s, is not one vast plane of rigid body rotation. But for Saturn, each subring, separated from other subrings by empty space gaps is a rigid body rotation subring. 

Shame that in our recent spacecraft, Cassini, mission to collect data on Saturn, that no priority was given to finding out the extent of rigid body rotation of the Saturn subrings. Perhaps on the next mission to Saturn this topic takes top priority. But Cassini did take pictures of a spectacular hexagon shaped North Pole of Saturn. Hexagons are never created by Newton gravity or General Relativity gravity, instead, they are created by EM force such as van der Waals and is seen in snowflakes.

We see Saturn as a complete full disc of ice globules separated by gaps in the subrings. We do not see collisions and the scavenging of ice globules by faster or slower moving ice globules. We see a permanence of the rings and that stability and permanence means rigid or solid body motion. How much solid body? Perhaps for Saturn I would guess 75% or more. I need to look at those tiny moons of Saturn relative to the rings. As for the meteorite belt, the rigid body rotation is far less, perhaps 50%, for many in that belt stray away. But one thing in common with both the Rings and Asteroids, is that they have a more powerful electromagnetic force involved than a body that is mostly EM neutral.

The separation of rings by a gap is usually caused by a moon traveling in the gap, and thus indicating that the subrings of D, C, B, A, F, G, E, etc must be subrings of rigid or partial rigid body rotation. If not rigid body rotation, they would have disappeared a long time ago in forming another moon in that subring. 

Wikipedia page on Rings of Saturn mentions the Pan moon as forming a gap between two rings. 

The mistake that beginners make with Maxwell involvement of Saturn Rings, is that they misunderstand completely the work of Maxwell which was to say that the total Ring structure was not one solid ring of solid-body rotation. But that the Ring structure was many subrings for which each subring can and must have rigid body rotation to maintain the structure. Now some scientists speculate that the subrings turn periodically from water into ice globules.

> Now, Harold Jeffreys, in 1947 wrote a work "The effects of collisions on Saturn's Rings" 
> 
> And in Jeffreys work he states " Maxwell showed that a set of satellites moving in one circle about the planet would be stable, and that all the other suggested types of constitution that he considered would be unstable." 
> 

So that for Maxwell, several satellites equally spaced apart moving in one orbit around Saturn would be stable. Sounds like solid-body rotation of these satellites and would be comparable to a subring. 

> Further on, Jeffreys writes: "But a fluid ring could be arbitrarily thin if we abandon the hypothesis of rigid-body rotation, which in itself would suggest a very high viscosity." 
> 

So the more I read about Maxwell on Saturn Ring, the more I see he is the first to see that those Rings are solid body rotation, not in full, but for the subrings. 


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::  

Thomson discovered electron in 1897 (later to be found that this is a muon, not the .5MeV particle)

Rutherford and Moseley for proton 1911-1913 

Anderson and Neddermeyer 1936

But i am happy because I solved what the largest, largest Logical Gap in science understanding,-- of where the Real Proton is 840 MeV and worst of all the Real Electron is the Muon at 105 MeV not the tiny tiny little .5 MeV particle, the magnetic monopole that causes electric current flow. 

How can the world of science, of physics live for over a 100 years and have this basic fact and understanding all wrong, and, in the face of it develop so much electricity and electronics. One would think that if you had screwed up what the proton really was, what the electron really was, one would think you could not invent electrical society and electronics. But then looking at the invention of portable fire making way back before even civilization is known, and the fact that our understanding properly what is going on when we have "fire" took a million or more years in between. So the proper understanding of what is going on in an invention does not come before but usually a long time after. 

Now Dirac chased after something all his life, and was the wish he probably wanted an answer most of all his questions. The wish answered of all his questions in physics-- the magnetic monopole. He looked looked and looked. Sometimes in life we look too hard, and it is right under our nose. The magnetic monopole is this little particle-- this .5 MeV + or - charged particle we so foolishly thought was the electron. It is a photon or neutrino that carries a bundle of charge energy of .5 MeV, charge energy, not rest mass energy. 

So, if the little particle was not the Real Electron, then what was? 

The Real Electron had to be about the rest mass of the Real Proton, proper amount of momentum to form bonds of chemistry. You cannot have covalent, ionic, metallic bonding with .5MeV momentum and 938 MeV momentum. Oh , one could be 2 or 3 or 4, even 8 times larger than the other in terms of rest mass but not something ridiculous as nearly 2,000 times different, because remember the electron was the basis of the chemical bond. 

