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

Groups > sci.physics > #721567 > unrolled thread

AP's thoughts of science for 30DEC2018// more on battery// surprisingly fresh ideas on Stonethrowing theory-- why Southern Italy is the birthplace of our ancestors

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  AP's thoughts of science for 30DEC2018// more on battery// surprisingly fresh ideas on Stonethrowing theory-- why Southern Italy is the birthplace of our ancestors Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-30 10:19 -0800
    capacitor most primitive form of Faraday's law Re: AP's thoughts of science for 30DEC2018// more on battery// surprisingly fresh ideas on Stonethrowing theory Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-30 15:38 -0800
      capacitor most primitive form of Faraday's law Re: AP's thoughts of science for 30DEC2018// more on battery// surprisingly fresh ideas on Stonethrowing theory Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-30 18:27 -0800
        the AP equations shows a capacitor is Faraday's law of applied pressure Re: AP's thoughts of science for 30DEC2018// more on battery Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-30 19:18 -0800
          Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-31 05:06 +0000
          Inertia = meters^2/seconds Re: AP's thoughts of science for 30DEC2018// more on battery Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-30 21:44 -0800
            Smallest unit Conserved in Physics meters^2/seconds Re: Inertia = meters^2/seconds Re: AP's thoughts of science for 30DEC2018// more on battery Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-30 22:00 -0800
            with 840 to 105 atoms have Faraday's law Re: AP's thoughts of science for 30DEC2018// more on battery Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-30 22:21 -0800
              should the angular momentum of proton equal that of angular momentum of muon? Re: with 840 to 105 atoms have Faraday's law Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-30 22:53 -0800
                Conservation of Angular Momentum alone proves the Cosmos is a Atom Totality Re: should the angular momentum of proton equal that of angular momentum of muon? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-30 23:36 -0800
                  my own history on angular momentum of proton and electron Re: Conservation of Angular Momentum alone proves the Cosmos is a Atom Totality Re: should the angular momentum of proton equal that of angular momentum of muon? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 00:01 -0800
                    proof that AM is conserved?Re: my own history on angular momentum of proton and electron Re: Conservation of Angular Momentum alone proves the Cosmos is a Atom Totality Re: should the angular momentum of proton equal that of angular momentum of muon? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 00:13 -0800
                      proof that AM is conserved?Re: my own history on angular momentum of proton and electron Re: Conservation of Angular Momentum alone proves the Cosmos is a Atom Totality Re: should the angular momentum of proton equal that of angular momentum of muon? Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 00:47 -0800
                        When we define angular momentum as per Newton’s equal areas Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-31 02:19 -0800
    Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-31 01:02 +0000
    Re: AP's thoughts of science for 30DEC2018// more on battery// surprisingly fresh ideas on Stonethrowing theory-- why Southern Italy is the birthplace of our ancestors Dave Parker <invalid@example.com> - 2019-01-01 15:37 -0800

#721567 — AP's thoughts of science for 30DEC2018// more on battery// surprisingly fresh ideas on Stonethrowing theory-- why Southern Italy is the birthplace of our ancestors

Alright there is no new news. This page of Anthropology is just a pure slab of Logical Reasoning on my part.

I left off of my textbook Stonethrowing Theory in 2016 with these entries below.

But what I want to apply today is Logical Reasoning. For Old Anthropology places our ancestors in Africa, that eventually migrated out of Africa.

My theory places our Ancestors evolution from apes in Southern Italy, like Sardinia.

Now we know the Neanderthals were northern species of Homo, and who eventually met up with a southern species of Homo that would extinct the Neanderthals.

LOGICAL REASONING: So, now, which theory is the most logical to describe what happened? In Old Anthropology, you would need some ape ancestors to evolve into what would become us and independently some ape ancestor to evolve into Neanderthal. But in AP theory, if Sardinia is the cradle of all Homo evolution, then you have the ape ancestor migrating northward, southward and eastward. And then finally, millions of years later, the champion evolved homo would conquer the outliers.

So the AP theory is superior in the migration issue, while Old Anthropology with its homo cradle in Africa, is too illogical.


