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

Groups > sci.physics > #713444

Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition

Show all headers | View raw

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 23:18:35 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Page19, 2-5, Maxwell Equations of Old Physics, errors all over the
 place/ Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 07:18:35 +0000


Page19, 2-5, Maxwell Equations of Old Physics, errors all over the place/ Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed

As a point of reference, these were the Old Maxwell Equations. Sounds like bragging but this is true, that at some future date and time, it will be difficult to know what the Old Physics Maxwell Equations were, without looking into the long-forgotten-past-history of physics. The books of the future will be full of the AP Equations, that had almost no resemblance to the Old Maxwell Equations. Maxwell got his equations, originally 8 equations 1861-1865, from hands on modeling called "Maxwell's molecular vortex model". Then about 1884, Heaviside wanted to get rid of electric potential and magnetic potential, reduced Maxwell's equations from 8 to 4 which is commonly seen today as the Maxwell Equations such as in the book Halliday & Resnick below. 

Whereas the AP equations are not some cobbled together collection of laws-- here and there. No, not a cobbled together set of laws, but rather, the AP Equations comes directly from one law of Electricity and Magnetism-- the New Ohm's Law and structuring all of EM theory on just New Ohm's law as basis, all the permutations of New Ohm's law differentiated, makes up the EM theory. 

So many items that Maxwell was in error of, and this is a partial list of errors:: 
1) had a repel force when there is no repulsion, but there is a Denial of Same Space Occupancy, the Pauli Exclusion Principle 
2) had a electric-field, when that was already Voltage, so no need to have two things which are just one 
3) had no way of getting a variable strength of the Coulomb force, which ranges from R to 1/R to 1/R^2 
4) bizarre mathematics used to describe the equations of vector fields, when, all that is needed is straightforward differential equations. The late 1800s was a goofball show off time in couching physics in crazy math. 
5) had no **spin term** for if you notice, everything in subatomic and atomic world has spin, and in macro-world, all planets, stars, galaxies have spin. Hard to make Old Maxwell Equations the math of all of physics if it misses out on spin
6) had no means of accommodating the force of gravity as a EM force, nor explaining gravity as a phenomenon that is electricity and magnetism
7) had no Real Electron= muon = 105 MeV, and the particle of current is the .5 MeV monopole particle

Huge, huge errors. But, we can admire Maxwell for it is, to his credit of genius, that he integrated electricity and magnetism into one body of knowledge represented by a few equations. And that after Maxwell, we just improve on his equations.

So let us look at the Maxwell Equations of old, for they are soon to disappear in our education system. And sometime in the future, you will see only the AP-Equations.

The Maxwell Equations in Old Physics can be seen by Halliday & Resnick, Physics, Part 2, Extended Version, 1986, page 886 

Math Format of Old Physics Maxwell Equations: 

div*B = 0     Law of Magnetism 
div*E = r_E   Law of Electricity 
curlxE = -dB      Faraday/Lenz law 
curlxB = dE + J_E   Ampere/Maxwell law 


In differential format, instead of integral we have::


∇⋅B = 0 
∇⋅D = ρ 
∇×E = - ∂B/∂t 
∇×H =  ∂D/∂t + J 

I prefer instead of the Math Formats of the equations, I prefer the Descriptive-Language Format of the Equations for they contain much more information than the Math format. 

--- quoting --- 

Gauss's law for electricity, Describes: Charge and the electric field 1. Like charges repel and unlike charges attract, as the inverse square of their separation. 1.' A charge on a insulated conductor moves to its outer surface. 

Gauss's law for magnetism, Describes: The magnetic field 2. It has thus far not been possible to verify the existence of a magnetic monopole. 

Faraday's law of induction, Describes: The electrical effect of a changing magnetic field 3. A bar magnet, thrust through a closed loop of wire, will set up a current in the loop. 

Ampere's law as extended by Maxwell, Describes: the magnetic effect of a changing electric field or of a current 4. The speed of light can be calculated from purely electromagnetic measurements. 4.' A current in a wire sets up a magnetic field near the wire. 

