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

Groups > sci.physics > #679194

Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition

Show all headers | View raw

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 19:22:47 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Page31, 4-1, Unification of Thermodynamics with EM theory// Entropy =
 Voltage /Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 03:22:48 +0000


Page31, 4-1, Unification of Thermodynamics with EM theory// Entropy = Voltage /Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017

Page31, 4-1, Unification of Thermodynamics with EM theory// Entropy = Voltage 
/Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017 

Alright, in the prior chapter, we covered EM gravity, how the Sun and planets move in a helix in space due to the force of Coulomb that varies in strength from R, to 1/R, to 1/R^2 and all points in between. And in this chapter we learn that such a range of force strengths is consolidated. That is, the math is made more simple and easy, for that description above of R, to 1/R, to 1/R^2 is consolidated as simply the logarithmic function. 

It is well known in Physics that the Weak Nuclear force-- Radioactivity-- is an exponential function of math. The law of radioactivity involves the exponential function 

N = N_0 (e^kt) 

And in math, the exponential function is the inverse (think of it as reverse) of the logarithmic function, (they have a mirror image reflection of their graphs). 

Thermodynamics laws are laws of logarithmic functions.

So, if Newton, back in 1687 was told that Physics has 4 forces, and those four forces are either logarithmic or exponential, all four forces, he would never have ventured with the silly inverse square. 

But now, let me speak about the Unification of Thermodynamics with the EM theory. No such unification was ever possible so long as physics had just one force law, F = ma. But now that physics has two force laws, F = dq/dt ( a current), then a unification is possible. Consider force as having to be a duality definition, where you have two different definitions but necessary. For electricity is dual to magnetism, each is different but both necessary for any event involving electricity or magnetism. Both are always present, but both are different. 

And the easiest way to proceed in the Unification of Thermodynamics is via the Chemistry Ideal Gas Law. 

PV = nRT 

What I propose to do here, is show that PV = nRT is just the same as the New Physics New Ohm's Law of V = iBL. 

And the reasoning behind that, is that PV = nRT is just the same as V = iBL only the symbols and parameters were translated. 

So all I need do is show that 

PV = (nR)T 

is the same as 

V = iBL 

The logic behind this, is that charge becomes a macroscopic issue in ideal gas law 

Voltage is what? Is it Pressure or Volume? 

Temperature T is what? Is it the Magnetic Field B or is it the angular momentum L? 

So, I start with what I am most sure of at the moment. That current i is (nR). 

Is voltage more like pressure or more like volume? Tough question 

If voltage is pressure, then I need 1/Volume on the other side as (nR)*T*(1/V) 

So, which makes more "physical sense" an inverse volume or an inverse pressure? 

Which will physics allow? Will physics allow volume to be inverted and retain physical sense, or will physics allow pressure to be inverted and retain physical sense? 

Volume is in brief, side*side*side, and can that have a physical meaning as 1/(side*side*side) 

Or does Pressure inverted as 1/P retain physical meaning? 

The units of pressure are kg/m*s^2, which easily reminds one of the units of the Magnetic Field B= kg/A*s^2 

So, let me start over. 

(nR)T = PV 

Thus, Pressure is the analog of Magnetic Field, and Volume is the analog of L, angular momentum 

That leaves us with (nR) once inverted as 1/(nR) is the analog of i, the electric current. 

And finally, Temperature T in Ideal Gas Law of Chemistry is the same as Voltage of New Ohm's law. 

Thus we have 

Voltage = i * B * L 

and 

Temperature = (1/nR) * P * V  as the best-true way of writing Ideal Gas Law, because now, we see that this law is All of Thermodynamics in one single equation. 
  
At a young age we realize, and do not have to be taught, that Space is 3rd dimension, so that you have length, width and depth. Three things to make Space. 

Now the three should be in the most general of science formulas or math of science. 

We have the three in New Ohm's law V= i*B*L for we have three things on the right-side of equation. Voltage is where three things come together. 

And so important is V=iBL that it forms all the forces of physics. In a sense V=iBL and its calculus forms the math of most of physics. 

So, there is something magical about having three things form something. Atomic theory has three things forming atoms-- electron, proton, photon (neutron is just a composite of electron, proton,photon). But with electron, proton, photon we form all the atoms (consider a neutrino as a special type of photon). 

In general, in principle, three things form a fourth thing. Electrons, protons, photons forms atoms. Current, Magnetic Field, Angular Momentum, forms Voltage. 

