Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #710955 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-11-01 17:06 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-12-13 02:22 -0800 |
| Articles | 16 on this page of 36 — 5 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
complete my modeling of diamond & graphite// TRUE CHEMISTRY-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV , by Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 17:06 -0700
Re: complete my modeling of diamond & graphite// TRUE CHEMISTRY-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV , by Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-02 10:51 -0700
Re: complete my modeling of diamond & graphite// TRUE CHEMISTRY-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV , by Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 14:52 -0700
Re: complete my modeling of diamond & graphite// TRUE CHEMISTRY-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV , by Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 21:07 -0700
Re: complete my modeling of diamond & graphite// TRUE CHEMISTRY-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV , by Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 18:03 -0800
Re: complete my modeling of diamond & graphite// TRUE CHEMISTRY-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV , by Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 18:23 -0800
Re: complete my modeling of diamond & graphite// TRUE CHEMISTRY-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV , by Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 11:41 -0800
Re: complete my modeling of diamond & graphite// TRUE CHEMISTRY-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV , by Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-07 19:09 -0800
Re: complete my modeling of diamond & graphite// TRUE CHEMISTRY-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV , by Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-08 10:42 -0800
Re: complete my modeling of diamond & graphite// TRUE CHEMISTRY-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV , by Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-10 13:06 -0800
Re: complete my modeling of diamond & graphite// TRUE CHEMISTRY-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV , by Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 12:15 -0800
Re: complete my modeling of diamond & graphite// TRUE CHEMISTRY-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV , by Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-13 13:35 -0800
Re: complete my modeling of diamond & graphite// TRUE CHEMISTRY-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV , by Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-14 11:38 -0800
Re: complete my modeling of diamond & graphite// TRUE CHEMISTRY-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV , by Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-15 19:33 -0800
Re: complete my modeling of diamond & graphite// TRUE CHEMISTRY-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV , by Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-16 19:15 -0800
Re: complete my modeling of diamond & graphite// TRUE CHEMISTRY-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV , by Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-17 17:40 -0800
Re: complete my modeling of diamond & graphite// TRUE CHEMISTRY-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV , by Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-18 18:31 -0800
Re: complete my modeling of diamond & graphite// TRUE CHEMISTRY-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV , by Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-21 18:18 -0800
Re: complete my modeling of diamond & graphite// TRUE CHEMISTRY-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV , by Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-24 18:28 -0800
Re: complete my modeling of diamond & graphite// TRUE CHEMISTRY-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV , by Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-25 15:58 -0800
Re: complete my modeling of diamond & graphite// TRUE CHEMISTRY-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV , by Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-26 13:28 -0800
Re: complete my modeling of diamond & graphite// TRUE CHEMISTRY-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV , by Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-27 16:45 -0800
Re: complete my modeling of diamond & graphite// TRUE CHEMISTRY-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV , by Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-28 13:42 -0800
Re: complete my modeling of diamond & graphite// TRUE CHEMISTRY-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV , by Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 14:21 -0800
Re: complete my modeling of diamond & graphite// TRUE CHEMISTRY-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV , by Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 20:44 -0800
Re: complete my modeling of diamond & graphite// TRUE CHEMISTRY-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV , by Archimedes Plutonium moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-02 17:45 +0000
Re: complete my modeling of diamond & graphite// TRUE CHEMISTRY-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV , by Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-02 18:22 -0800
Re: complete my modeling of diamond & graphite// TRUE CHEMISTRY-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV , by Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 13:58 -0800
Re: complete my modeling of diamond & graphite// TRUE CHEMISTRY-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV , by Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 14:42 -0800
Re: complete my modeling of diamond & graphite// TRUE CHEMISTRY-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV , by Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 21:42 -0800
Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-12 05:59 +0000
Re: complete my modeling of diamond & graphite// TRUE CHEMISTRY-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV , by Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 19:05 -0800
Re: Archimedes "chatterbox" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney - 2018-12-13 05:31 +0000
Re: Archimedes "chatterbox" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test Mathedman <Mathedman@hotmail.com> - 2018-12-13 08:30 -0600
Re: complete my modeling of diamond & graphite// TRUE CHEMISTRY-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV , by Archimedes Plutonium poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-12-12 21:52 -0800
Re: complete my modeling of diamond & graphite// TRUE CHEMISTRY-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV , by Archimedes Plutonium poraty6@gmail.com - 2018-12-13 02:22 -0800
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-26 13:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <15f16fcf-02c3-496f-8e81-b4d85795922b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #714734 |
Page22 Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 15:17:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: new understanding of how stars and Sun shine with energy-- RSMM// I need my old RSNM theory and HYASYS theory in light of discovery Real Electron=105MeV From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2018 23:17:58 +0000 new understanding of how stars and Sun shine with energy-- RSMM// I need my old RSNM theory and HYASYS theory in light of discovery Real Electron=105MeV Alright good, the greatest physicist of the 20th century was Dirac. Yet the dumb stupid people in physics followed Einstein. This is a warning to all future generations. If you love science, you probably love a scientist, and if you pick the correct scientist to admire, you probably will succeed. But, if you pick a bozo of science to admire, you probably will end up just frustrated in the end. Dirac had the superior physics mind in the 1900s, and he left with two burning, yes burning questions-- both seen in his Directions of Physics book. The question of Magnetic Monopole, and the question of what I have dubbed RSNM. Now, let me relate to you, my own personal history, so future historians will not mess that up (hopefully). On the month of the discovery of Atom Totality theory in 1990, I first learned of Dirac's Directions in Physics and read it and realized that Dirac was the closest of all physicists to a Atom Totality theory-- with his New Radioactivities, a nonconservation idea in his book. But, I accepted fully his idea of a magnetic monopole and from 1990 on to about 2016 I fully accepted Dirac's monopole, and then, because I could never find this monopole from 1990 to 2016, while writing my book Atom Totality 8th edition, that in 2016 I reversed my stance on the Dirac monopole and gave up, that it did not exist. So from 1990 to 2016 I believed wholeheartedly that Dirac's monopole existed, but because I could not find anything to be the monopole in all those years, I gave up in 2016. But then, in 2016 I discovered that the proton at 938 was just a tiny percentage off of being 945 as 9 muons. To me, a .7% off is like being spot on, for my mind is not clouded as almost every physicist of my generation has a clouded mind. For I know that physics, when it is 945 and experiments fetch 938, is not the experiments that tell the story, but rather the .7% that tells the story. So, in 2016 I was writing the book Atom Totality and had dismissed Dirac's monopole for the first time in my life I dismissed something of Dirac. Even going so far as to say-- you cannot have a monopole and have the Maxwell Equations. That is how far my mind can swing-- totally devoted to Dirac, and once broken swing so vastly in the opposite direction. A good mind in science has to be prepared for swing of thought. Anyway, my discovery of 9muons = 1 proton in 2016 was a big discovery, but sadly, I had to wait another full year before my mind realized, that the Real Proton had to be not 945, but rather had to be 840 MeV, so that a Real Electron = 105 MeV. So in 2016 I discovered the 1 proton = 9 muons. In 2017, my mind was able to process that knowledge in realizing that the .5 MeV particle is not the electron, no, never is the .5 MeV an electron. So, here, in 2017, my mind for the first time subtracted the 105 MeV from the proton at 945 giving me the Real Proton = 840 MeV. So, on that fateful day in 2017, I subtracted 105 MeV from 945MeV and got a Real Proton = 840 MeV and the Real Electron = 105 MeV. How could I instantly justify that? Almost as fast as I discovered that, I realized this had to be true because of Chemistry bonding, for you cannot get a covalent bond in chemistry by pushing around 938 versus .5, that it takes 840 versus 105 for bonding in chemistry. But, for the few days after I had the Real Electron and Real Proton, I was begging for-- what in the world is the .5 MeV particle, if not the electron? Then, I realized good old Dirac was back again, and here is his magnetic monopoles in blazing glory, for they are all around us, all the time. So, that leaves me here in 2018, with Dirac's last-- wish list-- his New Radioactivity, that defies conservation of energy, yes defies conservation and read it yourself in his book Directions in Physics. Dirac's New Radioactivities is what I now call RSNM, radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. Only let me tweak that a bit, for it is too much energy spontaneously created from Nature with a neutron, let me call it the RSMM for Radioactive Spontaneous Monopole Materialization. Every time a muon inside an atom plunges through its 1proton=8muons as a atomic closed wire, obeys Faradays Law and as that muon plunges through, a monopole in that proton is created, now a monopole has energy, and what that monopole energy is coming from is the idea that Space itself is being transformed from being Space, to being a monopole. Now, you get enough of these monopoles created in a heavy