Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #710954 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-11-01 17:05 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-12-13 03:20 +0000 |
| Articles | 14 on this page of 34 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 17:05 -0700
Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-02 10:53 -0700
Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 14:51 -0700
Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 21:03 -0700
Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 21:05 -0700
Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 18:02 -0800
Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 11:28 -0800
Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 14:48 -0800
Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-10 13:14 -0800
Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 12:14 -0800
Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-13 13:36 -0800
Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-14 11:36 -0800
Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-14 19:24 -0800
Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-16 04:09 -0800
Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-17 11:53 -0800
Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-18 13:17 -0800
Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-19 12:17 -0800
Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-19 17:36 -0800
Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 13:51 -0800
Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-24 18:31 -0800
Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-25 18:02 -0800
Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-27 13:50 -0800
Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-28 12:15 -0800
Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 12:52 -0800
Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 18:20 -0800
Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-02 14:27 -0800
Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 17:19 -0800
Re: Archimedes "Front Page Hog" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-04 05:06 +0000
Re: Archimedes "batshit crazy" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-04 05:15 +0000
Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 13:55 -0800
Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 21:45 -0800
Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 18:51 -0800
Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 14:02 -0800
Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-13 03:20 +0000
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-25 18:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <db9005ba-4a68-4e32-862a-1bc24b562ec0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #714583 |
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 21:47:08 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Page22, 2-8, AP-Maxwell Equations of New Physics/ Atom-Totality-Universe/
textbook 8th ed 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2017 05:47:08 +0000
Page22, 2-8, AP-Maxwell Equations of New Physics/ Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017
The magnificent heights these 6 equations bring to all of science not just Physics.
So the AP Equations of EM are six
1) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /A*s^2
2) V = i*B*L New Ohm's law, law of electricity, defining the electric current and showing V dual to B
3) V' = (i*B*L)' Ampere-Maxwell law
4) (V/i*L)' = B' Faraday law
5) (V/(B*L))' = i' the new law of spin, defining why current needs to go in a closed loop
6) (V/(i*B))' = L' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
These laws compose the bulk of Physics other than the Atomic Theory-- concerned about what is matter and what is matter made up of. The EM physics and Atomic theory are the two foundations of all science, anything else is details of Atoms and EM. Atomic Physics is the material that the EM laws act upon and interact. A nice analogy is in math, where math has numbers-- Atomic theory, and the way numbers interact or act are the four operators of add, subtract, multiply, divide, so we can think of Atomic theory as numbers and EM laws as the operators on those numbers.
The Atomic theory includes the EM theory, for EM tells us the actions and interactions of atoms. In Old Physics, they kept fumbling around with Quantum Mechanics which was a collection of rules and data and principles, but all of that, of QM, belongs either in Atomic theory or EM theory. In this textbook we derive most of the QM principles from EM.
Now Maxwell actually had 8 Original Maxwell Equations, which, through the years were reduced to 4, and the modern day 4 equations are vector equations made by Heaviside. Maxwell had Old Ohm's law in one of his 8 equations. But sadly, Maxwell did not make Ohm's law as a starting axiom or principle to derive all the other laws. Instead, Maxwell used models "the molecular vortices model" to formulate his Equations. Here, all I do is make New Ohm's law primal axiom and derive other laws by differentiation on the permutations of New Ohm's law, as was seen above.
----Ampere-Maxwell law----
Now differentiating
V' = (i*B*L)'
Using the Product Rule of Calculus. Which is (fgh)' = f'gh + fg'h + fgh'
V' = i'*B*L + i*B'*L + i*B*L'
= i*B*L + i*V/m^2*L + i*B*spin energy
= i*B*L + i^2 + i*B*spin energy
Justification:: Applying these experimental results::
(i) The derivative of voltage is current A or i.
"To put this relationship between voltage and current in a capacitor in calculus terms, the current through a capacitor is the derivative of the voltage across the capacitor with respect to time. Or, stated in more simple terms, a capacitor's current is directly proportional to how quickly the voltage across it is changing." (web)
(ii) The derivative of charge is current.
"The momentary current is given by the derivative of the electric charge by time. i(t) is the momentary current i at time t in amps (A). Q(t) is the momentary electric charge in coulombs (C). deltaQ is the electric charge in coulombs (C), that flows at time duration of delta t. " (web)
(iii) The derivative of current is current, rate of change of the current.
(iv) The derivative of magnetic field B is V/m^2. This makes B as proportional to 1/s^2 go to 1/s^3, to go from B looking to more like V. So you turn B into a quasi state V
(v) The derivative of momentum is force, and angular momentum m^2/s is force to energy m^2/s^2.
Now the above result of V' = 2 i_accel * R_ordered, which is basically V' = 2iR is Ampere-Maxwell law where a current in, yields two overall currents.
-----Faraday law-----
More differentiating
(V/(i*L))' = B'
Using the Quotient Rule, which is (f/gh)' = (f'gh - fg'h - fgh')/ (gh)^2
(V/i*L)' = (V'*i*L - V*i' *L - V*i*L') / (i*L)^2
= (i^2L - ViL -Vi spin)/ i^2L^2
Now applying the rules again::
(i) The derivative of voltage is current A or i.
(ii) The derivative of charge is current.
(iii) The derivative of current is accelerated current, call it i_accel
(iv) The derivative of Resistance R is more ordered more patterned resistance, let me call it R_ordered.
We have (V'R - VR') / R^2 =( iR - VR_ordered ) / R^2
Since V= iR we have (iR - iR^2_ordered)/ R^2
This ends up as (i - iR_ordered)/R
So that can be written as this, (i + i (-R_ordered)) / R where you have a direction of motion of R_ordered
This of course is the Faraday law with Lenz law as -R_ordered
Spin Law
(V/(B*L))' = i'
Using the Quotient Rule, which is (f/gh)' = (f'gh - fg'h - fgh')/ (gh)^2
(V/B*L)' = (V'*B*L - V*B' *L - V*B*L') / (B*L)^2
i' = (iBL -V(V/m^2)L - VBspin / B^2L^2
Having applied the rules again::
(i) The derivative of voltage is current A or i.
(ii) The derivative of charge is current.
(iii) The derivative of current is accelerated current, call it i_accel
(iv) The derivative of Resistance R is more ordered more patterned resistance, let me call it R_ordered.
i' = - (ii*L)
This is another new law Maxwell never saw. It gives rise to all spin terms in physics, from the particle spin, photon, neutrino, proton, electron, atoms, on up to planet spin, star spin and galaxy spin. It is what caused Hitomi spacecraft and later Juno spacecraft to go erratic.
Coulomb's law with EM-gravity law
More differentiating
(V/(i*B))' = L'
Using the Quotient Rule, which is (f/gh)' = (f'gh - fg'h - fgh')/ (gh)^2
(V/i*B)' = (V'*i*B - V*i' B - V*i*B') / (i*B)^2
Having applied the rules again::
(i) The derivative of voltage is current A or i.
(ii) The derivative of charge is current.
(iii) The derivative of current is accelerated current, call it i_accel
(iv) The derivative of Resistance R is more ordered more patterned resistance, let me call it R_ordered.
So far we have R' = (ii - Vi_accelerated )/ i^2
(V/(i*B))' = (V'*i*B - V*i' B - V*i*B') / (i*B)^2
L' = (i^2B - B^3- V^2i) / i^2B^2
L' = (i^2B - B^3- V^2i) / i^2B^2
This is a law that Maxwell had never seen, for it is EM-Gravity law.
It has the form of (kAA + jBB + hCC)/d^2 for an ellipse for planets to orbit the Sun, and it has so much more. And what it does is create a track in astronomy for stars or planets or moons to orbit, and not only tracks, but the planet pushes the moons in their track and the Sun pushes the planets in their tracks, call it an i current type of a push in the track. So gravity is seen not only as a gravitational attraction or pull, but also as a push in a track. So the law creates EM tracks and pushes the mass in the track to orbit. Now that makes a lot of sense, does it not for we can easily picture the Sun as a electric generator pushing monopoles (planets) to flow around in circles as a electric current.
Now, what this new law says is quite astounding for it is the motion law and why gravity is EM and why gravity has a range of motion varying from R to 1/R to 1/R^2, where R is radius.
So instead of .5 MeV monopoles flowing in wire or coil as electricity, here we have stars flowing around galaxies, and planets flowing around Sun. The law of the derivative of Resistance (B*L) is that Space is Magnetic Field, lines of force forming TRACKS in Space and the planets and stars follow along those tracks, just as monopoles follow along the copper wire. But not only follow in these tracks, but given a force of pushing the planets along in those tracks.
Finally the L' looks like the force of gravity as (kAA+jBB)/d^2 and is the copper wire in Faraday, Ampere laws. The L' equation is a new one, which Maxwell totally missed. Maxwell had nothing for the copper wires in Ampere and Faraday laws. It is a nasty habit of most scientists, that they leave things out, figuring they were not "science in general". Thinking that generalization is what science is all about, and forget the specifics.
Now if I include New Ohm's law itself along with the four differential equations, and the Magnetic field law, I believe I have captured all the laws of EM theory. So confident am I in capturing all the laws of EM theory, that I suspect Dirac Equation is set to be revised and derived from these 6 equations of EM.
Looking back, of course the idea that the electron was such a tiny puny little particle of .5MeV whilst the neutron was 945 MeV, was very much silly. Silly in not doing chemical bonding and silly in thinking electrons were moving in electricity. An electron= muon can exist with charge, moving in a circular motion. If neutral charge, it moves linearly, linear momentum.
So in the AP Equations of EM, the law of electricity and magnetism are contained in the New Ohm's law. Then, the Ampere-Maxwell, Faraday, and spin laws and the Coulomb-EM-gravity law come out of the differentiation of New Ohm's law.
And we see that three of the four laws of EM are of the math form of (kAA + jBB)/d^2 for the reason that it is quotient rule of differential calculus. Looks like I got exactly what I wanted of (kAA+jBB)/d^2 and more.
And, already, I have a question, puzzling me. For the equations above for EM theory involve equations of terms that are forces themselves. Voltage is a force even a power, and in a sense, resistance is a force-- like Lenz's law and in a sense current can be seen as monopoles in motion as a force, the monopoles pushing or pulling other monopoles.
So are the Equations of EM supposed to be forces as terms, where we multiply forces, add subtract forces, divide by forces. I can picture adding several forces, but here we multiply forces. So is this the first time in physics that we have forces as the terms in the laws. Usually the laws are terms that build up to being a force, but here we have multiplication and division of forces. Later in this book I discuss how the important equation of Chemistry, the ideal gas law PV = nRT is a form of New Ohm's law, only for chemistry. So that the Ideal Gas Law of Chemistry was a harbinger of what the true EM laws must turn out to be.
Alright I am content the above is true, and where V = i*B*L is the Law of Electricity, basically a current flow. A electric current is a flow of magnetic monopoles, those .5 MeV particles that are photons or neutrinos dressed up with a charge.
So where is Coulomb's law now located? I believe it is under the new law of L' = (V/(i*B))'. This makes sense in that Coulomb and gravity laws are the same, indistinguishable, and that they both vary from R to 1/R to 1/R^2.
In Old Physics, they had a mistaken argument that Coulomb's law was under Gauss's law of electricity. And a silly argument that they used the Gauss math of vector fields with a inverse square that they assumed what it was they were suppose to prove. In Logic, it is a boo-boo, a big no-no, to assume what it is you are demanded to prove. We have a beautiful example of that error in mathematics where the Ancient Greek Apollonius discovered conic sections and he thought, wrongly that the ellipse was a conic section when in truth it was a Oval. And this mistake lasted for thousands of years, and then along comes a Belgian named Dandelin in 1822, who assumed the section was a ellipse, not paying any attention for the validity of that assumption. So when you assume something true when it is really false, you easily can prove anything. Here in New Physics, we outright say this new law is the Coulomb law.
Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu
::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ . . | . /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
--------------- -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
--------------- --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / . . | . \ .
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
Comment: Alright, excellent, I have found what this .5 MeV particle is, and how electricity and electric current work, what they are and how they work. It is a huge relief to me, to finally be able to view and understand how in Faraday's law, by thrusting a bar magnet through closed loop of wire produces electricity. It is because the Lines of Force in magnetism are monopoles of closed loops and when we thrust, those monopoles jump onto the wire and flow as electricity in the wire. It was never about electrons moving, but rather, about monopoles as closed loops moving.
As I said earlier, this discovery causes vast sweeping changes in Chemistry, Physics, and Biology. Some of the minor issues that have to be severely revised are (1) metallic bond (2) lightening as a phenomenon (3) theory of electricity (4) nerves in biology (5) how the brain works (6) Plate tectonics in geology, etc etc
AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-27 13:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <00b1124f-5dc4-46bb-be8c-855e45c8f7c0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #714756 |
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 18:35:40 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Page23, 2-9, AP- Equations, reviewing them/ Electricity is really the
flow of monopoles/Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 02:35:41 +0000
Page23, 2-9, AP- Equations, reviewing them/ Electricity is really the flow of monopoles/Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017
Alright let us lay them bare and see if they make total perfect sense
1) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /A*s^2
2) V = i*B*L New Ohm's law, law of electricity
3) V' = (i*B*L)' Ampere-Maxwell law
4) (V/i*L)' = B' Faraday law
5) (V/(B*L))' = i' the new law of spin
6) (V/(i*B))' = L' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
Ampere-Maxwell Law
V' = B*B*L + i*V*L + i*B*(i_C)
I need a magnetic field, and a displacement current, at minimum. Looks as though I got all two. But I get something more, a third term of iB*(i_C), and what I think this is, is a capacitor current. The Old Maxwell Equations were too much cherry picking, picking only what their heart's desired but not picking everything present. So when you put in a electric current, you put in a lot of energy, energy not accounted for, once and after you cherry pick a magnetic field and a displacement current of iVL. What the Old Maxwell Equations had to do, to get in everything was energy in had to settle with energy out. So the energy, not used to form magnetic field and displacement current was a Capacitor Current, the third term above.
Faraday law
B' = 1/L - VB/i^2L - V/L^2
I need electricity and Lenz law. I get electricity in spades (slang) in the middle term VB/i^2L and I get Lenz law in third term V/L^2. However, I get something totally new and missed by Maxwell, a imparted spin on the apparatus of 1/L. What this is, is the fact that electricity is circular motion, and what more circular is there, than the electric motor itself. So oddly enough, the Old Maxwell Equations never really tells you that electric motors spin in circles.
New Spin Law
i' = - (ii*L)
Totally new to Maxwell Equations, that Electricity and Magnetism, as the two exist together, they cause spin in the world. All matter is composed of electricity and magnetism, all matter. And so, all matter has spin, from the tiniest of matter particles, the electron, proton, atoms on up to planets, stars, galaxies. All have spin.
Coulomb law which includes gravity as EM
L' = (i^2B - B^3- V^2i) / i^2B^2
Totally new law, and Maxwell mistakenly thought Coulomb's law was inside Gauss's law of electricity. Mistaken because Gauss's law of electricity is inverse square and so they assumed that meant Coulomb.
What I needed here, is a Coulomb law that varies in range from Solid Body Rotation, to that of 1/radius, to that of rotation proportional to 1/radius^2. In the above, as you can see with the factor of B^2 in denominator I get a range of force strength of 1/B in first term, B in second term, and 1/B^2 in third term. What we have come to accept as Newton gravity and General Relativity gravity is all packaged in the third term, but the three terms combined is far more than gravity itself. Gravity is all inside L', and what it says is that the Earth goes around the Sun because the Sun creates tracks in the sky by its electricity and magnetism, and the Earth moves inside these Sun tracks and is pushed along inside those Sun tracks by the Coulomb force. In this fashion, can we get a Sun moving around the Milky Way Galaxy with a speed of 230 km/s
Sun 230 km/s orbital speed around Milky Way
Mercury, 0.24 yr orbital period, 47.87 km/s orbital speed
Venus, 0.61 yr orbital period, 35.02 km/s orbital speed
Earth, 1 yr orbital period, 29.78 km/s orbital speed
Moon , 27 days orbit, 1 km/s orbital speed
Mars, 1.8 yrs orbital period, 24.07 km/s orbital speed
Jupiter, 11.86 yrs orbital period, 13.07 km/s orbital speed
Saturn, 29.45 yrs orbital period, 9.69 km/s orbital speed
Uranus, 84.32 yrs orbital period, 6.81 km/s orbital speed
Neptune, 164.79 yrs orbital period, 5.43 km/s orbital speed
EM gravity is where electricity and magnetism compose the force, where EM creates tracks of magnetism and voltage, and mass is pushed along inside those tracks. This is the only way you can explain how a Sun, hurdling through Space at 230 Km/sec and carrying alongside it all these planets.
Gravity as per Newton or General Relativity are so weak, so very weak, 10^40 weaker than EM, that if gravity of Newton and GR were in charge, then instantly, those planets would be dropped off and left behind in Space as the Sun goes its own way.
We hear of a term called "gravitationally locked", two mass bodies as gravitationally locked together. What that means is that they are magnetically bound together by EM, where the electricity and magnetism of the two bodies is creating a track and the two are pushing one another in the tracks.
So the AP Equations of EM are six// reviewing them
So the AP Equations of EM are six
1) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /A*s^2
2) V = i*B*L New Ohm's law, law of electricity
3) V' = (i*B*L)' Ampere-Maxwell law
4) (V/i*L)' = B' Faraday law
5) (V/(B*L))' = i' the new law of spin
6) (V/(i*B))' = L' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
Ampere-Maxwell Law
V' = (iBL)' = i'*B*L + i*B'*L + i*B*L'
= B*B*L + i*V*L + i*B*(i_C)
Faraday law
B' = (V/i*L)' = (V'*i*L - V*i' *L - V*i*L') / (i*L)^2
= ((i_C)iL - VBL -Vi(i_C))/ i^2L^2
= 1/L - VB/i^2L - V/L^2
New Spin Law
i' = ((i_C)*V -VVL - V(i_C) / R^2
i' = -VVL/R^2
i' = - (ii*L)
Coulomb law
(V/(i*B))' = L'
(V/(i*B))' = (V'*i*B - V*i' B - V*i*B') / (i*B)^2
L' = (i^2B - B^3- V^2i) / i^2B^2
With the B term we see it is reflected as 1/B then B then 1/B^2 which is the analog of Coulomb force ranging from Radius to 1/Radius to 1/Radius^2
There were 4 Maxwell laws, 4 equations and I ended up adding two new laws-- the spin law and the law of Coulomb as a force that varies over a range of R to 1/R to 1/R^2.
