Discussion:
_PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition
(too old to reply)
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-03 19:02:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
_The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition

The PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook
by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017

These are the final days of 2017 and I have a one last chance opportunity to run through the entire textbook with comments. I have found that "comments" are an essential ingredient in writing a textbook, for the author can reflect at juncture points, any changes or thoughts of the moment. Comments give flexibility to an otherwise rigid text, and rigidity is something to abhor in science. If you do not like change, well, writing a science text is not for you. So by commenting at the end of pages, this gives the author that needed flexibility, and warns him of what to write in a future edition.


Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 18:18:07 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Page1, 1-1, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + AP-Maxwell-Equations-Describing
 Physics, 8th ed.
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 02:18:07 +0000


Page1, 1-1, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + AP-Maxwell-Equations-Describing Physics, 8th ed.

PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE
by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017


Preface:

Now I said I wanted Clarity, Comprehension, and Logical Flow in this textbook and keep that foremost in mind. In a way, after all these years, 24 of them, I seem to have learned -- how to write a science textbook. By writing preliminary pages and then constant editing. They say practice makes perfect.

I think this textbook should be of Brevity also, and with the smallest amount of pages possible, under 100 pages. I do not want to ramble on.

I think the first chapter should have many pictures, have some pictures in mind, for pictures with ideas are the most comprehensive teaching, and the first two chapters should be pictures with history to put things in perspective.


page1, 1-1 Pictures of Atom-Totality-Universe

I cannot show pictures except ascii-art in sci.physics, so I refer the reader to the many textbooks listed that shows pictures of what electrons (electron=muon) of an atom looks like.

A large proportion of people reading this textbook, think that an electron=muon is one round ball that revolves around a proton-neutron nucleus of an atom. They are far from the true reality of what the electron=muon looks like. And most people are aghast or stunned to find out that the electron=muon looks like millions of fine grained glass dust evenly spread over a confined space, which in physics is called the electron-dot-cloud.

One of my earliest ascii-art of the last electron=muon of plutonium was this:

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon

                ::\ ::|:: /::
                 ::\::|::/::
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - -
                 ::/::|::\::
                ::/ ::|:: \::

        One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And
each dot represents another galaxy.

Look in a quantum physics textbook or a chemistry textbook for pictures of what an electron=muon looks like. An electron=muon is many white dots surrounding a nucleus. This is commonly called the "Electron Dot Cloud".

Now, look at the night sky and replace those shining galaxies, shining stars, with the white dots of an electron=muon cloud. And there you have the Atom Totality Universe theory in a picture.

It was on 7 November 1990, woken from sleep that I discovered the Atom Totality Universe and the picture from textbooks that I was thinking of in my mind during the discovery was the Halliday & Resnick picture of what the electron=muon of an atom looks like. And I hope the reader himself/herself looks up that picture in Halliday & Resnick textbook PHYSICS, Part 2, Extended
Version , 1986, of page 572.
 
In the 1990s I did a survey in mathematics of math professors doing a Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof in which 84% of them failed to deliver a valid proof, which can be seen in my Correcting Math textbook of 2016. And the reason I bring that issue up is perhaps I should do a survey in physics, or, all the sciences, asking someone to draw a picture of the electron=muon of a hydrogen atom on a piece of paper with pencil. Will most fail?

Looking at Halliday & Resnick textbook PHYSICS, Part 2, Extended Version , 1986, on page 572. This is a large electron=muon cloud dot picture for which I quote the caption.

  CHAP.26 CHARGE AND MATTER.
     Figure 26-5
      An atom, suggesting the electron
      cloud and, above, an enlarged view
      of the nucleus.
--- end quoting ---

You see, the dots of the electron=muon cloud, its billions upon billions of dots, is one electron=muon itself. An electron is perhaps 10^180 dots that comprise the electron=muon.

And on the historic day 7 November, 1990, having awoken from sleep and remembering that picture in Halliday & Resnick, did I discover the Atom Totality Universe theory. I put together the idea that the dots of the electron dot cloud are actual galaxies and stars in the night sky.

The dots of the electron dot cloud are actual mass chunks or pieces of one electron=muon.

So that if we had a survey test of scientists, especially physicists, would they draw the hydrogen atom of one electron=muon and one proton as this:

o  .

Where the electron=muon is a ball going around a tiny ball of a proton nucleus? Probably that is their picture of an electron=muon, and, their understanding of what a proton and electron=muon are, -- some spheres going around one another.

They probably would never draw a picture like this for an electron=muon:

       ......
   ..............
.....................
.....................
   ..............
        ......

The picture of an electron=muon that was instrumental in my discovering the Atom Totality Universe theory is the one by Halliday & Resnick. That picture of the atom with dots caught my attention long before 7 Nov 1990 and it was on that day in 7 Nov1990 where I connected the dots of the electron dot cloud with actual galaxies and stars, and planets, etc. Thus this picture was instrumental in the discovery of the Plutonium Atom Universe theory. But let me emphasize strongly here that none of the electron cloud dot pictures, that I have seen, really show clearly the night sky of shining galaxies and stars. The discovery of a new theory sees more than what is contained in past wisdom and adds something new and pushes it into the new wisdom.

I had seen many pictures of electron cloud dot patterns mostly in chemistry books and even in movies and TV. And it was stunning to me for the first time when I understood the electron=muon was not some small ball figure circling around a nucleus, but rather a huge number of dots was the actual electron=muon itself. And this stunning understanding is probably lacking in most scientists even a lot of physicists, but not so much chemists since they encounter pictures of electrons more often than others. So that if this survey of drawing what a hydrogen atom looks like of its 1 electron=muon with 1 proton nucleus were given to scientists and professors, would any of them draw something resembling a dot cloud? I think few if any. It is in their psyche to think the electron=muon is a tiny ball going around the proton nucleus, just like Earth going around the Sun.

Somehow it was the Halliday & Resnick picture which jolted my mind into the discovery stage and although in that picture the white dots are far too dense to look like the night sky of shining galaxies and stars it was enough that they were white dots and that helped tremendously. In most of the other pictures of the electron dot cloud they are black dots or blue dots set
against a light or white background, or they are too fuzzy as shown in a page from the Encyclopedia Britannica.

And, on that fateful day of 7NOV1990, my day was spent in finding out what chemical element would fit the best as our Atom Totality Universe. Was it uranium, or plutonium?

After 7NOV1990 I have searched many texts to find other pictures which have dot pictures of the electron cloud.

Pictures speak a thousand words as the old saying goes, but better yet, pictures remain in the mind longer than written words.
The Atom Totality Universe is very easy to explain and this ease is credit to the theory that it is the truth. When truth comes to physics the ideas are immediate, quick, connecting to past great ideas. For as Feynman said in his Feynman Lectures text in the first chapter where he places the Atomic Theory as the greatest physics idea of all time, and what I do here, is extend the Atomic theory to its utmost reach-- the universe in total is but one big atom.

So on page 6-11 of Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume I, 1963, has a picture of the electron cloud, and quoting the caption:
Fig.6-11. A way of visualizing a hydrogen atom. The density (whiteness) of the cloud represents the probability density for observing the electron.
--- end quoting ---

Well, on my fateful morning of 7 November 1990, I was interpreting those dots more than just probability numbers, but that the electron=muon was those dots and that the dots represent a mass chunk or piece of the electron=muon. Of course, the nucleus of a cosmic atom would have most of the mass, and so, the cosmic atom would be huge for the electron space and massive for the nucleus.

So, if I did a survey on scientists, asking them to draw a electron=muon, would anyone in the survey get it correct by stipling dots or would they draw some round ball as the electron=muon?

This is the dot picture I used in sci.physics and other newsgroups of Internet.

                         94th ELECTRON=muon OF 231PU

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

                ::\ ::|:: /::
                 ::\::|::/::
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - -
                 ::/::|::\::
                ::/ ::|:: \::

        One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy.

A larger version of what a plutonium atom looks like
with its 5f6 as that of 12 lobes or as a dodecahedron:

            . \ .  . | .   /.
           . . \. . .|. . /. .
              ..\....|.../...
               ::\:::|::/::
---------------      -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
---------------      --------------
               ::/:::|::\::
              ../....|...\...
           . . /. . .|. . \. .
            . / .  . | .   \ .

Archimedes Plutonium

Comments:: Since in 2017, I discovered that the Real Electron is the muon of 105 MeV and the so called little electron of .5MeV was in fact a charge energy, not rest mass and is a photon with charge, and is the magnetic monopole, which I call the magnepole. That has caused me to make clear where ever I write electron, to signify that the electron is a muon. This is huge huge change in Chemistry, for the chemical bond cannot exist with the electron as .5MeV, for it needs a 105 MeV as electron, and the Real Proton in physics is 840 MeV, and neutron is 945 MeV.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-04 06:33:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 19:55:05 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Page2, 1-2, pictures of the PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE 8th ed. 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 03:55:05 +0000

Page2, 1-2, pictures of the PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE 8th ed. 2017

Now the inspiration for me to make this ascii art electron=muon dot cloud picture

                         94th ELECTRON=muon OF 231PU

               Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon

                ::\ ::|:: /::
                 ::\::|::/::
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - -
                 ::/::|::\::
                ::/ ::|:: \::

        One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy.

A larger version of what a plutonium atom looks like
with its 5f6 as that of 12 lobes or as a dodecahedron:

            . \ .  . | .   /.
           . . \. . .|. . /. .
              ..\....|.../...
               ::\:::|::/::
---------------      -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
---------------      --------------
               ::/:::|::\::
              ../....|...\...
           . . /. . .|. . \. .
            . / .  . | .   \ .

of the 5f6 of 231plutonium comes from the old textbooks by White and then Seaborg & Loveland.

The above is similar to a picture from White's text on atomic spectra. For few books try to show what the 5f6 looks like. H. E. White in his textbook  INTRODUCTION TO ATOMIC SPECTRA, 1934, page 71, uses a spinning top to make pictures of what atomic orbitals look like. And he shows a picture of the electron=muon of plutonium as white dots against a black background, but the white dots, like Halliday and Resnick are too dense of white.

The white dots should be spread out more on the scale of what we see in the night sky of white dots of stars and galaxies. The night sky that we see is just the space and mass of the last two electrons=muons of 231PU, our observable Universe.

The shape of the 5f6 of plutonium is seen in White's Atomic Spectra, and is seen again in The Elements Beyond Uranium, Seaborg & Loveland, 1990, page 73, and again seen on page 76, not as a dot pattern but just as a overall shape.

This is a beautiful irony in the history of physics. To unravel what the atom looked like, was earnestly pursued in the early 1900s by such as J.J. Thomson, Rutherford, Bohr and others, and the atom was conceived as a miniature Solar System with the electrons=muons as miniature planets revolving around a Nuclear Sun. But then, later in the 1900s say around 1930's with White's Atomic Spectra, we see the electron=muon was seen more as a dot cloud picture, then a revolving ball.

That is what Feynman is beginning to show in his Volume III, Feynman Lectures on Physics, 1965, page 19-12 in his diagram of the 2s, then 3p then 4d of hydrogen wave functions, which of course means a picture of what the electron=muon looks like. Feynman in this picture on page 19-12 does not use dots but rather squiggly curves, but that is better than the wrong picture of a electron=muon as a round ball revolving around a nucleus. Feynman also shows the atom on page 6-11, Volume I, as a dot cloud.

Now in High School, 1964 to 1968 I studied physics with a textbook of PSSC, I believe the 2nd edition, and I do not recall, ever a picture of what a atom looks like, except perhaps in a film in that PSSC course. Shame that you can have a entire physics course in High School and escape the learning of what an "atom, its electron=muon" looks like. So that if I had been required to take a survey of what an atom and electron=muon looks like in High School, I would have drawn this picture:

o .

or this

o O

depending on whether I thought the individual electron=muon was larger than the nucleus material.

Thinking the electron=muon was a ball "o" going around a tiny nucleus of "."

So, how fortunate for me, that before 1990, I had bought PHYSICS: Halliday & Resnick Part 2, Extended Version, 3rd edition, 1986, because without that picture on page 572, I probably would not have discovered the Atom Totality theory, and never have posted to the Internet of any science or math. Would have had no reason to post on Internet, ever. How one picture, changed the course of my life.

And, speaking more, that PHYSICS: Part 2 Extended Version, Halliday & Resnick, 1986, page 1194, shows pictures of the p-orbitals which are not too dense in dots, and perfect for translating the dots as galaxies and stars. Of course there is the Old Physics interpretation of the dots making the electron cloud represent 90% of finding the electron, as a electron-ball (muon ball), according to Born interpretation, but according to my interpretation those dots represent 90% of the actual electron=muon mass, the electron=muon itself smashed up into fine matter and evenly scattered around the nucleus.

And of course, in High School, I read the Time-Life book MATTER, 1963, Lapp, which on page 118 was my intuition of what the electron=muon, and atom looks like as tiny balls revolving around a nucleus, but on page 125 shows a different picture as the dot-cloud for the electron.

So, what if we set in place this Survey, a survey where you ask a scientist, handing him/her a sheet of paper and asking the scientist to draw a picture of a electron=muon, going around a nucleus, the hydrogen atom. Draw it.

Would 90% draw a ball going around a smaller ball or a larger ball:

o .

o O

Or, would there be no one taking the survey that does a dot cloud.

Certainly, if I were given the survey test at any time up to 7 November 1990, I would have drawn a ball going around another ball, much the same as Time Life's book MATTER on page 118. And even though, I had taken Chemistry classes in University and seen dot cloud pictures in chemistry books, it did not sink into my mind, that the electron=muon was a dot cloud, not a ball going around.

Now in this page I need to cover the Born Interpretation of the Atom and its electron=muon, and talk about Collapsed and Uncollapsed Wave function. Because the electron=muon that moves in wires in electricity is the collapsed wavefunction, but here, is it electrons=muons moving in the wire, or is it charged photons= magnepoles the .5MeV moving in wires. But the electron=muon in an atom is in the dot cloud form, the uncollapsed wavefunction. The Universe as one big atom of plutonium is in the Uncollapsed form.

Much later in this book we can see that Collapsed Wavefunction is electricity, and the Uncollapsed Wavefunction is magnetism. Collapse magnetism and you get electricity (Faraday law), collapse electricity and you get magnetism (Ampere law).

The Born Interpretation is one among many interpretations. His interpretation is that the electron=muon is always a ball figure, tiny ball that revolves around a atomic nucleus, and the dots are the probability of finding this ball at that specific dot.

It is rather funny, how the novice, the greenhorn, the stupid and silly of physics people see something like "the Born Interpretation" and forget what the word "interpretation" means. They immediately replace the word "interpretation" to be that of "dictatorial, fascist reality". They do not understand that in science, we can have interpretations.

My interpretation is different from Born, for the electron dot cloud. My interpretation is that the electron=muon is smashed into pieces just as we smash a glass ball into fine glass powder or dust and spread those fine glass particles in Space. So for Born, the dots are only a parking lot space for a electron=muon ball. For me, the dots are actual pieces of the electron=muon. So every atom that exists, every particle that exists is a dot in the electron=muon dot cloud. We can expand the dots to be large dots as a galaxy, or star and so as we look in the night sky we see white dots, and those white dots are parts of the last electron=muon dot cloud of the Plutonium Atom Totality.

My first encounter of what electron=muon looks like has to be the Time-Life book MATTER on page 118 and 125, although I would not remember the dot cloud picture on page 125, only the ball picture on 118. This was probably when I was 15 years old.

My next encounter of what the electron=muon as a dot cloud would be circa 1966-1967 in my High School physics class where I saw a film of PSSC which showed the electron cloud as many white dots.

The next encounter of the electron=muon as a dot cloud would be in college chemistry class of a textbook by author Mortimer in 1968-69.

I have the fourth edition of Mortimer, Chemistry: A Conceptual Approach, 1979, not the edition I used in 1969. But these are very similar texts. And on page 45 shows the 2s orbital of helium in blue dots. It is a real good picture, but it was the Halliday & Resnick picture in PHYSICS text that discovered the Atom Totality theory.

Now I have other chemistry texts that I bought after the discovery of the Atom Totality and out of curiosity and desire to compare, I mention them. Perhaps I should do a survey on scientists, asking them to draw a hydrogen atom of its electron=muon and proton, and see if any of them do a dot-cloud picture.

So here are some texts that I bought after the historic 7 November 1990 discovery.

CHEM ONE, by Waser, Trueblood, Knobler, 1980, sad to say, really do not have a dot-cloud picture of the electron=muon. The best they do is a ball type figure on page 317.

Brown, LeMay, Bursten, 5th ed. Chemistry: The Central Science, 1991 on page 188 and 189 shows the dot cloud of electrons (muons) of the 1s, 2s, and 3s, and the 2p, and good pictures where the dots are in blue.

You see, the stumbling block of dot clouds is that people are going to think a single dot is the electron, when in fact all those dots are one electron (one muon).

Oxtoby, Nachtrieb in their Principles of Modern Chemistry, 2nd ed., 1990, page 505 do a 1s, 2s, 3s in blue dots that are too dense and fuzzy. And on pages 506 and 507 show the p and d orbitals but the blue dots are too dense and you would think it is a solid blue.

Wehr, Richards, Adair, 4th ed. Physics of the Atom, 1984, and shame on them for I could not find one single picture of the electron as a dot cloud. I could not find a picture of the "atom", for which this entire book is devoted. Sort of like writing a book on the history of a person and neglecting to install a picture of the person. Otherwise, this text is excellent and have often used it for reference.

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

                ::\ ::|:: /::
                 ::\::|::/::
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - -
                 ::/::|::\::
                ::/ ::|:: \::

One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.

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:: In 2016, I discovered that the muon was about 9 times the proton rest mass of 105 to 938 MeV, which is less than 1% difference of exactitude. In physics, when such quantities are so close, that we can address them as equal. But it was not until 2017, that I turned that discovery into its great grand conclusion that affects all of science, for the Real Electron is the muon of 105 MeV and the so called little electron of .5MeV was in fact a charge energy, not rest mass and is a photon (or neutrino) with charge, and is the magnetic monopole, which I call the magnepole. That has caused me to make clear where ever I write electron, to signify that the electron is a muon. This is huge huge change in Chemistry, for the chemical bond cannot exist with the electron as .5MeV, for it needs a 105 MeV as electron, for momentum sake of the covalent, ionic and metallic bonding, and the Real Proton in physics is 840 MeV, and neutron is 945 MeV.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-04 20:07:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 21:43:11 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Page3, 1-3, What is the Atomic theory of Matter// PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE
8th ed. 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 05:43:12 +0000


Page3, 1-3, What is the Atomic theory of Matter// PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE 8th ed. 2017


The Atomic Theory of science is perhaps the oldest science theory that is true, 2200 years ago, that basically was as true then as it is today without much changing or altering. It was first offered by the Ancient Greeks starting with Leucippus and then his most famous student of Democritus, and then followed by Epicurus, and then to Titus Lucretius who wrote a poem on the Atomic theory. Hard to imagine that poetry comes into the most famous science theory of all science theories.

I cannot think of a single science theory that survived the test of time as well as the Atomic Theory. Large parts of Newtonian physics, his gravity law of 1687 lasted just a mere 330 years when AP's EM Gravity replaced it. So by comparison we have a Atomic theory mostly unchanged for 2200 years and a gravity theory replaced that lasts only 330 years.

So the Atomic Theory is special in the history of science, for its duration and for it being the center of physics and chemistry. In later pages, I argue the Atomic theory is the center of mathematics and logic also.

So what is the Atomic Theory of Democritus and what is it today?

Democritus said words to the effect: "The only things that exist are atoms and the void".

Now I ask you. None of us dispute that whenever we point to a material
object we know it is composed of atoms. When we point to mass and
matter we know it is composed of atoms. Even the gases and air we
breathe on Earth are made of atoms.

And what is the modern day Atomic Theory, and here I point to the statement of Feynman:

--- quoting ---
The Feynman Lectures on Physics, 1963
page 1-2
If, in some cataclysm, all of scientific knowledge were to be destroyed, and only one sentence passed on to the next generations of creatures, what statement would contain the most information in the fewest words? I believe it is the Atomic hypothesis (or the atomic fact, or whatever you wish to call it) that All things are made up of atoms-- little particles that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another.
--- end quote ---

So we have no trouble with either Democritus or Feynman in understanding the Atomic theory. But there is trouble, and the trouble comes when we ask what about the Universe itself as a entity, a structure. Is it a non-entity and structureless. Or, is it a atom, a single atom which would complete the Logic. Which would push the Atomic theory of Democritus and as the Feynman statement, push the Atomic Theory to its ultimate and total maximum, to its end conclusion of pushing to the idea that if All things are atoms, then the Universe itself, being a thing, must be an atom.

Archimedes Plutonium after 1990 said " All Matter is made up of singular atoms, and the Universe, matter itself, has to be one big atom".  What chemical element is this Universe we live in? That was the gigantic question on my mind the morning of 7NOV1990 when I discovered the Atom Totality theory. What chemical element is the Universe.

The greatest criticism towards scientists is their lack of logic. Their inability to assemble or recognize a logical argument and how they stick to their dirty error filled opinion, rather than accept logic. A chief blame of this lack of logic is that the schools of higher education never require logic as a prerequisite to being a scientist. Most scientists have never taken formal logic in their university schooling, and learned how to start to think clearly. This forces me to amplify these first pages, seeing the horrible lack of logic in sci.physics as I introduced this in sci.physics in Spring of 2016.

And the second greatest shortfall of scientists is their logical inability to correctly *interpret* the experiment data or observation data. I spoke of the Born Interpretation of the atom electron=muon earlier, but the interpretation of science data is a frightening lack of ability by most. How they so easily misinterpret the data, which is evident in a later page on the subject of a repelling force or a denial of the same space occupancy of two bar magnets.

When I was a teenager in school there was a joke spreading around. I hate the joke because it involves the torture of animals such as a grasshopper, and I request no-one does this joke for it is a sin to torture animals, sin, sin, sin. But I never heard any joke more apt to describe a scientist lacking a logical mind. The joke goes like this-- a scientist studies grasshoppers and says "jump hopper jump" and the hopper jumps. Then the scientist pulls off one of the hoppers legs and says "jump hopper jump" and the hopper jumps a little bit with its remaining leg. Finally the scientist pulls off the other large leg and says "jump hopper jump" and the hopper just stands there. So the scientist concludes that by pulling off the two large legs of grasshopper makes the hopper deaf in his ears. Now we all laugh at that joke because the truth is the hopper cannot jump because his means of jumping is removed. But you would be surprised that much of modern day science is the misinterpretation of the facts, data, and observations. Much of astronomy with its fakery of black holes, dark matter, dark energy is misinterpretation. Much of particle physics with its fakery of Higgs boson is misinterpretation of particle tracks. The recent gravity waves device of LIGO, is a misinterpretation of data.

So, Logic is a terrible mess by most scientists, and I recommend they take formal logic courses in University to help them think better, to think more clearly.

Well, Feynman makes two mistakes in his Lectures on the Atomic theory.

His first mistake is using a nonscientific term "thing" when he should have used a science term of "matter". Matter is one of the chemical elements of hydrogen, helium, lithium on up to plutonium and the transuranium atoms. The periodic table of chemical elements lists all the atoms of matter, which according to Wikipedia numbers now 118 chemical elements to date.

Now you can have matter that is a compounding of atoms, such as water is three atoms of H2O with two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen. And matter has three states of matter-- solid, liquid and gas. (Plasma is not a state of matter but a form of electromagnetic EM radiation).

Feynman's second mistake is to think that EM has a repelling force when in fact EM has only an attraction force. I cover this in detail later on in this textbook.
The Pauli Exclusion Principle is a denial of the same space occupancy. The Meissner effect is denial of same space occupancy. The Hund's Rule in Aufbau principle is denial of same space occupancy. The flow of electrons=magnepoles in a current is not repel but denial of same space occupancy just as the congregating of electrons=magnepoles in a capacitor. It is easy, to think that Nature has a force of repelling, upon watching one magnet oriented in such a way as to seemingly repel a second magnet, but if you examine that situation up closely, you will recognize that there is no repulsion as there really is an attraction, but rather, there is attraction and there is "denial of the same space occupancy", that looks like repulsion.

I myself was deceived most of my life with thinking there is repelling and repulsion, but there really is not. The concept of Denial of Same Space Occupancy is a subtle concept that is very much close to repelling, repulsion.

In Hund's Rule, one electron=magnepole does not repel another, for if you remember electricity is the flow of a large number of electrons=magnepoles together in a wire. Or electrons=magnepoles clustering in large numbers together in a capacitor, which should not happen if there was a force of repelling or repulsion.

Or, most important of all as Rutherford found out in 1911, that electrons=magnepoles cluster together outside the nucleus while protons cluster together to form a nucleus of an atom. So that this sounds not like a force of repulsion, but one of attraction. So how do we dismiss two magnets moving away from one another? We account for this by saying it is denial of same space occupancy.

So, the major error of 19th, 20th, 21st century physics is a inability to recognize what is a repulsion force in physics and what is a "denial of same space occupancy". The Maxwell Equations have only a force of attraction.

Now, as for the logical syllogism of the Atomic Theory both by Democritus-- Only things existing are atoms and the void, and Feynman-- All things are made up of atoms; both are incomplete and have errors, and are missing the idea with regards to the Universe itself. Neither addresses the Universe itself.

We include the Universe in the logical syllogism.

All Matter is made up of Atoms
These atoms are one of the chemical elements,
one of the elements of the periodic table
An atom of chemistry has structure, subatomic particles,
mass, energy, space and other items
The Universe itself is matter
So, the Universe is either a chemical element or is not
If not, the Atomic Theory is not general, not universal
but leaves the Cosmos out
If the Universe is a chemical element,
the Atomic Theory is thoroughly a Universal Logical Statement
and the big question remaining is
what chemical element is the Universe

No, sorry, I did not try to be poetic as Titus Lucretius with De Rerum Natura.

Syllogism

(1) Atomic Theory says "all matter is made up of singular atoms" 


(2) The Universe itself is matter


(3) The Universe is either a singular atom or is not a singular atom


(4) If the Universe is a singular atom then the Atomic Theory is a 
beautiful universal truth pushed to its maximum logical reach


(5) If the Universe is not a singular atom then the Atomic theory 
has to be modified to include the exception : All matter, except the 
Universe itself, is made up of singular atoms.




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 in these pages I need to distinguish between electron=muon and electron=magnepole=magnetic monopole which is the .5MeV photon (or neutrino) that is charged energy of .5 MeV. The electron=muon is the electron inside atoms and is 105 MeV. The electron= muon is not what flows as electricity, but rather, what is electric current is the monopole of .5 MeV. So, regrettably, for a long time into the future in science, we must write electron=muon and electron=monopole to distinguish the two. Then some time in the future, perhaps a 100 years from now, we no longer have to say electron=muon and can say just simply electron as meaning the 105 MeV particle, and can say, just simply the monopole as the .5 MeV particle moving to make electricity.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-05 00:09:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 01:16:29 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Page4, 1-4, The only things that exist are Atoms; PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE
+ AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 8th ed. 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 09:16:29 +0000


Page4, 1-4, The only things that exist are Atoms; PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 8th ed. 2017


So we have Democritus Atomic Theory that the "only things that exist are atoms and the void", and we have the modern day version of "All things are made up of atoms-- little particles that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another".

And I pointed out that by logic, this theory has one and only one further allowance, for it misses an item, the Universe itself. Is the Universe itself an atom? Can the Universe be such that all things are atoms except for the Universe itself? Can that be logical, for we all must think the Universe is the ultimate in logic. So this is a logical question and allowance that we can push the Atomic Theory one step more, one step further, and say that All things are made up of atoms and the Universe itself is a single big atom.

In these opening pages, I gave the syllogism with the idea that "All things are made up of atoms" as argument, concluding that the Atomic theory is not a universal law if the Universe was not an atom.

Science theories are about "universal laws" and the most important science theory of all science theories is the Atomic theory. So if the Universe is not a single atom, one of those elements of the Periodic Chart of Chemical Elements, then the Atomic theory is not a universal law of science or of physics.

Logic is important, extremely important, for the Universe is a Logical Built Entity. The Universe itself determines what Logic is, what logic is about.

By logic, the Universe is a thing, a item with structure, or, the universe is not a structured thing or item, but structureless. If it has structure, the Universe's only candidate choice of what that structure is -- is an atom itself, one among the many chemical atoms known, from hydrogen to helium to lithium to beryllium to boron to carbon to nitrogen to oxygen, on up to uranium to plutonium and to the elements beyond. And that we have to surmise which chemical element which chemical atom is the Universe itself. But before I do that, let me repeat the Atomic theory Syllogism with the Democritus version of the theory-- "The only things that exist are atoms and the void".

Now in Atomic theory, the atom is composed of subatomic particles for which the atom has a proton nucleus and electrons=muons revolving around the nucleus and most of the volume of the atom is empty space where photons and neutrinos travel and that space itself is energy, what we can call "the void". We can include atomic nodes-- vacuums of Atoms as voids also.

In the rival theory of the Atom Totality is the Big Bang theory and not quite sure as to what those believers of Big Bang have for empty space, where their theory presupposes the Universe was empty before the explosion and the explosion is pushing against empty space in some sort of silly philosophical scheme.

So, let me do the Syllogism with "the only things existing are atoms".

Atomic Theory Logic Syllogism "the only things that exist are atoms".

Syllogism

(1) Atomic Theory says the only things that exist are atoms
(2) The Universe itself exists
(3) Hence, the Universe is an atom

Science, true science usually has a completed logic, no loose ends. For the Atomic theory to be a Universal-Law, demands the Universe itself be one of the chemical elements, a singular atom, but a big atom, containing all the other atoms inside itself.

So, what is this chemical element that makes up the Universe? In later pages I give evidence from math and physics, that plutonium, of all the chemical elements, fits the best for the Cosmic Atom that is our Universe.

So if the Feynman definition of the Atomic theory-- All things are made up of atoms, gives those lacking logic abilities a conniption fit, you can imagine what the Democritus definition of Atomic theory -- only things that exist are atoms, gives them.

So that the fool of logic with his "all humans are made of cells, hence a human is a cell", or worse yet, "Only things that exist are cells". So, you see, if you train in college to be a physicist or scientist, and never take any formal logic in school, you see how low your thinking can become. A scientist with a low logic IQ, is not a scientist at all, but a fool.

Now a lot of people do not know the history of the Atomic theory, and how such violence was exacted upon Democritus and the later atomists. Every one of Democritus's books were burned, and remarkable that he was not killed for the atomic theory. For it is a vast, vast sweeping idea-- the only things that exist are atoms, and that life is a mere process for atoms, a process like the water that flows from continent to the sea. As I said so often before, that life was put into this world by Atoms, so that life is a cold star, nucleosynthesizing elements beyond plutonium, which cannot be done in hot stars or supernova. The world is here, for atoms, and atoms are in control and in charge, and the world is one big atom.


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:: I am slowly but slowly coming to the realization of how huge a change it is with the electron=muon as 105 MeV and the so called little electron = magnepole=monopole of .5 MeV and that the little electron is not an electron at all but rather is a photon or neutrino with a charge of .5 MeV. This of course changes all of physics and all of chemistry. Every thing in physics and chemistry has to be re-thought, re-written. Even the Maxwell Equations the old ones of 1860s was about .5 MeV electrons moving to make electricity, not about monopoles that make electric current. Monopoles as photons or neutrinos with a .5MeV charge energy. Of course, the photon = neutrino can be either +1 charge or -1 charge, what we call in Old Physics a positron or electron, respectively.
Everything, everything in physics and chemistry changes. All because we never realized that the electron inside an atom is the muon. And the electricity flowing in a wire, is not the electron or proton, but is this .5MeV neutrino or photon that is charged as a magnetic monopole, a magnepole. So vast of a change is this discovery, that it could take a 100 years henceforth, to alter all the textbooks and education system to cope with the discovery. Vast vast change.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-05 05:31:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 01:48:10 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Page5, 1-5 Two largest errors most people have in thinking about a
Atom Totality. Atom-Totality-Universe/textbook 8th ed. 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 09:48:10 +0000

Page5, 1-5 Two largest errors most people have in thinking about a Atom Totality. Atom-Totality-Universe/textbook 8th ed. 2017


Alright, if you are guessing that the Cosmic Atom is the chemical element plutonium, you are correct. I have not set up the reader for any surprises. The chemical element that fits the Universe the best is plutonium and especially the isotope of 231Pu.

Now before I talk of the evidence, both physics and math evidence, let me backpedal a bit here for the reader and explain how all we see in the night sky of stars, galaxies, planets and other objects are parts, and pieces of a last electron=muon of a big gigantic atom of 231Pu. Let me backpedal for all the times I encountered people curious about the theory and what was troubling to them, so awfully troubling that they could not accept the theory.

Imagine the electron=muon as a one solid ball that moves inside an atom, but also, imagine a electron that is shattered to pieces into a large number of dots as pieces of that shattered electron=muon and imagine those pieces placed far apart in Space.

In as few of words as possible to describe this theory is my signature block for many years of my posts to the Internet: The whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies.

If you look in a chemistry textbook of what an electron=muon looks like, it is not a ball shaped object but a whole lot of little dots that form a cloud. Physics and Chemistry call it the Electron-dot-cloud. So the Atom Totality theory is basically the idea that the dots of the electron-cloud are galaxies in the night sky, and inside a dot are more dots such as dots for stars, dots for planets, and even smaller dots for animals and plants and humans, until we get to the finest dots of all-- atoms, except the Atom Totality.

So as you look up in the night sky and see shiny white dots as galaxies and as stars, those white dots are mass-pieces of the last six electrons=muons of 231Plutonium.

To describe the rival theory of the Big Bang theory would go like this:
The universe arose from a big explosion. That is the sum total to the Big Bang theory. It is simplistic and does not have much information. It does not tell us why it exploded and the Big Bang theory is not Quantum Mechanics.

The Atom Totality theory is all Quantum Mechanics for it posits that only atoms, including the Universe itself, exist. And the Atom Totality theory is a consistent theory since it posits that only atoms exist. All matter is composed of atoms but science is neglecting to complete the picture of logic by realizing that the whole entire universe must also be an atom. Quantum Mechanics is atomic physics, physics of the "small" the size of atoms.

The Big Bang theory places all of its information into an "explosion", and 
the Universe is not an entity, a "whole thing" in the Big Bang but some 
amorphous nonentity. The Big Bang is structureless. Whereas the Atom Totality has all the richness of atomic physics to lean on. We can talk about 
size, about shape, about structures such as a nucleus, and Cosmic protons and cosmic electrons=muons. We can talk about a evolution or transformation of atoms, of going from hydrogen to helium to lithium and onwards and upwards to elements 90, 91,92,93,94, etc etc. With the Big Bang we are left speechless and questionless, because there is nothing to talk about other than some explosion allegedly happened.

Laypersons and nonscientists and even a large proportion of alleged scientists have two major problems and errors with the Atom Totality theory and these two errors are :
(1) They cannot envision how the universe we see is the inside of one 
big atom. And I get a lot of fools saying that there are only 94 galaxies because of 94 electrons=muons, in plutonium. A lot of fools.
(2) They mistakenly think that since plutonium is radioactive that this 
hinders the theory. They mistakenly think the Plutonium Atom Totality will decay away and -out-goes-the-Universe. Here one minute and gone the next, type of mistake.

So how do I answer those two most recurring errors that both laypersons and even most trained scientists make as listed in (1) and (2) above?

I answer them by saying look at a chemistry textbook of the electron- dot-cloud of atoms. Their mistake is that they think the electron is a single ball that goes moving around the nucleus of an atom. It maybe a ball when the atom is collapsed wavefunction such as the moving of electricity in a wire. But an atom that is Uncollapsed wavefunction has its electrons=muons as dot-clouds. The electron=muon is a large cloud around the nucleus of the atom and is a huge number of dots. Each one of those dots is a tiny hunk or piece of the electron=muon. So that if all the dots were put together then the electron=muon would be 
a ball. So now we begin to understand how a plutonium atom of its electrons=muons is the galaxies of the night sky. That each galaxy we see in the night sky is a tiny piece of an electron=muon of the Atom Totality.

If you examine a chemistry textbook of the 5f6 or the s, or the p or the d or the f orbital of a electron=muon you will see a electron-dot-cloud. That the electron is not a ball but those huge number of dots. If we carry that idea all the way to its end-limit, each atom in the Cosmos is a dot, except for the Cosmic atom itself. Remember the Born Interpretation, each dot was a probability of finding the electron=muon as a ball at that position in the atom. But in the Atom Totality interpretation, each dot is a small tiny atom inside the Atom Totality.

When teaching the electron-dot-cloud in High School or in College, it is perhaps not taught strong enough that all those dots, 10^180 dots are one single distinct electron=muon. And it should be taught that what a huge number is that of 10^180, for most students are unable to grapple with how huge that number is. When I was in High School I came across an imagery that stuck with me for all these years as to how huge the number 10^9 was, the number 1,000,000,000. For that number is so huge that if a bird landed on Mt.Everest every year to sharpen its beak, that in 10^9 years, there would be no mountain. So if 10^9 is that huge, think what 10^180 is.

Now the night sky of stars and galaxies, it is estimated that there are only 10^11 galaxies and there are only 10^11 stars on average in each galaxy. So that would mean the Cosmos has 10^11 x 10^11, or 10^22 stars, and if we represent each of those stars as a dot we would thence have 10^22 dots. But each star is composed of atoms and a star is typically about 10^30 atoms so that would mean a night sky represented by dots for atoms would have 10^22 x 10^30 = 10^52 dots which is a huge number but a tiny number compared to 10^60 or 10^180 dots. If we included all the other matter in planets and in energy particles we come close to 10^60, not even near 10^180.

So now we can easily envision the Atom Totality theory. We look at the 
night sky of all those dots of light. Some of those dots of light are stars and some are galaxies. And now we look at the chemistry textbook of what an electron=muon looks like and it is a bunch of dots around a nucleus. So that is the crux of the Atom Totality theory, that galaxies and stars (galaxies are just a concentration of stars) are dots of the electron dot cloud and so we are living inside one big atom. And the chemical element that fits the numbers of physics and mathematics the very best is the chemical element plutonium.

Now to answer the other most often recurring mistake by laypersons and even those who call themselves scientists is the notion that if the Atom Totality was plutonium that it would decay and be gone. The answer I give is that radioactivity is time itself. That our universe, our cosmos would not have time if the Atom Totality were not radioactive, or, at least, it would not have sufficient and ample enough time to run the universe, like a machine that does not run well, or like an animal or plant that does not grow fast enough. Time is merely change of matter in position. If every atom stood still and in place and never changed position relative to all the other atoms, then there would be no time. Life could not exist if every atom were to stand still and not move relative to other atoms. So, to answer why the Atom Totality is a radioactive element is to say that you want the Universe to be a entity that has a lot of change going on and radioactivity provides that change. We see this change every day in Cosmic particles of protons appearing uniformly and of Cosmic gamma ray bursts. Radioactivity of the Atom Totality is what makes stars and planets come into existence in that the daily accretion of particles of radioactivity from the Nucleus of the Plutonium Atom Totality is what gives us our Sun and Earth and Solar System and Milky Way Galaxy.

Summary: The Atom Totality Theory is easy to state for it simply says that the Universe itself is one big atom and the chemical element that fits the special constants and numbers of physics and mathematics the best is plutonium, specifically 231Pu. When one asks for a similar explanation of the Big Bang theory one gets no description whatsoever other than to say "explosion happened". And the two most often made mistakes about the Atom Totality theory is the error that an electron=muon is a single ball and the error 
that plutonium radioactivity is incompatible or incongruent with an Atom Totality.


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

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

Comments:: I am having troubles with electron=muon and electron=magnepole=monopole. Troubles because of that vast changes needed throughout physics and chemistry. The magnepole, the .5MeV is what makes electric current, makes voltage. And trouble visualizing that the electron=muon probably does not move around much inside atoms. I have huge troubles in visualizing how a magnepole= charged photon or charged neutrino, how that magnepole relates to the electron=muon or proton. Remember, I discovered the electron=muon in the last few months of 2017, as I write this textbook, and am now, just going back to edit each page.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-05 22:39:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 13:19:21 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Page6, 1-6 Differences between Big Bang and Atom-Totality-Universe/
textbook 8th ed.2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2017 21:19:21 +0000


Page6, 1-6 Differences between Big Bang and Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed.2017


Differences between Big Bang and Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed.

I suppose readers of the distant future will want to know what silly stupid contenders for the truth were when the Atom Totality was discovered. Good for a laugh, so to speak, and also, people are curious what silly science was when the truth was found. So much of science history is buried, and buried really well, when the truth arrives, before the age of internet and electronics. It is difficult to scout the history of fake physics of the past, because scientists are so good at burying their silly ideas of the past. But the Big Bang needs to be shown to every future generation, how stupid that scientists can be, and while I am at it, another stupid theory is the Standard Model of particle physics. So it probably is not coincidence that you have a idiotic physics of Big Bang, but you have simultaneously a idiotic particle physics of Standard Model-- where the physicists actually believed the electron was this .5 MeV -1 charged particle, and their stupidity placed the muon as -1 charge with 105 MeV, so stupid were they, they thought the muon was some exotica, never realizing that the muon was the true electron that gives Chemistry a chemical bond of either covalent, ionic, metallic. So dumb and so silly were the physicists of the last 100 years, from 1917 to 2017, that they thought there was nothing wrong with the picture that you can have a covalent bond between a proton of 938 MeV with a electron of .5 MeV. I mean, physicists who believe in the Standard Model should be in the circus, not physics. Everything you know about physics-- from instinct, from intuition, from basic commonsense-- would tell you, that the only way to have Chemistry with Chemical Bonding, is when the Real Proton is 840 MeV and the Real Electron is the muon at 105 MeV. A metaphor allegory, is that scientists from 1917 to 2017 thought a ant can bond with a elephant and where the ant, single ant influences the tall elephant. A lion is about 8 times smaller than the elephant, and 8 times is the commonsense size where momentum of one influences the momentum of the other. That 8 times difference is where you can have Chemistry with chemical bonding of covalent, ionic, metallic. So in the history of Physics, in the 1900s to 2017, we had a situation where we had no physicist with a LOGICAL MIND, no physicist who could reason logically, see logically, think logically. All we had were physicists who -- follows a crowd, a consensus physics, of men and women who could not put a logical puzzle together of any science data. So we see two huge enormous physics idiocies of the past 100 years-- Big Bang and Standard Model. And the only reason they are taught today in schools is that fake science makes a lot of money in selling books and even in politicians falling prey to dumb scientists wishing to pander more Big Bang and Standard Model such as we see in LIGO, that money wasting gravity wave machine. Fake science is big business, big money, and more-- big fame to fake physicists. A LIGO fake physicist is instantly given news coverage whenever they want it. But this textbook and Archimedes Plutonium is ignored, spurned, and even harassed. Never given any attention, other than it appears on sci.math, sci.physics and my own newsgroup
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe        

Most people think science is the enterprise of truth, truth taught to our young people in school. Well, that is far from the truth. For what is taught in school is that you accept as belief what the money cart of physics is-- Big Bang, Standard Model, gravity waves, dark matter, dark energy, black holes, the electron is .5 MeV and all sorts of nonsense that at the end of the day-- rakes in the most money in textbooks and press coverage. Money grubs is what runs physics today. But, they will not run physics for much longer.

I need to talk more about the fact that the Big Bang is so vague about everything.
I need to spend a lot more time talking about the overall features of the Big Bang versus the Atom Totality. And I am having trouble in finding the appropriate words to describe this inability of the Big Bang.
This topic alone, should persuade anyone, whether a trained scientist or a layperson that the Big Bang is a fake theory.
The best words to describe the situation so far are these:

(1) entity versus nonentity 
 
(2) structures versus having no structure 
 
(3) patterned versus amorphous or no patterns

The Atom Totality is a theory in which the Universe is a single entity, a structured single entity and a patterned single entity.
The Big Bang is only one thing -- an explosion. The Big Bang is not an entity, and not a structure, and cannot have a internal pattern.