Physics had a particle that fits that description, the muon. 

And, besides, the world of science, ever since the muon was discovered, have often asked-- what the hell does the world need this thing for? Well, if you think long enough, you realize, that Dirac's monopole was the .5 MeV particle and thus muon was the Real Electron.

But now, where in physics does it tell us the muon is the real electron other than Chemical Bonding needs it to be so. What corner of physics tells us-- you are crazy if you think that little .5 MeV is the electron. This is what i was searching for in the past few days. 

The answer is simple and obvious. The answer lies in one of many of my youths confounding lessons. I do not remember in youth-- 1960's when i read that the radioactivity was beta particle electron and alpha particle a helium nucleus and then a third particle gamma rays-- photons. I recall exactly what i was thinking as a teenager-- why why, for where was hydrogen nucleus-- it made no logical sense to miss hydrogen and jump to helium. 

So, the easiest proof that the Real Proton is 840 MeV and Real Electron is 105 MeV is examine the Sun. It is hydrogen mostly and that means it is a 105 muon stuck together with a proton of 840 MeV to form a neutral hydrogen atom. The Sun is overall electrically neutral because hydrogen is 840+105. 

Hydrogen is not 938 + .5 

The reason there is no radioactive decay particle of hydrogen nucleus is because the real electron is the muon and tightly bound to the 840 proton. 

So, what is beta decay? It is magnetic monopole emission, and not radioactive decay at all 

What is alpha decay? It is a helium atom for its electrons=muons are still riding with it. 

Why no hydrogen decay? Because, it takes enormous energy to split apart a hydrogen atom of its 105 MeV electron stuck to its 840 MeV proton.  

So the Sun is proof because if the electron was the .5 particle. The Sun would have disappeared long time ago because it would be a proton star having lost most of its electrons. 

The reason the Sun is still here is because electrons are muons and the Sun's massive outpour of charged particles are just magnetic monopoles (gravity as EM).  

Now I am beginning to see that most of the problems of physics can usually be answered by the Sun. So that if we have a major theory problem and the Sun is involved, that the Sun will answer it best. For example, proof or evidence of the Atom Totality theory versus Big Bang. Hard to see that the Sun solves the question. But once you learn the Sun is hollow (see New Scientist, Oct21, 2017, and work by Asplund). Once you see the Sun is Hollow, means that electricity magnetism rules the world, rules the Universe. Because of Gauss's law of electricity that a charge moves to the upper surface, leaving the Sun hollow. Means that gravity is EM, and a world where EM governs is a world where it is a Atom Totality. 

Now, in the case of the Real Electron is a muon = 105 MeV and the Real Proton is 840 MeV, how does the Sun answer that vital theory question? Simple, if the electron was the .5 MeV particle, then the Sun would quickly degenerate into hydrogen protons of 938 MeV, making the Sun electrically + charge and unstable and break apart. Why the Sun is overall neutral and stable? Because the real electron is the muon, stuck and fastened extremely tight to the proton and thus, overall the Sun is neutral. The outpouring of the Sun of .5 MeV particles, well, those are not electrons but are magnetic monopoles of .5 MeV charge energy, either a positron +1 charge or its opposite -1 charge, that is fastened to a photon or neutrino. 

The particle we all know of as .5 MeV -1 charge is not the electron. That particle is a Magnetic Monopole of a photon or neutrino with a fastened .5 MeV of charge energy. 

Now, to further prove what I am saying above. We can do the thousands upon thousands of Chemical Bonding experiments and prove that those bondings can exist only with Electron = Muon. 

AP 

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

#710222

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 18:04:09 -0800 (PST)

Subject: PAGE11, 1-11, Variable motion, forces of R to 1/R to 1/R^2
 PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE /textbook 8th ed. 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2017 02:04:09 +0000


PAGE11, 1-11, Variable motion, forces of R to 1/R to 1/R^2 PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE /textbook 8th ed. 2017


Alright, I am exploring how Io, Europa, Ganymede have a 4::2::1 resonance while Mercury has a 3::2 resonance. 

Gravity of Newton/GR cannot explain resonance, but EM can, in the idea that gravity lock is EM, a force that requires R or 1/R rather than the weaker force of 1/R^2. In Faraday law R or 1/R would be a closed loop wire circle with a larger closed loop wire oblique to the smaller with magnetic monopoles=current, flowing in both and the gravity lock of resonance is a constant due to the oblique angle. 