So, we have New Ohm's law 

V= iBL 

we have Chemistry's Ideal Gas Law 

PV = (nR)T 

that law can be better written as 

T = (1/nR) * P * V 

where the Temperature is the analog of voltage, it is not voltage itself, but a analog, a look-alike. 

The (1/nR) is the analog of current dq/dt. 

The pressure P is the analog of Magnetic Field , where one is kg/m*s^2, other is kg/A*s^2. 

The V volume is the analog of L, angular momentum in EM theory. 

What I am doing is unifying Thermodynamics with that of EM theory of physics, but first I need to show that the Ideal Gas Law is V= iBL, so that thermodynamics is just a special way of looking at electricity and magnetism. By "special way" I mean where we have force as both F = ma and F = dQ/dt. 

Will the 2nd law of thermodynamics be true after we have unification? Surprizingly, with a small change in how we view the 2nd Law, it is true, and much stronger than even before. 

One way of stating the 2nd law of Thermodynamics-- entropy or disorder always increases, another way, heat always flows from hot to cold, another way, limitations on perpetual motion. 

Each one of those can be found stronger and more clear, with this unification. 

Heat always flows from hot to cold, yet we can hold a cold laser or x ray beam flowing from cold aiming at a star-- a hot body. Here is where we have cold to hot heat flow, and have to realize the use of F= dQ/ds rather than F =ma 

No perpetual motion is untrue, for the electrons inside stable atoms are perpetual motion. Here again, we must distinguish between F= ma and F = dQ/ds. 

Now Wikipedia lists these as the 4 laws of thermodynamics: 

--- quoting Wikipedia --- 

Zeroth law of thermodynamics: If two systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third system, they are in thermal equilibrium with each other. This law helps define the notion of temperature. 

First law of thermodynamics: When energy passes, as work, as heat, or with matter, into or out from a system, the system's internal energy changes in accord with the law of conservation of energy. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the first kind (machines that produce work with no energy input) are impossible. 

Second law of thermodynamics: In a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems increases. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the second kind (machines that spontaneously convert thermal energy into mechanical work) are impossible. 

Third law of thermodynamics: The entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches absolute zero.[2] With the exception of non-crystalline solids (glasses) the entropy of a system at absolute zero is typically close to zero, and is equal to the natural logarithm of the product of the quantum ground states. 

----end quoting Wikipedia --- 

Alright, let us match the 4 laws of thermodynamics with the 4 Old Physics Maxwell Equations. 

To our aid in this chore is Physics, Part 2, Halliday & Resnick 1986, page 886. 

Let us pick off the easiest one first. The Absolute Zero temperature exists. So what EM law talks about an ultimate boundary? Of course the Ampere-Maxwell law-- 

The speed of light can be calculated from purely electromagnetic measurements H&R,p.886 

Speed of light is maximum, and 0 Kelvin is maximum-lowest. 

So we picked off the 3rd law thermodynamics. 

Let us pick off another easy one. The first law is conservation of energy. In Faraday's law a Lenz law appears that in which a magnetic field arises that opposes the magnet. (H&R,p.773) 

Reasoning: without Lenz law in Faraday law, you would get unlimited energy, hence, no conservation of energy. 

That leaves Zeroth & 2nd laws. 

Now the 2nd law of thermodynamics is best written as heat flows from hot to cold. There are two laws of Maxwell's Equations remaining (1) Gauss's law of electricity and (2) Gauss's law of magnetism. 

And Gauss"s law of electricity-- a charge on an insulated conductor moves to its outer surface -- seems to fit well with the 2nd law.  And, let me note, the last page in the prior chapter of the Hollow Sun uses this law to explain why the Sun is hollow. So in a sense, the 2nd law of thermodynamics demands the Sun to be hollow also. 

That leaves us with the zeroth law as being a sort of no magnetic monopole law. Can this be true? I suspect so, for the zeroth law has always been rather murky. 

Alright i have to get out Halliday & Resnick's other book Fundamentals of Physics 3rd ed. 1988 for Thermodynamics. 

And the whole point about the Zeroth law is thermometers-- stick one into A and if the same reading stuck in B, means A and B have the same temperature, meaning, -- same heat content. 

Now does that mirror reflect Maxwell'sEq of Gauss's law of Magnetism? I certainly think so in the idea that Magnetic Field is the primary unit in all of EM theory and the magnetic monopole is simply the A current in kg/ A*s^2. The A current is a magnetic monopole current. 

