Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #722537 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-01-07 12:00 -0800 |
| Last post | 2019-01-07 23:10 -0800 |
| Articles | 9 — 3 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
AP's thoughts 7JAN2019// resolving 1/137, a quote from Feynman// redshift as "tired light"= charged light// Heath-Brown-Moroz constant Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 12:00 -0800
AP's thoughts 7JAN2019// resolving 1/137, a quote from Feynman// redshift as "tired light"= charged light// Heath-Brown-Moroz constant Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 12:03 -0800
Feynman quote on 1/137 Re: AP's thoughts 7JAN2019// resolving 1/137, a quote from Feynman// redshift as "tired light"= charged light// Heath-Brown-Moroz constant Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 12:35 -0800
Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot of Mathematics" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-07 21:18 +0000
Re: Feynman quote on 1/137 Re: AP's thoughts 7JAN2019// resolving 1/137, a quote from Feynman// redshift as "tired light"= charged light// Heath-Brown-Moroz constant Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 14:27 -0800
Re: Feynman quote on 1/137 Re: AP's thoughts 7JAN2019// resolving 1/137, a quote from Feynman// redshift as "tired light"= charged light// Heath-Brown-Moroz constant mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2019-01-07 15:09 -0800
A 137 sided polygon is the Fine Structure Constant to maintain equal areas swept out in equal time intervals Re: .00729 Re: reviewing Feynman's quote on 1/137 Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 17:28 -0800
Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot of Mathematics" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2019-01-08 02:45 +0000
conjecture on percentage formulas Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 23:10 -0800
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 12:00 -0800 |
| Subject | AP's thoughts 7JAN2019// resolving 1/137, a quote from Feynman// redshift as "tired light"= charged light// Heath-Brown-Moroz constant |
| Message-ID | <da39a078-3581-4d5d-8b58-498deafc8e48@googlegroups.com> |
Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 11:50:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: AP's thoughts 7JAN2019// resolving 1/137, a quote from Feynman// redshift as "tired light"= charged light// Heath-Brown-Moroz constant From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2019 19:50:32 +0000 AP's thoughts 7JAN2019// resolving 1/137, a quote from Feynman// redshift as "tired light"= charged light// Heath-Brown-Moroz constant Alright, I am building up for the launch of the 9th edition of Atom Totality. I need to tie together a few loose strings, one of them is the angular momentum, ellipse, and the constant 1/137. I said it many times recently but worth saying again and again. To master physics means you mastered Angular Momentum. No-one in physics history has ever mastered Angular Momentum for if they did, they would understand that Chemistry cannot exist with proton at 938MeV and electron at .5MeV. For the world to have covalent bonding such as H2, you need the proton to be 840MeV and the electron=muon = 105MeV. There upon that mass ratio of 8 to 1, can the chemistry covalent bond exist. What JJ Thomson discovered in 1897 was not the electron of atoms, but rather, instead, was the Dirac Magnetic Monopole of atoms. And Magnetic Monopoles include three types for the photon and three types for the neutrino-- uncharged photon, charged open photon, charged closed photon. Light waves are photons and light waves are of three types- uncharged, charged open, charged closed. Neutrinos are magnetic monopoles and come in three types also. The muon and proton inside atoms that makes up atoms are performing the Faraday Law and creating magnetic monopoles by converting Space into monopoles. These monopoles are storaged in what we call neutrons. Neutrons are simply storage capacitors, and once the neutron grows to the size of 945MeV, it converts itself into a proton plus muon and thus the atom is transformed into a higher atomic element. This Faraday Law is not only how the Universe grows in mass, but is also the source of energy that stars shine and our Sun shines. Our Sun and stars are not shining from fusion, no, for fusion can only contribute to about 10% of a star shining, whereas 90% of the shine of energy of a star comes from the Faraday Law going on inside each and every atom inside that Star. Since Angular Momentum was defined originally by Kepler and Newton as equal areas swept out in equal time intervals, that definition is the same as "what is the ellipse in mathematics". Sadly, from Kepler and Newton in the 17th century, no physicist was ever able to understand angular-momentum and so bad, were