Alright, making real good progress here with the idea that of the 3 possible motions of objects going around another object-- star to planets, planets to satellites, planets to rings that the only math that matches the observations correctly is not Newton gravity nor General Relativity gravity, but rather is a EM-gravity theory which has a variable range of force strengths-- 1) of solidbody V proportional to R, 2) of 1/R a constant and then our Newton/GR of 3), a inverse square 1/R^2. 

We cannot have a resonance gravity lock with Newton or GR gravity, but require at least a math of 1/R to explain Mercury 3::2 resonance and explain Io, Europa, Ganymede 4::2::1 resonance. 

Gravity of Newton and GR, also, fall short on explaining why these resonances are whole number constants, tying together rotation with revolution. Gravity of Newton and GR are deaf, dumb, and silent on the math of resonance locked. Only the force of EM can be powerful enough to provide a math for resonance lock, and provide for solidbody motion. 

So, why is this supporting evidence that the Universe is an Atom Totality? Because if the forces of Nature, all the forces are EM force, means the universe is an atom because electricity and magnetism are Atomic phenomenon. Atoms give rise to electricity and magnetism. Electricity and magnetism come from nowhere else, except the atom structure.

So in Old Physics, when they observed solidbody rotation in almost all spiral-galaxies, those soft in logic of physics came up with dark matter and dark energy. They never studied Logic or could ever use logic since their minds were never logical in the first place, and Ad Hoc, declared dark matter and dark energy exist to create solidbody rotation. If they had logic, they would have rather instead said -- solidbody rotation exists in Faraday law of EM theory, and so, instead of ad hoc dark matter, consider gravity as a form of electromagnetism. 

A brilliant and smart scientist would have looked at solidbody rotation in Spiral Galaxies and would not say dark matter, dark energy, but would rather say-- throw out Newton and GR gravity and install EM as what makes gravity. And that only the dumbest of the dumb physicists and astrophysicist would make the shameful claim of dark matter and dark energy. 

Capacitors in physics, in EM has the math of R or 1/R rather than 1/R^2. 

The Faraday law with many closed loops of wire nested in a plane where the wire loops are progressively larger and where you have a thrusting bar magnet in the center of these wire loops, that the motion of magnetic monopoles=current, in the nested wire loops is solidbody rotation of current. All signals to move travel at the speed of light to produce electricity. So here we have motion that is V proportional to radius R. 

Alright, if you look for a force of 1/R rather than 1/R^2 in Maxwell EM theory, it is not hard to find, in capacitors. On page 621 of Halliday & Resnick Fundamentals of Physics, 1988, 3rd ed they have the parallel plate capacitor C = e_0 *(A/d) where 1/d is our 1/R. And they write and I quote: "The capacitance does indeed depend only on geometrical factors, namely, the plate area A and the plate separation d." 

So, here in EM theory we have solidbody motion represented by Faraday's law where we have several closed loops of wire and the magnetic monopoles=current, all traveling at a speed of light signal V = R, and a 1/R motion in capacitors and a 1/R^2 motion in Coulomb's law. 

So, gravity is not just one motion of 1/R^2, but rather, gravity is EM of three main types of motion. No longer is gravity a separate force of Nature, but rather is a variable EM force ranging from R, to 1/R to 1/R^2. 

So, the EM force of variable force causes the gravity lock on moons of planets and on planets with the Sun. 

I see these graphs from several web sites on the rotation curves. I should be able to figure out the new math structure that gives us the true Coulomb force along with force of gravity. That new math structure that encompasses the variable force strengths is a Logarithmic function, for if you look at a logarithmic function graph and the graph of the rotation curves of spiral galaxies, you see they are identical in form.

http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/rotation_curves.htm 

http://spaces.imperial.edu/russell.lavery/ast100/Lectures/Ast100Topic31.html 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve 


Hard to imagine that the Coulomb force law is y = Ln(x) law rather inverse square with distance. 

http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/rotation_curves.htm 

If we look at this Cornell website of rotation curves, the rotation of a typical galaxy is a composition of both a slanted straight line 

 / 
/ 

and a flat straight line 

_____ 

which in full appears as this 

   _____ 
 / 
/ 

If we transport the Ln(x) function to reside fully in the 1st quadrant, we get a math structure of the Coulomb force as y = Ln(x). 

http://spaces.imperial.edu/russell.lavery/ast100/Lectures/Ast100Topic31.html 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve 

Now is there any other parts of Physics that tells us the Coulomb force law is really a natural log function? Yes indeed in the theory of Capacitors where the inverse square 1/r^2 is replaced by 1/r, and we see capacitance as "still motion of a body of charges". 