Newsgroups: sci.math 
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 01:29:30 -0800 (PST) 

Subject: (snipped)// STONETHROWING 
 THEORY: recent news on Oreopithecus, Sardinia page62 
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> 
Injection-Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2016 09:29:31 +0000 



(snipped)// STONETHROWING THEORY: recent news on Oreopithecus, Sardinia page62 

(snipped) 

Last page of STONETHROWING THEORY: 

STONETHROWING THEORY: recent news on Oreopithecus, origination in Sardinia page62 


I end this textbook on recent news whilst in hospital surgery for my cancer last Spring. The news was from BBC, March 2016, titled "Europe was once home to a wild ape unlike all others" written by Colin Barras. 

I wrote about it in hospital last Spring, saying that the Anthropology community was finally catching up to the Stonethrowing theory and heavily supporting the theory, because I had concluded from the evidence before 2016, that our ancestors came from Southern Italy, where an ape started throwing rocks and stones to huge advantage in getting mates, food, and other advantages and eventually this habit of throwing forced bipedalism as the evolving ape moved out of Italy into Asia, Northern Europe, and Africa. The African migration speeded up the evolution of throwing to its utmost because Africa has more predators and more game animals than Europe or Asia, and after millions of years, it was the African evolution that would be the superior stonethrower and would cause the European (Neanderthal) and Asian Homo to go extinct once the African line met up. 


Newsgroups: sci.math 
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 04:52:46 -0700 (PDT) 
In-Reply-To: <ndao7v$1mui$2@gioia.aioe.org> 

Subject: Re: +Goldbach Clarity Proof using Even-Number-Addition-Multiplication Arrays 
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> 
Injection-Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 11:52:47 +0000 

I have no idea of what you are doing with coprimes but do not let me stop you. 

Just read a absorbing report by Colin Barras on Oreopithecus of Italy, Tuscany and Sardinia which conforms completely with my theory of it being our earliest ancestor in that they lived in more open spaces to better use their newfound adaptive habit of throwing rocks and stones. I am confident that someday it will be found there was meat in their diet. 

My theory is Rock Throwing turned ape into human. 

AP 

Recently on NOVA was an updated story on Ottzi the Swiss man found on the mountain and his DNA was focused in on origins from Sardinia 

AP 

So, what was lacking in Anthropology before this textbook on Stonethrowing theory is a coherent and logical theme that would embrace the evolution of a ape into our species of Homo sapiens. A theory that would propel changes of body plan of an ape body to a human body with its key feature of bipedalism. 

Before Stonethrowing theory, idiots of anthropology hung so much importance on silly trivial ideas like language or loss of tree cover or the increasing grassland over trees, or the savannah increase, or global warming or climate change, and even something crazily stupid like a water-ape. 

It is logical to see that one force-- the act of throwing can transform a ape into a Homo sapiens, which causes the ape to have to walk on two legs to better throw by the free arms. And this throwing takes more brain power in seeing a stone trajectory-- forethought, geometry, analytical in finding and using rocks, in fact, throwing is the start of a creature that has science. Science is born when apes had the habit, the act of throwing to gain advantage. 

Now in that BBC report, they find Oreopithecus in Southern Italy, and write: 

"Oreopithecus lived over 7 million years ago, before human evolution had really got underway-- yet in many ways it was strangely human" 

"Europe had been home to several species of ape since about 17 million years ago." 

"Its fossil bones tell the story of an animal that did not look or act like its European ape ancestors." 

"The latest evidence for this comes from an analysis of Oreopithecus's diet." 

"There is controversial evidence... that Oreopithecus walked upright on two legs." 

Now in this report, they do not discuss the possibility of testing the teeth whether Oreopithecus was more of a meat-eater than other apes. Maybe in the future, the teeth of Oreopithecus can determine whether a large part of their diet was meat, due to their superior stonethrowing over other ape species at that time. 

So, slowly but surely the evidence is mounting in favor of one theory that embraces the entire history of evolution of ape into homo sapiens. 

AP 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#721625 — capacitor most primitive form of Faraday's law Re: AP's thoughts of science for 30DEC2018// more on battery// surprisingly fresh ideas on Stonethrowing theory

So, I have all three of these all under one umbrella-- Faraday Law

1) Electric generator-- thrusting bar magnet through closed loop wire creates electricity
2) Battery of plates of metal or electrodes with electrolyte thrusting through
3) Capacitor -- plates of metal with dielectric

And I am thinking that the Capacitor is Faraday's law and the most primitive form of Faraday's Law.

All under the same mathematics of Faraday's law.