the physicists after Kepler and Newton defined Angular Momentum, that we have nothing but kook-physics definitions of angular momentum, that only obfuscated the meaning of angular momentum and thus the silly stupid idea that the .5MeV particle is the electron. So, to master physics, you need to master angular momentum, and to master angular momentum, you need to master the ellipse. And to master angular momentum allows you to master Electricity and Magnetism. For Physics is all about Atoms and that is angular momentum and that is electricity and magnetism. So, when you see an ellipse and see its directrix, the radial line from the focus is magnetism and the perpendicular line from the directrix is the electricity of a particle in the ellipse path. Since all of electricity and magnetism is inundated by this constant number 1/137, means that this number has to exist in all ellipses as a constant. Of course, 1/137 is .007299 What is that number as a universal constant in all ellipses? Well, let us define an angle of a CURVE. Of course no curves exist in Nature, because all things are made up of atoms and each atom is a tiny line segment so all things are strings of line segments that "look like a smooth curve" but is really line segments. So here is where this 1/137 comes in. It is a negotiator between what looks like a curve but is really a string of straightline segments. The world has no circles, no ellipses, but what it does have are tiny tiny straightline segments strung together. Just as all matter is tiny atoms strung together, and each atom is a straightline segment. A curve is a continuum, and the world has no continuum for the world is discrete of atoms, and atoms are not curves. So this is where the number 1/137 comes in. It negotiates between the imaginary concept of a smooth curve with the reality of a string of straightline segments. And let me show you how it negotiates a circle and ellipse. I cannot draw circles or ellipses so I must talk my way through this with ascii art. Suppose we have a circle and a square inside the circle intersecting at 4 points and two of those four points is illustrated: C D A ____________B two points of the circle and square are A and B with side of square as AB. The points C and D are part of the arc of the circle that stretches from A to B. Let me call that entire figure, closed figure a Diangle for it has two vertices of A and B, and is closed and has two angles we must worry about, the angle CAB and DBA. These two angles are compose of one straight line segment but one curved line segment. Now what is the measure of those two angles for the square? Since the circle has 360 and the square has 4 sides we would say the angle DBA and CAB are 45 degree angles. We would say a diameter in a circle, that the diangle is 90degrees, for a equilateral triangle inside a circle we have 3 line segments and we define that angle as 1/3. For the square we defined the diangle and it is 45degrees and it is 1/4. So if 1/4 is 45 then what is 1/3? Doing a proportion we have 1/4/1/3 proportional 45/x thus 3x=180, x=60degrees. Now we move on to a pentagon and its diangles we have 5x=180 x=36degrees, moving on to hexagon diangle we have 6x=180 x=30. Now moving on to 100-gon we have 100x=180 x=1.8. Finally a 137-gon is 1.31 degrees. Now we switch our attention to this Heath-Brown-Moroz constant of .00131. Notice, if you can, that 1.31 degrees and .00131 look alike if we multiply by 1000. Notice also, that .00729 when divided by .00131 is 5.564. Now, 5.564 does not look like any constant we know of. But once we realize that a CIRCLE true constant is not really 3.141 for that is a diameter sweeping out a circle and a diameter can only rotate 180degrees before it starts to duplicate where it has been. No, to be the true constant of the circle we need the number 6.283.... and the number 3.141... was a derivative. The true constant of circles is 6.283. Now there is another constant in math known as 2.71828... but, is that its true constant value or is it also a derivative? Well, the true constant value of the log number is 2*2.71828 = 5.436 Now what is the sigma error of 5.564 versus 5.436 is 1.02. A 2% sigma error. More later,,,, have a lot to cover AP
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 12:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5f460ab6-88ff-49b5-9056-099b7310622a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #722537 |