Now I think I found an extremely exciting application of a Coulomb force that is not inverse square but rather is Logarithmic. The application is both chemical bonding and the Aufbau Principle. The idea is that in multi-electron=muon atoms, the nucleus of protons is solid-body-rotation, whereas the electrons=muons in successive shells turn from solid-body of rotation V proportional to R, to that of rotation proportional to a constant. Same as seen in the Cornell picture of a spiral galaxy. 

Now this Coulomb force as being logarithmic rather than inverse square can be found throughout the chemical bonding. The metallic bond is mostly solid body motion of magnetic monopoles, whereas the ionic bond is mostly a "constant". Many of the anomalies in current physics and chemistry can be explained by a Coulomb force that is not inverse square but rather is Logarithmic. 

If we look at the Cornell webpage on rotation curves we see this: 

(1) Solid body rotation V proportional to R, velocity proportional to radius 

(2) Then, V is a constant 

(3) Typical Galaxy has both (1) and (2), of that of solid body with constant. 

(4) Keplerian velocity V proportional 1/R^2 is not seen in typical galaxies 

However, if we look at this website the basically flat rotation curve has bits and pieces squiggly curves of the 1/r and the 1/r^2 curves. So is the "flat part of the galaxy rotation composed of not only a constant but of 1/r and 1/r^2. 

http://spaces.imperial.edu/russell.lavery/ast100/Lectures/Ast100Topic31.html 
  
Can we have a Logarithmic function that starts out solid body then merges into flat r, then 1/r then 1/r^2 ? 

Since the speed of light is a constant in physics, it would make more sense that the Coulomb force would not have a mathematics of inverse square since that structure has no math constant. But the Logarithmic function has a constant in "2.71..." The number "e" is the mathematical analog of the speed of light in physics. So the Coulomb force must be represented not by inverse square but the Log function. The Coulomb force is not a single solo force but a range of forces varying from R to 1/R to 1/R^2. 

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:: The discovery that the Real Electron is a muon weighs much on my mind as I wrap up this textbook of the 8th edition. Next year I will be spending time on a Mathematics textbook and cannot say when I return for the 9th edition of Atom Totality. In the above page I ran into a sentence that asks about the movement of electrons in a current of electricity. Here is where I need far more clarity, far more understanding of how Electron=muon relates to electricity, since electricity as current is all about the .5 MeV magnetic monopole, and that the muon = electron has little to no role in the monopole as the current flow. So, here, I better wait a full year and let clarity come sunshining in the meantime.

AP

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

#710279

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 20:57:01 -0800 (PST)

Subject: PAGE12, 1-12, evidence proving Atom Totality: Strong Nuclear Force is
 Coulomb is chemical bonding / PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE, 8th ed. 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2017 04:57:01 +0000

PAGE12, 1-12, evidence proving Atom Totality: Strong Nuclear Force is Coulomb is chemical bonding / PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE, 8th ed. 2017

It bears repeating often, that if the wholescale universe is ruled by electricity and magnetism, then that means the universe is atomic structure, because electricity and magnetism comes only from atoms.

Now I delve into (4) the Strong Nuclear Force is just a chemical bond array of protons, just as the electrons=muons in the exterior of the atom is a chemical bond array. Here again, the Universe is governed by EM theory and that means electrons=muons, protons with charge, and magnetic monopoles, and that means the Atom Totality.  When electricity and magnetism are in control of everything, means atoms, means a Atom Totality.

Because the Strong Nuclear Force is just a scaled down or scaled up Chemistry Bond Array, implies that Electricity Magnetism, not the structureless BBEGR rules the Cosmos, and since EM rules means an Atom Cosmos. If the forces of Nature are forces of atoms in chemistry of bonding, then Nature is atom. 

EM theory deriving Strong Nuclear force as a chemical bond. 

Just to refresh my memory, I looked up how the EM theory derives the Strong Nuclear force to be a chemical bond and that matches the Coulomb force. In this old post, though, I did not mention the concept that the neutron in a atom nucleus becomes a proton with a nuclear-electron=muon, spilling out and running around to hold together several protons (strong-nuclear-force). So nuclear electrons=muons, holds together many protons.