AP

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

#721654 — capacitor most primitive form of Faraday's law Re: AP's thoughts of science for 30DEC2018// more on battery// surprisingly fresh ideas on Stonethrowing theory

Now the reason most people think capacitors are in Ampere’s law is due to parallel currents attract, and displacement current.

But Ampere’s law is really about turning electricity into a magnetic field while Faraday law is about turning magnetism into electricity.

So what can we say about a capacitor— do we get electricity out of it or magnetism?

I think the answer is we get electricity, and thus a Faraday Law. And what we are storing in a capacitor is monopoles of charged light. Remember the recent discovery of “slow light”. Well slow light is a capacitor.

Now there would be a nice experimental proof of this idea that the Capacitor is Faradays law if we can show the capacitor when discharged had mor electricity coming out than what was put in. In that the motion inside the capacitor created more monopoles than what was supplied.

I have always marvelled at how robust capacitors were.  AP

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

#721663 — the AP equations shows a capacitor is Faraday's law of applied pressure Re: AP's thoughts of science for 30DEC2018// more on battery

Apparently it is motion more than anything else that creates electricity. The thrusting bar magnet in Faraday's law. The motion of ions in electrolyte of battery. The motion of a forced pressure upon parallel plates (aluminum foil interspersed by paper) in a capacitor as the applied pressure creates a current.

So i do not think in the Maxwell Equations of Faraday law that we can see this "motion" well enough. And here the AP equations of Maxwell are better for the Faraday law in AP equations is this:


1) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field  B = kg /A*s^2 
2) V = i*B*L       New Ohm's law, law of electricity 
3) V' = (i*B*L)'          Ampere-Maxwell law 
4) (V/i*L)'  = B'        Faraday law 
5) (V/(B*L))' = i'      the new law of spin 
6) (V/(i*B))' = L'      the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force 

And when we break down the Faraday Law into its derivative components we have

But getting back to the Faraday law written correctly should be: 

(f/gh)' = (f'gh - fg'h - fgh')/(gh)^2   Quotient Rule of differentiation 

Thrusting bar magnet through coil = current + magnetic field (Lenz). 

All we need is just the plain and simple Quotient Rule of Differential Calculus applied to New Ohm's law. 

(V/i*L)'  = B' 

Using the Quotient Rule, which is (f/gh)' = (f'gh - fg'h - fgh')/(gh)^2 

(V/i*L)' = (V'*i*L - V*i' *L - V*i*L') / (i*L)^2 

> 
> Faraday law 
> 
> B' = (V/i*L)' = (V'*i*L - V*i' *L - V*i*L') / (i*L)^2 
> 
> > = ((i_C)iL - VBL -Vi(i_C))/ i^2L^2 
> 
> Now if we assume currents are the same, where i and i_C are the same we reduce Faraday's law to this 
> 
> = 1/L - VB/i^2L - V/L^2 

You see, we just have so many more terms to pick out Pressure, than the old maxwell equations.

And the experimental proof is already in, and existing for if you have Voltage, you have current. And when building a Capacitor with aluminum foil interspliced with paper, and apply pressure to the layers, you get current. You get current without ever entering a current. The applied pressure creates the current.

And the old maxwell equations has not enough terms to realize a capacitor is Faraday's law.

AP

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

#721679 — Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

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

>Subject: Re: the AP equations shows a capacitor is Faraday's law of 
>applied pressure Re: AP's thoughts of science for 30DEC2018// more on battery

>And when we break down the Faraday Law into its derivative components we have

"We", Archie? You are just one crank. "We" is for two or more people.

>All we need is just the plain and simple Quotient Rule of Differential

Again "we" misused here.

>> Now if we assume

And again.

>You see, we just have so

Can't you count to 1, Archie?

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

#721683 — Inertia = meters^2/seconds Re: AP's thoughts of science for 30DEC2018// more on battery

