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

Groups > sci.physics > #714875 > unrolled thread

thought I found the 8, I needed in Faraday law of muon to proton ratio of 105 to 840 in the torus density. But no, for rather it appears the 8, to be in Lewis structure

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  thought I found the 8, I needed in Faraday law of muon to proton ratio of 105 to 840 in the torus density. But no, for rather it appears the 8, to be in Lewis structure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-26 14:03 -0800
    Octet rule Re: thought I found the 8, I needed in Faraday law of muon to proton ratio of 105 to 840 in the torus density. But no, for rather it appears the 8, to be in Lewis structure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 13:25 -0800
    Re: thought I found the 8, I needed in Faraday law of muon to proton ratio of 105 to 840 in the torus density. But no, for rather it appears the 8, to be in Lewis structure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 13:26 -0800
      Re: thought I found the 8, I needed in Faraday law of muon to proton ratio of 105 to 840 in the torus density. But no, for rather it appears the 8, to be in Lewis structure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 13:39 -0800
        Re: thought I found the 8, I needed in Faraday law of muon to proton ratio of 105 to 840 in the torus density. But no, for rather it appears the 8, to be in Lewis structure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 14:59 -0800
          NO molecule Re: complementary bonding 6 & 8 based Lewis structure //Faraday law of muon to proton ratio of 105MeV to 840MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 18:18 -0800
            seeing the chemical covalent bond as the joining together of half toruses in Faraday Law //Faraday law of muon to proton ratio of 105MeV to 840MeV Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-02 16:03 -0800
              geometry of P suborbitals-- are they toruses and how to make maximum electricity Re: seeing the chemical covalent bond as the joining together of half toruses in Faraday Law Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-02 20:51 -0800
                Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-04 04:52 +0000
                Re: geometry of P suborbitals-- are they toruses and how to make maximum electricity Re: seeing the chemical covalent bond as the joining together of half toruses in Faraday Law Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 22:34 -0800
                  Re: Archimedes "front oage hog" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-04 22:22 +0000

#714875 — thought I found the 8, I needed in Faraday law of muon to proton ratio of 105 to 840 in the torus density. But no, for rather it appears the 8, to be in Lewis structure

I have to research the Lewis structure again. I have the 6 forming the basis of bonding in Chemistry while Lewis had 8 as the basis. The 6 is from 6 valence muons of the P orbital. While Lewis seems to want to include the S and P orbitals forming 8.

I could not find that magical 8 in pure math of torus geometry.

So that forces me to look elsewhere, and no better place is there than the 8 in Lewis energy structure.

Now I can be sold on the Lewis 8 provided I see an example of where the Hund's Rule applies to a S then P_x, P_y, P_z all four having just one valence muon before the next element higher fills in the pairing of muons.

If my memory holds, I remember about three or more exceptions to Hund's Rule.

And commonsense tells me that a fake theory of Lewis structure based on 8 rather than 6, could not have lasted for a century long if it was totally void of truth.

I am not going to drop my 6 basis, but rather, see if the 8 basis can be acceptable.

I need to answer this vital question of the number 8 in Faraday Law before January 1 , 2019 so I can commence with the 9th edition of Atom Totality.

Wish me luck.

AP

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#715787 — Octet rule Re: thought I found the 8, I needed in Faraday law of muon to proton ratio of 105 to 840 in the torus density. But no, for rather it appears the 8, to be in Lewis structure

I have to research the Octet Rule.

On Monday, November 26, 2018 at 4:03:59 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> I have to research the Lewis structure again. I have the 6 forming the basis of bonding in Chemistry while Lewis had 8 as the basis. The 6 is from 6 valence muons of the P orbital. While Lewis seems to want to include the S and P orbitals forming 8.
> 
> I could not find that magical 8 in pure math of torus geometry.
> 
> So that forces me to look elsewhere, and no better place is there than the 8 in Lewis energy structure.
> 
> Now I can be sold on the Lewis 8 provided I see an example of where the Hund's Rule applies to a S then P_x, P_y, P_z all four having just one valence muon before the next element higher fills in the pairing of muons.
> 
> If my memory holds, I remember about three or more exceptions to Hund's Rule.
> 
> And commonsense tells me that a fake theory of Lewis structure based on 8 rather than 6, could not have lasted for a century long if it was totally void of truth.
> 
> I am not going to drop my 6 basis, but rather, see if the 8 basis can be acceptable.
> 
> I need to answer this vital question of the number 8 in Faraday Law before January 1 , 2019 so I can commence with the 9th edition of Atom Totality.
> 
> Wish me luck.
> 
> AP