Source— Wikipedia Richard Feynman, one of the originators and early developers of the theory of quantum electrodynamics (QED), referred to the fine-structure constant in these terms: There is a most profound and beautiful question associated with the observed coupling constant, e – the amplitude for a real electron to emit or absorb a real photon. It is a simple number that has been experimentally determined to be close to 0.08542455. (My physicist friends won't recognize this number, because they like to remember it as the inverse of its square: about 137.03597 with about an uncertainty of about 2 in the last decimal place. It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it.) Immediately you would like to know where this number for a coupling comes from: is it related to pi or perhaps to the base of natural logarithms? Nobody knows. It's one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the "hand of God" wrote that number, and "we don't know how He pushed his pencil." We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally to measure this number very accurately, but we don't know what kind of dance to do on the computer to make this number come out, without putting it in secretly!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 12:35 -0800 |
| Subject | Feynman quote on 1/137 Re: AP's thoughts 7JAN2019// resolving 1/137, a quote from Feynman// redshift as "tired light"= charged light// Heath-Brown-Moroz constant |
| Message-ID | <2b7231d7-8321-4c65-a736-e4d379481c68@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #722538 |
On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 2:03:55 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Source— Wikipedia > > Richard Feynman, one of the originators and early developers of the theory of quantum electrodynamics (QED), referred to the fine-structure constant in these terms: > > There is a most profound and beautiful question associated with the observed coupling constant, e – the amplitude for a real electron to emit or absorb a real photon. It is a simple number that has been experimentally determined to be close to 0.08542455. (My physicist friends won't recognize this number, because they like to remember it as the inverse of its square: about 137.03597 with about an uncertainty of about 2 in the last decimal place. It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it.) Immediately you would like to know where this number for a coupling comes from: is it related to pi or perhaps to the base of natural logarithms? Nobody knows. It's one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the "hand of God" wrote that number, and "we don't know how He pushed his pencil." We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally to measure this number very accurately, but we don't know what kind of dance to do on the computer to make this number come out, without putting it in secretly!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 21:18 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot of Mathematics" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test |
| Message-ID | <q10fma$jbl$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #722544 |
Chattering Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails: >Subject: Re: Feynman quote on 1/137 Re: AP's thoughts 7JAN2019// resolving 1/137, a quote from Feynman// redshift as "tired light"= charged light// Heath-Brown-Moroz constant Thank you for requesting yet another failure evaluation of your post! ☑ Archie responds to criticism but refuses to discuss the issue... ☐ ...he would rather run away by trying to delete his posts... ☑ ...he actually believes deleting something on Google actually deletes it from Usenet... ☑ Archie considers attempts of actual discussion to be 'stalking'... ☐ ...Giggle Groups screenshot cut and pasted... ☑ Archie's response posted in the wrong topic... ☑ ...with zero new content... ☐ ...and posted to the wrong newsgroup... ☑ ...multiple times... ☑ ...again and again... ☑ ...and again and again... ☑ ...enough times to be classified as spam... ☑ ...in a topic/topics explicitly created by him for doing so... ☐ ...and Archie even whines about (other) spammers in his spam... ☐ ...with a subject about flunking a nonexistent test no one ever took... ☑ Archie's post's subject mentions totally uninvolved people... ☑ ...who are university math or physics professors... ☑ ...at a university supposedly near the person criticizing Archie... ☑ ...but Archie got the location (and university) completely wrong... ☐ ...and Archie demands they resign for not teaching his broken math... ☐ ....no, Archie demands they be fired for not teaching his broken math... ☐ ....Archie demands they shut down an entire university for not teaching his broken math... ☐ ....heck, Archie demands they shut down HARVARD for not teaching his broken math... ☑ ...and he includes a stalker list of physics and/or math professors... ☑ ...and STILL can't answer 'why post stalker lists of uninvolved profs'... ☑ ...maybe he thinks these professors do a Kibo and will respond here just by mentioning their names... ☑ ...even though those profs have never heard of him and never will... ☐ ...speaking of Kibo, mentions Kibo (how last century!) ☑ ...Archie's actual response is completely unrelated to the topic... ☐ Archie even reposts something from 1994 to show he