So that when Johns Hopkins in early 2000s reports a color for the Universe, it could not be for a Big Bang since it is not a single entity structure.
Or when Luminet team of researchers reported in the early 2000s that the Cosmos fits a Poincare Dodecahedral Space geometry, they could not be referring to the Big Bang because it is not a single entity with structure.
What I am looking for, are more words and terminology to add to this list.
Because the difference between a Big Bang theory and a Atom Totality theory is that the Atom Totality theory insists that the Universe has always and forever will be a structured patterned entity. It is not a huge onion or as the ancient philosophers once thought of a terra firma resting on the back of a elephant.

There is only one material object in the Cosmos that can be the Cosmos itself. It is not a piece of cheese for the Moon is not cheese. It is not the onion nor the terra firma elephant. But it is the atom. In all of the Cosmos, only the atom itself can be the entire Cosmos.
So the Big Bang never is able, nor is it possible to conceive of the Big Bang as a entity. And that should have eliminated the Big Bang theory as a viable theory of science. For it will always stay submerged in its obfuscation of some "explosion". A universe that is amorphous, unstructured, no pattern.

There is only one term that describes the Big Bang-- "explosion". And that is vagueness, and in the veils of imagination and daydreaming or nightmare dreaming.
So without doing any further work. Without doing any evidence search or computations or experiments. The Big Bang should be dismissed as a fake theory from the start, because it lacks clarity. It lacks details. Big Bang is anti-science.
The Big Bang goes so far as to even imply that the laws of physics were broken at the explosion or during the explosion and that some time after the explosion, say three minutes after the explosion, when things settled down, do we even have Physics arising, with laws of physics arising. Think of that, really, a physics theory which destroys physics in its process.

The Atom Totality theory says that the Universe has always been Quantum Mechanics because QM is atomic physics theory, and always will be Atomic Physics theory.
So any commonsense person, even those that hate doing science, can see the deficiencies and faults of a Big Bang. That it is deceptive and imaginary and vague. It is everything that science should not be-- obfuscating and imaginary.
I am not happy with the few words and concepts of Entity, Structure, Pattern that distinguishes the Atom Totality from the Big Bang, and am looking for more such words of description. And this is important since the Big Bang is defeated as a fake before the starting block.

A new term would be "laws". For the Atom Totality Theory always has laws of physics such as Atomic Theory, or the Pauli Exclusion Principle which does not allow for black holes to ever form and thus, not allow a Big Bang pre-explosion to form. In Big Bang, in the first 3 minutes, there are no laws of physics and have to wait after 3 minutes for the laws to form.

I suppose one can say that the difference between the Big Bang and Atom Totality theory is that although both are theories for the entire Universe, that the Big Bang is a theory of a "process going on" , while the Atom Totality is a theory of a entity or something, and how that entity existed in the past and will exist in the future.
No explosion is needed in the Atom Totality theory, for as described in a textbook by Paul Dirac, Directions in Physics, shows how a process of new-radioactivities dominates in the creation of new mass and matter in the Universe.
 
But the worst reasoning of the Big Bang is that it has to violate all the laws of physics until much later in the explosion that all of a sudden the laws of physics seem to precipitate out of the explosion. So that Quantum Mechanics and Atomic theory comes into existence about 5 minutes after the explosion and perhaps Maxwell Equations come into existence some days after the explosion. All of which is random, capricious and piecemeal. So that only a scatterbrained physicist would be tempted to buy into the Big Bang theory for what sense is there in a theory of physics that destroys physics and universal laws of physics and then creates another batch of so called "universal laws" when they were never universal in the first place.

On the other hand, the Atom Totality theory sticks and stays with Atomic theory, with chemisty, with physics and with EM theory. Atoms are EM theory and are Quantum Mechanics and so in the Atom Totality, never is there a breakdown of the laws of physics and the laws are truly universal.

Now a big explosion can occur in an Atom Totality for we can witness cosmic gamma ray bursts that could hold, potentially, all the energy of an entire galaxy. However, in the Atom Totality theory, the Cosmos is a atom-like-machine that is interested in creating the next higher element atom, so that violence and destruction is not part of the Cosmic scheme of things, but rather a beneficial process leading into the Plutonium Atom Totality at present to go into the next heavier element Atom Totality of the future.
So, in the Big Bang the universe is not a entity, not a something, but rather a amorphous process. A process that started in violence and has only two choices of a future-- thin out into nothing or return to a violent big crunch.
In the Atom Totality theory, the only things in existence are atoms which keep the process going by creating Atom Totalities of higher number and ordered atoms. In an Atom Totality, life has meaning as a developer of the new atoms, whereas in a Big Bang, life is only a fluke of probability, sitting there along for the ride as to whatever that ride may end up being.
In the Atom Totality, the Universe is a atom of which it was borne or risen from previous atoms and the future is a transformation into a higher numbered atom. 
Where the Universe is an "it" a "something" and it includes processes and 
transformations. Whereas the Big Bang is only a process.
Now probably, the only reason that so many scientists accepted and believed in the Big Bang, is what happens in all fields of study, when there is only one 
theory and no rival theory to contend or compete with, well, most scientists will then blindly accept a scatterbrained theory. 
When the only drink in town is bad water, then you drink bad water. 
But when someone provides a water well with purified water to drink, then you go to the purified water.

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON= muon

                ::\ ::|:: /::
                 ::\::|::/::
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - -
                 ::/::|::\::
                ::/ ::|:: \::

One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And
each dot represents another galaxy.


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

The below is my google newsgroup devoted to the Atom Totality theory in which you can read any of my recent posts in peace and quiet.

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

Comments:: I am still struggling and will be struggling throughout this text of 8th edition for I discovered near the end of this writing, that the Real Electron was the Muon of 105 MeV and the Real Proton was 840 MeV, leaving open the discovery that what the .5 MeV particle was, was not an electron at all, but was a neutrino or photon with a charge energy of .5 MeV. My greatest hurdle in writing science books is not the writing per se, but is the fact that I usually discover something huge, that causes and forces me to have to change everything I wrote before. It is frustrating, because as soon as I nearly complete a book, I learn and discover something that upsets all what I wrote before-- but is that not the way of life itself, for life, like science is not frozen in time. And this upsetting changing of what I write is somewhat ameliorated by writing comments in a comment section at the end of a page.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-05 22:41:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 17:17:20 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Page7, 1-7 Dirac's "new-radioactivities" which grows and creates our
Solar System and Cosmos/ Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed. 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2017 01:17:21 +0000


Page7, 1-7 Dirac's "new-radioactivities" which grows and creates our Solar System and Cosmos/ Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed. 2017

Now I went to see how many times Dirac even mentions Big Bang theory in his book Directions in Physics, to sort of gauge whether Dirac was lukewarm about the Big Bang or whether he was disgusted with the Big Bang. Perhaps a accurate historian can fill in some details, for I perceive Dirac as somewhat hostile towards the Big Bang, although I have no direct evidence of that.

In Dirac's book "Directions in Physics" 1978 he mentions the Big Bang but not a connotation of approval but only in a tone where Dirac needs to say what the present day physics community beliefs are, as a backdrop to his deriving his "new radioactivities". Dirac later goes on to say that his new-radioactivities is a contradiction to present day physics, or, above and beyond the establishment view of physics.

In my book, Atom Totality Theory, Dirac has large coverage with new-radioactivities as to how the Solar System and the Cosmos at large were formed. Dirac's new-radioactivities destroys the Nebular Dust Cloud theory and also the Big Bang itself.

So maybe, early on in this book, I should mention the fact that Archimedes Plutonium is a continuation of the best of physicists that came before, Paul Dirac and John Bell. That the Atom Totality theory is not a clear out of the blue theory, but a continuation of the brightest of all physicists in the 20th century-- Dirac.
 
The three giants of 20th century physics if we include Debroglie, for which our present day blind physics community does not yet perceive,-- were Debroglie, Dirac and Bell. So the reader should not think that 
Archimedes Plutonium discovered and built the Atom Totality theory in a vacuum but rather, this theory is a further continuation of what DeBroglie discovered of the thermodynamics of a isolated atom and what Dirac discovered as to how radioactivity builds a Cosmos and the Dirac Sea of positrons forming Space, and what Bell came to conclude in the concept of superdeterminism.

If one were to evaluate the feeling of Dirac towards the Big Bang theory, my impression from "Directions in Physics" is that he was not in acceptance of the Big Bang, because you cannot have favored new- radioactivities and still cling on to the Big Bang theory.

This chapter is how the Solar System came to be and grew and more important, how the Universe grew from a Hydrogen Atom Totality all the way up to its present 231Plutonium Atom Totality, and how it will eventually transform into a Element 96 Atom Totality in the future.

New-Radioactivities is found in the book "Directions in Physics", P. Dirac, 1978, pages 74 to 81 where he talks about "new radioactivities." If you do not own the book, it is the best single book written on physics of the 20th century and Dirac was the singular most important physicist of the 20th century for it was Dirac that sealed Quantum Mechanics with the Dirac Equation and then it was Dirac who lead the way to the Atom Totality theory via new-radioactivities and Space as positron space. A lot of people think Bohr was the greatest physicist of the 20th century, but in fact, it was Dirac that surpassed him in leading the way to the 21st century. Bohr's quantum mechanics does not directly lead into an Atom Totality, but Dirac's new-radioactivities does lead into a Atom Totality.

Note: here I must interject, by saying since the discovery that the Real Electron is the muon at 105 MeV, and that the particle of .5MeV is not an electron at all but is rather a photon or neutrino with a energy in charge of .5MeV. It is not rest mass energy .5 but is charge-energy of .5 MeV and this particle I call a monopole or magnepole and so it can be either +1 charge .5 MeV or -1 charge .5 MeV. So that the Dirac positron sea as Space takes on a whole different meaning. That if all Matter in the observable universe is the matter of the last electrons in 231Pu Atom Totality, then we have to wonder how can matter be charged matter when we observe it as neutral matter for the most part? Well, if the .5 MeV is a photon or neutrino with either a +1 or -1 MeV, then we can see that if Matter is -1 charge, and Space were +1 charge, then we can accept our Observable Universe is Neutral charge overall.

In "Directions in Physics", P. Dirac, 1978, pages 74 to 81 where he talks about "new radioactivities." Specifically on page 77 is where Dirac outlines his *new- radioactivity*. Funny how the entire physics and astronomy community overlooked and never realized the importance of these paragraphs in what is one of the most important physics books ever written-- 
Dirac's Directions in Physics. It is easy to teach anyone physics of facts; to teach them the Maxwell Equations or Quantum Mechanics. But how do you teach someone to recognize what subjects of physics are important and what are "dead ends". The physics community chose dead-ends when it chose Einstein and his General Relativity gravity, and chose to think subatomic particles-- quarks and other exotica were more important than atoms from which they all come from. Yet there it is-- the brilliant truth of the 20th century in Dirac's few paragraphs:

--- quoting Dirac's Directions in Physics, page 77 ---

I propose a theory where there is continuous creation of matter, together with this variation of G. Both the assumption of continuous creation and the variation of G follow from the Large Numbers Hypothesis. 
This continuous creation of matter must be looked upon as something quite independent of known physical processes. According to the ordinary physical processes, which we study in the laboratory, matter is conserved. Here we have direct non-conservation of matter. It is, if you like, a new kind of radioactive process for which there is non-conservation of matter and by which particles are created where they did not previously exist. The effect is very small, because the number of particles created will be appreciable only when we wait for a very long time interval compared with the age of the Universe.

--- end quoting Dirac's new radioactivity ---

When Dirac says something like that in the 20th century, every physicist should have payed attention. Dirac goes on to say further that the Moon should be moving away from Earth at a rate of 2cm/year for Multiplicative Creation. 

In the 2nd edition of my book, I was looking for a flow rate of Cosmic rays and Cosmic gamma ray bursts to see if our Solar System matches that cosmic input with Dirac's need of a 2cm/year for the Moon.

In this book I need to show how the constant barrage of cosmic rays and cosmic gamma rays and other particles originating from the Nucleus of the Atom Totality builds up and creates galaxies, stars and solar systems. In the Big Bang theory their creation mechanism is that all matter and energy comes from "nowhere" and then is recycled by "dust clouds", which is rather childish and preposterous.

Looking through this website:
http://www.int.washington.edu/PHYS554/winter_2004/chapter8_04.pdf
They give a figure for Cosmic Ray Intensity at 1/cm^2 sec, or, 1 ev/cm^3. They say that most Cosmic Rays, or 90%, are protons and about 9% are helium nuclei. I saw no Intensity figure for Cosmic Gamma Ray Bursts on that website. But I think I can get 2.5 x 10^12 grams per minute from the figure 1/cm^2 sec and then some.

So what we see here, is how to create and build Earth from purely just the Cosmic Rays and Cosmic Gamma Rays that impact Earth every minute of every day and year. So we never needed a Nebular Dust Cloud to create our Solar System when it can be created purely from the Cosmic rays impacting on the astro bodies of our Solar System.

So what I need to create and then build Earth over 5 billion years is a flow rate of Cosmic Rays plus Cosmic Gamma Ray Bursts of about 2.5 x 10^12 grams per minute which is the same as 2.5 billion kilograms per minute.

The Amazon River has a flow rate of 12 billion liters per minute, and keeping in mind that a liter of water is a kilogram of water. So we can have a mental comparison of what we need to replace the Nebular Dust Cloud theory. So is the flow rate of Cosmic Rays plus Cosmic Gamma Ray Bursts about on the average of 2.5 billion kilograms per minute, roughly 1/6 of the flow rate of the Amazon River, or, the full Rhine River?

I would think so, because every lightning bolt that strikes Earth is accompanied or created from a "Cosmic Ray leader strike". So Cosmic Rays are very abundant. And the source of cosmic rays are the Nucleus of the Atom Totality.

A flow rate of 2.5x10^12 grams of water per minute translates into 4 x 10^10 grams of water per second. A proton rest mass is 1.67 x 10^-24 grams. So I have 2 x 10^34 protons per second.
The cosmic rays (protons) as given is estimated as 1/cm^2 sec. Now if the Earth volume is used at 4/3(pi)(r^3) with a radius of 6.3 x 10^8 cm, we are talking about 10^24. So I am caught short by a factor of 10^10. However, if we consider Cosmic gamma ray bursts, I think we can reach a flow rate that matches 2x10^34 protons per second. I do not know the cosmic contribution of gamma rays is in the above calculations.

I believe the shortfall above of 10^10 is made up by cosmic gamma ray bursts are the equivalent in energy of entire galaxies. So it is easy to suggest that the entire shortfall of 10^10 protons per cm^2 sec is due to a gamma-ray events. I wish Dirac were here, right now, for he would probably instantly straighten the above out. That is why he was the most preeminent physicist of the 20th century because within those pages of his book Directions in Physics, pages 74 to 81 are the most important messages of physics that carries physics from the 20th century into the 21st century. Only three physicists of the 20th century are the vanguards of where physics is going in the 21st century and they are Dirac with his "new radioactivities" and "Space as positron Sea", and John Bell with his "superdeterminism", and DeBroglie in thermodynamics. And most of the other physics was either wrong, dead end, or misguided such as general-relativity.

Dirac looked for his new radioactivity in the recession of the Moon by 2cm/year. I am looking for Dirac's new-radioactivity by how Earth was created via the steady flow of Cosmic rays and gamma ray bursts. Correct me if wrong but I remember reading that the 2cm/year Moon recession was already verified in the 1990s. Remarkable that not only is Dirac's book ignored, his vanguard future vision of physics ignored but even when his 2cm/year Moon recession is verified as true, it is also ignored.

I have a shortfall above in my calculations as about 10^10 protons/sec. Now I could make up for that shortfall if we had evidence that accumulative cosmic gamma ray burst of about 10^10 landed on Earth each year. So I need just 10^10 gamma ray burst coupled with the steady stream of cosmic-rays and then I have the creation and building of Earth from Dirac's new radioactivities (where the source is obviously the nucleus of the Atom Totality). 

Cosmic Rays and Cosmic Gamma Rays, and interestingly, that recently reported that the Moon has uranium atoms. It is known that plutonium atoms exist naturally due to the bombardment of uranium atoms by energy. So, the uranium atoms found on the Moon also probably contain plutonium atoms. You see, new-radioactivities is a process that goes on uniformly, regardless of where matter exists. Old Physics would say the uranium on the Moon was caused from supernova of stars far away that created uranium and which eventually drifted in space to final end up on the Moon (no limit to how silly those in Old Physics will dream).

So Dirac in his book Directions in Physics 1978 came to the point where the mathematics of the universe yields new-radioactivity. Of course, Dirac never had an Atom Totality theory to form a foundation for that 
new-radioactivity as coming from the Nucleus of the Atom Totality. But according to the math and numbers and Large Numbers Hypothesis, Dirac was able to speculate a new-radioactivity and which could be tested on the Moon as to whether it recedes or not recedes. The calculation Dirac made was 2cm/year for a Moon recession in order for multiplicative creation to be true and for a new theory of how Solar Systems and galaxies are formed-- new radioactivities. In the 1990s it was confirmed via a laser that the Moon is receding from Earth at 2cm/year. But that finding along with Dirac's book have been ignored in physics and astronomy. What I am after in this book is details of Multiplicative Creation. I have two candidates: 
(1) Cosmic Rays such as protons or hydrogen and helium atoms 
(2) Cosmic Gamma Ray Bursts: such as the recent burst that is the energy of 9,000 supernova combined.

I called Dirac's New Radioactivities, I called them RSNM, radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization, as new matter is shot out from the Nucleus of the Atom Totality and this new matter goes to building planets, stars, and galaxies.


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

                ::\ ::|:: /::
                 ::\::|::/::
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - -
                 ::/::|::\::
                ::/ ::|:: \::

One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.

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

Anyone wanting to read AP posts in peace and quiet can do so at this newsgroup.

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

Comments:: Speaking of experiments, we need experiments to verify that the Real Proton is 840 MeV, the Real Neutron is 945 MeV and the Real Electron is 105 MeV. And the best suggestion of a proof experiment is to re do the experiment of Particle-Accelerators where they produce that bountiful collection of muons. Muons made in cornucopia, in truly magnificent abundance. And the reason being, is that the Accelerator for a brief moment in time has separated a electron=muon from its proton inside an atom. So, please, re do that experiment and keep a close eye out for a 840 MeV particle, which is the Real Proton. Keep a close eye, because the moment you get the 105 MeV electron=muon, you have a very short time to see that 840 MeV proton. Another to prove the 840 MeV proton is the chemical bonding of hydrogen atoms. The bonding just does not make any sense with a electron being .5 MeV. Another way, is that electricity in wires sends signals at the speed of light to move from one end of wire to the other. Well, it is not the electron=muon doing this. It is the monopole of .5MeV that is doing the movement of current.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-06 03:17:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 21:28:24 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Page8, 1-8 How crazy is the Standard Model of current day
physics//What specific chemical element is the Atom Totality? text 8th ed. 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2017 05:28:24 +0000


Page8, 1-8 How crazy is the Standard Model of current day physics//What specific chemical element is the Atom Totality? text 8th ed. 2017

It is so crazy, for they elevate quarks above atoms, and elevate quarks above electrons=muons and protons. This is so so very dumb in terms of Logic and logical reasoning. It is like doing Biology and not satisfied with the cell, and thus taking parts of the cell and thinking they are more fundamental than the cell itself.

This is the trouble in any science, not just physics, where in physics, people are no longer physicists, but clowns of physics, where they spend all their time in Ivory towers sipping coffee and eating Danish rolls, and not, and never applying logic to their ideas.

What is the basic primary unit of all of physics-- the Atom, nothing is smaller as a primary unit.

What is the basic unit of electricity and magnetism? The Magnetic field and its monopole the -1 and +1 particle of the .5 MeV charge-energy where you take a photon or neutrino and place upon that photon or neutrino a charge with energy of .5 MeV.

When it comes to physics, the atom is the last stop. When it comes to electromagnetism, the Magnetic Field and the magnetic monopole (magnepole) is the last stop.

Atoms, surely have parts, but we, with a head of logic of commonsense do not then make a model where the parts are more important than the body itself-- Atom.

Likewise, when we have a logical mind and commonsense mind, we do not go out and look for a stupid particle of Higgs, some creation from a machine that concentrates energy, and idiots of physics believing in this insipid activity of looking at collisions in a collider, this is social welfare trough science, not real actual science.

Atoms are the last and final frontier of physics. Atoms are all and everything. And only idiots of physics waste time in Standard Model or Higgs or Quarks or anything less than atoms.

We can easily compare the idiots of Higgs or Quarks to someone in biology wanting to make a strand of DNA as some major important item, when it is not. DNA is nothing, without the cell it comes from. Biology starts and ends with Cell. Physics starts and ends with Atom. Not subcellular and not subatomic particles.

So, if you are in physics and spending a lot of time with Standard Model, Quarks, Higgs, Gravity Waves etc you are wasting your lifetime.

It should be no secret to the reader what the chemical element is that is the Atom Totality Universe, considering the title of this textbook. But let me outline the Proof of why plutonium and not say iron or lead or mercury or uranium or some other chemical element. Why Plutonium? Why not Iron or Silver or Lead, or Mercury or Uranium as the Cosmic Element? Why plutonium?

Well, whatever chemical element is the Cosmic single big atom, it must explain pi, "e" in math and explain the fine-structure-constant and neutron to magnepole mass ratio. It must explain all four of those items clearly and linked together as one explanation.

Now any reader can read my previous editions of this book where I go into depth and detail of these 4 items. In some previous editions I wrote a chapter on these, whereas in this edition I just summarize in one page, of these 4 items:

1) pi explained
2) "e" explained
3) fine-structure-constant explained
4) neutron/monopole mass ratio

Pi = 3.14.. and e = 2.71.. in math are the two most important constants of math and there has to be a reason or explanation for what number values they have. If we lived in say a Neon Atom Totality, the numbers of math for ratio of circumference divided by diameter of a circle would be different than 3.14...

In Plutonium chemical element there are 22 subshells of s, p, d, f inside of 7 shells, so we have 22/7. Now greenhorns of math and physics are going to crow and bark about 22/7 because that is a rational number, and I know that, (please see the mathematics chapter where it is explained that irrationals numbers do not exist), but in physics, you have Collapsed wavefunction as rational number such as 22/7 and you have uncollapsed wavefunction which is a wave. This makes sense in the fact that the Cosmos is growing all the time and so a cosmic number of pi would be uncollapsed.

Now "e" is about 2.71.. is easy to explain but has to be linked with pi. And in plutonium, at any instant in time, only 19 subshells are occupied so we have 19/7. And, of course we have both collapsed and uncollapsed wavefunctions.

Now, the Inverse Fine-Structure Constant, roughly 137 is ((22/7)^7)/22 when pi is in the collapsed wavefunction of pi = 22/7. So the reader should see by now that all these important numbers have to be linked together.

The neutron to magnetic monopole mass ratio becomes linked with the above numbers.
Dirac's book DIRECTIONS IN PHYSICS states on page 73 :
--- start of Dirac quote ---
One of these dimensionless constants is the 
 famous reciprocal of the fine-structure constant ((hbar) x c)/E^2 
 It is fundamental in the atomic theory, and it has the 
 value of about 137. 
 Another dimensionless constant is the ratio of the 
mass of the proton to the 
mass of the electron, that is to say, 
Mp/Me 
 That constant has the value somewhere near 1840.
--- end of Dirac quote ---
The unitless number of proton to electron mass ratio has an exponent power of 5 in 6(pi^5), and that the exp >5 comes from the 5f6 of plutonium 231Pu. Now, notice the inverse fine-structure constant of ((22/7)^7)/22 >also has the energy shell of 7 as exponent. Here for the first time in physics is a linkage of two unitless >numbers of physics-- proton to electron mass ratio and the fine-structure constant, by the fact that energy >level of shells correlates and predicts what the exponent of a unitless number must have. Why does the >energy shell take on a math form of exponent? Perhaps an expert quantum chemist or physicist can provide >an answer.
Notice also, that the chemical element isotope must be 231Pu and not say 244Pu in order for the number of neutrons of plutonium be 137 neutrons in the nucleus of the Cosmic Atom. So that the Inverse Fine-Structure constant of 137 reflects the number of neutrons in the Cosmic Atom.

So, Mathematics proves that the only chemical element that fits all the numbers of both math and physics to the Cosmic Atom is plutonium, 231Pu precisely. No other chemical element can give us all 4 items above.

And those interested in more math proofs, can see where the speed of light is derived from a plutonium cosmic atom (detailed in my earlier editions).

Also, in my prior editions I show how a cosmic plutonium atom has a thermodynamics that matches the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation that is blackbody of 2.71 K. (notice 2.71.. is "e"). In this edition, I want to keep it brief, clear and simple to understand.


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

                ::\ ::|:: /::
                 ::\::|::/::
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - -
                 ::/::|::\::
                ::/ ::|:: \::

One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.

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

Readers interested in more can read all my prior year posts in my newsgroup in peace and quiet.

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

COMMENTS:: Well, in the previous Comment corner I asked for an experiment to prove the Real Proton is 840 MeV and the Real Electron is the muon at 105 MeV, and a proof would simply be to tear apart a hydrogen atom into a 840 and 105 MeV particles. I asked for Particle-Accelerators to look for these two. But in this experiment described below, it sounds as if the experiment is already done-- judge for yourself--

Hello, well i found the below on the internet. I need a 840MeV particle that is the Real Proton. I have asked to look for it in the production of Muons. Is the below a production of muons along with 840 MeV particles?

Quoting

Indication For A Broad J(pc) = 2++ Meson At 840-mev Produced In The Reaction Pi- P ---> Pi+ Pi- N At High |t|
K. Rybicki, I. Sakrejda (Cracow, INP)
1985 - 10 pages

Z.Phys. C28 (1985) 65-74
DOI: 10.1007/BF01550250
Abstract (Springer)
The reaction π−p→π+π−n has been studied at 17.2 GeV/c and 63 GeV/c. A partial wave analysis shows a fairly broad (∼250 MeV) resonance at about 840 MeV. This object, already visible in moments of the angular distribution, is produced in theD wave with helicitym=2 via unnatural exchange. The cross section for the reaction π−p→D2U(840)n is only by an order of magnitude lower than that of ϱ(770) and falls likepLAB−2.1±0.3. We have not been able to explain this object by systematic experimental effects like acceptance and/orN* reflections; neither is the nature of the resonance (if real) clear to us.
--- end quote ---

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-06 06:13:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 10:44:34 -0800 (PST)

Subject: PAGE9, 1-9, More evidence proving Atom Totality, blackbody
radiation//, Bell Inequality/textbook 8th ed 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2017 18:44:35 +0000

PAGE9, 1-9, More evidence proving Atom Totality, blackbody radiation//, Bell Inequality/textbook 8th ed 2017

Alright, in these pages I want to do more major physical supporting evidence that the Universe is a large plutonium atom totality.

Now here I am going to need a current day description of what most physicists believe is true of the Universe but in fact is utter false and nonsense. So I need a name for this current widespread held falsehood. I could just call it Big Bang, but that leaves out too much for it is the Big Bang along with the Einstein General Relativity that are fakeries. So I call it the Big Bang Einstein General Relativity BBEGR, which sounds like "beggar".

I call the Atom Totality Universe as the theory that destroys BBEGR. Atom Totality has 9 key observations, experiments and facts that do this destroying of BBEGR, and they are these nine.
1) Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is blackbody, meaning cavity, meaning a structure
2) Bell Inequality is true and thus the Universe is quantum mechanical-- meaning it is the inside of an atom
3) Solid Body Rotation can exist only in a Universe in which Electromagnetism EM runs the Universe as seen in the EM theory, and so a universe operated by EM theory is a universe of an atom. In fact, recently it was seen that the North Pole of Saturn was a hexagon, like the hexagons of snowflakes caused by EM as Van der Waals force.
4) Strong Nuclear Force is another EM force of Chemical Bonding only scaled higher
5) the Dirac Sea of positrons works only in an Atom Totality Universe
6) Gravity is EM gravity which means the Universe is electricity and magnetism, which further means the universe is an atom. In other words, gravity as EM runs astronomy. The Coulomb force varies over a range of forces R to 1/R to 1/R^2.
7) The so called Doppler Redshift as a aftermath of the Big Bang, is not a Doppler Redshift at all but due to the fact that the monopole of .5 MeV is a charged photon, and the charge either shifts the spectral lines red or blue.
8) Our Sun is Hollow, because of Gauss's law of electricity-- charges move to outer surface, implying gravity is electricity & magnetism, and since gravity is EM, means the Universe is a structure for only Atoms provide for EM
9) Doppler Redshift has nothing to do with Doppler effect. The Doppler effect works on sound waves, never light waves. What is happening with Redshift of light waves is because of the magnetic monopole carries a charge energy of .5 MeV, whether + or - charge on a photon or neutrino. So, when spectral lines of elements are shifted, either blue or redshift is all because of magnetism, magnetic monopoles.

I call the Atom Totality Universe the theory that destroys BBEGR by these 9 key observations, experiments and facts that do this destroying of BBEGR because of structure versus no structure. Atom Totality is a structure, whereas Big Bang is no structure. An entity with Structure means the Universe has to be something, not a "nothing" for which an explosion, supposedly, to fill up. BBEGR has no structure but a amorphous non-structure from an explosion.

Now, for the reader, let me tell you the big major difference between Atom Totality and BBEGR, if not clear to the reader already. The big difference is the BBEGR is a theory that has the Universe as a structureless entity. The Atom Totality has the universe as being a Structure, and the only plausible structure is a Atom itself. Not an onion as in Ancient times, and not a elephant or turtle carrying a flat surface that holds the Universe as in Ancient times. The only reasonable plausible Structure is a single big atom.

1) the blackbody radiation in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation CMBR. This destroys BBEGR because it is "blackbody radiation". If it were not blackbody, BBEGR could reign supreme. And it is totally ironic that CMBR was used, when first discovered, as a supporting evidence of the Big Bang Explosion. But when first discovered, it took a long time to realize it was blackbody and although most physicists should have discarded the Big Bang the moment it was found blackbody, BBEGR was too far entrenched with its muddle headed wrongness.

A parallel history could be said of the like to like charge as repelling with Thompson in 1904 proposing the plum pudding model and then Rutherford in 1911 shattering the like to like repelling by finding the atom congregates electrons=muons outside the nucleus and congregates protons as the nucleus. So instead of trashcanning the like to like as repelling, the physicists kept on believing in their wrongness.

Alright I did a little exploring to find some historical dates on CMBR and found that the Big Bang is circa 1927 and a Cosmic Background Radiation is about 1950 to present but not until 1990 with the COBE satellite was it known that the Radiation was blackbody at 2.71 K.

The moment it was announced and shown Blackbody CMBR, is the moment that any physicist with a gram of logic would have realized that the Universe itself is a Structure and so the Big Bang with General Relativity is not a theory of the cosmos, but flawed and trash.

Everytime evidence comes in, saying the Universe is a "structure" is another mounting piece of evidence in favor of the Atom Totality theory.

Of the list of 9 major evidences supporting the Atom Totality, I now delve into (2) Bell Inequality that showed that Bohr's Quantum Mechanics was true but that Einstein's physics of General Relativity was false. Here again, the Universe is Quantum Mechanical which means the Universe is a structure, or cavity, or a container of sorts and thus implying Atomic, which means the Universe is a single big atom.

Now the Bell Inequality along with CMBR are cosmic features of quantum mechanics, meaning the Universe has to be an Atom to sustain these quantum features. In CMBR, the single Cosmic Atom is a large container or Structure of this cosmic atom. And the Bell Inequality is further evidence that the Cosmos is quantum, not the Structureless BBEGR.

Now this theory of the Bell Inequality seems totally off the deep end. But only for a second. Because if you start learning about John Bell, Einstein/Rosen/Podalsky and Bohr, you start learning how Einstein with BBEGR was found wrong against Bohr and Bell with Quantum Mechanics dominating the physics of the Universe.
The John Bell Inequality which decided EPR-thought- experiment. Was Einstein correct or was Quantum Mechanics correct? 
What Bell found out after Aspect did the experiments, is that QM was 
correct and Einstein was wrong. BBEGR is wrong.
But then the interpretation of Bell Inequality had begun. And what 
Bell concluded was that there was just one way in which to get rid of 
speed faster than light and the Bell experiment to hold true. Bell, 
found one way to solve the problem-- Superdeterminism.
--- quoting what Archimedes Plutonium gave as a Wikipedia entry on 
Superdeterminism -- 
SUPERDETERMINISM 
 Physicist John S. Bell as 
referenced by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_S._Bell is noted 
mostly for his Bell Inequality Theorem which shows us that Quantum 
Physics is not just restricted to the microworld but that Quantum 
Physics stretches clear across the Cosmos. John Bell not only 
discovered the Inequality for which experimental physicists such as 
Alain Aspect could then test to see if Quantum Mechanics stretches 
across the Cosmos, but one of John Bell's contributions to science is 
rarely noted. And John Bell does not discuss this contribution in 
printed material but seems to have conveyed it on the BBC television 
in interviews. It is my opinion that the concept of Superdeterminism 
is John Bell's finest contribution to physics, and much more important 
than his Bell Inequality, even though it required his Inequality to 
come to his concept of Superdeterminism. As far as I know from the 
history of physics, the concept of Superdeterminism begins with John 
Bell because it requires John Bell's Inequality Theorem. And the 
concept of Superdeterminism is probably John Bell's greatest single 
contribution to science. 
Here is John Bell defining what Superdeterminism is:
--- Bell stated on the BBC ---
"There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and 
spooky action at a distance. But it (Superdeterminism) involves 
absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free 
will. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just 
inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our 
behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the "decision" by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. 
There is no need for a faster than light signal to tell particle A what 
measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, 
including particle A, already "knows" what that measurement, and its 
outcome, will be."
--- end Bell quote ---
--- further statement by John Bell to the BBC on Superdeterminism --- 
"The only alternative to quantum probabilities, superpositions of 
states, collapse of the wavefunction, and spooky action at a distance, 
is that everything is superdetermined. For me it is a dilemma. I think 
it is a deep dilemma, and the resolution of it will not be trivial; it will require a substantial change in the way we look at things."
--- end Bell quote---

So, what the Bell Inequality did was further support the idea the Universe as a Whole is a Structure, a Cavity, or a Container and the only plausible structure is a big atom as the Universe. The Bell Inequality, like the blackbody CMBR support the Atom Totality theory and throws out the BBEGR.
The only thing needed for Bell Inequality is the idea of a region of the Cosmos that contains the Nucleus of the Atom Totality, which controls the rest of the Cosmos.
Physicists rarely mention the concept of superdeterminism and how it 
solves the problems of Quantum Mechanics. They do not mention it 
partly because it disrupts the Big Bang Theory, since it makes no 
sense that a Big Bang Universe can have superdeterminism. 
John Bell lived under the Big Bang Theory, but if he had lived into the 1990s there arose a rival theory to the Big Bang, called the Atom Totality. 
The problem John Bell had with Superdeterminism is that there is no 
mechanism in the Big-Bang theory to make Superdeterminism work. In the Atom-Totality theory, there is a mechanism in that the Nucleus of the 
Atom-Totality does all the ordering up of every event that takes place 
in the Cosmos. The Nucleus pulls the strings of every event that 
takes place in the entire Universe. The year that John S. Bell died, 
1990, is the year in which the Atom-Totality theory was born.
One ramification of the Bell Inequality and superdeterminism is the explanation of how the brain and mind work, of course that is psychology and not pure physics, but let me amble down that road while here on superdeterminism.
In the Brain Locus theory, the mind is like a radio receiver which is 
only one atom or one molecule and the rest of the brain tissue goes to 
executing whatever the messages shot from the Atom Totality Nucleus 
into the brain. The photons and neutrinos carry these messages. So that all life is puppets whose every action, thought was shot from the Nucleus into our brain locus and we execute that message.  


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

                ::\ ::|:: /::
                 ::\::|::/::
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - -
                 ::/::|::\::
                ::/ ::|:: \::

One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.

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 comfort and quiet.    

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

COMMENTS:: Now I am looking for the easiest experiment in Chemistry bonding or in Physics Spectral lines that the true electron is the muon at 105 MeV and not the .5 MeV monopole particle which is a photon or neutrino with a charge energy of .5, not a rest-mass energy. Looking for anomalies, I found the Zeeman anomaly.

Now i picked this up from nyu.edu

However, there is an anomalous Zeeman effect which shows up particularly for atoms with odd atomic number $Z$ (hydrogen, for example). In such cases, it is found that the number of Zeeman sub-levels is actually even rather than odd. This cannot be explained within the normal Zeeman theory. However, it suggests the possible existence of an angular momentum like quantity that can take on half-integer values.

--- end quote---

What i am asking is whether this anomaly is explained by the fact the true electron is the muon at 105 MeV and not the monopole particle of .5 MeV.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-06 20:25:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 16:05:59 -0800 (PST)

Subject: PAGE10, 1-10, Evidence proving Atom Totality, Solid Body Rotation
PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE, 8th ed. 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2017 00:05:59 +0000

PAGE10, 1-10, Evidence proving Atom Totality, Solid Body Rotation PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE, 8th ed. 2017

Now I delve into the fact that Solid Body Rotation exists only from EM theory where we have Velocity proportional to radius for magnetic-monopoles=current, making a circuit in the Faraday/Lenz law. Currently, Big Bang, General Relativity BBEGR is trying to explain solid body rotation with a silly "dark matter" dark mass, dark energy, when all you really need to know is that the forces of physics are all unified as a EM force which has a range of force strength from r, to 1/r, to 1/r^2 (which, in final analysis is a Logarithmic force not an inverse square). There, problem solved. That motion in a Observable Universe which is an electron dot cloud of an Atom Totality would be motion of the EM theory which allows for motion as V= r, solid-body, and V proportional to a constant 1/r, and V proportional to 1/r^2.

There has been a uproar of worry over solid body rotation found in spiral galaxies for about 5 decades now, that many spiral galaxies have solid body rotation of their stars close in to the nucleus of the galaxy. But there has been much too much neglect of assessing our own solar system for the Saturn Rings are likely to be Solid Body Rotation in part, or full. So, not only is there solid body motion in spiral galaxies but likely here in our own solar system.

Now Solid Body Rotation is probably the best observable evidence the Universe is a single Cosmic Atom because we see so much Solid Body Rotation, that a structureless BBEGR cannot even start to explain other than hypothesize dark matter, dark energy which clearly none has ever been seen. When physics gets a "big observation in" such as solid-body rotation, the physicists would immediately tack on some ad hoc nonsense of dark matter and dark energy, rather than do the logical thing-- look in EM theory for solidbody rotation motion.

Now let me define Solid Body Rotation as that in which any 2 points in the plane figure have the same distance apart from one another while being rotated. Their rotation or revolving as if they are a solid body. If we paint 2 dots on a music record and then place onto a turntable, those 2 dots will maintain the same figure as the record is moving round and round.

And many people are surprised, very surprised to find out that our Solar System has plenty of examples of Solid Body Rotation. The Rings of Saturn as the finest single example, of rigid body rotation of SubRings of Saturn. Even Maxwell in the 1860s did some work on the Rings of Saturn, although Maxwell had primitive telescopes back then. And the Meteor Belt is another example, although far less of a percentage of rigid-body rotation than the Saturn subrings. The electromagnetism involved with the Rings of Saturn since ice is a van der Waals force of attraction make them a higher percentage of Solid Body Rotation than the Meteor Belt with its magnetic iron rocks. So we have percentages of solid body rotation where the Saturn subrings could be 75 to 90 percent solid body while the meteor belt be only 50%.

Harold Jeffreys in 1947 wrote a work "The effects of collisions on Saturn's Rings". And in Jeffreys work he states " Maxwell showed that a set of satellites moving in one circle about the planet would be stable, and that all the other suggested types-of-constitution, that he considered would be unstable." So, here we see that what Maxwell proposed was that you can have solid-body rotation of small particles-- ice globules in a thin SubRing of Saturn. Each SubRing is rigid body rotation. Further on, Jeffreys writes: "But a fluid ring could be arbitrarily thin if we abandon the hypothesis of rigid-body rotation, which in itself would suggest a very high viscosity." Here Jeffreys is wanting the Rings to be a fluid instead of ice globules, but he still has rigid-body-rotation of ice, not water.

In Electromagnetism theory with AP-Maxwell Equations (next chapter) we see at least three varieties of motion described by V proportional to radius R and known as solidbody motion, and with V proportional to 1/R as seen in Capacitors, and finally the well known force of V proportional to 1/R^2, which--only the last one of these, the 1/R^2 is familiar as the Newton gravity or General Relativity force strength, forgetting and leaving out the other two types, the R and 1/R.

So, how much of Saturn's Rings are solid-body rotation? Is it 75%. How much of the asteroid belt is rigid body rotation? Is it 50%, and would explain why some asteroids, as small as they are have moons such as Ida with Dactyl. It is not because of gravity as 1/R^2 but rather because gravity is EM force that can vary from R to 1/R to 1/R^2, and so, because asteroids are very much magnetic with all that iron the gravity involved is far more than 1/R^2. Same reasoning for Saturn Rings in that ice is a polar molecule of water which is more electromagnetic than other molecules and so the gravity of Saturn Rings is more closer to R or 1/R than to 1/R^2.

Is there anything in our Solar System that is nearly 100% rigid body, or solid body rotation? I believe many of the subrings of Saturn are rigid body rotation. I do not mean all of the Rings collectively is solidbody, but each individual subring is solidbody. And in fact is the cause of gaps between subrings.

Now, we need no high flung mathematics such as what Maxwell tried to give us an answer in 1860s. We can do this with elementary geometry in mind. 

We know the planets around the Sun follow a plane (ecliptic) of the Sun, such as the Rings of Saturn is a plane. So now, in comparison, what if the Solar ecliptic was filled with small planets such as the rings of saturn are ice globules. So, can a structure of a Sun Ring of Planets survive without solid-body rotation? Only unless each planet in a revolution had the same speed as the others and would keep the same spacing distance relative to the others. That means, in effect, rigid body motion of the same planets in the same orbital revolution. That means in a orbital band of revolution, the planets would have to have rigid body revolutions in order not to be colliding with the planet behind and the planet in front. 

Now the planets and the ice globules can have gaps of empty space between subrings where the motion in the further out subring is slower than the inner subring, or, it could be faster, because the only thing that is of concern is the planets or ice within each subring have rigid body motion. The entire Rings are not solidbody but the subrings are solidbody.

So, for Saturn, as Maxwell showed in 1860s, is not one vast plane of rigid body rotation. But for Saturn, each subring, separated from other subrings by empty space gaps is a rigid body rotation subring. 

Shame that in our recent spacecraft, Cassini, mission to collect data on Saturn, that no priority was given to finding out the extent of rigid body rotation of the Saturn subrings. Perhaps on the next mission to Saturn this topic takes top priority. But Cassini did take pictures of a spectacular hexagon shaped North Pole of Saturn. Hexagons are never created by Newton gravity or General Relativity gravity, instead, they are created by EM force such as van der Waals and is seen in snowflakes.

We see Saturn as a complete full disc of ice globules separated by gaps in the subrings. We do not see collisions and the scavenging of ice globules by faster or slower moving ice globules. We see a permanence of the rings and that stability and permanence means rigid or solid body motion. How much solid body? Perhaps for Saturn I would guess 75% or more. I need to look at those tiny moons of Saturn relative to the rings. As for the meteorite belt, the rigid body rotation is far less, perhaps 50%, for many in that belt stray away. But one thing in common with both the Rings and Asteroids, is that they have a more powerful electromagnetic force involved than a body that is mostly EM neutral.