However, let me include another law, a domain law for which in the six laws listed above, can work. The Domain being atoms and atomic physics. So the Atomic theory is the domain, and so I really have 7 laws altogether, making up all of physics and all the other sciences.
(1). Law Of What There Is-- Atomic theory, that atoms exist and are composed of subatomic particles and most of an atom in volume is empty space. All the facts of Chemistry along with Atomic Theory is the Law Of What There Is. Let us name this law the Law of Chemistry-facts.
AP- Equations, there are 6 Equations and those equations tell us the forces and energy among atoms, the domain of atoms.
Since I ended up altering the entire work of Maxwell, so that Old Maxwell Equations are barely recognizable, let me call it the AP theory of EM.
The 6 AP Equations and the 7 Laws of Physics and all sciences
0) domain law as Atomic Theory
1) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /A*s^2
2) V = i*B*L New Ohm's law, law of electricity
3) V' = (i*B*L)' Ampere-Maxwell law
4) (V/i*L)' = B' Faraday law
5) (V/(B*L))' = i' the new law of spin
6) (V/(i*B))' = L' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
The Real Electron is 105 MeV, the muon and the Real Proton is 840 MeV and the Real Neutron is 945 MeV. What we thought was the electron , that puny tiny small little .5 MeV turns out to be the Magnetic Monopole, (I sometimes call it a Magnepole). What is a Monopole? It is a photon or neutrino, either one that has been dressed up (superposition) with a .5 MeV of charge energy, not rest mass energy but charge energy and this charge energy causes the underlying photon or neutrino to travel in a arc or curve manner so as to loop around, and is what magnets have as Lines of Force.
This happens to be the world's first, proper explanation and understanding of what is electricity and what is current. Before 2017, everyone thought electricity and electric current was the movement of electrons, electrons as .5MeV particles with charge -1. Turns out that is false. The electron is really the muon that particle of -1 charge but of 105 MeV and the proton is 840 MeV. The muon and proton are not in motion to produce electricity. What is in motion is the .5 MeV particle, but that particle is not a little ball like particle, but rather is a full closed loop, like a circle or ellipse.
So in the Faraday Law, what the thrusting bar magnet is doing to create a current in the copper wire, is not "cutting the lines of force" that makes the electrons in the wire move, no, that is not the explanation. What is happening is that entire Lines of Force of the magnet-- as loops, jump off of the bar magnet and jump into the copper wire closed loop-- these loops being of .5 MeV energy, and is the electric current, is the electricity.
So, our entire view and understanding of what is electricity, what is electric current, changed in 2017.
Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON= muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu
::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ . . | . /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
--------------- -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
--------------- --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / . . | . \ .
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
Comments::
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 03:10:14 +0000
>
>
Analysis of Dirac's monopole of 137/2 Re: Huge huge changes in all sciences with discovery Real Electron = muon
>
Alright, I am looking at Dirac's page 45, in Directions in Physics, 1978, on how he calculates the charge on the magnetic monopole.
>
--- quoting Dirac ---
If we then take a closed surface surrounding this singularity, the total magnetic flux going through this closed surface, when multiplied by e/hbar*c, will be equal to 2pi*n
e/hbar*c Integral H dot dS = 2pi*n (18)
Now, if we have a magnetic flux crossing a closed surface, it means that there is some magnetic monopole inside the surface. If we call the strength of that monopole u, we should have
Integral H dot dS = 4pi*u (19)
as a magnetic analogue of the Gauss theorem of electrostatics. It says that the magnetic flux crossing a closed surface, enclosing a magnetic monopole of strength u, is equal to 4pi times that enclosed pole strength. If we now compare (19) with the result (18) for flux crossing a closed surface enclosing the end of a nodal line we obtain
u = hbar*c*n/2e
as the expression for the strength of the magnetic monopole.
--- end quoting Dirac on how he gets the monopole to be 137/2 the charge of 1 proton charge ---
>
Now, I am careful to say the proton charge of +1 charge, because, well, I am after how Dirac flubbed up. I cannot say electron charge of -1 unit charge because, well, I think Dirac messed up, because he did not know that the Real Electron is the Muon with 105 MeV and Real Proton is 840 MeV and that this strange strange tiny particle of .5 MeV which Dirac thought was the electron, turns out to be the magnetic monopole itself.
>
So, unless I can fetch out that 137/2 is the same as .5 MeV, then, Dirac's exercise is all wrong, all flawed in search of something with illusionary attributes.
>
I am still hopeful that Dirac's 137/2 has some physical meaning and relevant to the true fact that the .5 MeV particle that is truly the Magnetic Monopole is somehow connected to 137/2.
>
Can it be that 137/2 is equal to .5MeV, meaning that 137 the inverse fine structure constant is 1 MeV ??
>
Here I need to look up Permeability and Permittivity where MeV units appear again
>
Permittivity = 8.85* 10^-12 F/m
>
Permeability = 1.26* 10^-6 H/m
>
If we divide Permeability/Permittivity, but, first, we get rid of the prefix numbers 1.26 and 8.85, because those are highly variable, just as the radius or diameter of different atoms is variable depending on what atom you pick. But what is not variable is the power of 10 of 10^-12 and 10^-6.
>
We have 1* 10^-6 H/m / 1* 10^-12 F/m
>
We essentially have 1 MeV, and now we equilibrate 1MeV with the inverse fine structure constant 137, and thus .5MeV is the charge energy of the magnetic monopole. And the 1MeV is the charge energy of the photon.
>
AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-28 12:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fcca1280-c30f-44d0-9b4e-090937350514@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #715010 |
Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 19:12:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: Page24, 2-10, EM theory becomes the axioms of physics as to how atoms work / what electricity truly is-- magnetic monopole/ Atom-Totality-Universe / textbook 8th ed 2017 From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 03:12:12 +0000 Page24, 2-10, EM theory becomes the axioms of physics as to how atoms work / what electricity truly is-- magnetic monopole/ Atom-Totality-Universe / textbook 8th ed 2017 I am going to leave this chapter with a bit more history, for it is probably the last time in physics history we ever hear of the Maxwell Equations, for now they are the AP Equations of physics. I changed too many of the old Maxwell Equations. In the next chapter, I aim to discuss in detail, how EM gravity makes astronomy work, and not the Newton gravity nor its silly extension of General Relativity. And, as I write this, is recent news of Cassini space probe disintegration into Saturn, after studying Saturn for many years-- especially the fact that Saturn north pole is a hexagon. Newton gravity nor General Relativity can never give a shape of a hexagon, but EM gravity can, routinely give a hexagon shape-- just look at a snowflake is hexagon because of Van der Waals force, an EM force, and gravity is EM. So, the next chapter in this textbook, I do EM theory is to show how EM gravity works. Which is very, very exciting. But leaving now with a bit more history. I need a page to summarize what Maxwell equations of 1860s were. Maxwell's actual Faraday law: F = u(vxH) - dA/dt - electric potential, compared to my Faraday law Faraday law B' = (V/i*L)' = (V'*i*L - V*i' *L - V*i*L') / (i*L)^2 = ((i_C)iL - VBL -Vi(i_C))/ i^2L^2 = 1/L - VB/i^2L - V/L^2 Here is a website that displays the Ohm's law as part of Maxwell Equations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Maxwell%27s_equations The eight original Maxwell's equations can be written in modern vector notation as follows: (A) The law of total currents J t o t = J + ∂ D ∂ t (B) The equation of magnetic force μ H = ∇ × A (C) Ampère's circuital law ∇ × H = J t o t (D) Electromotive force created by convection, induction, and by static electricity. (This is in effect the Lorentz force) E = μ v × H − ∂ A ∂ t − ∇ ϕ (E) The electric elasticity equation E = 1 ε D (F) Ohm's law E = 1 σ J (G) Gauss's law ∇ ⋅ D = ρ (H) Equation of continuity ∇ ⋅ J = − ∂ ρ ∂ t or ∇ ⋅ J t o t = 0 Notation H is the magnetizing field, which Maxwell called the magnetic intensity. J is the current density (with Jtot being the total current including displacement current).[note 1] D is the displacement field (called the electric displacement by Maxwell). ρ is the free charge density (called the quantity of free electricity by Maxwell). A is the magnetic potential (called the angular impulse by Maxwell). E is called the electromotive force by Maxwell. The term electromotive force is nowadays used for voltage, but it is clear from the context that Maxwell's meaning corresponded more to the modern term electric field. φ is the electric potential (which Maxwell also called electric potential). σ is the electrical conductivity (Maxwell called the inverse of conductivity the specific resistance, what is now called the resistivity). Equation D, with the μv × H term, is effectively the Lorentz force, similarly to equation (77) of his 1861 paper (see above). When Maxwell derives the electromagnetic wave equation in his 1865 paper, he uses equation D to cater for electromagnetic induction rather than Faraday's law of induction which is used in modern textbooks. (Faraday's law itself does not appear among his equations.) However, Maxwell drops the μv × H term from equation D when he is deriving the electromagnetic wave equation, as he considers the situation only from the rest frame. Here is the website that attempts to show the Maxwell Equation without the Heaviside corruption: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Dynamical_Theory_of_the_Electromagnetic_Field Equations of Electromotive Force. P = μ ( γ d y d t − β d z d t ) − d F d t − d Ψ d x , Q = μ ( α d z d t − γ d x d t ) − d G d t − d Ψ d y , R = μ ( β d x d t − α d y d t ) − d H d t − d Ψ d z . The first term on the right-hand side of each equation represents the electromotive force arising from the motion of the conductor itself. This electromotive force is perpendicular to the direction of motion and to the lines of magnetic force; and if a parallelogram be drawn whose sides represent in direction and magnitude the velocity of the conductor and the magnetic induction at that point of the field, then the area of the parallelogram will represent the electromotive force due to the motion of the conductor, and the direction of the force is perpendicular to the plane of the parallelogram. The second term in each equation indicates the effect of changes in the position or strength of magnets or currents in the field. The third term shows the effect of the electric potential It has no effect in causing a circulating current in a closed circuit. It indicates the existence of a force urging the electricity to or from certain definite points in the field. End quoting from Wikipedia on Maxwell Equations. Note: the original Maxwell Equations have three terms on rightside, in full agreement with the AP-Equations with 3 terms on rightside. Now in the year 2016, while looking for patterns in the Elementary Particles of Physics, looking for patterns, I quickly spotted that the proton was just about 9 muons, just shy of exactitude by less than 1% discrepancy. In this part of physics, where measurement is so difficult, that a 1% discrepancy is as good as exactitude. Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 11:50:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: is the proton that of 9 muons packed together? The 200 rest mass Rule /textbook 7th ed From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 18:50:59 +0000 > >is the proton that of 9 muons packed together? The 200 rest mass Rule /textbook 7th ed > >Seems like a few weeks ago I wrote this about rest mass, and the rule of 200: > >Two Sequences I want a formula for: > >1st Sequence 0.51, 105.7, 135, 139.6, 493.7, 497.7, 548.8 > >2nd Sequence 938.3, 939.6, 1116, 1189, 1192, 1197, 1315, 1321, 1672 > >If you are wondering where these numbers come from, they come from PHYSICS, Halliday & >Resnick, 1986, page A27 and are the electron-like rest masses and proton-like rest masses. > >Electron, Muon, Pion, K meson, Eta meson > >Proton, Neutron, Lambda, Sigma, Xi, Omega (snipped) . . . >And the question of why 940 MeV for proton? While electron is a meagre .51 MeV. Now let me put >a thought out that may pan out, but not likely. Think of the proton of rest mass as 940 MeV and >consider that the muon is 105 MeV and that 9 Muons packed together makes a proton. Now that >sounds so far off the beaten tracks, because how could you assemble 9 negative charges to be a >single positive charge? > >But there is a charming aspect to that idea, that the muon is the rest-mass giver. > >AP --- end of old post of mine of 2016, leading the way to the discovery that Real Electron=muon.--- Let me summarize that discovery: Leave it to some stupid country club gaggle of physicists that when they see 938 MeV for proton, could never ring any bells in their minds and connect 105 MeV muon. Now, if you had a bonehead physicists who got for the proton, got say 940 and for muon got say 105, just for instance, do you think the lights would have come on, upstairs? I doubt it. Because the way I discovered the Real Electron is the Muon, is because, to me 938 and 105, had the lights go on immediately. (I should dig up that history of 2016). Let me review how the lights came on for me that the Real Electron is the Muon. Back in 2016, I noticed the Elementary Particles that the muon was 105 and the proton was 938 MeV respectively, and to me, looking for patterns, my mind is never so rusty, so tarnished as is the minds of almost all physicists, for to me, 105 and 938, meant the proton was exactly 9 muons. For the math is that of 9x105 = 945 and subtracting 945-938 = 7, so a percentage discrepancy of less than 1% discrepancy. So in physics a 1 percent or less discrepancy on these parameters of particle physics is as good as exactness, that the muon is really 105 and the neutron is really 840+105 = 945, where the proton is a 8xMuon = 840 MeV. But that was year 2016, and it was not until 2017, that I had to breakdown that idea that 9Muons = 1 Proton. By breaking it down to the fact that a Proton was 840 MeV and the Muon was the Real Electron and the neutron was 945 MeV and thus, the particle we had always thought was the electron, that puny small particle of .5 MeV was something else, and turns out to be the magnetic monopole and the source of electricity. But now, let me write of a very great experiment performed in 2017, showing that the Magnetic Monopole is the true electric current, never electrons flowing, but magnetic monopoles flowing (or jumping ship from one ship to another ship). This experiment I like to call the Pre Faraday law of Magnetic Induction, because, it involves no thrusting bar magnet and no copper wire. It involves just two stationary magnets. And it proves that what creates the electric current, is that loops of closed circles of one magnet jump ship to the other magnet, and vice versa. It proves that electricity and electric current are monopoles of .5 MeV looping from one magnetic field to flow (jump ship) onto a different closed loop (whether a loop of wire or a different magnets closed loops line-of-force). So we see current and electricity in a whole new light, whole new view. It is the flow of loops of monopoles. Outline of AP's Magnetic Induction Experiment: Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 03:26:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: just 2 magnets giving me a permanent voltage-- proof the .5 MeV is a monopole From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2017 11:26:02 +0000 just 2 magnets giving me a permanent voltage-- proof the .5 MeV is a monopole This year i discovered the Real Electron is 105 MeV and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. A monopole not with .5MeV of rest-mass but with .5 MeV of charge energy. If true it should have a reading of a permanent DC voltage from two powerful nearby stationary magnets, 3cm apart on a magnetic board. I have a costly multimeter. Now as i measure one magnet individually the meter jumps in value but settles on 0 reading. However, if i put one electrode on one magnet and the other electrode on the second magnet i get a permanent reading of .002 volts dc. The way i interpret this (maybe i am wrong) is that the lines of force of one magnet, closed loops jumping ship with lines of force from other magnet. These loops are .5MeV particles causing a voltage, permanent voltage. So this is like a Faraday law induction experiment, only the magnets are stationary and no closed loop of copper wire. This, if true, may serve as proof that the .5MeV thought to be electron is after all a magnetic monopole. I have an expensive Fluke multimeter and powerful neodymium magnets. AP Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON= muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu ::\ ::|:: /:: ::\::|::/:: _ _ (:Y:) - - ::/::|::\:: ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. . \ . . | . /. . . \. . .|. . /. . ..\....|.../... ::\:::|::/:: --------------- ------------- --------------- (Y) ------------- --------------- -------------- ::/:::|::\:: ../....|...\... . . /. . .|. . \. . . / . . | . \ . http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium Comments:: Equilibrating the Permittivity with Permeability, in order to see that monopoles are .5MeV Here I need to look up Permeability and Permittivity where MeV units appear again Permittivity = 8.85* 10^-12 F/m Permeability = 1.26* 10^-6 H/m Now as mentioned previously that those are quantized increments of 10^6, for we can drop the prefix numbers of 8.85 and 1.26. In EM, those constants of permeability and permittivity are of relative and absolute constants so the prefix numbers are highly variable, and just like in radii or diameter of nuclei versus electron shell distances, highly variable depending on the atom in question. What is not variable is the ratio of 10^-12 to 10^-6 as an increment of 10^6 difference. 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. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-29 12:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <35575a0f-3d12-4850-b51e-7d67265c7879@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #715180 |
Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 19:39:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: Page25, 3-1, perspective of Laws versus Forces in Physics; new force definition F = dq/dt; Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017 From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 03:39:06 +0000 Page25, 3-1, perspective of Laws versus Forces in Physics; new force definition F = dq/dt; Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017 I was stuck on this page for what feels to me to be a month now, but probably not really a chronological month. For it appears to be that the Newton classification of Force as F = ma, is not going to hold up, but that in Modern Day Physics we need a new definition of Force as dq/dt, the electric current as the new physics force definition. We still have F= ma, where force = mass X acceleration in units as kg*m/s^2 but also we have Force = dq/dt where q is charge and t is time in seconds. The units of dq/dt is the electric current, as rate of change of electric-charge per seconds^2. What this means is that kilogramsXmeters is the same as rate of change of electric-charge. What this implies, is that mass is charge in a fundamental way. Is there ever a mass that is not electrical-charged? Apparently there is when you consider the electric current is monopole closed loops. Here the photon and neutrino can have electric-charge, but, also, they have no rest-mass. A electric current is composed of closed loops of .5 MeV monopoles. Those are photons and neutrinos dressed up with a .5MeV charge energy, not rest mass but charge energy. For what it seems like a month, I was beating my head against the wall over the issue of how many forces in a law of physics. And could not overcome the hurdle of Magnetic Field as not a force, when, by all accounts, it is a force. And what was preventing it was Newton's definition of F = ma for there are no meters involved in Magnetic Field. So, if we change the definition of force to be dq/dt = Current = force then we have resolution. So, let us stop and think for a moment. Does a electric current sound and feel like a force of Nature? And if not a force, what in hell could a electric current be classified as? So, by all means, it looks like electric current is a FORCE in physics. Alright, chapter 3 is mostly about EM Gravity, to explain in detail, what gravity really is, and that needs a whole new mathematics for the force of gravity, as well as Coulomb force no longer looks like this in general F = kAA/d^2 but rather, looks like this in general F = (kAA + jBB + hCC)/d^2. And so I start out with a perspective of the AP-Maxwell Equations because all of physics foundation is Atomic theory allied with EM theory. EM theory is how atoms behave. And EM theory is a unified force theory for all forces are EM forces of those laws of EM. There are 6 law equations, and all 6 have electric current in them, hence all 6 laws are forces. When we take all the permutations of the New Ohm's law, we get 4 permutations and then take the derivatives of these 4 permutations of V = iBL, one being a Product Rule of Calculus and three being a Quotient Rule of Calculus we get 4 laws of EM theory. Let us call these derivatives as dynamic laws of physics, and let us call the laws that we do not take the derivative of, as static laws of physics, the Magnetic Field law and the New Ohm's law for we do not take the derivative of them. The Quotient Rule of Calculus is (f/gh)' = (f'gh - fg'h - fgh')/(gh)^2 Quotient Rule of differentiation involves 3 of the dynamic laws of physics The Product Rule of Calculus involves just 1 law of physics-- Ampere-Maxwell law (fgh)' = f'gh + fg'h + fgh' Product Rule of Calculus The Quotient Rule of Calculus involves 3 of the 4 dynamic laws of physics-- Faraday Law, Spin law, and of course the Coulomb-EM gravity Law. Notice in the Ampere law there is no division, but three terms, and those three terms each involve a force of physics, for it is the change in speed involved that is an acceleration, and thus a force. And it is no accident that all the dynamic laws of physics have at minimum 3 forces involved for there is the electric current involved with voltage, with current i itself, with magnetic field and with torque L. And, it is not just coincidence in mathematics that there are 3 coordinate axes involved in the geometry of Space, but rather linked and connected with the idea that Space is 3 axes. So the Voltage Law describes all of 3 space Euclidean geometry, whereas the Quotient Rule laws are a subset of Euclidean Geometry, a cylindrical subset of overall Euclidean geometry. In the three Quotient Rule Laws, we again have three terms but a division of all three. Here again we have the x,y,z axes of 3rd dimension Space represented but we have those three terms generalized as the equation of a Cylinder, due to the division. You see, the division creates a subset of Euclidean geometry. Is the formula of cylinder the same math as Quotient Rule of Calculus? Now the cylinder math is (y-z)^2 + (z-x)^2 + (x-z)^2 = 3R^2 where the axis is t for time, and radius R Now the Differential Calculus, Rule of Quotients is (f/gh)' = (f'gh - fg'h - fgh')/(gh)^2 Quotient Rule of differentiation That rule was used in New Ohm's law for Faraday law, Spin law and Coulomb gravity law. In this chapter I do EM-gravity, and the big major idea is that a force of gravity is a helix motion in space. So, is the above cylinder formula, the same as the Quotient Rule of Calculus? Alright, so, it is no surprise that the cylinder will have three terms for each coordinate axes of x, y, z but what is a surprise is how in the world would anyone think the Heaviside rendition of Maxwell Equations could possibly be correct when they lack three terms, and have only one term in the Faraday law. In Maxwell's original equations, he does have three terms, in keeping with the understanding there is a x,y,z in geometry. But here, what I am doing is reflecting on the fact that the equation of the cylinder, is, much the same as the differentiation rule of Calculus for 4 variables V = iBL the New Ohm's law. It is almost as if the equation V = iBL is a cylinder. Gravity in 2D and 3D Re: formula of cylinder same math as Quotient Rule of Calculus Now the easiest definition of helix is what is shown in Wikipedia of a fixed point on a circle on the z axis that is spinning around on the z axis, and that point, thus, carves out a helix as the circle moves around in time t, passing down the z axis. The equations are:: x(t) = cos(t) y(t) = sin(t) z(t) = t Now that helix carved out by a circle is also represented by a circle moving inside a cylinder and thus, etching a helix into the walls of the cylinder. Now let us shift to 2nd dimension geometry for a moment and we have this. Circle x^2 + y^2 = 1 Ellipse x^2/a^2 + y^2/b^2 = 1 Parabola x^2 - y = 1 Now, in Old Physics, they had gravity as F= Gm1*m2/d^2 They wanted gravity as either circle or ellipse, for they saw planets orbit in closed loops. They WANTED gravity to be a circle or ellipse, but they failed to understand that gravity as F= Gm1*m2/d^2 is not a circle or ellipse. To achieve the math of a circle or ellipse, they needed the force to be at least F = (kAA+ jBB)/d^2. They needed at least two terms in the numerator, not one term. And because of EM theory, we now know the numerator is three terms, as that of F = (kAA + jBB + hCC)/d^2. Now here is a huge huge flaw of Old Physics, something that even Newton by 1687, himself should have caught and corrected, and if not Newton, surely James Clerk Maxwell by 1860 should have caught the math error. They WANTED a math of circle or ellipse for gravity or Coulomb but ended up with the math of a open curve-- parabola math. Unfortunately neither caught the huge math error. And why did no-one in the 1900s catch the mistake? Why? I believe even if they caught the huge math error would have been helpless to try to correct for it overturns the whole entire program of Old Physics, the whole entire project and program on their gravity. Sometimes in science when you overturn the Old Science due to errors, you cannot do away with the Old Science for it is too massive of a change, and too massive to explain. Newton, nor Maxwell knew that the Sun was moving in a helix motion in Space around the Milky Way Galaxy, to afford such a massive change of physics, besides, electricity and magnetism was primitive during Newton and was just being consolidated by Maxwell, and far too much of a leap of faith, that gravity was EM itself. So at times in science history, if you notice a mistake, you are just too burdensome to be able to fix the mistake, for it means a massive overhaul. Now this is a lesson in itself, a sort of like morality lesson or Aesop's Fable lesson, that you cannot find a mistake or flaw of science, if that flaw is going to overturn the entire subject matter. What I mean is say Newton or Maxwell had known that gravity could not be F= Gm1*m2/d^2 but had to be F= kAA/d^2 + jBB/d^2. Suppose they had discovered that, then the problem is, they had nothing in physical reality to give meaning to that math correction. They knew not that Sun was revolving around a galaxy with planets in helical motion, nor did they have any idea that gravity was electromagnetism. So, even if, Newton or Maxwell, realized the math was wrong, they could not link physical reality to a correct math of F= kAA/d^2 + jBB/d^2, and better yet, the final math of F = (kAA + jBB + hCC)/ d^2. The realization that gravity is EM spoils not only Newton's gravity law but spoils the entire General Relativity math also, for Gravity is F = (kAA + jBB + hCC)/d^2. Now some readers are going to instantly rebuke the above ideas on grounds that-- look, many of our space missions were successful under Newton's gravity math. But, they fail to realize so much of those space missions is not Newton's math of gravity for "gravity assist" is not Newton nor General Relativity but in fact is EM gravity. And, in addition, so many space missions were failed and many near failure. There is the case of where the European space missions have nothing but failures on Mars. The case of Hitomi spinning out of control upon launch, and the case of JUNO magnetic failure of its valves. What I am talking about, is the math of Newton's gravity and General Relativity is a math of just one term kAA/d^2 and that math is a open curve such as a parabola. The math needed for a closed curve for gravity is of at least two terms in the numerator such as (kAA + jBB)/d^2. So that gravity is sufficient to be a closed loop, a circle or a ellipse. And in EM gravity, the math is actually three terms in the numerator. And this is shocking as to how such a math error escaped all physicists and mathematicians until 2016 when I solved it in this textbook. Gravity that is F= m(a1 + a2 + a3) and not F = ma. Gravity that is F = (kAA+jBB +hCC)/d^2. Gravity that is the same as EM to allow for Solid Body Rotation with velocity proportional to Radius, proportional to 1/Radius and proportional to 1/Radius^2 and all in between. Where gravity as a variable force strength. So that when we observe a spiral galaxy, we see gravity as solid body rotation of some stars, and we see gravity as 1/R of some stars and we see stars with gravity of 1/R^2. Not only do I need two terms in the numerator for gravity, but three terms for it is the Quotient Rule of Calculus on New Ohm's law and the fact that Space 3rd dimension that gravity exists, so the numerator needs three terms, just as all laws of physics needs at least 3 forces. Magnetic Field = kg /A*s^2 has the A in it meaning electric current and hence a force Voltage = kg*m^2/A*s^3 has the A in it meaning a electric current and hence a force Current = i = dq/dt = A , where q is charge and this can be written where t = seconds Torque = moment arm * Force (explanation: F=ma is for linear acceleration, while torque is angular acceleration) and here we have F= mass*(m/s^2) angular momentum = kg*m^2/s Linear momentum is mass*velocity, angular momentum is mass*meters^2/sec, force is mass*velocity*frequency. Resistance = kg*m^2/A^2*s^3 has A^2 and hence a force REVIEW of above units:: We see that if we take A * Resistance we have A*( kg*m^2/A^2*s^3 ) which is Voltage But how do we split apart Resistance so that it is B*L Splitting apart resistance kg*m^2/A^2*s^3 , and taking out the magnetic field gives us kg*m^2/A^2*s^3 = (kg /A*s^2) * (m^2/A*s) So that our L term in New Ohm's law is (m^2/A*s) Notice all the derivatives of the New Ohm's law V = iBL, have electric current so that in the Product Rule or Quotient Rule of Calculus, you will always end up with at minimum three forces involved. Alright, as we look at videos on the Internet (listed below) of the Sun moving in Space and the planets moving in a helix around the Sun, skillful rendition of how the Sun and planets move through Space, we instantly recognize how deplete, how idiotic it is to think gravity is Newton's and General Relativity's kindergarten math, because the motion of Sun and planets through Space is the motion that needs the mathematics of EM theory of both Ampere and Faraday Laws combined. Not the math of the silly F = kAA/d^2 but the math of F = (kAA+jBB + hCC)/d^2 where we have at least three variables A and B and C involved. When you watch the video of Universe Today (below), what it reminds one of, is the motion of electricity in a closed loop wire. And we see that three of the four dynamic laws of EM are of the math form of (kAA + jBB + hCC)/d^2 for the reason that it is quotient rule of differential calculus. And, the L' of the Coulomb-EM Gravity Law of the prior chapter, looks like the force of gravity as (kAA+jBB + hCC)/d^2 and the term hCC, is the copper wire in Faraday, Ampere laws. You see, Maxwell's Equations missed a lot of phenomenon, for they missed the copper wires involved and worst of all, they missed the phenomenon of a "spin of a electric motor", for you get in the Maxwell Equations the Faraday law produces a current, but fails to reveal that the Faraday law produces the spin of a motor, that something goes round and round. The L' equation is a new one, which Maxwell totally missed. Maxwell had nothing for the copper wires in Ampere and Faraday laws. It is a nasty habit of most scientists, that they leave things out, figuring they were not "science in general", they thought science is best as generalizations, and not specifics. Thinking that generalization is what science is all about, and forget the specifics. But if you make your science so general, that it leaves out specifics, well, your science is no good. If the Sun and planets gravity based on mass, as in Newton or General Relativity, the Sun would have left, have departed, the planets billions of years ago, and in fact, that not a single planet would have remained in orbit after a mere few years time had elapsed. They would all be flying off into space, since the math of just kAA/d^2 is insufficient to hold them together, too weak of a force to hold them together, and the Solar System would be just the Sun hurdling through Space if Newton or General Relativity were true. Newton gravity and General Relativity math is all based on the formula kAA/d^2. The inverse square is fine and dandy. It is the numerator that is off by two other forces involved. The numerator needs two more terms as that of (kAA+jBB +hCC)/d^2. Those three terms are the math of a closed loop. The math of either a circle or ellipse or helix inside a cylinder, where the two extra terms, insures the motion makes a full circuit around, just like in electricity, you need a full circuit. For a proper correct force of gravity, you need three terms in numerator (kAA + jBB + hCC)/ d^2 for that added strength to make stars, and planets go in a helix and circular motion. The math of one term in numerator is a parabola math. Newtonian gravity and General Relativity are all parabola math, and the planets would have flown off the Sun in their very first orbit. Trouble for Newton was, the Sun is not stationary, and when Newton did his force of gravity, he assumed a stationary Sun. General Relativity is no better, for it too takes on the math of Newton, of 2nd Dimensional math. And there is no way you can apply that math for a Sun in motion in Space and the planets all following. Their gravity force was too weak, and the planets would have never made a first orbit around the Sun. The force of gravity of Newton and GR are two weak a force to keep the planets going around the Sun as the Sun moves in space at 230 km/s. Sun 230 km/s orbital speed around Milky Way Mercury, 0.24 yr orbital period, 47.87 km/s orbital speed Venus, 0.61 yr orbital period, 35.02 km/s orbital speed Earth, 1 yr orbital period, 29.78 km/s orbital speed Moon , 27 days orbit, 1 km/s orbital speed How many forces in physics laws// Aufbau is the addition of forces in building the Chemical Elements. This is a lecture that was never given in Old Physics. The closest and nearest to this lecture is Feynman's paperback of "The Character of Physical Law", 1964. But even there, no elucidation, no clarity of what I am about to give here. You see, there is a huge confusion and very little said of what is a Law and what is a Force, and how the two relate. What is the difference between a Law of Physics and a Force of Physics? There are likely to be a vast majority of physicists who cannot answer any of these questions. So I need to iron out this gap in understanding, and there is no better way than with the AP equations of the previous chapter. Perhaps Physics was never able to give this lecture until now, because it never had a unified axiom set of the laws of physics. Perhaps, only when the true EM equations as axioms over all of Physics on how atoms behave, once that is given, can someone be able to answer what is the difference between a law of physics and a force of physics. Now in Old Physics, physics is basically underpinned by Newton with F=ma and that Newton and all successor physicists took force as synonymous with law. For we see many call it the force of gravity and others call it the universal law of gravity. So in Old Physics, law and force were the same things. So we get a sense that Force is the one and only unifier. Then we learn of Laws in physics, such as the Coulomb law or the law of gravity. And here a first question arises and a flood of questions arise for which no physicist ever clarified. 1) is a Law a force? 2) if so, is a law a single force or many forces acting at once? 3) in the AP-Maxwell Equations are 6 laws, does that mean 6 individual forces or does it mean many forces. 4) if in a observation, we see a law of Faraday being played out, does it mean that all the other laws of EM theory are in action along with the Faraday law, or can these laws be independent of each other? 5) I tend to think that if we observe one law of EM theory going on, then all the 5 other laws are in action also. 6) I tend to think that Laws of Physics are Forces added up, so that when we see a Faraday law or Gravity law going on in Nature, that we see all the laws of physics going on simultaneously and the the forces in that observation are many, many forces simultaneously. So in Old Physics, Newton through-to-the 20th century, physicists looked upon a Law as a single force and wrote F = ma. In New Physics we look upon a Law of Physics as ma_1 + ma_2 + ma_3 + .. + ma_k. We look upon laws as a series of additions of forces. And in New Physics, since we have an alternative definition of force being electric current dq/dt, we realize that each law has many electric currents involved. In the AP Equations of the Faraday law, Ampere law, Spin law and Coulomb-gravity law, we see three terms to the rightside of the equation upon differentiation by calculus. This tells us that those four laws have at least 3 forces comprising them. And since everyone of those laws is in play, given that one is in play, means that there are at least 3 X 4 = 12 forces of physics going on. Now some of those forces are the same force to be combined, and so we may reduce the forces to be 3 at minimum. Now, another huge theory understanding that needs take place at about here, is the theory of why so many forces in each law of physics. And here we go back to Atomic Theory. In that atoms are built by the Aufbau principle, where you add more electrons and you have the s, p, d, f orbitals of electron structure of atoms. The addition of forces that makes up a Law of Physics is due to the building of atoms by adding more electrons. Electrons have mass, so do protons, and thus the building of atoms from Hydrogen to Helium, next to Lithium, next to Beryllium, etc etc is the addition of more mass, hence, more force, and the addition of more mass to Hydrogen to make it Helium, is the addition of more electric current dq/dt. Re: how many forces in physics laws// Aufbau is the addition of forces So a force of physics is F = ma and also dq/dt. And a law of physics is composed of three or more forces. In that sense, Old Physics had it confused when they call Newton's gravity on the one hand as a universal law of gravity, and on the other hand the force of gravity. Now the New Ohm's law, how is it three forces? Well, in V = i B*L the voltage is a force, an electromotive force for it contains a dq/dt, and B the magnetic field is a force for it contains a dq/dt, and electric current is a force, and the L is a force, a torque. Old Physics had ohm's law as V = iR, where R is resistance. New Physics breaks down R as B*L, magnetic field multiply torque. So, the basic equation of EM as V = iBL each term is in fact a force, where all 4 terms are electric currents dq/dt. So, all laws of physics involve at least three forces, and a force is just dq/dt. Now one law of physics is special, not because it comes from Chemistry, but because it is a reflection of the New Ohm's law of physics for the Ideal Gas Law in Chemistry has 4 terms just as the New Ohm's law has 4 terms. Chemistry:: Ideal Gas Law PV= nRT Now I am going to leave the student with a project to see how close they can come with the Ideal Gas law to being the New Ohm's law V = iBL. Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON= muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu ::\ ::|:: /:: ::\::|::/:: _ _ (:Y:) - - ::/::|::\:: ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. . \ . . | . /. . . \. . .|. . /. . ..\....|.../... ::\:::|::/:: --------------- ------------- --------------- (Y) ------------- --------------- -------------- ::/:::|::\:: ../....|...\... . . /. . .|. . \. . . / . . | . \ . http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 18:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <387b753e-761d-4a17-a8b9-59e7a6355cc9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #715468 |
Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 23:23:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: Page26, 3-2, Coulomb's law as EM-gravity; Sun & planets helical motion in space/Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017 From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 07:23:48 +0000 Page26, 3-2, Coulomb's law as EM-gravity; Sun & planets helical motion in space/Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017 "Universe Today" magazine depicts Sun moving in space with planets following in a helix motion, in video. Alright, as we look at the below videos of the Sun moving in Space and the planets moving in a helix around the Sun, skillful rendition of how the Sun and planets move through Space, we instantly recognize how deplete, how idiotic it is to think gravity is Newton's and General Relativity's kindergarten math, because the motion of Sun and planets through Space is the motion that needs the mathematics of EM theory of both Ampere and Faraday Laws combined. Not the math of the silly F = kAA/d^2 but the math of F = (kAA+jBB + hCC)/d^2 where we have at least three variables A and B and C involved to give strength to astrobodies to go around one another. When you watch the video of Universe Today (below), what it reminds one of, is the motion of electricity in a closed loop of wire. If the Sun and planets gravity were based on mass, as in Newton or General Relativity, the Sun would have left, have departed the planets in their first attempt of an orbit around the Sun, and that not a single planet would have remained in orbit after a few years time was up. They would all be flying off into space, since the math of just kAA/d^2 is insufficient of force strength to hold them together. Newton gravity and General Relativity math is all based on the formula kAA/d^2. The inverse square is fine and dandy. It is the numerator that is off by at least 2 more forces. The numerator needs two more terms as that of (kAA+jBB + hCC)/d^2. For one term in the numerator is not even a closed loop. The math of either a circle or ellipse where the second term, insures the motion make a full circuit around, just like in electricity, you need a full circuit. But as we saw in prior chapter, there is even a third term of a hCC, so that the proper force of gravity is (kAA + jBB + hCC)/ d^2. The math of one term in numerator is a parabola math. Newtonian gravity and General Relativity are all parabola math, and the planets would have flown off the Sun in their first orbit. Trouble is, the Sun is not stationary, and when Newton did his force of gravity, he assumed a stationary Sun. General Relativity is no better, for it too takes on the math of Newton, of 2nd Dimensional math. And there is no way you can apply that math for a Sun in motion in Space and the planets all following. The force of gravity of Newton and GR are two weak a force to keep the planets going around the Sun as the Sun moves in space at 230 km/s. Sun 230 km/s orbital speed around Milky Way Mercury, 0.24 yr orbital period, 47.87 km/s orbital speed Venus, 0.61 yr orbital period, 35.02 km/s orbital speed Earth, 1 yr orbital period, 29.78 km/s orbital speed Moon , 27 days orbit, 1 km/s orbital speed So I need to know if the Sun is moving through Space with the planets going around the Sun. And these sites tell me that it is a 60 degree inclination of the planets with respect to the Sun's forward motion. Now Saturn has a 30 degree inclination of its Rings relative to Saturn's forward motion. Is the Solar System Really a Vortex? - Universe Today https://www.universetoday.com/.../is-the-solar-system-really-a-vortex/ Jul 8, 2012 ... Is this really how the Solar System works? (Rendering by DjSadhu) ... Solar system “vortex” gif (by DjSadhu). What it purports to show is the ... Vortex motion: Viral video showing Sun's motion through galaxy is ... www.slate.com/.../vortex_motion_viral_video_showing_sun_s_motion_ through_galaxy_is_wrong.html Mar 4, 2013 ... No, Our Solar System is NOT a “Vortex” ... Sometimes the planets really are ahead of the Sun as we orbit in the Milky Way, and sometimes trail ... Why is the Solar Helical (Vortex) model wrong? - Astronomy Stack ... https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/.../why-is-the-solar-helical-vortex- model-wrong ref: Youtube video The helical model - our solar system is a vortex ... That thing - universetoday.com/107322/is-the-solar-system-really-a-vortex - sums it up. The helical model - our solar system is a vortex - YouTube ► 3:21 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jHsq36_NTU Aug 24, 2012 - 3 min - Uploaded by DjSadhu This is a non-conventional view of our solar system that is different from the standard 'flat ... The Helical Model - vortex solar system animation | DjSadhu.com www.djsadhu.com/the-helical-model-vortex-solar-system-animation/ 221 thoughts on “The Helical Model – vortex solar system animation”. Carol Levine says: December 18, 2012 at 4:04 pm. Thank you for that explanation. Really ... Gravity is just the EM force, and the mass term in gravity, is a collective-charge or collective-magnetism of mass. The greater the mass, the greater the chance of a larger net charge or magnetism. The proof that Gravity = EM was a proof in the 20th century. Sometime in the 1970s or thereabouts. The proof came when it was known that Spiral Galaxies have most of their stars doing Solid Body Rotation. And although it took me to 2016 to make clear that gravity was EM, the proof was really in 1970s. And a crazy physics and astronomy community, being crazy, went chasing after Dark Matter and Dark Energy, when all the muddleheads needed to do was recognize, wow!, gravity is EM. Why do muddleheads invoke something totally alien for explanations when they could easily have said-- we have EM already, so, gravity is EM. Why not EM? The reason why not, is because most, not all, but most scientist have no logical mind, and this is seen in their education systems where no colleges and universities require their graduated scientists to have taken 2 years of college Logic, so that the scientist can think clear and straight. Now I need to firmly understand whether the Sun in its motion of 230km/second traveling in space towards the star Vega, whether the Sun is doing Faradays law by being a bar magnet and causing the planets in their orbit plane, which is tilted 60 degrees from the Sun moving to Vega. Is the Sun a bar magnet and causing the planets to orbit around the Sun like a current in Faraday's law, where each planet is like electricity in moving around in that current track made by the Sun. Or, rather instead, is the Sun itself electricity, moving in the Milky Way galaxy and this electricity-Sun causing magnetism due to Ampere's law that makes the planets on their 60 degree tilt plane loop orbit around the Sun. So, is the Sun Faraday's law with planets, or is Sun Ampere's law with planets. And the readers should already know it is both laws working in tandem. For in the last chapter we learned if one EM law is present, all 6 EM laws are present. Let us use both Faraday & Ampere law upon Sun Re: Is Sun moving in Faraday's law or Ampere's law to Vega? Actually, I do not see any reason we cannot use both laws simultaneously. I need to say the Sun is like a thrusting bar magnet in Faraday's law. And the Sun is like electricity moving in Space creating a magnetic field around it as the planets move in circle or ellipse orbits. There is no reason of physics that Faraday's law is mutually exclusive of Ampere law. So, apply both to the Sun. Was reading somewhere that the Sun in its forward motion to Vega, called the Apex of the Sun's Way, that is a very important concept-- Apex of the Sun's Way, that the speed was 230km/second and that the Sun bobs up and down. What causes the bobbing up and down, I wonder? Is it the effects of the EM of the planets like Jupiter upon the Sun? And, I wonder if the Sun in its Apex of the Sun's Way is dragging along the Oort Cloud, or whether the Oort Cloud be left behind and the Sun will enter into a new Cloud as it heads for Vega. Alright i need to get it out of my head, out of my mind, that when doing Faraday's law i am not doing Ampere's also. In fact when doing Faraday law i am doing all the EM laws all at once. So the question is, the Sun moving through the Cosmic skies by Faraday and Ampere's laws, is answered by -- both. Both laws working simultaneously. Now, our view and understanding of how Earth and planets revolve around the Sun takes a huge hit in a distorted understanding. In school and in the minds of most astronomers and physicists they think of the Sun as stationary and planets going around in ellipses or circles. That is a huge distortion for the sun is hurdling fast in Space with the planets sometimes out in front of the Sun as shown in the video graphic website. The Sun and planets are seen more like electricity moving in a invisible wire track of the cosmic heavens where each revolution of a planet gets out in front of the Sun once during the planet's revolution. Helical motion of Sun + planets On Thursday, June 1, 2017 at 1:25:36 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Now the shortest distance between two points on a cylinder is a helix. > > If we consider a liquid as a rope like structure and ions moving on this rope as a cylinder. > Ion motion in a magnetic field is helical motion. There are many websites showing helical motion of Sun plus planets moving through Space. I suspect Newton was never aware of the Sun moving in Space in a helix and the planets following. When in science history, did anyone ever realize this and write it down? I suspect by mid 1900s was the first time. Slingshot effect is really... Re: helical motion of Sun + planets. And I should try to track down in astronomy history, the first time someone wrote down that the motion of Sun and planets was a helix geometry, whether it came before General Relativity or after. Because if it came before, we thence can see that much of modern physics is more accustomed to being a enterprise of propaganda and bandwagon rather than being a enterprise where Logic and Reasoning prevail. General Relativity is like the quark or string nonsense of taking something so abstract as to be pointless in reality. So if you had the elevator analogy in GR, and right smack next to that analogy, you had the motion, the real time, real live motion of Sun with planets in tow moving in a helical pattern through Space, then you would have had to trashcan the General Relativity as obnoxious propaganda that only the dumbest of dumb could accept. GR cannot for a second abide with helical motion, for it makes no sense at all. The only thing in Nature that does helical motion is ions in a magnetic field. That tells us immediately, gravity is Electro Magnetism. Gravity is associated with mass, because the more the mass, the more are there of elementary particles of charge and of magnetism, even though, overall the charge is considered to be neutral, still, the Charge and Magnetism is never neutral charge in the Sun and Planets and Galaxies, the **never fully neutral** charge of a large massive body and its magnetism is what is gravity. Take a look at a strong Neodymium Magnet and one of these crazy physics professor will tell you the magnet is electrically neutral for its charges are net zero, but look at all the power and strength of that magnetism in that tiny little magnet. Charge and Magnetism lies in mass, and so, of course, we are going, at first in history, think that gravity is equal to mass, but that is a beguiling deception to think that mass is the principle behind gravity. The principle of gravity is that it is electromagnetism and only that force is strong enough to have solid body rotation as well as helical motion. Everyone in the public thinks, oh, well NASA has done really well with their Newtonian math. But have they? Just recently, they found out that Juno cannot work properly because they built and designed it with Newtonian math, not realizing that gravity is more about magnetism and electricity, that ruined Juno's valves so it is stuck in orbit. And now there is talk of a probe to the Sun, assisted by the slingshot effect of Venus, to boost the speed. Now what is the slingshot effect? Newtonian gravity and General Relativity are deaf, dumb and silent about the slingshot effect. What the slingshot effect is, is that second and third term in the numerator. Summary: The 6th law of EM theory;; the Coulomb and EM gravity law L' = (i^2B - B^3- V^2i) / i^2B^2 What this law does, is set up Coulomb and gravity, by making Space be a magnetic field that puts a track into space and that matter follows these tracks and is pushed along in motion in these tracks-- what we call gravity. Think of EM Coulomb force as that the derivative of electric current is the creation of a magnetic field track of space and that mass matter in that electric field track space is pushed along in those tracks, with a force range of R to 1/R to 1/R^2 for notice the B term above is in first term 1/B, in second term B, and 1/B^2 in third term. We know R is solid body rotation seen in a spinning phonograph vinyl record, and seen in stars of spiral galaxies near the nucleus of the galaxy, and where 1/R^2 is the familiar Old Physics Newton law of gravity (also General Relativity). The idea of Gravity, is that it is a EM force that creates a track in Space, much like Ampere's law creates a magnetic field track, so the Sun creates tracks in space for planet Earth to follow in that track, but also, the Sun pushes planets like planet Earth in that track, much like Faraday's law pushes electricity around in a closed loop wire. Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu ::\ ::|:: /:: ::\::|::/:: _ _ (:Y:) - - ::/::|::\:: ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. . \ . . | . /. . . \. . .|. . /. . ..\....|.../... ::\:::|::/:: --------------- ------------- --------------- (Y) ------------- --------------- -------------- ::/:::|::\:: ../....|...\... . . /. . .|. . \. . . / . . | . \ . http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium Comments:: The easiest most commonsense proof that the muon is the Real Electron is chemical bonding does not make sense with a proton at 938 MeV whilst the .5 MeV particle is never limited to a Lewis diagram and octet rule in bonding of carbon. A maximum of 8 shared electrons, 4 sets of 2 electrons in carbon to form diamond. So that the momentum and volume of space complies. The 8 shared electrons would be of 8 x 105 MeV = 840 MeV the momentum of the single proton. If the electron were the .5 MeV particle, then in Lewis diagram with octet rule, is out the window for you can have 2x840 = 1680 such electrons bonding covalent, and no longer a octet rule but a 1680 rule, and worse yet if you think the proton is 938, you have a 1876 rule. So, really, ever since JJ Thomson discovered the electron-- what he thought was the electron, and turns out to be the magnetic monopole, 1897 Heaviside discovered E = mc^2 and actually used it in capacitor theory Thomson discovered electron in 1897 (later to be found that this is a magnetic monopole .5MeV, not the electron= muon at 105 MeV, for that had to wait until 1936. Rutherford and Moseley for proton 1911-1913 Chadwick discovered neutron 1932 Anderson and Neddermeyer 1936 , discovered the muon, the real electron Now, can anyone tell me, if Thomson had realized that his particle was a magnetic monopole, not the true electron, would it have taken until 1936, to be discovered, or would the flurry of the hunt and chase have made it much earlier than 1936, or, probably, the particle accelerator machine at earliest could have only been 1936? The engineers would probably know. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 14:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6a2d183a-6c74-4d0f-bd83-7c63f3b300ab@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #716102 |
Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 23:23:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: Page27, 3-3, Coulomb's law as EM-gravity; Sun & planets helical motion in space/Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017 From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 07:23:48 +0000 Page27, 3-3, Coulomb's law as EM-gravity; Sun & planets helical motion in space/Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017 There was a very serious and important break here around 19 October to 22 October 2017 as I had to sort out force being dQ/dt as electric current in physics, an alternative to Newton's F = mass * acceleration. I had to explain the 6 laws of AP Equations as being forces, and the way that was resolved, was recognizing that force in New Physics, meant there was a electric current A = i = dQ/dt in each of the 6 laws of AP Equations. But the problem did not stop there, for then, I had to explain what exactly is a electric current A doing in the Magnetic Field units kg/A*s^2. I had to explain, what the hell, is a electric current A doing there in magnetic field. The resolution appears to be a revival of Dirac's magnetic monopole, where he gets a value of -at minimum-, he gets 137/2 the charge on one electron=moun, as the charge on a magnetic monopole. But the magnetic monopole is really the .5MeV particle, and is Lines of Force of magnetism. So that the A current in Magnetic Field is a monopole current and is the .5 MeV particle as a closed loop. What the Dirac magnetic monopole on page 46 of his Directions in Physics book says-- is that a magnetic monopole is 137/2 (at minimum) greater than the charge on one electron. I have to go back and see where Dirac's computation went astray. This revelation coming in October of 2017 at the same time as writing this edition of Atom Totality has a huge consequence for this chapter and prior chapters, especially on EM gravity. For I have to reconcile how the planets in a helical motion around the Sun as the Sun hurdles through space. I have to reconcile how gravity causes Magnetic Field tracks, that not only pulls planet Earth along, but also pushes planet Earth along in that Magnetic Field track of Space. So I start this page where I left off the last page as summary:: The 6th law of EM theory;; the Coulomb and EM gravity law L' = (i^2B - B^3- V^2i) / i^2B^2 This is a law that Maxwell had never seen, for it is EM-Gravity law. It has the form of (kAA + jBB + hCC)/d^2 for an ellipse for planets to orbit the Sun, and it has so much more. And what it does is create a track in astronomy for stars or planets or moons to orbit, and not only tracks, but the planet pulls and pushes the moons in their track and the Sun pulls and pushes the planets in their tracks, call it an i current type of a push in the track, along with a magnetic field pull in a track. So gravity is seen not only as a gravitational attraction or pull, but also as a push in a track. So the law creates EM tracks and pulls and pushes the mass in the track to orbit. Now that makes a lot of sense, does it not for we can easily picture the Sun as a electric generator pulling and pushing monopoles to flow around in circles. One of the greatest missed concepts in Physics history-- Stepping in Front of Forward Motion, whether planets or Rings. Now, in this book, I need Saturn and its Rings, like no other planet, to explain EM gravity. If our Solar System never had a Saturn and rings, I would guess that intelligent life on Earth, would have been retarded for thousands of years before the planet's intelligent life formulated the correct understanding of gravity. I say that because Saturn and its Rings is a perfect model for grasping how EM gravity works. And if we never had Saturn, it would be perhaps (I am guessing) 2,000 years longer before humanity properly understood how gravity works. Saturn and Rings is a gift to humanity to understand gravity better. Alright, I was trying to look up pictures of the orientation of Saturn's Rings as Saturn moves in orbit around the Sun. You see, I want to know if any parts of the Rings steps in front of Saturn as Saturn moves in orbit around the Sun. This is important also for planets moving around Sun, because the Sun is moving at 230 km/sec while Earth is moving just 30 km/sec in orbit. So, does the Earth ever step in front of Sun's forward motion? Do the ice particles of Saturn Ring ever step in front of Saturn's forward motion. Now on the Web, there are many sites that shows the motion of Sun with planets in a helix motion through space. Now, one web site claims it is a "authoritative science web site, giving the straight up and straight and narrow science " of how the planets move while the Sun moves. And what this -- what I opine as quack website is saying is that the planets move around the sun as a plane of orbit perpendicular to the Sun's forward motion, never is there a moment where a planet steps out in front of Sun's forward motion. So, here, I need to know if the ice particles of Saturn Rings ever step out in front of Saturn's forward motion, or, are the ice particles always oblique to the forward motion of Saturn. You see, humanity learns things slowly, and once it learns something, it is slow to embark on the next higher level of learning and understanding. From the Ancient Greeks to Copernicus to Newton to Rubin and Ford, the level of understanding of astronomy and physics was merely that of Sun is center of Solar System, for it took 2,000 years for the intelligence of humanity to absorb the idea that something is the center and that center is at rest, the center is not in motion, and could never ever be 230 km/sec while Earth is mere 30 km/sec. So of course Newton gravity and General Relativity is based upon a math that the Sun is at rest. If Newton had known and taught that the Sun was 230 km/sec while Earth was 30 km/sec, there would have been no takers to that idea. Yet, that is the truth. So, with all these websites, some showing how planets are not a ring around the Sun as it moves 230 km/sec. Some show the planets as helical motion just as