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

#715788

On Monday, November 26, 2018 at 8:45:50 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

—-quoting Wikipedia—- 

The octet rule is a chemical rule of thumb that reflects observation that atoms of main-group elements tend to combine in such a way that each atom has eight electrons in its valence shell, giving it the same electron configuration as a noble gas. The rule is especially applicable to carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and the halogens, but also to metals such as sodium or magnesium. 

—- end quote —- 

Possible the bonding rule is based upon 6 while an energy rule is based on 8. 

AP 

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

#715789

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:35:52 -0800 (PST)

Subject: tying together physics and chemistry as never before //Faraday law of
 muon to proton ratio of 105MeV to 840MeV
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 21:35:53 +0000

tying together physics and chemistry as never before //Faraday law of muon to proton ratio of 105MeV to 840MeV

- hide quoted text -
On Monday, November 26, 2018 at 8:45:50 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> —-quoting Wikipedia—- 
> 
> The octet rule is a chemical rule of thumb that reflects observation that atoms of main-group elements tend to combine in such a way that each atom has eight electrons in its valence shell, giving it the same electron configuration as a noble gas. The rule is especially applicable to carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and the halogens, but also to metals such as sodium or magnesium. 
> 
> —- end quote —- 
> 
> Possible the bonding rule is based upon 6 while an energy rule is based on 8. 
> 

I think I can explain the reason the proton is 840MeV versus electron at 105MeV as a ratio of 8 to 1 via Angular Momentum but also in the Chemistry Table of Elements, that the orbital structure is a S orbital with a P orbital of a ratio of 8 to 1 which is known as the Octet Rule. 

So here I am tying together Physics and Chemistry as they have never been tied together before. 

AP 

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

#716045

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2018 14:40:26 -0800 (PST)

Subject: complementary bonding 6 & 8 based Lewis structure //Faraday law of
 muon to proton ratio of 105MeV to 840MeV
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2018 22:40:27 +0000

complementary bonding 6 & 8 based Lewis structure //Faraday law of muon to proton ratio of 105MeV to 840MeV

Alright, I have until January 1, 2019 to solve this problem of the 8 in Faraday's Law. That same 8 is the ratio of Proton mass 840MeV to Muon mass = real electron = 105MeV and the .5MeV particle was Dirac's long sought for magnetic monopole. 

What this all means is that the number 8 is crucial number inside of Faraday's law. 

At first I thought the 8 would come from an experiment that the windings of the coil has to be 8 times the mass of the windings of the magnet. A 8 to 1 ratio of coil to magnet. 

But now that I am serious in finding out where the 8 to 1 is in Faraday's law, I come back to Chemistry with their Lewis structure and their Octet rule. I do not accept the Lewis structure based on 8, but rather based on 6 because of molecules such as CO is the strongest bonded and that could only be true if based on 6, not 8. Also N2 is so strong because a bonding based on 6 not 8 would make it so. 

So chemistry bonding of Lewis structure is a rule of 6, not 8. But then for Faraday's law and for energy levels-- see CHEM ONE, Waser,Trueblood, Knobler, 2nd edition, 1980, page 327 Figure 16-3 Schematic Energy-Level Diagram for a Many-Electron Atom. 

So, what I have come to a conclusion on this problem of -- is it 8 or is it 6. The conclusion I come to is seen in mathematics of complementarity. Take a cube and a octahedron, the cube has 6 faces yet has 8 vertices, while the octahedron has 8 faces and 6 vertices. 

Do you see something in that complementarity? Probably not. What I see is that the geometry is flexible, can shift from 8 to 6 or from 6 to 8. The geometry is so flexible that in carbon, we can have 6 based carbon bonding in graphite, yet have 8 based in carbon of diamond. 

What I am introducing into Chemistry for the first time is the idea that geometry of bonding can shift from 8 based to 6 based or from 6 based to 8 based. 

This would mean I found the 8 to 1 ratio in Faraday's law, however, it now places a new burden on me to find a 6 to 1 ratio in Faraday's Law. So just when you think you won the total battle, up comes a newer one. 