The separation of rings by a gap is usually caused by a moon traveling in the gap, and thus indicating that the subrings of D, C, B, A, F, G, E, etc must be subrings of rigid or partial rigid body rotation. If not rigid body rotation, they would have disappeared a long time ago in forming another moon in that subring. 

Wikipedia page on Rings of Saturn mentions the Pan moon as forming a gap between two rings. 

The mistake that beginners make with Maxwell involvement of Saturn Rings, is that they misunderstand completely the work of Maxwell which was to say that the total Ring structure was not one solid ring of solid-body rotation. But that the Ring structure was many subrings for which each subring can and must have rigid body rotation to maintain the structure. Now some scientists speculate that the subrings turn periodically from water into ice globules.
Now, Harold Jeffreys, in 1947 wrote a work "The effects of collisions on Saturn's Rings"
And in Jeffreys work he states " Maxwell showed that a set of satellites moving in one circle about the planet would be stable, and that all the other suggested types of constitution that he considered would be unstable."
So that for Maxwell, several satellites equally spaced apart moving in one orbit around Saturn would be stable. Sounds like solid-body rotation of these satellites and would be comparable to a subring.
Further on, Jeffreys writes: "But a fluid ring could be arbitrarily thin if we abandon the hypothesis of rigid-body rotation, which in itself would suggest a very high viscosity."
So the more I read about Maxwell on Saturn Ring, the more I see he is the first to see that those Rings are solid body rotation, not in full, but for the subrings.


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

                ::\ ::|:: /::
                 ::\::|::/::
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - -
                 ::/::|::\::
                ::/ ::|:: \::

One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.

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::

Thomson discovered electron in 1897 (later to be found that this is a muon, not the .5MeV particle)

Rutherford and Moseley for proton 1911-1913

Anderson and Neddermeyer 1936

But i am happy because I solved what the largest, largest Logical Gap in science understanding,-- of where the Real Proton is 840 MeV and worst of all the Real Electron is the Muon at 105 MeV not the tiny tiny little .5 MeV particle, the magnetic monopole that causes electric current flow.

How can the world of science, of physics live for over a 100 years and have this basic fact and understanding all wrong, and, in the face of it develop so much electricity and electronics. One would think that if you had screwed up what the proton really was, what the electron really was, one would think you could not invent electrical society and electronics. But then looking at the invention of portable fire making way back before even civilization is known, and the fact that our understanding properly what is going on when we have "fire" took a million or more years in between. So the proper understanding of what is going on in an invention does not come before but usually a long time after.

Now Dirac chased after something all his life, and was the wish he probably wanted an answer most of all his questions. The wish answered of all his questions in physics-- the magnetic monopole. He looked looked and looked. Sometimes in life we look too hard, and it is right under our nose. The magnetic monopole is this little particle-- this .5 MeV + or - charged particle we so foolishly thought was the electron. It is a photon or neutrino that carries a bundle of charge energy of .5 MeV, charge energy, not rest mass energy.

So, if the little particle was not the Real Electron, then what was?

The Real Electron had to be about the rest mass of the Real Proton, proper amount of momentum to form bonds of chemistry. You cannot have covalent, ionic, metallic bonding with .5MeV momentum and 938 MeV momentum. Oh , one could be 2 or 3 or 4, even 8 times larger than the other in terms of rest mass but not something ridiculous as nearly 2,000 times different, because remember the electron was the basis of the chemical bond.

Physics had a particle that fits that description, the muon.

And, besides, the world of science, ever since the muon was discovered, have often asked-- what the hell does the world need this thing for? Well, if you think long enough, you realize, that Dirac's monopole was the .5 MeV particle and thus muon was the Real Electron.

But now, where in physics does it tell us the muon is the real electron other than Chemical Bonding needs it to be so. What corner of physics tells us-- you are crazy if you think that little .5 MeV is the electron. This is what i was searching for in the past few days.

The answer is simple and obvious. The answer lies in one of many of my youths confounding lessons. I do not remember in youth-- 1960's when i read that the radioactivity was beta particle electron and alpha particle a helium nucleus and then a third particle gamma rays-- photons. I recall exactly what i was thinking as a teenager-- why why, for where was hydrogen nucleus-- it made no logical sense to miss hydrogen and jump to helium.

So, the easiest proof that the Real Proton is 840 MeV and Real Electron is 105 MeV is examine the Sun. It is hydrogen mostly and that means it is a 105 muon stuck together with a proton of 840 MeV to form a neutral hydrogen atom. The Sun is overall electrically neutral because hydrogen is 840+105.

Hydrogen is not 938 + .5

The reason there is no radioactive decay particle of hydrogen nucleus is because the real electron is the muon and tightly bound to the 840 proton.

So, what is beta decay? It is magnetic monopole emission, and not radioactive decay at all

What is alpha decay? It is a helium atom for its electrons=muons are still riding with it.

Why no hydrogen decay? Because, it takes enormous energy to split apart a hydrogen atom of its 105 MeV electron stuck to its 840 MeV proton. 

So the Sun is proof because if the electron was the .5 particle. The Sun would have disappeared long time ago because it would be a proton star having lost most of its electrons.

The reason the Sun is still here is because electrons are muons and the Sun's massive outpour of charged particles are just magnetic monopoles (gravity as EM).

Now I am beginning to see that most of the problems of physics can usually be answered by the Sun. So that if we have a major theory problem and the Sun is involved, that the Sun will answer it best. For example, proof or evidence of the Atom Totality theory versus Big Bang. Hard to see that the Sun solves the question. But once you learn the Sun is hollow (see New Scientist, Oct21, 2017, and work by Asplund). Once you see the Sun is Hollow, means that electricity magnetism rules the world, rules the Universe. Because of Gauss's law of electricity that a charge moves to the upper surface, leaving the Sun hollow. Means that gravity is EM, and a world where EM governs is a world where it is a Atom Totality.

Now, in the case of the Real Electron is a muon = 105 MeV and the Real Proton is 840 MeV, how does the Sun answer that vital theory question? Simple, if the electron was the .5 MeV particle, then the Sun would quickly degenerate into hydrogen protons of 938 MeV, making the Sun electrically + charge and unstable and break apart. Why the Sun is overall neutral and stable? Because the real electron is the muon, stuck and fastened extremely tight to the proton and thus, overall the Sun is neutral. The outpouring of the Sun of .5 MeV particles, well, those are not electrons but are magnetic monopoles of .5 MeV charge energy, either a positron +1 charge or its opposite -1 charge, that is fastened to a photon or neutrino.

The particle we all know of as .5 MeV -1 charge is not the electron. That particle is a Magnetic Monopole of a photon or neutrino with a fastened .5 MeV of charge energy.

Now, to further prove what I am saying above. We can do the thousands upon thousands of Chemical Bonding experiments and prove that those bondings can exist only with Electron = Muon.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-06 23:00:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 18:04:09 -0800 (PST)

Subject: PAGE11, 1-11, Variable motion, forces of R to 1/R to 1/R^2
PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE /textbook 8th ed. 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2017 02:04:09 +0000




PAGE11, 1-11, Variable motion, forces of R to 1/R to 1/R^2 PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE /textbook 8th ed. 2017


Alright, I am exploring how Io, Europa, Ganymede have a 4::2::1 resonance while Mercury has a 3::2 resonance.

Gravity of Newton/GR cannot explain resonance, but EM can, in the idea that gravity lock is EM, a force that requires R or 1/R rather than the weaker force of 1/R^2. In Faraday law R or 1/R would be a closed loop wire circle with a larger closed loop wire oblique to the smaller with magnetic monopoles=current, flowing in both and the gravity lock of resonance is a constant due to the oblique angle.

Alright, making real good progress here with the idea that of the 3 possible motions of objects going around another object-- star to planets, planets to satellites, planets to rings that the only math that matches the observations correctly is not Newton gravity nor General Relativity gravity, but rather is a EM-gravity theory which has a variable range of force strengths-- 1) of solidbody V proportional to R, 2) of 1/R a constant and then our Newton/GR of 3), a inverse square 1/R^2.

We cannot have a resonance gravity lock with Newton or GR gravity, but require at least a math of 1/R to explain Mercury 3::2 resonance and explain Io, Europa, Ganymede 4::2::1 resonance.

Gravity of Newton and GR, also, fall short on explaining why these resonances are whole number constants, tying together rotation with revolution. Gravity of Newton and GR are deaf, dumb, and silent on the math of resonance locked. Only the force of EM can be powerful enough to provide a math for resonance lock, and provide for solidbody motion.

So, why is this supporting evidence that the Universe is an Atom Totality? Because if the forces of Nature, all the forces are EM force, means the universe is an atom because electricity and magnetism are Atomic phenomenon. Atoms give rise to electricity and magnetism. Electricity and magnetism come from nowhere else, except the atom structure.

So in Old Physics, when they observed solidbody rotation in almost all spiral-galaxies, those soft in logic of physics came up with dark matter and dark energy. They never studied Logic or could ever use logic since their minds were never logical in the first place, and Ad Hoc, declared dark matter and dark energy exist to create solidbody rotation. If they had logic, they would have rather instead said -- solidbody rotation exists in Faraday law of EM theory, and so, instead of ad hoc dark matter, consider gravity as a form of electromagnetism.

A brilliant and smart scientist would have looked at solidbody rotation in Spiral Galaxies and would not say dark matter, dark energy, but would rather say-- throw out Newton and GR gravity and install EM as what makes gravity. And that only the dumbest of the dumb physicists and astrophysicist would make the shameful claim of dark matter and dark energy.

Capacitors in physics, in EM has the math of R or 1/R rather than 1/R^2.

The Faraday law with many closed loops of wire nested in a plane where the wire loops are progressively larger and where you have a thrusting bar magnet in the center of these wire loops, that the motion of magnetic monopoles=current, in the nested wire loops is solidbody rotation of current. All signals to move travel at the speed of light to produce electricity. So here we have motion that is V proportional to radius R.

Alright, if you look for a force of 1/R rather than 1/R^2 in Maxwell EM theory, it is not hard to find, in capacitors. On page 621 of Halliday & Resnick Fundamentals of Physics, 1988, 3rd ed they have the parallel plate capacitor C = e_0 *(A/d) where 1/d is our 1/R. And they write and I quote: "The capacitance does indeed depend only on geometrical factors, namely, the plate area A and the plate separation d."

So, here in EM theory we have solidbody motion represented by Faraday's law where we have several closed loops of wire and the magnetic monopoles=current, all traveling at a speed of light signal V = R, and a 1/R motion in capacitors and a 1/R^2 motion in Coulomb's law.

So, gravity is not just one motion of 1/R^2, but rather, gravity is EM of three main types of motion. No longer is gravity a separate force of Nature, but rather is a variable EM force ranging from R, to 1/R to 1/R^2.

So, the EM force of variable force causes the gravity lock on moons of planets and on planets with the Sun.

I see these graphs from several web sites on the rotation curves. I should be able to figure out the new math structure that gives us the true Coulomb force along with force of gravity. That new math structure that encompasses the variable force strengths is a Logarithmic function, for if you look at a logarithmic function graph and the graph of the rotation curves of spiral galaxies, you see they are identical in form.

http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/rotation_curves.htm

http://spaces.imperial.edu/russell.lavery/ast100/Lectures/Ast100Topic31.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve


Hard to imagine that the Coulomb force law is y = Ln(x) law rather inverse square with distance.

http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/rotation_curves.htm

If we look at this Cornell website of rotation curves, the rotation of a typical galaxy is a composition of both a slanted straight line

 /
/

and a flat straight line

_____

which in full appears as this

   _____
 /
/

If we transport the Ln(x) function to reside fully in the 1st quadrant, we get a math structure of the Coulomb force as y = Ln(x).

http://spaces.imperial.edu/russell.lavery/ast100/Lectures/Ast100Topic31.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve

Now is there any other parts of Physics that tells us the Coulomb force law is really a natural log function? Yes indeed in the theory of Capacitors where the inverse square 1/r^2 is replaced by 1/r, and we see capacitance as "still motion of a body of charges".

Now I think I found an extremely exciting application of a Coulomb force that is not inverse square but rather is Logarithmic. The application is both chemical bonding and the Aufbau Principle. The idea is that in multi-electron=muon atoms, the nucleus of protons is solid-body-rotation, whereas the electrons=muons in successive shells turn from solid-body of rotation V proportional to R, to that of rotation proportional to a constant. Same as seen in the Cornell picture of a spiral galaxy.

Now this Coulomb force as being logarithmic rather than inverse square can be found throughout the chemical bonding. The metallic bond is mostly solid body motion of magnetic monopoles, whereas the ionic bond is mostly a "constant". Many of the anomalies in current physics and chemistry can be explained by a Coulomb force that is not inverse square but rather is Logarithmic.

If we look at the Cornell webpage on rotation curves we see this:

(1) Solid body rotation V proportional to R, velocity proportional to radius

(2) Then, V is a constant

(3) Typical Galaxy has both (1) and (2), of that of solid body with constant.

(4) Keplerian velocity V proportional 1/R^2 is not seen in typical galaxies

However, if we look at this website the basically flat rotation curve has bits and pieces squiggly curves of the 1/r and the 1/r^2 curves. So is the "flat part of the galaxy rotation composed of not only a constant but of 1/r and 1/r^2.

http://spaces.imperial.edu/russell.lavery/ast100/Lectures/Ast100Topic31.html
 
Can we have a Logarithmic function that starts out solid body then merges into flat r, then 1/r then 1/r^2 ?

Since the speed of light is a constant in physics, it would make more sense that the Coulomb force would not have a mathematics of inverse square since that structure has no math constant. But the Logarithmic function has a constant in "2.71..." The number "e" is the mathematical analog of the speed of light in physics. So the Coulomb force must be represented not by inverse square but the Log function. The Coulomb force is not a single solo force but a range of forces varying from R to 1/R to 1/R^2.

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

                ::\ ::|:: /::
                 ::\::|::/::
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - -
                 ::/::|::\::
                ::/ ::|:: \::

One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.

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:: The discovery that the Real Electron is a muon weighs much on my mind as I wrap up this textbook of the 8th edition. Next year I will be spending time on a Mathematics textbook and cannot say when I return for the 9th edition of Atom Totality. In the above page I ran into a sentence that asks about the movement of electrons in a current of electricity. Here is where I need far more clarity, far more understanding of how Electron=muon relates to electricity, since electricity as current is all about the .5 MeV magnetic monopole, and that the muon = electron has little to no role in the monopole as the current flow. So, here, I better wait a full year and let clarity come sunshining in the meantime.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-07 01:26:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 20:57:01 -0800 (PST)

Subject: PAGE12, 1-12, evidence proving Atom Totality: Strong Nuclear Force is
Coulomb is chemical bonding / PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE, 8th ed. 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2017 04:57:01 +0000




PAGE12, 1-12, evidence proving Atom Totality: Strong Nuclear Force is Coulomb is chemical bonding / PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE, 8th ed. 2017

It bears repeating often, that if the wholescale universe is ruled by electricity and magnetism, then that means the universe is atomic structure, because electricity and magnetism comes only from atoms.

Now I delve into (4) the Strong Nuclear Force is just a chemical bond array of protons, just as the electrons=muons in the exterior of the atom is a chemical bond array. Here again, the Universe is governed by EM theory and that means electrons=muons, protons with charge, and magnetic monopoles, and that means the Atom Totality. When electricity and magnetism are in control of everything, means atoms, means a Atom Totality.

Because the Strong Nuclear Force is just a scaled down or scaled up Chemistry Bond Array, implies that Electricity Magnetism, not the structureless BBEGR rules the Cosmos, and since EM rules means an Atom Cosmos. If the forces of Nature are forces of atoms in chemistry of bonding, then Nature is atom.

EM theory deriving Strong Nuclear force as a chemical bond.

Just to refresh my memory, I looked up how the EM theory derives the Strong Nuclear force to be a chemical bond and that matches the Coulomb force. In this old post, though, I did not mention the concept that the neutron in a atom nucleus becomes a proton with a nuclear-electron=muon, spilling out and running around to hold together several protons (strong-nuclear-force). So nuclear electrons=muons, holds together many protons.

Subject: factor of 10^6 (permeability/permittivity) for Chemical Bond to Strong Nuclear Force as a Coulomb force

Permeability and Permittivity when you divide you end up with a factor of 10^6, a million, and this is very important for it is the Scale difference between the nucleus-- inner space -- of an atom and the electron shells -outer space - of an atom.

If one looks on page 572: PHYSICS, part 2, extended version, Halliday & Resnick, 1986, page 572, we see a picture of a typical atom with its electron=muon shells and a nucleus. The electron cloud has a diameter of 2x10^-10 meter and the diameter of the nucleus is 5x10^-15 meters.

As I have reported of equilibration, that the Chemical bond is typically 5 eV and the nuclear force bond is 5 MeV so that eV to MeV is a difference of 10^6.
The distance of a Chemical Bond compared to a Strong Nuclear bond of proton with neutron is again a difference of 10^6. So in other words, both the Chemical bond is a Coulomb force and the nuclear bond is a Coulomb force, only difference is that the Chemical bond takes place at 10^6 distance so that it is 10^6 weaker of a bond. What holds the proton to neutron is the same force, the same Coulomb force as what holds the hydrogen atom to a hydrogen ion. 
Stated simply, nuclear physics is chemical bonds at a distance of 10^-6. What holds together the proton and neutron in deuteron is the same force that holds together the hydrogen atom with a proton (dihydrogen ion), and only difference is one is 10^6 smaller distance.
So 10^6 is a special number in physics, and obviously a dimensionless 
number and constant. It is probably just as important as the fine 
structure constant, for it tells us not only about electromagnetism 
but the space involved with electromagnetism.
So this special dimensionless constant factor of 10^6 should also appear 
somewhere in the AP-Maxwell Equations.
If we look at the two constants in the Maxwell Equations: permeability 
constant of 1.26 x 10^-6 H/m and the permittivity constant of 8.85 x 10^-12 F/m, that those two constants directly link to one another as being a factor of 10^6 and that starting from 0 to permeability as 10^-6 we reach permittivity as another 10^6 increment.
So, if we never knew what the distances of the electron=muon shells were 
compared to the nucleus, we just simply look at permeability and 
permittivity and see they are 10^6 apart, would tell us that the 
distances are of a 10^6 magnitude and that the forces of chemical 
bonds versus nuclear bonds are also 10^6 magnitude different.
Or, if we knew the distances of diameter of electron=muon shell to nuclear 
diameter was that of 10^6 difference, we would be able to tell what 
permeability constant was 10^-6 and permittivity had to be 10^-12.

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

                ::\ ::|:: /::
                 ::\::|::/::
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - -
                 ::/::|::\::
                ::/ ::|:: \::

One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.

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:: The muonic atom as it is so called as replacing the .5 MeV particle with a 105 MeV muon in Old Physics. Trouble is the hydrogen atom is really a 840 MeV proton with a 105 MeV muon already attached. So as you remove a .5 MeV monopole (falsely thinking it was the electron) and add another muon you end up with a atom that is 840 +105 +105 MeV. You end up with an atom that has 2 electrons yet 1 proton. This is the reason the proton radius has shrunk.

--- Quoting from www, Ars Technica, Researchers orbit a muon around an atom, confirm physics is broken ---

So, the proton radius puzzle remains a puzzle. The team behind this new work point to a number of measurements that could potentially help clarify it. Some of them involve better measurements with normal electrons; others involve scattering muons off protons themselves to see if there's an unknown force at work. The latter would tell us whether anything beyond the Standard Model will be needed to explain this puzzle.

--- end Quote ---

Here I raise the interesting question, that the proton radius puzzle is all solved when you consider that the real electron is the muon, and that there is no puzzle, because the .5MeV particle is not an electron but is a magnetic monopole composed of a photon or neutrino with .5 MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-07 05:37:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 21:32:39 -0800 (PST)

Subject: PAGE13, 1-13, evidence proving Atom Totality: Space is Dirac's Sea of
positrons /textbook 8th ed. 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2017 05:32:40 +0000


PAGE13, 1-13, evidence proving Atom Totality: Space is Dirac's Sea of positrons /textbook 8th ed. 2017


In an atom totality, space is positron while our matter is electron=muon matter of the last six electrons=muons of 231Pu atom totality.

Since my discovery in 2017 that the real electron = muon, thus, that means the positrons of Old Physics were merely the flip side of the magnetic monopole of -1 charge of .5 MeV. So a positron is a magnetic monopole of +1 charge and .5 MeV.

Alright, I have to include the fact of the Dirac Sea, and few people in science realize its vast significance. It is a proving feature of the Atom Totality and throws the Big Bang theory into the dizzy dustbin.

What the Dirac Sea tells us is that Space is the antiparticle of the electron=muon. We live and observe matter which is the last 6 electrons=muons of 231Pu Atom Totality, a gigantic big atom, and the Space of that big atom is the positrons = +1 charged monopoles, positrons make-up space. Now here I have to be careful for the muon has a antiparticle of a +1 muon, and I have no idea whether the +1 muon is composed of +1 monopoles. This is something to iron out in a 9th edition. But when we probe in the Atom Totality space in experiments in the lab or in cosmic ray observations we find positrons= monopoles.

--- Quoting liberally from Wikipedia on the Dirac Sea, where the format allows:
---
The Dirac sea is a theoretical model of the vacuum as an infinite sea of particles with negative energy. It was first postulated by the British physicist Paul Dirac in 1930[1] to explain the anomalous negative-energy quantum states predicted by the Dirac equation for relativistic electrons.[2] The positron, the antimatter counterpart of the electron, was originally conceived of as a hole in the Dirac sea, well before its experimental discovery in 1932.[nb 1]

Upon solving the free Dirac equation, . . one finds[3] . .
. . where . .
. . for plane wave solutions with 3-momentum p. This is a direct consequence of the relativistic energy-momentum relation . .
. . upon which the Dirac equation is built. The quantity U is a constant 2 × 1 column vector and N is a normalization constant. The quantity ε is called the time evolution factor, and its interpretation in similar roles in, for example, the plane wave solutions of the Schrödinger equation, is the energy of the wave (particle). This interpretation is not immediately available here since it may acquire negative values. A similar situation prevails for the Klein–Gordon equation. In that case, the absolute value of ε can be interpreted as the energy of the wave since in the canonical formalism, waves with negative ε actually have positive energy Ep.[4] But this is not the case with the Dirac equation. The energy in the canonical formalism associated with negative ε is –Ep.[5]

In hole theory, the solutions with negative time evolution factors are reinterpreted as representing the positron, discovered by Carl Anderson. The interpretation of this result requires a Dirac sea, showing that the Dirac equation is not merely a combination of special relativity and quantum mechanics, but it also implies that the number of particles cannot be conserved.[6]

--- end quoting Wikipedia on the Dirac Sea ---

Few people in physics ever discuss the Dirac Sea, not only because it is too much over the head of most physicists, but because it directly challenges and disposes of the Big Bang theory, for what it is saying is that Space itself is a positron particle/s. (Space is the +1 muon or antimuon.)

And it is here that we unify the photon with neutrino as being one and the same particle only with the means of propagation a difference. The neutrino is a longitudinal wave and the photon is the same only double transverse wave. The neutrino originates and ends with a proton particle, while the photon originates and ends with a electron=muon particle.

Evidence that Space is positrons=monopoles is only possible in a Atom Totality theory, not the structure-less Big Bang theory. If the Big Bang theory were true, Anderson in 1932 could never have found positrons as Space and the Dirac Equation makes no sense, but it does.

Speaking some more about Space and astronomy, in Old Physics, they wanted to unify the four forces-- strong nuclear, weak nuclear, Coulomb EM and gravity, which was a major major goal of physics in the 20th century, however, they failed miserably. The only reasonable unification would be to ask which of these four forces has a "perfect particle" and the answer is EM Coulomb force has the photon, the perfect particle. And by logic, we then acquiesce to the fact that a unification always ends up as what is "perfect particle" and that the four forces become a Coulomb force because the photon is Coulomb force. What is surprising though, in this unification, is that the Coulomb force ends up being a variable force strength and not a single solo force strength of just 1/R^2, but varies from R to 1/R to 1/R^2.

Now in astronomy, recently in the past two years we have had remarkable new science discoveries about Space and gravity, which to this day is new and alarming, and not well understood. For one, the spacecraft Hitomi broke up due to spin, for another, the spacecraft Juno almost broke up due to Jupiter's unexpected stronger magnetism than what was anticipated. This is the spin term of EM-gravity and did not allow for Juno's valves to properly open. Then there was Cassini showing the hexagonal north pole of Saturn. So all these space missions are bringing us the realization that we only crudely know what gravity is. That we have to ditch the Newton gravity and ditch the General Relativity. We have to learn better, what EM gravity is, far better, before we think of returning to the Moon or exploring Europa or other bodies.

Now in a new upcoming mission of a probe sent to the Sun, hopefully we can find whether the Sun is hollow or not hollow. I propose equipping the spacecraft with a radioactive rod that can be monitored on Earth, as the craft disintegrates into the Sun. Let us find out for sure, if the Sun is Hollow, and of course, a Hollow Sun means gravity is EM force, not the force of Newton or General Relativity. When it is confirmed that the Sun is hollow, would also confirm that no black holes exist, and that the centers of galaxies are hollow, for a region of high density plasma obeys EM theory that the Gauss's law of electricity-- charge moves to the outer surface.



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

                ::\ ::|:: /::
                 ::\::|::/::
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - -
                 ::/::|::\::
                ::/ ::|:: \::

One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.

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:: So, when I get around to doing the 9th edition of this textbook, I want to be fully clear in my mind what electricity-- the flow of current in a wire, what is that exactly? For it seems implausible that muons=electrons are in motion. And rather than muons flowing, it is the magnetic monopoles, those small .5 MeV particles that are either photons or neutrinos carrying a .5 MeV charge packet.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2017 17:22:56 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Re: Unless Maxwell discovered E= mc^2, Apparently Heaviside in 1889
was first with work on Capacitors
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2017 01:22:57 +0000
Re: Unless Maxwell discovered E= mc^2, Apparently Heaviside in 1889 was first with work on Capacitors
Now, I better be careful, very careful with what I say here. For I am just talking off the top of my head on some intuition of mine.
That I discovered the Real Electron is the 105 MeV muon particle and that the other puny tiny little particle of .5 MeV was a magnetic monopole not of .5MeV rest-mass but of .5 MeV charge energy and it was a photon dressed up with charge energy-- or neutrino.

So, here, where E = mc^2, the question becomes, does there ever exist in Nature a case where -- other than matter to antimatter collision, ever the case where rest mass is converted to energy? I doubt it.

That means, all the energy from any and every star is monopole or photon or neutrino or meson energy, none of which is a conversion of rest-mass.

And that makes sense, because each day the Sun shines, it does not emit any muons or protons in the form of E=mc^2. The muons and protons of the Sun are the same amount or more than 1, or 2 or 3 billion years ago.

And all this talk and idea that the stars give out due to E=mc^2 is phony baloney. The hydrogen in the Sun is not losing rest mass due to E=mc^2.
So I think a comprehensive review of the Sun and Stars is needed.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-07 20:11:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 00:00:53 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Page14, 1-14, some history of close calls to the Atom-Totality-Universe
/ textbook 8th ed 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2017 08:00:53 +0000


Page14, 1-14, some history of close calls to the Atom-Totality-Universe / textbook 8th ed 2017

Some history of close calls to the Atom Totality, Atom-Totality-Universe

Now I talked about some of the history of the Atomic theory, and let me in this page talk about some scientists who through the history have come close to the idea that the whole entire Universe-- the Totality is an atom itself; have come close to this idea of a Atom Totality Universe. It is a surprise to many that several people have had this idea brewing long before AP. But sadly, none ever jumped the hurdle, for if you claim to have a Atom Totality theory-- you must state what chemical element the Universe it actually is.

I know Democritus was a math genius for Archimedes of Ancient Greeks recognized his talents, but still, I did not expect Democritus to push his Atomic Theory to its final logical conclusion-- the Universe itself must be an atom. Perusing the physics history literature in the mid 1990s, years after I discovered the Atom Totality theory, I came across this gem.

 Book:
--- start quoting A SHORT HISTORY OF ATOMISM 
 by J. Gregory, Univ. Leeds, 1931, page 4 --- 
The traditional atom, the genuine atom, is both quite indestructible and exceedingly minute. Atoms were indivisible for Leucippus because they were too minute to be divided, and for Democritus because they were too hard to be broken. 
If sundry traditions are trustworthy, Democritus allowed all sizes to atoms: a single Democritean atom might even be, so some said, as big as the world. The gigantic Democritean atom, if it ever existed, vanished from the atomistic tradition. 
The subsequent Epicurean atom was too hard to be broken, but it was also too small to be seen, and only thought could discern it. It did not become doubtful, nor even admittedly speculative, for Epicurus was as sure of atoms as if he had seen them with his eyes. 
 --- end quoting A SHORT HISTORY OF ATOMISM 
 by J. Gregory, Univ. Leeds, 1931, page 4 ---

Then we see this Universe Atom idea in Lemaitre, a Belgian astronomer and cosmologist who formulated the modern big-bang theory, which holds that the universe began in a cataclysmic explosion of a small, primeval "super-atom." 
  .... His works 
 include ... 
 and L'Hypothese de l'atome primitif 
 (1946; "Hypothesis of the Primeval Atom") 
 --- end of quote from Encyclopedia Britannica 1992 ---

Now, it is a shame that Lemaitre Primeval Atom starts the Universe in a Big Bang, because, well would it not have been a superior idea if the Primeval Atom were a Atom Totality Universe as part of the Atomic Theory and which has no cataclysmic birth, but rather a progression of chemical elements from hydrogen to helium on up to uranium and then plutonium atom totalities. A logical progression of Atom Totalities. Rather than a spurious, random notion of a explosion.

Is not logic better served if the Atomic Theory is pushed to its end conclusion that All is Atom and the Universe itself is a single big atom which in the far future will be a new chemical element Atom such as element 96 from its current element 94 of plutonium. Is that not the best, the superior logic?

Then there was a TV series called COSMOS by Sagan. And I specifically remember this segment from the TV series with its beautiful Vangelis music that was accompanied with words. I had watched on TV the series COSMOS, and remembered a paragraph which I looked-up in the book COSMOS on pages 265-267.

--- quoting from book COSMOS ---
[pages 265-267]  There is an idea--strange, haunting, 
 evocative- one of the most exquisite conjectures in 
 science or religion.  It is entirely undemonstrated; 
 it may never be proved.  But it stirs the blood. 
 There 
 is , we are told, an infinite hierarchy of universes, 
 so that an elementary particle, such as an electron, 
 in our universe would, if penetrated, reveal itself to 
 be an entire closed universe.  Within it, organized 
 into the local equivalent of galaxies and smaller 
 structures, are an immense number of other, much 
 tinier elementary particles, which are themselves 
 universe at the next level, and so on forever- an 
 infinite downward regression, universes within 
 universes, endlessly.  And upward as well.  Our 
 familiar universe of galaxies and stars, planets 
 and people,  would be a single elementary particle 
 in the next universe up, the first step of another 
 infinite regress.
--- end quoting COSMOS ---

So close was Sagan, but sadly, did not pare that idea down, to, instead of infinite regressions or infinite progressions, pare it down to the idea that the Universe is not an elementary particle but an Atom, a single Atom, and then, well, Sagan would have had to triangulate what chemical element the Universe was, just like I did in 1990.

And finally there was AP who in 1990 said, the entire Universe is a 231Pu Plutonium Atom Totality. The numbers fit best with plutonium.

Whole entire universe is just one big atom of plutonium, where dots of the electron dot cloud make up the stars, and all atoms. We live in the 5f6 of 231Pu, the last six electrons=muons of this gigantic single atom.


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

                ::\ ::|:: /::
                 ::\::|::/::
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - -
                 ::/::|::\::
                ::/ ::|:: \::

One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.

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:: Well, I have my work cut out for me for a future 9th edition. For I must clarify, and elucidate how we have a magnetic monopole particle that is either a photon or neutrino possessing a .5 MeV charge energy of either +1 or -1 charge. And with this monopole particle stands the Real Electron= muon of 105 MeV along with the Real Proton = 840 MeV. So this revolutionizes all of physics, all of chemistry, all of biology. For no longer do we see an atom in the same way. So, I have to make clear what electricity and current in wires is, when we have a monopole of charge and a muon or proton of charge. Vast vast changes for all sciences, because all sciences use atomic theory, in some form or other.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-08 03:12:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 18:39:10 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Page16, 2-2, Magnetism & electricity have attract force only, no
repel, but denial of same space occupancy / textbook 8th ed 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 02:39:10 +0000



Page16, 2-2, Magnetism & electricity have attract force only, no repel, but denial of same space occupancy / textbook 8th ed 2017

Page16,2-2, Magnetism & electricity have attract force only, no repel, but denial of same space occupancy

Coulomb force is attract only.

Now, there are many dense minds in science, both in and out of science. Many, many dense minds who cannot ever understand that a repel force does not exist, and that some other concept takes its place. And so, to ease their pain of not seeing this idea, I offer this analogy. Remember the English knights of old, King Arthur, Lancelot, the beautiful Guinevere, etc. Now, to make this physics clear, which is a daunting physics, so that everyone can understand the situation clearly, is to imagine a Castle of King Arthur knights being invaded by some big invasion army. So, now, the knights of Arthur have two choices. They can sit inside the castle and defend themselves from the invaders all from inside the castle and never step outside the castle, so that the invaders cannot occupy the same space-- the castle--. Or, the knights of Arthur can go forth, out of the castle and hand to hand combat, repel, the invading army. Do you see a difference here? One is a repel action. The other is a Denial of the Same Space Occupancy. Magnetism is attract force only with a Denial of Same Space Occupancy. Magnetism never has a repel.

Experiments performed proving attract force only, no repel, but denial of same space occupancy

First time I did this experiment it was 7% stronger, and SECOND TIME, under better controlled conditions, it was 14% stronger.

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 00:26:35 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: I got 7% stronger attraction than repel Re: Proving experimentally
 that Magnetism has only a force of attraction, no repulsion
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2017 07:26:36 +0000


I got 7% stronger attraction than repel Re: Proving experimentally that Magnetism has only a force of attraction, no repulsion

Alright, i was able to confirm the German company SuperMagnete data of 5-10% stronger attraction force than repulsion force. 

I get 7% stronger. My setup was a cardboard box. Two powerful neodymiun magnets. I carefully close the gap of N to N until a distance where both have no motion. I mark the sides of the cardboard box tray and later measure it to be 5.4 cm. Now i remove one magnet completely and place it far from the other magnet, slowly walking it towards the other magnet. If attraction is stronger than repulsion they should snap together and join at a greater distance than 5.4. I found this distance to be 5.8. So, 5.4/5.8 gives me an attraction force 7% stronger than repulse. 

I suspect the Germans did a similar experiment. 

Repeat of experiment-- attract is 14% stronger repel Re: 8th ed Atom Totality

Repeated the experiment of the German company that found attract magnetism is 5-10% stronger than repel.

Last time i did this i found 7% stronger. But under poor conditions since i used unequal magnets.

Under better controls i find the attract is 14% stronger, 3/3.5

Law of Magnetism with a positive term on rightside of equation-- meaning no repulsion exists.

Now I should talk about the huge reason that Law of Magnetism requires dipoles, and the reason for that, is that there is only a force of Attraction in magnetism and electric charges. So that we can have a bar magnet with all the North poles crowded together at one end and all the South poles crowded together at the other end of the bar magnet. Not that North repels North, but because North attracts North. In EM there is no force of repulsion or repelling. So when you eye-witness North against North, it is not repelling but rather, what is going on is the Denial of the Same Space Occupancy. We are seeing a issue of denial of occupying the same space, not repelling. We are seeing Exclusion, like Pauli Exclusion Principle, not repulsion. We are seeing exclusion such as in the Meissner Effect in Superconductivity, not repulsion. We are seeing Hund's Rule of Chemistry, that electrons=muons occupy in pairs only after they occupy singularly the suborbitals. We are seeing the physics of the Capacitor, that .5MeV monopoles attract one another and fill up the plate of a Capacitor.

If the World had repelling and repulsion in EM theory, then the world would never have a nucleus of atoms with mostly protons. The world would never have Capacitors, nor Hund's rule. Nor would the World have a bar magnet in which all the North poles congregate together and all the South poles congregate at the other end.

So, in New Physics, a major reason that the Law of Magnetism has a positive term to the rightside of the equation, just as does the Law of Electricity:

dB = photon wave structure or neutrino wave structure,  Law of Magnetism

dC = A, or V = AR defines current  Law of Electricity  

Is because the forces are just Attraction forces, never repelling forces, and which we are fooled into thinking that it looks like Repulsion when in fact, all it is, is a Denying of Occupying the Same Space.

Physicists have a difficult time of understanding that the concept of repel and denial of space are different concepts. If we see a enemy coming we can repel by going out and pushing the invader away. We can also, instead of repel, we can build a wall and deny the invaders to occupy our land.

So, a major, major error of Old Physics, is that they never realized EM is an attraction force only. And where it is written in the correct Maxwell Laws is the Law of Magnetism, that has a dipole, and means that North attracts North and North attracts South poles.

We should go in depth of what this deceptive repel is and why so many people were caught in that trap of deception. It starts with two bar magnets and we see and feel a sense of repelling of like poles. But there is another concept that is not repelling but rather Denial of Same Space Occupancy.

We see it in Hund's Rule, and in Pauli Exclusion Principle and the Aufbau Principle. We see it in atoms where electrons= muons congregate and where protons congregate. That means, like to like, that shows resistance to being squeezed together any more, is not repel but is a concept of same space occupancy denied. We see it in capacitors and in the flow of monopoles in electricity that magnetic monopoles=current, gather together collectively by attraction, not by repulsion.

In the history of physics, there was a time in which we did not know how electrons=muons and protons formed atoms of chemistry. I am talking about early years of 1900s with Thompson Model of the atom. It was nicknamed the Plum Pudding Model, where it was thought that every individual proton was tied up with a electron. So that an atom of 10 protons, neon, would have 10 paired up proton with electron to form the atom, like ten dance partners paired up. However, to the surprise of everyone, Rutherford found that electrons=muons congregate together and protons congregate together into our modern view of the atom. This means that electron=muon to electron=muon is a attraction, not a repelling or repulsion.

The Plum Pudding Model, 1904, of Thompson and the Rutherford Experiment results of 1911 discussed in depth showing how loose in logic is the science community as a whole.

I need to include in depth, the Thompson plum pudding model, for it gives us a vast and vivid view of how things easily go wrong in physics because most physicists have little to no logic in their science thinking.

So what I need to include is that Thompson, a brilliant physicist, who in 1904 proposed the Plum Pudding Model of the Atom, because, he, like all those of his time believed that like charges repel and not attract. So what kind of model fits the demand of like charges repel and unlike attract? The logical model is the Plum Pudding so that electrons=muon do not congregate nor do protons bunch together. But when Rutherford found that electrons=muon bunch together outside a nucleus, and that protons congregating or bunch together in a nucleus, meant by logic, that like charges do not repel, but rather they attract, given perhaps some orientation hurdle, such as spin.

So, the physicists of Thompson were using logic and were logically sound in the Plum Pudding Model, but disaster struck after Rutherford; in that the physicists were void and absent of logic in interpreting what Rutherford had found in 1911. Rutherford experiment tells us that like charges attract, not repel, and that what needed fixing and throwing out is the concept that like charges repel and replaced by the concept that Maxwell theory has like charges as denial of same space occupancy.

We see huge abundant evidence that like charges attract, not repel:
1) electrons=muons congregate outside the nucleus forming the atom's electrons
2) protons congregate making a nucleus
3) electrons=magnepoles flow together in a wire in electricity, ditto protons
4) electrons=magnepoles congregate in a capacitor, ditto protons
5) Pauli Exclusion Principle
6) Hund's rule in Aufbau principle
7) Meissner effect

Throughout this text, I will equate Magnetic Monopole as magnepoles, those .5MeV particles of charge. It is such a recent discovery that it is not clear in my own mind which particle is involved in electricity, when is the 105 MeV muon as electron involved and when is the .5 MeV monopole= magnepole involved.

So that when Rutherford discovered the structure of the atom as electrons=muons congregating together and protons congregating together, what the physics community should have done in 1911 with the Rutherford experiment on the structure of the atom, is to trashcan the concept of like charges repel and replace with the concept of Denial of Same Space Occupancy.

These two concepts are wholly different, in that repelling is not the same as denial of same space occupancy.

So here we see, in the Thompson to Rutherford history, we see that physicists rarely have the adequate logic ability to assemble correct ideas and then fail to interpret experiments addressing those ideas.

Recently in Science magazine I read where some 50% or more of the psychology science in print was just trash experiments with trash results because the experiments could not be duplicated, and that so much of science reporting is based on some statistics, or based on computer simulation, where the opinion of the researcher makes its way into the statistics or simulation and not science at all. But this can be said of over 50% of physics today is just error filled nonsense. Take for example the recent illogical LIGO experiments, where physicists imagine the existence of black holes and then when they see a blip on their monitors, they say they confirmed a gravity wave from black holes, when the blip can be caused by thousands of things in the local environment such as seismic activity. As illogical as expecting someone at home, knocking on the door; no one answering and then concluding the house was empty. The building of a sophisticated LIGO machine is something to be proud of, but then to say that blips are confirmation of your imagination of something out there is anti-science.

Look, if it takes over 100 years from 1911 to 2016 to correctly interpret the Rutherford experiment that no repelling or repulsion exists in Maxwell theory or in atomic theory, imagine how pathetically wrong is most of current day physics, with its nonsense of Big Bang, black holes, gravity waves, dark matter, dark energy and other assorted nonsense.

Now is there Denial of Same Space Occupancy to be found in the Maxwell Equations themselves, for, if this is a true concept, it must be in the Maxwell theory. And that is very easy to spot in the Lenz's law in Faraday's law where there arises a magnetic field that opposes the original magnetic field. This is not repelling or repulsion but that of denial of same space.

The Law of Magnetism in the Maxwell theory and its most single important message is that only attraction force exists in EM. That the North to North dipole is not a repelling or repulsion but merely a denial of same space occupancy.

Now one may be easily mislead into thinking that a chemical explosion is a manifestation of repelling, but if you examine chemical explosions, you find out it is a imparting of linear momentum of one particle to other particles. Fire, is the attraction of oxygen atoms to that of carbon, attaching and forming CO2 or CO.

Using Oxtoby & Nachtrieb, 2nd ed., Principles of Modern Chemistry, 1990 as source, I am going to rephrase the Pauli Exclusion Principle, and the Hund's Rule, and the Aufbau Principle keeping in mind that there is only attraction force in EM.

Pauli Exclusion Principle: no two electrons=muons in any atom can have the same four quantum numbers of N, L, m_L, m_s. This principle stated another way is to say that all electrons=muons attract one another, but cannot occupy the same Space, which is not a repelling force, but merely a occupancy concept.

Hund's Rule: when electrons=muons are added to orbitals of equal energy, the electron will enter a vacant orbital before it enters an orbital with a occupant electron, and when an electron fills a orbital with another electron they have opposite spins.

So here we see evidence of attraction only but a condition that the orientation of two electrons=muons cannot be such that they "occupy the same space".

Aufbau Principle: a systematic filling of electrons=muons (also protons in the nucleus) of atomic orbitals, beginning with lowest orbital energy and working up.

So the Aufbau is saying that EM has attraction force only and avoids electrons=muons from occupying the same space.

So, which is it for Feynman? Does the electron to electron repel or do the two simply deny same space occupancy-- squeezed together.

Experiment: take a magnet and have some nails. Whether you have the north pole of magnet or south pole, the nails are attracted. Do you ever see a repelling or repulsion of the nails from the magnet? No.

Alright, so we look at Feynman's statement of the Atomic theory "All things are made up of atoms-- little particles that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another." And we see that of "repelling upon being squeezed into one another." So that we have a force of repelling and a condition of being squeezed into one another, or, what we have are two separate and different concepts. So that Electricity & Magnetism never has repelling or repulsion but has a condition of where you have Denial of the Same Space Occupying.  