--- end quoting --- 

By making the EM equations all derived from New Ohm's law, we reduce the mathematics from the bizarre Old Physics of vector calculus, to that of the much more simple minded pure differential equations giving us the New EM theory. In other words, we see Gauss and Heaviside inputs of their math upon Maxwell equations, we see that math as mostly concocted garbage math.

What I am doing, is correcting Old Maxwell Equations for which Feynman said there was never any experiment that Old Maxwell theory could not solve. But Feynman was grossly wrong in that evaluation because the Old could not even deliver Lenz law. Not even a Lenz law which is starkly right there in plain sight in Faraday demonstration. And as the century ended and Feynman's death, for he surely had heard of the spiral galaxies that had Solid Body Rotation of its stars, that surely, Feynman's mind, may have floated by, the idea-- the only place you can get Solid Body Rotation is via the powerful force of EM force. And so, all of the Maxwell Equations are riddled with errors. 

And one item that should have alerted every physicist and mathematician from 1900 onwards, was the item that the math used by Gauss, Heaviside is just grossly out of place, considering that the history of Physics had Ordinary Differential Equations well established by 1860, yet the Maxwell Equations are then cloaked in non mainstream, archaic and artificial math of vector manifolds, line integrals and other exotica nonsense. 

The proper choice of what math to use for these equations, would be like as if Newton choosing say, Line Integrals for his Mechanics rather than the linear math of just simple F = m*a. 

So, what I am saying is why in the world would you not use the simple mathematics of Ordinary and Partial Differential Equations and discard them and chose some wacky arcane math of vector fields, manifolds? Perhaps it was the community of mathematicians with an opportunity to "show off" with stupid silly math, but ruinous to the physics of Maxwell's original differential equations. Mathematicians lean towards showing off, rather than getting the physics correct. 

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 

Comments:: Now yesterday I gave a brilliant proof that the Real Electron = muon = 105 MeV, and that proof consisted of the surface area of a sphere is 4 times the area of a great-circle of the sphere. And in Chemistry, the Chemical Bond is such that a maximum of 4 atoms can be bonded around a central atom. So that if you pair two muon electrons you have 210 MeV and then if you place these 4 di-muons into a octet, you get the Octet Rule of Quantum Mechanics, you get a octagon as a closed loop wire, and you get a 840 MeV ring of muons which is a proton.

Thinking of that, well, you wonder, why could no chemist, no physicist, why could none of them, ever since the muon was discovered in 1936 by Anderson-Neddermeyer, why could no-one, until 2017, some 80 years later, ever toy with the idea, "maybe the electron, true electron is the muon and not this puny midget .5 MeV particle"?

Because really, Old Physics, Old Chemistry was laboring under this silly goofy idea that Chemical Bonding occurred with these tiny puny particles of .5 MeV. That is like, well, hearing a huge loud knock on the door, and expecting to see a ant on the ground doing the knocking.

AP

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

Thread

in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-01 17:05 -0700
  Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-02 10:53 -0700
    Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 14:51 -0700
      Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 21:03 -0700
      Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 21:05 -0700
        Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-04 18:02 -0800
          Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-05 11:28 -0800
            Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-06 14:48 -0800
              Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-10 13:14 -0800
                Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-12 12:14 -0800
                Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-13 13:36 -0800
                Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-14 11:36 -0800
                Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-14 19:24 -0800
                Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-16 04:09 -0800
                Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-17 11:53 -0800
                Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-18 13:17 -0800
                Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-19 12:17 -0800
                Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-19 17:36 -0800
                Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-20 13:51 -0800
                Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-24 18:31 -0800
                Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-25 18:02 -0800
                Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-27 13:50 -0800
                Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-28 12:15 -0800
                Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 12:52 -0800
                Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 18:20 -0800
                Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-02 14:27 -0800
                Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 17:19 -0800
                Re: Archimedes "Front Page Hog" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-04 05:06 +0000
                Re: Archimedes "batshit crazy" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-04 05:15 +0000
                Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 13:55 -0800
                Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 21:45 -0800
                Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 18:51 -0800
                Re: in 9th edition include Starpower is not fusion, but rather Faraday Law// The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 14:02 -0800
                Re: Archimedes "Village Idiot" Plutonium flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-13 03:20 +0000

csiph-web