the Sun is helical. Every astronomy textbook today, has it wrong on how the Sun with planets in tow, move in space. every one has it wrong. The concept of STEPPING IN FRONT OF FORWARD MOTION is a brand new concept, only now being discussed. A huge problem of astronomy and the other sciences, is that they hate concepts with words that fully define what the concept is. They hate it when I give a name of a concept as Stepping in Front of Forward Motion. They hate that because they want names that have one word or two words at most. They prefer a name like ecleptic or apex. Words that never draw a immediate picture. And that is a part of the problem of why astronomy is so far backwards and primitive in understanding much of anything. Hundreds of years ago it was known the Sun moves in space, but how fast was only recently known. It was known before the kookish General Relativity was blathered about. But then again, if instead of General Relativity in about 1917, humanity had the superior theory of "Stepping in Front of Forward Motion", that humanity would have come quicker to the realization that gravity was EM force. So in the history of science, we always need the dumb and stupid error filled model before humanity reaches the logical true model. We cannot reach the logical true model first without stepping on the dumb and silly model and embrace it for a time or two, for it is so simplistic and silly, while the true one is complex and complicated. So now, looking at the web for clues as to whether the ice particles step in front of Saturn's forward motion. Do they? The web on Saturn says yes, even though the rings are tilted what looks to be 30 degrees, or maybe is that 60 degrees. Let me denote Rings as R and Saturn as S R R SSS ----> forward motion SSS R R or is it this R R SSS ----> forward motion SSS R R You see, the pictures that the web sites are showing, and are approved by astronomy departments in colleges and universities is this picture of the Sun with planets denoted as P. P P SSS ----> forward motion 230 km/sec SSS P P So, the concept of modern day astronomy and physics alike, is no longer the primitive caveman physics that Sun is stationary, but that the Sun is hurdling forward at a terrific speed and so, gravity has to be explained in terms of keeping up with the Sun. And Saturn can help explain this. Injection-Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 21:03:57 +0000 train track analogy Re: One of the greatest missed concepts in Physics history-- Stepping in Front of Forward Motion There is one good analogy of a train to the gravity of Sun and planets, and Saturn and Rings. The analogy is the train track. The train track is preexisting for some train to come along and follow the track. This is the copper wire in Ampere's law, the copper wire in Faraday's law, and the copper wire in law of electricity. This is the term jBB missing in the numerator of what should be Coulomb force (kAA+ jBB + hCC)/d^2 So the train track is the huge missing piece in Maxwell Equations and in the force of gravity. Space is somehow a huge interlay of tracks, which mass follows those tracks. Magnetic Field tracks, to be sure. In an Atom Totality, the tracks are given as Space. It is a huge magnetic field and concentrated into tracks, so that stars follow them, galaxies follow them, planets follow them, even ice clumps follow them in Saturn Rings. Did you know? Few people know of this fact, because astronomy education hides or ignores this fact. But the fact is true-- that the Universe of stars and galaxies is mostly long filaments, like electrical wiring filaments. So, the reason I want all future space probes to carry a voltmeter, measuring the voltage of Space, is because it should read strong signals of voltage whenever inside a track, and weak outside the track. Now i am going to name this new concept SFFM for Stepping in Front of Forward Motion. It really is remarkable that no astronomer or physicist ever thought or were enchanted with the idea that in gravity, objects step in front of other objects forward motion, and that only the force of electromagnetism can deal with such motion. Only electromagnetism as the prime mover of astronomy bodies can do SFFM. Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu ::\ ::|:: /:: ::\::|::/:: _ _ (:Y:) - - ::/::|::\:: ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. . \ . . | . /. . . \. . .|. . /. . ..\....|.../... ::\:::|::/:: --------------- ------------- --------------- (Y) ------------- --------------- -------------- ::/:::|::\:: ../....|...\... . . /. . .|. . \. . . / . . | . \ . http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium Comments:: Now, in the next edition of this text I have some work cut out for me-- explain as simple as possible the unification of electrochemistry with Faraday's law. This issue has bothered me ever since I had chemistry in College, 1969. For I knew Faraday's law was that a thrusting bar magnet in a closed loop of copper wire produces electricity. And here, in Chemistry we really do not have that, do we. For instead, what we have in electrochemistry is ions carrying a charge from one electrode over to the other electrode, the anode and cathode, and our teachings were to think that electrons caused the electricity. If a Logical person were to think on that proposition (1) thrusting bar magnet in wire loop makes electricity (2) motion of ions transfers electrons causing electricity. If a logical person thought about that, we only have to conclude, there is a huge gap and error in the two for they cannot come together as one theory. So, this is one of the larger errors that I need to remedy, to clear up in the 9th edition of this textbook. But let me get as far ahead as possible. In electrochemistry our old view has to be totally replaced. What is happening in truth, is that the ions set up into being "a magnet" and the motion in the ions is the thrusting part of Faraday's law. It is not a production of electricity due to motion of ions delivering electrons from one end to the other end, no. The production of electricity has to be the same as Faraday's law. And what that means, is the ions form Magnetic Lines of Force of .5 MeV charge energy and it is these monopoles that flow through the closed loop. So, the whole new picture that emerges in Electrochemistry, is that the ions in the battery cell form into a "thrusting bar magnet" and deliver .5MeV monopoles that flows in the closed loop. I need to make this crystal clear in the 9th edition, for time has run out in 2017. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 17:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <11066040-bba3-413e-8829-d37d16a3e1fa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #716280 |
Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 19:19:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: Page28, 3-4, Electromagnetism is the force of gravity pull & push, not the childish silly General Relativity or Newton gravity/Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017 From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2017 03:19:54 +0000 Page28, 3-4, Electromagnetism is the force of gravity pull & push, not the childish silly General Relativity or Newton gravity/Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017 Page28, 3-4, Electromagnetism is the force of gravity pull & push, not the childish silly General Relativity or Newton gravity/Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017 Alright, I am going to have to explain the "pull and push" of planets by the Sun in their orbits. I started this text by explaining that EM is an attraction force only and there is no repel force, but rather, a denial of the same space occupancy. So I need to explain the fact that in parallel conducting wires with current opposite direction that the wires move apart. Is the moving apart, is that repel? Or is it something else. Whether it is a Denial of Same Space Occupancy, it is certainly a push apart. So I have to explain a push is not a repel force. That a push is a Denial of Same Space Occupancy. Now I cited in this textbook, of an Experiment. Hugely important, immensely important experiment, that magnets attract 14% stronger force of attraction than any repelling. So if you put a north pole to south pole, the attraction is 14% greater than a north to north or a south to south push apart. Because likes are 14% weaker, means that repel and repulsion do not exist, only Attraction and the Denial of Same Space Occupancy = Push, exists. Here is a Youtube educational film on this topic. Physics - Electromagnetism: Faraday's Law - YouTube ► 19:50 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0wbEl7caTY Sep 25, 2010 - 20 min - Uploaded by EducationCommonsRW This is the 4th lesson in the series, "Electromagnetism." It explains Michael Faraday's ... Alright, I do not remember if it was this one or another of the 4 lessons shown. What I remember is two parallel wires, only they were balloon type wires-- easy to see. So, is that movement of the wires apart, is it a repel, or, is it what I want to call a push? Where push = denial of same space occupancy. Now consider a billiard ball or pool table with balls and one ball strikes another ball. When the one ball strikes another, it stays put and the struck ball moves forward with the new momentum. So that is a Push of the first ball upon the second ball. We would not consider that as a physics of a "repel" or repulsion, by first ball upon second ball. So, Physics still has just a Attract Force in EM theory and no repel in EM theory. It has ATTRACT and it has Denial of Same Space Occupancy, DSSO. Many people mistake DSSO as being repel. DSSO is also a push. So, Physics has a Push force. The Pull force is attraction. The Push force is when two wires in parallel with a current running opposite direction, the wires push apart. Or, when a current of magnetic monopoles making up the Lines of Force of the Magnetic Field, when those lines of force pull or push on one another lines of force. So we see the Lines of Force of a magnet pushing other lines of force, which we think is repel, but really a push apart from Denial of Same Space Occupancy. The Push of EM theory is where one line of force in the magnetic field pushes upon another line of force of the magnetic field. The lines of force are monopoles and those monopoles can push. Alternatively, it is much like a billiard ball pushing a second billiard ball. So, EM gravity of Sun to Earth, where Sun creates Magnetic Field tracks in Space, and Earth has to follow inside those tracks and is pulled by the magnetic field and pushed along in that track by the magnetic monopole current created by the Sun. (EM gravity is also responsible for the spin of Earth on axis. And the reason that Uranus is 90 degree spin while Earth is 23 degree, is due to EM gravity.) The 6th law of EM theory;; the Coulomb and EM gravity law L' = (i^2B - B^3- V^2i) / i^2B^2 This is a law that Maxwell had never seen, for it is EM-Gravity law. It has the form of (kAA + jBB + hCC)/d^2 for an ellipse for planets to orbit the Sun, and it has so much more. And what it does is create a track in astronomy for stars or planets or moons to orbit, and not only tracks, but the planet pulls and pushes the moons in their track and the Sun pulls and pushes the planets in their tracks, call it an i current type of a push in the track, along with a magnetic field pull in a track. So gravity is seen not only as a gravitational attraction or pull, but also as a push in a track. So the law creates EM tracks and pulls and pushes the mass in the track to orbit. Now that makes a lot of sense, does it not for we can easily picture the Sun as a electric generator pulling and pushing planets to flow around in circles. Resolving how a Magnetic Field has a electric current Re: Page24, 3-1, perspective of Laws versus Forces in Physics; new force definition F = dq/dt One great fact we always have in Physics-- Pair Production, where an energetic photon, which has no charge but has force, yet this photon can break apart into two charged particles of an electron=monopole and a positron=opposite monopole. And in this text we redefine force, so we have both F=ma and F= dQ/dt= electric current or magnetic monopole current. I tried to have just one force, the dq/dt force, but trouble with that is thermodynamics. We cannot get rid of F= ma, for we cannot unify thermodynamics to the other parts of physics. These problems of force started emerging when I noticed the A current in the Magnetic Field units kg/A*s^2. What is the resolution of this huge problem? Have a alternative definition of force dq/dt. The problem is that Magnetic Field is the singular unit force in physics, meaning, like in math where 1 is unit number in math. So that when we do 1*1 = 1 and we do 1/1 = 1, no other number in math is capable of that feat. So we need the Magnetic Field to be the 1 of physics. The UNIT FORCE OF PHYSICS. Already we defined force as dQ/dt so we know Magnetic Field is a force and has to be dQ/dt And the Faraday Law in New Physics was-- Faraday law B' = (V/i*L)' = (V'*i*L - V*i' *L - V*i*L') / (i*L)^2 = ((i_C)iL - VBL -Vi(i_C))/ i^2L^2 = 1/L - VB/i^2L - V/L^2 Remember, I said that when one EM law is in operation, that all 6 EM laws are in operation. So, what I have to do-- is see how the Magnetic Field units of kg/A*s^2 is also Faraday's law. How the magnetic field, lines of force produces an electric current. And where an electric current does not necessarily mean mass containing electrons=muons and protons, but rather the Lines of Force of Magnetism. Now in a Magnetic Field, the electric current is not electrons=muons and protons in motion, but is something else. The A in that Magnetic Field is a current, but not necessarily electrons=muons and protons. The current is a bunch of Magnetic Monopoles, each of .5 MeV charge energy, not rest-mass. Can we call the Magnetic Field as pictured like this with its North and South poles:: `-. _ _ .-' `-. | \| | .-' _,..-------..._ `. | .` | .' _...-------..,_ ,,-' `-.. `. |_|\_| .' ..-' `-,, ,-' `-.`. __ .'.-' `-, __..=......._ `.\ | | /.' _.......=..__ ,-; _..-----...__:. | | .:' __.-----.._ -, _,' ,-' _____ '. | | .`:-'_____ `- `,_ / ,' _.-''__...:..::. | | .::..:...__``-._ `, \ ,' ,' ,' _,' _,,,_ | | _,,,_ `,_ `, `, `, .' / ,' / ,' `, | | ,' `, \ `, \ `. | / ,' .' ,' `,| |,' `, `. `, \ | | / | | .' `| |' `. | | \ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | \ \ \ \ /| |\ / / / / | \ \ \ \ \ / | | \ / / / / / \ \ \ `. `._ _.' || || `._ _.' .' / / / \ `. `._ `..___`'' / | | \ ``'___..' _.' .' / `. `._ `-..______.;;// | | \\;;.______..-' _.' .' `._ `-.._____..-'.:// | | \\:-:=.._____..-' _.' `.._ .--','/ |__| \`,`-._ ..' `'------'' ,',' ____ `,`, ``------`' `-._ _,-' / / ___| \ `-,_ _.-' `-.__ __.-' ,' \__ \ `, `-.__ __.-' `'-------'' ,' |____/ `, ``-------`' _,' `,_ MJP ,,' `,, Can we call those loops around the magnet as a ELECTRIC CURRENT itself? So those looped around magnetism is a electric current as well as magnetism. So that in the Magnetic Field units of kg/A*s^2 we focus on the (kg/A) of (kg/A)*(1/s^2) Where A is not magnetic lines of force, but rather is the unit electric current lines of force. And where we thence have the kg cancel out with the A, leaving us with Current/s^2 And so, the push = denial of same space occupancy is Magnetic Monopole Current in the Magnetic Field. Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu ::\ ::|:: /:: ::\::|::/:: _ _ (:Y:) - - ::/::|::\:: ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. . \ . . | . /. . . \. . .|. . /. . ..\....|.../... ::\:::|::/:: --------------- ------------- --------------- (Y) ------------- --------------- -------------- ::/:::|::\:: ../....|...\... . . /. . .|. . \. . . / . . | . \ . http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium Comments:: I do not think I was the only one troubled by the explanation of how in the world is a battery of electrochemistry, how in the world does that comply with the Faraday Law of electromagnetism. If one is deluded by the thought that electrons are in motion, and the electron is a .5MeV particle, well, their delusion can make up for the disparity between magnetic flux causing electricity and that ions in motion causes electricity. But, every logical person must know that they have to reduce to Faraday's law. However, here, electrochemistry cannot reduce to Faraday's law. And that is why the two subjects seem to be taught separately. Why no physics or chemistry professor ever, never wanted to reconcile the two, because you cannot reconcile the two. And that is perhaps the reason that all physics and chemistry professors, never had a inkling of the idea-- "perhaps the electron in motion is not electricity". For, surely, Faraday's law is not that of moving electrons thrust through a open loop of copper wire is producing electricity. No, Faraday's law is that a thrusting bar magnet produces electricity, not the motion of electrons. And then, if someone logical had come to physics say in year 1900, and said, alright, well we have electrochemistry and we have Faraday's law, now, we must make battery theory reduced down to Faraday's law. But, well, no-one in physics, no-one in chemistry had that logical mind. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-04 05:06 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Archimedes "Front Page Hog" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test |
| Message-ID | <pu521c$b7b$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #716490 |
Front Page Hog Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails: >Subject: Re: 2.2vvgra says: Martha Billes,Tony Desmond, Hermann Eberl, still teaching ellipse is a conic (see AP proof below)? Is vvgra really trying to sell books or is he Dan Christensen trying to push people off the front page with daily spam? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes: >The vvgra spamming shithead-- is he Dan Christensen or Moroney in disguise >to push people off the front page or Jan Burse or any number of insane cranks >in sci.math. Why is Plutonium making the spamming worse by echo spamming the spammer? Is attacking me and Dan and Jan "doing math" or "doing physics"? How about echo spamming the spammer? Why is Pluto worried about this "front page"? Because he is a front page hog and he thinks that only he is allowed to be a front page hog? >Discussion >Corporate Finance 3rd Edition test bank by Jonathan Berk (1) >By vvgra...@gmail.com 1 post 3 views updated 7:22 AM >Discussion >Corporate Finance 3rd Edition solution manual by Jonathan Berk (1) >By vvgra...@gmail.com 1 post 3 views updated 7:14 AM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-04 05:15 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Archimedes "batshit crazy" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test |
| Message-ID | <pu52gr$b7b$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #716490 |
Physics Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails: >And here is where I need the electrical engineer who is given 6 piles of >windings, to arrange those 6 piles to produce maximum electricity. You want the opinion of this electrical engineer? No, you don't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-07 13:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0dd074b2-e5c1-423a-a59a-1f142a2df599@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #716490 |
Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 12:53:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: Page29, 3-5, Re-examination of the Coulomb force in Old Physics, and most abundant cosmic structure- electric cord shape/Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017 From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2017 20:53:45 +0000 Page29, 3-5, Re-examination of the Coulomb force in Old Physics, and most abundant cosmic structure- electric cord shape/Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017 Now I am going to step back in time, in history of physics and take a close look at Coulomb's inverse square law to see what went wrong that Coulomb could never see a variable force strength law instead of a fixed inverse square law. Why Coulomb could not see that EM varies in force strength from proportional to radius, to 1/radius, and to 1/radius^2 and all-points-in-between. So let me pause and take a look back in history. Resolving 1784 Coulomb inverse square law; New Physics force definition of both F= ma, plus F = dQ/dt and, magnetic monopole current dQ/dt Has anyone actually looked up and re-did the Coulomb experiment of 1784 to see if it can be variable range of strength, not fixed to inverse square? The reason I bring up this topic is because, well, the Coulomb force is actually a variable range of forces starting with its strongest as solid body rotation proportional to distance radius, then proportional to 1/radius as often seen in Capacitors, and finally its weakest form of 1/radius^2, and, of course, all-in-between. So, somewhere in the 1784 Experiment, it only fetches the weakest Coulomb force and bypasses the strongest Coulomb forces radius and next strongest 1/radius. So how could the Coulomb force have been so short sighted? What makes the 1784 Experiment of Coulomb such a short sighted experiment? So, what I propose here, is to recheck the 1784 Experiment and find out how the experiment was flawed and blind. Was it flawed because the math used was insufficient? And by that I mean linear straight-line math of Y = mx + B, of a torsion beam experiment, used when it required integral area math of calculus integration over a closed loop. In other words, the Coulomb law could not really be derived correctly until Capacitors and Electric Motors were around to perform force law experiments. That would explain why the 1784 Experiment was an inverse square law, totally missing the more important force of proportional to radius and proportional to 1/radius and all in between. The thing is, if a Coulomb type of experiment had been conducted using a Capacitor, then the strength of the Coulomb force would have been seen as directly proportional to 1/radius, rather than to 1/radius^2. And even more telling, if the Coulomb type of experiment had been conducted on a electric motor, such as that built by Faraday, and a mass that goes around and around, would have seen the force strength of Coulomb be that of proportional to radius and not to 1/radius^2. So I think what went wrong here from 1784 on to 2016 was a physics community with a closed mind, closed eyes and a closed subject for Old Physics. Physicists of a closed mind and ignorant understanding. So of course, once Newton nailed down gravity as inverse square law in 1687, of course by 1784, Coulomb would find a single solo force as inverse square. It is hard to break out of a habit, break out of a mold, so to speak. But, if history had been where the first force of the 4 known forces of the 20th century, if Newton had discovered the Weak Electromagnetic Force as the first force in history. The weak force is radioactivity and which would be discovered circa 1900, more precisely 1895-6 by Roentgen & Becquerel. And, not too surprisingly, radioactivity is categorized as being three types -- alpha, beta, gamma, just as Coulomb force is R, 1/R, 1/R^2 only reverse in strength. But let us say that Newton discovered Radioactivity, Weak force first and would assign its force strength as a variable ranging from radius, to 1/radius, to 1/radius^2 and all points in between. Would then, Coulomb, come by in 1784 and find that the Coulomb force ranges from radius, to 1/radius, to 1/radius^2 and all points in between? No, of course not, because electricity and magnetism had to be extensively further developed by Faraday in 1830s and Maxwell by 1860s, so that a true Coulomb law would have to wait until after 1860s. But, would Coulomb in 1874, announce that his law has to await further development before it is finalized? You bet, that that is what would have happened, the Coulomb force would be a variable range force. But physicists are like any other profession, a lot of dull-copy-cats-- they see Newton's gravity as inverse square, so then if electromagnetism looks to be inverse square-- find it and stop all further thinking and research into whether it is correct or not correct. Now, just recently in October 2017 I realized that the Magnetic Field units has a electric current inside it. This should have been realized by James Clerk Maxwell himself in 1860s and not have to wait for AP in 2016 to do something about it. Magnetic Field = kg/A*s^2 And so, what the hell, is a electric current doing in a magnetic field. The only way I can resolve that, is to say that the A electric current is a magnetic monopole current which consists of specifically the Lines of Force of a magnet. Not that the lines of force are electrons moving, but rather, the lines of force are the magnetic monopoles-- consisting of photons (perhaps neutrinos). And these monopoles are the .5MeV particles of charge energy .5 MeV, not rest mass energy but charge energy. And the Experiment to prove this true is the classical Ampere law experiment where two parallel conducting wires (balloon wires shown in the YouTube film clip above) and where the wires attract or they push apart depending on whether the current is same direction or opposite direction, respectively. Now Dirac, back in 1978 wrote a magnificent book titled Directions in Physics and on page 46 wrote that the magnetic monopole was going to have at minimum, at minimum a charge value of 137/2 the charge of an electron. What that means is that a magnetic monopole Lines of Force is 137/2 greater of a bend or arc curvature in magnetism than in electricity, or electric current flow. So, the experiment of the wires pushing apart is an arc bend that is 137/2 smaller for the electric current than for a magnet arc bend. So the A current in the Magnetic Field units is a magnetic monopole current. And a magnetic monopole current is photons flowing. The magnetic monopole current is what gives planets a "push and pull" in EM gravity. Now, if we are lucky, we maybe able to actually see Magnetic Monopole Current Push on a planet, or, Pull on a planet surface. For it is the tides on Earth from the Moon, where some tides are push and some are pull. And is the Red Spot on Jupiter along with all those weather bands of "Jupiter clouds", and is the hexagonal pole on Saturn. The Lines of Force of magnetism causes not only the features of the Jupiter clouds as latitude band-rings on Jupiter, but also has a lot to do with the motion of the atmosphere on Earth, the east and west motion is because of Magnetic Lines of Force. When Newton wrote his magnificent Principia in 1687, it was only natural for him to define force as F = ma, as that of kg*m/s^2. It will take physics to 1860s with Maxwell to consolidate electricity and magnetism, so Newton could not have defined force as that of current of EM, as dQ/dt. But, force as F = ma is not general enough. It requires a rest mass. Force as dQ/dt requires no rest mass and is more general. But, does that mean we can dispense with F= ma and use only F = dQ/dt? No, we have to use both, because, after all, the science of thermodynamics needs both F= ma and F = dq/dt. The 6 laws of EM theory are all force laws, but if we use Newton's F = ma, most are not force laws. Are any of the 6 laws of EM theory require F = ma? Yes of course, what is called the Gauss's Law of Electricity in which one of its major features of a law is to say " A charge on an insulated conductor moves to its outer surface" (Halliday & Resnick, 1986). It is that law within the 6 EM laws of the AP equations that require Force = ma. For many phenomenon of physics is where charge resides in mass particles such as electrons=muons and protons and the force has to include mass, but not always for the magnetic monopole is the .5 MeV particle with no rest mass, but .5 MeV of charge energy. So, we can get away with just Force = dQ/dt which has no rest mass but has charge. So that Force is a duality relationship between F = ma and F= dQ/dt. Sometimes you use one, sometimes the other, but neither are equal and both need be present. Most Abundant Shape & Structure in Astronomy:: Electric cord shaped (pencil shaped) galaxies and Electric Cord shaped Superclusters-- galaxies as filaments the most common structures in astronomy Now the Solid Body Rotation of most stars in spiral galaxies proves Gravity = EM force because only Electromagnetism is strong enough to have Rigid Solid Body Rotation. But, there is another overwhelming proof-- the geometrical shape that large gravitationally bound objects can evolve into. With EM= gravity the evolution of huge massive structure is in the form of electric long extension cord. Some call it pencil shape some call it finger shape, some call it filaments. The best to call it is electric-cord-line shape. Awhile back ago-- "National Geographic" wrote about some 100 quasars that defied the laws of physics and if my memory is correct these quasars all gravitationally bound where stretched like an electric Cord in the cosmic sky. Which raises a concern of mine in that how sure are astronomers of gravitational locked together. Anyway there are many examples of galaxies and clusters in a Cord shape. It was National Geographic, Jan.2013 by Andrew Fazekas, titled Biggest Thing in Universe Found-- Defies Scientific Theories. Talks about quasar galaxy clusters 73 quasars stretching 4 billion light years across. Trouble is Andrew does not show a picture of them as looking like a long electric extension cord, thin. Proving the point that a gravitational locked system being wire shaped means gravity is EM. Alright good, for i find out that the shape of the largest structures in the observable universe is the electric extension cord shape only Old Physics calls it Galaxy Filaments. I suppose we can look at a electric cord as a filament. Wikipedia has a whole section on filament galaxies. Looking at the Perseus-Pisces Supercluster and it looks like a tangled electric cord. And sad what the physics dolts use to explain this shape, can you believe it the dolts think a massive Dark Matter looms around these galaxies. That is equivalent to thinking electricity in a cord works only if there is ten times something in mass is nearby the cord. Now a different structure in the shape of a cord is NGC2736 called the Pencil Nebula. What i am driving home is the fact that only with gravity = EM can the evolution of galaxies end up looking like electric extension cords. On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 4:30:14 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: shape of largest structures in the Cosmos-- surprisingly, has the shape of electric extension cords Looking at it philosophically, if Gravity = EM, then we expect most of the structure of the Cosmos to be shaped as electric-cord lines Philosophically, if Gravity is Electromagnetism, then the most abundant shape in electricity is cord lines of power. Now many people do not know that a cord is a closed loop like this O only squashed so much that it is looking like a line. Many people think a electric cord is just a single line wire. They never realized it is a closed loop. So if gravity is EM, and since the most common shape in EM is the cord-line shape, means, well, in the Observable Universe, cord line should be the most abundant shape. And it is in the fact that most galaxies form filaments in clusters and superclusters. The cosmic shape of the largest structures of Observable Universe is the shape of a wire-- extension cord of a closed loop bent to be a linear looking wire. Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu ::\ ::|:: /:: ::\::|::/:: _ _ (:Y:) - - ::/::|::\:: ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. . \ . . | . /. . . \. . .|. . /. . ..\....|.../... ::\:::|::/:: --------------- ------------- --------------- (Y) ------------- --------------- -------------- ::/:::|::\:: ../....|...\... . . /. . .|. . \. . . / . . | . \ . http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium Comments:: This is a huge error of Old Physics, Old Chemistry, for they cannot explain a battery in terms of Faraday's law. And that has kept them as obtuse in science for nearly 200 years. You cannot explain a battery unless you reduce it into that of Faraday's law. You cannot do that if you think electricity is the motion of electrons in the form of ions. The only way out of this dilemma, is to recognize that the cathode, anode, electrolytes form into a thrusting bar magnet. Quoting Wikipedia on the false modern conception of how a battery of electrochemistry works: "When a battery is supplying electric power, its positive terminal is the cathode and its negative terminal is the anode.[2] The terminal marked negative is the source of electrons that when connected to an external circuit will flow and deliver energy to an external device. When a battery is connected to an external circuit, electrolytes are able to move as ions within, allowing the chemical reactions to be completed at the separate terminals and so deliver energy to the external circuit. It is the movement of those ions within the battery which allows current to flow out of the battery to perform work. " end quoting Wikipedia The way batteries truly work, is not the motion of electrolytes, not the electrons in motion. But the magnetic monopoles that the electrolytes create. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-07 21:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ac1791f5-66ab-477c-a3a4-254e08d61945@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #717196 |
Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 14:17:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: Page30, 3-6, Our Sun is Hollow due to Gauss's law of electricity/Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017 From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2017 22:17:37 +0000 Page30, 3-6, Our Sun is Hollow due to Gauss's law of electricity/Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017 Page30, 3-6, Our Sun is Hollow due to Gauss's law of electricity/Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017 Alright, the last page in this chapter, quite a chapter for we covered EM gravity, how the Sun and planets move in a helix in space due to the force of Coulomb that varies in strength from R, to 1/R, to 1/R^2 and all points in between. We covered how there is huge mountains of proof that gravity is EM force such as spiral galaxies having solid body rotation, even Saturn Rings having solid body rotation, to the fact that the main structure of the galaxies is a electric-cord shape (filament shape) structure, and just recently, the fact that the Sun is a Hollowed out star. Why is the Sun hollow? Because gravity is EM force and one of its laws is Gauss's law of Electricity-- that charges (mass with charge) moves to the outer surface, leaving the center hollow. In fact, as you think about it for a moment, Gauss's law that charge moves to the outer surface of a body is proof that charge is not the electrons of atoms, but rather, charge is some photon or neutrino with a .5 MeV charge energy, not rest-mass energy. And this then says, all stars are hollow and all galaxy centers are hollow for the most part-- the kiss of death to Newton gravity and General Relativity gravity. As I write this text, the NASA space agency of the USA is building a probe to go to the Sun. I am trying to convince them, their most important fact finding in that mission is whether the Sun is truly hollow. Fascinating report-- the Sun is (possibly) hollow-- NEW SCIENTIST, 21Oct2017, page 28. Incredible story. Starts with scientist Basu figuring out what is inside the Sun, via two methods, helioseismology and then spectroscopy. Then along comes Asplund with a computer and 3rd dimensional modeling on spectroscopy comes out with data that the Sun interior is so to speak-- hollow, missing mass of about 9 *10^27 kg. The article goes on to discuss remedies. But let us suppose the finding stands true, that the Sun is truly hollow. Would anything in EM-gravity suggest that the Sun and nearly-all stars are hollow? Of course there is something in EM gravity-- that electricity stays on the surface outside-- not in the very interior. It is a habit of Electromagnetism to reside on the surface. Thus as astro bodies get really big such as stars-- and because they are charged plasma, they are hollow. And this transfers over to galaxies as the nucleus is likely to be mostly hollow also. And if true, well, another defeat for black hole people who love their black hole nonsense, for if matter gets very dense, it gets hot and becomes a star and becomes HOLLOW. Such is the behavior of Electromagnetism, for there is no need to be a dense heavy core, when the action is on the surface. This also explains why the Sun's surface is "hotter" than the interior of the Sun-- EM is a surface phenomenon. Now in Old Physics it was Gauss's law of electricity " A charge on an insulated conductor moves to its outer surface" that is called into play here. In New Physics, what is called into play is New Ohms Law of V= iBL with its derivative V' which is Ampere's law. Think of the Sun as just a huge conductor and so its electricity (the bulk of its matter) moves to form a hollow interior. Now perhaps the reason we are sending a Solar Probe in the next few years is partially due to this huge problem of the Sun core-- is it really hollow. And whether that Probe will be decked out to measure the Sun on this question. But EM gravity easily answers it -- electricity moves to the outer surface --- end of story. Now this opens up a grand new chapter in physics history-- the Hollow Sun. For it tells us gravity is EM not the pathetic Newton and General Relativity for nattering nutters. We simply move from hollow Sun to hollow stars, and next to galactic centers. If the GR nutters are correct, most fusion and nova and supernova come from galactic centers where matter is most dense. But what does observation tell us? Observation tells us most galactic centers are voids-- free of matter. Most nova and supernova occur along the outer reaches of galaxies. And what do the nutters say about the black and empty galactic centers? Of course, they invoke their crazy black holes. Our Sun is hollow because gravity is EM and thus galaxies have Hollow centers because Gauss's law of electricity is that charge (hence mass) wants to reside on the outer surface. Now provided it turns out true that the Sun indeed is Hollow, based upon Gauss's law of Electricity, that a charge on a insulated conductor moves to its outer surface, where the Sun is seen as just a huge current of ions and charge. Then, we can also see how Gauss's law applies to Jupiter and Saturn making them "tend towards a hollow core". We already see evidence of electricity on Saturn's north pole as a "pure hexagon". On Jupiter, we see enormous magnetism and thus with enormous electric current, we see the surface of Jupiter as electric currents of clouds and the Red Spot, being the junction box of electricity. Describing the Red Spot as a junction box of electricity is a appropriate description. Come to think of it, those cloud patterns of Jupiter are driven almost entirely by electric current flow, since they are "orderly bands". You do not get orderly cloud bands on Earth for we do not have that electric current flow, but on Earth, the wind patterns are affected by the Earth magnetic field. The Solar spacecraft Re: Gauss's law of electricity solves Hollow Sun Now there was a report this year of NASA thinking of sending a Solar spacecraft to the Sun for science experiments. Looking it up right now on iphone. Called Parker Solar Probe-- NASA to probe outer corona of Sun. It will approach to within 8.5 solar radii 5.9 million kilometers to the surface photosphere of the Sun. I am guessing that is as close as it can get before being incinerated. But, I was wondering if the engineers can engineer Parker to get the latest and best data of a HOLLOW Sun. It is scheduled to launch in 2018. So plenty of time to outfit Parker with the best engineering to finalize if Sun is Hollow or not Hollow. So now one idea to measure if Sun is hollow is to have the Solar Probe carry aboard some "special matter" which gets inside the Sun and is able to be monitored back on Earth. If the Sun is hollow, this special matter, none will sink into the central region. If the Sun is not hollow-- this special matter will sink there and be seen back on Earth as a non-hollow Sun. Or, perhaps, we can outfit Parker Solar Probe to have some instrument that shoots a EM beam into the Sun and depending on the time-length of return, determine if the center is hollow or not hollow. Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu ::\ ::|:: /:: ::\::|::/:: _ _ (:Y:) - - ::/::|::\:: ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. . \ . . | . /. . . \. . .|. . /. . ..\....|.../... ::\:::|::/:: --------------- ------------- --------------- (Y) ------------- --------------- -------------- ::/:::|::\:: ../....|...\... . . /. . .|. . \. . . / . . | . \ . http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium Comments:: There I was, 1969, a teenager 19 years old, sitting in classrooms at Univ. Cincinnati, having done chemistry and physics. Knowing that Faraday's law is the intersection of magnetism and electricity, that the motion of magnetism produces electricity. But in chemistry class, no magnetism is involved in a electrochemical battery. It bothered me. But being 19 years old, what bothered me in education had to be buried inside me, or else I could not learn more, graduate, but be a rebel without true answers. Education is often being a submissive teenager, for the sake of learning more, even if it did not make much sense. Just as in calculus in math class at UC, that we were spoon fed the idea that the integral was a rectangle with 0 width, yet, still have internal area. What if I had revolted against that stupidity? Well, I probably would never graduate from college. There is a price to pay for wanting a degree in college-- yet appease clowns as college professor teachers. I payed the price so often in college-- that what was taught as true, was illogical trash. One of those illogical trashes was electrochemistry battery and how it works. How many of you, actually believe that a battery makes electricity because electrons or ions drift from one side to the other side? How many believe that sort of nonsense, because, well, you have Faraday's law which says you need magnetism to make electricity. The two are incompatible. And what needed to be done is to consider the fact that ions form Magnetic Lines of Force, and the movement of ions does not cause a current to flow because of electrons in motion, no, that is stupid and silly. The movement of ions creates a thrusting bar Magnet and causes electricity as magnetic monopoles of .5MeV to flow in the closed loop wire. This is the picture that has to emerge in order to say-- production of electricity-- all reduces to Faraday's law. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-10 18:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e8d16dcc-372f-48d2-b4e7-564f170f6c37@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #717283 |
Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 19:22:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: Page31, 4-1, Unification of Thermodynamics with EM theory// Entropy = Voltage /Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017 From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 03:22:48 +0000 Page31, 4-1, Unification of Thermodynamics with EM theory// Entropy = Voltage /Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017 Page31, 4-1, Unification of Thermodynamics with EM theory// Entropy = Voltage /Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017 Alright, in the prior chapter, we covered EM gravity, how the Sun and planets move in a helix in space due to the force of Coulomb that varies in strength from R, to 1/R, to 1/R^2 and all points in between. And in this chapter we learn that such a range of force strengths is consolidated. That is, the math is made more simple and easy, for that description above of R, to 1/R, to 1/R^2 is consolidated as simply the logarithmic function. It is well known in Physics that the Weak Nuclear force-- Radioactivity-- is an exponential function of math. The law of radioactivity involves the exponential function N = N_0 (e^kt) And in math, the exponential function is the inverse (think of it as reverse) of the logarithmic function, (they have a mirror image reflection of their graphs). Thermodynamics laws are laws of logarithmic functions. So, if Newton, back in 1687 was told that Physics has 4 forces, and those four forces are either logarithmic or exponential, all four forces, he would never have ventured with the silly inverse square. But now, let me speak about the Unification of Thermodynamics with the EM theory. No such unification was ever possible so long as physics had just one force law, F = ma. But now that physics has two force laws, F = dq/dt ( a current), then a unification is possible. Consider force as having to be a duality definition, where you have two different definitions but necessary. For electricity is dual to magnetism, each is different but both necessary for any event involving electricity or magnetism. Both are always present, but both are different. And the easiest way to proceed in the Unification of Thermodynamics is via the Chemistry Ideal Gas Law. PV = nRT What I propose to do here, is show that PV = nRT is just the same as the New Physics New Ohm's Law of V = iBL. And the reasoning behind that, is that PV = nRT is just the same as V = iBL only the symbols and parameters were translated. So all I need do is show that PV = (nR)T is the same as V = iBL The logic behind this, is that charge becomes a macroscopic issue in ideal gas law Voltage is what? Is it Pressure or Volume? Temperature T is what? Is it the Magnetic Field B or is it the angular momentum L? So, I start with what I am most sure of at the moment. That current i is (nR). Is voltage more like pressure or more like volume? Tough question If voltage is pressure, then I need 1/Volume on the other side as (nR)*T*(1/V) So, which makes more "physical sense" an inverse volume or an inverse pressure? Which will physics allow? Will physics allow volume to be inverted and retain physical sense, or will physics allow pressure to be inverted and retain physical sense? Volume is in brief, side*side*side, and can that have a physical meaning as 1/(side*side*side) Or does Pressure inverted as 1/P retain physical meaning? The units of pressure are kg/m*s^2, which easily reminds one of the units of the Magnetic Field B= kg/A*s^2 So, let me start over. (nR)T = PV Thus, Pressure is the analog of Magnetic Field, and Volume is the analog of L, angular momentum That leaves us with (nR) once inverted as 1/(nR) is the analog of i, the electric current. And finally, Temperature T in Ideal Gas Law of Chemistry is the same as Voltage of New Ohm's law. Thus we have Voltage = i * B * L and Temperature = (1/nR) * P * V as the best-true way of writing Ideal Gas Law, because now, we see that this law is All of Thermodynamics in one single equation. At a young age we realize, and do not have to be taught, that Space is 3rd dimension, so that you have length, width and depth. Three things to make Space. Now the three should be in the most general of science formulas or math of science. We have the three in New Ohm's law V= i*B*L for we have three things on the right-side of equation. Voltage is where three things come together. And so important is V=iBL that it forms all the forces of physics. In a sense V=iBL and its calculus forms the math of most of physics. So, there is something magical about having three things form something. Atomic theory has three things forming atoms-- electron, proton, photon (neutron is just a composite of electron, proton,photon). But with electron, proton, photon we form all the atoms (consider a neutrino as a special type of photon). In general, in principle, three things form a fourth thing. Electrons, protons, photons forms atoms. Current, Magnetic Field, Angular Momentum, forms Voltage. So, we have New Ohm's law V= iBL we have Chemistry's Ideal Gas Law PV = (nR)T that law can be better written as T = (1/nR) * P * V where the Temperature is the analog of voltage, it is not voltage itself, but a analog, a look-alike. The (1/nR) is the analog of current dq/dt. The pressure P is the analog of Magnetic Field , where one is kg/m*s^2, other is kg/A*s^2. The V volume is the analog of L, angular momentum in EM theory. What I am doing is unifying Thermodynamics with that of EM theory of physics, but first I need to show that the Ideal Gas Law is V= iBL, so that thermodynamics is just a special way of looking at electricity and magnetism. By "special way" I mean where we have force as both F = ma and F = dQ/dt. Will the 2nd law of thermodynamics be true after we have unification? Surprizingly, with a small change in how we view the 2nd Law, it is true, and much stronger than even before. One way of stating the 2nd law of Thermodynamics-- entropy or disorder always increases, another way, heat always flows from hot to cold, another way, limitations on perpetual motion. Each one of those can be found stronger and more clear, with this unification. Heat always flows from hot to cold, yet we can hold a cold laser or x ray beam flowing from cold aiming at a star-- a hot body. Here is where we have cold to hot heat flow, and have to realize the use of F= dQ/ds rather than F =ma No perpetual motion is untrue, for the electrons inside stable atoms are perpetual motion. Here again, we must distinguish between F= ma and F = dQ/ds. Now Wikipedia lists these as the 4 laws of thermodynamics: --- quoting Wikipedia --- Zeroth law of thermodynamics: If two systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third system, they are in thermal equilibrium with each other. This law helps define the notion of temperature. First law of thermodynamics: When energy passes, as work, as heat, or with matter, into or out from a system, the system's internal energy changes in accord with the law of conservation of energy. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the first kind (machines that produce work with no energy input) are impossible. Second law of thermodynamics: In a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems increases. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the second kind (machines that spontaneously convert thermal energy into mechanical work) are impossible. Third law of thermodynamics: The entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches absolute zero.[2] With the exception of non-crystalline solids (glasses) the entropy of a system at absolute zero is typically close to zero, and is equal to the natural logarithm of the product of the quantum ground states. ----end quoting Wikipedia --- Alright, let us match the 4 laws of thermodynamics with the 4 Old Physics Maxwell Equations. To our aid in this chore is Physics, Part 2, Halliday & Resnick 1986, page 886. Let us pick off the easiest one first. The Absolute Zero temperature exists. So what EM law talks about an ultimate boundary? Of course the Ampere-Maxwell law-- The speed of light can be calculated from purely electromagnetic measurements H&R,p.886 Speed of light is maximum, and 0 Kelvin is maximum-lowest. So we picked off the 3rd law thermodynamics. Let us pick off another easy one. The first law is conservation of energy. In Faraday's law a Lenz law appears that in which a magnetic field arises that opposes the magnet. (H&R,p.773) Reasoning: without Lenz law in Faraday law, you would get unlimited energy, hence, no conservation of energy. That leaves Zeroth & 2nd laws. Now the 2nd law of thermodynamics is best written as heat flows from hot to cold. There are two laws of Maxwell's Equations remaining (1) Gauss's law of electricity and (2) Gauss's law of magnetism. And Gauss"s law of electricity-- a charge on an insulated conductor moves to its outer surface -- seems to fit well with the 2nd law. And, let me note, the last page in the prior chapter of the Hollow Sun uses this law to explain why the Sun is hollow. So in a sense, the 2nd law of thermodynamics demands the Sun to be hollow also. That leaves us with the zeroth law as being a sort of no magnetic monopole law. Can this be true? I suspect so, for the zeroth law has always been rather murky. Alright i have to get out Halliday & Resnick's other book Fundamentals of Physics 3rd ed. 1988 for Thermodynamics. And the whole point about the Zeroth law is thermometers-- stick one into A and if the same reading stuck in B, means A and B have the same temperature, meaning, -- same heat content. Now does that mirror reflect Maxwell'sEq of Gauss's law of Magnetism? I certainly think so in the idea that Magnetic Field is the primary unit in all of EM theory and the magnetic monopole is simply the A current in kg/ A*s^2. The A current is a magnetic monopole current. Reason as to why Gauss's law of magnetism would be Zeroth law-- because both laws establish a primary unit for their subject. Like in mathematics, 1 is the prime unit for Counting numbers for we add 1 to 1 to get 2, add 1 to 2 to get 3, etc. The Magnetic field and monopole is prime unit for electricity and magnetism, and so, temperature is prime unit in Thermodynamics. Alright, so i have matched laws-- any new insights? I believe so, the entropy definition looks like it needs to be refined as to what it is in terms of Electricity and Magnetism. There is no concept of "disorder" in EM theory, so entropy needs mending. The 2nd law as that of heat flows from hot to cold is fine and models after charges on a conductor moves to outer surface. Alright, I am satisfied I have pegged the correct Maxwell Equation law with the correct 4 laws of Thermodynamics. Now here is a surprising new insight, in that the 2nd law of thermodynamics has more to teach the 4 Maxwell equations, for which the 4 Maxwell equations were in error. Not the AP equations of EM theory, but the Old Physics Maxwell Equations have a flaw and hole for which the 2nd law of thermodynamics patches clean. For in the 2nd law, we arrive at a force law that is a Logarithmic function law, yet Maxwell Equations had Coulomb law as a inverse square. So, here, to everyone's surprise, 2nd law of thermodynamics was more correct in physics than was the Old Maxwell Equations. What I speak of, is that the 2nd law is Gauss's law of electricity, that charge moves to the outside surface-- mirroring the heat flows always from hot to cold. But, the Gauss law of electricity has another feature-- charges attract as the inverse square of their distance apart. So, what is the mathematics of the 2nd law of thermodynamics? It involves the Logarithmic function a slowly rising smooth curve function-- which is seen in the rotation curves of spiral galaxies. In other words, if Coulomb back in 1784 had known of the 4 laws of thermodynamics, the 2nd law specifically and had known the 2nd law mathematics is what the Coulomb force law should be-- a logarithmic function, then, Coulomb back in 1784 would have discovered that the force of EM varies over the range of radius to 1/radius, to 1/radius^2 and all points in between, in other words a logarithmic force law rather than a inverse square. If one looks at the spiral galaxies rotation curve, what they see is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. And not the crazy silly Newton gravity nor the silly General Relativity with the crazies postulating dark matter and dark energy. Simply put-- Coulomb force law and gravity are logarithmic function laws. Alright, good progress. Draw the math function Y = Ln(x) Now look up the Galaxy Rotation Curve Equation on Wikipedia or web. Compare the two, for if you scoot over the Ln(x) further into the 1st quadrant they are identical. What does this mean? It means the Coulomb force is not inverse square but rather logarithmic and matching the entropy of thermodynamics. What it means for entropy is that it can come out into the open and be recognized for what it has been all along Voltage. When you have interactions occur in Space you use up some voltage that was Space itself. You downgrade the voltage there. Coulomb force law is not inverse square but is logarithmic. Gravity is not inverse square but is logarithmic. Entropy is just another word for voltage. Alright so the claim is that entropy is voltage. Let us prove it. Stemming from the fact entropy is a logarithmic function and Coulomb force is logarithmic. So let us check on units. Voltage is kg*m^2/A*s^3 Entropy is energy/temperature Now temperature is thought of as average kinetic energy. But to be true, that Voltage = Entropy i need to have Temperature = A*s And what is A*s, of course, the quantity of electric charge. Can i get away with that? In order to have a proof, I have to. Temperature is the quantity of electric charge. And then it means the 2nd law of thermodynamics is all fit sound and in perfect shape, for whenever we say entropy is increasing means simply the world is increasing in voltage. It is just that Old Physics got the opposite concept of what entropy is-- it is order-- for voltage is order. It is like finding a new animal and thinking its tail is its head when it is the opposite. Now, I am sure I am not the only one to have ever been "bothered by the weirdness, the foreignness of entropy". Usually the concepts and parameters of Physics are very much clear and straightforward, until you come upon entropy. It has no units except to say it is energy/temperature. And the smart and savvy student, instantly should ask in their minds eye, -- well, I thought temperature was energy for it is a collective kinetic energy of the particles in purview. So you have in a sense energy/energy and some numerical scalar answer. And, the situation of "entropy" in physics is never really made easier when clowns dub entropy as "disorder". Feeling, I reckon that something must be tagged to entropy to pass scrutiny of those not directly in physics. For the moment a physicist says entropy increasing, the general public and a layperson would say "gibberish, speak some commonsense, will you". So, entropy was dubbed disorder. So in Old Physics, they had just one Force definition, they had F = kg*m/s^2 and energy would be E = kg*m^2/s^2. So in Old Physics, multiply a force by meters and you have energy. What they never realized in Old Physics, is there is another force definition F = dQ/ds which is current and is also written as A = i = dQ/ds Voltage in Old Physics was correct as V = kg*m^2/A*s^3 So, if you divide Energy = kg*m^2/s^2 by that of A*s then in Old Physics you turn energy into voltage And what exactly is A*s? It is the quantity, or amount of electric charge. So, we have a no-brainer here. Take energy and divide by temperature and those Old Physics dullards have entropy. But, to a wide awake Physicist, take Energy and divide by amount of electric charge existing, and you have Voltage. So, to a person with just a tiny bit of Logical brains Energy/temperature gives some crazy foreign item called entropy, unless you realize that temperature is the quantity of electric charge. That temperature = A*s And that the Force written as dQ/ds when multiplied by s gives amount of electric charge (also magnetic monopole charge is included in dQ) AND WHEN FORCE is written F= ma = kg*m/s^2 and multiply by m we get energy. So, the proof, the proof that temperature is A*s. Multiply F=ma by meters and you get energy. Multiply F=dQ/ds by seconds, you get Voltage. So, yes, in Physics, it is required that Force is both F = ma and F = dQ/ds = current, and with that required necessity the temperature is A*s and thus, the entropy in thermodynamics is voltage. Yes, that is true, but do not forget that electric charge is not just the charge of electron, charge of proton but also Magnetic Monopole Charge as the Lines of Force in magnetism. It is often stated "Physics abhors a vacuum of thought" and now, physics abhors a foreign entity that does not fit with the other definitions of physics. Entropy never fit into physics as "disorder". Entropy exists, but is better known as Voltage. Because of the sheer oddity and weirdness of entropy as disorder, that many many never felt comfortable with it and said it must be wrong, citing the evidence of Life defying increase in disorder for Life is order. But it turns out, that the only mistake was that entropy was not seen as voltage, and once you see it as voltage, then entropy is not _disorder_ but truly, entropy is _order_ for it is Voltage, afterall. And when you have a Universe that is increasing in Voltage, you have a more ordered Universe. When the concept of entropy came out in physics-- have to check the history-- there was a moment in which someone wrongly thought this stuff-- this entropy stuff was disorder. Why they thought that, I do not know, for it may just well have been a negative sign that was misinterpreted by the founders of Thermodynamics, maybe Carnot, maybe Boltzmann, someone got it backwards and it stuck, until now. Upon reflection I think I know why entropy was thought of as disorder. It was created in a time in which many physicists were asked to prove that all these crazy perpetual motion machines-- patent devices-- be debunked. To debunk all those crazy machines called for a concept that would itself would be an ally, and a good ally is "disorder". If tasked to debunk a crazy perpetual motion machine and we started talking about Voltage, and a universal increase in voltage, would send the exact opposite signal to the crazy machine makers. It is easy in physics to be dyslexia and get something turned around backwards, especially with all the signs, positive, negative. So it is no big shock, that entropy turns out to be INCREASING as a Universal Law, but not increasing in disorder, but increasing in the Universe of Voltage is increasing. And that blends in perfectly with the idea that LIFE is increasing in the universe, for life is just a Capacitor and a capacitor requires voltage. So, in effect, the above is a unification of Thermodynamics to the main body of Physics which is Atomic theory + AP-Maxwell Equations. Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu ::\ ::|:: /:: ::\::|::/:: _ _ (:Y:) - - ::/::|::\:: ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. . \ . . | . /. . . \. . .|. . /. . ..\....|.../... ::\:::|::/:: --------------- ------------- --------------- (Y) ------------- --------------- -------------- ::/:::|::\:: ../....|...\... . . /. . .|. . \. . . / . . | . \ . http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium Commentary:: Alright, for the next edition, 9th, I want Electrochemistry explained with utmost clarity. The world so far has never given a correct explanation of Electrochemistry, for it to be correct, it has to be a reduction to that of the Faraday Law. And the idea of electrochemistry as being the flow of electrons = .5MeV particles is hideously obnoxiously wrong. The Faraday law is the Magnetic lines of force of a bar magnet in motion yields .5MeV monopoles, that jump from the bar magnet into the coiled loop of copper wire and those monopoles are closed loops of .5MeV charge energy which produces the electric current. The flow of electrons is never electricity, for electrons are the muons of 105 MeV. So, here I have to straighten out the absurd understanding of electrochemistry. And it will be at least another year-- 2019 before I start edition 9 of this textbook, so I want to get far advanced as possible before 2019. I have several excellent textbooks of Old Chemistry, (chemistry before it was known that the Real Electron = muon = 105 MeV particle, and the .5 MeV particle is magnetic monopole. (1) Principles of Modern Chemistry, 2nd ed, Oxtoby & Nachtrieb, 1990, pages 376-379, showing pictures of electrochemical battery "unknown hydronium ion concentration", " In a Leclanche dry cell," " A zinc-mercuric oxide dry cell" (2) Chemistry, The Central Science, 5th ed, Brown, LeMay, Bursten, 1991, page 711, "Voltaic cell using a standard hydrogen electrode" (3) Chemistry, A Conceptual Approach, 4th ed, Mortimer, 1979, page 339, "Electrolysis of molten sodium chloride" (4) CHEM ONE, 2nd ed, Waser, Trueblood, Knobler, 1980, page 441, "…., but his countryman, the physicist Alessandro Volta, showed that it was due to the contact of the two dissimilar metals, This led Volta in 1799 to the invention of the electric battery. His famous "pile" was a sequence of disks of silver and zinc in contact with one another, each pair separated from the next by a sheet of heavy paper moistened with salt water. When the disk of zinc at one end of the pile was connected by a wire to the disk of silver at the other end, a current was generated." Alright, for my purpose, to explain that Electrochemistry is nothing more than Faraday's law of thrusting bar magnet yielding a current in a closed loop of wire, is the same as the battery. How am I to do that? And hopefully before 2019? Well I simply intuit that the battery of Volta as described by (4) CHEM ONE, that description makes the entire battery be the thrusting bar magnet, inside the closed loop of wire. How is it possible? Well, to make a battery be Faraday's Law, I need to show that Thrusting Bar Magnet is equal to TWO DISSIMILAR METALS, the silver and zinc above. Now I wish in my education I was given a tour of a magnet factory in the USA. A company that takes metals that are not magnetic and turns them into a magnet. Because, I would love to see how the electrons or ions or atoms or magnetic monopoles are made to -- LINE UP -- inside the metal so that they display magnetism. I have that missing in my education, for I love to see a hands on demonstration how a metal that is non magnetic is turned into a magnet, a permanent magnet. This is what is happening in electrochemistry, the cells of batteries is the same process in which you take a metal that is NonMagnetic and turn it into a magnetic metal. The same process in which iron is nonmagnetic and then turned into a iron magnet is the same process of a Battery that Volta discovered. So it is not that the battery is making electrons move, but rather, the battery is creating magnetism-on-the-move. And that magnetism on the move is creating Magnetic Monopoles. It is these monopoles that are flowing in the copper wire closed loop. Good, good, start, but needs much more clarity,,,, AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-12 14:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0c240911-0ff0-4b95-bf14-a48b3cbfbe02@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #717635 |
Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 19:51:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: Page32, 4-2, Two forces F=ma, F = dQ/ds causes two energies in New Physics /Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017 From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 03:51:11 +0000 Page32, 4-2, Two forces F=ma, F = dQ/ds causes two energies in New Physics /Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017 Alright, time is flying, this is November and need to finish this book before January 2018. Recall in a earlier page of the textbook that I said two dual forces exist in Nature, F = ma and F = dQ/dt (current of electricity or magnetic monopoles). So the solution to thermodynamics, basically is that there are two forms of energy involved. Old Physics called them Kinetic and the other Potential. Since KInetic comes from F = ma, Potential comes from dQ/dt (or some prefer seconds, dQ/ds). Both forces, when moved through distance are energies. So, do we call them as Old Physics would call-- Kinetic Force and Potential Force as current force? Now in Old Physics with their Old Thermodynamics, they had a huge error in thinking, for they viewed Temperature as average Kinetic Energy of all the particles involved in a specific region of Space. That is alright, however, it does not include the Problem of kinetic energy of non-rest-mass particles such as photons. So that Old Physics was narrow-minded with kinetic energy, thinking that photons have no kinetic energy because they have no rest mass. But we all know that photons have kinetic energy even though they have no rest mass, and that is where New Physics steps in with the dual force as dQ/ds, which can be without rest mass and thus form the second type of kinetic energy-- photon radiation. Now that begs for an experiment never done before in Space-- measure the temperature in Space where there is no particles of rest-mass, but a lot of photons present. Old Physics says those photons make no contribution to temperature of that region of space, even though the photons can literally flood the region. New Physics says that the dQ/ds force and force through distance is energy, that the flooding photons contribute to the temperature increase in that region of Space. So here we need an Experiment performed in Outer Space, best near the Sun with its flood of photons. But where there is no rest mass particles, just non-rest-mass photons. And find out if that region has a Temperature due to the photons. So the solution involves the addition of rest mass particles along with non-rest-mass particles Kinetic Energy. In Old Physics they would have in this circumstance Potential Energy U = 1/2 kx^2 and Kinetic Energy KE = 1/2mv^2. And add the two 1/2 kx^2 + 1/2mv^2 = total energy In New Physics we would see the Potential Energy as Kinetic Energy of photon as distance through a force dQ/ds. So in New Physics we would have average kinetic energy of dQ/ds plus average kinetic energy F=ma = total kinetic energy= temperature. Alright, in Halliday and Resnick, Fundamentals of Physics, 3rd edition, 1988, pages 152 and 153 they picture a Block & Spring system, then they give the equation: E = 1/2 kx^2 + 1/2 mv^2 Now if we examine 1/2mv^2 that would be Temperature as Average 1/2mv^2 If we examine 1/2kx^2 that would be Potential Energy and would be the dQ/ds. And, this would be the Charge = Temperature So, what we have is that Temperature is a Energy and with rest mass particles it is the Average 1/2mv^2 But with the photon and charge as temperature, it is the 1/2kx^2 as dQ/ds *meters So, in Old Physics and Chemistry, they had only one term of the Accounting of Temperature. They missed the other term-- photon and charge temperature. The other term is far smaller on Earth, but when near a hot blazing star, the photon charge temperature is very substantial, perhaps not equal to the kinetic temperature, but giving it a close run. So we need that EXPERIMENT performed, and we all know we sent many many spacecraft out to collect data, but here is one that is highest priority. We have a sense that temperature in empty space save for photons is cold, but not as cold as empty space with just a few photons. Now as for the picture:: the Kinetic Temperature is that of collisions, of rest masses The picture of Charge Temperature, is that of photon waves, where the waves-- seen as ribs or wings or fins to a central point moving forward. So the transverse wave of a photon is a rib or wing or fin of the photon. And these ribs or wings, when they get enmeshed with one another, the different frequencies of the two are changed. So in Kinetic Temperature we have collisions, pool or billiard ball physics. In Charge Temperature, we have ribs or wings or fins of transverse waves getting entangled and altering the motion of both. Solution found E = 1/2 kx^2 + 1/2 mv^2 Yes, this is the solution. The problem in Old Physics, why thermodynamics was never able to be included into the "rest of physics" is that it could never reconcile energy with rest mass and energy without rest mass. So what happened is that Thermodynamics built up these pretty laws-- four laws, which in hindsight were the four laws of Maxwell's electricity and magnetism, but never a bridge could be built between them-- why? -- because thermodynamics was only about rest mass, and never about energy with no rest mass. There are two forces in physics, F = ma and F= dQ/ds, one has rest mass, the other has no rest mass. So, that is the solution for energy and temperature, there needs to be two Energies. Alright i want to point out a huge principle of Physics that results from the Unification of all forces as EM force. Something that was in the Old Maxwell Equations but not recognized. It is a Principle of all sciences and is what many would think as philosophical. And this principle comes just after I ruined entropy as "disorder" and showed it was Voltage. So we can say the Principle of Thermodynamics is the Voltage in the Universe is always increasing. And i need to show how increasing voltage is the same as "heat moves always from hot to cold", if that still is true. But the principle I want to talk about now, is what I call-- Everything wants to go in a Circle, Principle. We see it in EM in that magnets are Dipole so the magnetic lines of force sweep back around on the magnet. We see it in a current exists only in a closed loop. We especially see it in astronomy that planets go around Sun, sun goes around galaxy, galaxy goes around local cluster, etc. we see it in atoms where electrons=muons go around nucleus. This tendency for matter to "go around" comes from the EM theory in that you take the derivative of New Ohm's law and you have circle, ellipse math. And a huge consequence of going around in circles is that light waves, photons also are bent in path of motion. And this disputes Doppler redshift as a distance indicator, but rather that light is bent by its own self. This means light shift is not a distance indicator. The days of Newtonian thinking is over-- thinking something is moving in a straightline in Space for long distances. Alright here is a possible physics experiment to help prove whether the fins or wings of one photon intermeshed with a second photon makes the larger frequency photon go smaller. The analog of collisions when the particles have rest mass. We take a beam of colored light hit a screen and locate a spot of contact now shine a lower frequency at that spot. Now we shine both beams at the spot where the higher frequency is inside the lower and we can recognize both from their color. Now we look to see if the contact spot of higher frequency has shifted, moved from the spot wherein the beam hit when alone. If the spot shifted, means photons entangle and cause their path to alter, much like a collision of pool table balls. Defining fin/wings of Light Wave & Experiment of lightwave collision Now this sideswiping or wave collision is what is going to explain Doppler shift-- not as Doppler, but as Wave Collision where one photon alters the wavetrain frequency of another, and shifting its track. And we mistakenly think it is caused by the motion of where the light wave was created. Now, I outlined an Experiment to prove this occurs in Light Waves. Briefly again, the experiment involves two different colored light beams. We mark a spot on the wall where the one beam is focused, say a laser color of white. Then we shoot a second different color of light beam, say green. Now we shoot both, so there is collision of both and we see if the spot for the white has shifted and moved. Now I suspect I have immediate proof of the above from astronomy. There was a survey done decades ago, and found that the galaxies formed a perfect circle ring. Some thought it was a optics problem that the ring emerged. But, what I believe causes the Ring-- is due to a Cosmic Statistic of the averaging of all the photons traveling in an Atom Totality creates a intrinsic Ring. See below for more on this Ring. Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.math From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2011 11:31:18 -0700 (PDT) Local: Sat, Oct 8 2011 1:31 pm Subject: fiberglass experiment Chapt8 Experiment that shows what redshift really is #40 Atom Totality theory 5th ed. Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Remove | Report this message | Find messages by this author I am finding out that chapters with experiments involved can tend to be far longer than chapters without experiments. But that is a good sign. Let this be the last post of chapter8 and let me get to chapter9 where I prove that lightwaves cannot be Doppler shifted and in future editions of this book let me reverse the order so that the proof of no Doppler shift possible on light precedes the fiberglass experiment. Subject: how to make sense of the largest blueshift ever reported Let me first start off by saying that neither the Big Bang nor the Atom Totality theories are comfortable with reported large blueshifts from distant galaxies. Both theories predict a predominance of redshifts. Both are comfortable with a few blueshifts in nearby local galaxies. Blueshifts of rotation are expected. And blueshifts of Andromeda and Barnard star is acceptable, for they are tiny blueshifts and nearby. But as for this report: --- quoting about a quasar blueshift --- http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005ApJ...618... We have obtained optical intermediate-resolution spectra (R=3000) of the narrow-line quasars DMS 0059-0055 and PG 1543+489. The [O III] emission line in DMS 0059-0055 is blueshifted by 880 km s-1 relative to Hbeta. We also confirm that the [O III] emission line in PG 1543+489 has a relative blueshift of 1150 km s-1. These two narrow- line quasars show the largest [O III] blueshifts known to date among type 1 active galactic nuclei (AGNs). --- end quoting --- Both theories are uncomfortable with that report. Could it be a report in error? The Atom Totality theory may be able to explain that in that the distance in the Atom Totality is far shrunk from distances of the Big Bang theory. In the Atom Totality theory 400 million light years is the end of the Cosmos and so a lot of what we thought were far away, was not that far away. And in the Atom Totality, a lobe shape of the 5f6 are like long cigar shapes and so hot blue stars in a galaxy can appear bluish for a blueshift. Or, could it be what the Wikipedia says about a gravitational lens blueshift only in this situation a EM lens blueshift? --- quoting Wikipedia on redshift --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift Finally, gravitational redshifts are a relativistic effect observed in electromagnetic radiation moving out of gravitational fields. Conversely, a decrease in wavelength is called blue shift and is generally seen when a light- emitting object moves toward an observer or when electromagnetic radiation moves into a gravitational field. --- end quoting Wikipedia --- So that maybe, just maybe, the EM lens of a Atom Totality has a band of blueshifted galaxies at a special distance from Earth. Just like in that survey where a "ring structure" appears and not knowing if it is an intrinsic ring. So maybe, just maybe, the Atom Totality theory with a predominance of redshift has a lens, such that a optical affect occurrs so that a Cosmic ring of blueshifts occurrs at a special distance from earth. In summary, essentially the Big Bang and the Atom Totality predict vast and widespread and the overwhelming majority of shifts to be redshift, and a rarity of blueshifts. Just as the fiberglass window panel sees every white light redshifted, that only the local galaxies and stars have a chance of a blueshift. But because the EM lens of the Atom Totality is a lens of a optical affect, that there is a possibility that at a certain distance, the white light becomes blueshifted in a halo ring affect. Subject: Re: how to make sense of the largest blueshift ever reported - Show quoted text - Sorry, I should have referenced this "survey" and the "halo ring of the survey". In this survey a curious ring is found, and whether it is intrinsic or not? --- quoting --- http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/papers/LSS/ The third layer (0.01 < z < 0.02) is dominated by the P-P supercluster (left side of image) and the P-I supercluster extending up into the ZoA terminating as the Great Attractor region (notably Abell 3627) disappears behind a wall of Milky Way stars. An intriguing "ring" or chain of galaxies seems to circle/extend from the northern to the southern Galactic hemisphere (see also Figure 1). It is unknown whether this ring-like structure is physically associated with the cosmic web or an artifact of projection. --- end quoting --- So I ask the question whether the above Harvard furthest distant blueshift is a galaxy member belonging to this ring? http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005ApJ...618... So if the Harvard quasar blueshift is a member of the Caltech survey reported ring structure, then we may have solved a troublesome report. The solution is that the Cosmos has ring structure which is due to a EM lens of the Atom Totality. --- end quoting one of my old posts --- Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu ::\ ::|:: /:: ::\::|::/:: _ _ (:Y:) - - ::/::|::\:: ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. . \ . . | . /. . . \. . .|. . /. . ..\....|.../... ::\:::|::/:: --------------- ------------- --------------- (Y) ------------- --------------- -------------- ::/:::|::\:: ../....|...\... . . /. . .|. . \. . . / . . | . \ . http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium Commentary-- Reader maybe confused by commentary, as it seems non sequitur of the text. My reason for commentary, is that when writing a textbook, I often make discoveries that upsets the textbook, so to address the new discoveries, I add them at the end of pages of the text and they may appear out of place. In 2017, when writing this 8th edition, I discovered that the Real Electron = muon = 105 MeV and was not what causes electric current. And that meant the little particle the .5 MeV particle was a Magnetic Monopole, a light wave or neutrino dressed up with a charge energy of .5 MeV, and in fact quantum spin is this .5 MeV, and this particle is what causes electricity and electric current. Rather than start over with the 8th edition, I chose to add this new knowledge via Commentary, at the end of pages of text. Now today I wanted to make progress on explaining Electrochemistry and how is it that a battery is another form of Faraday's Law of a thrusting bar magnet through a closed loop of copper wire? How does a battery become a Faraday Law? Well, to do that, you have to drop the idea of ions as electrons, and, as the motion of electrons is electric current. You have to drop that idea altogether. And what is moving is the Monopole of .5 MeV, whereas the electrons and ions and molecules are mostly all at rest , or a tiny bit of motion, not much but a tiny bit. So, what happens in Electrochemistry of a battery? What is the thrusting bar magnet in a battery? That is the big question. And the answer is, that the entire battery inside is a bar magnet thrusting in the closed loop of wire. How can that be? If you read in Wikipedia, how it is that a permanent magnet is formed, you will understand how a battery is a magnet, a thrusting magnet at that. Wikipedia says in making a permanent magnet:: " Heating the object above its Curie Temperature, allowing it to cool in a magnetic field and hammering it as it cools. This is the most effective method and is similar to the industrial processes used to create permanent magnets." "Placing the item in an external magnetic field will result in the item retaining some of the magnetism on removal. Vibration has been shown to increase the effect." Alright, so we have a battery of Volta, of silver and zinc with electrolyte solution in between. Can you see, or visualize that the silver and zinc in solution is the same, very same thing as the spins of the electrons= muons. Can you see that a battery is a means of making electron spins of atoms line up to form a permanent magnetic field as the battery itself and because the battery has some fluid motion, not much motion needed but some fluid motion of electrolyte, this becomes the thrust of a magnet in Faraday's law. So, the true explanation of how a battery produces electric current, is not about electrons or ions in motion, but about the battery becoming a permanent bar magnet and the small amount of motion of the battery electrolyte is the thrust of the magnetic field onto the copper wire circuit. So the battery becomes a bar magnet, thrusting, and causes magnetic monopoles to enter the copper wire circuit yielding electric current. Now, let me review how those four chemistry textbooks talk about ferromagnetism, for that is what a battery is in electrochemistry, a battery is a thrusting bar magnet. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-13 03:20 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test |
| Message-ID | <pusj63$sgu$5@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #717966 |
Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails: >Alright, time is flying, this is November and need to finish this book >before January 2018. Whoops!
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web