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:: Yes I do need to make clear in the next edition of this textbook, how electric current works, for I have the electron=muon and I have a charged particle .5MeV which I call the magnetic monopole. Is electric current the flow of monopoles and has little to nothing to do with electrons=muons. That is the picture shaping up.

True discoverer of E=mc^2. Was it Heaviside or JJ Thomson or Poincare? Certainly not Einstein

Would you look at that, look at that from Ricker, NaturalPhilosophy.org

--- quoting ---

[8] Thomson’s use of the formula has not escaped the notice of at least some modern physics textbooks. In Fundamentals of Physics by Halliday, et al, they state: “A decade before Einstein published his theory of relativity, J. J. Thomson proposed that the electron might be made up of small parts and that its mass is due to the electrical interaction of the parts. Furthermore, he suggested that the energy equals mc^2  (John Wiley, fourth edition, p. 735).

--- end quote ---

I do not have that edition.

But if true, then either Heaviside or JJ Thomson discovered E=mc^2 first.

I bet on Heaviside for his mind mastered the Maxwell Equations better than anyone except Maxwell himself. And, Heaviside used E = mc^2 in capacitor theory, for you could hardly discount Heaviside in using E=mc^2, is proof of first discovery, in 1889.

Perhaps it is worth going through all of Maxwell to see whether he-- for some reason or other-- derived the equation first.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-08 20:54:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 21:05:17 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Page17, 2-3, No Electric Field for Voltage replaces it, and New Ohm's
law / textbook 8th ed 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 05:05:17 +0000


Page17, 2-3, No Electric Field for Voltage replaces it, and New Ohm's law / textbook 8th ed 2017


Hard concept to grapple with that magnetism and electricity have attract only, no repel.

What we think is repel is- denial of same space occupancy, what Pauli called Exclusion principle. And hard to imagine that when Pauli declared the Exclusion principle, that no physicist was bright enough, logical enough to ask, well, that sounds more like magnetic repel, and what is the difference between magnetic repel and denial of same space occupancy. In other words, no one bright enough to realize, the world is not going to have a magnetic repel and a Pauli Exclusion Principle, as two different concepts.

No Repel exists in EM theory, and No Electric Field exists

Now, it has been troubling for me ever since I went to college and learning about electricity and magnetism, that I could never explain the difference between voltage and electric field. To me, it sounded as if both are one and the same, but back then, when I was a teenager, I never thought I would someday have to sort this mess out. I thought I would just get good grades, and move on in life and never have to straighten out a mess, for, maybe, just maybe, there was no mess and that I was not understanding something. Well, here I am some 47 years later, and realizing full well, that it was a mess, and I am fated to correct it.

Now how in the world would a mess like a concept of Electric Field get started if such a concept really never existed in the first place? How does a science get cluttered with things that do not exist? In the case of gravity, it was thought that angels push the planet Earth in the direction of the Sun in order to keep it in orbit, yet we do not clutter physics up with angels. In the case of Electric Field, what I feel happened here, was that electricity and magnetism are new sciences and sciences hard to conceptualize. So the terms and terminology we use to discuss a difficult science, that these terms used, once used and used frequently, manage to become part parcel of the science itself, even though they do not exist. When you name something that is truly nonexistent, it is tough to give up those names. So when discussing electricity and magnetism we have a Magnetic Field with lines of force by Faraday. And so, naturally, physicists would be seduced to talking about a Electric Field, even though they have no good idea of what that really means, but they speak of it often. So when you speak of something often, you seduce yourself into believing the nonsense exists, when it really does not. So the frequency of using a term Electric Field, is the only reason such a nonsense concept has lasted and become part of EM theory. No-one with a sharp logical mind ever asked the physicists-- what is different about voltage versus electric field? There is none. For Voltage is real and true and observable every day. We have voltmeters all over the place measuring voltage. And voltage is part of a very famous physics law called Ohm's law. So, if we throw out Electric Field as nonsense, as nonexistent. Do we lose anything? No, for voltage is electric field. And the only reason that physicists constantly use the term "electric field" is because of an addiction bad habit, that they use it so often, they cannot wean themselves off the addiction.

So, Electric Field is nonsense, and Voltage replaces it, and now we discuss Voltage in detail.

Now, since Physics has no electric field and where Voltage is the electric field, we have V = iR, Ohm's law, Old Ohm's law. And, that is Old Physics. Where the Old Physics Ohm's law is not even a universal law of physics for it frays once the current is large. A law of physics is preferable when it obeys the law throughout the range and domain. So what is wrong with Old Physic's Ohm's law? There cannot be anything wrong with Voltage, nor with current i, that leaves only R, resistance to wonder what is wrong with R, that Ohm's law breaks down with high currency.

What is wrong with Resistance in Ohm's law is that it was never really made clear what resistance actually is in the first place. If we look at the units in electricity and magnetism and in particular that of Resistance they are

Resistance = kg*m^2 /A^2*s^3

electric current = i = A

Angular momentum L = m^2/(A*s)

Magnetic Field =  kg /A*s^2

Voltage  = kg*m^2 /A*s^3

So we have V = iR as the Old Ohm's law, the New Ohm's law would be

V = i*B*L , you see, when we multiply the units i*B*L above, we end up with the units of voltage shown above.

What this means is that Resistance was two concepts all lumped together as one concept, for it was a angular momentum multiply Magnetic Field. Because R was two concepts in one, the higher the current messed up the angular-momentum of the Resistance and thus not a universal law. But now that the Ohm's law is really V = i*B*L it becomes a universal physics law of Nature.

So, now, the New Ohm's law, is it far better than the old one? Well, the old one broke apart everytime the current was a large current.

Can the New Ohm's law handle large currents better than the old Ohm's law?

Here, the experimental physicists have to provide the answers, that when R = B*L, can that turn the Old Ohm's law into a full fledged universal physical law of Nature? We await the experimental physicists for final answers.

Huge, Huge Experiment, and counting on the savvy, and smart experimental physicists to put together a NEW OHM'S LAW Experiment that proves V = i*B*L is a universal law once we recognize the term R for resistance is further broken down into B*L. Forget about theoretical physicists for they are usually chasing after stupid wrong crackpot ideas, rather than doing the most famous and great experiments that need to be done. It is the Experimental Physicists that I count on to reveal V= i*B*L as the universal law of physics.

For, often in physics, when a equation is not a universal law, it only needs a tweaking of its concepts, its parameters and in this case, it was a better understanding of a "too broad a concept of resistance".

Huge, Huge EXPERIMENT-- prove New Ohm's Law V= i*B*L

Now, returning to Voltage equals Electric Field, and that there is no electric field, for voltage replaces it. In other words, Old Physics was dunce physics, since they had two items-- they had voltage and separately they had Electric Field, not shrewd enough to realize both were one and the same, so discard the electric-field.

Think of it as Electric Field equals Voltage and thus we have Electric Field = current times Magnetic Field times angular momentum (New Ohm's law). Think of Resistance as that of Magnetic Field B times angular momentum L.

Now, what is so neat and cool about that, is that the history of electric charge and current and magnetism is a history involving Oersted seeing that a compass needle is deflected by a electric current. And that Voltage is electricity, so if you multiply current times L times magnetic field, you have voltage = electric field. In the years of early 1800s, with Oersted 1820, Ampere 1823, Ohm 1827, and Faraday 1831, science was trying to learn the relationship of electricity to magnetism, and that relationship needed to be seen in the most basic way possible-- Ohm's law becoming New Ohm's law::

Electric Field (Voltage) = current x Magnetic Field x L (the New Ohm's law)

NO ELECTRIC FIELD, for Voltage covers it

I need to discuss some experiments, especially concerning the fact that the Electric Field is nonexistent and that Voltage takes its place. One experiment that everyone with a expensive multimeter (Fluke) can do is simply turn on the volt meter and walk around in your house getting ambient Space electric volt readings. It is much like Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, in fact, that is actually what the CMBR is, in the first place, it is the existence of the Atom Totality you are reading on your voltmeter. Speak about getting in touch with God, well, every time you turn on your voltmeter and move around, your reading is "God is here". As you read the volts, you are reading Electric Field, because, well, Electric Field is nonexistent since Volts is just that.

In my house, the highest Ambient Voltage reading I obtained recently was .092 Volts DC.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 17:29:36 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Cosmic Background Voltage Re: my house background voltage as high as
 .092 V Re: 8th edition of Atom Totality soon to come
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:29:36 +0000
Cosmic Background Voltage Re: my house background voltage as high as .092 V
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:: Well, as noted in the prior comments, the discovery of the Real Electron is the muon = 105 MeV and the particle that is .5MeV is a monopole or magnepole-- which is a photon or neutrino dressed-up with a charge of .5MeV. This is a huge huge change in all the sciences, for it alters what we thought was an atom. The .5MeV particle is I believe the electric current particle, for I find it difficult to believe the muon is in motion in a copper wire. I think the .5 particle is what is traveling in the wire of electricity.

And this .5 MeV particle can be either +1 or -1 charge. I believe this particle is a closed loop of a magnetic field line of force. So if you take a circle as being a line of force with charge energy of .5MeV, this circle loop is what a current in electricity is, not a motion of electrons moving in a copper wire, but rather an entire closed loop circle that is moving.

True discoverer of E=mc^2. Was it Heaviside or Poincare? Certainly not Einstein

Modern day update of the famous physics equation E=mc^2, discovered first by Heaviside then JJ. Thompson, is to simply note the integral area is 1/2 a square as triangle and when dealing with a fixed constant maximum speed of light is the full square integral.
The modern day derivation of E=mc^2 in light of the fact that the .5 MeV particle is a magnetic monopole, not the electron, Real Electron= muon
Now Ricker III gives an excellent account of the history of E=mc^2 with the below reference.
--- quoting from Ricker writing in NaturalPhilosophy. Org ---
[4] The derivation of E = mc2 originates from Maxwell’s formula [ f = δE/cδt ] which equates the force exerted on an absorbing body at the rate energy is received by the body. Since force is also the rate of the change of momentum of the body, which, by the conservation of momentum, is also the rate of change in the momentum of the radiation, the momentum lost by the radiation is equal to 1/c times the energy delivered to the body, or M = E/c. If the momentum of the radiation of a mass is M times the velocity c of the radiation, the equation m = E/c2 is derived.
-- end quote ---
What Ricker is pointing out is that the only true proof of E=mc^2 comes from the Maxwell Equations and thus Einstein's version is flawed since he did not appeal to the Maxwell Equations.
Now, I believe Physics is overdue with a modern derivation of E = mc^2 in light of the fact that the Real Electron = muon and the particle of .5MeV was a magnetic monopole with no rest-mass but with a .5 MeV charge energy.
And so, on that account alone, we need a new modern update of E=mc^2.
Now, we all know the Calculus math of velocity as derivative and then energy as integral.
So we have matter moving along in momentum of mv. Now, what is the energy of that mv? Simple, simple math for we take the integral and it is 1/2 mv^2. There, we polished off momentum into energy.
Let us draw a picture of that calculation.
^
|    /|
|  /  |
|/__ |_______>
So the momentum was the hypotenuse as derivative as mv, and the energy was the area under the hypotenuse, which is purely math of 1/2mv^2
Now, that was with matter of rest mass. However, photons and neutrinos have no rest mass, but they can have charge energy, so, how do we get E = mc^2
Easy, real easy.
What we have here is a case where the momentum is a mc since the m is not rest mass but can be charge energy and the c is a sole singular value constant-- the speed of light. In math a constant is represented by a flat straight line such as Y= 1 or Y = c
So the picture here is that of
^
|______c
|
|_________>
So the momentum is mc. And taking the integral is mc^2 for energy.
Thus, we have E = mc^2
You see, when the velocity is a variable, it is area of 1/2 a square, but when velocity is a constant as the speed of light, a maximum constant, the integral is not a triangle with 1/2 area, but is the full square.
Now this is relevant to the idea that the .5MeV particle is a magnetic monopole and is a photon or neutrino bundled up with a .5 MeV charge, not rest mass, but charge. And so you have .5MeV(c^2).
Now, I have to explore what J.J. Thomson discovered for the E= mc^2 as written in Halliday & Resnick, made reference to by Ricker in that same article.
AP
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-08 22:54:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 22:31:38 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Page18, 2-4, Voltage replaces Electric Field (for it is
nonexistent)// New Ohm's law / textbook 8th ed 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 06:31:38 +0000


Page18, 2-4, Voltage replaces Electric Field (for it is nonexistent)// New Ohm's law / textbook 8th ed 2017
Page18, 2-4, Voltage replaces Electric Field (for it is nonexistent)// New Ohm's law / textbook 8th ed 2017

So where did the mistake in physics history arise, the mistake that Electric Field exists alongside voltage, as two different things? Did Faraday speak of electric field? Did Ohm speak of electric field? We know Maxwell spoke of it. Was the electric field a mistake made by physicists or did mathematicians make it first and then the physicists followed up on it? I do not know, other than to think of my own encounter and use of "electric field". When you want to talk about something as abstract as electromagnetism, what ends up, is that there are few words in the vocabulary of electromagnetism and when there are few words, you end up brainwashing your ownself into thinking "this stuff is real", genuine reality, when in fact it is not. In talking and describing any physics phenomenon you need a sufficiently large vocabulary, and when you use something so often-- even though it is fakery, you cannot imagine you were duped all these years. And because of this lack of vocabulary, you end up using "electric field" even though it is a fake concept, even though Voltage covers all of electric field. Math had a similar fake concept called "limit", and so in science, when you use a term often and many use it, even though it is a fakery, it becomes embedded in the science. And takes many centuries to be thrown out.

And this mistake is easily seen in the Old Maxwell Equations of its two dynamic laws of Faraday and Ampere written in the crazy math of Gauss and Heaviside. I say crazy math because if any student of physics looks at Faraday and Ampere law written in Halliday & Resnick, any and every student is perplexed by whether the Ampere law is producing a magnetic field, or producing a Voltage (which to them is the electric field, but we know electric fields are fiction).

So, give any student the Old Physics Maxwell Equations as written in Halliday and Resnick and that student is never going to be able to tell you what is actually produced in Faraday law-- is it producing a electric current or producing a electric field, and is the Ampere law producing a magnetic field, or is it producing a voltage?

What Halliday and Resnick teach in their textbook is -- illogic -- of the Ampere and Faraday law. They know that current is different from voltage and different from magnetic field, yet they say that Faraday law produces, not a current in the end, but produces a voltage in the form of electric field. They say also that Ampere law produces a magnetic field, but they call the current in the wire as a electric field, yet they say that current and electric field are different. So, in Old Physics, they have loads and loads of contradiction.

Originally Maxwell had 20 equations in 1860s and had pared them down to 8 differential equations and then later on, Heaviside came in and corrupted those 8 equations with silly math of vector fields. So here, the bogus concept of electric field flourishes, for math wants "fields", even though the vector fields in math are different from the fields in physics.

One of the great divides between physics and math, is that Physics is held to experiments as the final truth of the matter at hand, whereas math has a more loose judge of correctness-- fallible human minds acting as a panel of judges, where truth is often just-- consensus, and not the truth of Nature. So that when a professor shouts, I proved it, I proved it, is only, judged by some more humans, more humans flawed in reasoning in logic. But in contrast, when a physics person shouts "this is true, this is true" is when the experiments come in saying-- that was indeed true, and those experiments repeated over and over. So, physics has a higher order of Truth than does mathematics. We saw this in actual practice come about 1989 when chemists announced fusion in a test tube Pons & Fleischmann, using palladium and hydrogen, and at about the same time, Wiles a mathematician announcing a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. Both went through rigorous examination by others. But, what was so outstandingly clear, is that the truth of fusion in a test tube had to pass Experimental Testing, while, Fermat's Last Theorem was only examined by another panel of fallible and biased human minds, no independent judging. So, today, we know that palladium test tube fusion is false, but we also have a fake Wiles Fermat's Last Theorem touted as true, when it is sham math. If math had Experiment as its judge, Wiles would have bitten the dust just as Pons & Fleishmann bite the dust.

Not only does Physics have Experiment as its final judge, physics has something most mathematicians cannot understand. Physics has units, and the units keep physicists always in bounds and in clarity. Units are the fire alarm for physicists who try to go beyond, attempt to go beyond where they are allowed to go, whereas mathematicians rarely have restrictions of how abstract or beyond reason they can fly in their ivory towers, flying off into absurdity. For example, in math in the late half of the 20th century, mathematicians adopted a computer proof of the 4 Color Mapping, pushed by IBM, not because of good math, for it was lousy math, but pushed because computer companies saw a new buyer-- math departments at universities. Such crazy going beyond reason that in their fake proof, Appel and Haken said you can eliminate the borderlines between countries, in your proof-- now you see them, now they disappear, stunt. So, here, we show how the physicist is often more careful, more precise and bound to a better judge than is the mathematician. And it is the Units, that are often violated by mathematicians and non-physicists, for they rarely understand what units are, and how they restrict.

Here is a partial list of Units for physics and some electromagnetism. It is a partial list of some important units.


velocity or speed = m/s

acceleration = m/s^2

angular momentum = m^2/s

frequency = 1/s

Force = kg*m/s^2

Pressure = kg / m*s^2

Energy = kg*m^2 / s^2

Power, or radiant flux = Energy times frequency, = kg*m^2 / s^3

Quantity of Electricity, charge, Coulomb = C = A*s

Inertia ML^2

Energy = Force x distance = work = ML^2T^-2

Kinetic Energy = 1/2 mv^2 =  1/2 ML^2T^-2

Force = mass x acceleration = ma = MLT^-2

velocity = LT^-1

acceleration = LT^-2

energy = ML^2T^-2

force = MLT^-2

frequency = T^-1

momentum = MLT^-1

Pressure = ML^-1T^-2

Power = ML^2T^-3

Entropy = ML^2T^-2

Magnetic Field =  kg /A*s^2 = kg /C*s

Charge = C = A*s

Voltage  = kg*m^2 /A*s^3 = kg*m^2 /C*s^2

Pressure = kg/m*s^2

Force = kg*m/s^2

Power = kg*m^2/s^3

Resistance = kg*m^2 /A^2*s^3  = kg*m^2 /C *A*s^2

Capacitance = A^2*s^4/ kg*m^2

Notice that multiply R by A we get V. This, again, is the above earlier insight that V = i*B*L. That Electric Field as Voltage is the multiplication of current by Magnetic Field by angular momentum. Now, was it not Oersted that noticed a current near a magnetic field deflected the needle. Was it not Faraday that noticed a thrusting bar magnet through a closed loop of wire yields a current i, a electric current, so that V=i*B*L is V/B*L = i, where the V/B*L is the thrusting of a bar magnet B in a Voltage of a closed loop of wire as V.

Now in college in 1970 I was told that Voltage is like pressure as a physical entity. Here again, how a lack of vocabulary we assume something which is really just fakery. We want and desire to know what Voltage is as easy as possible, so that we can relate Voltage to something simple and commonplace in life. But the extreme danger in that relating, is it is fake relating. Voltage is not pressure, but is rather, better seen as a "force", and, the chemists got it correct when they related voltage to EMF, electromotive force, which I think the chemist Faraday first called it as "emf". Faraday was of course both a chemist and physicists extraordinaire'.

One simply takes a look at the units of Voltage to realize it is not pressure but force.

Voltage  = kg*m^2 /A*s^3 = kg*m^2 /C*s^2

Pressure = kg/m*s^2

Force = kg*m/s^2

Where Voltage is kg*m/s^2 *(m/s)

Where you give force, a speed, a speed of force. And this is important, extremely important in gravity as EM-force, where a planet is forced to be in orbit and forced to have a speed in that orbit track.

Even physicists, often do not obey units of physics and become victims of fakery by calling Voltage a pressure.

If we compare magnetic field with Voltage,
Magnetic Field =  kg /A*s^2 = kg /C*s
Voltage is kg*m^2/A*s^3
all we need do is multiply magnetic field by m^2/s what we can call the reverse of acceleration, since acceleration is m/s^2

Now, this is going to be hard for those in Old Physics, but I am calling m^2/s a reverse-acceleration, and that a force can be that of F = m * a , or a force can be that of F = m * a_r where the a_r is reverse acceleration.

And that leads me to the ability to say Voltage is not only electric field, but is a Force.

So as we have V = i*R, the current i will have mass. If we take out the mass from current, and, whatever is remaining in "i" when multiplied by R is an acceleration. Allowing us to see that V = i*R is none other than F = mass * acceleration.

Now, why play around on this issue?

It is important because the 6 Equations to compose all of EM theory, look to be these six, all starting with New Ohm's law V= i*B*L and then differentiating New Ohm's law in all its permutations possible.

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

Four are differential equations. Ampere's law looks to be (3), and Faraday's law looks to be (4). The law of electricity and magnetism looks to be all wrapped up into (2) since B and V contain magnetic field and electric-field (voltage), and "i" is electric charge.

Now where do I get Coulomb law as not kAA/d^2 but rather as (kAA+jBB)/d^2 ? Where do I get that? Well, when you differentiate (f/g)' you get  (f/g)' = (f'g - fg')/g^2. So you get a two term numerator. So, it appears that Coulomb law is embedded in (6) and is not a fixed static inverse square law but is a variable law ranging in strength from R to 1/R to 1/R^2 (we know that is a logarithmic function). And, the new AP-Maxwell Equations have a EM gravity and have a spin term.

Now with Units being so super important in physics, I need a primal unit for all of Electricity and Magnetism, a primal unit for which all the other units of EM can be dissolved back into a primal unit. I need a "There exists a primal unit" and that primal unit is not the electric charge, nor the electric field, because in fact there exists no electric-field, but is the magnetic dipole which forms a Field, the Magnetic Field is primal. Just like in math, we start the Naturals with "there exists 1" and from that primal starting point we build all the other counting numbers.

So the Magnetic Field Primality Unit law is

Magnetic Field = kg /A*s^2
 
That is the magnetic field, and some have suggested that the Electric Field is a primal unit as kg*m/A*s^3, but that cannot be true because, well, all that is, is a moving Magnetic Field, a m/s times Magnetic Field. In this textbook we learn there is no electric-field, because electricity is not dipole. If you have magnetism as dipole, you cannot have electricity as dipole. And thus, the only field is the Magnetic Field. And electricity has charge, by all means has a charge and it has a voltage, and that voltage is a magnetic field times a factor of m/s. So in this textbook, only one field exists and variations on that magnetic field gives us voltage.

This primality law says that magnetism is Dipole and that everything of electricity has a dipole component. It also means that since electricity is not primal, that electricity has no Electric Field, for if it had an electric field, would mean that there is no Primal unit in EM. Much like Math, there is only one primal number in Counting 1, and 1 goes on to build all the other Counting Numbers.


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 the experiment I performed yesterday of two strong magnets nearby one another by 3 centimeters both stuck to a magnetic board, and placing a electrode on one magnet, other electrode on other magnet gives a permanent reading of .002 V. And I interpret that permanent reading as the constant flow of .5 MeV particles, the monopoles from one magnet to the other magnet. So that suggests, current flow in wires is not electrons flowing, but is this .5 MeV particle the monopole. But the monopole has to be related in some manner to the Real Electron which is the Muon = 105 MeV and the Real Proton which is 840 MeV. So in the future, I have to make clear that relationship. And also, the proton of 840 MeV, must also have a monopole/s. Make clear as to how photons and neutrinos gain a .5 MeV charge energy to be electricity.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-09 07:00:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
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 <***@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
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-09 21:36:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 23:50:59 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Page20, 2-6, New AP-Maxwell Equations based on New Ohm's Law/
Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 07:50:59 +0000


Page20, 2-6, New AP-Maxwell Equations based on New Ohm's Law/ Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017



6 New AP-Maxwell Equations:

1. Magnetic Field Primality Unit Law, think of it as the unit of electromagnetism. The unit being the Magnetic Field. Think of it much the same way you think of the Natural Numbers defined by the Peano axioms and in which the first axiom is the existence of the primal number 1 as unit, over all the Counting Numbers that come after 1.

This axiom is easy, for it is the building block of the other terms of EM, since most of the terms will have a magnetic field component denoted as B.

velocity or speed = m/s

acceleration = m/s^2

angular momentum proportional m^2/s

frequency = 1/s

Force = kg*m/s^2

Pressure = kg / m*s^2

Energy = kg*m^2 / s^2

Power, or radiant flux = Energy times frequency, = kg*m^2 / s^3

Quantity of Electricity, charge, Coulomb = C = A*s

Voltage is the (a) Electric Potential, the (b) Potential Difference and (c) Electromotive Force and all with the Units of W/A =  kg*m^2/A*s^3

Capacitance = farad = C/V = A^2*s^4 / kg*m^2

Electrical Resistance = ohm = kg*m^2 /A^2*s^3

Conductance = A/V = A^2*s^3 / kg*m^2

Magnetic Flux = V*s = kg*m^2 /A*s^2

Magnetic Field = tesla = kg /A*s^2

Resistance = kg*m^2/A^2*s^3

Inductance =  kg*m^2 /A^2*s^2  

The Magnetic Field is  kg /A*s^2 and notice that most all of the EM parameters have  kg /A*s^2 as a factor. That means the Magnetic Field times a multiple covers most parameters of EM. For example, Voltage is m^2/s times Magnetic Field kg/A*s^2. The term m^2/s is angular momentum

I am going to need 6 equations, not 4, (actually, Maxwell in 1860s had 8 differential equations and then later on Heaviside corrupted those 8 equations with silly math of vector manifolds). I need 6 not 4 equations.

"There exists a primal unit" and that primal unit is not the electric charge, nor voltage as electric field, because in fact there exists no electric-field, but, the primal unit is the magnetic dipole which forms a Field, the Magnetic Field is primal. Just like in math, we start the Naturals with "there exists 1" and from that primal starting point we build all the other counting numbers.

So the Magnetic Field Primality Unit law is

Magnetic Field = kg /A*s^2

Magnetism has a field because it is dipole. Electric charge is never a field, because it is monopole.
 
That is the magnetic field, and some have suggested that the Electric Field is kg*m/A*s^3, but that cannot be true because, well, all that is, is a moving Magnetic Field, a m/s times Magnetic Field, in other words a more active magnetic field. In this textbook we learn there is no electric-field, because electricity is not dipole. If you have magnetism as dipole, you have a magnetic field, but if you have electric charge monopole, you cannot have electricity as a field.

Magnetic Motion, Law of Magnetism

Now in this Law of Magnetism we make the mathematics easy, instead of the Gaussian over-structure that hides more than it reveals, and then the Heaviside compactification of the math, we instead rely on New Ohm's law as the over-structure and simply do differential equations calculus on New Ohm's law to obtain Faraday law, Ampere-Maxwell law and including two brand new laws that Maxwell missed altogether.

For math we use derivative and differential equations as rate of change and denoted as speed of m/s. In the Magnetic Field of kg /A*s^2 there is no speed, but if we multiply by speed we have kg /A*s^2 times m/s = kg*m /A*s^3. And what is that? What is kg*m /A*s^3 ?? It is not voltage because voltage is  kg*m^2/A*s^3.

What  kg*m/A*s^3 is, is magnetic field in motion and that it is either a 4 vector Double Transverse Wave or it is a Longitudinal Wave.

So, Law of Magnetism builds the Photon and builds the Neutrino because a Magnetic Field in Motion is either a 4 vector Double Transverse Wave of destructive interference, or, the Magnetic Field in Motion is a longitudinal wave as a neutrino structure.

Magnetism of magnetic fields builds the structure that is the photon and is the neutrino, both are waves of magnetic field, of lines of force.

As promised, I said the Magnetic Field builds nearly all the terms in EM theory, and here it is building the photon and neutrino.

The Photon and Neutrino are EM particles, and since there is no electric field, how are they built from Magnetic Field? Well, there are two ways of arranging magnetic field lines of force, either as transverse or as longitudinal. When Transverse, then the destructive interference of the magnetic field vectors cancel and causes the center of the wavefront to be voltage.

The Neutrino is a Longitudinal Wave built of Magnetic Fields, and sometimes a photon will ride inside a Neutrino wave, and if the neutrino closes off in a torus tube, rather than a straight line tube, the trapped photon inside the neutrino torus tube becomes a .5 MeV particle that is a monopole. The neutrino torus tube with trapped inside photon as 4 vector Double Transverse Wave of destructive interference, the entire apparatus is a magnetic monopole. And so, when a neutrino of straightline motion closes off into a torus tube with trapped photon inside, becomes a Magnetic Monopole of .5MeV and that is when the electric particle is borne. This would indicate that the lines of force in a bar magnet are closed off neutrino tubes with trapped photons inside.

Previously I did the first equation the Law of Magnetism as Primal Unit. Now let me do the other five equations.

2. Electric Motion, Law of Electricity

The Law of Electricity, was not about defining the Coulomb force (besides the EM force varies from R, to 1/R, to 1/R^2 so it could not be the Coulomb force; where there is no Electric Field, but rather, was meant to define-- What is current. It is a hole in the head of logic if we do not define electric current and then go to Faraday Law and there is electric current for the first time. It is like having a baby borne and then do the fertilization for making the baby afterwards.

Now, keeping the math simple, by a derivative or differential being the multiplication by m/s. So, what is Electric Motion, Law of Electricity? Well, we all know that electric charge in motion is current, and so the Law of Electricity must define the current. And since there is no Electric Field, there is voltage that takes that place of electric field and voltage is

V =  kg*m^2/A*s^3  

In the AP/Maxwell Equations the Law of Electricity is New Ohms law. The New Ohm's law simply replaces Resistance R by its two terms of B*L where B is magnetic field and L is angular momentum expressed as m^2/(A*s) and so New Ohm's law is V = i*B*L where V is voltage and i is current and B is magnetic field and L is angular momentum.

So, the law of Electricity is simply New Ohm's law which defines current.

We see that in our units above where V = i*R = i*B*L

kg*m^2 /A*s^3  = A * (kg /A*s^2) * (m^2/(A*s))

So, in AP/Maxwell Equations, New Ohm's law is the Law of Electricity.

So, electric current A is defined as C charge times (m/s) = A. But also by New Ohm's law. i = V/(B*L).

We need the Law of Electricity to define current, before we see current in the Faraday law. This was a major error of the Old Maxwell Equations, that we come upon a current only when we reach Faraday's law.

Now here is where we get to the challenging math part of the Maxwell Equations, the Ampere-Maxwell law and Faraday law. And throw out that Gauss, Stokes, line integral, vector manifolds, and all other assorted nonsense. The grave errors of the Old Maxwell Equations is that they could not even derive Lenz law magnetic field in opposition to the induction magnetism. And, more importantly, they could not realize that EM was attract only, no force of repulsion, but a denial of same space occupancy that fooled every physicist.

These last four equations, or laws, are dynamic and so the product-rule and quotient-rule of calculus differentiation comes into play. We know the end-result outcome, so we have to structure the math to fit the experiment of thrusting bar magnet through coil yields current plus opposing magnetic field plus a spin term in some laws.  

3. Electricity = Magnetism,  Ampere-Maxwell law
Justification schemata
---------------------------------
So we list the derivatives with respect to time of EM parameters
Derivative with respect to time s, to 1/s velocity, to 1/s^2 acceleration
     
Current i = dq/ds so current is 1/s what is derivative of current, is 1/s^2 and what is that?
 
Magnetic field 1/A*s^2, Volt 1/A*s^3, Resistance 1/A^2*s^3
Derivative of V, voltage, and here we have 1/s^3, and the only s^4 I know of is Capacitance current Capacitance A^2*s^4, even though it is in the numerator. Let me denote it by i_C
Derivative of current i is Magnetic Field B
Derivative of B would be 1/s^2 to 1/s^3, so that derivative of B is either Volt or Resistance and the clear choice here is Volt
Derivative of L and here we have L as 1/s so the derivative is 1/s^2 and the clear choice here is a force, a torque, and now, if we have a torque times magnetic field B we end up with capacitor current i_C
----------------justification schemata ----------------------
Now differentiating

V' = (i*B*L)'

Using the Product Rule of Calculus. Which is (fgh)' = f'gh + fg'h +fgh'

(i*B*L)' = i'*B*L + i*B'L + i*B*L'

Ampere-Maxwell Law   (i*B*L)' = i'*B*L + i*B'L + i*B*L'

V' = (iBL)' = i'*B*L + i*B'*L + i*B*L'

= B*B*L + i*V*L + i*B*(i_C)

which yields a magnetic field term BBL, also a displacement current term  i*B*(i_C), and finally a spin term i*V*L.
Now, does that make sense to what we know as the Ampere-Maxwell law?
It makes a lot of sense in that we have a input current and get out a magnetic field in the first term of B^2(L). Then we have a displacement current in the third term as - i*B*(i_C). But finally we have a mid-term of + iVL which is some spin term, unknown in Old Maxwell Equations.
Alright, now, on rechecking the Ampere-Maxwell law and I get a new term unknown to Maxwell, a iVL term, which looks like some sort of spin, a spin of a current and Voltage. Is it the original input current, or is something else going on here.

4. Magnetic = Electric,  Faraday/Lenz law

Now the Faraday law we see today in Old Physics with only one term on rightside of equation was due more to Heaviside, but the Lenz law effect was well known to Maxwell, that a magnetic field arises to oppose the thrusting bar magnet.

Yet the Faraday law in math form of Old Physics, never takes into account the second magnetic field, the Lenz magnetic field. And that should have made Maxwell suspicious that his Equations were in error on Faraday law. But not only missing the Lenz opposing magnetic field quantity, but missing a spin term in the new EM laws.

I have been doing experiments lately and find that there is a spin term upon the magnet as it falls through a coil in Faraday law and a spin term on the electric conducting wire in Ampere law.

In my Experiments, called eddy-currents of a falling magnet in a copper tube versus a plastic tube, the copper has a Lenz law resistance of 1/3, which the current otherwise would be 1 rather than 2/3 of a current. I have to make the plastic tube be 3 times longer to match the copper tube where the LED light comes on simultaneously. This is important for the Fusion Barrier Principle, in that all machines built to control fusion, allow breakeven to only reach 2/3 breakeven. In other words, it is a fundamental law of physics, that fusion will never surpass 2/3 breakeven.

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
Given the above justification table, that looks about correct, although I could refine the i_C, the capacitor current with respect to regular current i.

This is Faraday's law, which gives electricity in the term VB/i^2L and has a Lenz law built in as V/L^2 and a spin term built in as 1/L

                             Spin Law

5. Next to last Permutation of New Ohm's law in what I call the spin law for it gives spin, rotation to elementary particles as well as large bodies of mass such as planets and stars and galaxies.

(V/B*L)'  = i'

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

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


New Spin Law when substituting in for B*L as resistance R we have

i' = ((i_C)*V -VVL - V(i_C) / R^2

i' = -VVL/R^2  

i' = - (ii*L)

Justification

(i) derivative with respect to time s, 1/s velocity, 1/s^2 acceleration
    current i = dq/ds so current is 1/s
    Magnetic field 1/A*s^2, Volt 1/A*s^3, Resistance 1/A^2*s^3,
 Current 1/s,  Conductance A^2*s^3, Capacitance A^2*s^4,

(ii) Resistance R = B*L in case of electrical wire and substance matter


                       Coulomb Law and EM gravity

6. Lastly, the final Permutation of New Ohm's law is what I call the EM-gravity law, it is probably the most important EM law for astronomy, because it is gravity bundled up inside of the EM force, and where Coulomb force lies is this law. The Coulomb force ranges over R to 1/R to 1/R^2, R being the radius.

(V/i*B)'  = L'

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

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

using a justification scheme the above becomes

Coulomb law

(V/(i*B))' = L'

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

L' = (i^2B - B^3- V^2i) / i^2B^2

L' = (i^2B - B^3- V^2i) / i^2B^2

What this law does, is set up Coulomb and gravity, by making Space be a magnetic field that puts a track into space and that matter follows these tracks and is pushed along in motion in these tracks-- what we call gravity. Think of EM Coulomb force as that the derivative of electric current is the creation of a magnetic field track of space and that mass matter in that electric field track space is pushed along in those tracks, with a force range of R to 1/R to 1/R^2 for notice the B term above is in first term 1/B, in second term B,  and 1/B^2 in third term. We know R is solid body rotation seen in a spinning phonograph vinyl record, and seen in stars of spiral galaxies near the nucleus of the galaxy, and where 1/R^2 is the familiar Old Physics Newton law of gravity (also General Relativity).

So the AP Equations of EM are six

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



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:: Remarkable, how this is all being sorted out in a matter of a week, not months. I have the experiment to prove two stationary magnets create a voltage. The conceptual breakthrough is how Lines of Force in a thrusting bar magnet of Faraday's law, how those lines of force are each a magnetic monopole of .5 MeV charge energy and how those monopoles are transferred, full closed loops, unto the copper wire loop in Faraday's law. So you have a sort of like a "jumping" of a monopole in the magnet, jumping onto the copper wire, and that is the flow of electricity, the monopoles are the electric current. The real-electron= muon and the proton are stationary in the wire as the monopoles flow in the wire. Let me repeat the experimental proof, where it is similar to Faraday law of thrusting bar magnet through closed loop of copper wire yields an electric current, only here, it is just two bar magnets and no thrusting involved.
I thought it would take many months to understand that electricity comes not from electrons moving, but comes from Magnetic Monopoles of .5 MeV, in that a line of force in the magnetic field is a monopole of .5MeV.
And what happens in the Faraday law, the thrusting bar magnet allows for lines of force as a loop, to jump ship of the bar magnet and jump onto the coil of copper wire.
The experimental proof of this jumping ship from Lines of Force of bar magnet onto closed loop of wire in Faraday's law, the experimental proof is simple and easy, get two magnets on a magnet board, placed 3cm apart. With a expensive Multimeter (Fluke) measure a constant voltage of .002 Volts DC. What you are seeing is a electric current flow of .002 Volts with only magnets. No thrusting at all. You are seeing Faraday's law in its most primitive condition.
For once, in science history, we can understand what electricity really is, and understand why AC can go far distance, yet DC is not far.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-10 01:50:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 00:12:06 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Page21, 2-7, First true real understanding of what is electricity--
monopole flow/ Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 08:12:06 +0000


Page21, 2-7, First true real understanding of what is electricity-- monopole flow/ Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017

Marvelous progress-- world's first correct view of electricity

I thought it would take many months to understand that electricity comes not from electrons moving, but comes from Magnetic Monopoles of .5 MeV, in that a line of force in the magnetic field is a monopole of .5MeV. Instead, it took but a week to see the conceptual breakthrough. Now, I am not shy nor bashful about admitting that I could never understand the physics of professors waxing on and on about magnetic flux and the breaking of lines of force in the Faraday law. Were you, the reader, also one of those who could never connect with -- how the hell, is the lines of force of the thrusting bar magnet making electrons in the copper wire, move? How the hell does that work. So, like so many other things in science and math, I just accepted it, but saw no rhyme nor reason. I knew the Lines of Force were involved, but I never could see a picture in mind how the lines of force pushed or pulled electrons in the copper wire.

There was a good reason why this picture never was forthcoming. Because it is simply not true, and was never a explanation of electric current. Oh, sure, the Lines of Force played a crucial role, but how?

And what happens in the Faraday law, the thrusting bar magnet allows for lines of force as a loop, to jump ship of the bar magnet and jump onto the coil of copper wire.



                 __  
       .-'               `-.    
   .'                         `.  
 /                              \    
;                                 ;
|                                 |   this is a closed loop of copper wire
;                                ;    
 \                              /      
   `.                        .'      
      `-  .  _____   .-'      



This is a bar magnet showing its Lines of Force



North
                                  __
           __..=......._         |  |        
        ,-;,-' _..-----.:=._     |  |     _.=:.-----.._
     _,','  ,-'      _____`-:.   |  |   .:-'_____      
    / ,'  ,'    _.-''__...:..::. |  | .::..:...__``-._    `,  
  ,' /  ,'    ,'  _,'   _,,,_-.. |  | ..-_,,,_   `,_  `,     `,
 .' /  /    ,'   /    ,'     `,  |  |  ,'     `,    \   `,    \  \ `.
 | /  /    ,'  .'   ,'         `,|  |,'         `,   `.  `,    \  \ |
| .'  /    |   |   .'           `|  |'           `.   |   |    \  `. |
| |   |   |   |    |             |  |             |    |   |   |   | |
| |   |   |   |    |             |  |             |    |   |   |   | |
|  |  \    \   \    \           /|  |\           /    /   /    /  |  |
 \ '.  \    \   \    \         / |  | \         /    /   /    /  .` /
  \ `.  \    \   `.   `._   _.'  |  |  `._   _.'   .'   /    /  
   \  \  `.   `._  `.._  `''=-'''|  |```-=``'  _..'  _.'   .'
    `. `.  `._   `-..__i;;:=;;;' |  | `;;;=:;;j__..-'   _.'  
      `._`-._ `-.._____..=:i,'   |  |   `,j:=..____
         `.._`--.....,-=;-'      |__|      `-;=-,.....--
             `'------'' South



Line of Force of in a bar magnet, where each Loop is either a +1 charge .5MeV monopole or a -1 charge monopole.

Can you see that as you thrust that bar magnet in the closed loop of wire, that many, many of those ellipses jump onto the loop of copper wire. And each of those loops of Lines of Force carry a .5 MeV charge energy, a monopole. Magnetic Monopoles are either a photon or neutrino, either one, dressed up with a .5MeV charge energy. A normal photon without charge energy travels in a straight line, has linear momentum only. But when you dress up a photon with a charge energy, it becomes a monopole and curves around into a loop, a closed loop.

So, the Faraday law, is really the geometry of closed loops Line of Forces of a Magnet that jump ship from the magnet and become monopoles of the copper closed loop wire. Now, one experiment that brilliantly shows this to be true is to bend the wire in odd shapes, more odd than the circle ellipses of Magnetic Field, and watch, for the current produced is less if odd shaped. The most current is where the Lines of Force of magnet match closely with the loop of wire.

Now I hate these two terms "jump ship" and "dress up". Scientists like to have terms that sound and feel scientific. But the reason I opt for these terms, is that scientists go too far in making physics not understandable. I prefer terms in which the human mind can most readily absorb and form a geometrical picture in their own mind as to what is going on. So many journals of science are so lousy in terms that one thinks, the scientists are not teaching or revealing but rather, they are so stupid as to not be able to make common sense. They are dumb, and hiding it in abstract terms. So, I, never want abstract terms, but want immediate understanding. So will stick to "jump ship" and if you hate that , well, just think of Transfer, for transfer is sort of scientific. As for dress up, well, there is superposition, but I prefer dress up.

The experimental proof of this jumping ship from Lines of Force of bar magnet onto closed loop of wire in Faraday's law, the experimental proof is simple and easy. I posted it two days ago:

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 03:26:02 -0800 (PST)

Subject: just 2 magnets giving me a permanent voltage-- proof the .5 MeV is a monopole
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2017 11:26:02 +0000

just 2 magnets on a magnetic board, giving me a permanent voltage-- proof the .5 MeV is a monopole

This year i discovered the Real Electron is 105 MeV and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. A monopole not with .5MeV of rest-mass but with .5 MeV of charge energy.

If true it should have a reading of a permanent DC voltage from two powerful nearby stationary magnets, 3cm apart fixed to a magnetic board. I have a costly multimeter. Now I place the electrode on one magnet pole and the other electrode on the other magnet pole.

Now as i measure one magnet individually the meter jumps in value but settles on 0 reading.

However, if i put one electrode on one magnet and the other electrode on second magnet i get a permanent reading of .002 volts dc.

The way i interpret this (maybe i am wrong) is that the lines of force of one magnet with lines of force from other magnet are .5MeV particles causing a voltage, permanent voltage.