was a failure way back then, too!... ☑ A critic's comment has embarrassing (to AP) portion removed... ☑ ...to the extent the comment is no longer recognizable... ☑ Archie's post includes random snippets by other critics, spammers or babblers... ☐ ...which are attributed to yet other critics, spammers or babblers... ☐ ...followed by yet another repost of the "12 Failures of Plutonium"... ☑ Archie actually claims that anyone who believe the ellipse is a conic section is stupid... ☑ ...followed by yet another repost of his long-discredited ellipse/conic section non-proof... ☑ Archie includes the dumb ascii art cat/owl thing... ☑ ...and that whatever-it-is ascii art... ☑ ...as well as ascii art of Archie's butthole... ☑ ...and Archie doesn't realize ascii art is so 1980s... ☑ Archie still can't answer Dan C's easy 4 question math test... ☑ Archie brings up a "mistake" (in his view) from months ago... ☑ ...which, of course, is not actually a mistake... ☑ ...and Archie invents yet more "mistakes" (that are not mistakes)... ☐ Archie really wears out the "a beer short of a 6 pack" joke... ☑ ...but he still doesn't realize he's about 5 beers short... ☐ Archie says something really dumb and stoopid, but realizes how dumb it is, so he accuses another poster of saying it... ☐ Archie doesn't know the definition of "racism", so calls anyone who points out all the flaws in his claims are "racist"... ☐ Archie roots for cockroaches in the Law of the Jungle... ☑ Archie can't tell the difference between Boolean AND/OR and arithmetic addition/subtraction... ☑ Archie doesn't even know the 'rules' of Boolean logic... ☑ ...in particular, doesn't know the difference between AND/OR and addition/subtraction... ☑ Archie outsmarted by someone too stupid to come out of the rain AGAIN... ☑ Clay County Sheriff, be on lookout for someone in T-shirt&sandals walking along road during blizzards... ☐ Archie whines about iPhone's self-protection feature rather than heat his trailer in the winter... ☐ Archie thinks he is the very first person in the history of the world to disbelieve in negative and imaginary numbers... ☐ ...and demands credit from anyone else who also disbelieves in them... ☑ Archie can't get over the shame of messing up percentages... ☑ ...and Archie is envious that I weighed the electron and he didn't... ☐ Archie asks Google Groups to do something they can't do... ☑ Google Groups poster. 'Nuf said. ☑ ...because he's too stoopid to configure a newsreader with killfile... The Failure Score of Archie's post: 42 plutoniums! Get out the straightjacket! (The plutonium is the new SI unit of failure) X-No-Archive: yes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 14:27 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Feynman quote on 1/137 Re: AP's thoughts 7JAN2019// resolving 1/137, a quote from Feynman// redshift as "tired light"= charged light// Heath-Brown-Moroz constant |
| Message-ID | <4f5a5656-f232-4c07-bd51-20f004f7eeb9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #722544 |
On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 3:10:15 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: So, I find myself reviewing the whole situation on 1/137 over again. I was happy and content from 1990 to 2019 to think of the constant 1/137 as meaning-- the number of neutrons of the Atom Totality was 137 as in 231Pu Atom Totality. Or, if you like a pi multiple of 1/137, I discovered that 22/7 to the 7th power, divided by 22 is 137. You cannot get anymore factors of pi than having only 22 and 7 involved. So, I was happy and content, no worries, no problem on 1/137 from 1990 to 2019, but, when I discovered the true electron was the muon and the .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole, the situation takes a turn. I must review what 1/137 is all about. For Angular Momentum is the ellipse and thus, I need to have 1/137 come out of the ellipse, sharp and clear come out of the ellipse. AP Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 13:47:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: .00729 Re: reviewing Feynman's quote on 1/137, in light of the recent discovery that the true proton = 840MeV and true electron = muon, while .5MeV particle that JJ Thomson discovered was Dirac's monopole From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2019 21:47:39 +0000 .00729 Re: reviewing Feynman's quote on 1/137, in light of the recent discovery that the true proton = 840MeV and true electron = muon, while .5MeV particle that JJ Thomson discovered was Dirac's monopole So in 2015 I wrote this: Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 13:42:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Chat: can I find 1/137 a constant on par with pi? From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 20:42:42 +0000 Chat: can I find 1/137 a constant on par with pi? > I wrote in New Physics some years back: The