Subject: factor of 10^6 (permeability/permittivity) for Chemical Bond to Strong Nuclear Force as a Coulomb force 

Permeability and Permittivity when you divide you end up with a factor of 10^6, a million, and this is very important for it is the Scale difference between the nucleus-- inner space -- of an atom and the electron shells -outer space - of an atom.

If one looks on page 572: PHYSICS, part 2, extended version, Halliday & Resnick, 1986, page 572, we see a picture of a typical atom with its electron=muon shells and a nucleus. The electron cloud has a diameter of 2x10^-10 meter and the diameter of the nucleus is 5x10^-15 meters. 

As I have reported of equilibration, that the Chemical bond is typically 5 eV and the nuclear force bond is 5 MeV so that eV to MeV is a difference of 10^6. 
The distance of a Chemical Bond compared to a Strong Nuclear bond of proton with neutron is again a difference of 10^6. So in other words, both the Chemical bond is a Coulomb force and the nuclear bond is a Coulomb force, only difference is that the Chemical bond takes place at 10^6 distance so that it is 10^6 weaker of a bond. What holds the proton to neutron is the same force, the same Coulomb force as what holds the hydrogen atom to a hydrogen ion. 
Stated simply, nuclear physics is chemical bonds at a distance of 10^-6. What holds together the proton and neutron in deuteron is the same force that holds together the hydrogen atom with a proton (dihydrogen ion), and only difference is one is 10^6 smaller distance. 
So 10^6 is a special number in physics, and obviously a dimensionless 
number and constant. It is probably just as important as the fine 
structure constant, for it tells us not only about electromagnetism 
but the space involved with electromagnetism. 
So this special dimensionless constant factor of 10^6 should also appear 
somewhere in the AP-Maxwell Equations. 
If we look at the two constants in the Maxwell Equations: permeability 
constant of 1.26 x 10^-6 H/m and the permittivity constant of 8.85 x 10^-12 F/m, that those two constants directly link to one another as being a factor of 10^6 and that starting from 0 to permeability as 10^-6 we reach permittivity as another 10^6 increment. 
So, if we never knew what the distances of the electron=muon shells were 
compared to the nucleus, we just simply look at permeability and 
permittivity and see they are 10^6 apart, would tell us that the 
distances are of a 10^6 magnitude and that the forces of chemical 
bonds versus nuclear bonds are also 10^6 magnitude different. 
Or, if we knew the distances of diameter of electron=muon shell to nuclear 
diameter was that of 10^6 difference, we would be able to tell what 
permeability constant was 10^-6 and permittivity had to be 10^-12. 

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:: The muonic atom as it is so called as replacing the .5 MeV particle with a 105 MeV muon in Old Physics. Trouble is the hydrogen atom is really a 840 MeV proton with a 105 MeV muon already attached. So as you remove a .5 MeV monopole (falsely thinking it was the electron) and add another muon you end up with a atom that is 840 +105 +105 MeV. You end up with an atom that has 2 electrons yet 1 proton. This is the reason the proton radius has 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 --- 

Here I raise the interesting question, that the proton radius puzzle is all solved when you consider that the real electron is the muon, and that there is no puzzle, because the .5MeV particle is not an electron but is a magnetic monopole composed of a photon or neutrino with .5 MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy.

AP

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

#710403

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 21:32:39 -0800 (PST)

Subject: PAGE13, 1-13, evidence proving Atom Totality: Space is Dirac's Sea of
 positrons /textbook 8th ed. 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2017 05:32:40 +0000


PAGE13, 1-13, evidence proving Atom Totality: Space is Dirac's Sea of positrons /textbook 8th ed. 2017


In an atom totality, space is positron while our matter is electron=muon matter of the last six electrons=muons of 231Pu atom totality. 

Since my discovery in 2017 that the real electron = muon, thus, that means the positrons of Old Physics were merely the flip side of the magnetic monopole of -1 charge of .5 MeV. So a positron is a magnetic monopole of +1 charge and .5 MeV.

Alright, I have to include the fact of the Dirac Sea, and few people in science realize its vast significance. It is a proving feature of the Atom Totality and throws the Big Bang theory into the dizzy dustbin. 

What the Dirac Sea tells us is that Space is the antiparticle of the electron=muon. We live and observe matter which is the last 6 electrons=muons of 231Pu Atom Totality, a gigantic big atom, and the Space of that big atom is the positrons = +1 charged monopoles, positrons make-up space. Now here I have to be careful for the muon has a antiparticle of a +1 muon, and I have no idea whether the +1 muon is composed of +1 monopoles. This is something to iron out in a 9th edition. But when we probe in the Atom Totality space in experiments in the lab or in cosmic ray observations we find positrons= monopoles. 