On Sunday, December 30, 2018 at 9:18:59 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Apparently it is motion more than anything else that creates electricity. The thrusting bar magnet in Faraday's law. The motion of ions in electrolyte of battery. The motion of a forced pressure upon parallel plates (aluminum foil interspersed by paper) in a capacitor as the applied pressure creates a current.
> 
> So i do not think in the Maxwell Equations of Faraday law that we can see this "motion" well enough. And here the AP equations of Maxwell are better for the Faraday law in AP equations is this:
> 
> 
> 1) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field  B = kg /A*s^2 
> 2) V = i*B*L       New Ohm's law, law of electricity 
> 3) V' = (i*B*L)'          Ampere-Maxwell law 
> 4) (V/i*L)'  = B'        Faraday law 
> 5) (V/(B*L))' = i'      the new law of spin 
> 6) (V/(i*B))' = L'      the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force 
> 
> And when we break down the Faraday Law into its derivative components we have
> 
> But getting back to the Faraday law written correctly should be: 
> 
> (f/gh)' = (f'gh - fg'h - fgh')/(gh)^2   Quotient Rule of differentiation 
> 
> Thrusting bar magnet through coil = current + magnetic field (Lenz). 
> 
> All we need is just the plain and simple Quotient Rule of Differential Calculus applied to New Ohm's law. 
> 
> (V/i*L)'  = B' 
> 
> Using the Quotient Rule, which is (f/gh)' = (f'gh - fg'h - fgh')/(gh)^2 
> 
> (V/i*L)' = (V'*i*L - V*i' *L - V*i*L') / (i*L)^2 
> 
> > 
> > Faraday law 
> > 
> > B' = (V/i*L)' = (V'*i*L - V*i' *L - V*i*L') / (i*L)^2 
> > 
> > > = ((i_C)iL - VBL -Vi(i_C))/ i^2L^2 
> > 
> > Now if we assume currents are the same, where i and i_C are the same we reduce Faraday's law to this 
> > 
> > = 1/L - VB/i^2L - V/L^2 
> 
> You see, we just have so many more terms to pick out Pressure, than the old maxwell equations.
> 
> And the experimental proof is already in, and existing for if you have Voltage, you have current. And when building a Capacitor with aluminum foil interspliced with paper, and apply pressure to the layers, you get current. You get current without ever entering a current. The applied pressure creates the current.
> 
> And the old maxwell equations has not enough terms to realize a capacitor is Faraday's law.
> 

Now the units of L , of Angular Momentum is proportional to meters^2/seconds while acceleration is meters/seconds^2.

Acceleration is not conserved, but angular momentum is conserved.

The speed of light is conserved because it is always a constant.

There is a concept in physics called inertia. It is murky. But one can say that inertia is conserved. In that vain, one can say that Inertia = meters^2/seconds

Angular Momentum = mass*meters^2/seconds

Inertia = meters^2/seconds

Acceleration = meters/seconds^2

What other conservations do we have to compare? There is conservation of energy, not of force.

Force = kg*m/s^2 

Energy = kg*m^2 / s^2 

So what is meters^2/seconds^2 

It is the frequency of inertia. And by frequency we can say the occurrence of inertia.

Now as we slow down light, recent successes in bottling light, in effect we built a capacitor of light. We turned light into magnetic monopole of static electricity.

AP

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

#721689 — Smallest unit Conserved in Physics meters^2/seconds Re: Inertia = meters^2/seconds Re: AP's thoughts of science for 30DEC2018// more on battery

Yes, what is going to tie all this together is "What is Conserved" that as a guiding principle. We know energy and angular momentum are conserved. We know force and acceleration and linear momentum are not conserved. That should tell us all.

Acceleration is meters/seconds^2 while in angular momentum we have meters^2/second sort of a reversal of the exponent. We know Energy is conserved at meters^2/seconds^2. And we have a parameter of Frequency 1/seconds to tell us how often a quantity occurs.

But, what we do not have in Old Physics is units of Inertia and let me define Inertia as the smallest Conserved units.

Since Angular Momentum is conserved, and since angular momentum is the smallest parameter that is conserved, means, inside of angular momentum is the smallest conservation unit. That smallest unit is meters^2/seconds.

Since this smallest conserved parameter has no name for it. We can easily call it Inertia.

So that meters^2/seconds is Inertia.