This, if true, may serve as proof that the .5MeV thought to be electron is after all a magnetic monopole. And, this, is proof that electricity is the motion, not of electrons nor protons, but the motion of monopoles. A Monopole is a photon or neutrino dress-up with .5 MeV of charge energy, not rest mass energy, but charge energy. And charge is what bends a wave from going linear, bends the wave to go angular and come back around upon itself.

I have an expensive Fluke multimeter and powerful neodymium magnets.

AP

Of course I need others to repeat the experiment and verify the result. The Result is magnificently important. For never before was a current achieved by two stationary magnets, only thrusting magnets in Faraday's law. And this experiment reiterates the issue that magnetism is primal, so that the production of electricity, needs to come from a more primal origin. Not a Faraday law of thrusting bar magnet, but a law of 2 stationary magnets. Let me call it the AP law of magnetism. It already exists in the AP equations of prior page, under the Law of Magnetism. It simple says that monopoles exist and are .5 MeV charge energy.

Now there needs to be an experiment, one that colleges can do, wherein we see that the definition of quantum spin m_s of the four quantum numbers is 1/2 spin. The experiment is to show that the number 1/2, was wisely chosen, because the experiment exposes the fact that electron volts definition is the energy of a single monopole in minimum energy. What I mean is, well, MeV as a amount of energy fits the nuclear energy compared to the electron space energy. In this textbook I derive the Strong Nuclear Force (a later page) showing that the ration of nuclear energy to electron space energy is a difference of 10^6, and this difference shows up with fine structure constant in that permittivity and permeability have a ratio of 10^6. Given that difference, then all that needs to be accounted for is the 1/2 or .5. Thus, the magnetic monopole that Dirac was chasing after was not that of 137/2 of electric charge, but was that of .5 MeV charge. Now, I need to go back and see where Dirac went astray on 137/2.

Let me briefly touch on this idea that we can pare away the MeV and focus on just .5 eV, where the definition in physics gives us eV as the correct measure of the monopole and the assignment of 1/2 spin was a wisely chosen arbitrary assignment. But here is some of that later page discussion
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
factor of 10^6 (permeability/permittivity) for Chemical Bond to Strong Nuclear Force as a Coulomb force
If one looks on page 572: PHYSICS, part 2, extended version, Halliday & Resnick, 1986, page 572, we see >a picture of a typical atom with its electron shells and a nucleus. The electron cloud has a diameter of >2x10^-10 meter and the diameter of the nucleus is 5x10^-15 meters.
As I have reported of equilibration, that the Chemical bond is typically 5 eV and the nuclear force bond is 5 >MeV so that eV to MeV is a difference of 10^6.
(snipped)

>Stated simply, nuclear physics is chemical bonds at a distance of 10^-6. What holds together the proton and >neutron in deuteron is the same force that holds together the hydrogen atom with a proton (dihydrogen ion), >and only difference is one is 10^6 smaller distance.
So 10^6 is a special number in physics, and obviously a dimensionless 
>
(snipped)
If we look at the two constants in the Maxwell Equations: permeability 
>constant of 1.26 x 10^-6 H/m and the permittivity constant of 8.85 x 10^-12 F/m, that those two constants >directly link to one another as being a factor of 10^6 and that starting from 0 to permeability as 10^-6 we >reach permittivity as another 10^6 increment.
Now, experiments put the number at .51 MeV or thereabouts, and what I tell them, it is exactly .5 MeV, if you use the Decimal number system for which computers use binary, and so many of the numbers of physics constants are off, not because Nature, but because of lousy binary. So that the monopole is .5 MeV, the speed of light is 3.00 not 2.9… the inverse fine structure constant is 137, not a fraction more or less. The Real Electron = Muon rest mass is exactly 105, and the proton is exactly 840 and neutron is exactly 945 MeV. Leave it to some stupid country club gaggle of physicists that when they see 938.27 for proton, could never ring any bells in their minds and connect 105.65 MeV muon. Now, if you had a bonehead physicists who got for the proton, got say 940.1 and for muon got say 105.2, just for instance, do you think the lights would have come on, upstairs? I doubt it. Because the way I discovered the Real Electron is the Muon, is because, to me 938 and 105, had the lights go on immediately. (I should dig up that history of 2016). Let me review how the lights came on for me that the Real Electron is the Muon. Back in 2016, I noticed the Elementary Particles that the muon was 105 and the proton was 938 MeV respectively, and to me, looking for patterns, my mind is never so rusty, so tarnished as is the minds of almost all physicists, for to me, 105 and 938, meant the proton was exactly 9 muons. But that was year 2016, and it was not until 2017, that I had to breakdown that idea that 9Muons = 1 Proton. By breaking it down to the fact that a Proton was 840 MeV and the Muon was the Real Electron and thus, the particle we had always thought was the electron, that puny small particle of .5 MeV was something else, and turns out to be the magnetic monopole and the source of electricity.


Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 11:50:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: is the proton that of 9 muons packed together? The 200 rest mass Rule
 /textbook 7th ed
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 18:50:59 +0000
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
is the proton that of 9 muons packed together? The 200 rest mass Rule /textbook 7th ed
1st Sequence 0.51,  105.7, 135, 139.6, 493.7, 497.7, 548.8
2nd Sequence 938.3, 939.6, 1116, 1189, 1192, 1197, 1315, 1321, 1672
If you are wondering where these numbers come from, they come from PHYSICS, Halliday & >Resnick, 1986, page A27 and are the electron-like rest masses and proton-like rest masses.
Electron, Muon, Pion, K meson, Eta meson
Proton, Neutron, Lambda, Sigma, Xi, Omega
(snipped)
.
.
.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
And the question of why 940 MeV for proton? While electron is a meagre .51 MeV. Now let me put >a thought out that may pan out, but not likely. Think of the proton of rest mass as 940 MeV and >consider that the muon is 105 MeV and that 9 Muons packed together makes a proton. Now that >sounds so far off the beaten tracks, because how could you assemble 9 negative charges to be a >single positive charge?
But there is a charming aspect to that idea, that the muon is the rest-mass giver.
AP
--- end of old 2016 post which lead to the discovery that the Real Electron = muon.---

This almost reminds me of astronomy, solar system of the spacing distance of planets per the Titius Bode Formula. I would be very happy to get a Titius Bode type of formula rule for particle rest mass.

Now, in the above, I spotted a sort of rule, called 200 rule.

The Neutron is 200 smaller than the lambda or sigma, and the sigma is 200 smaller than the Xi.

So I have a 200-rule for rest mass, since the electron=muon is roughly 200 larger in mass than the magnetic monopole at .5 MeV.

Is there such a thing as Proton Production as there is Monopole production in a Pair Production? Can a energetic photon produce protons? I suppose an experiment in a particle accelerator can find out if protons are produced with an anti-proton together. Perhaps one of these particles beyond the Omega particle of 1672 MeV has already validated Proton Pair Production. Or, if you consider the Real Proton at 840 MeV then it and its antiparticle sums to 1680 MeV, just a little above 1672 MeV.


For once, in science history, we can understand what electricity really is, and understand why AC can go far distance, yet DC is not far.

Amazing, true amazing, that electric current flow, is not the electrons, nor protons, but is magnetic monopoles doing the flowing, doing the current, doing electricity.

Electricity was never the motion of electrons, for electrons were muons. Electricity was always about the motion of monopoles that consist of .5MeV charge energy.

Yes, Worlds NEW VIEW of how Electricity really works.

And, this probably changes our complete view and understanding of the Metallic Bond, and valence. And, this should explain a whole lot easier the difference between AC and DC. Now Old Physics could explain what AC was, but they could not explain why AC goes so far in distance, never explain that with any degree of truth. Why AC is longer distance, is that the DC loop of a monopole weakens, but if you reverse current so fast, that the extinguishing of the geometry closed loop is not extinguished, but, made vivid and full each reversal.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-10 05:24:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 21:47:08 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Page22, 2-8, AP-Maxwell Equations of New Physics/ Atom-Totality-Universe/
textbook 8th ed 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2017 05:47:08 +0000

Page22, 2-8, AP-Maxwell Equations of New Physics/ Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017

The magnificent heights these 6 equations bring to all of science not just Physics.

So the AP Equations of EM are six

1) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /A*s^2
2) V = i*B*L New Ohm's law, law of electricity, defining the electric current and showing V dual to B
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, defining why current needs to go in a closed loop
6) (V/(i*B))' = L' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force


These laws compose the bulk of Physics other than the Atomic Theory-- concerned about what is matter and what is matter made up of. The EM physics and Atomic theory are the two foundations of all science, anything else is details of Atoms and EM. Atomic Physics is the material that the EM laws act upon and interact. A nice analogy is in math, where math has numbers-- Atomic theory, and the way numbers interact or act are the four operators of add, subtract, multiply, divide, so we can think of Atomic theory as numbers and EM laws as the operators on those numbers.

The Atomic theory includes the EM theory, for EM tells us the actions and interactions of atoms. In Old Physics, they kept fumbling around with Quantum Mechanics which was a collection of rules and data and principles, but all of that, of QM, belongs either in Atomic theory or EM theory. In this textbook we derive most of the QM principles from EM.

Now Maxwell actually had 8 Original Maxwell Equations, which, through the years were reduced to 4, and the modern day 4 equations are vector equations made by Heaviside. Maxwell had Old Ohm's law in one of his 8 equations. But sadly, Maxwell did not make Ohm's law as a starting axiom or principle to derive all the other laws. Instead, Maxwell used models "the molecular vortices model" to formulate his Equations. Here, all I do is make New Ohm's law primal axiom and derive other laws by differentiation on the permutations of New Ohm's law, as was seen above.

----Ampere-Maxwell law----
Now differentiating

V' = (i*B*L)'

Using the Product Rule of Calculus. Which is (fgh)' = f'gh + fg'h + fgh'

V' = i'*B*L + i*B'*L + i*B*L'

= i*B*L + i*V/m^2*L + i*B*spin energy

= i*B*L + i^2 + i*B*spin energy


Justification:: Applying these experimental results::

(i) The derivative of voltage is current A or i.

"To put this relationship between voltage and current in a capacitor in calculus terms, the current through a capacitor is the derivative of the voltage across the capacitor with respect to time. Or, stated in more simple terms, a capacitor's current is directly proportional to how quickly the voltage across it is changing." (web)

(ii) The derivative of charge is current.

"The momentary current is given by the derivative of the electric charge by time. i(t) is the momentary current i at time t in amps (A). Q(t) is the momentary electric charge in coulombs (C). deltaQ is the electric charge in coulombs (C), that flows at time duration of delta t. " (web)

(iii) The derivative of current is current, rate of change of the current.

(iv) The derivative of magnetic field B is V/m^2. This makes B as proportional to 1/s^2 go to 1/s^3, to go from B looking to more like V. So you turn B into a quasi state V

(v) The derivative of momentum is force, and angular momentum m^2/s is force to energy m^2/s^2.

Now the above result of V' = 2 i_accel * R_ordered, which is basically V' = 2iR is Ampere-Maxwell law where a current in, yields two overall currents.


-----Faraday law-----

More differentiating

(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

= (i^2L - ViL -Vi spin)/ i^2L^2

Now applying the rules again::

(i) The derivative of voltage is current A or i.

(ii) The derivative of charge is current.

(iii) The derivative of current is accelerated current, call it i_accel

(iv) The derivative of Resistance R is more ordered more patterned resistance, let me call it R_ordered.

We have (V'R - VR') / R^2 =( iR - VR_ordered ) / R^2

Since V= iR we have (iR - iR^2_ordered)/ R^2

This ends up as (i - iR_ordered)/R

So that can be written as this, (i + i (-R_ordered)) / R where you have a direction of motion of R_ordered

This of course is the Faraday law with Lenz law as -R_ordered


Spin Law

(V/(B*L))' = i'

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

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

i' = (iBL -V(V/m^2)L - VBspin / B^2L^2


Having applied the rules again::

(i) The derivative of voltage is current A or i.

(ii) The derivative of charge is current.

(iii) The derivative of current is accelerated current, call it i_accel

(iv) The derivative of Resistance R is more ordered more patterned resistance, let me call it R_ordered.

i' = - (ii*L)

This is another new law Maxwell never saw. It gives rise to all spin terms in physics, from the particle spin, photon, neutrino, proton, electron, atoms, on up to planet spin, star spin and galaxy spin. It is what caused Hitomi spacecraft and later Juno spacecraft to go erratic.


Coulomb's law with EM-gravity law

More differentiating

(V/(i*B))' = L'

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

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

Having applied the rules again::

(i) The derivative of voltage is current A or i.

(ii) The derivative of charge is current.

(iii) The derivative of current is accelerated current, call it i_accel

(iv) The derivative of Resistance R is more ordered more patterned resistance, let me call it R_ordered.
So far we have R' = (ii - Vi_accelerated )/ i^2


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

L' = (i^2B - B^3- V^2i) / i^2B^2

L' = (i^2B - B^3- V^2i) / i^2B^2


This is a law that Maxwell had never seen, for it is EM-Gravity law.
It has the form of (kAA + jBB + hCC)/d^2 for an ellipse for planets to orbit the Sun, and it has so much more. And what it does is create a track in astronomy for stars or planets or moons to orbit, and not only tracks, but the planet pushes the moons in their track and the Sun pushes the planets in their tracks, call it an i current type of a push in the track. So gravity is seen not only as a gravitational attraction or pull, but also as a push in a track. So the law creates EM tracks and pushes the mass in the track to orbit. Now that makes a lot of sense, does it not for we can easily picture the Sun as a electric generator pushing monopoles (planets) to flow around in circles as a electric current.

Now, what this new law says is quite astounding for it is the motion law and why gravity is EM and why gravity has a range of motion varying from R to 1/R to 1/R^2, where R is radius.

So instead of .5 MeV monopoles flowing in wire or coil as electricity, here we have stars flowing around galaxies, and planets flowing around Sun. The law of the derivative of Resistance (B*L) is that Space is Magnetic Field, lines of force forming TRACKS in Space and the planets and stars follow along those tracks, just as monopoles follow along the copper wire. But not only follow in these tracks, but given a force of pushing the planets along in those tracks.

Finally the L' looks like the force of gravity as (kAA+jBB)/d^2 and is the copper wire in Faraday, Ampere laws. The L' equation is a new one, which Maxwell totally missed. Maxwell had nothing for the copper wires in Ampere and Faraday laws. It is a nasty habit of most scientists, that they leave things out, figuring they were not "science in general". Thinking that generalization is what science is all about, and forget the specifics.

Now if I include New Ohm's law itself along with the four differential equations, and the Magnetic field law, I believe I have captured all the laws of EM theory. So confident am I in capturing all the laws of EM theory, that I suspect Dirac Equation is set to be revised and derived from these 6 equations of EM.

Looking back, of course the idea that the electron was such a tiny puny little particle of .5MeV whilst the neutron was 945 MeV, was very much silly. Silly in not doing chemical bonding and silly in thinking electrons were moving in electricity. An electron= muon can exist with charge, moving in a circular motion. If neutral charge, it moves linearly, linear momentum.

So in the AP Equations of EM, the law of electricity and magnetism are contained in the New Ohm's law. Then, the Ampere-Maxwell, Faraday, and spin laws and the Coulomb-EM-gravity law come out of the differentiation of New Ohm's law.

And we see that three of the four laws of EM are of the math form of (kAA + jBB)/d^2 for the reason that it is quotient rule of differential calculus. Looks like I got exactly what I wanted of (kAA+jBB)/d^2 and more.

And, already, I have a question, puzzling me. For the equations above for EM theory involve equations of terms that are forces themselves. Voltage is a force even a power, and in a sense, resistance is a force-- like Lenz's law and in a sense current can be seen as monopoles in motion as a force, the monopoles pushing or pulling other monopoles.

So are the Equations of EM supposed to be forces as terms, where we multiply forces, add subtract forces, divide by forces. I can picture adding several forces, but here we multiply forces. So is this the first time in physics that we have forces as the terms in the laws. Usually the laws are terms that build up to being a force, but here we have multiplication and division of forces. Later in this book I discuss how the important equation of Chemistry, the ideal gas law PV = nRT is a form of New Ohm's law, only for chemistry. So that the Ideal Gas Law of Chemistry was a harbinger of what the true EM laws must turn out to be.

Alright I am content the above is true, and where V = i*B*L is the Law of Electricity, basically a current flow. A electric current is a flow of magnetic monopoles, those .5 MeV particles that are photons or neutrinos dressed up with a charge.

So where is Coulomb's law now located? I believe it is under the new law of L' = (V/(i*B))'. This makes sense in that Coulomb and gravity laws are the same, indistinguishable, and that they both vary from R to 1/R to 1/R^2.

In Old Physics, they had a mistaken argument that Coulomb's law was under Gauss's law of electricity. And a silly argument that they used the Gauss math of vector fields with a inverse square that they assumed what it was they were suppose to prove. In Logic, it is a boo-boo, a big no-no, to assume what it is you are demanded to prove. We have a beautiful example of that error in mathematics where the Ancient Greek Apollonius discovered conic sections and he thought, wrongly that the ellipse was a conic section when in truth it was a Oval. And this mistake lasted for thousands of years, and then along comes a Belgian named Dandelin in 1822, who assumed the section was a ellipse, not paying any attention for the validity of that assumption. So when you assume something true when it is really false, you easily can prove anything. Here in New Physics, we outright say this new law is the Coulomb law.

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

Comment: Alright, excellent, I have found what this .5 MeV particle is, and how electricity and electric current work, what they are and how they work. It is a huge relief to me, to finally be able to view and understand how in Faraday's law, by thrusting a bar magnet through closed loop of wire produces electricity. It is because the Lines of Force in magnetism are monopoles of closed loops and when we thrust, those monopoles jump onto the wire and flow as electricity in the wire. It was never about electrons moving, but rather, about monopoles as closed loops moving.

As I said earlier, this discovery causes vast sweeping changes in Chemistry, Physics, and Biology. Some of the minor issues that have to be severely revised are (1) metallic bond (2) lightening as a phenomenon (3) theory of electricity (4) nerves in biology (5) how the brain works (6) Plate tectonics in geology, etc etc

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-10 22:34:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 18:35:40 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Page23, 2-9, AP- Equations, reviewing them/ Electricity is really the
flow of monopoles/Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 02:35:41 +0000


Page23, 2-9, AP- Equations, reviewing them/ Electricity is really the flow of monopoles/Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017

Alright let us lay them bare and see if they make total perfect sense
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

Ampere-Maxwell Law

V' = B*B*L + i*V*L + i*B*(i_C)

I need a magnetic field, and a displacement current, at minimum. Looks as though I got all two. But I get something more, a third term of iB*(i_C), and what I think this is, is a capacitor current. The Old Maxwell Equations were too much cherry picking, picking only what their heart's desired but not picking everything present. So when you put in a electric current, you put in a lot of energy, energy not accounted for, once and after you cherry pick a magnetic field and a displacement current of iVL. What the Old Maxwell Equations had to do, to get in everything was energy in had to settle with energy out. So the energy, not used to form magnetic field and displacement current was a Capacitor Current, the third term above.

Faraday law  

B' = 1/L - VB/i^2L - V/L^2

I need electricity and Lenz law. I get electricity in spades (slang) in the middle term VB/i^2L and I get Lenz law in third term V/L^2. However, I get something totally new and missed by Maxwell, a imparted spin on the apparatus of 1/L. What this is, is the fact that electricity is circular motion, and what more circular is there, than the electric motor itself. So oddly enough, the Old Maxwell Equations never really tells you that electric motors spin in circles.


New Spin Law  

i' = - (ii*L)

Totally new to Maxwell Equations, that Electricity and Magnetism, as the two exist together, they cause spin in the world. All matter is composed of electricity and magnetism, all matter. And so, all matter has spin, from the tiniest of matter particles, the electron, proton, atoms on up to planets, stars, galaxies. All have spin.

Coulomb law which includes gravity as EM

L' = (i^2B - B^3- V^2i) / i^2B^2

Totally new law, and Maxwell mistakenly thought Coulomb's law was inside Gauss's law of electricity. Mistaken because Gauss's law of electricity is inverse square and so they assumed that meant Coulomb.

What I needed here, is a Coulomb law that varies in range from Solid Body Rotation, to that of 1/radius, to that of rotation proportional to 1/radius^2. In the above, as you can see with the factor of B^2 in denominator I get a range of force strength of 1/B in first term, B in second term, and 1/B^2 in third term. What we have come to accept as Newton gravity and General Relativity gravity is all packaged in the third term, but the three terms combined is far more than gravity itself. Gravity is all inside L', and what it says is that the Earth goes around the Sun because the Sun creates tracks in the sky by its electricity and magnetism, and the Earth moves inside these Sun tracks and is pushed along inside those Sun tracks by the Coulomb force. In this fashion, can we get a Sun moving around the Milky Way Galaxy with a speed of 230 km/s

Sun 230 km/s orbital speed around Milky Way
Mercury, 0.24 yr orbital period, 47.87 km/s orbital speed
Venus, 0.61 yr orbital period, 35.02 km/s orbital speed
Earth, 1 yr orbital period, 29.78 km/s orbital speed 

Moon , 27 days orbit, 1 km/s orbital speed
Mars, 1.8 yrs orbital period, 24.07 km/s orbital speed

Jupiter, 11.86 yrs orbital period, 13.07 km/s orbital speed 

Saturn, 29.45 yrs orbital period, 9.69 km/s orbital speed 

Uranus, 84.32 yrs orbital period, 6.81 km/s orbital speed 

Neptune, 164.79 yrs orbital period, 5.43 km/s orbital speed

EM gravity is where electricity and magnetism compose the force, where EM creates tracks of magnetism and voltage, and mass is pushed along inside those tracks. This is the only way you can explain how a Sun, hurdling through Space at 230 Km/sec and carrying alongside it all these planets.

Gravity as per Newton or General Relativity are so weak, so very weak, 10^40 weaker than EM, that if gravity of Newton and GR were in charge, then instantly, those planets would be dropped off and left behind in Space as the Sun goes its own way.

We hear of a term called "gravitationally locked", two mass bodies as gravitationally locked together. What that means is that they are magnetically bound together by EM, where the electricity and magnetism of the two bodies is creating a track and the two are pushing one another in the tracks.


So the AP Equations of EM are six// reviewing them

So the AP Equations of EM are six

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

Ampere-Maxwell Law

V' = (iBL)' = i'*B*L + i*B'*L + i*B*L'

= B*B*L + i*V*L + i*B*(i_C)

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

= 1/L - VB/i^2L - V/L^2


New Spin Law

i' = ((i_C)*V -VVL - V(i_C) / R^2

i' = -VVL/R^2  

i' = - (ii*L)

Coulomb law

(V/(i*B))' = L'

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

L' = (i^2B - B^3- V^2i) / i^2B^2

With the B term we see it is reflected as 1/B then B then 1/B^2 which is the analog of Coulomb force ranging from Radius to 1/Radius to 1/Radius^2

There were 4 Maxwell laws, 4 equations and I ended up adding two new laws-- the spin law and the law of Coulomb as a force that varies over a range of R to 1/R to 1/R^2.

However, let me include another law, a domain law for which in the six laws listed above, can work. The Domain being atoms and atomic physics. So the Atomic theory is the domain, and so I really have 7 laws altogether, making up all of physics and all the other sciences.

(1). Law Of What There Is-- Atomic theory, that atoms exist and are composed of subatomic particles and most of an atom in volume is empty space. All the facts of Chemistry along with Atomic Theory is the Law Of What There Is. Let us name this law the Law of Chemistry-facts.

AP- Equations, there are 6 Equations and those equations tell us the forces and energy among atoms, the domain of atoms.

Since I ended up altering the entire work of Maxwell, so that Old Maxwell Equations are barely recognizable, let me call it the AP theory of EM.

The 6 AP Equations and the 7 Laws of Physics and all sciences

0) domain law as Atomic Theory
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

The Real Electron is 105 MeV, the muon and the Real Proton is 840 MeV and the Real Neutron is 945 MeV. What we thought was the electron , that puny tiny small little .5 MeV turns out to be the Magnetic Monopole, (I sometimes call it a Magnepole). What is a Monopole? It is a photon or neutrino, either one that has been dressed up (superposition) with a .5 MeV of charge energy, not rest mass energy but charge energy and this charge energy causes the underlying photon or neutrino to travel in a arc or curve manner so as to loop around, and is what magnets have as Lines of Force.

This happens to be the world's first, proper explanation and understanding of what is electricity and what is current. Before 2017, everyone thought electricity and electric current was the movement of electrons, electrons as .5MeV particles with charge -1. Turns out that is false. The electron is really the muon that particle of -1 charge but of 105 MeV and the proton is 840 MeV. The muon and proton are not in motion to produce electricity. What is in motion is the .5 MeV particle, but that particle is not a little ball like particle, but rather is a full closed loop, like a circle or ellipse.

So in the Faraday Law, what the thrusting bar magnet is doing to create a current in the copper wire, is not "cutting the lines of force" that makes the electrons in the wire move, no, that is not the explanation. What is happening is that entire Lines of Force of the magnet-- as loops, jump off of the bar magnet and jump into the copper wire closed loop-- these loops being of .5 MeV energy, and is the electric current, is the electricity.

So, our entire view and understanding of what is electricity, what is electric current, changed in 2017.


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::
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 03:10:14 +0000
Analysis of Dirac's monopole of 137/2 Re: Huge huge changes in all sciences with discovery Real Electron = muon
Alright, I am looking at Dirac's page 45, in Directions in Physics, 1978, on how he calculates the charge on the magnetic monopole.
--- quoting Dirac ---

If we then take a closed surface surrounding this singularity, the total magnetic flux going through this closed surface, when multiplied by e/hbar*c, will be equal to 2pi*n

e/hbar*c Integral H dot dS = 2pi*n         (18)

Now, if we have a magnetic flux crossing a closed surface, it means that there is some magnetic monopole inside the surface. If we call the strength of that monopole u, we should have

Integral H dot dS = 4pi*u         (19)

as a magnetic analogue of the Gauss theorem of electrostatics. It says that the magnetic flux crossing a closed surface, enclosing a magnetic monopole of strength u, is equal to 4pi times that enclosed pole strength. If we now compare (19) with the result (18) for flux crossing a closed surface enclosing the end of a nodal line we obtain

u = hbar*c*n/2e

as the expression for the strength of the magnetic monopole.

--- end quoting Dirac on how he gets the monopole to be 137/2 the charge of 1 proton charge ---
Now, I am careful to say the proton charge of +1 charge, because, well, I am after how Dirac flubbed up. I cannot say electron charge of -1 unit charge because, well, I think Dirac messed up, because he did not know that the Real Electron is the Muon with 105 MeV and Real Proton is 840 MeV and that this strange strange tiny particle of .5 MeV which Dirac thought was the electron, turns out to be the magnetic monopole itself.
So, unless I can fetch out that 137/2 is the same as .5 MeV, then, Dirac's exercise is all wrong, all flawed in search of something with illusionary attributes.
I am still hopeful that Dirac's 137/2 has some physical meaning and relevant to the true fact that the .5 MeV particle that is truly the Magnetic Monopole is somehow connected to 137/2.
Can it be that 137/2 is equal to .5MeV, meaning that 137 the inverse fine structure constant is 1 MeV ??
Here I need to look up Permeability and Permittivity where MeV units appear again
Permittivity = 8.85* 10^-12 F/m
Permeability = 1.26* 10^-6 H/m
If we divide Permeability/Permittivity, but, first, we get rid of the prefix numbers 1.26 and 8.85, because those are highly variable, just as the radius or diameter of different atoms is variable depending on what atom you pick. But what is not variable is the power of 10 of 10^-12 and 10^-6.
We have 1* 10^-6 H/m / 1* 10^-12 F/m
We essentially have 1 MeV, and now we equilibrate 1MeV with the inverse fine structure constant 137, and thus .5MeV is the charge energy of the magnetic monopole. And the 1MeV is the charge energy of the photon.
AP
a***@gmail.com
2018-02-11 00:10:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 18:35:40 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Page23, 2-9, AP- Equations, reviewing them/ Electricity is really the
flow of monopoles/Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017
Injection-Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 02:35:41 +0000
Page23, 2-9, AP- Equations, reviewing them/ Electricity is really the flow of monopoles/Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017
Alright let us lay them bare and see if they make total perfect sense
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
Ampere-Maxwell Law
V' = B*B*L + i*V*L + i*B*(i_C)
I need a magnetic field, and a displacement current, at minimum. Looks as though I got all two. But I get something more, a third term of iB*(i_C), and what I think this is, is a capacitor current. The Old Maxwell Equations were too much cherry picking, picking only what their heart's desired but not picking everything present. So when you put in a electric current, you put in a lot of energy, energy not accounted for, once and after you cherry pick a magnetic field and a displacement current of iVL. What the Old Maxwell Equations had to do, to get in everything was energy in had to settle with energy out. So the energy, not used to form magnetic field and displacement current was a Capacitor Current, the third term above.
Faraday law  
B' = 1/L - VB/i^2L - V/L^2
I need electricity and Lenz law. I get electricity in spades (slang) in the middle term VB/i^2L and I get Lenz law in third term V/L^2. However, I get something totally new and missed by Maxwell, a imparted spin on the apparatus of 1/L. What this is, is the fact that electricity is circular motion, and what more circular is there, than the electric motor itself. So oddly enough, the Old Maxwell Equations never really tells you that electric motors spin in circles.
New Spin Law  
i' = - (ii*L)
Totally new to Maxwell Equations, that Electricity and Magnetism, as the two exist together, they cause spin in the world. All matter is composed of electricity and magnetism, all matter. And so, all matter has spin, from the tiniest of matter particles, the electron, proton, atoms on up to planets, stars, galaxies. All have spin.
Coulomb law which includes gravity as EM
L' = (i^2B - B^3- V^2i) / i^2B^2
Totally new law, and Maxwell mistakenly thought Coulomb's law was inside Gauss's law of electricity. Mistaken because Gauss's law of electricity is inverse square and so they assumed that meant Coulomb.
What I needed here, is a Coulomb law that varies in range from Solid Body Rotation, to that of 1/radius, to that of rotation proportional to 1/radius^2. In the above, as you can see with the factor of B^2 in denominator I get a range of force strength of 1/B in first term, B in second term, and 1/B^2 in third term. What we have come to accept as Newton gravity and General Relativity gravity is all packaged in the third term, but the three terms combined is far more than gravity itself. Gravity is all inside L', and what it says is that the Earth goes around the Sun because the Sun creates tracks in the sky by its electricity and magnetism, and the Earth moves inside these Sun tracks and is pushed along inside those Sun tracks by the Coulomb force. In this fashion, can we get a Sun moving around the Milky Way Galaxy with a speed of 230 km/s
Sun 230 km/s orbital speed around Milky Way
Mercury, 0.24 yr orbital period, 47.87 km/s orbital speed
Venus, 0.61 yr orbital period, 35.02 km/s orbital speed
Earth, 1 yr orbital period, 29.78 km/s orbital speed 

Moon , 27 days orbit, 1 km/s orbital speed
Mars, 1.8 yrs orbital period, 24.07 km/s orbital speed

Jupiter, 11.86 yrs orbital period, 13.07 km/s orbital speed 

Saturn, 29.45 yrs orbital period, 9.69 km/s orbital speed 

Uranus, 84.32 yrs orbital period, 6.81 km/s orbital speed 

Neptune, 164.79 yrs orbital period, 5.43 km/s orbital speed
EM gravity is where electricity and magnetism compose the force, where EM creates tracks of magnetism and voltage, and mass is pushed along inside those tracks. This is the only way you can explain how a Sun, hurdling through Space at 230 Km/sec and carrying alongside it all these planets.
Gravity as per Newton or General Relativity are so weak, so very weak, 10^40 weaker than EM, that if gravity of Newton and GR were in charge, then instantly, those planets would be dropped off and left behind in Space as the Sun goes its own way.
We hear of a term called "gravitationally locked", two mass bodies as gravitationally locked together. What that means is that they are magnetically bound together by EM, where the electricity and magnetism of the two bodies is creating a track and the two are pushing one another in the tracks.
So the AP Equations of EM are six// reviewing them
So the AP Equations of EM are six
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
Ampere-Maxwell Law
V' = (iBL)' = i'*B*L + i*B'*L + i*B*L'
= B*B*L + i*V*L + i*B*(i_C)
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
= 1/L - VB/i^2L - V/L^2
New Spin Law
i' = ((i_C)*V -VVL - V(i_C) / R^2
i' = -VVL/R^2  
i' = - (ii*L)
Coulomb law
(V/(i*B))' = L'
(V/(i*B))'  = (V'*i*B - V*i' B - V*i*B') / (i*B)^2
L' = (i^2B - B^3- V^2i) / i^2B^2
With the B term we see it is reflected as 1/B then B then 1/B^2 which is the analog of Coulomb force ranging from Radius to 1/Radius to 1/Radius^2
There were 4 Maxwell laws, 4 equations and I ended up adding two new laws-- the spin law and the law of Coulomb as a force that varies over a range of R to 1/R to 1/R^2.
However, let me include another law, a domain law for which in the six laws listed above, can work. The Domain being atoms and atomic physics. So the Atomic theory is the domain, and so I really have 7 laws altogether, making up all of physics and all the other sciences.
(1). Law Of What There Is-- Atomic theory, that atoms exist and are composed of subatomic particles and most of an atom in volume is empty space. All the facts of Chemistry along with Atomic Theory is the Law Of What There Is. Let us name this law the Law of Chemistry-facts.
AP- Equations, there are 6 Equations and those equations tell us the forces and energy among atoms, the domain of atoms.
Since I ended up altering the entire work of Maxwell, so that Old Maxwell Equations are barely recognizable, let me call it the AP theory of EM.
The 6 AP Equations and the 7 Laws of Physics and all sciences
0) domain law as Atomic Theory
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
The Real Electron is 105 MeV, the muon and the Real Proton is 840 MeV and the Real Neutron is 945 MeV. What we thought was the electron , that puny tiny small little .5 MeV turns out to be the Magnetic Monopole, (I sometimes call it a Magnepole). What is a Monopole? It is a photon or neutrino, either one that has been dressed up (superposition) with a .5 MeV of charge energy, not rest mass energy but charge energy and this charge energy causes the underlying photon or neutrino to travel in a arc or curve manner so as to loop around, and is what magnets have as Lines of Force.
This happens to be the world's first, proper explanation and understanding of what is electricity and what is current. Before 2017, everyone thought electricity and electric current was the movement of electrons, electrons as .5MeV particles with charge -1. Turns out that is false. The electron is really the muon that particle of -1 charge but of 105 MeV and the proton is 840 MeV. The muon and proton are not in motion to produce electricity. What is in motion is the .5 MeV particle, but that particle is not a little ball like particle, but rather is a full closed loop, like a circle or ellipse.
So in the Faraday Law, what the thrusting bar magnet is doing to create a current in the copper wire, is not "cutting the lines of force" that makes the electrons in the wire move, no, that is not the explanation. What is happening is that entire Lines of Force of the magnet-- as loops, jump off of the bar magnet and jump into the copper wire closed loop-- these loops being of .5 MeV energy, and is the electric current, is the electricity.
So, our entire view and understanding of what is electricity, what is electric current, changed in 2017.
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
Injection-Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2017 03:10:14 +0000
Analysis of Dirac's monopole of 137/2 Re: Huge huge changes in all sciences with discovery Real Electron = muon
Alright, I am looking at Dirac's page 45, in Directions in Physics, 1978, on how he calculates the charge on the magnetic monopole.
--- quoting Dirac ---
If we then take a closed surface surrounding this singularity, the total magnetic flux going through this closed surface, when multiplied by e/hbar*c, will be equal to 2pi*n
e/hbar*c Integral H dot dS = 2pi*n         (18)
Now, if we have a magnetic flux crossing a closed surface, it means that there is some magnetic monopole inside the surface. If we call the strength of that monopole u, we should have
Integral H dot dS = 4pi*u         (19)
as a magnetic analogue of the Gauss theorem of electrostatics. It says that the magnetic flux crossing a closed surface, enclosing a magnetic monopole of strength u, is equal to 4pi times that enclosed pole strength. If we now compare (19) with the result (18) for flux crossing a closed surface enclosing the end of a nodal line we obtain
u = hbar*c*n/2e
as the expression for the strength of the magnetic monopole.
--- end quoting Dirac on how he gets the monopole to be 137/2 the charge of 1 proton charge ---
Now, I am careful to say the proton charge of +1 charge, because, well, I am after how Dirac flubbed up. I cannot say electron charge of -1 unit charge because, well, I think Dirac messed up, because he did not know that the Real Electron is the Muon with 105 MeV and Real Proton is 840 MeV and that this strange strange tiny particle of .5 MeV which Dirac thought was the electron, turns out to be the magnetic monopole itself.
So, unless I can fetch out that 137/2 is the same as .5 MeV, then, Dirac's exercise is all wrong, all flawed in search of something with illusionary attributes.
I am still hopeful that Dirac's 137/2 has some physical meaning and relevant to the true fact that the .5 MeV particle that is truly the Magnetic Monopole is somehow connected to 137/2.
Can it be that 137/2 is equal to .5MeV, meaning that 137 the inverse fine structure constant is 1 MeV ??
Here I need to look up Permeability and Permittivity where MeV units appear again
Permittivity = 8.85* 10^-12 F/m
Permeability = 1.26* 10^-6 H/m
If we divide Permeability/Permittivity, but, first, we get rid of the prefix numbers 1.26 and 8.85, because those are highly variable, just as the radius or diameter of different atoms is variable depending on what atom you pick. But what is not variable is the power of 10 of 10^-12 and 10^-6.
We have 1* 10^-6 H/m / 1* 10^-12 F/m
We essentially have 1 MeV, and now we equilibrate 1MeV with the inverse fine structure constant 137, and thus .5MeV is the charge energy of the magnetic monopole. And the 1MeV is the charge energy of the photon.
AP
This all hogwash. All our references (and you) are using the old fake value of pi.
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-11 02:11:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 19:12:12 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Page24, 2-10, EM theory becomes the axioms of physics as to how atoms
work / what electricity truly is-- magnetic monopole/ Atom-Totality-Universe
/ textbook 8th ed 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 03:12:12 +0000



Page24, 2-10, EM theory becomes the axioms of physics as to how atoms work / what electricity truly is-- magnetic monopole/ Atom-Totality-Universe / textbook 8th ed 2017

I am going to leave this chapter with a bit more history, for it is probably the last time in physics history we ever hear of the Maxwell Equations, for now they are the AP Equations of physics. I changed too many of the old Maxwell Equations. In the next chapter, I aim to discuss in detail, how EM gravity makes astronomy work, and not the Newton gravity nor its silly extension of General Relativity. And, as I write this, is recent news of Cassini space probe disintegration into Saturn, after studying Saturn for many years-- especially the fact that Saturn north pole is a hexagon. Newton gravity nor General Relativity can never give a shape of a hexagon, but EM gravity can, routinely give a hexagon shape-- just look at a snowflake is hexagon because of Van der Waals force, an EM force, and gravity is EM. So, the next chapter in this textbook, I do EM theory is to show how EM gravity works. Which is very, very exciting. But leaving now with a bit more history.

I need a page to summarize what Maxwell equations of 1860s were.

Maxwell's actual Faraday law: F = u(vxH) - dA/dt - electric potential, compared to my Faraday law
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

= 1/L - VB/i^2L - V/L^2
 
Here is a website that displays the Ohm's law as part of Maxwell Equations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Maxwell%27s_equations

The eight original Maxwell's equations can be written in modern vector notation as follows:
(A) The law of total currents
J t o t = J + ∂ D ∂ t

(B) The equation of magnetic force
μ H = ∇ × A

(C) Ampère's circuital law
∇ × H = J t o t

(D) Electromotive force created by convection, induction, and by static electricity. (This is in effect the Lorentz force)
E = μ v × H − ∂ A ∂ t − ∇ ϕ

(E) The electric elasticity equation
E = 1 ε D

(F) Ohm's law
E = 1 σ J

(G) Gauss's law
∇ ⋅ D = ρ

(H) Equation of continuity
∇ ⋅ J = − ∂ ρ ∂ t

or
∇ ⋅ J t o t = 0

Notation
H is the magnetizing field, which Maxwell called the magnetic intensity.
J is the current density (with Jtot being the total current including displacement current).[note 1]
D is the displacement field (called the electric displacement by Maxwell).
ρ is the free charge density (called the quantity of free electricity by Maxwell).
A is the magnetic potential (called the angular impulse by Maxwell).
E is called the electromotive force by Maxwell. The term electromotive force is nowadays used for voltage, but it is clear from the context that Maxwell's meaning corresponded more to the modern term electric field.
φ is the electric potential (which Maxwell also called electric potential).
σ is the electrical conductivity (Maxwell called the inverse of conductivity the specific resistance, what is now called the resistivity).
Equation D, with the μv × H term, is effectively the Lorentz force, similarly to equation (77) of his 1861 paper (see above).
When Maxwell derives the electromagnetic wave equation in his 1865 paper, he uses equation D to cater for electromagnetic induction rather than Faraday's law of induction which is used in modern textbooks. (Faraday's law itself does not appear among his equations.) However, Maxwell drops the μv × H term from equation D when he is deriving the electromagnetic wave equation, as he considers the situation only from the rest frame.

Here is the website that attempts to show the Maxwell Equation without the Heaviside corruption:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Dynamical_Theory_of_the_Electromagnetic_Field

Equations of Electromotive Force.
P = μ ( γ d y d t − β d z d t ) − d F d t − d Ψ d x ,
Q = μ ( α d z d t − γ d x d t ) − d G d t − d Ψ d y ,

R = μ ( β d x d t − α d y d t ) − d H d t − d Ψ d z .

The first term on the right-hand side of each equation represents the electromotive force arising from the motion of the conductor itself. This electromotive force is perpendicular to the direction of motion and to the lines of magnetic force; and if a parallelogram be drawn whose sides represent in direction and magnitude the velocity of the conductor and the magnetic induction at that point of the field, then the area of the parallelogram will represent the electromotive force due to the motion of the conductor, and the direction of the force is perpendicular to the plane of the parallelogram.
The second term in each equation indicates the effect of changes in the position or strength of magnets or currents in the field.
The third term shows the effect of the electric potential It has no effect in causing a circulating current in a closed circuit. It indicates the existence of a force urging the electricity to or from certain definite points in the field.

End quoting from Wikipedia on Maxwell Equations.

Note: the original Maxwell Equations have three terms on rightside, in full agreement with the AP-Equations with 3 terms on rightside.

Now in the year 2016, while looking for patterns in the Elementary Particles of Physics, looking for patterns, I quickly spotted that the proton was just about 9 muons, just shy of exactitude by less than 1% discrepancy. In this part of physics, where measurement is so difficult, that a 1% discrepancy is as good as exactitude.