atom and out can come a more massive monopole than .5MeV, but even say a gamma ray monopole of 0 charge. Now, what RSMM is going to do, is overturn all our ideas on how Sun shines and Stars shine. In Old Physics, they thought stars and Sun are shining by fusion, converting hydrogen into helium. RSMM says something vastly different, for stars and Sun, most of their energy is the conversion of Space that they travel in, into that of monopoles which is the bulk of their energy that they emit. Stars convert Space into magnetic monopoles. AP Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 19:29:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 03:29:05 +0000 our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole Of course Real Proton= 840MeV. It is impossible for our sun or stars to shine with their energy from fusion alone. If it were fusion alone stars would only shine with energy of 1/1000 what they actually shine with. So where does most of the energy of Sun and stars come from if not via fusion?? The predominant source of energy of Sun and stars comes from the atoms composing the star via Faradays Law of the hydrogen atom systems HYASYS proton+muon inside each atom. 1 proton =8muons forming a closed loop wire and the electronmuon thrusts through the proton wire creating a .5MeV monopole of either 0, -1, +1 charge. And the Sun's rays you soak up are those 0 charged monopoles. Stars convert Space (they travel through) into magnetic monopoles and that is why stars shine for billions of years profusely and at the same time grow larger in size and mass. The theory that fusion is the source of star energy is only a tiny meager 1/1000 of starpower. AP Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole When I post from my iphone, I make a lot of spelling and grammar errors. On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 9:29:10 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Of course Real Proton= 840MeV. > > It is impossible for our sun or stars to shine with their energy from fusion alone. If it were fusion alone stars would only shine with energy of 1/1000 what they actually shine with. > So, this raises the question of how old is the Sun and how much hydrogen to helium > So where does most of the energy of Sun and stars come from if not via fusion?? > > The predominant source of energy of Sun and stars comes from the atoms composing the star via Faradays Law of the hydrogen atom systems HYASYS proton+muon inside each atom. > > 1 proton =8muons forming a closed loop wire and the electronmuon thrusts through the proton wire creating a .5MeV monopole of either 0, -1, +1 charge. And the Sun's rays you soak up are those 0 charged monopoles. > > Stars convert Space (they travel through) into magnetic monopoles and that is why stars shine for billions of years profusely and at the same time grow larger in size and mass. > Now humans have been observing the Sun with fancy science equipment for only about 200 years, and in that time would not be asking scientists, has the Sun become less massive due to outpouring of energy every minute of the year. No, that is too small a time period to ask if the Sun is depleting itself due to it shining, or, increasing its mass and size. > The theory that fusion is the source of star energy is only a tiny meager 1/1000 of starpower. > So I went and looked up how much hydrogen and helium is in our Sun-- 91.2% hydrogen and 8.7% helium and the Sun is 4.6 billion years old according to some-- but I believe the sun is 10 billion years old. But, put that aside for now. Let us take a simple estimate, a straightline estimate. If the fusion is the source of Sun and stars shining, and if our Sun was originally close to 99% hydrogen, then about 9% of fusion gives the sun 4.6 billion years worth of shining energy. And thus we have about 11 more periods (remember a straightline estimate) of 4.6 billion years for the Sun to shine and that would be 50.6 billion years into the future of our Sun shining. Now, if we look up in the literature of the zombie-physicists who accept the fusion view of the Sun, they claim the Sun will go into a Red Giant phase in 5.4 billion years from now and essentially shortly thereafter stop shining altogether. So, what I am thinking,, a logical mind at work, is that the Sun and Stars shine not from fusion, which is only a tiny tiny fraction of sunlight, but that the main source of Sun shining is its conversion of Space the Sun travels through, converting space into magnetic monopoles of 0 charge, and some of +1 or -1 charge, all via the Faraday Law, of electron=muon thrust through protons as 8muons arranged as a closed loop wire. So Faraday's law causes the creation of a electric current in the proton = 8 muons, and the electric current is monopoles. Now most of these monopoles escape out of their hydrogen atom system they were born in, escape the Sun's gravity and find themselves in outer space, especially those destined to hit Earth and make Earth warm and doing photosynthesis. Now, here is a possible means of finding out if true that sunlight is via Faraday law converting space into monopoles. According to Fusion, the photons have to go through a elaborate process, but according to Faraday Law, every hydrogen atom is doing the Faraday law, all uniformly doing Faraday law. So, if we measure for consistency of photon flow from the Sun would favor the Faraday Law mechanism. 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 without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. 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 | 2018-11-27 16:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e7a79d41-dcd6-4b68-bc1f-9435857d6e0a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #714869 |
Page23 Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 23:35:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Bethe's starpower depends on a 1 in 1 billion chance Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 07:35:00 +0000 Bethe's starpower depends on a 1 in 1 billion chance Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole Quoting Wikipedia below, on how the Sun mostly shines out energy. However, the huge problem is that daft scientists who believe in this nonsense-- must explain how it is that a proton undergoes this fusion with a probability of taking place in 1 in 1 billion years. You see, our Sun shines profusely, yet physicists of Old Physics think this dependable profuse shining has a mechanism of 1 in 1 billion. This is the silly Bethe Solar fusion. The AP Starpower is based on the Faraday Law, that each and every atom inside the Sun, everyone of them has protons composed of 8muons, where 1 proton = 8muons, and where the electron = 1 muon and the .5MeV particle is not the electron, but a magnetic monopole. Every proton inside the Sun is doing a Faraday Law mechanism where it is a 8 muon closed loop wire and the electronMuon is a bar magnet that moves inside the proton and creates a electricity of a monopole that flows in the proton. The proton can emit this monopole outside its atom and eventually escape the Sun and find its way to hitting Earth. What the Faraday law in the Sun is doing is eating up Space, and converting it into magnetic monopoles. Now, any reader can read and believe in the farfetched silly and stupid Bethe Solar fusion with its 1 in 1 billion chance of being successful. Or, they can read AP's way of stars shining, that each and every proton inside a star is doing the Faraday law and creating monopoles out of the Space the star occupies. We see stars shining each and every minute, each and every day. Do you honestly believe the dependability, the reliability of stars shining depends on a probability of 1 in a billion, or, do you believe in AP's view-- every proton inside a star is making sunlight, making photons. --- quoting Wikipedia --- followed by the beta-plus decay of the diproton to deuterium: 2 2He → 2 1H + e+ + ν e with the overall formula: 1 1H + 1 1H → 2 1H + e+ + ν e + 0.42 MeV This first step is extremely slow because the positron emission of the diproton to deuterium is extremely rare (the vast majority of the time, the diproton decays back into two hydrogen-1 unbound protons through proton emission). This is because the emission of the positron is brought about by the weak nuclear force, which is immensely weaker than the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force. The half-life of a proton in the core of the Sun before it is involved in a successful proton–proton fusion is estimated to be about one billion years, even at the extreme pressures and temperatures found there. Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 23:55:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: Bethe's starpower depends on a 1 in 1 billion chance Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 07:55:50 +0000 Re: Bethe's starpower depends on a 1 in 1 billion chance Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 1:35:03 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Quoting Wikipedia below, on how the Sun mostly shines out energy. However, the huge problem is that daft scientists who believe in this nonsense-- must explain how it is that a proton undergoes this fusion with a probability of taking place in 1 in 1 billion years. You see, our Sun shines profusely, yet physicists of Old Physics think this dependable profuse shining has a mechanism of 1 in 1 billion. This is the silly Bethe Solar fusion. The AP Starpower is based on the Faraday Law, that each and every atom inside the Sun, everyone of them has protons composed of 8muons, where 1 proton = 8muons, and where the electron = 1 muon and the .5MeV particle is not the electron, but a magnetic monopole. Every proton inside the Sun is doing a Faraday Law mechanism where it is a 8 muon closed loop wire and the electronMuon is a bar magnet that moves inside the proton and creates a electricity of a monopole that flows in the proton. The proton can emit this monopole outside its atom and eventually escape the Sun and find its way to hitting Earth. What the Faraday law in the Sun is doing is eating up Space, and converting it into magnetic monopoles. > Now my critics would immediately jump up and down and say-- well, if that is true, why is planet Earth not shining for its atoms have protons and electrons doing the Faraday Law. Why is Earth not shining? And that is a good question. And perhaps I have no fast immediate answer other than to say, you need the momentum in a hot kinetic energy environment such as the Sun and stars. Realize, that when you do the Faraday Law with a slow moving magnet, you get little current. Now, my theory of Faraday Law causing stars to shine, not the feeble fusion in stars. If correct, then there is the good chance that large planets, like Jupiter have some "glow" or enormous radio noise of photons in the radio wave frequency. So we have on Jupiter, much radio noise but little to account for what makes Jupiter's radio wave noise. So the Faraday mechanism easily would say that some of the protons on Jupiter have a rapid motion electron=muon act as a bar magnet creating a monopole but a monopole not large like the sun, but rather radio photons. Also, the Faraday Law Mechanism of stars shining would easily explain why the hottest part of the Sun is not its center but its outer surface. 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 without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. 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 | 2018-11-28 13:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <400b6655-829b-4e94-abf8-56a1ea83b47d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #715026 |