On Sunday, December 30, 2018 at 11:44:43 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> 
> Now the units of L , of Angular Momentum is proportional to meters^2/seconds while acceleration is meters/seconds^2.
> 
> Acceleration is not conserved, but angular momentum is conserved.
> 
> The speed of light is conserved because it is always a constant.
> 
> There is a concept in physics called inertia. It is murky. But one can say that inertia is conserved. In that vain, one can say that Inertia = meters^2/seconds
> 
> Angular Momentum = mass*meters^2/seconds
> 
> Inertia = meters^2/seconds
> 
> Acceleration = meters/seconds^2
> 
> What other conservations do we have to compare? There is conservation of energy, not of force.
> 
> Force = kg*m/s^2 
> 
> Energy = kg*m^2 / s^2 
> 
> So what is meters^2/seconds^2 
> 
> It is the frequency of inertia. And by frequency we can say the occurrence of inertia.
> 
> Now as we slow down light, recent successes in bottling light, in effect we built a capacitor of light. We turned light into magnetic monopole of static electricity.
> 

Inertia is important for Faraday's law, for we need something -- constant motion-- and the inertia of Angular Momentum supplies us with the constant motion as we bottle it up inside a battery or capacitor.

AP

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

#721690 — with 840 to 105 atoms have Faraday's law Re: AP's thoughts of science for 30DEC2018// more on battery

Yes, now, this is good good good, for it is often said that inertia is the measure of mass.

Because we want to understand why the proton at 938MeV and electron at .5MeV could not possible allow for Chemistry bonding and that the true proton is 840 to muon 105 MeV as true electron. 

So if we have Angular Momentum as mass*meters^2/seconds and what is conserved is the meters^2/seconds then we just cannot have a Faraday's law of proton with muon for the meters^2/seconds would be virtually the same for both proton 938MeV and the .5MeV

But if the proton were 840MeV and given a smaller meters^2/seconds while muon is 105MeV, given a larger meters^2/seconds then the angular momentum of proton to muon are equal, and we have a Faraday's law.

AP

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

#721693 — should the angular momentum of proton equal that of angular momentum of muon? Re: with 840 to 105 atoms have Faraday's law

On Monday, December 31, 2018 at 12:21:09 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Yes, now, this is good good good, for it is often said that inertia is the measure of mass.
> 
> Because we want to understand why the proton at 938MeV and electron at .5MeV could not possible allow for Chemistry bonding and that the true proton is 840 to muon 105 MeV as true electron. 
> 
> So if we have Angular Momentum as mass*meters^2/seconds and what is conserved is the meters^2/seconds then we just cannot have a Faraday's law of proton with muon for the meters^2/seconds would be virtually the same for both proton 938MeV and the .5MeV
> 
> But if the proton were 840MeV and given a smaller meters^2/seconds while muon is 105MeV, given a larger meters^2/seconds then the angular momentum of proton to muon are equal, and we have a Faraday's law.
> 
>

Strangely enough this is coming back to a question I had a year ago. What is the mass comparison of bar magnet to coil in Faraday's law for maximum electricity.

The idea that the conservation of angular momentum of proton at 840 MeV is equal to the angular momentum of muon = electron at 105 MeV, so that the Space involved with the Muon is so much larger than the space involved with the proton so that the two angular momentums equilibrate with one another.

This is more of a proof that protons and muons are doing a Faraday's law.

But it would prove beyond doubt that the proton cannot be 938MeV with electron at .5MeV.

AP

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

#721699 — Conservation of Angular Momentum alone proves the Cosmos is a Atom Totality Re: should the angular momentum of proton equal that of angular momentum of muon?

Now it is safe to say, the Conservation of Angular Momentum is a thoroughly stunning proof that the Universe is a Single Atom Totality with smaller atoms inside itself.

Because Angular Momentum is about going around in a circle-- an atom. And the only way this parameter is conserved would be for everything that exists, goes around in a circle. The Atomic Theory-- the only things that exist are atoms.

And I should add, that a physicist could spend his/her entire career in physics and devoted to just one concept-- angular momentum, for it is a huge huge topic alone. For history has shown us, that not a single physicist of the 20th century every understood angular momentum-- for if you did-- you would realize chemistry with the chemical covalent bond cannot exist on 938MeV proton with .5MeV electron, and still have those two particles doing a Faraday Law.

AP

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

#721700 — my own history on angular momentum of proton and electron Re: Conservation of Angular Momentum alone proves the Cosmos is a Atom Totality Re: should the angular momentum of proton equal that of angular momentum of muon?