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 11:50:59 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: is the proton that of 9 muons packed together? The 200 rest mass Rule
 /textbook 7th ed
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 18:50:59 +0000
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
is the proton that of 9 muons packed together? The 200 rest mass Rule /textbook 7th ed
1st Sequence 0.51,  105.7, 135, 139.6, 493.7, 497.7, 548.8
2nd Sequence 938.3, 939.6, 1116, 1189, 1192, 1197, 1315, 1321, 1672
If you are wondering where these numbers come from, they come from PHYSICS, Halliday & >Resnick, 1986, page A27 and are the electron-like rest masses and proton-like rest masses.
Electron, Muon, Pion, K meson, Eta meson
Proton, Neutron, Lambda, Sigma, Xi, Omega
(snipped)
.
.
.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
And the question of why 940 MeV for proton? While electron is a meagre .51 MeV. Now let me put >a thought out that may pan out, but not likely. Think of the proton of rest mass as 940 MeV and >consider that the muon is 105 MeV and that 9 Muons packed together makes a proton. Now that >sounds so far off the beaten tracks, because how could you assemble 9 negative charges to be a >single positive charge?
But there is a charming aspect to that idea, that the muon is the rest-mass giver.
AP
--- end of old post of mine of 2016, leading the way to the discovery that Real Electron=muon.---

Let me summarize that discovery: Leave it to some stupid country club gaggle of physicists that when they see 938 MeV for proton, could never ring any bells in their minds and connect 105 MeV muon. Now, if you had a bonehead physicists who got for the proton, got say 940 and for muon got say 105, just for instance, do you think the lights would have come on, upstairs? I doubt it. Because the way I discovered the Real Electron is the Muon, is because, to me 938 and 105, had the lights go on immediately. (I should dig up that history of 2016). Let me review how the lights came on for me that the Real Electron is the Muon. Back in 2016, I noticed the Elementary Particles that the muon was 105 and the proton was 938 MeV respectively, and to me, looking for patterns, my mind is never so rusty, so tarnished as is the minds of almost all physicists, for to me, 105 and 938, meant the proton was exactly 9 muons. For the math is that of 9x105 = 945 and subtracting 945-938 = 7, so a percentage discrepancy of less than 1% discrepancy. So in physics a 1 percent or less discrepancy on these parameters of particle physics is as good as exactness, that the muon is really 105 and the neutron is really 840+105 = 945, where the proton is a 8xMuon = 840 MeV. But that was year 2016, and it was not until 2017, that I had to breakdown that idea that 9Muons = 1 Proton. By breaking it down to the fact that a Proton was 840 MeV and the Muon was the Real Electron and the neutron was 945 MeV and thus, the particle we had always thought was the electron, that puny small particle of .5 MeV was something else, and turns out to be the magnetic monopole and the source of electricity.


But now, let me write of a very great experiment performed in 2017, showing that the Magnetic Monopole is the true electric current, never electrons flowing, but magnetic monopoles flowing (or jumping ship from one ship to another ship). This experiment I like to call the Pre Faraday law of Magnetic Induction, because, it involves no thrusting bar magnet and no copper wire. It involves just two stationary magnets. And it proves that what creates the electric current, is that loops of closed circles of one magnet jump ship to the other magnet, and vice versa. It proves that electricity and electric current are monopoles of .5 MeV looping from one magnetic field to flow (jump ship) onto a different closed loop (whether a loop of wire or a different magnets closed loops line-of-force). So we see current and electricity in a whole new light, whole new view. It is the flow of loops of monopoles.

Outline of AP's Magnetic Induction Experiment:

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 03:26:02 -0800 (PST)

Subject: just 2 magnets giving me a permanent voltage-- proof the .5 MeV is a monopole
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2017 11:26:02 +0000


just 2 magnets giving me a permanent voltage-- proof the .5 MeV is a monopole

This year i discovered the Real Electron is 105 MeV and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. A monopole not with .5MeV of rest-mass but with .5 MeV of charge energy.

If true it should have a reading of a permanent DC voltage from two powerful nearby stationary magnets, 3cm apart on a magnetic board. I have a costly multimeter. Now as i measure one magnet individually the meter jumps in value but settles on 0 reading.

However, if i put one electrode on one magnet and the other electrode on the second magnet i get a permanent reading of .002 volts dc.

The way i interpret this (maybe i am wrong) is that the lines of force of one magnet, closed loops jumping ship with lines of force from other magnet. These loops are .5MeV particles causing a voltage, permanent voltage.

So this is like a Faraday law induction experiment, only the magnets are stationary and no closed loop of copper wire.

This, if true, may serve as proof that the .5MeV thought to be electron is after all a magnetic monopole.

I have an expensive Fluke multimeter and powerful neodymium magnets.

AP


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


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

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

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

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

Comments::

Equilibrating the Permittivity with Permeability, in order to see that monopoles are .5MeV

Here I need to look up Permeability and Permittivity where MeV units appear again

Permittivity = 8.85* 10^-12 F/m

Permeability = 1.26* 10^-6 H/m

Now as mentioned previously that those are quantized increments of 10^6, for we can drop the prefix numbers of 8.85 and 1.26. In EM, those constants of permeability and permittivity are of relative and absolute constants so the prefix numbers are highly variable, and just like in radii or diameter of nuclei versus electron shell distances, highly variable depending on the atom in question. What is not variable is the ratio of 10^-12 to 10^-6 as an increment of 10^6 difference.

As I have reported of equilibration, that the Chemical bond is typically 5 eV and the nuclear force bond is 5 MeV so that eV to MeV is a difference of 10^6.
The distance of a Chemical Bond compared to a Strong Nuclear bond of proton with neutron is again a difference of 10^6. So in other words, both the Chemical bond is a Coulomb force and the nuclear bond is a Coulomb force, only difference is that the Chemical bond takes place at 10^6 distance so that it is 10^6 weaker of a bond. What holds the proton to neutron is the same force, the same Coulomb force as what holds the hydrogen atom to a hydrogen ion. 
Stated simply, nuclear physics is chemical bonds at a distance of 10^-6. What holds together the proton and neutron in deuteron is the same force that holds together the hydrogen atom with a proton (dihydrogen ion), and only difference is one is 10^6 smaller distance.
So 10^6 is a special number in physics, and obviously a dimensionless 
number and constant. It is probably just as important as the fine 
structure constant, for it tells us not only about electromagnetism 
but the space involved with electromagnetism.
So this special dimensionless constant factor of 10^6 should also appear 
somewhere in the AP-Maxwell Equations.
If we look at the two constants in the Maxwell Equations: permeability 
constant of 1.26 x 10^-6 H/m and the permittivity constant of 8.85 x 10^-12 F/m, that those two constants directly link to one another as being a factor of 10^6 and that starting from 0 to permeability as 10^-6 we reach permittivity as another 10^6 increment.
So, if we never knew what the distances of the electron=muon shells were 
compared to the nucleus, we just simply look at permeability and 
permittivity and see they are 10^6 apart, would tell us that the 
distances are of a 10^6 magnitude and that the forces of chemical 
bonds versus nuclear bonds are also 10^6 magnitude different.
Or, if we knew the distances of diameter of electron=muon shell to nuclear 
diameter was that of 10^6 difference, we would be able to tell what 
permeability constant was 10^-6 and permittivity had to be 10^-12.
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-11 22:48:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 19:39:05 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Page25, 3-1, perspective of Laws versus Forces in Physics; new force
definition F = dq/dt; Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 03:39:06 +0000


Page25, 3-1, perspective of Laws versus Forces in Physics; new force definition F = dq/dt; Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017


I was stuck on this page for what feels to me to be a month now, but probably not really a chronological month. For it appears to be that the Newton classification of Force as F = ma, is not going to hold up, but that in Modern Day Physics we need a new definition of Force as dq/dt, the electric current as the new physics force definition.

We still have F= ma, where force = mass X acceleration in units as kg*m/s^2 but also we have Force = dq/dt where q is charge and t is time in seconds. The units of dq/dt is the electric current, as rate of change of electric-charge per seconds^2. What this means is that kilogramsXmeters is the same as rate of change of electric-charge.

What this implies, is that mass is charge in a fundamental way. Is there ever a mass that is not electrical-charged? Apparently there is when you consider the electric current is monopole closed loops. Here the photon and neutrino can have electric-charge, but, also, they have no rest-mass. A electric current is composed of closed loops of .5 MeV monopoles. Those are photons and neutrinos dressed up with a .5MeV charge energy, not rest mass but charge energy.

For what it seems like a month, I was beating my head against the wall over the issue of how many forces in a law of physics. And could not overcome the hurdle of Magnetic Field as not a force, when, by all accounts, it is a force. And what was preventing it was Newton's definition of F = ma for there are no meters involved in Magnetic Field. So, if we change the definition of force to be dq/dt = Current = force then we have resolution.

So, let us stop and think for a moment. Does a electric current sound and feel like a force of Nature? And if not a force, what in hell could a electric current be classified as? So, by all means, it looks like electric current is a FORCE in physics.

Alright, chapter 3 is mostly about EM Gravity, to explain in detail, what gravity really is, and that needs a whole new mathematics for the force of gravity, as well as Coulomb force no longer looks like this in general F = kAA/d^2 but rather, looks like this in general F = (kAA + jBB + hCC)/d^2. And so I start out with a perspective of the AP-Maxwell Equations because all of physics foundation is Atomic theory allied with EM theory. EM theory is how atoms behave. And EM theory is a unified force theory for all forces are EM forces of those laws of EM. There are 6 law equations, and all 6 have electric current in them, hence all 6 laws are forces.

When we take all the permutations of the New Ohm's law, we get 4 permutations and then take the derivatives of these 4 permutations of V = iBL, one being a Product Rule of Calculus and three being a Quotient Rule of Calculus we get 4 laws of EM theory. Let us call these derivatives as dynamic laws of physics, and let us call the laws that we do not take the derivative of, as static laws of physics, the Magnetic Field law and the New Ohm's law for we do not take the derivative of them. The Quotient Rule of Calculus is

(f/gh)' = (f'gh - fg'h - fgh')/(gh)^2   Quotient Rule of differentiation involves 3 of the dynamic laws of physics

The Product Rule of Calculus involves just 1 law of physics-- Ampere-Maxwell law

(fgh)' = f'gh + fg'h + fgh'   Product Rule of Calculus

The Quotient Rule of Calculus involves 3 of the 4 dynamic laws of physics-- Faraday Law, Spin law, and of course the Coulomb-EM gravity Law.

Notice in the Ampere law there is no division, but three terms, and those three terms each involve a force of physics, for it is the change in speed involved that is an acceleration, and thus a force. And it is no accident that all the dynamic laws of physics have at minimum 3 forces involved for there is the electric current involved with voltage, with current i itself, with magnetic field and with torque L. And, it is not just coincidence in mathematics that there are 3 coordinate axes involved in the geometry of Space, but rather linked and connected with the idea that Space is 3 axes. So the Voltage Law describes all of 3 space Euclidean geometry, whereas the Quotient Rule laws are a subset of Euclidean Geometry, a cylindrical subset of overall Euclidean geometry.

In the three Quotient Rule Laws, we again have three terms but a division of all three. Here again we have the x,y,z axes of 3rd dimension Space represented but we have those three terms generalized as the equation of a Cylinder, due to the division. You see, the division creates a subset of Euclidean geometry.  

Is the formula of cylinder the same math as Quotient Rule of Calculus?

Now the cylinder math is

(y-z)^2 + (z-x)^2 + (x-z)^2 = 3R^2

where the axis is t for time, and radius R

Now the Differential Calculus, Rule of Quotients is

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

That rule was used in New Ohm's law for Faraday law, Spin law and Coulomb gravity law.

In this chapter I do EM-gravity, and the big major idea is that a force of gravity is a helix motion in space.

So, is the above cylinder formula, the same as the Quotient Rule of Calculus?

Alright, so, it is no surprise that the cylinder will have three terms for each coordinate axes of x, y, z
but what is a surprise is how in the world would anyone think the Heaviside rendition of Maxwell Equations could possibly be correct when they lack three terms, and have only one term in the Faraday law.

In Maxwell's original equations, he does have three terms, in keeping with the understanding there is a x,y,z in geometry.

But here, what I am doing is reflecting on the fact that the equation of the cylinder, is, much the same as the differentiation rule of Calculus for 4 variables V = iBL the New Ohm's law.

It is almost as if the equation V = iBL is a cylinder.

Gravity in 2D and 3D Re: formula of cylinder same math as Quotient Rule of Calculus

Now the easiest definition of helix is what is shown in Wikipedia of a fixed point on a circle on the z axis that is spinning around on the z axis, and that point, thus, carves out a helix as the circle moves around in time t, passing down the z axis. The equations are::

x(t) = cos(t)
y(t) = sin(t)
z(t) = t

Now that helix carved out by a circle is also represented by a circle moving inside a cylinder and thus, etching a helix into the walls of the cylinder.

Now let us shift to 2nd dimension geometry for a moment and we have this.

Circle  x^2 + y^2 = 1

Ellipse x^2/a^2 + y^2/b^2 = 1

Parabola x^2 - y = 1

Now, in Old Physics, they had gravity as F= Gm1*m2/d^2

They wanted gravity as either circle or ellipse, for they saw planets orbit in closed loops. They WANTED gravity to be a circle or ellipse, but they failed to understand that gravity as F= Gm1*m2/d^2 is not a circle or ellipse. To achieve the math of a circle or ellipse, they needed the force to be at least F = (kAA+ jBB)/d^2. They needed at least two terms in the numerator, not one term. And because of EM theory, we now know the numerator is three terms, as that of F = (kAA + jBB + hCC)/d^2.

Now here is a huge huge flaw of Old Physics, something that even Newton by 1687, himself should have caught and corrected, and if not Newton, surely James Clerk Maxwell by 1860 should have caught the math error. They WANTED a math of circle or ellipse for gravity or Coulomb but ended up with the math of a open curve-- parabola math. Unfortunately neither caught the huge math error. And why did no-one in the 1900s catch the mistake? Why? I believe even if they caught the huge math error would have been helpless to try to correct for it overturns the whole entire program of Old Physics, the whole entire project and program on their gravity.

Sometimes in science when you overturn the Old Science due to errors, you cannot do away with the Old Science for it is too massive of a change, and too massive to explain. Newton, nor Maxwell knew that the Sun was moving in a helix motion in Space around the Milky Way Galaxy, to afford such a massive change of physics, besides, electricity and magnetism was primitive during Newton and was just being consolidated by Maxwell, and far too much of a leap of faith, that gravity was EM itself. So at times in science history, if you notice a mistake, you are just too burdensome to be able to fix the mistake, for it means a massive overhaul.

Now this is a lesson in itself, a sort of like morality lesson or Aesop's Fable lesson, that you cannot find a mistake or flaw of science, if that flaw is going to overturn the entire subject matter. What I mean is say Newton or Maxwell had known that gravity could not be F= Gm1*m2/d^2 but had to be F= kAA/d^2 + jBB/d^2. Suppose they had discovered that, then the problem is, they had nothing in physical reality to give meaning to that math correction. They knew not that Sun was revolving around a galaxy with planets in helical motion, nor did they have any idea that gravity was electromagnetism. So, even if, Newton or Maxwell, realized the math was wrong, they could not link physical reality to a correct math of F= kAA/d^2 + jBB/d^2, and better yet, the final math of F = (kAA + jBB + hCC)/ d^2.  

The realization that gravity is EM spoils not only Newton's gravity law but spoils the entire General Relativity math also, for Gravity is F = (kAA + jBB + hCC)/d^2.

Now some readers are going to instantly rebuke the above ideas on grounds that-- look, many of our space missions were successful under Newton's gravity math. But, they fail to realize so much of those space missions is not Newton's math of gravity for "gravity assist" is not Newton nor General Relativity but in fact is EM gravity. And, in addition, so many space missions were failed and many near failure. There is the case of where the European space missions have nothing but failures on Mars. The case of Hitomi spinning out of control upon launch, and the case of JUNO magnetic failure of its valves.

What I am talking about, is the math of Newton's gravity and General Relativity is a math of just one term kAA/d^2 and that math is a open curve such as a parabola. The math needed for a closed curve for gravity is of at least two terms in the numerator such as (kAA + jBB)/d^2. So that gravity is sufficient to be a closed loop, a circle or a ellipse.
And in EM gravity, the math is actually three terms in the numerator.

And this is shocking as to how such a math error escaped all physicists and mathematicians until 2016 when I solved it in this textbook.

Gravity that is F= m(a1 + a2 + a3) and not F = ma. Gravity that is F = (kAA+jBB +hCC)/d^2. Gravity that is the same as EM to allow for Solid Body Rotation with velocity proportional to Radius, proportional to 1/Radius and proportional to 1/Radius^2 and all in between. Where gravity as a variable force strength. So that when we observe a spiral galaxy, we see gravity as solid body rotation of some stars, and we see gravity as 1/R of some stars and we see stars with gravity of 1/R^2.

Not only do I need two terms in the numerator for gravity, but three terms for it is the Quotient Rule of Calculus on New Ohm's law and the fact that Space 3rd dimension that gravity exists, so the numerator needs three terms, just as all laws of physics needs at least 3 forces.

Magnetic Field = kg /A*s^2 has the A in it meaning electric current and hence a force

Voltage = kg*m^2/A*s^3 has the A in it meaning a electric current and hence a force

Current = i = dq/dt = A , where q is charge and this can be written where t = seconds

Torque = moment arm * Force (explanation: F=ma is for linear acceleration, while torque is angular acceleration) and here we have F= mass*(m/s^2)

angular momentum = kg*m^2/s

Linear momentum is mass*velocity, angular momentum is mass*meters^2/sec, force is mass*velocity*frequency.

Resistance = kg*m^2/A^2*s^3  has A^2 and hence a force

REVIEW of above units::

We see that if we take A * Resistance we have A*( kg*m^2/A^2*s^3 ) which is Voltage

But how do we split apart Resistance so that it is B*L

Splitting apart resistance kg*m^2/A^2*s^3 , and taking out the magnetic field gives us

kg*m^2/A^2*s^3 = (kg /A*s^2) * (m^2/A*s)

So that our L term in New Ohm's law is (m^2/A*s)
 

Notice all the derivatives of the New Ohm's law V = iBL, have electric current so that in the Product Rule or Quotient Rule of Calculus, you will always end up with at minimum three forces involved.

Alright, as we look at videos on the Internet (listed below) of the Sun moving in Space and the planets moving in a helix around the Sun, skillful rendition of how the Sun and planets move through Space, we instantly recognize how deplete, how idiotic it is to think gravity is Newton's and General Relativity's kindergarten math, because the motion of Sun and planets through Space is the motion that needs the mathematics of EM theory of both Ampere and Faraday Laws combined. Not the math of the silly F = kAA/d^2 but the math of F = (kAA+jBB + hCC)/d^2 where we have at least three variables A and B and C involved. When you watch the video of Universe Today (below), what it reminds one of, is the motion of electricity in a closed loop wire.

And we see that three of the four dynamic laws of EM are of the math form of (kAA + jBB + hCC)/d^2 for the reason that it is quotient rule of differential calculus.

And, the L' of the Coulomb-EM Gravity Law of the prior chapter, looks like the force of gravity as (kAA+jBB + hCC)/d^2 and the term hCC, is the copper wire in Faraday, Ampere laws. You see, Maxwell's Equations missed a lot of phenomenon, for they missed the copper wires involved and worst of all, they missed the phenomenon of a "spin of a electric motor", for you get in the Maxwell Equations the Faraday law produces a current, but fails to reveal that the Faraday law produces the spin of a motor, that something goes round and round. The L' equation is a new one, which Maxwell totally missed. Maxwell had nothing for the copper wires in Ampere and Faraday laws. It is a nasty habit of most scientists, that they leave things out, figuring they were not "science in general", they thought science is best as generalizations, and not specifics. Thinking that generalization is what science is all about, and forget the specifics. But if you make your science so general, that it leaves out specifics, well, your science is no good.

If the Sun and planets gravity based on mass, as in Newton or General Relativity, the Sun would have left, have departed, the planets billions of years ago, and in fact, that not a single planet would have remained in orbit after a mere few years time had elapsed. They would all be flying off into space, since the math of just kAA/d^2 is insufficient to hold them together, too weak of a force to hold them together, and the Solar System would be just the Sun hurdling through Space if Newton or General Relativity were true.

Newton gravity and General Relativity math is all based on the formula kAA/d^2. The inverse square is fine and dandy. It is the numerator that is off by two other forces involved. The numerator needs two more terms as that of (kAA+jBB +hCC)/d^2. Those three terms are the math of a closed loop. The math of either a circle or ellipse or helix inside a cylinder, where the two extra terms, insures the motion makes a full circuit around, just like in electricity, you need a full circuit. For a proper correct force of gravity, you need three terms in numerator (kAA + jBB + hCC)/ d^2 for that added strength to make stars, and planets go in a helix and circular motion.

The math of one term in numerator is a parabola math. Newtonian gravity and General Relativity are all parabola math, and the planets would have flown off the Sun in their very first orbit.

Trouble for Newton was, the Sun is not stationary, and when Newton did his force of gravity, he assumed a stationary Sun. General Relativity is no better, for it too takes on the math of Newton, of 2nd Dimensional math. And there is no way you can apply that math for a Sun in motion in Space and the planets all following. Their gravity force was too weak, and the planets would have never made a first orbit around the Sun.

The force of gravity of Newton and GR are two weak a force to keep the planets going around the Sun as the Sun moves in space at 230 km/s.

Sun 230 km/s orbital speed around Milky Way
Mercury, 0.24 yr orbital period, 47.87 km/s orbital speed
Venus, 0.61 yr orbital period, 35.02 km/s orbital speed
Earth, 1 yr orbital period, 29.78 km/s orbital speed 
Moon , 27 days orbit, 1 km/s orbital speed

How many forces in physics laws// Aufbau is the addition of forces in building the Chemical Elements.

This is a lecture that was never given in Old Physics. The closest and nearest to this lecture is Feynman's paperback of "The Character of Physical Law", 1964. But even there, no elucidation, no clarity of what I am about to give here.

You see, there is a huge confusion and very little said of what is a Law and what is a Force, and how the two relate. What is the difference between a Law of Physics and a Force of Physics? There are likely to be a vast majority of physicists who cannot answer any of these questions. So I need to iron out this gap in understanding, and there is no better way than with the AP equations of the previous chapter.

Perhaps Physics was never able to give this lecture until now, because it never had a unified axiom set of the laws of physics. Perhaps, only when the true EM equations as axioms over all of Physics on how atoms behave, once that is given, can someone be able to answer what is the difference between a law of physics and a force of physics.

Now in Old Physics, physics is basically underpinned by Newton with F=ma and that Newton and all successor physicists took force as synonymous with law. For we see many call it the force of gravity and others call it the universal law of gravity. So in Old Physics, law and force were the same things. So we get a sense that Force is the one and only unifier. Then we learn of Laws in physics, such as the Coulomb law or the law of gravity. And here a first question arises and a flood of questions arise for which no physicist ever clarified.

1) is a Law a force?

2) if so, is a law a single force or many forces acting at once?

3) in the AP-Maxwell Equations are 6 laws, does that mean 6 individual forces or does it mean many forces.

4) if in a observation, we see a law of Faraday being played out, does it mean that all the other laws of EM theory are in action along with the Faraday law, or can these laws be independent of each other?

5) I tend to think that if we observe one law of EM theory going on, then all the 5 other laws are in action also.

6) I tend to think that Laws of Physics are Forces added up, so that when we see a Faraday law or Gravity law going on in Nature, that we see all the laws of physics going on simultaneously and the the forces in that observation are many, many forces simultaneously.

So in Old Physics, Newton through-to-the 20th century, physicists looked upon a Law as a single force and wrote
F = ma. In New Physics we look upon a Law of Physics as ma_1 + ma_2 + ma_3 + .. + ma_k. We look upon laws as a series of additions of forces. And in New Physics, since we have an alternative definition of force being electric current dq/dt, we realize that each law has many electric currents involved.

In the AP Equations of the Faraday law, Ampere law, Spin law and Coulomb-gravity law, we see three terms to the rightside of the equation upon differentiation by calculus. This tells us that those four laws have at least 3 forces comprising them. And since everyone of those laws is in play, given that one is in play, means that there are at least 3 X 4 = 12 forces of physics going on. Now some of those forces are the same force to be combined, and so we may reduce the forces to be 3 at minimum.

Now, another huge theory understanding that needs take place at about here, is the theory of why so many forces in each law of physics. And here we go back to Atomic Theory. In that atoms are built by the Aufbau principle, where you add more electrons and you have the s, p, d, f orbitals of electron structure of atoms. The addition of forces that makes up a Law of Physics is due to the building of atoms by adding more electrons. Electrons have mass, so do protons, and thus the building of atoms from Hydrogen to Helium, next to Lithium, next to Beryllium, etc etc is the addition of more mass, hence, more force, and the addition of more mass to Hydrogen to make it Helium, is the addition of more electric current dq/dt.

Re: how many forces in physics laws// Aufbau is the addition of forces

So a force of physics is F = ma and also dq/dt.

And a law of physics is composed of three or more forces.

In that sense, Old Physics had it confused when they call Newton's gravity on the one hand as a universal law of gravity, and on the other hand the force of gravity.

Now the New Ohm's law, how is it three forces?

Well, in V = i B*L the voltage is a force, an electromotive force for it contains a dq/dt, and B the magnetic field is a force for it contains a dq/dt, and electric current is a force, and the L is a force, a torque.

Old Physics had ohm's law as V = iR, where R is resistance. New Physics breaks down R as B*L, magnetic field multiply torque.

So, the basic equation of EM as V = iBL each term is in fact a force, where all 4 terms are electric currents dq/dt.

So, all laws of physics involve at least three forces, and a force is just dq/dt.

Now one law of physics is special, not because it comes from Chemistry, but because it is a reflection of the New Ohm's law of physics for the Ideal Gas Law in Chemistry has 4 terms just as the New Ohm's law has 4 terms.

Chemistry:: Ideal Gas Law PV= nRT

Now I am going to leave the student with a project to see how close they can come with the Ideal Gas law to being the New Ohm's law V = iBL.

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
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-12 01:37:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 23:23:48 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Page26, 3-2, Coulomb's law as EM-gravity; Sun & planets helical
motion in space/Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 07:23:48 +0000


Page26, 3-2, Coulomb's law as EM-gravity; Sun & planets helical motion in space/Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017


"Universe Today" magazine depicts Sun moving in space with planets following in a helix motion, in video.

Alright, as we look at the below videos of the Sun moving in Space and the planets moving in a helix around the Sun, skillful rendition of how the Sun and planets move through Space, we instantly recognize how deplete, how idiotic it is to think gravity is Newton's and General Relativity's kindergarten math, because the motion of Sun and planets through Space is the motion that needs the mathematics of EM theory of both Ampere and Faraday Laws combined. Not the math of the silly F = kAA/d^2 but the math of F = (kAA+jBB + hCC)/d^2 where we have at least three variables A and B and C involved to give strength to astrobodies to go around one another. When you watch the video of Universe Today (below), what it reminds one of, is the motion of electricity in a closed loop of wire.

If the Sun and planets gravity were based on mass, as in Newton or General Relativity, the Sun would have left, have departed the planets in their first attempt of an orbit around the Sun, and that not a single planet would have remained in orbit after a few years time was up. They would all be flying off into space, since the math of just kAA/d^2 is insufficient of force strength to hold them together.

Newton gravity and General Relativity math is all based on the formula kAA/d^2. The inverse square is fine and dandy. It is the numerator that is off by at least 2 more forces. The numerator needs two more terms as that of (kAA+jBB + hCC)/d^2. For one term in the numerator is not even a closed loop. The math of either a circle or ellipse where the second term, insures the motion make a full circuit around, just like in electricity, you need a full circuit. But as we saw in prior chapter, there is even a third term of a hCC, so that the proper force of gravity is (kAA + jBB + hCC)/ d^2.

The math of one term in numerator is a parabola math. Newtonian gravity and General Relativity are all parabola math, and the planets would have flown off the Sun in their first orbit.

Trouble is, the Sun is not stationary, and when Newton did his force of gravity, he assumed a stationary Sun. General Relativity is no better, for it too takes on the math of Newton, of 2nd Dimensional math. And there is no way you can apply that math for a Sun in motion in Space and the planets all following.

The force of gravity of Newton and GR are two weak a force to keep the planets going around the Sun as the Sun moves in space at 230 km/s.

Sun 230 km/s orbital speed around Milky Way
Mercury, 0.24 yr orbital period, 47.87 km/s orbital speed
Venus, 0.61 yr orbital period, 35.02 km/s orbital speed
Earth, 1 yr orbital period, 29.78 km/s orbital speed 
Moon , 27 days orbit, 1 km/s orbital speed
 

So I need to know if the Sun is moving through Space with the planets going around the Sun. And these sites tell me that it is a 60 degree inclination of the planets with respect to the Sun's forward motion. Now Saturn has a 30 degree inclination of its Rings relative to Saturn's forward motion.

Is the Solar System Really a Vortex? - Universe Today
https://www.universetoday.com/.../is-the-solar-system-really-a-vortex/‎
Jul 8, 2012 ... Is this really how the Solar System works? (Rendering by DjSadhu) ... Solar system “vortex” gif (by DjSadhu). What it purports to show is the ...
Vortex motion: Viral video showing Sun's motion through galaxy is ...
www.slate.com/.../vortex_motion_viral_video_showing_sun_s_motion_ through_galaxy_is_wrong.html‎
Mar 4, 2013 ... No, Our Solar System is NOT a “Vortex” ... Sometimes the planets really are ahead of the Sun as we orbit in the Milky Way, and sometimes trail ...
Why is the Solar Helical (Vortex) model wrong? - Astronomy Stack ...
https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/.../why-is-the-solar-helical-vortex- model-wrong‎
ref: Youtube video The helical model - our solar system is a vortex ... That thing - universetoday.com/107322/is-the-solar-system-really-a-vortex - sums it up.
The helical model - our solar system is a vortex - YouTube

► 3:21

Aug 24, 2012 - 3 min - Uploaded by DjSadhu
This is a non-conventional view of our solar system that is different from the standard 'flat ...
The Helical Model - vortex solar system animation | DjSadhu.com
www.djsadhu.com/the-helical-model-vortex-solar-system-animation/‎
221 thoughts on “The Helical Model – vortex solar system animation”. Carol Levine says: December 18, 2012 at 4:04 pm. Thank you for that explanation. Really ...

Gravity is just the EM force, and the mass term in gravity, is a collective-charge or collective-magnetism of mass. The greater the mass, the greater the chance of a larger net charge or magnetism.

The proof that Gravity = EM was a proof in the 20th century. Sometime in the 1970s or thereabouts. The proof came when it was known that Spiral Galaxies have most of their stars doing Solid Body Rotation. And although it took me to 2016 to make clear that gravity was EM, the proof was really in 1970s. And a crazy physics and astronomy community, being crazy, went chasing after Dark Matter and Dark Energy, when all the muddleheads needed to do was recognize, wow!, gravity is EM. Why do muddleheads invoke something totally alien for explanations when they could easily have said-- we have EM already, so, gravity is EM. Why not EM? The reason why not, is because most, not all, but most scientist have no logical mind, and this is seen in their education systems where no colleges and universities require their graduated scientists to have taken 2 years of college Logic, so that the scientist can think clear and straight.

Now I need to firmly understand whether the Sun in its motion of 230km/second traveling in space towards the star Vega, whether the Sun is doing Faradays law by being a bar magnet and causing the planets in their orbit plane, which is tilted 60 degrees from the Sun moving to Vega. Is the Sun a bar magnet and causing the planets to orbit around the Sun like a current in Faraday's law, where each planet is like electricity in moving around in that current track made by the Sun. Or, rather instead, is the Sun itself electricity, moving in the Milky Way galaxy and this electricity-Sun causing magnetism due to Ampere's law that makes the planets on their 60 degree tilt plane loop orbit around the Sun.

So, is the Sun Faraday's law with planets, or is Sun Ampere's law with planets. And the readers should already know it is both laws working in tandem. For in the last chapter we learned if one EM law is present, all 6 EM laws are present.

Let us use both Faraday & Ampere law upon Sun Re: Is Sun moving in Faraday's law or Ampere's law to Vega?

Actually, I do not see any reason we cannot use both laws simultaneously. I need to say the Sun is like a thrusting bar magnet in Faraday's law. And the Sun is like electricity moving in Space creating a magnetic field around it as the planets move in circle or ellipse orbits.

There is no reason of physics that Faraday's law is mutually exclusive of Ampere law. So, apply both to the Sun.

Was reading somewhere that the Sun in its forward motion to Vega, called the Apex of the Sun's Way, that is a very important concept-- Apex of the Sun's Way, that the speed was 230km/second and that the Sun bobs up and down. What causes the bobbing up and down, I wonder? Is it the effects of the EM of the planets like Jupiter upon the Sun?

And, I wonder if the Sun in its Apex of the Sun's Way is dragging along the Oort Cloud, or whether the Oort Cloud be left behind and the Sun will enter into a new Cloud as it heads for Vega.

Alright i need to get it out of my head, out of my mind, that when doing Faraday's law i am not doing Ampere's also. In fact when doing Faraday law i am doing all the EM laws all at once.

So the question is, the Sun moving through the Cosmic skies by Faraday and Ampere's laws, is answered by -- both. Both laws working simultaneously.

Now, our view and understanding of how Earth and planets revolve around the Sun takes a huge hit in a distorted understanding. In school and in the minds of most astronomers and physicists they think of the Sun as stationary and planets going around in ellipses or circles.

That is a huge distortion for the sun is hurdling fast in Space with the planets sometimes out in front of the Sun as shown in the video graphic website.

The Sun and planets are seen more like electricity moving in a invisible wire track of the cosmic heavens where each revolution of a planet gets out in front of the Sun once during the planet's revolution.

Helical motion of Sun + planets
Now the shortest distance between two points on a cylinder is a helix.
If we consider a liquid as a rope like structure and ions moving on this rope as a cylinder.
Ion motion in a magnetic field is helical motion.

There are many websites showing helical motion of Sun plus planets moving through Space.

I suspect Newton was never aware of the Sun moving in Space in a helix and the planets following.

When in science history, did anyone ever realize this and write it down? I suspect by mid 1900s was the first time.

Slingshot effect is really... Re: helical motion of Sun + planets.

And I should try to track down in astronomy history, the first time someone wrote down that the motion of Sun and planets was a helix geometry, whether it came before General Relativity or after. Because if it came before, we thence can see that much of modern physics is more accustomed to being a enterprise of propaganda and bandwagon rather than being a enterprise where Logic and Reasoning prevail.

General Relativity is like the quark or string nonsense of taking something so abstract as to be pointless in reality. So if you had the elevator analogy in GR, and right smack next to that analogy, you had the motion, the real time, real live motion of Sun with planets in tow moving in a helical pattern through Space, then you would have had to trashcan the General Relativity as obnoxious propaganda that only the dumbest of dumb could accept. GR cannot for a second abide with helical motion, for it makes no sense at all.

The only thing in Nature that does helical motion is ions in a magnetic field. That tells us immediately, gravity is Electro Magnetism. Gravity is associated with mass, because the more the mass, the more are there of elementary particles of charge and of magnetism, even though, overall the charge is considered to be neutral, still, the Charge and Magnetism is never neutral charge in the Sun and Planets and Galaxies, the **never fully neutral** charge of a large massive body and its magnetism is what is gravity. Take a look at a strong Neodymium Magnet and one of these crazy physics professor will tell you the magnet is electrically neutral for its charges are net zero, but look at all the power and strength of that magnetism in that tiny little magnet.

Charge and Magnetism lies in mass, and so, of course, we are going, at first in history, think that gravity is equal to mass, but that is a beguiling deception to think that mass is the principle behind gravity. The principle of gravity is that it is electromagnetism and only that force is strong enough to have solid body rotation as well as helical motion.

Everyone in the public thinks, oh, well NASA has done really well with their Newtonian math. But have they? Just recently, they found out that Juno cannot work properly because they built and designed it with Newtonian math, not realizing that gravity is more about magnetism and electricity, that ruined Juno's valves so it is stuck in orbit.

And now there is talk of a probe to the Sun, assisted by the slingshot effect of Venus, to boost the speed. Now what is the slingshot effect? Newtonian gravity and General Relativity are deaf, dumb and silent about the slingshot effect. What the slingshot effect is, is that second and third term in the numerator.

Summary:

The 6th law of EM theory;; the Coulomb and EM gravity law
L' = (i^2B - B^3- V^2i) / i^2B^2

What this law does, is set up Coulomb and gravity, by making Space be a magnetic field that puts a track into space and that matter follows these tracks and is pushed along in motion in these tracks-- what we call gravity. Think of EM Coulomb force as that the derivative of electric current is the creation of a magnetic field track of space and that mass matter in that electric field track space is pushed along in those tracks, with a force range of R to 1/R to 1/R^2 for notice the B term above is in first term 1/B, in second term B,  and 1/B^2 in third term. We know R is solid body rotation seen in a spinning phonograph vinyl record, and seen in stars of spiral galaxies near the nucleus of the galaxy, and where 1/R^2 is the familiar Old Physics Newton law of gravity (also General Relativity).

The idea of Gravity, is that it is a EM force that creates a track in Space, much like Ampere's law creates a magnetic field track, so the Sun creates tracks in space for planet Earth to follow in that track, but also, the Sun pushes planets like planet Earth in that track, much like Faraday's law pushes electricity around in a closed loop wire.


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:: The easiest most commonsense proof that the muon is the Real Electron is chemical bonding does not make sense with a proton at 938 MeV whilst the .5 MeV particle is never limited to a Lewis diagram and octet rule in bonding of carbon. A maximum of 8 shared electrons, 4 sets of 2 electrons in carbon to form diamond. So that the momentum and volume of space complies. The 8 shared electrons would be of 8 x 105 MeV = 840 MeV the momentum of the single proton. If the electron were the .5 MeV particle, then in Lewis diagram with octet rule, is out the window for you can have 2x840 = 1680 such electrons bonding covalent, and no longer a octet rule but a 1680 rule, and worse yet if you think the proton is 938, you have a 1876 rule.

So, really, ever since JJ Thomson discovered the electron-- what he thought was the electron, and turns out to be the magnetic monopole, 1897

Heaviside discovered E = mc^2 and actually used it in capacitor theory 

Thomson discovered electron in 1897 (later to be found that this is a magnetic monopole .5MeV, not the electron= muon at 105 MeV, for that had to wait until 1936.

Rutherford and Moseley for proton 1911-1913

Chadwick discovered neutron 1932

Anderson and Neddermeyer 1936 , discovered the muon, the real electron

Now, can anyone tell me, if Thomson had realized that his particle was a magnetic monopole, not the true electron, would it have taken until 1936, to be discovered, or would the flurry of the hunt and chase have made it much earlier than 1936, or, probably, the particle accelerator machine at earliest could have only been 1936? The engineers would probably know.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-12 05:17:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 23:23:48 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Page27, 3-3, Coulomb's law as EM-gravity; Sun & planets helical
motion in space/Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 07:23:48 +0000


Page27, 3-3, Coulomb's law as EM-gravity; Sun & planets helical motion in space/Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017


There was a very serious and important break here around 19 October to 22 October 2017 as I had to sort out force being dQ/dt as electric current in physics, an alternative to Newton's F = mass * acceleration. I had to explain the 6 laws of AP Equations as being forces, and the way that was resolved, was recognizing that force in New Physics, meant there was a electric current A = i = dQ/dt in each of the 6 laws of AP Equations. But the problem did not stop there, for then, I had to explain what exactly is a electric current A doing in the Magnetic Field units kg/A*s^2. I had to explain, what the hell, is a electric current A doing there in magnetic field. The resolution appears to be a revival of Dirac's magnetic monopole, where he gets a value of -at minimum-, he gets 137/2 the charge on one electron=moun, as the charge on a magnetic monopole. But the magnetic monopole is really the .5MeV particle, and is Lines of Force of magnetism. So that the A current in Magnetic Field is a monopole current and is the .5 MeV particle as a closed loop.

What the Dirac magnetic monopole on page 46 of his Directions in Physics book says-- is that a magnetic monopole is 137/2 (at minimum) greater than the charge on one electron. I have to go back and see where Dirac's computation went astray.

This revelation coming in October of 2017 at the same time as writing this edition of Atom Totality has a huge consequence for this chapter and prior chapters, especially on EM gravity. For I have to reconcile how the planets in a helical motion around the Sun as the Sun hurdles through space. I have to reconcile how gravity causes Magnetic Field tracks, that not only pulls planet Earth along, but also pushes planet Earth along in that Magnetic Field track of Space.

So I start this page where I left off the last page as summary::

The 6th law of EM theory;; the Coulomb and EM gravity law

L' = (i^2B - B^3- V^2i) / i^2B^2

This is a law that Maxwell had never seen, for it is EM-Gravity law.
It has the form of (kAA + jBB + hCC)/d^2  for an ellipse for planets to orbit the Sun, and it has so much more. And what it does is create a track in astronomy for stars or planets or moons to orbit, and not only tracks, but the planet pulls and pushes the moons in their track and the Sun pulls and pushes the planets in their tracks, call it an i current type of a push in the track, along with a magnetic field pull in a track. So gravity is seen not only as a gravitational attraction or pull, but also as a push in a track. So the law creates EM tracks and pulls and pushes the mass in the track to orbit. Now that makes a lot of sense, does it not for we can easily picture the Sun as a electric generator pulling and pushing monopoles to flow around in circles.

One of the greatest missed concepts in Physics history-- Stepping in Front of Forward Motion, whether planets or Rings.

Now, in this book, I need Saturn and its Rings, like no other planet, to explain EM gravity. If our Solar System never had a Saturn and rings, I would guess that intelligent life on Earth, would have been retarded for thousands of years before the planet's intelligent life formulated the correct understanding of gravity. I say that because Saturn and its Rings is a perfect model for grasping how EM gravity works. And if we never had Saturn, it would be perhaps (I am guessing) 2,000 years longer before humanity properly understood how gravity works. Saturn and Rings is a gift to humanity to understand gravity better.

Alright, I was trying to look up pictures of the orientation of Saturn's Rings as Saturn moves in orbit around the Sun.

You see, I want to know if any parts of the Rings steps in front of Saturn as Saturn moves in orbit around the Sun.

This is important also for planets moving around Sun, because the Sun is moving at 230 km/sec while Earth is moving just 30 km/sec in orbit. So, does the Earth ever step in front of Sun's forward motion?

Do the ice particles of Saturn Ring ever step in front of Saturn's forward motion.

Now on the Web, there are many sites that shows the motion of Sun with planets in a helix motion through space.

Now, one web site claims it is a "authoritative science web site, giving the straight up and straight and narrow science " of how the planets move while the Sun moves. And what this -- what I opine as quack website is saying is that the planets move around the sun as a plane of orbit perpendicular to the Sun's forward motion, never is there a moment where a planet steps out in front of Sun's forward motion.

So, here, I need to know if the ice particles of Saturn Rings ever step out in front of Saturn's forward motion, or, are the ice particles always oblique to the forward motion of Saturn.

You see, humanity learns things slowly, and once it learns something, it is slow to embark on the next higher level of learning and understanding. From the Ancient Greeks to Copernicus to Newton to Rubin and Ford, the level of understanding of astronomy and physics was merely that of Sun is center of Solar System, for it took 2,000 years for the intelligence of humanity to absorb the idea that something is the center and that center is at rest, the center is not in motion, and could never ever be 230 km/sec while Earth is mere 30 km/sec.

So of course Newton gravity and General Relativity is based upon a math that the Sun is at rest.

If Newton had known and taught that the Sun was 230 km/sec while Earth was 30 km/sec, there would have been no takers to that idea. Yet, that is the truth.

So, with all these websites, some showing how planets are not a ring around the Sun as it moves 230 km/sec. Some show the planets as helical motion just as the Sun is helical.

Every astronomy textbook today, has it wrong on how the Sun with planets in tow, move in space. every one has it wrong.

The concept of STEPPING IN FRONT OF FORWARD MOTION is a brand new concept, only now being discussed.

A huge problem of astronomy and the other sciences, is that they hate concepts with words that fully define what the concept is. They hate it when I give a name of a concept as Stepping in Front of Forward Motion. They hate that because they want names that have one word or two words at most. They prefer a name like ecleptic or apex. Words that never draw a immediate picture. And that is a part of the problem of why astronomy is so far backwards and primitive in understanding much of anything.

Hundreds of years ago it was known the Sun moves in space, but how fast was only recently known.

It was known before the kookish General Relativity was blathered about. But then again, if instead of General Relativity in about 1917, humanity had the superior theory of "Stepping in Front of Forward Motion", that humanity would have come quicker to the realization that gravity was EM force. So in the history of science, we always need the dumb and stupid error filled model before humanity reaches the logical true model. We cannot reach the logical true model first without stepping on the dumb and silly model and embrace it for a time or two, for it is so simplistic and silly, while the true one is complex and complicated.

So now, looking at the web for clues as to whether the ice particles step in front of Saturn's forward motion. Do they?