inverse > fine-structure marker is exactly 137 neutrons in the > collapsed wavefunction > and in the uncollapsed wavefunction of 231@94 when the > value of pi is taken as > exactly equal to 22/7, the inverse fine-structure > marker is exactly > ((22/7)^7)/22. > --- end quoting from my other book --- > So notice that the mass ratio of electron to proton becomes 6(pi^5) > and that the > inverse fine structure constant becomes (pi^7)/22. These two numbers > would be > related to each other in the fact of their exponents are energy > structures in a plutonium > atom. > And back then, these constants were always wanting to be turned into nothing but factors of pi. Physicists back then thought that every important constant that was unexplained, needed to be a factor of pi, and magically, it would be explained. That has a tiny ring of truth to it, because, 1/137 needs to be explained in the ellipse. But the burning question on my mind, is that if Feynman were alive today, and informed that the true proton was 840MeV, true electron was 105MeV and the .5MeV particle was Dirac's Magnetic Monopole, would Feynman have changed his mind about any of his quote? Because, the Fine Structure Constant would be a photon to photon interaction and not what Feynman thought-- a photon to electron interaction. And, it is clear that Feynman never understood Angular Momentum properly, and thus, realizing that the ellipse had to have this 1/137 as a universal constant in the ellipse. That means, the 1/137 is like a pi to the ellipse. And this brings us back to this Heath-Brown-Moroz constant of .00131, having something to do with the geometry of a cube, the surface area of a cube. Exactly the domain in which we can find a .007299. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 15:09 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Feynman quote on 1/137 Re: AP's thoughts 7JAN2019// resolving 1/137, a quote from Feynman// redshift as "tired light"= charged light// Heath-Brown-Moroz constant |
| Message-ID | <e90cac35-d97b-4274-8169-b394325b8984@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #722577 |
There is no tired light... the expanding universe expanded CMBR and all light wavelength; lowering frequency and energy. Increasing the strength of gravity does the same... Mitchell Raemsch; God creates gravity
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 17:28 -0800 |
| Subject | A 137 sided polygon is the Fine Structure Constant to maintain equal areas swept out in equal time intervals Re: .00729 Re: reviewing Feynman's quote on 1/137 |
| Message-ID | <9c527fa6-39d3-4efc-b07e-d23b49359f29@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #722577 |
Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 17:14:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: A 137 sided polygon is the Fine Structure Constant to maintain equal areas swept out in equal time intervals Re: .00729 Re: reviewing Feynman's quote on 1/137 From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2019 01:14:14 +0000 A 137 sided polygon is the Fine Structure Constant to maintain equal areas swept out in equal time intervals Re: .00729 Re: reviewing Feynman's quote on 1/137 So, now, let me see if I can iron this out. In Wikipedia on their ellipse entry they show a picture of the directrix and how |PF_1| / |PL_1| = |PF_2| / |PL_2| = Focal distance from center / semimajor axis What this definition of ellipse is, is Equal Areas are swept out in Equal Time Intervals For the second definition of ellipse is: |PF_1| + |PF_2| = 2*semimajor axis Both of them are Equal Areas swept out in Equal Time Intervals And where the 1/137 comes into the picture, is that every ellipse must be broken down into a 137 polygon, where each of the intervals of time has a angle of diangle equal to 1.31 degrees C D A ____________B In a circle, moving on to 100-gon we have 100x=180 x=1.8. Finally a 137-gon is 1.31 degrees. This 1.31 degrees is where this Heath-Brown-Moroz constant of .00131 comes from. A circle has absolute symmetry and only one focus, while an ellipse has two foci. Because of two foci we need two radial arms and those are taken care of by the directrix and the foci. So the splitting into equal time intervals to make for equal areas, occurs in all ellipses when they are broken down into 137 intervals, not all the same length as in a circle all the 137 sides of a regular polygon, but instead, here in the ellipse we still have 137 sides but most of them not equal, perhaps 137/2 having equal counterparts. So, why 137? Or 1/137? And the answer is that there is a number in which you can have Equal Areas swept out in Equal Time Intervals, that number is unique to all ellipses. And the reason it is 137, is because the total universe is one big atom of 231Pu, with its 7 shells having 22 subshells, hence the existence of pi (derivative pi in this case) And the total energy of this