--- Quoting liberally from Wikipedia on the Dirac Sea, where the format allows: 
--- 
The Dirac sea is a theoretical model of the vacuum as an infinite sea of particles with negative energy. It was first postulated by the British physicist Paul Dirac in 1930[1] to explain the anomalous negative-energy quantum states predicted by the Dirac equation for relativistic electrons.[2] The positron, the antimatter counterpart of the electron, was originally conceived of as a hole in the Dirac sea, well before its experimental discovery in 1932.[nb 1] 

Upon solving the free Dirac equation, . . one finds[3] . . 
. . where . . 
. . for plane wave solutions with 3-momentum p. This is a direct consequence of the relativistic energy-momentum relation . . 
. . upon which the Dirac equation is built. The quantity U is a constant 2 × 1 column vector and N is a normalization constant. The quantity ε is called the time evolution factor, and its interpretation in similar roles in, for example, the plane wave solutions of the Schrödinger equation, is the energy of the wave (particle). This interpretation is not immediately available here since it may acquire negative values. A similar situation prevails for the Klein–Gordon equation. In that case, the absolute value of ε can be interpreted as the energy of the wave since in the canonical formalism, waves with negative ε actually have positive energy Ep.[4] But this is not the case with the Dirac equation. The energy in the canonical formalism associated with negative ε is –Ep.[5] 

In hole theory, the solutions with negative time evolution factors are reinterpreted as representing the positron, discovered by Carl Anderson. The interpretation of this result requires a Dirac sea, showing that the Dirac equation is not merely a combination of special relativity and quantum mechanics, but it also implies that the number of particles cannot be conserved.[6] 

--- end quoting Wikipedia on the Dirac Sea --- 

Few people in physics ever discuss the Dirac Sea, not only because it is too much over the head of most physicists, but because it directly challenges and disposes of the Big Bang theory, for what it is saying is that Space itself is a positron particle/s. (Space is the +1 muon or antimuon.)

And it is here that we unify the photon with neutrino as being one and the same particle only with the means of propagation a difference. The neutrino is a longitudinal wave and the photon is the same only double transverse wave. The neutrino originates and ends with a proton particle, while the photon originates and ends with a electron=muon particle. 

Evidence that Space is positrons=monopoles is only possible in a Atom Totality theory, not the structure-less Big Bang theory. If the Big Bang theory were true, Anderson in 1932 could never have found positrons as Space and the Dirac Equation makes no sense, but it does. 

Speaking some more about Space and astronomy, in Old Physics, they wanted to unify the four forces-- strong nuclear, weak nuclear, Coulomb EM and gravity, which was a major major goal of physics in the 20th century, however, they failed miserably. The only reasonable unification would be to ask which of these four forces has a "perfect particle" and the answer is EM Coulomb force has the photon, the perfect particle. And by logic, we then acquiesce to the fact that a unification always ends up as what is "perfect particle" and that the four forces become a Coulomb force because the photon is Coulomb force. What is surprising though, in this unification, is that the Coulomb force ends up being a variable force strength and not a single solo force strength of just 1/R^2, but varies from R to 1/R to 1/R^2. 

Now in astronomy, recently in the past two years we have had remarkable new science discoveries about Space and gravity, which to this day is new and alarming, and not well understood. For one, the spacecraft Hitomi broke up due to spin, for another, the spacecraft Juno almost broke up due to Jupiter's unexpected stronger magnetism than what was anticipated. This is the spin term of EM-gravity and did not allow for Juno's valves to properly open. Then there was Cassini showing the hexagonal north pole of Saturn. So all these space missions are bringing us the realization that we only crudely know what gravity is. That we have to ditch the Newton gravity and ditch the General Relativity. We have to learn better, what EM gravity is, far better, before we think of returning to the Moon or exploring Europa or other bodies.

Now in a new upcoming mission of a probe sent to the Sun, hopefully we can find whether the Sun is hollow or not hollow. I propose equipping the spacecraft with a radioactive rod that can be monitored on Earth, as the craft disintegrates into the Sun. Let us find out for sure, if the Sun is Hollow, and of course, a Hollow Sun means gravity is EM force, not the force of Newton or General Relativity. When it is confirmed that the Sun is hollow, would also confirm that no black holes exist, and that the centers of galaxies are hollow, for a region of high density plasma obeys EM theory that the Gauss's law of electricity-- charge moves to the outer surface.