The web on Saturn says yes, even though the rings are tilted what looks to be 30 degrees, or maybe is that 60 degrees.

Let me denote Rings as R and Saturn as S

                            R
                         R
                  SSS             ----> forward motion
                  SSS
               R
            R


or is it this


                   R
                   R
                  SSS             ----> forward motion
                  SSS
                   R
                   R

You see, the pictures that the web sites are showing, and are approved by astronomy departments in colleges and universities is this picture of the Sun with planets denoted as P.


                   P

                   P

                  SSS             ----> forward motion 230 km/sec
                  SSS

                   P

                   P

So, the concept of modern day astronomy and physics alike, is no longer the primitive caveman physics that Sun is stationary, but that the Sun is hurdling forward at a terrific speed and so, gravity has to be explained in terms of keeping up with the Sun. And Saturn can help explain this.


Injection-Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2017 21:03:57 +0000
train track analogy Re: One of the greatest missed concepts in Physics history-- Stepping in Front of Forward Motion

There is one good analogy of a train to the gravity of Sun and planets, and Saturn and Rings. The analogy is the train track.

The train track is preexisting for some train to come along and follow the track.

This is the copper wire in Ampere's law, the copper wire in Faraday's law, and the copper wire in law of electricity. This is the term jBB missing in the numerator of what should be Coulomb force (kAA+ jBB + hCC)/d^2

So the train track is the huge missing piece in Maxwell Equations and in the force of gravity.

Space is somehow a huge interlay of tracks, which mass follows those tracks. Magnetic Field tracks, to be sure.

In an Atom Totality, the tracks are given as Space.

It is a huge magnetic field and concentrated into tracks, so that stars follow them, galaxies follow them, planets follow them, even ice clumps follow them in Saturn Rings.

Did you know? Few people know of this fact, because astronomy education hides or ignores this fact. But the fact is true-- that the Universe of stars and galaxies is mostly long filaments, like electrical wiring filaments.

So, the reason I want all future space probes to carry a voltmeter, measuring the voltage of Space, is because it should read strong signals of voltage whenever inside a track, and weak outside the track.

Now i am going to name this new concept SFFM for Stepping in Front of Forward Motion.

It really is remarkable that no astronomer or physicist ever thought or were enchanted with the idea that in gravity, objects step in front of other objects forward motion, and that only the force of electromagnetism can deal with such motion. Only electromagnetism as the prime mover of astronomy bodies can do SFFM.


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, in the next edition of this text I have some work cut out for me-- explain as simple as possible the unification of electrochemistry with Faraday's law.

This issue has bothered me ever since I had chemistry in College, 1969. For I knew Faraday's law was that a thrusting bar magnet in a closed loop of copper wire produces electricity. And here, in Chemistry we really do not have that, do we. For instead, what we have in electrochemistry is ions carrying a charge from one electrode over to the other electrode, the anode and cathode, and our teachings were to think that electrons caused the electricity.

If a Logical person were to think on that proposition (1) thrusting bar magnet in wire loop makes electricity (2) motion of ions transfers electrons causing electricity. If a logical person thought about that, we only have to conclude, there is a huge gap and error in the two for they cannot come together as one theory.

So, this is one of the larger errors that I need to remedy, to clear up in the 9th edition of this textbook. But let me get as far ahead as possible. In electrochemistry our old view has to be totally replaced. What is happening in truth, is that the ions set up into being "a magnet" and the motion in the ions is the thrusting part of Faraday's law. It is not a production of electricity due to motion of ions delivering electrons from one end to the other end, no. The production of electricity has to be the same as Faraday's law. And what that means, is the ions form Magnetic Lines of Force of .5 MeV charge energy and it is these monopoles that flow through the closed loop.

So, the whole new picture that emerges in Electrochemistry, is that the ions in the battery cell form into a "thrusting bar magnet" and deliver .5MeV monopoles that flows in the closed loop.

I need to make this crystal clear in the 9th edition, for time has run out in 2017.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-12 21:10:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2017 19:19:54 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Page28, 3-4, Electromagnetism is the force of gravity pull & push,
not the childish silly General Relativity or Newton gravity/Atom-Totality-Universe/
textbook 8th ed 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2017 03:19:54 +0000


Page28, 3-4, Electromagnetism is the force of gravity pull & push, not the childish silly General Relativity or Newton gravity/Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017

Page28, 3-4, Electromagnetism is the force of gravity pull & push, not the childish silly General Relativity or Newton gravity/Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017

Alright, I am going to have to explain the "pull and push" of planets by the Sun in their orbits.

I started this text by explaining that EM is an attraction force only and there is no repel force, but rather, a denial of the same space occupancy. So I need to explain the fact that in parallel conducting wires with current opposite direction that the wires move apart. Is the moving apart, is that repel? Or is it something else. Whether it is a Denial of Same Space Occupancy, it is certainly a push apart. So I have to explain a push is not a repel force. That a push is a Denial of Same Space Occupancy.

Now I cited in this textbook, of an Experiment. Hugely important, immensely important experiment, that magnets attract 14% stronger force of attraction than any repelling. So if you put a north pole to south pole, the attraction is 14% greater than a north to north or a south to south push apart. Because likes are 14% weaker, means that repel and repulsion do not exist, only Attraction and the Denial of Same Space Occupancy = Push, exists.

Here is a Youtube educational film on this topic.

Physics - Electromagnetism: Faraday's Law - YouTube

► 19:50

Sep 25, 2010 - 20 min - Uploaded by EducationCommonsRW
This is the 4th lesson in the series, "Electromagnetism." It explains Michael Faraday's ...

Alright, I do not remember if it was this one or another of the 4 lessons shown.

What I remember is two parallel wires, only they were balloon type wires-- easy to see.

So, is that movement of the wires apart, is it a repel, or, is it what I want to call a push? Where push = denial of same space occupancy.

Now consider a billiard ball or pool table with balls and one ball strikes another ball. When the one ball strikes another, it stays put and the struck ball moves forward with the new momentum. So that is a Push of the first ball upon the second ball. We would not consider that as a physics of a "repel" or repulsion, by first ball upon second ball.

So, Physics still has just a Attract Force in EM theory and no repel in EM theory. It has ATTRACT and it has Denial of Same Space Occupancy, DSSO. Many people mistake DSSO as being repel. DSSO is also a push.

So, Physics has a Push force. The Pull force is attraction. The Push force is when two wires in parallel with a current running opposite direction, the wires push apart. Or, when a current of magnetic monopoles making up the Lines of Force of the Magnetic Field, when those lines of force pull or push on one another lines of force.

So we see the Lines of Force of a magnet pushing other lines of force, which we think is repel, but really a push apart from Denial of Same Space Occupancy.

The Push of EM theory is where one line of force in the magnetic field pushes upon another line of force of the magnetic field. The lines of force are monopoles and those monopoles can push. Alternatively, it is much like a billiard ball pushing a second billiard ball.

So, EM gravity of Sun to Earth, where Sun creates Magnetic Field tracks in Space, and Earth has to follow inside those tracks and is pulled by the magnetic field and pushed along in that track by the magnetic monopole current created by the Sun. (EM gravity is also responsible for the spin of Earth on axis. And the reason that Uranus is 90 degree spin while Earth is 23 degree, is due to EM gravity.)

The 6th law of EM theory;; the Coulomb and EM gravity law

L' = (i^2B - B^3- V^2i) / i^2B^2

This is a law that Maxwell had never seen, for it is EM-Gravity law.
It has the form of (kAA + jBB + hCC)/d^2  for an ellipse for planets to orbit the Sun, and it has so much more. And what it does is create a track in astronomy for stars or planets or moons to orbit, and not only tracks, but the planet pulls and pushes the moons in their track and the Sun pulls and pushes the planets in their tracks, call it an i current type of a push in the track, along with a magnetic field pull in a track. So gravity is seen not only as a gravitational attraction or pull, but also as a push in a track. So the law creates EM tracks and pulls and pushes the mass in the track to orbit. Now that makes a lot of sense, does it not for we can easily picture the Sun as a electric generator pulling and pushing planets to flow around in circles.

Resolving how a Magnetic Field has a electric current Re: Page24, 3-1, perspective of Laws versus Forces in Physics; new force definition F = dq/dt

One great fact we always have in Physics-- Pair Production, where an energetic photon, which has no charge but has force, yet this photon can break apart into two charged particles of an electron=monopole and a positron=opposite monopole.

And in this text we redefine force, so we have both F=ma and F= dQ/dt= electric current or magnetic monopole current.

I tried to have just one force, the dq/dt force, but trouble with that is thermodynamics. We cannot get rid of F= ma, for we cannot unify thermodynamics to the other parts of physics.

These problems of force started emerging when I noticed the A current in the Magnetic Field units kg/A*s^2.

What is the resolution of this huge problem? Have a alternative definition of force dq/dt.

The problem is that Magnetic Field is the singular unit force in physics, meaning, like in math where 1 is unit number in math. So that when we do 1*1 = 1 and we do 1/1 = 1, no other number in math is capable of that feat.

So we need the Magnetic Field to be the 1 of physics. The UNIT FORCE OF PHYSICS.

Already we defined force as dQ/dt so we know Magnetic Field is a force and has to be dQ/dt

And the Faraday Law in New Physics was--


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

= 1/L - VB/i^2L - V/L^2

Remember, I said that when one EM law is in operation, that all 6 EM laws are in operation.

So, what I have to do-- is see how the Magnetic Field units of kg/A*s^2 is also Faraday's law. How the magnetic field, lines of force produces an electric current.

And where an electric current does not necessarily mean mass containing electrons=muons and protons, but rather the Lines of Force of Magnetism.

Now in a Magnetic Field, the electric current is not electrons=muons and protons in motion, but is something else. The A in that Magnetic Field is a current, but not necessarily electrons=muons and protons. The current is a bunch of Magnetic Monopoles, each of .5 MeV charge energy, not rest-mass.

Can we call the Magnetic Field as pictured like this with its North and South poles::



                   `-.               _  _               .-'
                      `-.           | \| |           .-'
       _,..-------..._   `.         | .` |         .'   _...-------..,_
   ,,-'               `-.. `.       |_|\_|       .' ..-'               `-,,
,-'                       `-.`.       __       .'.-'                       `-,
               __..=......._ `.\     |  |     /.' _.......=..__
            ,-;    _..-----...__:.   |  |   .:' __.-----.._     -,
         _,'    ,-'      _____   '.  |  |  .`:-'_____      `-     `,_
        /     ,'    _.-''__...:..::. |  | .::..:...__``-._    `,     \
      ,'    ,'    ,'  _,'   _,,,_    |  |    _,,,_   `,_  `,    `,    `,
     .'    /    ,'   /    ,'     `,  |  |  ,'     `,    \   `,    \    `.
     |    /    ,'  .'   ,'         `,|  |,'         `,   `.  `,    \    |
    |     /    |   |   .'           `|  |'           `.   |   |    \     |
    |     |   |   |    |             |  |             |    |   |   |     |
    |     |   |   |    |             |  |             |    |   |   |     |
    |     \    \   \    \           /|  |\           /    /   /    /     |
     \     \    \   \    \         / |  | \         /    /   /    /     /
      \     \    \   `.   `._   _.' ||  || `._   _.'   .'   /    /     /
       \     `.   `._  `..___`''   / |  | \   ``'___..'  _.'   .'     /
        `.     `._   `-..______.;;// |  | \\;;.______..-'   _.'     .'
          `._     `-.._____..-'.://  |  |  \\:-:=.._____..-'     _.'
             `.._          .--','/   |__|   \`,`-._           ..'
                 `'------''  ,','    ____    `,`,  ``------`'
`-._                     _,-' /     / ___|     \ `-,_                     _.-'
    `-.__           __.-'   ,'      \__  \      `,   `-.__           __.-'
         `'-------''      ,'        |____/        `,      ``-------`'
                       _,'                          `,_
MJP                 ,,'                                `,,



Can we call those loops around the magnet as a ELECTRIC CURRENT itself? So those looped around magnetism is a electric current as well as magnetism.

So that in the Magnetic Field units of kg/A*s^2 we focus on the (kg/A) of (kg/A)*(1/s^2)

Where A is not magnetic lines of force, but rather is the unit electric current lines of force.

And where we thence have the kg cancel out with the A, leaving us with Current/s^2

And so, the push = denial of same space occupancy is Magnetic Monopole Current in the Magnetic Field.



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::

I do not think I was the only one troubled by the explanation of how in the world is a battery of electrochemistry, how in the world does that comply with the Faraday Law of electromagnetism. If one is deluded by the thought that electrons are in motion, and the electron is a .5MeV particle, well, their delusion can make up for the disparity between magnetic flux causing electricity and that ions in motion causes electricity. But, every logical person must know that they have to reduce to Faraday's law. However, here, electrochemistry cannot reduce to Faraday's law.

And that is why the two subjects seem to be taught separately. Why no physics or chemistry professor ever, never wanted to reconcile the two, because you cannot reconcile the two. And that is perhaps the reason that all physics and chemistry professors, never had a inkling of the idea-- "perhaps the electron in motion is not electricity".

For, surely, Faraday's law is not that of moving electrons thrust through a open loop of copper wire is producing electricity. No, Faraday's law is that a thrusting bar magnet produces electricity, not the motion of electrons.

And then, if someone logical had come to physics say in year 1900, and said, alright, well we have electrochemistry and we have Faraday's law, now, we must make battery theory reduced down to Faraday's law.

But, well, no-one in physics, no-one in chemistry had that logical mind.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-12 23:44:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 12:53:44 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Page29, 3-5, Re-examination of the Coulomb force in Old Physics, and
most abundant cosmic structure- electric cord shape/Atom-Totality-Universe/
textbook 8th ed 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2017 20:53:45 +0000


Page29, 3-5, Re-examination of the Coulomb force in Old Physics, and most abundant cosmic structure- electric cord shape/Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017

Now I am going to step back in time, in history of physics and take a close look at Coulomb's inverse square law to see what went wrong that Coulomb could never see a variable force strength law instead of a fixed inverse square law. Why Coulomb could not see that EM varies in force strength from proportional to radius, to 1/radius, and to 1/radius^2 and all-points-in-between. So let me pause and take a look back in history.

Resolving 1784 Coulomb inverse square law; New Physics force definition of both F= ma, plus F = dQ/dt  and, magnetic monopole current dQ/dt

Has anyone actually looked up and re-did the Coulomb experiment of 1784 to see if it can be variable range of strength, not fixed to inverse square? The reason I bring up this topic is because, well, the Coulomb force is actually a variable range of forces starting with its strongest as solid body rotation proportional to distance radius, then proportional to 1/radius as often seen in Capacitors, and finally its weakest form of 1/radius^2, and, of course, all-in-between. So, somewhere in the 1784 Experiment, it only fetches the weakest Coulomb force and bypasses the strongest Coulomb forces radius and next strongest 1/radius. So how could the Coulomb force have been so short sighted? What makes the 1784 Experiment of Coulomb such a short sighted experiment?

So, what I propose here, is to recheck the 1784 Experiment and find out how the experiment was flawed and blind. Was it flawed because the math used was insufficient? And by that I mean linear straight-line math of Y = mx + B, of a torsion beam experiment, used when it required integral area math of calculus integration over a closed loop. In other words, the Coulomb law could not really be derived correctly until Capacitors and Electric Motors were around to perform force law experiments. That would explain why the 1784 Experiment was an inverse square law, totally missing the more important force of proportional to radius and proportional to 1/radius and all in between.

The thing is, if a Coulomb type of experiment had been conducted using a Capacitor, then the strength of the Coulomb force would have been seen as directly proportional to 1/radius, rather than to 1/radius^2.

And even more telling, if the Coulomb type of experiment had been conducted on a electric motor, such as that built by Faraday, and a mass that goes around and around, would have seen the force strength of Coulomb be that of proportional to radius and not to 1/radius^2.

So I think what went wrong here from 1784 on to 2016 was a physics community with a closed mind, closed eyes and a closed subject for Old Physics. Physicists of a closed mind and ignorant understanding.

So of course, once Newton nailed down gravity as inverse square law in 1687, of course by 1784, Coulomb would find a single solo force as inverse square. It is hard to break out of a habit, break out of a mold, so to speak.

But, if history had been where the first force of the 4 known forces of the 20th century, if Newton had discovered the Weak Electromagnetic Force as the first force in history. The weak force is radioactivity and which would be discovered circa 1900, more precisely 1895-6 by Roentgen & Becquerel. And, not too surprisingly, radioactivity is categorized as being three types -- alpha, beta, gamma, just as Coulomb force is R, 1/R, 1/R^2 only reverse in strength.

But let us say that Newton discovered Radioactivity, Weak force first and would assign its force strength as a variable ranging from radius, to 1/radius, to 1/radius^2 and all points in between. Would then, Coulomb, come by in 1784 and find that the Coulomb force ranges from radius, to 1/radius, to 1/radius^2 and all points in between? No, of course not, because electricity and magnetism had to be extensively further developed by Faraday in 1830s and Maxwell by 1860s, so that a true Coulomb law would have to wait until after 1860s. But, would Coulomb in 1874, announce that his law has to await further development before it is finalized?

You bet, that that is what would have happened, the Coulomb force would be a variable range force. But physicists are like any other profession, a lot of dull-copy-cats-- they see Newton's gravity as inverse square, so then if electromagnetism looks to be inverse square-- find it and stop all further thinking and research into whether it is correct or not correct.

Now, just recently in October 2017 I realized that the Magnetic Field units has a electric current inside it. This should have been realized by James Clerk Maxwell himself in 1860s and not have to wait for AP in 2016 to do something about it.

Magnetic Field = kg/A*s^2

And so, what the hell, is a electric current doing in a magnetic field.

The only way I can resolve that, is to say that the A electric current is a magnetic monopole current which consists of specifically the Lines of Force of a magnet. Not that the lines of force are electrons moving, but rather, the lines of force are the magnetic monopoles-- consisting of photons (perhaps neutrinos). And these monopoles are the .5MeV particles of charge energy .5 MeV, not rest mass energy but charge energy.

And the Experiment to prove this true is the classical Ampere law experiment where two parallel conducting wires (balloon wires shown in the YouTube film clip above) and where the wires attract or they push apart depending on whether the current is same direction or opposite direction, respectively. Now Dirac, back in 1978 wrote a magnificent book titled Directions in Physics and on page 46 wrote that the magnetic monopole was going to have at minimum, at minimum a charge value of 137/2 the charge of an electron. What that means is that a magnetic monopole Lines of Force is 137/2 greater of a bend or arc curvature in magnetism than in electricity, or electric current flow. So, the experiment of the wires pushing apart is an arc bend that is 137/2 smaller for the electric current than for a magnet arc bend.

So the A current in the Magnetic Field units is a magnetic monopole current. And a magnetic monopole current is photons flowing. The magnetic monopole current is what gives planets a "push and pull" in EM gravity.

Now, if we are lucky, we maybe able to actually see Magnetic Monopole Current Push on a planet, or, Pull on a planet surface. For it is the tides on Earth from the Moon, where some tides are push and some are pull. And is the Red Spot on Jupiter along with all those weather bands of "Jupiter clouds", and is the hexagonal pole on Saturn. The Lines of Force of magnetism causes not only the features of the Jupiter clouds as latitude band-rings on Jupiter, but also has a lot to do with the motion of the atmosphere on Earth, the east and west motion is because of Magnetic Lines of Force.

When Newton wrote his magnificent Principia in 1687, it was only natural for him to define force as F = ma, as that of kg*m/s^2. It will take physics to 1860s with Maxwell to consolidate electricity and magnetism, so Newton could not have defined force as that of current of EM, as dQ/dt.

But, force as F = ma is not general enough. It requires a rest mass. Force as dQ/dt requires no rest mass and is more general. But, does that mean we can dispense with F= ma and use only F = dQ/dt? No, we have to use both, because, after all, the science of thermodynamics needs both F= ma and F = dq/dt. The 6 laws of EM theory are all force laws, but if we use Newton's F = ma, most are not force laws. Are any of the 6 laws of EM theory require F = ma? Yes of course, what is called the Gauss's Law of Electricity in which one of its major features of a law is to say " A charge on an insulated conductor moves to its outer surface" (Halliday & Resnick, 1986). It is that law within the 6 EM laws of the AP equations that require Force = ma. For many phenomenon of physics is where charge resides in mass particles such as electrons=muons and protons and the force has to include mass, but not always for the magnetic monopole is the .5 MeV particle with no rest mass, but .5 MeV of charge energy. So, we can get away with just Force = dQ/dt which has no rest mass but has charge. So that Force is a duality relationship between F = ma and F= dQ/dt. Sometimes you use one, sometimes the other, but neither are equal and both need be present.

Most Abundant Shape & Structure in Astronomy::

Electric cord shaped (pencil shaped) galaxies and Electric Cord shaped Superclusters-- galaxies as filaments the most common structures in astronomy

Now the Solid Body Rotation of most stars in spiral galaxies proves Gravity = EM force because only Electromagnetism is strong enough to have Rigid Solid Body Rotation.

But, there is another overwhelming proof-- the geometrical shape that large gravitationally bound objects can evolve into.

With EM= gravity the evolution of huge massive structure is in the form of electric long extension cord. Some call it pencil shape some call it finger shape, some call it filaments.

The best to call it is electric-cord-line shape.

Awhile back ago-- "National Geographic" wrote about some 100 quasars that defied the laws of physics and if my memory is correct these quasars all gravitationally bound where stretched like an electric Cord in the cosmic sky.

Which raises a concern of mine in that how sure are astronomers of gravitational locked together.

Anyway there are many examples of galaxies and clusters in a Cord shape.

It was National Geographic, Jan.2013 by Andrew Fazekas, titled Biggest Thing in Universe Found-- Defies Scientific Theories.

Talks about quasar galaxy clusters 73 quasars stretching 4 billion light years across.  

Trouble is Andrew does not show a picture of them as looking like a long electric extension cord, thin.

Proving the point that a gravitational locked system being wire shaped means gravity is EM.

Alright good, for i find out that the shape of the largest structures in the observable universe is the electric extension cord shape only Old Physics calls it Galaxy Filaments.

I suppose we can look at a electric cord as a filament.

Wikipedia has a whole section on filament galaxies.

Looking at the Perseus-Pisces Supercluster and it looks like a tangled electric cord.

And sad what the physics dolts use to explain this shape, can you believe it the dolts think a massive Dark Matter looms around these galaxies. That is equivalent to thinking electricity in a cord works only if there is ten times something in mass is nearby the cord.

Now a different structure in the shape of a cord is NGC2736 called the Pencil Nebula.

What i am driving home is the fact that only with gravity = EM can the evolution of galaxies end up looking like electric extension cords.

On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 4:30:14 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
shape of largest structures in the Cosmos-- surprisingly, has the shape of electric extension cords

Looking at it philosophically, if Gravity = EM, then we expect most of the structure of the Cosmos to be shaped as electric-cord lines

Philosophically, if Gravity is Electromagnetism, then the most abundant shape in electricity is cord lines of power.

Now many people do not know that a cord is a closed loop like this O only squashed so much that it is looking like a line. Many people think a electric cord is just a single line wire. They never realized it is a closed loop.

So if gravity is EM, and since the most common shape in EM is the cord-line shape, means, well, in the Observable Universe, cord line should be the most abundant shape. And it is in the fact that most galaxies form filaments in clusters and superclusters.

The cosmic shape of the largest structures of Observable Universe is the shape of a wire-- extension cord of a closed loop bent to be a linear looking wire.

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:: This is a huge error of Old Physics, Old Chemistry, for they cannot explain a battery in terms of Faraday's law. And that has kept them as obtuse in science for nearly 200 years. You cannot explain a battery unless you reduce it into that of Faraday's law. You cannot do that if you think electricity is the motion of electrons in the form of ions. The only way out of this dilemma, is to recognize that the cathode, anode, electrolytes form into a thrusting bar magnet.

Quoting Wikipedia on the false modern conception of how a battery of electrochemistry works:
"When a battery is supplying electric power, its positive terminal is the cathode and its negative terminal is the anode.[2] The terminal marked negative is the source of electrons that when connected to an external circuit will flow and deliver energy to an external device. When a battery is connected to an external circuit, electrolytes are able to move as ions within, allowing the chemical reactions to be completed at the separate terminals and so deliver energy to the external circuit. It is the movement of those ions within the battery which allows current to flow out of the battery to perform work. " end quoting Wikipedia

The way batteries truly work, is not the motion of electrolytes, not the electrons in motion. But the magnetic monopoles that the electrolytes create.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-13 03:17:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 14:17:36 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Page30, 3-6, Our Sun is Hollow due to Gauss's law of
electricity/Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2017 22:17:37 +0000



Page30, 3-6, Our Sun is Hollow due to Gauss's law of electricity/Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017

Page30, 3-6,  Our Sun is Hollow due to Gauss's law of electricity/Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017

Alright, the last page in this chapter, quite a chapter for 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.

We covered how there is huge mountains of proof that gravity is EM force such as spiral galaxies having solid body rotation, even Saturn Rings having solid body rotation, to the fact that the main structure of the galaxies is a electric-cord shape (filament shape) structure, and just recently, the fact that the Sun is a Hollowed out star. Why is the Sun hollow? Because gravity is EM force and one of its laws is Gauss's law of Electricity-- that charges (mass with charge) moves to the outer surface, leaving the center hollow.

In fact, as you think about it for a moment, Gauss's law that charge moves to the outer surface of a body is proof that charge is not the electrons of atoms, but rather, charge is some photon or neutrino with a .5 MeV charge energy, not rest-mass energy. And this then says, all stars are hollow and all galaxy centers are hollow for the most part-- the kiss of death to Newton gravity and General Relativity gravity.

As I write this text, the NASA space agency of the USA is building a probe to go to the Sun. I am trying to convince them, their most important fact finding in that mission is whether the Sun is truly hollow.

Fascinating report-- the Sun is (possibly) hollow-- NEW SCIENTIST, 21Oct2017, page 28.

Incredible story. Starts with scientist Basu figuring out what is inside the Sun, via two methods, helioseismology and then spectroscopy. Then along comes Asplund with a computer and 3rd dimensional modeling on spectroscopy comes out with data that the Sun interior is so to speak-- hollow, missing mass of about 9 *10^27 kg. The article goes on to discuss remedies.

But let us suppose the finding stands true, that the Sun is truly hollow. Would anything in EM-gravity suggest that the Sun and nearly-all stars are hollow?

Of course there is something in EM gravity-- that electricity stays on the surface outside-- not in the very interior. It is a habit of Electromagnetism to reside on the surface. Thus as astro bodies get really big such as stars-- and because they are charged plasma, they are hollow. And this transfers over to galaxies as the nucleus is likely to be mostly hollow also. And if true, well, another defeat for black hole people who love their black hole nonsense, for if matter gets very dense, it gets hot and becomes a star and becomes HOLLOW. Such is the behavior of Electromagnetism, for there is no need to be a dense heavy core, when the action is on the surface.

This also explains why the Sun's surface is "hotter" than the interior of the Sun-- EM is a surface phenomenon.

Now in Old Physics it was Gauss's law of electricity " A charge on an insulated conductor moves to its outer surface" that is called into play here. In New Physics, what is called into play is New Ohms Law of V= iBL with its derivative V' which is Ampere's law. Think of the Sun as just a huge conductor and so its electricity (the bulk of its matter) moves to form a hollow interior.  

Now perhaps the reason we are sending a Solar Probe in the next few years is partially due to this huge problem of the Sun core-- is it really hollow. And whether that Probe will be decked out to measure the Sun on this question.

But EM gravity easily answers it -- electricity moves to the outer surface --- end of story.

Now this opens up a grand new chapter in physics history-- the Hollow Sun.

For it tells us gravity is EM not the pathetic Newton and General Relativity for nattering nutters.

We simply move from hollow Sun to hollow stars, and next to galactic centers. If the GR nutters are correct, most fusion and nova and supernova come from galactic centers where matter is most dense.

But what does observation tell us?

Observation tells us most galactic centers are voids-- free of matter. Most nova and supernova occur along the outer reaches of galaxies.

And what do the nutters say about the black and empty galactic centers? Of course, they invoke their crazy black holes.

Our Sun is hollow because gravity is EM and thus galaxies have Hollow centers because Gauss's law of electricity is that charge (hence mass) wants to reside on the outer surface.

Now provided it turns out true that the Sun indeed is Hollow, based upon Gauss's law of Electricity, that a charge on a insulated conductor moves to its outer surface, where the Sun is seen as just a huge current of ions and charge. Then, we can also see how Gauss's law applies to Jupiter and Saturn making them "tend towards a hollow core". We already see evidence of electricity on Saturn's north pole as a "pure hexagon". On Jupiter, we see enormous magnetism and thus with enormous electric current, we see the surface of Jupiter as electric currents of clouds and the Red Spot, being the junction box of electricity. Describing the Red Spot as a junction box of electricity is a appropriate description. Come to think of it, those cloud patterns of Jupiter are driven almost entirely by electric current flow, since they are "orderly bands". You do not get orderly cloud bands on Earth for we do not have that electric current flow, but on Earth, the wind patterns are affected by the Earth magnetic field.


The Solar spacecraft Re: Gauss's law of electricity solves Hollow Sun

Now there was a report this year of NASA thinking of sending a Solar spacecraft to the Sun for science experiments.

Looking it up right now on iphone. Called Parker Solar Probe-- NASA to probe outer corona of Sun. It will approach to within 8.5 solar radii 5.9 million kilometers to the surface photosphere of the Sun.

I am guessing that is as close as it can get before being incinerated.

But, I was wondering if the engineers can engineer Parker to get the latest and best data of a HOLLOW Sun.

It is scheduled to launch in 2018.

So plenty of time to outfit Parker with the best engineering to finalize if Sun is Hollow or not Hollow.

So now one idea to measure if Sun is hollow is to have the Solar Probe carry aboard some "special matter" which gets inside the Sun and is able to be monitored back on Earth.

If the Sun is hollow, this special matter, none will sink into the central region. If the Sun is not hollow-- this special matter will sink there and be seen back on Earth as a non-hollow Sun.

Or, perhaps, we can outfit Parker Solar Probe to have some instrument that shoots a EM beam into the Sun and depending on the time-length of return, determine if the center is hollow or not hollow.

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::
There I was, 1969, a teenager 19 years old, sitting in classrooms at Univ. Cincinnati, having done chemistry and physics. Knowing that Faraday's law is the intersection of magnetism and electricity, that the motion of magnetism produces electricity. But in chemistry class, no magnetism is involved in a electrochemical battery. It bothered me. But being 19 years old, what bothered me in education had to be buried inside me, or else I could not learn more, graduate, but be a rebel without true answers. Education is often being a submissive teenager, for the sake of learning more, even if it did not make much sense. Just as in calculus in math class at UC, that we were spoon fed the idea that the integral was a rectangle with 0 width, yet, still have internal area. What if I had revolted against that stupidity? Well, I probably would never graduate from college. There is a price to pay for wanting a degree in college-- yet appease clowns as college professor teachers.

I payed the price so often in college-- that what was taught as true, was illogical trash.

One of those illogical trashes was electrochemistry battery and how it works. How many of you, actually believe that a battery makes electricity because electrons or ions drift from one side to the other side? How many believe that sort of nonsense, because, well, you have Faraday's law which says you need magnetism to make electricity. The two are incompatible. And what needed to be done is to consider the fact that ions form Magnetic Lines of Force, and the movement of ions does not cause a current to flow because of electrons in motion, no, that is stupid and silly. The movement of ions creates a thrusting bar Magnet and causes electricity as magnetic monopoles of .5MeV to flow in the closed loop wire.

This is the picture that has to emerge in order to say-- production of electricity-- all reduces to Faraday's law.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-13 08:02:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
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 <***@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
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-13 18:59:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 19:51:11 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Page32, 4-2, Two forces F=ma, F = dQ/ds causes two energies in New
Physics /Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 03:51:11 +0000

Page32, 4-2, Two forces F=ma, F = dQ/ds causes two energies in New Physics /Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017


Alright, time is flying, this is November and need to finish this book before January 2018.

Recall in a earlier page of the textbook that I said two dual forces exist in Nature, F = ma and F = dQ/dt (current of electricity or magnetic monopoles).

So the solution to thermodynamics, basically is that there are two forms of energy involved. Old Physics called them Kinetic and the other Potential. Since KInetic comes from F = ma, Potential comes from dQ/dt (or some prefer seconds, dQ/ds). Both forces, when moved through distance are energies.

So, do we call them as Old Physics would call-- Kinetic Force and Potential Force as current force?

Now in Old Physics with their Old Thermodynamics, they had a huge error in thinking, for they viewed Temperature as average Kinetic Energy of all the particles involved in a specific region of Space. That is alright, however, it does not include the Problem of kinetic energy of non-rest-mass particles such as photons. So that Old Physics was narrow-minded with kinetic energy, thinking that photons have no kinetic energy because they have no rest mass. But we all know that photons have kinetic energy even though they have no rest mass, and that is where New Physics steps in with the dual force as dQ/ds, which can be without rest mass and thus form the second type of kinetic energy-- photon radiation.

Now that begs for an experiment never done before in Space-- measure the temperature in Space where there is no particles of rest-mass, but a lot of photons present. Old Physics says those photons make no contribution to temperature of that region of space, even though the photons can literally flood the region. New Physics says that the dQ/ds force and force through distance is energy, that the flooding photons contribute to the temperature increase in that region of Space.

So here we need an Experiment performed in Outer Space, best near the Sun with its flood of photons. But where there is no rest mass particles, just non-rest-mass photons. And find out if that region has a Temperature due to the photons.

So the solution involves the addition of rest mass particles along with non-rest-mass particles Kinetic Energy.

In Old Physics they would have in this circumstance Potential Energy U = 1/2 kx^2 and Kinetic Energy KE = 1/2mv^2.

And add the two

1/2 kx^2 + 1/2mv^2 = total energy

In New Physics we would see the Potential Energy as Kinetic Energy of photon as distance through a force dQ/ds.

So in New Physics we would have

average kinetic energy of dQ/ds plus average kinetic energy F=ma = total kinetic energy= temperature.

Alright, in Halliday and Resnick, Fundamentals of Physics, 3rd edition, 1988, pages 152 and 153 they picture a Block & Spring system, then they give the equation:

E = 1/2 kx^2 + 1/2 mv^2

Now if we examine 1/2mv^2 that would be Temperature as Average 1/2mv^2

If we examine 1/2kx^2 that would be Potential Energy and would be the dQ/ds. And, this would be the Charge = Temperature

So, what we have is that Temperature is a Energy and with rest mass particles it is the Average 1/2mv^2

But with the photon and charge as temperature, it is the 1/2kx^2 as dQ/ds *meters

So, in Old Physics and Chemistry, they had only one term of the Accounting of Temperature. They missed the other term-- photon and charge temperature. The other term is far smaller on Earth, but when near a hot blazing star, the photon charge temperature is very substantial, perhaps not equal to the kinetic temperature, but giving it a close run.

So we need that EXPERIMENT performed, and we all know we sent many many spacecraft out to collect data, but here is one that is highest priority. We have a sense that temperature in empty space save for photons is cold, but not as cold as empty space with just a few photons.

Now as for the picture:: the Kinetic Temperature is that of collisions, of rest masses

The picture of Charge Temperature, is that of photon waves, where the waves-- seen as ribs or wings or fins to a central point moving forward. So the transverse wave of a photon is a rib or wing or fin of the photon. And these ribs or wings, when they get enmeshed with one another, the different frequencies of the two are changed.

So in Kinetic Temperature we have collisions, pool or billiard ball physics. In Charge Temperature, we have ribs or wings or fins of transverse waves getting entangled and altering the motion of both.

Solution found E = 1/2 kx^2 + 1/2 mv^2

Yes, this is the solution. The problem in Old Physics, why thermodynamics was never able to be included into the "rest of physics" is that it could never reconcile energy with rest mass and energy without rest mass. So what happened is that Thermodynamics built up these pretty laws-- four laws, which in hindsight were the four laws of Maxwell's electricity and magnetism, but never a bridge could be built between them-- why? -- because thermodynamics was only about rest mass, and never about energy with no rest mass.

There are two forces in physics, F = ma and F= dQ/ds, one has rest mass, the other has no rest mass. So, that is the solution for energy and temperature, there needs to be two Energies.

Alright i want to point out a huge principle of Physics that results from the Unification of all forces as EM force. Something that was in the Old Maxwell Equations but not recognized.

It is a Principle of all sciences and is what many would think as philosophical. And this principle comes just after I ruined entropy as "disorder" and showed it was Voltage. So we can say the Principle of Thermodynamics is the Voltage in the Universe is always increasing. And i need to show how increasing voltage is the same as "heat moves always from hot to cold", if that still is true.

But the principle I want to talk about now, is what I call-- Everything wants to go in a Circle, Principle.

We see it in EM in that magnets are Dipole so the magnetic lines of force sweep back around on the magnet. We see it in a current exists only in a closed loop. We especially see it in astronomy that planets go around Sun, sun goes around galaxy, galaxy goes around local cluster, etc. we see it in atoms where electrons=muons go around nucleus.

This tendency for matter to "go around" comes from the EM theory in that you take the derivative of New Ohm's law and you have circle, ellipse math.

And a huge consequence of going around in circles is that light waves, photons also are bent in path of motion. And this disputes Doppler redshift as a distance indicator, but rather that light is bent by its own self. This means light shift is not a distance indicator.

The days of Newtonian thinking is over-- thinking something is moving in a straightline in Space for long distances.

Alright here is a possible physics experiment to help prove whether the fins or wings of one photon intermeshed with a second photon makes the larger frequency photon go smaller. The analog of collisions when the particles have rest mass.

We take a beam of colored light hit a screen and locate a spot of contact now shine a lower frequency at that spot. Now we shine both beams at the spot where the higher frequency is inside the lower and we can recognize both from their color.

Now we look to see if the contact spot of higher frequency has shifted, moved from the spot wherein the beam hit when alone.

If the spot shifted, means photons entangle and cause their path to alter, much like a collision of pool table balls.

Defining fin/wings of Light Wave & Experiment of lightwave collision

Now this sideswiping or wave collision is what is going to explain Doppler shift-- not as Doppler, but as Wave Collision where one photon alters the wavetrain frequency of another, and shifting its track. And we mistakenly think it is caused by the motion of where the light wave was created.


Now, I outlined an Experiment to prove this occurs in Light Waves. Briefly again, the experiment involves two different colored light beams. We mark a spot on the wall where the one beam is focused, say a laser color of white. Then we shoot a second different color of light beam, say green. Now we shoot both, so there is collision of both and we see if the spot for the white has shifted and moved.

Now I suspect I have immediate proof of the above from astronomy. There was a survey done decades ago, and found that the galaxies formed a perfect circle ring. Some thought it was a optics problem that the ring emerged. But, what I believe causes the Ring-- is due to a Cosmic Statistic of the averaging of all the photons traveling in an Atom Totality creates a intrinsic Ring. See below for more on this Ring.

Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.math
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2011 11:31:18 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Sat, Oct 8 2011 1:31 pm
Subject: fiberglass experiment Chapt8 Experiment that shows what redshift really is #40 Atom Totality theory 5th ed.
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Remove | Report this message | Find messages by this author
I am finding out that chapters with experiments involved can tend to
be far
longer than chapters without experiments. But that is a good sign.
Let this be the last post of chapter8 and let me get to chapter9 where 
I prove 
that lightwaves cannot be Doppler shifted and in future editions of 
this book 
let me reverse the order so that the proof of no Doppler shift 
possible on light 
precedes the fiberglass experiment.
Subject: how to make sense of the largest blueshift ever reported
 Let me first start off by saying that neither the Big Bang nor the 
 Atom Totality theories 
 are comfortable with reported large blueshifts from distant 
galaxies. 
 Both theories predict a predominance of 
 redshifts. Both are comfortable 
 with a few blueshifts 
 in nearby local galaxies. Blueshifts of rotation are expected. And 
 blueshifts of Andromeda 
 and Barnard star is acceptable, for they are tiny blueshifts and 
 nearby. But as for this report:
--- quoting about a quasar blueshift --- 
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005ApJ...618...
  We have obtained optical intermediate-resolution spectra (R=3000) 
of 
  the narrow-line quasars DMS 0059-0055 and PG 1543+489. The [O III] 
  emission line in DMS 0059-0055 is blueshifted by 880 km s-1 
relative 
  to Hbeta. We also confirm that the [O III] emission line in PG 
  1543+489 has a relative blueshift of 1150 km s-1. These two narrow- 
  line quasars show the largest [O III] blueshifts known to date 
among 
  type 1 active galactic nuclei (AGNs). 
  --- end quoting ---
Both theories are uncomfortable with that report. Could it be a 
report 
 in error?
The Atom Totality theory may be able to explain that in that the 
distance 
in the Atom Totality is far shrunk from distances of the Big Bang 
theory. 
In the Atom Totality theory 400 million light years is the end of the 
Cosmos 
and so a lot of what we thought were far away, was not that far away.
And in the Atom Totality, a lobe shape of the 5f6 are like long cigar 
shapes 
and so hot blue stars in a galaxy can appear bluish for a blueshift.
Or, could it be what the Wikipedia says about a gravitational lens 
 blueshift 
 only in this situation a EM lens blueshift?
--- quoting Wikipedia on redshift --- 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
 Finally, gravitational 
  redshifts are a relativistic effect observed in electromagnetic 
  radiation moving out of gravitational fields. Conversely, a 
decrease 
  in wavelength is called blue shift and is generally seen when a 
 light- 
  emitting object moves toward an observer or when electromagnetic 
  radiation moves into a gravitational field.
--- end quoting Wikipedia ---
So that maybe, just maybe, the EM lens of a Atom Totality has a band 
 of blueshifted 
 galaxies at a special distance from Earth. Just like in that survey 
 where a "ring structure" 
 appears and not knowing if it is an intrinsic ring.
So maybe, just maybe, the Atom Totality theory with a predominance of 
 redshift has 
 a lens, such that a optical affect occurrs so that a Cosmic ring of 
 blueshifts occurrs 
 at a special distance from earth.
In summary, essentially the Big Bang and the Atom Totality predict 
 vast and 
 widespread and the overwhelming majority of shifts to be redshift, 
and 
 a rarity 
 of blueshifts.
Just as the fiberglass window panel sees every white light 
redshifted, 
 that only 
 the local galaxies and stars have a chance of a blueshift.
But because the EM lens of the Atom Totality is a lens of a optical 
 affect, that 
 there is a possibility that at a certain distance, the white light 
 becomes blueshifted 
 in a halo ring affect.
Subject: Re: how to make sense of the largest blueshift ever reported
- Show quoted text - 
Sorry, I should have referenced this "survey" and the "halo ring of 
 the survey".
In this survey a curious ring is found, and whether it is intrinsic 
or 
 not?
--- quoting --- 
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/papers/LSS/
The third layer (0.01 < z < 0.02) is dominated by the P-P 
supercluster 
 (left side of image) and the P-I supercluster extending up into the 
 ZoA terminating as the Great Attractor region (notably Abell 3627) 
 disappears behind a wall of Milky Way stars. An intriguing "ring" or 
 chain of galaxies seems to circle/extend from the northern to the 
 southern Galactic hemisphere (see also Figure 1). It is unknown 
 whether this ring-like structure is physically associated with the 
 cosmic web or an artifact of projection.
--- end quoting ---
So I ask the question whether the above Harvard furthest distant 
 blueshift 
 is a galaxy member belonging to this ring?
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2005ApJ...618...
 So if the Harvard quasar blueshift is a member of the Caltech survey 
 reported 
 ring structure, then we may have solved a troublesome report. The 
 solution is 
 that the Cosmos has ring structure which is due to a EM lens of the 
 Atom 
 Totality.
--- end quoting one of my old posts ---



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-- Reader maybe confused by commentary, as it seems non sequitur of the text. My reason for commentary, is that when writing a textbook, I often make discoveries that upsets the textbook, so to address the new discoveries, I add them at the end of pages of the text and they may appear out of place.