Reason as to why Gauss's law of magnetism would be Zeroth law-- because both laws establish a primary unit for their subject. Like in mathematics, 1 is the prime unit for Counting numbers for we add 1 to 1 to get 2, add 1 to 2 to get 3, etc. The Magnetic field and monopole is prime unit for electricity and magnetism, and so, temperature is prime unit in Thermodynamics. 

Alright, so i have matched laws-- any new insights? 

I believe so, the entropy definition looks like it needs to be refined as to what it is in terms of Electricity and Magnetism. There is no concept of "disorder" in EM theory, so entropy needs mending. 

The 2nd law as that of heat flows from hot to cold is fine and models after charges on a conductor moves to outer surface. 

Alright, I am satisfied I have pegged the correct Maxwell Equation law with the correct 4 laws of Thermodynamics. 

Now here is a surprising new insight, in that the 2nd law of thermodynamics has more to teach the 4 Maxwell equations, for which the 4 Maxwell equations were in error. Not the AP equations of EM theory, but the Old Physics Maxwell Equations have a flaw and hole for which the 2nd law of thermodynamics patches clean. For in the 2nd law, we arrive at a force law that is a Logarithmic function law, yet Maxwell Equations had Coulomb law as a inverse square. So, here, to everyone's surprise, 2nd law of thermodynamics was more correct in physics than was the Old Maxwell Equations. 

What I speak of, is that the 2nd law is Gauss's law of electricity, that charge moves to the outside surface-- mirroring the heat flows always from hot to cold. 

But, the Gauss law of electricity has another feature-- charges attract as the inverse square of their distance apart. 

So, what is the mathematics of the 2nd law of thermodynamics? It involves the Logarithmic function a slowly rising smooth curve function-- which is seen in the rotation curves of spiral galaxies. 

In other words, if Coulomb back in 1784 had known of the 4 laws of thermodynamics, the 2nd law specifically and had known the 2nd law mathematics is what the Coulomb force law should be-- a logarithmic function, then, Coulomb back in 1784 would have discovered that the force of EM varies over the range of radius to 1/radius, to 1/radius^2 and all points in between, in other words a logarithmic force law rather than a inverse square. 

If one looks at the spiral galaxies rotation curve, what they see is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. 

And not the crazy silly Newton gravity nor the silly General Relativity with the crazies postulating dark matter and dark energy. 

Simply put-- Coulomb force law and gravity are logarithmic function laws. 

Alright, good progress. 

Draw the math function Y = Ln(x) 

Now look up the Galaxy Rotation Curve Equation on Wikipedia or web. 

Compare the two, for if you scoot over the Ln(x) further into the 1st quadrant they are identical. 

What does this mean? It means the Coulomb force is not inverse square but rather logarithmic and matching the entropy of thermodynamics. 

What it means for entropy is that it can come out into the open and be recognized for what it has been all along Voltage. 

When you have interactions occur in Space you use up some voltage that was Space itself. You downgrade the voltage there. 

Coulomb force law is not inverse square but is logarithmic. 

Gravity is not inverse square but is logarithmic. 

Entropy is just another word for voltage. 

Alright so the claim is that entropy is voltage. Let us prove it. 

Stemming from the fact entropy is a logarithmic function and Coulomb force is logarithmic. 

So let us check on units. 

Voltage is kg*m^2/A*s^3 

Entropy is energy/temperature 

Now temperature is thought of as average kinetic energy. 

But to be true, that Voltage = Entropy i need to have Temperature = A*s 

And what is A*s, of course, the quantity of electric charge. 

Can i get away with that? In order to have a proof, I have to. 

Temperature is the quantity of electric charge. 

And then it means the 2nd law of thermodynamics is all fit sound and in perfect shape, for whenever we say entropy is increasing means simply the world is increasing in voltage. 

It is just that Old Physics got the opposite concept of what entropy is-- it is order-- for voltage is order. 

It is like finding a new animal and thinking its tail is its head when it is the opposite. 

Now, I am sure I am not the only one to have ever been "bothered by the weirdness, the foreignness of entropy". Usually the concepts and parameters of Physics are very much clear and straightforward, until you come upon entropy. It has no units except to say it is energy/temperature. And the smart and savvy student, instantly should ask in their minds eye, -- well, I thought temperature was energy for it is a collective kinetic energy of the particles in purview. So you have in a sense energy/energy and some numerical scalar answer. 