Page24 Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 00:08:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: Faraday mechanism explains Atomic Bombs better Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 08:08:18 +0000 Faraday mechanism explains Atomic Bombs better Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole And, alas, something I never thought I would involve with, atomic bombs. It is thought that in a fusion bomb, that atoms are fusing to create the enormous energy. But, there is always required a fission bomb explode before it sets off the fusion part of the bomb. But, what I contend is that, although some fusion is occurring but what is really happening is that the fission part of the bomb raises the kinetic energy of the protons and their electrons=muons to perform Faraday Law and that the explosion is a maximization not of fusing protons, but rather of creating much Faraday Law electricity as monopoles. Now a quick test of this Faraday mechanism would be to analyze the gamma radiation in a fusion bomb explosion. Does the gamma radiation fit with fusion of protons or does it fit with Faraday Law as electricity in gamma monopoles. I would guess that if Faraday Law is at work here, not fusion that you would have immensely more gamma radiation than what fusion would say. AP Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 01:17:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: Faraday mechanism explains Atomic Bombs better Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 09:17:26 +0000 Faraday mechanism explains Atomic Bombs better Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole Looking for anomalies in hydrogen bombs-- Volume 60, Issue 1 March 1955 Pages 45–52 Effects of radioactive debris from nuclear explosions on the electrical conductivity of the lower atmosphere Authors D. Lee Harris First published: March 1955Full publication history DOI: 10.1029/JZ060i001p00045 View/save citation Cited by (CrossRef): 14 articles Check for updates Citation tools Abstract An increase in the ionization near the ground due to the fall-out from a radioactive cloud formed by a nuclear explosion will increase the conductivity and lower the potential gradient in the lower atmosphere. Records of atmospheric conductivity and potential gradient from the Tucson Magnetic Observatory are compared with records of the deposition of atomic debris on the ground following the Nevada tests. The observed changes are not inconsistent with values computed from theoretical considerations. Most of the effects are confined to a very shallow layer, within a few meters of the ground. Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 01:29:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: Faraday mechanism explains Atomic Bombs better Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 09:29:10 +0000 Faraday mechanism explains Atomic Bombs better Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole Now here is a remarkable website arguing that Mars had a Hydrogen bomb explosion. I would argue that his isotope studies are evidence of the Faraday Law inside of atoms and not that of fusion. Evidence for a Large Anomalous Nuclear Explosions in Mars Past PDFspsr.utsi.edu › articles › EvidenceforaLar... by JE Brandenburg Hydrogen bombs are boosted by fission of a uranium or thorium casing ~50% of ... Delayed neutrons. Acidalia debris. Gamma rays. Before event. Immediately after event. Present old surface old surface old surface. Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 12:23:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Faraday mechanism explains Atomic Bombs better Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 20:23:01 +0000 Faraday mechanism explains Atomic Bombs better Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole Now here is more information on that Mars hypothetical nuclear explosion:: of course i am going to comment line by line explaining that in nuclear fusion there is little to no fusion going on but rather a Faraday Law --- quoting --- By Tara MacIsaac, Epoch Times Mars has a high concentration of the gas isotope Xenon 129 in its atmosphere. Xenon 129 is produced by nuclear reactions. The surface of the red planet also has an excess of uranium and thorium. These conditions are likely the result of two large anomalous nuclear explosions on Mars in the past, argues propulsion scientist Dr. John Brandenburg in a 2014 paper, titled “Evidence of a Massive Thermonuclear Explosion on Mars in the Past.” On Earth, in Oklo, Gabon, uranium was extracted in 1972 and found to have unusual properties. Natural uranium deposits all contain about 0.7 percent U235. The isotope U235 in the Oklo mine, however, showed at levels around 0.6 percent, suggesting the U235 had already been “burned.” 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 without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. 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 | 2018-11-29 14:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <49154095-ac07-4bcb-91e1-ddfe8f1702e7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #715195 |
Page25 Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 20:23:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: Revolutionary idea-- Sun and starpower are Faraday's Law turning Space into monopoles, fusion is just a tiny fraction of starpower 1/1000 From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 04:23:51 +0000 Revolutionary idea-- Sun and starpower are Faraday's Law turning Space into monopoles, fusion is just a tiny fraction of starpower 1/1000 Revolutionary idea-- Sun and starpower are Faraday's Law turning Space into monopoles, fusion is just a tiny fraction of starpower 1/1000 Please do not hold me to the 1/1000, it maybe something like 10^-6 rather than 10^-3. There is no doubt in the world that fusion exists, and that fission, even more so, exists. But, what I have discovered is that the Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV and that tiny particle .5MeV is Dirac's Magnetic Monopole. What that means for energy of the world, is that every atom is a Faraday Law Demonstration of every hydrogen atom system inside an atom. Every proton with its muon, every neutron, are constantly doing a Faraday law and producing electricity inside the atom, producing magnetic monopoles. And these monopoles can either stay inside the atom or flow out as radiation. This is where stars and our Sun get their power, their energy. There is a tad bit of fusion, but not very much, certainly not as much to let the Sun shine as it does every day of our life. Now how is the Faraday Law conducted inside atoms? A proton is 8 muons and when formed into a octagon ring, the proton is a closed loop wire, leaving the electronmuon as a bar magnet thrust through the proton ring creates a current-- a magnetic monopole that either stays inside the atom or moves out and becomes sunlight. Now, all atoms are Faraday law machines, so why does not Earth or Moon or Jupiter shine like a Star? Well, a astro body has to get large enough to get hot enough so that the kinetic energy of its atoms reach a temperature in which the electronmuon moves fast enough through its protons to produce radiation of star shine. But this monopole creation occurs in all atoms and although not star light, some of these monopoles are radio waves, and Jupiter has a large radio emission. AP Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 22:51:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: Revolutionary idea-- Sun and starpower are Faraday's Law turning Space into monopoles, fusion is just a tiny fraction of starpower 1/1000 From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 06:51:29 +0000 Below is a report from government NASA on radio emissions from Jupiter. The Faraday Law of atoms causes stars to shine and causes planets to emit radio waves. --- quoting NASA --- Jupiter does emit radio waves of a different sort at frequencies above 100 MHz. These are the decimetric radio waves and are believed to be emitted by extremely energetic electrons moving at close to the speed of light close to the planet near its equator. (Decimetric means tenth of a meter since the wavelength of this type of radio emission is several tenths of a meter). Jupiter's rotation period was confirmed and other properties of the magnetic field including its axial tilt were determined using decimetric radio observations. Recently the Hubble Space telescope has been used to observe Jupiter's aurora in the ultraviolet and has found evidence of the powerful currents that are flowing between Jupiter and Io. These spacecraft are confirming some explanations of Jupiter radio emission but are also discovering new radio phenomena that raise many more questions. 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 without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. 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 20:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3ee11127-594b-4c0f-ace6-6e62603a8a67@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #715501 |
page26 Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 23:45:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: Revolutionary idea-- Sun and starpower are Faraday's Law turning Space into monopoles, fusion is just a tiny fraction of starpower 1/1000 From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 07:45:52 +0000 So, let us do a little bit of philosophy here before turning to bed. We have a universe made of one big atom 231Pu containing mass and space. The mass is other atoms. We have stars that turn Space into more mass via Faraday law of an atom's muons thrusting through an atom's protons and creating monoples-- turning Space into new matter. Is that appealing? A 231Pu Atom Totality becoming a new generation Atom Totality. Let us weigh that with Life in biology. Is it acceptable that a generation of life can be happy that their kind, their species lived, prospered and multiplied, and built a new generation to carry into the future? I can accept that purpose for biology life. But for all of the universe, i somehow am expecting more than just growth. More than just growing from 231Pu into say element 96 then the next one etc etc. I think every human can be happy to know their life is carried on by a future generation as the meaning of life. But it seems that the cosmos as a whole needs something more in its future, more than just growth. So, here we go from science to philosophy to religion. For we need something more than just growth to bigger and bigger, to cycle to cycle. We need something of love, to make the whole thing valuable and worthy of the journey. And i cannot think of a better analogy than humanity and plants and animals. The Atom Totality is like God compared to humans and humans are like God compared to the animals and plants. If in the growth of humans into the future it is recognized that our growth cannot proceed unless we carry all the plants and animals with us, not extincting them to make more room for more humans. In like manner of the Atom Totality, instead of a future of ever bigger Atom Totality with lifeforms perishing in numerous cycles, what if the formula of God was that the Atom Totality becomes humanity, a humanity that carried all the plants and animals like a Noah's Ark onto the doorstep of God, where in an instant of time physics and biology entwined as one God. And then, let the cycle of matter and life begin all over again. AP Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 13:01:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: experiment for NASA Re: Revolutionary idea-- Sun and starpower are Faraday's Law turning Space into monopoles, fusion is just a tiny fraction of starpower 1/1000 From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 21:01:07 +0000 experiment for NASA Re: Revolutionary idea-- Sun and starpower are Faraday's Law turning Space into monopoles, fusion is just a tiny fraction of starpower 1/1000 On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 12:51:33 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Below is a report from government NASA on radio emmisions from Jupiter. The Faraday Law of atoms causes stars to shine and causes planets to emit radio waves. > I do not know if NASA does experimental science? If they do, I entice them into this one. > --- quoting NASA --- > > Jupiter does emit radio waves of a different sort at frequencies