atom totality is angular momentum of an ellipse that is (22/7)^7 / 22 = 137. You see the meaning of 137, is that every ellipse can be broken down into a 137 sided polygon. Not a regular polygon for you need a circle for that, but a uneven sided polygon of 137 sides. Uneven because as the Earth is close to the Sun on its focus point, Earth has to speed up to make for sweeping out equal area in equal time, whereas when Earth is far away from the focal point, Earth slows down and sweeps out equal area because the side of polygon there is small compared to the side of polygon when Earth is close to the Sun. Now, mathematics rarely understands that a geometry figure has motion. We look at the ellipse and we see no motion, we only see data facts of distance and area. We do not see time in a ellipse or the movement of P in the ellipse. And this is why Angular Momentum was not understood until 2018 by scientists, except for the rare case that Kepler and Newton understood Angular Momentum for they could never have conceived of their Kepler Law-- Equal Areas swept out in Equal Time Intervals. And the genius, utter genius of Newton to recognize this law as being the ellipse. So that was 17th century, and then physicists were cave dwellers of thought until 2018, when it was realized that Angular Momentum is the bulk of electricity and magnetism. That Kepler and Newton were the first EM theorists with their angular momentum = ellipse. And it was found that EM always has 1/137. But no-one knew where this number comes from. That is because no-one understood angular momentum for you cannot have chemistry with proton =938MeV, electron = .5MeV, you need proton = 840MeV and electron = muon = 105MeV and then you can have bonding of chemistry. Then, you can dive into what is this number 1/137, and dive into the ellipse to discover the number. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 02:45 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot of Mathematics" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test |
| Message-ID | <q112sh$sjt$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #722627 |
Chattering Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails: >Subject: 8:22:05Moroney writes>Math Failure //John Baez,Brian Greene,Lisa Randall,Alan H. Guth,Michael E. Brown,Konstantin Batygin too stupid to learn proton is _not_ 938MeV electron .5MeV when they really are 840MeV, 105MeV in order to have chemistry bonding >On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 8:22:05 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails: >8:22:05Moroney writes>Math Failure //John Baez,Brian Greene,Lisa Randall,Alan H. ... >These gentlemen and ladies are not physicists, for a real physicist would >debate the issue, not hide from the issue. Say WHAT Archie? Since when do YOU ever debate an issue? All you EVER do is post multiple attack posts, like this one, whenever anyone ever attempts to debate or correct you! Bonus points for this! ☑ Archie responds to criticism but refuses to discuss the issue... ☑ ...Demands everyone else debate his ideas, but if they actually do, Archie ATTACKS!... ☑ ...Bonus point for demanding this in an attack post... ☑ ...Another bonus point... ☑ ...Another bonus point... ☑ ...Another bonus point... ☐ ...he would rather run away by trying to delete his posts... ☑ ...he actually believes deleting something on Google actually deletes it from Usenet... ☑ Archie considers attempts of actual discussion to be 'stalking'... ☐ ...Giggle Groups screenshot cut and pasted... ☑ Archie's response posted in the wrong topic... ☑ ...with zero new content... ☐ ...and posted to the wrong newsgroup... ☑ ...multiple times... ☑ ...again and again... ☑ ...and again and again... ☑ ...enough times to be classified as spam... ☑ ...in a topic/topics explicitly created by him for doing so... ☐ ...and Archie even whines about (other) spammers in his spam... ☐ ...with a subject about flunking a nonexistent test no one ever took... ☑ Archie's post's Subject: mentions totally uninvolved people... ☑ ...who are university math or physics professors... ☑ Archie includes a stalker list of physics and/or math professors... ☑ ...at a university supposedly near the person criticizing Archie... ☑ ...but Archie got the location (and university) completely wrong... ☑ ...Manages to come up with another wrong university by misreading Usenet headers... ☐ Archie demands the professors resign for not teaching his broken math... ☐ ....no, Archie demands they be Fired for not teaching his broken math... ☐ ....Archie demands they shut down an entire university for not teaching his broken math... ☐ ....heck, Archie demands they shut down HARVARD for not teaching his broken math... ☑ Archie STILL can't answer 'why post stalker lists of uninvolved profs'... ☑ ...maybe he thinks these professors do a Kibo and will respond here just by mentioning their