And, the situation of "entropy" in physics is never really made easier when clowns dub entropy as "disorder". Feeling, I reckon that something must be tagged to entropy to pass scrutiny of those not directly in physics. For the moment a physicist says entropy increasing, the general public and a layperson would say "gibberish, speak some commonsense, will you". So, entropy was dubbed disorder.   

So in Old Physics, they had just one Force definition, they had F = kg*m/s^2 and energy would be E = kg*m^2/s^2. 

So in Old Physics, multiply a force by meters and you have energy. 

What they never realized in Old Physics, is there is another force definition F = dQ/ds which is current and is also written as A = i = dQ/ds 

Voltage in Old Physics was correct as V = kg*m^2/A*s^3 

So, if you divide Energy = kg*m^2/s^2 by that of A*s then in Old Physics you turn energy into voltage 

And what exactly is A*s? It is the quantity, or amount of electric charge. 

So, we have a no-brainer here. 

Take energy and divide by temperature and those Old Physics dullards have entropy. 

But, to a wide awake Physicist, take Energy and divide by amount of electric charge existing, and you have Voltage. 

So, to a person with just a tiny bit of Logical brains Energy/temperature gives some crazy foreign item called entropy, unless you realize that temperature is the quantity of electric charge. 

That temperature = A*s 

And that the Force written as dQ/ds when multiplied by s gives amount of electric charge (also magnetic monopole charge is included in dQ) 

AND WHEN FORCE is written F= ma = kg*m/s^2 and multiply by m we get energy. 

So, the proof, the proof that temperature is A*s. Multiply F=ma by meters and you get energy. Multiply F=dQ/ds by seconds, you get Voltage. 

So, yes, in Physics, it is required that Force is both F = ma and F = dQ/ds = current, and with that required necessity the temperature is A*s and thus, the entropy in thermodynamics is voltage. 

Yes, that is true, but do not forget that electric charge is not just the charge of electron, charge of proton but also Magnetic Monopole Charge as the Lines of Force in magnetism. 

It is often stated "Physics abhors a vacuum of thought" and now, physics abhors a foreign entity that does not fit with the other definitions of physics. Entropy never fit into physics as "disorder". Entropy exists, but is better known as Voltage. 

Because of the sheer oddity and weirdness of entropy as disorder, that many many never felt comfortable with it and said it must be wrong, citing the evidence of Life defying increase in disorder for Life is order. 

But it turns out, that the only mistake was that entropy was not seen as voltage, and once you see it as voltage, then entropy is not _disorder_ but truly, entropy is _order_ for it is Voltage, afterall. And when you have a Universe that is increasing in Voltage, you have a more ordered Universe. 

When the concept of entropy came out in physics-- have to check the history-- there was a moment in which someone wrongly thought this stuff-- this entropy stuff was disorder. Why they thought that, I do not know, for it may just well have been a negative sign that was misinterpreted by the founders of Thermodynamics, maybe Carnot, maybe Boltzmann, someone got it backwards and it stuck, until now. 

Upon reflection I think I know why entropy was thought of as disorder. It was created in a time in which many physicists were asked to prove that all these crazy perpetual motion machines-- patent devices-- be debunked. To debunk all those crazy machines called for a concept that would itself would be an ally, and a good ally is "disorder". If tasked to debunk a crazy perpetual motion machine and we started talking about Voltage, and a universal increase in voltage, would send the exact opposite signal to the crazy machine makers. 

It is easy in physics to be dyslexia and get something turned around backwards, especially with all the signs, positive, negative. So it is no big shock, that entropy turns out to be INCREASING as a Universal Law, but not increasing in disorder, but increasing in the Universe of Voltage is increasing. And that blends in perfectly with the idea that LIFE is increasing in the universe, for life is just a Capacitor and a capacitor requires voltage. 

So, in effect, the above is a unification of Thermodynamics to the main body of Physics which is Atomic theory + AP-Maxwell Equations. 


Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH 
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu 


                ::\ ::|:: /:: 
                 ::\::|::/:: 
                     _ _ 
                    (:Y:) 
                     - - 
                 ::/::|::\:: 
                ::/ ::|:: \:: 
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. 
            . \ .  . | .   /. 
           . . \. . .|. . /. . 
              ..\....|.../... 
               ::\:::|::/:: 
---------------      ------------- 
--------------- (Y) ------------- 
---------------      -------------- 
               ::/:::|::\:: 
              ../....|...\... 
           . . /. . .|. . \. . 
            . / .  . | .   \ . 

  
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ 
whole entire Universe is just one big atom 
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies 

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts in peace and quiet.      