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:: So, when I get around to doing the 9th edition of this textbook, I want to be fully clear in my mind what electricity-- the flow of current in a wire, what is that exactly? For it seems implausible that muons=electrons are in motion. And rather than muons flowing, it is the magnetic monopoles, those small .5 MeV particles that are either photons or neutrinos carrying a .5 MeV charge packet.

>
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 17:22:56 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Re: Unless Maxwell discovered E= mc^2, Apparently Heaviside in 1889
 was first with work on Capacitors
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 01:22:57 +0000

>
Re: Unless Maxwell discovered E= mc^2, Apparently Heaviside in 1889 was first with work on Capacitors
>
Now, I better be careful, very careful with what I say here. For I am just talking off the top of my head on some intuition of mine. 
>
That I discovered the Real Electron is the 105 MeV muon particle and that the other puny tiny little particle of .5 MeV was a magnetic monopole not of .5MeV rest-mass but of .5 MeV charge energy and it was a photon dressed up with charge energy-- or neutrino. 

So, here, where E = mc^2, the question becomes, does there ever exist in Nature a case where -- other than matter to antimatter collision, ever the case where rest mass is converted to energy? I doubt it. 

That means, all the energy from any and every star is monopole or photon or neutrino or meson energy, none of which is a conversion of rest-mass. 

And that makes sense, because each day the Sun shines, it does not emit any muons or protons in the form of E=mc^2. The muons and protons of the Sun are the same amount or more than 1, or 2 or 3 billion years ago. 

And all this talk and idea that the stars give out due to E=mc^2 is phony baloney. The hydrogen in the Sun is not losing rest mass due to E=mc^2. 
>
So I think a comprehensive review of the Sun and Stars is needed. 
>
AP 

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

#710561

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 00:00:53 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Page14, 1-14, some history of close calls to the Atom-Totality-Universe
 / textbook 8th ed 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2017 08:00:53 +0000


Page14, 1-14, some history of close calls to the Atom-Totality-Universe / textbook 8th ed 2017 

Some history of close calls to the Atom Totality, Atom-Totality-Universe 

Now I talked about some of the history of the Atomic theory, and let me in this page talk about some scientists who through the history have come close to the idea that the whole entire Universe-- the Totality is an atom itself; have come close to this idea of a Atom Totality Universe. It is a surprise to many that several people have had this idea brewing long before AP. But sadly, none ever jumped the hurdle, for if you claim to have a Atom Totality theory-- you must state what chemical element the Universe it actually is.

I know Democritus was a math genius for Archimedes of Ancient Greeks recognized his talents, but still, I did not expect Democritus to push his Atomic Theory to its final logical conclusion-- the Universe itself must be an atom. Perusing the physics history literature in the mid 1990s, years after I discovered the Atom Totality theory, I came across this gem. 

 Book: 
--- start quoting A SHORT HISTORY OF ATOMISM 
 by J. Gregory, Univ. Leeds, 1931, page 4 --- 
The traditional atom, the genuine atom, is both quite indestructible and exceedingly minute. Atoms were indivisible for Leucippus because they were too minute to be divided, and for Democritus because they were too hard to be broken. 
If sundry traditions are trustworthy, Democritus allowed all sizes to atoms: a single Democritean atom might even be, so some said, as big as the world. The gigantic Democritean atom, if it ever existed, vanished from the atomistic tradition. 
The subsequent Epicurean atom was too hard to be broken, but it was also too small to be seen, and only thought could discern it. It did not become doubtful, nor even admittedly speculative, for Epicurus was as sure of atoms as if he had seen them with his eyes. 
 --- end quoting A SHORT HISTORY OF ATOMISM 
 by J. Gregory, Univ. Leeds, 1931, page 4 --- 

Then we see this Universe Atom idea in Lemaitre, a Belgian astronomer and cosmologist who formulated the modern big-bang theory, which holds that the universe began in a cataclysmic explosion of a small, primeval "super-atom." 
  .... His works 
 include ... 
 and L'Hypothese de l'atome primitif 
 (1946; "Hypothesis of the Primeval Atom") 
 --- end of quote from Encyclopedia Britannica 1992 --- 

Now, it is a shame that Lemaitre Primeval Atom starts the Universe in a Big Bang, because, well would it not have been a superior idea if the Primeval Atom were a Atom Totality Universe as part of the Atomic Theory and which has no cataclysmic birth, but rather a progression of chemical elements from hydrogen to helium on up to uranium and then plutonium atom totalities. A logical progression of Atom Totalities. Rather than a spurious, random notion of a explosion. 