names... ☑ ...even though those profs have never heard of him and never will... ☑ ...speaking of Kibo, mentions Kibo (how last century!) ☑ ...Archie's actual response is completely unrelated to the topic... ☐ Archie even reposts something from 1994 to show he was a failure way back then, too!... ☑ A critic's comment has embarrassing (to AP) portion removed... ☑ ...to the extent the comment is no longer recognizable... ☑ Archie's post includes random snippets by other critics... ☐ ...which are attributed to yet other critics... ☑ Archie actually thinks electrons are muons, despite 100+ years of evidence... ☑ ...followed by yet another repost of his 'electrons are muons' crap... ☑ ...insults people who never heard of him or his stupidity for not believing electrons are muons... ☑ ...and is still trying to figure out how the universe could be more than 2.2 microseconds old... ☑ Archie's mad that no scientist understands angular momentum... ☑ ...nobody has any idea what he thinks is wrong with it... ☑ Archie actually claims that anyone who believe the ellipse is a conic section is stupid... ☑ ...followed by yet another repost of his long-discredited ellipse/conic section non-proof... ☑ Archie includes the dumb ascii art cat/owl thing in the cubbyhole... ☑ ...and that whatever-it-is ascii art... ☑ ...as well as ascii art of Archie's butthole... ☑ ...and Archie doesn't realize ascii art is so 1980s... ☐ Archie still can't answer Dan C's easy 4 question math test... ☑ Archie brings up a "mistake" (in his view) from months ago... ☑ ...which, of course, is not actually a mistake... ☑ ...and Archie invents yet more "mistakes" (that are not mistakes)... ☐ Archie really wears out the "a beer short of a 6 pack" joke... ☑ ...but he still doesn't realize he's about 5 beers short... ☑ Archie's post has a link to a website that has been dead for YEARS... ☐ Archie says something really dumb and stoopid, but realizes how dumb it is, so he accuses another poster of saying it... ☑ Archie doesn't know the definition of "racism", so calls anyone who points out all the flaws in his claims are "racist"... ☐ Archie roots for cockroaches in the Law of the Jungle... ☐ Archie whines about iPhone's self-protection feature rather than heat his trailer in the winter... ☑ Archie can't tell the difference between Boolean AND/OR and arithmetic addition/subtraction... ☑ Archie doesn't even know the 'rules' of Boolean logic... ☑ ...in particular, doesn't know the difference between AND/OR and addition/subtraction... ☑ Archie outsmarted by someone too stupid to come out of the rain AGAIN... ☑ ...and still doesn't realize it... ☑ Clay County Sheriff, be on lookout for someone in T-shirt&sandals walking along road during blizzards... ☐ Archie thinks he is the very first person in the history of the world to disbelieve in negative and imaginary numbers... ☐ ...and demands credit from anyone else who also disbelieves in them... ☐ Archie can't get over the shame of messing up percentages... ☐ ...and Archie is envious that I weighed the electron and he didn't... ☐ Archie asks Google Groups to do something they can't do... ☑ Google Groups poster. 'Nuf said. ☑ ...because he's too stoopid to configure a newsreader with killfile... The Failure Score of Archie's post: 55 plutoniums! A new record! (The plutonium is the new SI unit of failure) X-No-Archive: yes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 23:10 -0800 |
| Subject | conjecture on percentage formulas |
| Message-ID | <293e6ca7-baed-491a-ba4a-4d2053493cab@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #722627 |
Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 18:58:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: rechecking if my percentage formulas of 30% and 50% are correct for the ellipse From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2019 02:58:04 +0000 rechecking if my percentage formulas of 30% and 50% are correct for the ellipse I need to check to be sure the percentages are universal in all ellipses. So I want to check out a 10by9 ellipse, a 10by5ellipse then a 10by1ellipse and see if the numbers 30% and 50% recur. In physics we would look at the directrix as a Voltage Field and the foci as two poles of a magnet ELLIPSE 5by2 Semimajor axis = 5 Semiminor axis = 2 Foci distance from center = 4.58 using formula F^2 = semimajor axis^2 - semiminor axis^2 Circumference = 23.013 Area = 31.416 Directrix is 5^2/4.58 = 5.458 external directrix rectangle would be 4*10.916= 43.664 ELLIPSE 10by8 Semimajor axis = 10 Semiminor axis = 8 Foci distance of 6 from center, reckoned by F^2 = semimajor^2 - semiminor^2 Circumference = 56.723 Area = 251.327 Directrix is 10^2/ 6 = 16.666 The external rectangle using the directrix is here 16by33.33 Directrix rectangle is 533.28 area and 98.66 perimeter For this ellipse we have a maximum internal rectangle as 14.2*11.26 = 160.00 and perimeter 50.92 And