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe         
Archimedes Plutonium

Commentary::
Alright, for the next edition, 9th, I want Electrochemistry explained with utmost clarity. The world so far has never given a correct explanation of Electrochemistry, for it to be correct, it has to be a reduction to that of the Faraday Law. And the idea of electrochemistry as being the flow of electrons = .5MeV particles is hideously obnoxiously wrong. The Faraday law is the Magnetic lines of force of a bar magnet in motion yields .5MeV monopoles, that jump from the bar magnet into the coiled loop of copper wire and those monopoles are closed loops of .5MeV charge energy which produces the electric current. The flow of electrons is never electricity, for electrons are the muons of 105 MeV. So, here I have to straighten out the absurd understanding of electrochemistry. And it will be at least another year-- 2019 before I start edition 9 of this textbook, so I want to get far advanced as possible before 2019.

I have several excellent textbooks of Old Chemistry, (chemistry before it was known that the Real Electron = muon = 105 MeV particle, and the .5 MeV particle is magnetic monopole.

(1) Principles of Modern Chemistry, 2nd ed, Oxtoby & Nachtrieb, 1990, pages 376-379, showing pictures of electrochemical battery "unknown hydronium ion concentration", " In a Leclanche dry cell," " A zinc-mercuric oxide dry cell"

(2) Chemistry, The Central Science, 5th ed, Brown, LeMay, Bursten, 1991, page 711, "Voltaic cell using a standard hydrogen electrode"

(3) Chemistry, A Conceptual Approach, 4th ed, Mortimer, 1979, page 339, "Electrolysis of molten sodium chloride"

(4) CHEM ONE, 2nd ed, Waser, Trueblood, Knobler, 1980, page 441, "…., but his countryman, the physicist Alessandro Volta, showed that it was due to the contact of the two dissimilar metals, This led Volta in 1799 to the invention of the electric battery. His famous "pile" was a sequence of disks of silver and zinc in contact with one another, each pair separated from the next by a sheet of heavy paper moistened with salt water. When the disk of zinc at one end of the pile was connected by a wire to the disk of silver at the other end, a current was generated."

Alright, for my purpose, to explain that Electrochemistry is nothing more than Faraday's law of thrusting bar magnet yielding a current in a closed loop of wire, is the same as the battery.

How am I to do that? And hopefully before 2019?

Well I simply intuit that the battery of Volta as described by (4) CHEM ONE, that description makes the entire battery be the thrusting bar magnet, inside the closed loop of wire.

How is it possible?

Well, to make a battery be Faraday's Law, I need to show that Thrusting Bar Magnet is equal to TWO DISSIMILAR METALS, the silver and zinc above. 

Now I wish in my education I was given a tour of a magnet factory in the USA. A company that takes metals that are not magnetic and turns them into a magnet. Because, I would love to see how the electrons or ions or atoms or magnetic monopoles are made to -- LINE UP -- inside the metal so that they display magnetism. I have that missing in my education, for I love to see a hands on demonstration how a metal that is non magnetic is turned into a magnet, a permanent magnet.

This is what is happening in electrochemistry, the cells of batteries is the same process in which you take a metal that is NonMagnetic and turn it into a magnetic metal. The same process in which iron is nonmagnetic and then turned into a iron magnet is the same process of a Battery that Volta discovered.

So it is not that the battery is making electrons move, but rather, the battery is creating magnetism-on-the-move. And that magnetism on the move is creating Magnetic Monopoles. It is these monopoles that are flowing in the copper wire closed loop.

Good, good, start, but needs much more clarity,,,,

AP

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

-PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-17 08:26 -0700
  Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-17 11:52 -0700
    Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-17 16:51 -0700
      Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-17 17:55 -0700
        Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-18 12:49 -0700
          Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-18 14:59 -0700
            Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-18 16:29 -0700
            Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-22 18:55 -0700
              Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-23 14:36 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-23 16:33 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 10:42 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 13:28 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 15:37 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 18:27 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 20:52 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 13:56 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 15:44 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 17:04 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 20:52 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 11:26 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 12:20 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 15:32 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 16:34 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 12:45 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 16:28 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 17:09 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 21:23 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 10:47 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 19:32 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-30 12:59 +0100
                talking to Keith about his "thoughts" Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-30 11:36 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-30 15:38 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-31 12:03 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-31 17:39 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-01 10:43 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-01 16:28 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-01 20:25 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-03 12:25 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-04 14:09 -0700
  Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-30 12:08 +0100

csiph-web