Is not logic better served if the Atomic Theory is pushed to its end conclusion that All is Atom and the Universe itself is a single big atom which in the far future will be a new chemical element Atom such as element 96 from its current element 94 of plutonium. Is that not the best, the superior logic? 

Then there was a TV series called COSMOS by Sagan. And I specifically remember this segment from the TV series with its beautiful Vangelis music that was accompanied with words. I had watched on TV the series COSMOS, and remembered a paragraph which I looked-up in the book COSMOS on pages 265-267. 

--- quoting from book COSMOS --- 
[pages 265-267]  There is an idea--strange, haunting, 
 evocative- one of the most exquisite conjectures in 
 science or religion.  It is entirely undemonstrated; 
 it may never be proved.  But it stirs the blood. 
 There 
 is , we are told, an infinite hierarchy of universes, 
 so that an elementary particle, such as an electron, 
 in our universe would, if penetrated, reveal itself to 
 be an entire closed universe.  Within it, organized 
 into the local equivalent of galaxies and smaller 
 structures, are an immense number of other, much 
 tinier elementary particles, which are themselves 
 universe at the next level, and so on forever- an 
 infinite downward regression, universes within 
 universes, endlessly.  And upward as well.  Our 
 familiar universe of galaxies and stars, planets 
 and people,  would be a single elementary particle 
 in the next universe up, the first step of another 
 infinite regress. 
--- end quoting COSMOS --- 

So close was Sagan, but sadly, did not pare that idea down, to, instead of infinite regressions or infinite progressions, pare it down to the idea that the Universe is not an elementary particle but an Atom, a single Atom, and then, well, Sagan would have had to triangulate what chemical element the Universe was, just like I did in 1990.

And finally there was AP who in 1990 said, the entire Universe is a 231Pu Plutonium Atom Totality. The numbers fit best with plutonium.

Whole entire universe is just one big atom of plutonium, where dots of the electron dot cloud make up the stars, and all atoms. We live in the 5f6 of 231Pu, the last six electrons=muons of this gigantic single atom. 


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:: Well, I have my work cut out for me for a future 9th edition. For I must clarify, and elucidate how we have a magnetic monopole particle that is either a photon or neutrino possessing a .5 MeV charge energy of either +1 or -1 charge. And with this monopole particle stands the Real Electron= muon of 105 MeV along with the Real Proton = 840 MeV. So this revolutionizes all of physics, all of chemistry, all of biology. For no longer do we see an atom in the same way. So, I have to make clear what electricity and current in wires is, when we have a monopole of charge and a muon or proton of charge. Vast vast changes for all sciences, because all sciences use atomic theory, in some form or other.

AP

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

#710618 — Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

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

>On Saturday, May 19, 2018 at 1:55:22 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 17, 2018 at 6:46:16 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>> 
>> > Engineer out-- stalking behavior and the easiest way to do that is give the author of a thread the power to not only delete his/her own post, but to delete any follow-up post to his/her thread. 
>> 
>> 
>> So, one thread would explode into dozens of threads almost immediately as people respond to your seemingly endless attempts to misinform students here, Archie Pu. And they could delete your replies. Be careful what you wish for.

>On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 10:50:01 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:

>> of other professors. What would he do? He'll sneer "What a complete
>> nutcase!" and lrave, and never give you or your ideas another thought.

So Archie, what does the fact that any math professors who happen to see
your hateful posts will mutter "What a complete nutcase!" and leave, and
will never try to contact you have to do with your plan to ruin Usenet
discussion?

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

#710621 — Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

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

>TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, textbook for ages 5 to 25, by Archimedes Plutonium, 2018

>(1) preface //TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS for ages 5 to 25, by Archimedes Plutonium 2018

WARNING TO PARENTS: Archimedes Plutonium is offering to trach your children
his broken math. BEWARE! He will corrupt the minds of your children! He
teaches there are no negative numbers, no complex numbers, he teaches a
sine wave isn't a sine wave plus many, many other instances of bad math.
Nobody knows why he wishes to corrupt the minds of children like this.
Perhaps he wants everyone to be a failure at math, just like he is. 
Perhaps he is an agent of Putin and Russia, or maybe of China, in order
to make sure they will continue to dominate the trade economy. But the 
point is, stay away, if he offers to give or sell you his dangerous book!

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web