above 100 MHz. These are the decimetric radio waves and are believed to be emitted by extremely energetic electrons moving at close to the speed of light close to the planet near its equator. (Decimetric means tenth of a meter since the wavelength of this type of radio emission is several tenths of a meter). Jupiter's rotation period was confirmed and other properties of the magnetic field including its axial tilt were determined using decimetric radio observations. > > Recently the Hubble Space telescope has been used to observe Jupiter's aurora in the ultraviolet and has found evidence of the powerful currents that are flowing between Jupiter and Io. > > These spacecraft are confirming some explanations of Jupiter radio emission but are also discovering new radio phenomena that raise many more questions. EXPERIMENT:: Now, I am going on just pure intuition and a tiny bit of experience in radio physics. So here goes. Find a tower of metal, whether used or not used. It is a antennae of sorts. Find out if that antennae by its sheer composition emits a radio signal. I would guess yes because it is composed of metal atoms and those atoms are doing the Faraday Law. Now the planet Jupiter is a large body of atoms doing the Faraday Law and would be expected to emit much radio waves. Our metal antennae is a small body, but still doing the Faraday Law. Now here, in this experiment I am backing into, the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation CMBR and what that is, is not the stupid silly Big Bang, but is the fact that all atoms of the entire cosmos is doing a Faraday Law and all those atoms, everyone of them is "leaking out radio waves" of however tiny and small which goes to make up the CMBR. But here, all I want is a Experiment that proves any given object has atoms which is doing Faraday law and which has a tiny "radio wave noise". 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 without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. 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 | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 17:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pu15n3$7el$6@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #716129 |
Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> writes: >So, let us do a little bit of philosophy here before turning to bed. We >have a universe made of one big atom 231Pu containing mass and space. Why do you speak of yourself in the third person? Or do you have a mouse in your pocket? If so aren't you worried it may bite you when in your bed? >Is that appealing? No, it's just kookbabble.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 18:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0748846a-cca2-4298-87a1-c165bc7c916e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #716129 |
page27 Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 13:37:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: Call it Dirac Radioactivity or call it RSMMM Re: Revolutionary idea-- Sun and starpower are Faraday's Law turning Space into monopoles, fusion is just a tiny fraction of starpower 1/1000 From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 21:37:30 +0000 Call it Dirac Radioactivity or call it RSMMM Re: Revolutionary idea-- Sun and starpower are Faraday's Law turning Space into monopoles, fusion is just a tiny fraction of starpower 1/1000 Somewhat amazing that year 2014 was an amazing year in Chemistry Research, two experiments or observations took place in 2014 that is revolutionary science experiments. The one took place in Denmark with Dr. Kjaergaard discovering that two positive charges attract one another of hydrogen and phosphorus. To make a long story short, Kjaergaard is confirming that the Real Electron = 105 MeV and Real Proton = 840MeV and that little .5MeV particle is a magnetic monopole. That is the upshot of Kjaergaard's hugely important experiment in Denmark in 2014. In another part of the world in 2014, Dr. Brandenburg was finding out that xenon was too much concentrated in Mars, the planet, and otherwise levels of U235 in ore deposits were too high. Now, Dirac had two major science issues going for him most of his life-- magnetic monopoles and what he called a New Radioactivity-- how the world grows. You see, for Dirac, the Big Bang is science fiction, for Dirac sensed that the Universe grows from some form of radioactivity. Dirac, in all his life, never found the monopole, but, it was under his nose all the time. For in 1897, JJ Thomson discovered a particle of .5MeV and the sad part about Thomson's discovery, is that he had not found the electron, which he thought this .5MeV particle was, but rather, he had found Dirac's monopole. Only by 1936 with Anderson and Neddermeyer was the REAL ELECTRON discovered, only no one realized it until 2017, by me, who saw that 9muons = 1 proton plus or minus .7% 945/938. So, Dirac's monopole was there all along, and only by 2014 with Kjaergaard in Denmark do we start to see a massive experiment undertaking to see the theory that Real Electron = 105MeV and that Maxwell theory of EM has no force of repel, for EM has only attract force and we were fooled by Pauli Exclusion as a denial of same space occupancy. Columbus was fooled when he thought he landed in China or India. And physicists were fooled in thinking there is EM repel, when it is just denial of same space. And physicists were fooled in thinking that tiny .5MeV was the electron. Then on to Dirac's New Radioactivity, how the universe grows. The Universe never had a Big Bang-- that is childish poppycock idea. The Universe grows bigger and more massive by a form of Radioactivity. And the mechanism is Faraday's Law. The proton is 8 muons and forms a proton closed loop wire. The muon acts like a bar magnet and as it thrusts through the proton wire creates a monopole. This is turning Space into energy/matter. So if the universe starts out as 1 Hydrogen atom, that Faraday Law on one proton one muon keeps creating monopoles which are saved and collected inside that atom of hydrogen until it has eaten up enough Space that the monopoles saved add up to a neutron. Now we have 2protons2muons doing the Faraday Law, eating up space and eventually creating a tritium atom, etc etc. So, when Dr. Brandenburg sees xenon in abundance on Mars, it is not from a nuclear fusion bomb explosion, nor is the African U235 a past long ago bomb explosion remnant, no. What these isotope anomalies really are, is the working of Dirac's New Radioactivities. I like to call it Radioactive Spontaneous Magnetic Monopole Materialization, RSMMM. The "spontaneous" part of the process is that Faraday's Law is not the movement of electrons in a proton that consists of 8 muons, no, the 8 muons are needed to form a octagon of geometry to be a wire. So the spontaneous part of RSMMM is the fact that Faraday's Law requires a current, and the only particle to be a current inside a proton is a magnetic monopole. Now I am not saying all Magnetic Monopoles = .5MeV, for even radio waves are monopoles and are of eV not MeV. But, the greatest story of this Faraday Law, is that our Sun and stars shine, not because of Fusion, but because every atom in our Sun is doing a Faraday Law thrusting of muon through proton and even of proton through orbital muons, both ways-- proton through muons and muon through proton. And the enormous photons produced by Faraday's Law is what makes stars shine. There is a tiny contribution by fusion, but if stars had to depend on fusion alone, our universe would be mostly dark black, with only tiny tiny glow from fusion activity. Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 12:23:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: Faraday mechanism explains Atomic Bombs better Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 20:23:01 +0000 Faraday mechanism explains Atomic Bombs better Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole Now here is more information on that Mars hypothetical nuclear explosion:: of course i am going to comment line by line explaining that in nuclear fusion there is little to no fusion going on but rather a Faraday Law --- quoting --- By Tara MacIsaac, Epoch Times Mars has a high concentration of the gas isotope Xenon 129 in its atmosphere. Xenon 129 is produced by nuclear reactions. The surface of the red planet also has an excess of uranium and thorium. These conditions are likely the result of two large anomalous nuclear explosions on Mars in the past, argues propulsion scientist Dr. John Brandenburg in a 2014 paper, titled “Evidence of a Massive Thermonuclear Explosion on Mars in the Past.” On Earth, in Oklo, Gabon, uranium was extracted in 1972 and found to have unusual properties. Natural uranium deposits all contain about 0.7 percent U235. The isotope U235 in the Oklo mine, however, showed at levels around 0.6 percent, suggesting the U235 had already been “burned.” 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 without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. 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 | 2018-12-07 13:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8f25e792-e27a-4295-8608-90ad8cc9f329@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #716326 |
page28 On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 7:38:10 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.math: Sun and Stars shine, not due to fusion, but due to protons and muons convert Space into energy/matter via Faraday Law Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 19:37:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: does oxygen have a cut above the other first 8 elements? Re: Sun and Stars shine, not due to fusion, but due to protons and muons convert Space into energy/matter via Faraday Law From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 03:37:06 +0000 does oxygen have a cut above the other first 8 elements? Re: Sun and Stars shine, not due to fusion, but due to protons and muons convert Space into energy/matter via Faraday Law Now, I believe the muon can be a closed loop wire once there is 8 muons in the orbital of an atom. That would mean element oxygen, where carbon is 2 muons short, and neon is 2 muons advanced. Now can the 10 muons in neon offer neon more stability in a Faraday demonstration? Anyway, the Oxygen atom has 8 orbital muons which means its nucleus of 8protons and 8neutrons can be a bar thrusting magnet through that of the 8 orbital muons. So in a Faraday Law Demonstration every single proton is a 8 muons configured into a closed loop proton wire. 1proton = 840MeV = 8muons, where 1muon = 105MeV. So, in hydrogen there is only one way for a Faraday demonstration-- the orbital muon thrusting through the 8 muons of the single proton. But in Oxygen there are 8 orbital muons that can form a closed loop wire, call it a orbital-muon-wire and the protons and neutrons can thrust through the 8 orbital muons producing even more magnetic monopoles than just the monopoles formed from the muons acting as bar magnet thrusting through the protons. So, what I wonder is, if oxygen being the first such element that can produce monopoles from not just proton wires but from orbital muons as wires, wondering if that ability by oxygen is why oxygen is so very special over the other first 8 elements? I know through out Old Chemistry, there is much to do about "oxidation" and oxidation states. But is oxygen recognized for its supreme ability to Faraday Law Demonstrations, which the other first 8 elements simply cannot perform? Does it give oxygen a significant edge above and beyond hydrogen helium lithium Beryllium, Boron Carbon Nitrogen?? What say you-- Old Chemistry-- did oxygen have a cut above these others? AP Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 22:43:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: does oxygen have a cut above the other first 8 elements? Re: Sun and Stars shine, not due to fusion, but due to protons and muons convert Space into energy/matter via Faraday Law From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 