AP 

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

#716100 — NO molecule Re: complementary bonding 6 & 8 based Lewis structure //Faraday law of muon to proton ratio of 105MeV to 840MeV

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2018 18:03:41 -0800 (PST)

Subject: NO molecule Re: complementary bonding 6 & 8 based Lewis structure
 //Faraday law of muon to proton ratio of 105MeV to 840MeV
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2018 02:03:41 +0000

NO molecule Re: complementary bonding 6 & 8 based Lewis structure //Faraday law of muon to proton ratio of 105MeV to 840MeV

- hide quoted text -
On Saturday, December 1, 2018 at 4:40:34 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> Alright, I have until January 1, 2019 to solve this problem of the 8 in Faraday's Law. That same 8 is the ratio of Proton mass 840MeV to Muon mass = real electron = 105MeV and the .5MeV particle was Dirac's long sought for magnetic monopole. 
> 
> What this all means is that the number 8 is crucial number inside of Faraday's law. 
> 
> At first I thought the 8 would come from an experiment that the windings of the coil has to be 8 times the mass of the windings of the magnet. A 8 to 1 ratio of coil to magnet. 
> 
> But now that I am serious in finding out where the 8 to 1 is in Faraday's law, I come back to Chemistry with their Lewis structure and their Octet rule. I do not accept the Lewis structure based on 8, but rather based on 6 because of molecules such as CO is the strongest bonded and that could only be true if based on 6, not 8. Also N2 is so strong because a bonding based on 6 not 8 would make it so. 
> 
> So chemistry bonding of Lewis structure is a rule of 6, not 8. But then for Faraday's law and for energy levels-- see CHEM ONE, Waser,Trueblood, Knobler, 2nd edition, 1980, page 327 Figure 16-3 Schematic Energy-Level Diagram for a Many-Electron Atom. 
> 
> So, what I have come to a conclusion on this problem of -- is it 8 or is it 6. The conclusion I come to is seen in mathematics of complementarity. Take a cube and a octahedron, the cube has 6 faces yet has 8 vertices, while the octahedron has 8 faces and 6 vertices. 
> 
> Do you see something in that complementarity? Probably not. What I see is that the geometry is flexible, can shift from 8 to 6 or from 6 to 8. The geometry is so flexible that in carbon, we can have 6 based carbon bonding in graphite, yet have 8 based in carbon of diamond. 
> 
> What I am introducing into Chemistry for the first time is the idea that geometry of bonding can shift from 8 based to 6 based or from 6 based to 8 based. 
> 
> This would mean I found the 8 to 1 ratio in Faraday's law, however, it now places a new burden on me to find a 6 to 1 ratio in Faraday's Law. So just when you think you won the total battle, up comes a newer one. 
> 

Now in Principles of Modern Chemistry, Oxtoby & Nachtrieb, 2nd edition, 1990 on page 63 enumerates the breakdown of the Octet Rule. And they spell out three cases where the rule breaks-down 

Case 1: Odd-Electron Molecules 
Case 2: Octet-Deficient Molecules 
Case 3: Valence Shell Expansion 

The authors cite for example in case 1 as the NO molecule, nitrogen oxide molecule where nitrogen has 5 and oxygen 8 valence muons in (Lewis based on 8) but have 3 and 4 respectively based on AP 6 structure. 

Anyway, the Octet Rule and Lewis structure is the one rule that I know of in all of science wherein more than 50% of the time, the rule fails, but here we are in 2018, and still using this rule as if a gift from the gods. 

Can the new found wisdom of atomic structure is based on a Faraday Law in action of its muons with protons producing magnetic monopoles to grow each and every atom shed light on why NO would violate the Octet Rule? 

I think so, in the idea that the bonding in chemistry is for the purpose of joining together more proton windings of a coil and windings of muons as bar magnet to produce maximum electricity inside each and every atom and each and every molecule. 

So the reason that NO is a bonded molecule having 3 valence muons of N attached to 4 valence muons of O to form NO is that the 7 muons of 7 protons forming a torus of windings with 7 valence muons being the bar magnet. 

So in this new way of looking at Atoms and Molecules as Faraday's Law in action wanting maximum electricity produced, calls for the NO molecule to exist and be very stable. 