the internal square is 12.5by12.5 = 156.25 with perimeter 50 And congratulations, finally we have a Universal Percentage Formula of Directrix rectangle area and internal square area 156.25/533.28 = approx 30% with 13.69/43.66 = approx 31% Close enough to say the formula of the Internal Square area of a Ellipse is 30% of the Directrix rectangle area. Now the Perimeter of the Internal Square versus the perimeter of Directrix Rectangle comes in even a better match of a Universal Percentage Formula for all Ellipses 14.8/29.8 = 49% 50/98.6 = 50% So it is safe to say that the Internal Square perimeter of the Ellipse is 50% of the Directrix Rectangle perimeter, for all Ellipses AP Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 21:33:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: no percentage formula at all Re: rechecking if my percentage formulas of 30% and 50% are correct for the ellipse From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2019 05:33:00 +0000 no percentage formula at all Re: rechecking if my percentage formulas of 30% and 50% are correct for the ellipse - show quoted text - Let me do the 10by9 first ELLIPSE 10by9 Semimajor axis = 10 Semiminor axis = 9 Foci distance of 4.358 from center, reckoned by F^2 = semimajor^2 - semiminor^2 > Circumference = 56.723 > Area = 251.327 Directrix is 10^2/ 4.358 = 22.946 Equation of this ellipse x^2/10^2 + y^2/9^2 = 1 81x^2 + 100y^2 = 8100 upper bound of internal square is 18by18 Directrix Rectangle area = 18*(2(22.946)) = 826.056 Now the formula has 30% of Directrix area = internal square area So .30 of 826.056 = 247.816 and taking the square-root of that for side is 15.742 Now our upper bound was 18 for the side of internal square. So let me just pop 1/2 of 15.742 into the equation 81(7.871^2) + 100y^2 = 8100 81(61.95) + 100y^2 = 8100 5018.27 + 100y^2 = 8100 100y^2 = 3081.72 y = 5.55 No good. Let me see if the perimeter works out. Perimeter of Directrix rectangle is 127.78 and I reported that the square should be 50% thereof. So 50% of 127.78 is 63.89 and 1/4 of that would be 15.97. So let me plug in 1/2 of 15.97 to see if that is the square side 15.97 of this internal square. 81(7.98^2) + 100y^2 = 8100 81(63.68) + 100y^2 = 8100 5158.11 + 100y^2 = 8100 100y^2 = 2942 y = 5.42 looking bleak So let me just explore, try 6 as 1/2 side 81(6^2) + 100y^2 = 8100 2916 + 100y^2 = 8100 100y^2 = 5184 y = 7.2 try 6.5 81(6.5^2) + 100y^2 = 8100 3422.25 + 100y^2 = 8100 100y^2 = 4677.75 y = 6.8 getting closer, try 6.75 81(6.75^2) + 100y^2 = 8100 3690.56 + 100y^2 = 8100 y = 6.64 try 6.7 81(6.7^2) + 100y^2 = 8100 3636.09 + 100y^2 = 8100 y = 6.68 So the side of our interior square is approx 2(6.69) = 13.38 which makes for an area of 179.02 and for a perimeter of 53.52 Our directrix rectangle had area of 826.05 and perimeter 127.78 179.02/826.05 = 21% 53.52/127.78 = 41% So all bets are off, back to no percentage formula at all AP Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 22:28:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: New Conjecture in math-- when a universal percentage formula is possible in geometry figures From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2019 06:28:55 +0000 New Conjecture in math-- when a universal percentage formula is possible in geometry figures Is AP the first mathematician to do Percentage formulas for geometry figures? I believe so, in that, if anyone else did, they would have caught the huge error of the Torus equation for volume and surface area. Recently I showed the math literature on the torus volume and surface area was totally wrong, for they based their equation on a torus being a bent cylinder. Then, I constructed a cylinder disc and nested the given torus inside the cylinder disc and removed the donut hole of the disc cylinder and ushered forth a equation using percentages of the disc cylinder volume and disc cylinder surface area to obtain a true formula for torus volume and torus surface area. My recent spate of bad luck with the ellipse nested inside rectangle and the enclosed interior square and maximum interior rectangle with no luck of a percentage formula for all ellipses, causes me to form a Conjecture on percentage formulas. CONJECTURE: A universal percentage formula of two given figures in geometry, such as square with circle and cube with sphere of area, perimeter, volume, surface area is only possible if those two figures have a minimum symmetry. The square has several axes of symmetry and so does the circle and sphere and cube. But the ellipse and rectangle do not meet that minimum standard and thus no Universal Percentage Formula possible. I doubt anyone has done this conjecture, simply because they would have noticed the error of Old Math and their torus volume and surface area formulas. I do not think I have the time to pursue this conjecture. AP
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web