06:43:17 +0000 does oxygen have a cut above the other first 8 elements? Re: Sun and Stars shine, not due to fusion, but due to protons and muons convert Space into energy/matter via Faraday Law Alright one property of oxygen that needs explanation by Faraday law theory is its combustible nature. Here i would need to explain its neighbor fluorine also, but then, have to explain why reactivity seems to all shut down with neon. So is the fact that the orbital muons now are Faraday demonstrable at 8 and 9 cause huge reactivity but at 10 appear to shut down. I may have to sleep on this one. But one superlative of oxygen is that it is the 3rd most abundant element in Cosmos after hydrogen and helium. So the fact that 16O has a orbital muon wire is likely the cause of such abundance in Dirac's New Radioactivity So how can orbital muon wire explain how neon shuts down reactivity? Here i may need to define reactivity via Maxwell theory-- something about the deformation of 8 or 9 orbital muons to become a 10 orbital muon of neon. AP Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 22:58:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: does oxygen have a cut above the other first 8 elements? Re: Sun and Stars shine, not due to fusion, but due to protons and muons convert Space into energy/matter via Faraday Law From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 06:58:04 +0000 does oxygen have a cut above the other first 8 elements? Re: Sun and Stars shine, not due to fusion, but due to protons and muons convert Space into energy/matter via Faraday Law Now here i am going to question the famous Rutherford experiment the one in which he shot particles at a gold or metal leaf and where some of those particles recoiled back, telling Rutherford that nearly all the mass is concentrated in the nucleus. I suspect that experiment needs repeating for the first 26 elements especially oxygen fluorine neon for i suspect the center of those atoms are almost empty of protons and where the protons are more likely found in the muon orbital cloud to enhance the making of orbital cloud wire for Faraday law. I think it is hard to repeat Rutherford on non metals but not impossible. AP Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 23:37:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: Faraday law atomic theory Re: Sun and Stars shine, not due to fusion, but due to protons and muons convert Space into energy/matter via Faraday Law From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 07:37:48 +0000 Faraday law atomic theory Re: Sun and Stars shine, not due to fusion, but due to protons and muons convert Space into energy/matter via Faraday Law Now a key feature of Faraday Law atomic theory is that the protons and muons are aligned for maximum production of monopoles. Where 1proton =8muons and 1neutron =1proton +1 muon. Now this is a job for Dirac or Tesla, not me if given, 20 protons 20 muons configure those as wires and bar magnet to yield maximum current inside a neon atom. Do the same of 19protons 19muons for fluorine and finally 16 protons 16 muons for oxygen. I suspect many of the protons will be in orbitals along with orbital muons and a somewhat vacant center of the atom in order to achieve maximum Faraday production of monopoles. Now the helium atom would have 4 protons 4muons and those 4protons would be 4x8= 32 muons. So, how to arrange 36 muons for maximum Faraday law. And, helium is the most stable of all inert gases all elements for that sake. Now 36 is a perfect square, so let me check on neon, we have 20x8= 160 plus 20 is 180. 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 without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. 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 | 2018-12-08 14:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <324970f5-a79b-482a-bf43-99a93689ca84@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #717197 |
PAGE29 Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 00:02:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Faraday law atomic theory Re: Sun and Stars shine, not due to fusion, but due to protons and muons convert Space into energy/matter via Faraday Law From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 08:03:00 +0000 Faraday law atomic theory Re: Sun and Stars shine, not due to fusion, but due to protons and muons convert Space into energy/matter via Faraday Law Now i wish Tesla or Dirac was here to do this, Feynman. For helium i have 32 muons from the 4 protons and 4 more muons for a total of 36 particles to configure into a maximum Faraday law production of magnetic monopoles. Is it best to use 2 of the 36muons as bar magnet leaving 34 muons to build a coil of 8muons of 4 windings but that leaves 2 extra muons. What if we make the bar magnet 4 muons. Would the windings be in the nucleus? I think so because you get more monopole current the tighter the magnet is thrust through (so Rutherford was right). Now look at oxygen, 16protons, 16muons is 144 total muons, another perfect square. More tomorrow,,, time for a milk shake and the fascinating mystery of the milk shake -- milk tastes good, but place cold milk-- has to be cold into a flask and vigorously shake so you get a lot of milk foam and now you improved the taste of milk by 10 fold over. How can air do that? AP Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 02:16:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: AP's Periodic Table of Atoms in light of the fact Real Proton= 840MeV, Real Electron= 105MeV, the .5MeV= monopole From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 10:16:47 +0000 AP's Periodic Table of Atoms in light of the fact Real Proton= 840MeV, Real Electron= 105MeV, the .5MeV= monopole Alright, i am slowly working away on this. Old Chemistry and Old Physics had a table where their proton and electron had no job, no task to perform, as if their proton and electron could sit along and lie on a beach and do nothing. In AP's table the proton = 8muons and forms a nuclear closed loop wire and the electronmuon acts as a bar magnet in Faraday's Law where the two constantly produce a electric current of monopoles in the proton. So the construction of the AP table is a task for a electrical engineer more than a physicist. Because each proton and each neutron is like a wire loop and each electronmuon like a bar magnet (or vice versa) and in the case of oxygen you hand the ee 16 protons each composed of 8 muons and hand him 16 electronmuons and tell him to arrange those so he gets the maximum electric current (monopoles) in a Faraday Law demonstration. Now i am looking in electrical engineering if there is some sort of maximum efficient arrangement for 16 closed loop wires and 16 bar magnets. Is it best to have one Faraday kit or better to have 16 kits. AP Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 02:39:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: AP's Periodic Table of Atoms in light of the fact Real Proton= 840MeV, Real Electron= 105MeV, the .5MeV= monopole From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 10:39:25 +0000 So let us say you were God creating the chemical elements and you create proton and muon and you want these two to obey one law Faradays law. Now you are God and the master electrical engineer. And as you create each element, each element is the maximum amount of electric current produced from the proton wire and electronmuon magnet, or, electronmuon wire and protons as bar magnet, or both. So as God ee. For hydrogen you are handed 1proton and 1 muon and God arranges them to yield maximum current of monopoles. Now God is handed 2 protons, 2muons and again arranges them to make maximum current. Every atom is thus dealt with. Now finally God arranges all these atoms -- 295 in total -- arranges them so there is family resemblance in columns. What will this table look like? In 3rd dimension is it the surface of a cone where hydrogen is the apex. Or is it a 2nd dimension shape of a circuit board where gaps exist to house capacitors and other parts, not just wires and magnet. Is our present day Table a reflection of a circuit board in electronics. AP Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 03:46:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: AP's Periodic Table of Atoms in light of the fact Real Proton= 840MeV, Real Electron= 105MeV, the .5MeV= monopole From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 11:46:50 +0000 Alright, so here, if we take the old table and include each of the d and f rows, realizing the p is 4 more than s, d is 4 more than p, f is 4 more than d. Include them all without cut-outs, and if we were to bend this table, it forms a cone with hydrogen as apex. Now does a cone have significance in engineering or Faraday Law? It has significance if you want to amplify a wave. Can ww consider amplification as equal to maximization? For the periodic table is a maximal Faraday Law current. And so the table that represents a integer maximal Faraday law takes the shape of the cone surface. So if we were to plot the table on a cone surface the position of one element relative to its neighbors, reflects similar properties. Now there is a caution to old chemistry in that many elements are more similar to its neighbor in a row than its neighbor in a column. But the awkward shape of the old table is that it was a cone laid flat. 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 without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. 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 | 2018-12-11 21:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <af28d093-d1a8-414b-b621-28fbe5cbbabb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #717392 |
PAGE30 Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 13:45:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: New Chemistry Table-- two superimposed cones Re: AP's Periodic Table of Atoms in light of the fact Real Proton= 840MeV, Real Electron= 105MeV, the .5MeV= monopole From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 21:45:06 +0000 New Chemistry Table-- two superimposed cones Re: AP's Periodic Table of Atoms in light of the fact Real Proton= 840MeV, Real Electron= 105MeV, the .5MeV= monopole Alright, I think I have the breakthrough I need to do the AP Table of Atoms, to replace the old chemistry Table. The Old Chemistry Table of Elements, lacked the understanding that Atoms are tiny Faraday Law Machines. Their purpose is to do the Faraday Law which converts Space into energy/matter as a magnetic monopole, the reason for converting Space is to make more Atoms. Life in biology is essentially a process of growth and increase. But that is also the purpose of Atoms-- grow and increase. And the growth mechanism is Faraday's law, the increase mechanism is Faraday's law. In Old Chemistry, their Table is essentially-- think of the electron as .5MeV a little ball, and the proton is 938 MeV a larger ball and that these two balls in hydrogen do nothing, then helium is 4 tiny balls with 4 massive balls doing nothing, then lithium is 7 tiny balls with 7 massive balls doing nothing. That is Old Chemistry table building. And the only thing Old Chemists did, was worry about the family resemblance that helium resembled neon that resembled argon, that lithium resembled sodium that resembled potassium etc etc. In New Chemistry, we see the Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840 MeV and that little guy of .5MeV was not an electron but was Dirac's Magnetic Monopole. And what this does, is create a whole new different picture of a atom, any atom, because the enormous activity always going on inside an atom where the 105 particle is a bar magnet and the 840 particle is actually 8 muons that form a atomic wire closed loop and these two particles 105 and 840 are constantly doing a Faraday Law of creating atomic electricity of magnetic monopoles. Old Chemistry was lazy idling of atomic particles, New Chemistry is for all purposes a constant activity of Faraday's law. And so the Atoms Table is the first atom