But, let me dwell more on the idea, that the Lewis structure and Octet Rule was kept so very very long, when even at the outset, over 50% of all cases violate the Lewis structure. What this says about science, is that we are more inclined to accept as true that which is easy and comfortable, even though it is patently false. 

AP 

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

#716301 — seeing the chemical covalent bond as the joining together of half toruses in Faraday Law //Faraday law of muon to proton ratio of 105MeV to 840MeV

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2018 22:13:35 -0800 (PST)

Subject: more on NO molecule Re: complementary bonding 6 & 8 based Lewis
 structure //Faraday law of muon to proton ratio of 105MeV to 840MeV
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2018 06:13:36 +0000

more on NO molecule Re: complementary bonding 6 & 8 based Lewis structure //Faraday law of muon to proton ratio of 105MeV to 840MeV

So the way I envision the true internal structure of atoms and bonded molecules is a huge Faraday Law machinery going on inside atoms. The proton is 840MeV and is 8 windings and the valence muon is 105MeV and is one winding and is the bar magnet. So in helium you have two half tori of one muon with attendant proton and the same with the other proton and these half tori come together to form one complete torus with two magnets going through the torus. The torus is 8 + 8 windings of protons. 

Now in neon you have an inner full torus of 16 windings then another full torus of the 2s and 2p for 2*8 + 6*8 = 64 windings and you have 10 muons as bar magnets. 

So when we get to nitrogen oxide NO molecule we have 3 valence muons in N and 4 in O, an odd number which the Lewis structure cannot handle, even if based on 6 rather than 8. So what happens with NO to form such a stable molecule? Well, what I imagine is that the 7 muons with attendant 7 protons that the 7 protons form a torus of 7*8 + 2*8 = 72 windings and that the 7 valence muons form a 7 windings bar magnet. 

So what I need to confirm is an expert in electrical engineering who knows how to construct Faraday's law with windings of coil and bar magnet and see if maximum electricity can result from a 3+4 bonding. 

AP 

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2018 13:23:18 -0800 (PST)

Subject: hexagon vs. cubic complementary bonding 6 & 8 based Lewis structure
 //Faraday law of muon to proton ratio of 105MeV to 840MeV
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2018 21:23:18 +0000

hexagon vs. cubic complementary bonding 6 & 8 based Lewis structure //Faraday law of muon to proton ratio of 105MeV to 840MeV

Now going back to Bond Dissociation Energies we have for some odd+even valences 

CN = 770 kJ/mol 
NO = 630 
FO = 222 
FC = 536 

So a AP structure based on 6 rather than 8 , oxygen has 4, fluorine has 5, carbon has 2, nitrogen has 3 

CN would be 2+3=5 
NO would be 3+4=7 
FO would be 5 +4 =9 
FC would be 5+2 = 7 

The idea here is that the structure is flexible and not rigid, so that an extra valence muon with attendant proton goes to making more windings on the coil of Faraday law or the bar magnet coil of Faraday law. 

What tells me this flexibility is seen in carbon graphite versus carbon diamond. The 6 in graphite in a hexagonal ring while diamond is 8 of a cube vertices. A hexagon in 2D while a cube is 3D. 

AP 


Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2018 15:56:15 -0800 (PST)

Subject: seeing the chemical covalent bond as the joining together of half
 toruses in Faraday Law
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2018 23:56:15 +0000

seeing the chemical covalent bond as the joining together of half toruses in Faraday Law

So here, what I want to see is Chemistry bonding as it relates to toruses, such as half a torus of one atom like hydrogen, joining with the half torus of another hydrogen atom forming a full torus and being H2 molecule. 

The Faraday law can occur in a half torus, and so the picture is that a Chemistry bond such as H2 is when two half toruses join together to form a full torus-- two single atoms joining to form a molecule. 

In the case of Nitrogen has three half toruses in the 2P, and when another Nitrogen atom comes along and bonds as N2, each of those three half toruses becomes three full toruses or becomes one larger full torus of 6 valence muons with attendant 6 protons. 

You see, I would like to think that the chemical bonding of covalent is the joining together of toruses to form full toruses or bigger toruses. All for the sake of producing maximum electricity. So I need an expert electrical engineer to form maximum electric generators given proton windings and muons as bar magnets. 