On Monday, December 31, 2018 at 1:36:37 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Now it is safe to say, the Conservation of Angular Momentum is a thoroughly stunning proof that the Universe is a Single Atom Totality with smaller atoms inside itself.
> 
> Because Angular Momentum is about going around in a circle-- an atom. And the only way this parameter is conserved would be for everything that exists, goes around in a circle. The Atomic Theory-- the only things that exist are atoms.
> 
> And I should add, that a physicist could spend his/her entire career in physics and devoted to just one concept-- angular momentum, for it is a huge huge topic alone. For history has shown us, that not a single physicist of the 20th century every understood angular momentum-- for if you did-- you would realize chemistry with the chemical covalent bond cannot exist on 938MeV proton with .5MeV electron, and still have those two particles doing a Faraday Law.
> 

I should state for the record my own thoughts on angular momentum and proton and electron of the Bohr atom. What I believed in from 1990 until 2017, before discovery that the true electron was the muon. I believed the Angular Momentum of Proton at 938MeV versus the .5MeV particle was this equation

938 * meters_1^2/seconds = .5 * meters_2^2/seconds

So that the Space the electron resides in compensates for its tiny mass and makes the Angular Momentum of proton= electron.

Often I posted that electron Space occupied compensates for the large mass of the proton. And the angular momentum, still should equilibrate between the two particles. However, those two particles cannot do the Faraday Law if the electron were .5MeV and proton at 938MeV, because the space of the proton and electron in order to do the Faraday Law, are about the same at the ratio of 8 to 1.

So we equilibrate the angular momentum of proton with muon and that allows for them to do the Faraday Law, only at 840 MeV to 105 MeV.

Now this also shapes our picture of whether the proton is the coil or the bar magnet in Faraday's Law. But instead we think of the electric-eel as plates and the electrocytes and ion solution running through. We think of the galaxies, each as a electrocyte and the cosmic bar magnet is the charged particles as electrolyte solution.

Before 2018, I thought the night sky was just the last electrons of 231Pu as electron-dot-cloud and the dots represent galaxies. Now I see the night sky as the 94th proton and the 94th muon of 231Pu, both doing a Faraday Law creating more magnetic monopoles (some in the form of gamma ray bursts).

AP

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

#721702 — proof that AM is conserved?Re: my own history on angular momentum of proton and electron Re: Conservation of Angular Momentum alone proves the Cosmos is a Atom Totality Re: should the angular momentum of proton equal that of angular momentum of muon?

Alright, I have plenty of ideas to go to bed with on Angular Momentum. But, I have a nagging question about angular momentum, in how was it that physicists thought AM was conserved? I mean, did they keep looking at bubble chamber tracks and said-- AM was conserved. I mean, where is the solid proof that AM is conserved?

AP

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

#721705 — proof that AM is conserved?Re: my own history on angular momentum of proton and electron Re: Conservation of Angular Momentum alone proves the Cosmos is a Atom Totality Re: should the angular momentum of proton equal that of angular momentum of muon?

Surprize there, Newton proved conservation of angular momentum in one of his planet motion laws— sweeping out equal areas in equal intervals of time.

So now let me see if i can readapt that law to the 938 to .5 compared to 840 to 105.

We define angular momentum as sweeping out equal area in equal time intervals.

AP

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

#721709 — When we define angular momentum as per Newton’s equal areas

In equal time intervals then we can see that angular momentum is forming a circle or ellipse. Then we go back to both gravity force and Coulomb force and see if 938 to .5 forms a circle or ellipse. Or if 840 to 105 does so. Have to check my figures tomorrow, a lot of conversions, but the 938 to .5 does not form an ellipse. The 8 to 1 ratio of 840MeV with 105MeV forms an ellipse, meaning the true proton to electron is 840 to 105.

AP

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

#721642 — Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

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

>On Sunday, December 30, 2018 at 10:04:03 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> you will continue to be punished
>> for your abuse and insubordination, and I will enjoy the lemonade.


>AP writes: Oh, I was not aware you owned sci.math and sci.physics and all 
>authors have to conform to you-- an insane piece of shit that you are

No, you will continue to be punished for attacking me, as well as 
insulting your superiors. Remember, you are the bottom dude on the physics
and math totem pole, you are not allowed to insult your betters, such as
Jan, Franz, Dan.

And it is you, not me, who acts as if you owned sci.math and sci.physics,
with you treating them as your own toilet. Look at the last aeveral
topics. You attack Jan, me, others, call several people "parasite"  
(another word, like "racist" which you don't know the meaning of)
Is posting that "doing math" or "doing physics"? I don't think so!
Hypocrite! Toilet posts, not science!

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

#721975

Stop posting the same thing over
and over you blithering fuckwit.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web