with just 1muon 1 proton, the second atom is 2muons2protons, the third atom is 3muons3protons, the fourth atom is helium with 4 protons, 4 muons, all the way up to element 118 with 295protons, 295muons. All atoms are a configuration to maximize a Faraday Law inside that atom, that means, some numbers are able to arrange themselves far better than others, such as Helium is far better able to carry out Faraday's law than is tritium or lithium. Now I spoke last night that the best Geometry picture of the Table of Atoms is a cone surface. Let me elaborate on that by doing the Old Chemistry Table only I use just one letter of the element to get in the s,p,d,f orbitals H H L B B C N O F N NM A S P S C A K C S T V CM F C N C Z G G A S B K more later but the form is shaping up, and the way in which we can have helium neon argon krypton then hydrogen lithium sodium be all under one another in family resemblance columns is to cut out those elements on a flat plane and bend to be a CONE. Now, for me, growing up and learning about conic sections for the first time, I was worried about something in conic sections-- why on earth would you stack one cone onto another cone at their apex?? Why oh why would you do a crazy thing like that-- was my first thoughts on seeing conic sections. Is there ever really a need to have cones stacked in order to gain valuable knowledge and understanding in the world around us? The only reason we do such an unnatural silly thing as to stack one cone onto another cone at the apex is so that we can include hyperbolas. If it were not for hyperbolas, we would never do a conic stacking. So, I saved that bit of information of my youth in education, never really thinking any more about it, until last night. You see, the geometry of a single cone is the best geometry for the Table of Atoms, for the New Periodic Table of Chemical Elements, on a cone surface because the rows increase but the columns need to be together. One cone, mind you, but, now we still have a problem with a single cone, because, well Hydrogen makes up over 90% of the Cosmos and many elements are so rare, that why should they have a accounting of the same size of block as does hydrogen. So we need a New Table that factors in the abundance of the Elements. We should not have the same size of block for hydrogen as say technetium 43Tc. So, the New Table is going to have 295 Atoms arranged numerically in order, but also, the size of block they get is according to the Cosmic abundance. So, how to do that correctly? Well getting back to my story, as a youth I thought it crazy to stack two cones on their apex just to get hyperbolas. But, now that craziness is going to help me out here. But I need not stack on apex, what I need is two cones where the base of one cone is the apex of the other equal cone. You see, superimpose the two cones. The Ancient Greeks could never do this as well as what we can do it today with computer graphics. We can do this in our imagination but physically we can mold a plastic cone to intersect another plastic cone such that the base of one is where the apex of the other exists. So our New Table where Hydrogen is alone as the apex of one cone and the base of the second cone as cosmic abundance. Helium is up there close to hydrogen as the base in abundance but close to hydrogen in the other cone as apex. So now, we take a cut of these two cones melded together that is a cut where both cones have a circle cross section (now I wonder if the circles are a constant in area-- something for the mathematicians to work out, whether area of C1 + area of C2 = a constant k no matter where the cut is performed. And if the Ancient Greeks had had this superimposed two equal cones, I am sure they would have discovered the relationship of the two circle areas.) Anyway the s,p,d,f rows are now able to be scaled to abundance of those elements. And once we scale them, I suspect the New Table of All Atoms becomes a two cones superimposed. P.S. I also need mathematicians to figure out, what are the conic sections of these two superimposed cones bring, I mean a cut not parallel to base. If my imagination serves me correctly, it would be two Ovals almost like two circles, one inside the other. But the parabola cut is a mystery and whether a hyperbola exists in this new two conics, if a hyperbola exists, then we can finally, finally, get rid of the old conic section of stacking at apex. AP On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 4:03:13 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.math: Now the best graphic i could spot from Google of these two nested opposite cones was this site-- The Centre Holds: Beauty, Art & the God Who is There. | the Center “Drakes Bay” ceramic version of oil painting of God’s original creation. Christopher MacDonald ©2002 Azotus Arts. Turning and turning in the widening gyre The falcon cannot hea… On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 4:18:31 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.math: Now looking at a lot of images for two cones nested forming what i would call a complex cylinder since the ends are equal. But here is an experiment easily performed at home-- two ice cream cones. One set on table at its base the other on apex held by a steady hand and putting the two close together forms a parallelogram in 2nd D. Now imagine the one going inside the other where the base of one is now the apex of the other. I do not know if math gave a name to this object I want to say-- spool, such as a spool of sewing thread AP Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 17:40:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: called Double Gyres Re: New Chemistry Table-- two superimposed cones From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 01:40:58 +0000 called Double Gyres Re: New Chemistry Table-- two superimposed cones On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 7:27:02 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Now here quoting a website of YeatsVision.com that not only gives a good picture of two nested intersecting cones but says they have a name. > I am not sure this is the literary Yeats. Often, literary figures never dabble in mathematics > -- quoting > > > The Double Gyres > > The Double Gyre Horizontal > Yeats's thought is fundamentally dualistic and, although the single gyre contains a fundamental dualism in the two boundaries of its form, the base and the apex, it is more natural for Yeats to use a doubled form. Since the apex or minimum of one element implies the maximum of its dualistic opposite, these double cones intersect so that the two gyres are the complementary opposites of each other. Re: called Double Gyres Re: New Chemistry Table-- two superimposed cones AP writes: Now looking at those computer pictures I easily see the Double Cones intersecting where apex is at base does produce a hyperbola. Now, what I am exploring is whether this depiction of two cones is far superior than Old Math's dummy depiction of apex to apex. Because, well, I suspect New Chemistry's Table of Chemical Elements is a Double Cone Intersection. I need to investigate whether the hyperbolas produced from cones apex to apex are the same as hyperbolas from cones apex to base. If they are the same, then I suspect apex to base cones are far far superior not just because of Chemistry Table, but because, well a apex to base double cones is either a generalization of the Cylinder, or the Cylinder is a generalization of the double cones. What I mean here, is that the parallelogram is a generalization of the rectangle. The final word is still not out, whether Old Math had discovered this figure a long time ago and given it a name, other than double-gyre. And it is nice and fitting, that the mathematician who discovered the Oval was a Conic section, never the ellipse, is back again fixing even more Conic Section theory, which the Old Math community was too stupid to ever see or fix. So let us give a nice rounded applause to our hero, AP. 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 without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. 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 | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-12 05:59 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test |
| Message-ID | <puq83r$dab$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #717825 |
Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails: >r fix. So let us give a nice rounded applause to our hero, AP. Boo!!!! Hissssss!!!!! phthththth!!!! Boooo!!!!!! <Russian subversive agent:> Yay Plutonium!!! Go Plutonium!! Sabotage those American children!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-12 19:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <86ff800b-cc20-435c-bfa6-783f95fd597a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #717825 |
PAGE31 Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 18:19:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: columns family resemblance challenged Re: New Chemistry Table-- two superimposed cones Re: AP's Periodic Table of Atoms From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 02:19:56 +0000 columns family resemblance challenged Re: New Chemistry Table-- two superimposed cones Re: AP's Periodic Table of Atoms Now here I need to take a break or momentary pause, not that I am tired, but because I need more facts to move on ahead. I need a fact of Chemistry about the concept of family resemblance in columns of the Mendeleev Chart of Elements. I know that was a motivation for discovery to Mendeleev that the gases helium, neon, argon, krypton were substances that looked similar behaved similar, and we take any column and see much the same sort of concept of "family resemblance". However, as much in life as in science, we can take a good concept that stretches just too far. So I am skeptical of this need for columns of family resemblance. And what I have in mind, is that somewhere that concept completely falls apart in the Old Chemistry Table. I do not mean that surprise-- we find a noble gas next to a metal like iron. Nothing like that. What I mean is where in the Old Chemistry table of elements, does the elements next to a particular element in a row, behave and resemble that element rather than the elements of the family column? I think the answer is Fe iron that, at Cr, Mn, Fe, Co behave and resemble Fe more than does Ru. Os. And even harder to say C is related to family members Sn and Pb, than to say Fe is related to Cu. Not sure of that but have to check up on it. So, what I am saying here, is that halfway in the first d orbital of elements, that the family resemblance of columns breaks apart. And that a new Table of Elements(Atoms) no longer has to insist a Atom fall in the column of previous atoms. This also brings up the interesting question of some Electrochemical feature of every Atom, in the Faraday Law, that categorizes where that Element belongs in the Table. Say for instance, simple conduction of electricity. AP Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 20:15:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: New Chemistry Table-- two superimposed cones Re: AP's Periodic Table of Atoms in light of the fact Real Proton= 840MeV, Real Electron= 105MeV, the .5MeV= monopole From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 04:15:21 +0000 Re: New Chemistry Table-- two superimposed cones Re: AP's Periodic Table of Atoms in light of the fact Real Proton= 840MeV, Real Electron= 105MeV, the .5MeV= monopole On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 3:45:12 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: (snipped) Now, let me go out a little further on the Old Periodic Table where each element is given just its first letter and each row starts with a alkali metal and ends in a noble gas H H L B B C N O F N NM A S P S C A K C S T V CM F C N C Z G G A S B K R S Y Z NM T R R P A C I S S T I X C B L C P N P S E G T D H E T Y L H T W R O I P A H T P B P A R F R A T P U N P AC B C E FM N L U U U U U UU U U U UU U U U Now it is a relief for once to see the table in full without breaks and bottom panels just because the paper is not big enough to hold them in one unbroken pattern. Now, of course, I am speculating that a double cone, one inside the other reversed so the apex end is at the base end. \/\/ /\/\ that is 2 cones with apex at base, 2 cones intersecting at midcircle Now the reason this is a good speculation is the atomic number represents the apex as hydrogen in one cone but the base of other represents the fact hydrogen makes up 90% of the universe. The next level down from hydrogen is helium alone and makes up 8% of the abundance of all elements so would be near the apex in one cone and hold a significant surface area of the other cone about 1/10 of that of hydrogen. Now we get to the exciting part. The rows L B B C N O F N then NM A S P S C A then K C S T V CM F C N C Z G G A S B K then R S Y Z NM T R R P A C I S S T I X then C B L C P N P S E G T D H E T Y L H T W R O I P A H T P B P A R then F R A T P U N P AC B C E FM N L U U U U U UU U U U UU U U U should follow a mathematical formula of decreasing abundance, not each element, but the entire row abundance. And it is a double cone geometry, that can depict atomic number versus abundance. 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 without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. 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 | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-13 05:31 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Archimedes "chatterbox" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test |