AP 

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

#716342 — geometry of P suborbitals-- are they toruses and how to make maximum electricity Re: seeing the chemical covalent bond as the joining together of half toruses in Faraday Law

Alright in Mortimer's CHEMISTRY, a conceptual approach, 4th ed., 1979, pages 45-47 shows pictures of the atomic geometry of atoms with the p orbital and d orbital. On page 47, the 3d_z^2 is a torus in the xy plane and lobes in the z axis.

On page 45 is the P orbitals and one has to wonder if each of those is a torus, so that each valence muon of say neon is a half torus and when you fill a suborbital makes it a full torus.

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. Can they criss cross one another with the Faraday Law bar magnet circulating inside these torus walls.

AP

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

#716519 — Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

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

>Subject: Re: does Stillwell like Olcott believe 10 OR 2 = 12 as well as 
>the rest of the math community that embraces Boole Re: Is Stillwell a 
>**Rascist Mathematician** for not acknowleding AP's proof ellipse

>Is Stillwell as dumb as Pete Olcott with his Boole logic of 10 OR 2 = 12
>while 10 AND 2 = 8. No wonder Stillwell never amounted to much in
>mathematics other than write books of what others "thought".

Aww, CRAP! Plutonium failed yet again! Who is going to clean it up this
time?

Not only does the stupid dead guy George Boole keep on kicking Plutonium's
ass at logic, Plutonium doesn't even know how to play the game! Nobody
who uses Boolean logic would EVER say  10 OR 2 = 12 or 10 AND 2 = 8.
Maybe Plutonium doesn't even know the difference between Boolean OR/AND
and addition/subtraction? How dumb and stoopid is that, Al?


"I cannot believe how incredibly stupid Archie-Poo is.  I mean rock-hard
stupid.  Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid.  Surface of Venus
under 80 atmospheres of red hot carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid vapor
dehydrated for 300 million years rock-hard stupid.  Stupid so stupid that
it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different sensorium of
stupid.  Archie-Poo is trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid.  Stupid so
collapsed upon itself that it is within its own Schwarzschild radius.  
Black hole stupid.  Stupid gotten so dense and massive that no intellect
can escape.  Singularity stupid. Archie-Poo emits more stupid/second than
our entire galaxy otherwise emits stupid/year.  Quasar stupid.  Nothing
else in the universe can be this stupid.  Archie-Poo is an oozingly
putrescent primordial fragment from the original Big Bang of Stupid, a
pure essence of stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond
the laws of physics that define maximally extrapolated hypergeometric
n-dimensional backgroundless stupid as we can imagine it.  Archie-Poo is
Planck stupid, a quantum foam of stupid, a vacuum decay of stupid, a grand
unified theory of stupid.

Archie-Poo is the epitome of stupidity, the epiphany of stupid, the
apotheosis of stupidity.  Archie-poo is stooopid."

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

#716528 — Re: geometry of P suborbitals-- are they toruses and how to make maximum electricity Re: seeing the chemical covalent bond as the joining together of half toruses in Faraday Law

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 22:30:23 -0800 (PST)

Subject: do I have the muon and proton switched around in Faraday's law Re:
 seeing the chemical covalent bond as the joining together of half toruses in
 Faraday Law
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2018 06:30:23 +0000

do I have the muon and proton switched around in Faraday's law Re: seeing the chemical covalent bond as the joining together of half toruses in Faraday Law

Now looking at electric generators, I may have the muon role and proton role backwards. Some pictures show the magnets as the most massive part. If the magnet is the most massive part of electrical generators then the protons would be the bar magnets of Faraday Law, leaving the muons forming closed loops. 

AP 

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

#716639 — Re: Archimedes "front oage hog" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

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

Michael Moroney         wrote:
Dec 3 (15 hours ago)

> "Village Idiot Archimedes Plutonium"


Christensen, Moroney, Stuckelberger, QBWR mock and deride Archimedes
Plutonium for not seeing ellipse is always a conic Re: Archimedes
Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

Archie, you have had many months to answer Dan's simple test! You have a
big fat zero so far! Why aren't you answering this test???


> Use any aids. Answer in the space provided.
>
> 1. What is the sine of 45 degrees to 3 decimal places?    ____________
>  
> 2. True or false:  10^604 = 0    ____________
>  
> 3. If A is true and B is false, then A AND B is ____________ (true or false).
>
> 4. If A is true and B is true, then A OR B is ____________ (true or false).
>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web