| Message-ID | <pusqqv$k13$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #718075 |
Chattering Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails: >One of the problems of modern science is the use of the word "theory", for >I would argue that most people do not know what is "theory" meaning, even >those in science itself. And I would argue that we need a three terms in >language to distinguish theory for idle chatter. >Theory-- science >Imagination -- not science but a tiny chance of becoming science >Chatter -- definitely not science and no potential of becoming science Thanks for this, Archie. So from now on we can call you "chatterbox"!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mathedman <Mathedman@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-13 08:30 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Archimedes "chatterbox" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test |
| Message-ID | <7fac85cb-0e0e-2fa2-4a18-c3286ecbb57a@hotmail.com> |
| In reply to | #718098 |
On 12/12/2018 11:31 PM, moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com wrote: > Chattering Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails: > >> One of the problems of modern science is the use of the word "theory", for >> I would argue that most people do not know what is "theory" meaning, even >> those in science itself. And I would argue that we need a three terms in >> language to distinguish theory for idle chatter. > >> Theory-- science >> Imagination -- not science but a tiny chance of becoming science >> Chatter -- definitely not science and no potential of becoming science > > Thanks for this, Archie. So from now on we can call you "chatterbox"! > He's so full of s**t that it continue to spew out of his mouth! ---onto this group
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty6@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-12 21:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <70e5b1ae-5c1f-4fc9-a6ab-2498f7618ee6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #710955 |
On Friday, November 2, 2018 at 2:06:32 AM UTC+2, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > TRUE CHEMISTRY-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV , by Archimedes Plutonium > > page1 > > History Preface:: > > > A history Preface to this textbook Re: TRUE CHEMISTRY, textbook, 2018 > > > Alright, this textbook is written as a Memoir, in that I am writing it as a notebook, my daily activity, an historical accounting, along with a textbook of facts of True Chemistry. Both a textbook on True Chemistry and a historical accounting, both combined into one. So you will see many dates of posts throughout this Memoir. > > Now this book needs a Preface, to sort of tell people what it was like in the time period of 1897 when JJ Thomson discovered a .5MeV particle and then going on to believe he discovered the "electron of atoms", when in fact, what he discovered was the Magnetic Monopole of atoms. Yet the entire Scientific Community, whether physics, chemistry, biology, all were duped into thinking this .5MeV particle was the integral electron of atoms. So from 1897 until 2017 when I discovered the Real Electron = muon = 105 MeV, that community of scientists all fell duped to thinking electron= .5 MeV. > > Of course, that changes all of electricity, as we understood it in 1897 through 2017. So some time in the future, few people will understand what took place from 1897 through 2017, when all scientists thought the atom was a proton at 938MeV, neutron 940MeV and electron at .5MeV. Of course, my very first proof of the Real Electron is 105 MeV was instantaneous to my mind--chemical bonding, chemical bonding-- is it possible to have covalent bonding with 938 to .5 ?? For if the Real Electron is 105 MeV then the Real Proton cannot be 938, but had to be 840MeV, and then, chemical bonding covalent of 105 versus 840, all makes sense. > > This entire discovery was caused by a noting in 2016, that it takes 9 muons to make a proton (plus or minus less than 1%) To me, in science, I know all physics has outside "noise" and so when you say plus or minus less than 1%, means to me, anyway, that 9 muons = 1 proton. Now, sorry, but it took me another year from 2016 to 2017, to say-- Real Proton = 840 MeV. Sadly, to discover that 9 muons = 1 proton in 2016, took another year in 2017 to subtract 105 from 945 to see that the Real Proton was 840MeV. > > And the instantaneous proof that came to my mind, is, well, you just cannot have Chemistry, the Chemical bond of covalent, if the electron is .5MeV and the proton 938MeV, for the angular-momentum is just not there to make covalent bonding. If the Real Electron is 105MeV and Real Proton is 840MeV then you have sufficient numbers of MeV for angular momentum to create covalent bonding in atoms. > > But let me in this preface tell the story of how Electricity was imagined to be from 1897 to 2017. Electricity with the electron assumed as .5 MeV and proton at 938 MeV, that electricity in this view was seen as a electron particle that is wishy washy, here now, gone a second later flowing in a wire as electricity. In the new true view of electricity, electron = 105 MeV, proton = 840 MeV, it is rare for that electron of hydrogen atoms to ever leave its proton, and what electricity is-- is this monopole particle that assumes either a +1 or -1 charge and is fickle, for it can be attached to a hydrogen atom and with little to no encouragement, go flying off along a copper wire. Only, flying is a metaphor, for the Monopole is a photon or a neutrino dressed up (superposition) with .5MeV charge energy. So the monopole is a wave, a closed loop wave that becomes the shape of the closed loop wire itself. At the moment, I am rebuilding a crystal radio set I had as a Xmas gift from my father way back in about 1968. You see, the radio wave is a magnetic monopole, it is not an electron out of some atom. > > I need to build this Preface into a good logical history expose of how feeble was the understanding and teaching of What the Real Electron was in science from 1897 to 2017. > > How utterly feeble it is, to have millions of students around the world sitting in classes, hearing the teacher, the instructor saying that the electron is a .5MeV particle that runs along copper wires and yields electricity. > > When the real truth is, that electrons are very heavy particles of 105 MeV, 1/8 the mass of the proton at 840 MeV, and it is rare, extremely rare that this massive Real Electron ever leaves its proton, but that these magnetic monopoles flit around, flit here, flit there, flit almost everywhere, and these monopoles are electricity. > > AP > > Newsgroups: sci.math > Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 13:32:28 -0800 (PST) > > Subject: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- > Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV > From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> > Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 21:32:28 +0000 > > Proofs that the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV, and that the .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole, after all > > Experimental PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon > by Archimedes Plutonium > > PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon > > 1st proof is chemical bonding cannot exist with momentum of 938 versus .5MeV > Chemical Bonds are covalent, ionic, metallic. You simply cannot get atoms to bond if the electron is thought of as the .5MeV particle, only with a muon at 105 MeV and the proton at 840 MeV with neutron at 945 MeV do you have the physics of angular momentum that allows bonding in Chemistry. The .5MeV particle was, all along a magnetic monopole of a photon with .5 MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy. > > Newsgroups: sci.physics > Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 18:28:06 -0700 (PDT) > > Subject: short history of subatomic particles of Physics Re: True Chemistry-- > 2018 textbook > From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> > Injection-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 01:28:07 +0000 > > short history of subatomic particles of Physics Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook > > In my textbook True Chemistry, those new early pages, I need a chronology of history of how we viewed atoms, their constituent elementary particles, and electricity. For the blame as to not knowing the .5MeV particle was not the electron but a magnetic monopole, is the conceit of the minds of physicists, or should be say the naivety of the minds of physicists is that they were blown away by +1 and -1 charge. If we had taken off the table the electric charge. Then when JJ Thomson discovered this 1897 particle of .5MeV, if electric charge was not a issue, then Thomson, in my opinion would have realized it could not be the electron. > > So let me make a rough sketch of the history involved, the pertinent history. > > 1861-1864, Maxwell wrote " A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field"-- a complete theory of electricity tying together magnetism, as EM, electromagnetism theory. Perhaps the single greatest physics book, or book in general, before the Atom Totality textbook. > > 1897, J.J. Thomson discovers a .5MeV particle, with a -1 charge, which he names as electron, thinking it is the electron of atoms, which, it turns out by 2017 is the Dirac magnetic monopole, and the muon is the real-electron. > > 1913, the Bohr model of the Atom, which gives no working role for its elementary subatomic particles of proton, electron, neutron, photon (of which the magnetic monopole is a photon with a charge energy-- or a neutrino with charge energy). Sadly, the Bohr model is lacking any sort of physical role for these subatomic particles, other than to say, let there exist a proton, let there exist a electron. It is this lack of a job or role or working marching order for subatomic particles that should have alerted all chemists, all physicists, that they have a looney tune model of the atom. In the true model of the Atom, come 2017, is that the elementary particles are doing a Faraday Law and Ampere Law sort of like a dance, a job, a commitment for their existence, inside the Atom, conducted by those protons and muons. Where protons as a coil and muon electron as a bar magnet creates new monopoles, converting Space into monopoles, and stored in neutrons as capacitors, which a hydrogen atom grows to become a deuterium atom etc etc. In other words, the creation of new atoms and heavier atoms is the job of existing atoms. > > 1917-1920, Rutherford discovers the proton of what he thought was 938 MeV > > 1931, Dirac with a paper on magnetic monopoles which in order to satisfy the quantization of electricity, which implies that monopoles must exist. > > 1932, Chadwick discovered the neutron of 945 MeV. Now they discovered these particles, like the neutron and proton but would have to wait years before they refined their masses on how much mass they had. > > 1936, Anderson & Neddermeyer discover the muon particle of 105 MeV. I do not know what year they found out it weighed 105 MeV. > > Now, the big question is why are the minds of physicists so backwards, so empty of Logical thought, because when the proton was discovered by Rutherford in 1917 and could measure its mass to be roughly 940 MeV and then Thomson's particle of .5MeV. So, the puzzling question is from 1917 to 2017 is a span of time of 100 years, and the astonishment that in those 100 years, every physicist, every chemist knew of the Covalent bond of chemistry, every one of them knew what angular momentum was, or had a reasonable notion of what angular momentum means-- at least we thought they knew, yet not a single scientist ever had the thought run through their mind-- stop a minute-- how can a covalent bond of chemistry exist if the proton was 938 versus .5MeV electron ?? How, how is that possible. When that is only possible if the proton was 840 versus 105 MeV. Is the simple and short answer-- no physicist in the 20th century had a good decent logical mind to think straight, to think clear. > > > 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 without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. > > Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. > > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe > Archimedes Plutonium ====================== psycho moron!! the Diamond is 3D not 2 D sorry you have not the faintest ability/ education /practice to cope with 3D structures : particles are not f en formula or eve not 2d sketches ======= http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract === Y.P =============
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty6@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-13 02:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <459e5c2b-9dc7-4844-9b32-5635d6903f4b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #718102 |
On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 7:52:49 AM UTC+2, por...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, November 2, 2018 at 2:06:32 AM UTC+2, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > TRUE CHEMISTRY-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV , by Archimedes Plutonium > > > > page1 > > > > History Preface:: > > ook, 2018 > > > > > > A history Preface to this textbook Re: TRUE CHEMISTRY, textb > > > > > > > > > Of course, that changes all of electricity, as we understood it in 1897 through 2017. So some time in the future, few people will understand what took place from 1897 through 2017, when all scientists thought the atom was a proton at 938MeV, neutron 940MeV and electron at .5MeV. Of course, my very first proof of the Real Electron is 105 MeV was instantaneous to my mind--chemical bonding, chemical bonding-- is it possible to have covalent bonding with 938 to .5 ?? For if the Real Electron is 105 MeV then the Real Proton cannot be 938, but had to be 840MeV, and then, chemical bonding covalent of 105 versus 840, all makes sense. > > > > This entire discovery was caused by a noting in 2016, that it takes 9 muons to make a proton (plus or minus less than 1%) To me, in science, I know all physics has outside "noise" and so when you say plus or minus less than 1%, means to me, anyway, that 9 muons = 1 proton. Now, sorry, but it took me another year from 2016 to 2017, to say-- Real Proton = 840 MeV. Sadly, to discover that 9 muons = 1 proton in 2016, took another year in 2017 to subtract 105 from 945 to see that the Real Proton was 840MeV. > > > > And the instantaneous proof that came to my mind, is, well, you just cannot have Chemistry, the Chemical bond of covalent, if the electron is .5MeV and the proton 938MeV, for the angular-momentum is just not there to make covalent bonding. If the Real Electron is 105MeV and Real Proton is 840MeV then you have sufficient numbers of MeV for angular momentum to create covalent bonding in atoms. > > > > But let me in this preface tell the story of how Electricity was imagined to be from 1897 to 2017. Electricity with the electron assumed as .5 MeV and proton at 938 MeV, that electricity in this view was seen as a electron particle that is wishy washy, here now, gone a second later flowing in a wire as electricity. In the new true view of electricity, electron = 105 MeV, proton = 840 MeV, it is rare for that electron of hydrogen atoms to ever leave its proton, and what electricity is-- is this monopole particle that assumes either a +1 or -1 charge and is fickle, for it can be attached to a hydrogen atom and with little to no encouragement, go flying off along a copper wire. Only, flying is a metaphor, for the Monopole is a photon or a neutrino dressed up (superposition) with .5MeV charge energy. So the monopole is a wave, a closed loop wave that becomes the shape of the closed loop wire itself. At the moment, I am rebuilding a crystal radio set I had as a Xmas gift from my father way back in about 1968. You see, the radio wave is a magnetic monopole, it is not an electron out of some atom. > > > > I need to build this Preface into a good logical history expose of how feeble was the understanding and teaching of What the Real Electron was in science from 1897 to 2017. > > > > How utterly feeble it is, to have millions of students around the world sitting in classes, hearing the teacher, the instructor saying that the electron is a .5MeV particle that runs along copper wires and yields electricity. > > > > When the real truth is, that electrons are very heavy particles of 105 MeV, 1/8 the mass of the proton at 840 MeV, and it is rare, extremely rare that this massive Real Electron ever leaves its proton, but that these magnetic monopoles flit around, flit here, flit there, flit almost everywhere, and these monopoles are electricity. > > > > AP > > > > Newsgroups: sci.math > > Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 13:32:28 -0800 (PST) > > > > Subject: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- > > Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV > > From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> > > Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 21:32:28 +0000 > > > > Proofs that the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV, and that the .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole, after all > > > > Experimental PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon > > by Archimedes Plutonium > > > > PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon > > > > 1st proof is chemical bonding cannot exist with momentum of 938 versus .5MeV > > Chemical Bonds are covalent, ionic, metallic. You simply cannot get atoms to bond if the electron is thought of as the .5MeV particle, only with a muon at 105 MeV and the proton at 840 MeV with neutron at 945 MeV do you have the physics of angular momentum that allows bonding in Chemistry. The .5MeV particle was, all along a magnetic monopole of a photon with .5 MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy. > > > > Newsgroups: sci.physics > > Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 18:28:06 -0700 (PDT) > > > > Subject: short history of subatomic particles of Physics Re: True Chemistry-- > > 2018 textbook > > From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> > > Injection-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 01:28:07 +0000 > > > > short history of subatomic particles of Physics Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook > > > > In my textbook True Chemistry, those new early pages, I need a chronology of history of how we viewed atoms, their constituent elementary particles, and electricity. For the blame as to not knowing the .5MeV particle was not the electron but a magnetic monopole, is the conceit of the minds of physicists, or should be say the naivety of the minds of physicists is that they were blown away by +1 and -1 charge. If we had taken off the table the electric charge. Then when JJ Thomson discovered this 1897 particle of .5MeV, if electric charge was not a issue, then Thomson, in my opinion would have realized it could not be the electron. > > > > So let me make a rough sketch of the history involved, the pertinent history. > > > > 1861-1864, Maxwell wrote " A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field"-- a complete theory of electricity tying together magnetism, as EM, electromagnetism theory. Perhaps the single greatest physics book, or book in general, before the Atom Totality textbook. > > > > 1897, J.J. Thomson discovers a .5MeV particle, with a -1 charge, which he names as electron, thinking it is the electron of atoms, which, it turns out by 2017 is the Dirac magnetic monopole, and the muon is the real-electron. > > > > 1913, the Bohr model of the Atom, which gives no working role for its elementary subatomic particles of proton, electron, neutron, photon (of which the magnetic monopole is a photon with a charge energy-- or a neutrino with charge energy). Sadly, the Bohr model is lacking any sort of physical role for these subatomic particles, other than to say, let there exist a proton, let there exist a electron. It is this lack of a job or role or working marching order for subatomic particles that should have alerted all chemists, all physicists, that they have a looney tune model of the atom. In the true model of the Atom, come 2017, is that the elementary particles are doing a Faraday Law and Ampere Law sort of like a dance, a job, a commitment for their existence, inside the Atom, conducted by those protons and muons. Where protons as a coil and muon electron as a bar magnet creates new monopoles, converting Space into monopoles, and stored in neutrons as capacitors, which a hydrogen atom grows to become a deuterium atom etc etc. In other words, the creation of new atoms and heavier atoms is the job of existing atoms. > > > > 1917-1920, Rutherford discovers the proton of what he thought was 938 MeV > > > > 1931, Dirac with a paper on magnetic monopoles which in order to satisfy the quantization of electricity, which implies that monopoles must exist. > > > > 1932, Chadwick discovered the neutron of 945 MeV. Now they discovered these particles, like the neutron and proton but would have to wait years before they refined their masses on how much mass they had. > > > > 1936, Anderson & Neddermeyer discover the muon particle of 105 MeV. I do not know what year they found out it weighed 105 MeV. > > > > > > . . \. . .|. . /. . > > ..\....|.../... > > ::\:::|::/:: > > --------------- ------------- > > --------------- (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 without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. > > > > Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. > > > > https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe > > Archimedes Plutonium > ====================== > psycho moron!! > the Diamond is 3D not 2 D > sorry > you have not the faintest ability/ education /practice > to cope with 3D structures : > particles are not f en formula or eve not 2d sketches > ======= > http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract > === > Y.P > ============= nasty psychopath pig shit from whom did I stole that above 3D model Of the CARBON - DIAMOND nuc /MOLECULE from YOU psycho ??? and mind you THE DIDMONED / MULECULE /NUCLEI IS COMPOSED OF 5 ATOMS OF CARBON !!!! IT ID SHOWN IN MY TABLES 2 AND 3 =================== T.P =================
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web