In 2017, when writing this 8th edition, I discovered that the Real Electron = muon = 105 MeV and was not what causes electric current. And that meant the little particle the .5 MeV particle was a Magnetic Monopole, a light wave or neutrino dressed up with a charge energy of .5 MeV, and in fact quantum spin is this .5 MeV, and this particle is what causes electricity and electric current. Rather than start over with the 8th edition, I chose to add this new knowledge via Commentary, at the end of pages of text.

Now today I wanted to make progress on explaining Electrochemistry and how is it that a battery is another form of Faraday's Law of a thrusting bar magnet through a closed loop of copper wire? How does a battery become a Faraday Law?

Well, to do that, you have to drop the idea of ions as electrons, and, as the motion of electrons is electric current. You have to drop that idea altogether. And what is moving is the Monopole of .5 MeV, whereas the electrons and ions and molecules are mostly all at rest , or a tiny bit of motion, not much but a tiny bit.

So, what happens in Electrochemistry of a battery? What is the thrusting bar magnet in a battery? That is the big question. And the answer is, that the entire battery inside is a bar magnet thrusting in the closed loop of wire.

How can that be?

If you read in Wikipedia, how it is that a permanent magnet is formed, you will understand how a battery is a magnet, a thrusting magnet at that.

Wikipedia says in making a permanent magnet::
" Heating the object above its Curie Temperature, allowing it to cool in a magnetic field and hammering it as it cools. This is the most effective method and is similar to the industrial processes used to create permanent magnets."
"Placing the item in an external magnetic field will result in the item retaining some of the magnetism on removal. Vibration has been shown to increase the effect."

Alright, so we have a battery of Volta, of silver and zinc with electrolyte solution in between.

Can you see, or visualize that the silver and zinc in solution is the same, very same thing as the spins of the electrons= muons. Can you see that a battery is a means of making electron spins of atoms line up to form a permanent magnetic field as the battery itself and because the battery has some fluid motion, not much motion needed but some fluid motion of electrolyte, this becomes the thrust of a magnet in Faraday's law.

So, the true explanation of how a battery produces electric current, is not about electrons or ions in motion, but about the battery becoming a permanent bar magnet and the small amount of motion of the battery electrolyte is the thrust of the magnetic field onto the copper wire circuit. So the battery becomes a bar magnet, thrusting, and causes magnetic monopoles to enter the copper wire circuit yielding electric current.

Now, let me review how those four chemistry textbooks talk about ferromagnetism, for that is what a battery is in electrochemistry, a battery is a thrusting bar magnet.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-14 00:54:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 21:58:13 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Page33, 4-3, Equation, or formula for All the Sciences, including
math and logic A=B*C*D /Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 05:58:13 +0000


Page33, 4-3, Equation, or formula for All the Sciences, including math and logic A=B*C*D /Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017

Page33, 4-3, Equation, or formula for All the Sciences, including math and logic A=B*C*D /Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017

The universal formula of all Science, including Logic is V = L*W*D, volume equals length times width times depth

Now one of the major reasons writing a textbook is painful for me, as I have found, that I finish many chapters and then discover new ideas that alters the previous chapters. Now this probably does not occur to the dull author of textbooks, for they seldom discover new science, and so there is nothing to change. But for me, it is a major ongoing hazard, and one of the major reasons I have so many editions. For I have so many new discoveries. It is too late in the year for me to start over with this book, so I decided to just finish the chapters as I go, noting that pages may have been better positioned earlier on in this textbook.

This page is a highly crucial critical page and should have come earlier, but I discovered only recently with doing the thermodynamics. It is dazzling beautiful in LOGIC, and it is a foundation of how to teach all the sciences-- where to start, both physics, math, and even logic. Where to start is to multiply three things to gain a fourth thing, and is commonly known as Volume.

Let me call this page the FOUNDATION OF SCIENCE-- where to start.

And, this page belongs as the starting page of chapter 2. At present I have this as starting page of chapter 2

Page15, 2-1, EM theory becomes the axioms over all of physics/ Atom-Totality-Universe / textbook 8th ed 2017

But I need this Foundation page come before I revamp the Maxwell Equations.

FOUNDATION OF SCIENCE

Now, every major science can start with this page, especially mathematics, geometry, algebra, physics, chemistry, and especially logic.

Let us say the reader is a student with a mind that is "blank slate" a slate ready to be filled with the best of knowledge of science.

Where does he/she start?

Surprisingly, the start is a remarkable understanding of the world, the cosmos we live in. The start of all science is an equation, and it is a equation that is simple, pure, and unquestionable. It is logically pristine. Written in just symbol form is this A = B*C*D, but we can refine that to

V = L*W*D

Now the reader is asked a question here. And do not think too hard, too long.

Question, given a equation A = b x c x d, or written as L x W x D, does it remind you of something?

I do not know what Grade in Grade School that the volume of something is taught? At what age? Does a typical average student of 12 years old recognize Volume as being Length x Width x Depth.

Or is the formula L*W*D taught in High School and students younger are unaware of it?

Anyway, many sharp and many dumb intellects want a formula or equation that describes the whole universe. These dumb cite things like Schrodinger and Dirac equations, and call for dumb things like a theory of everything.

And all will agree that no-one has ever given the equation that "tells all and spells all" about science. And that the idea that there is such an equation is really fruitcake nonsense. To think one equation is going to encapsulate such a complex reality as the world, is fruitcake.

But, we can say, that one equation is special over all other equations in describing the world at large and small. That is reasonable and not fruitcake. An equation that starts physics.

Science has just that one equation that is more special than all other equations, for it reaches into not only physics, but mathematics, logic, and all other sciences.

We know it from Geometry as a rectangular solid Volume is Length * Width * Depth

But now, notice that it describes, not just a object as a rectangle solid, but all the space of that solid and the size of it, it can be the Universe itself as a solid body.

So, in a sense we can say

Universe = Length * Width * Depth

Now, let us be more specific of a volume, that of a single atom of hydrogen

Hydrogen Atom = L*W*D

Now, with the hydrogen atom let us alter the symbols to be P*E*N

Where P = proton, E = electron=muon, N = photon (or neutrino).

Now we stop there and pause for a moment and reflect. If given any Object in the world it is

L*W*D. Even an atom is a Object that has a volume and is L*W*D

But, an atom can replace the length width depth by say proton, electron-muon, photon (or neutrino).

A neutron is the addition of proton + electron=muon + photon (or neutrino)

Now here we contend that a photon and neutrino are one and the same, just that it is a neutrino when in the nucleus and a photon when not in the nucleus.

So a neutron is not a fundamental particle but a composite of fundamental particles.

So another way of writing Hydrogen Atom = L*W*D is to write proton + electron=muon + photon

But now, we proceed to electricity and magnetism-- EM theory.

And so we have EM = L*W*D and we replace Length with current, Width with Magnetic Field, Depth with Angular Momentum.

So, we have EM = an Object and all objects are L*W*D

And for EM, we end up with i *B*L, in other words we end up with Voltage as New Ohm's Law, V=iBL.

You see the power that Object = L*W*D has? It is an enormously powerful equation.

Basically, what it is saying is the World always has objects and all objects have at least three things involved forming a fourth thing-- volume of Space. If the three things are length width depth, the fourth is volume. And once we have the Volume of an object, we can play around with the equation A = B*C*D to extract more data, more refined data. But our equation must have the whole structure of what we are focused upon, then, later we refine the structure.

If the three things are proton, electron=muon, photon the fourth is an atom.

If the three things are current, Magnetic Field, Angular Momentum, the fourth is Voltage.

Now, all of mathematics comes from such a beginning of Object = L*W*D and it is geometry made plain and simple. But how about Logic and Algebra? How can three things equal to a fourth start Logic and start Algebra?

Do they fit into Object = L*W*D

Ever notice that Logic has 4 and only 4 connectors (the true logic not the error filled Boole logic).

Here is a short synopsis of Logic is 4 things, just like the Object = LWD


The 4 connectors of Logic are:

1) Equal (equivalence) plus Not (negation) where the two are combined as one
2) And (conjunction)
3) Or (exclusive or) (disjunction)
4) Implication

New Logic

EQUAL/NOT table:
T  = T  = T
T  = not F  = T
F  = not T  = T
F =  F   = T

Equality must start or begin logic because in the other connectors, we cannot say a result equals something if we do not have equality built already. Now to build equality, it is unary in that T=T and F =F. So we need another unary connector to make equality a binary. Negation is that other connector and when we combine the two we have the above table.

Equality combined with Negation allows us to proceed to build the other three logic connectors.

Now, unfortunately, Logic must start with equality allied with negation and in math what this connector as binary connector ends up being-- is multiplication for math. One would think that the first connector of Logic that must be covered is the connector that ends up being addition of math, not multiplication. But maybe we can find a philosophy-logic answer as to why Logic starts with equal/not and is multiplication rather than addition.

Here you we have one truth table equal/not whose endresult is 4 trues.

New Logic
AND
T &  T  = T
T & F  = T
F &  T  = T
F  & F   = F

AND is ADD in New Logic, and that makes a whole lot of common sense. AND feels like addition, the joining of parts. And the truth table for AND should be such that if given one true statement in a series of statements then the entire string of statements is true. So if I had P and Q and S and R, I need only one of those to be true to make the string true P & Q & S & R = True if just one statement is true.

The truth table of AND results in 3 trues and 1 false.

New Logic
OR(exclusive)
T or  T  = F
T or F  = T
F or  T  = T
F  or F   = F

OR is seen as a choice, a pick and choose. So if I had T or T, there is no choice and so it is False. If I had T or F there is a choice and so it is true. Again the same for F or T, but when I have F or F, there is no choice and so it is false. OR in mathematics, because we pick and discard what is not chosen, that OR is seen as subtraction.

OR is a truth table whose endresult is 2 trues, 2 falses.

New Logic
IMPLIES (Material Conditional)
IF/THEN
MOVES INTO
T ->  T  = T
T ->  F  = F
F ->  T  = U probability outcome
F ->  F   = U probability outcome

A truth table that has a variable which is neither T or F, but U for unknown or a probability outcome. We need this U so that we can do math where 0 divided into something is not defined.

Now notice there are four truth tables where the endresult is 4 trues, 3 trues with 1 false, 2 trues with 2 falses and finally a truth table with a different variable other than T or F, with variable U. This is important in New Logic that the four primitive connectors, by primitive I mean they are independent of one another so that one cannot be derived by the other three. The four are axioms, independent. And the way you can spot that they are independent is that if you reverse their values so that 4 trues become 4 falses. For AND, reversal would be FFFT instead of TTTF. For OR, a reversal would be TFFT instead of FTTF.

To be independent and not derivable by the other three axioms you need a condition of this:

One Table be 4 of the same
One Table be 3 of the same
One Table be 2 of the same
And to get division by 0 in mathematics, one table with a unknown variable.

Now how do we get Algebra, or numbers from three things multiplied equals a fourth thing A = B*C*D

In math, algebra starts with addition of 1 plus 1 = 2, then 2+ 1 = 3, and thus mathematical induction.

But in physics, addition is proton + electron=muon + neutrino (or photon) = hydrogen atom, then, 2 protons + 2 electrons=muons + 2photons (or neutrinos) = helium atom, then lithium, then beryllium etc etc. So Algebra, or numbers are borne from addition. But, now, physics can equate addition with multiplication, as a link up of addition with multiplication. So that helium is 2protons + 2electrons=muons + 2 photons = protons x electrons=muons x photons.

Physics in the periodic chart of chemical elements links together addition with multiplication. So that we can say, the volume of a helium atom is multiply, or, the volume of helium is addition. Here is where Science of Physics is unifying and linking together addition with multiplication. Math can make this link also in the fact that say a rectangular solid is 10 *5 *2 = 100 cubic and adding is

HHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHH which is 10 in 5 rows

now 2 of those

HHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHH

And adding each one is 100

Atom = electron=muon x proton x photon

Means the neutrino is just another form of photon.

Now we all know a photon has no distinct 3 types as a neutrino has 3 distinct-- and thus-- that needs an explanation.

Now the easiest solution to that problem is we have the electron=muon as 2 types-- the Leptons.

Muon,  tau

The leptons

We have the neutrino in three types

Electron neutrino, muon neutrino, tau neutrino.

So, what would the logical person say-- neutrino is a electron? No, not at all.

What he can say is that neutrino is a photon

Is there ever a instant in which a photon = neutrino?

It happens all the time in what is known as Pair-Production. Only that Pair Production is produced by either a photon or a neutrino. That logically means photon = neutrino.

So that, neutrino = photon, except one transpires inside the nucleus, the other, photon, transpires outside the nucleus and thus we are left with photon = neutrino.

Now this upsets Old Physics, for the crazies there posited the neutrino with a small rest mass.

T = PV(1/nR) as the best way to write the Ideal Gas Law of physics

Alright if the universal formula of both Math and Physics is A = B*C*D

Which is seen as length*width*depth = volume

Seen as New Ohm law V=iBL

Seen as Ideal Gas Law T = PV(1/nR)

Now I should have just T on one side, since temperature is energy and voltage is energy, so I want the ideal gas law as much as possible to look like V = iBL , New Ohm's law, and look like V = L*W*D.

So that should read

T = PV(1/nR) as the best way to write the Ideal Gas Law of physics

Now how about famous equations in physics such as Schrodinger and Dirac Equations. Do they also, ultimately come from the form A = B*C*D?

It is easy to show that just a few of Maxwell EM theory laws, Ampere's law can reproduce the Schrodinger Equation.

Since all of EM theory stems from V=iBL then Schrodinger Equation is of A=BCD

Same goes for the Dirac Equation, although far more sophisticated with its 4by4 matrices. But even those 4 by 4 matrices are because of A=BCD, which is Three things producing a Fourth thing.

Does the Dirac Equation have the form A=BCD? Well, if Faradays law and Gauss's law of magnetism in conjunction derives the Dirac Equation, then by all means, Dirac Eq is of form A = BCD.

Well, some chemists have derived the Schrodinger Eq from the Maxwell EM wave equation, using Ampere's law.

So, you bet Schrodinger Eq is of form A=B*C*D

Alright, what is the prime idea behind the universal physics math equation having the form of a volume for a rectangle solid as V = LxWxD

Why should that equation be the universal physics equation, or form?

Why is A=bcd major form of math of the most important physics which basically says multiply three things together to get a fourth?

And the reason is quite simple, all interactions of physics takes place in a specific volume of space. So your math of the interaction must include all the Space involved with, and then, later on you can narrow down specific "smaller features you chose to look at". So all physics of a region of space has a math form of A=BCD. Then, if you want something more specific in that volume of space-- say you want temperature or charge or spin, etc etc, then you have an equation that is still A=BCD, but the A and B and C and D are far more detailed and elaborate, such as the Dirac Equation with 4 by 4 matrices.

An analogy would be the physics of a spacecraft would be the volume of the craft occupying so much Space and the specifics of the craft can be undertaken by a more refined math equation on the basic form of A = BCD.

Makes sense, does it not, that science is a focus on a specific volume of Space, if a biologist, it could be the Space of a body. If a geologist, it could be the space of a continent or a rock, or a mountain, etc. If a astronomer, it could be the Space of the Solar System. If a Physicist, it could be the space of a light wave traveling, or the space of a electric generator, or the space of a machine.

Now, the math for that space is Volume, and is always V = L*W*D, length*width*depth

Now V= LWD in EM theory is New Ohm's law V = iBL where i is current, B is magnetic field, L is angular momentum

Or, in chemistry, ideal gas law is T = PV(1/nR)

So you see, all physics, and all of mathematics, even Logic itself starts with a multiplication A= BCD, or an addition which links up to the multiplication.

All the sciences, and Logic and all of mathematics, starts with A = BCD, linked up with addition.

Now to start math with volume is cumbersome, so we start math with addition, 1 plus 1 is 2, 1 plus 2 is 3

Then we have in addition we have A = B+C+D

Once we reach that understanding of addition, we ask in physics where is there a moment in which

A = B +C+D

can equal, or translate into

A = BCD, a multiplication

When in Physics do we slide seamlessly from addition to multiplication? When?

The answer is Atoms, and atomic theory

Hydrogen atom = proton plus electron plus photon

Hydrogen atom Space = proton multiply electron multiply photon

There, you linked addition with multiplication

Now, you can stick purely with multiplication as the Fundamental Math Formula for all of Physics

And since Physics is the king of all sciences, even math is subordinate, then A = BCD is the fundamental math equation of all of physics

But let me leave this topic by saying why A=BCD is so central to all Science, why that Math Form is central.

It is central because it is Volume, and volume is always in play when doing any science. And if you want more data, more information, more understanding, more details of a Particular Volume of Space-- then you are doing say the Ideal Gas Law and want to know the pressure of that volume of space, or the Dirac Equation and wanting to know the antiparticles of that volume of space, or the Schrodinger Equation wanting to know the energy in that volume of space, or the New Ohms law wanting to know the charge involved in that Volume of Space you are looking at.

So, the Fundamental Math of All Science is A = BCD which is volume, and then for specifics of that Volume-- you look at specific equations based on A= BCD.

Now, next year I am going to write the 6th edition of Correcting Math, only a new title of something like this TRUE MATH TEXTBOOK. And the first chapter is going to be Volume and the formula A= BCD. Where I link up addition with multiplication and where A = BCD is the most fundamental equation in all of mathematics, as well as all of physics.


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:: Alright, let us take a peek at what the four chemistry textbooks say about ferromagnetism.

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 monopoles. And of course, Old Physics is all the physics where physicists never realized that the Maxwell Equations are the axiom set over all of physics-- which concedes that the Universe is a single atom totality itself, because when you have EM rule over all of physics, means an atom is the ruler. But, l digress here. Let me get back to ferromagnetism and how it is covered in these 4 old texts.

(1) Principles of Modern Chemistry, 2nd ed, Oxtoby & Nachtrieb, 1990, page 518, " A substance is paramagnetic if it is attracted into a magnetic field. All substances that have one or more unpaired electrons in the atom, molecules, or ions that compose them are paramagnetic;…"

(2) Chemistry, The Central Science, 5th ed, Brown, LeMay, Bursten, 1991, page 891, "An electron possesses a "spin" that gives it a magnetic moment; that is, it behaves like a tiny magnet. When all the electrons in an atom or ion are paired, the magnetic moments of the electrons effectively cancel each other, and the substance is diamagnetic."
"Ferromagnetic coupled centers aligned in a common direction."

ferromagnetic
--> --> --> -->
--> --> --> -->
--> --> --> -->
--> --> --> -->


paramagnetic
\ / / ---

--- / \ |

\ | --- \


(3) Chemistry, A Conceptual Approach, 4th ed, Mortimer, 1979, page 50, "Ferromagnetic substances, such as iron, are strongly attracted into a magnetic field. Ferromagnetism is a form of paramagnetism that is shown by only a few solid substances."

(4) CHEM ONE, 2nd ed, Waser, Trueblood, Knobler, 1980, page 598, "In ferromagnetic substances there is very strong interaction between the unpaired electron spins on neighboring atoms, which causes the spins to be oriented parallel to each other throughout large regions of the sample, called magnetic domains. The result is an enormous reinforcement of the magnetism inherent in the individual atoms containing unpaired electrons. Ferromagnetic substances are pulled very strongly into magnetic fields and also remain magnetized even after they are removed from magnetic fields."

So, the case I am building here, is that we require Electrochemistry to be exactly, a mirror reflection of Faraday's Law of a thrusting bar magnet through a circuit produces electricity.

Both Old Chemistry and Old Physics could never explain a battery as Faraday's law, for they had the silly notion of electrons moving is current. What is really happening is the magnetic monopoles of those .5 MeV particles are the ones creating electric current. So, all we need is to see how a battery is a thrusting bar magnet.

So, is a battery a thrusting bar magnet?

And after reading those 4 textbooks referred to above, one quickly sees that the battery is none other than the fabrication of ferromagnetism upon substances that compose a battery. And where the silver and zinc in Volta's battery are spins of atoms lined up making a Magnetic Field, and the slight small motion in the battery of its electrolytes, is the thrusting of the magnet. Not that electrons are in motion, for remember the electron = muon and they firmly stay in place near their protons = 840 MeV. All of which yields monopoles making the electric current.

And, upon reflection, this makes far far more sense. Why? Because if batteries worked as what Old Physics and Old Chemistry say they worked, motion of ions and electrons, well, it take but a few seconds to jam up, to clog up both anode and cathode. It reminds me of trying to run dirty water through a sprinkler and takes a few minutes before you have no water coming out, and have to clean out all sprinklers.

Whereas, if you have monopoles in motion creating the electric current, the battery can last for a long time as we see in evidence every day.

So, Old Chemistry and Old Physics explanation of how a battery works is all phony baloney, and their explanation would run down a battery in a few minutes or seconds of operation.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-14 00:56:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 21:39:52 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Page34,4-4, God's Creator Math Equation A=BCD equals A=EF where
Volume = Surface Area/ textbook 8th ed 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 05:39:53 +0000


Page34,4-4, God's Creator Math Equation A=BCD equals A=EF where Volume = Surface Area/ textbook 8th ed 2017

Alright, I am not finished with Science's most famous equation A = BCD where that is volume but it is also New Ohm's law, also Ideal Gas Law, also Schrodinger Equation, also Dirac Equation. The most famous theory in all of biology-- cell theory is based on a formula of A=BCD, whether angular body or rectangular shaped body, volume is A= BCD, and we thence make that equation more specific by the terms B, C, D for whatever specific parameter we seek.

But now, that equation is so beautiful, so very very beautiful and powerful that is what I call God's Math Creation Equation.

Think about it for a moment, that Volume of a Rectangle Solid is seen as V = L*W*D, length times width times depth. Written in general as simply A = BCD where you multiply three things B, C, D together and get a new fourth thing A. It is volume equation. But notice that Volume is the addition of cubes, the unit cubes also.

Does that mean anything important?

Indeed it does for all Volumes in mathematics can be rendered where the D, the depth is 1, and thus, we can picture a Volume as a Surface, a sheet that is 1 unit deep. Because we transform the equation A = B*C*D to that of (BC)(D)(1) and get a area in 2nd dimension.

For example, say we had a rectangle-solid that was 3 by 5 by 7 = 105 cubic volume. Now, we can take any three numbers B, C, D, any, mind you any three numbers and make one of them be 1, for a depth of 1. And so for our 105 cubic volume we can have 5 x 21 x 1, or written as 5x21 which our original formula was 3x5x7, a 3rd dimensional volume in 3D, has now become a 2nd dimensional sheet of depth 1 as 5x21 in 2D.

What we have now is the ability to turn any 3rd dimension volume into a 2nd dimension area of depth 1, and vice versa.

So in mathematics, God creating Math for the first time. Starts with multiplication of three things in Space as 3 Dimensions B*C*D, and we easily turn that into two things E and F, so we have ExF = A. It is simple area E times F, where E and F follow from BCD.

Now, God wants that area to be volume in 3rd Dimension. No problem, just multiply Area by 1 where 1 is depth in 3rd Dimension. So, here, God has turned a 2nd Dimension Area into a 3rd Dimension Volume.  God has turned A = EF into A = BCD and vice versa.

Now, why is that so important? Because here is where God links addition with multiplication. We need to get from Volume to Surface Area and then once we have EF we can add up the cubes that are unit cubes of 1x1x1. So here we link up multiplication with addition.

Surprisingly, no where in mathematics itself can you link up multiplication with addition.

In other words, for the first time in mathematics, we link Add to Multiply. So the Axioms of all Numbers, not just Counting Numbers of Peano, but all numbers, starts with Volume in 3rd Dimension, then scrambling the volume so that it is a Surface Sheet Area of depth 1. That surface sheet allows us to count by addition all the 1by1by1 little cubes.

So, give me any horribly ugly looking volume in 3rd dimension. I mean horribly ugly looking volumes, and it is always rendered as A = BCD, then rendered into Area (BC)(D) and if you want, you can even render it into 1 dimension line segment (BCD)(1) with depth of 1.

Always making volume become Surface Sheet of Area of depth 1.

Now in Old Math, what they did was invent the Peano Axioms as creating Counting Numbers with addition. And the Peano Axioms simply assumes multiplication, they never derive multiplication but assumes multiplication. No justification as to why multiplication goes with addition.

Here, what we do is create the Multiplication and create the Addition all in once, we do not assume multiplication.

And the way we do that is superior to Peano creating the Counting Numbers, for Peano just uses addition and assumes multiplication exists incidentally.

Here, we start with geometry of Volume, A = BCD. Now we convert that to A = (BC)(D)(1) and so we have Surface Area of a sheet that is 1 unit depth.

Now that we have A = EF we show how it is addition.

So in our example of 3*5*7 = 105 cubic volume we know have 5*21*1 surface area of 105.

Now we proceed to count the addition we have 5 rows of 21 or we have 21 rows of 5 and count the cubes of 1*1*1 cubes.

You see, Peano had a incomplete project in the early 1900s with his Peano axioms, for he only had addition and assumed multiplication.

Here we have the Complete Creation Process, God's creation of mathematics as creating both multiply and addition all in one act of creation.

This is extremely important, because the Chemical Periodic Table of Elements is both addition and multiplication, all in one act of creation. Elements of hydrogen to helium to lithium to beryllium to boron, etc etc are elements that you create by adding on one more proton to previous element. But, also, it is multiplication in that hydrogen is Proton times Electron=muon times Photon in various numbers of protons, electrons=muons, photons.

Now, this insight is vastly and magnificently important, for it tells us how God works. Previously I wrote about how the Universal Action or Behavior of the Cosmos is to keep going around in circles. Earth goes around in a circle; Sun goes around in circle; Solar System goes around in circle; Galaxy goes around in circle.

Is that the meaning of Existence-- going around in circle? Yes, it is one of the essential meaning of existence-- going around in a circuit, a full loop around.

Another essential meaning for existence is either something exists-- matter of atom, or nothing exists -- vacuum where no matter is there.

So in Physics we have two choices Matter as Atoms or Vacuum. And we have a action-- going around in circles.

In Mathematics we have two choices 3rd Dimension or 2nd Dimension, and to get from 3rd dimension to be 2nd dimension, you have to disassemble the 1*1*1 cubes to go around in a circle to become a surface area of unit cubes.

Philosophy and religion in Atom Totality

Let me inject Religion here in this book. I have avoided that for all prior editions, but here, since I am digging around at the roots of Creation, I need to say something about Religion.

Of course, all is Physics, for God is an atom, a single big atom of 231Pu, plutonium atom, as god, that has all the other atoms, inside itself composing the Universe.

Now when I was a teenager, one of my favorite books was a philosophy book The New World of Philosophy, Kaplan, 1961. And at that time in late 1960s, I was more fascinated with philosophy than with physics. It would be a long time for me to move away from philosophy and realize that Physics was the king of knowledge and understanding.

Kaplan divides his book into subjects of Pragmatism, Analytic Philosophy, Existentialism, Freud & Modern Philosophy, Communism, Indian Philosophy, Buddhism, Chinese Philosophy, Zen. Kaplan does 9 chapters. I remember buying this book as freshman in College at UC, circa 1969 and was drawn to it for the eastern philosophies-- what were they? I read this book many times over, and eventually the one chapter that stuck with me the greatest, would turn out to be Pragmatism. In my youth, I did not know that pragmatism is the one philosophy, most allied to Physics and the hard core sciences.

But anyway, just before I was 40 years old and discovered the Atom Totality theory, my strongest philosophy was Pragmatism and it simple says-- truth is "what works"; knowledge and understanding is in the "doing". In a sense, pragmatism is slightly above physics in that truth is malleable, pliable and never absolute. And after I discovered the Atom Totality theory, I had left philosophy far behind, and had replaced pragmatism with Physics, that there are truths, that transcend human experience and are absolute truths-- The Atomic Theory-- all things are made up of atoms.

So, after 1990, after 7NOV1990, philosophy and my cherished pragmatism was no longer king of knowledge, but rather instead Physics.

And so, after 1990, I saw philosophy as 2nd tier knowledge, and saw it -- as most-- a forerunner of science. In a situation where you have little to no science to guide and direct you-- you lean back and become a philosopher for the moment. If science cannot deliver you an answer, lean back and pull up an answer from philosophy.

So, philosophy is pre-science, philosophy comes into action when you have no science to guide and lead you. So what is religion?

Here again, religion and philosophy are almost the same things-- little to no science available to guide you, so you lean back and draw in Religion or Philosophy to guide you.

In Atom Totality there is a God-- the one 231Pu Atom Totality, but there are minor Gods, for each proton in the nucleus is a God, the Nucleus itself is a God, and each of the 231 electrons=muons is a God.

Ancient Greek Religion-- they had many Gods, many, Zeus, Hera, Apollo, Poseidon, etc etc, and in a sense, many gods is a truth for the Atom Totality has many structures, each of which has a God power.

Indian Religion-- they have reincarnation, which is a big truth in Atom Totality, for once we die, we go to the Nucleus of the Atom Totality and our souls are rebundled and sent back into the outer world-- the electrons=muon domain and are borne again.

Buddhism, Zen, Chinese Religion-- in Atom Totality there is dualism, yin and yang, all over the place, all around us. And there is suffering and pain, and there is happiness. In physics there is duality and there is matter with rest mass and there is a Space of vacuum-- little to nothing. Life is a constant battle between happiness and pain, between something and the nihilism of nothing. Between complex and ultimate simplicity. But important is Family, and Atoms are in groups, families of the elements, the inert gases, the alkalies, the iron column, the oxygen column, many families of elements.

Judaism-- God is one, and one is God. The universe is One big atom, with many atoms inside it. One is important.

Christianity-- three is important, father, son, holy ghost. In atoms, Proton, Electron=muon, photons, three things make up all atoms.

Islam-- laws are very important, so important that laws of science-- Faraday law, Ampere law, Coulomb law. The heart of physics are laws of Nature.

Philosophy and Religion are there, when physics is unknown or little to go by. Then, you lean back and use philosophy and religion to answer your cause.

So, here, here is a vague glimpse of the Creation of the Universe as Atoms.

Now let us momentarily fall back to a Religion Creation story, just for comparison sake. And I know only the Christian Religion Creation story-- A god, his son Jesus, and a holy ghost. The God, the father would create the world in 7 days and then create Adam and Eve.

Now, how is the Creation of Atoms as all there is-- how does that story go?

In prior editions of this textbook, I had no means of digging deeper, none. And started with Atoms pre-existing. But here I have the opportunity of going a few notches below that of atoms pre-existing.

What I use is Mathematics as the tool for digging deeper.

In the beginning there was Nothing as 0 and Something as 1. And how did they behave? Well, the 1 spun around in a circle that of 0. Forming a circle and it had to have an area creating 0, 1, 2, 3, 3.14....

The 0 to 1 is a line, is 1 dimensional. The 1 to 2 is a line and 1 dimensional. Add is 1 dimensional.

Multiply 1 by 2 is 2nd dimension

Multiply 1 by 2 by 1 is both 3rd dimensional and 2nd dimensional as surface with depth of 1.

Think of 0 as vacuum, and 1 as proton, or as a hydrogen atom. Think of helium atom as 2.

Now 1+1 is two protons forming a helium atom, but 1 x 1 is area of two protons of a helium atom.

Now a helium atom is 2 protons, 2 electrons=muons, 2 photons, and volume of which is 2 x 2 x 2 = 8, but is also 2 protons, 4 photons and is thus volume 2x4 = 8

You see what I am doing is forming a link between add and multiply.

In Old Math, Peano, around 1900, created one connector Add in Peano axioms and assumed multiplication existed.

Earlier, Galois, circa 1830s created Group theory and assumed both add and multiply existed alongside one another without making any sort of effort to justify add and multiply existed.

So algebra had assumed addition and multiplication co-existed together with no justification why they exist together.

Peano with his axioms would cement that "assumption of existence".

Here we show a JUSTIFICATION of why add comes with multiplication or the reverse, multiplication comes with add.

How this is done is possible only because ATOMS exist and the way they exist is that 1, 2, 3, 4, .... have an interior composed of numbers. Numbers inside of numbers, allows for a addition to be dual to a multiplication.

Only because ATOMS exist can you have a Hydrogen atom be 1 x 1 x 1 = 1 + 1 + 1 where the multiplication is the volume of 1 proton, 1 electron=muon, 1 photon, yet the addition is 1 proton + 1 electron=muon + 1 photon = hydrogen atom.

You see, in all of Nature, only ATOMS allow for addition to be the same as multiplication where the internal parts of atoms can be multiplied or added.

So the creation of Atoms creates both add and multiply simultaneously.

No other mathematics or Physical Object has this property of where add is the same as multiply, except the characteristics of Atoms.

Justification why multiply and add are always together


In prior editions of this text, I could not dig deeper into creation of the world, but had to start with Atoms pre-existing. Here I can dig a little deeper.

I use mathematics to dig deeper. And it is from 1830's with Galois inventing Group theory of Algebra, only in his invention, he assumes both addition and multiplication, side by side, and no justification as to why addition exists side by side to multiplication.

Then comes Peano in 1900s with his axioms of the Counting Numbers, and here again, he assumes addition and assumes multiplication, but never any justification as to why assume and why require both.

So, here is the key, you have to show that you cannot have add, unless you have multiply simultaneously.

Only if you can justify that by having add, you also have multiply. Both are created simultaneously.

Mathematics cannot do that, justify having both add and multiply at once, where one derives the other.


The best that math could do, is start with add and assume multiplication is there all along. No justification, nothing.


And here we have that a Atom of helium volume, a representative helium, for which we could chose many different numbers so long as we had 2 protons. Helium representative is 2 x 2 x 2 = 8 cubic volume which is turned into Surface as 2x4 = 8 with a depth of (1). So we started with Multiplication and now we have a area of 2 by 4 and proceed to do ADDITION by counting the unit cubes, 8 of them, so we have to count 2 rows of 4 or count 4 rows of 2. We started with Multiplication and reduced that to the counting of unit cubes. As we count for Addition, we build a area and the area is either rectangle or circle like area and as we go around and around counting the unit cubes, we are doing electricity magnetism of going around and around counting all the unit cubes.

In a sense, all of Physics laws as EM theory is a counting of unit cubes.

So Physics is the science of protons, electrons=muons, photons that create atoms and the laws of physics are either the multiplication or addition of protons, electrons=muons, photons.


So, the only things that exist in the world are Atoms, they are composed of protons, electrons=muons, photons, and the addition or multiplication of protons, electrons=muons, photons are various distinct atoms. And the Laws of Physics, such as Faraday, Ampere, Coulomb etc etc are just details of counting by add or by multiply of protons, electrons=muons, photons.

The main message is, that only because of Atoms, can you have addition allied with multiplication. Since atoms are made up of protons, electrons=muons, photons, that you can have addition linked to multiplication.

So in the long history of Mathematics, it was never known how to justify why addition and multiplication were inseparable, why they always come together. Galois did not know why, nor did Peano with his axioms know why. They simply assumed they came together as a package, requiring no justification.

And, it is impossible for Mathematics to justify why whenever there is addition, there has to be multiplication, and vice versa. Why are they linked inseparable together?

The answer can only come from Physics, not mathematics.

In Physics, they have atoms and atoms are addition in that the Chemical Elements are adding of 1 more proton to make the next element. But in the adding of one more proton, the internal numbers of that atom are increasing not just in protons added but in electrons=muons and photons added. Keep in mind the neutron is a composite of proton +electron=muon + photon=antineutrino. So, in PHYSICS, explains why add must have multiply accompanying add, or why multiply must have add accompanying it.

Math has nothing where numbers are inside other numbers, but Atomic theory has where numbers exist inside other numbers. That is why ADD and MULTIPLY are always together, linked as one.

Now, when we go from 3D of 5*3*2 = 30 to 2D of 5*6*(1) = 30 we need to see how the area is adding of 30 cubic units, as adding of 5 rows of 6 or of adding of 6 rows of 5. And to do the Adding we go around in a circle, or circuit of physics. This is the reason there are LAWS of Physics like the Faraday law, the Ampere law, the Coulomb law as you go around in a circuit, adding up the electrons=muons instead of adding 30 unit cubes.


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- E = MC^2

Now is the famous equation E = mc^2 an equation of the form A = BCD ??

Why of course it is, for it is E = m c c.

Now E = mc^2 may have been discovered first by Maxwell in the 1860s or 1870s. No-one has made a good historical search whether Maxwell discovered it first. But it is known, without a doubt that by 1889, Heaviside, the champion of the Maxwell Equations, had discovered E = mc^2 because he was actually using that equation in Capacitor theory of EM. Then, JJ Thomson, the famous physicist at Cambridge used the equation E = mc^2 in trying to figure out what the electron was.

Ricker, NaturalPhilosophy.org
--- quoting ---
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Thomson’s use of the formula has not escaped the notice of at least some modern physics textbooks. In Fundamentals of Physics by Halliday, et al, they state: “A decade before Einstein published his theory of relativity, J. J. Thomson proposed that the electron might be made up of small parts and that its mass is due to the electrical interaction of the parts. Furthermore, he suggested that the energy equals mc^2  (John Wiley, fourth edition, p. 735).
But, let us have a modern day derivation of E = mc^2
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
The modern day derivation of E=mc^2 in light of the fact that the .5 MeV particle is a magnetic monopole, not the electron, Real Electron= muon
Now Ricker III gives an excellent account of the history of E=mc^2 with the below reference.
--- quoting from Ricker writing in NaturalPhilosophy. Org ---
[4] The derivation of E = mc2 originates from Maxwell’s formula [ f = δE/cδt ] which equates the force exerted on an absorbing body at the rate energy is received by the body. Since force is also the rate of the change of momentum of the body, which, by the conservation of momentum, is also the rate of change in the momentum of the radiation, the momentum lost by the radiation is equal to 1/c times the energy delivered to the body, or M = E/c. If the momentum of the radiation of a mass is M times the velocity c of the radiation, the equation m = E/c2 is derived.
-- end quote ---
What Ricker is pointing out is that the only true proof of E=mc^2 comes from the Maxwell Equations and thus Einstein's version is flawed since he did not appeal to the Maxwell Equations.
Now, I believe Physics is overdue with a modern derivation of E = mc^2 in light of the fact that the Real Electron = muon and the particle of .5MeV was a magnetic monopole with no rest-mass but with a .5 MeV charge energy.
And so, on that account alone, we need a new modern update of E=mc^2.
Now, we all know the Calculus math of velocity as derivative and then energy as integral.
So we have matter moving along in momentum of mv. Now, what is the energy of that mv? Simple, simple math for we take the integral and it is 1/2 mv^2. There, we polished off momentum into energy.
Let us draw a picture of that calculation.
^
|    /|
|  /  |
|/__ |_______>
So the momentum was the hypotenuse as derivative as mv, and the energy was the area under the hypotenuse, which is purely math of 1/2mv^2
Now, that was with matter of rest mass. However, photons and neutrinos have no rest mass, but they can have charge energy, so, how do we get E = mc^2
Easy, real easy.
What we have here is a case where the momentum is a mc since the m is not rest mass but can be charge energy and the c is a sole singular value constant-- the speed of light. In math a constant is represented by a flat straight line such as Y= 1 or Y = c
So the picture here is that of
^
|______c
|
|_________>
So the momentum is mc. And taking the integral is mc^2 for energy.
Thus, we have E = mc^2
You see, when the velocity is a variable, it is area of 1/2 a square, but when velocity is a constant as the speed of light, a maximum constant, the integral is not a triangle with 1/2 area, but is the full square.
Now this is relevant to the idea that the .5MeV particle is a magnetic monopole and is a photon or neutrino bundled up with a .5 MeV charge, not rest mass, but charge. And so you have .5MeV(c^2).
Now, I have to explore what J.J. Thompson discovered for the E= mc^2 as written in Halliday & Resnick, made reference to by Ricker in that same article.
AP
Which begs the question, is there any Equation in Physics of huge importance, and yet, that is not reducible to A = BCD? I would guess no, because the equation A = BCD is the volume of a rectangular solid. And so, if anything in the universe needs a equation, its volume is reducible to a rectangular solid. And, the Schrodinger and Dirac Equations are just complicated forms of A = BCD.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-14 06:01:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 07:28:45 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Page35, 4-5, understanding Photons and Neutrinos /Atom-Totality-Universe/
textbook 8th ed 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 15:28:46 +0000


Page35, 4-5, understanding Photons and Neutrinos /Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017

Before I talk about photons and neutrinos, I must voice my concern over two issues, since a spacecraft by NASA is due to experiment in 2018 about the Sun.

1) Now I spoke earlier about the Hollow Sun, and that needs to be proven with more experiments and especially with the spacecraft being sent to the Sun next year 2018 to collect data. I propose having some radioactive plug aboard so that as the craft disintegrates into the Sun, this plug can send back data to Earth observers, telling us, whether the Sun is hollow or not hollow. Prove Sun is Hollow.

2) We need another experiment to tell us if empty space near the Sun, which only photon radiation is passing through, no rest-mass kinetic energy, is near to 0 Kelvin temperature, regardless of the quantity of photons. Perhaps this experiment is able to be conducted in a near vacuum on Earth. It seems CounterIntuitive that Space with many photons traveling through is near 0 Kelvin temperature. And it proves to me, anyway, that the true thermodynamic formula of temperature involves not just F =ma with rest mass particles of 1/2mv^2 but with F =dQ/ds with non rest mass particles such as photons and neutrinos. Old Physics missed the dQ/ds involved in thermodynamics.

Now, onto photons and neutrinos.

Now, let me just give my raw opinion on the state of knowledge and understanding of light waves, or photons. Include also neutrinos, for I think the two are related as being the same physical entities, only one is outside the atom nucleus and the other inside the atom nucleus. I believe photon = neutrino, with perhaps some constant k factor. I believe the photon is Double Transverse Wave, allowing the Destructive Interference of the two wavelets to focus the particle into the center of forward motion. I believe the neutrino is a Longitudinal Wave. Many in Old Physics think the neutrino has rest mass, and I think that is phony baloney. Going on those assumptions, I proceed.

OPINION: it is my opinion that the state of knowledge of photon and neutrino, is as primitive as the state of knowledge of what types of atoms exist in Ancient Greek times when the atomic theory first started. It would take at least 2,000 years for the Atomic theory to take shape as the Chemical Elements of the Periodic Table. In the same light, we know photons and neutrinos exist, but I reckon only after 2,000 years have passed, unless human civilization has nuclear war where no-one is doing science for thousands of years, it is my opinion that only after 2,000 years elapsed will we make any tangible progress in understanding photons and neutrinos. One of the things retarding progress in photons and neutrinos is the phony baloney build up. When you have a science over a topic, and the crowd of scientists working in that topic field builds up so much phony baloney nonsense-- neutrinos with rest mass, builds up that nonsense, puts the true science so far off course, that it thwarts the science. Much of the money and time spent on photons and neutrinos is spent on this wastrel nonsense that neutrinos have rest mass.

This is why it is so key for a person of Logic to come to science, neutrino physics in particular. A person of logic can cut through all that time wasted and money wasted on neutrino rest mass. For a person of logic would notice that photons vary in frequency to energy which is almost like a continuum of amount of energy desired, not quantized so much as say protons or neutrons. Photons form a spectrum, which is almost like a continuum, almost, but not a continuum. So that we can get any sort of wavelength or frequency of light from say radio waves all the way up to X-rays, and all points in between. If there is a quantization of photons, it is so small, that it still feels like a continuum. That is one of the largest important facts of photons. So, to a person of logic, they come in and inspect the neutrino. Is the neutrino, more like protons, where there is a huge gap in between protons as a continuum or quantization, or, is the neutrino more like the photon-- so small of a gap, that they are a continuum behavior. On all that I have researched on neutrinos, the neutrinos behave more like photons than any other particle we can compare the neutrino. Now, do not get me wrong, I do not believe in a continuum. But I must believe that light is the closest we come to a continuum and the neutrino obeys that closeness, also. For we see it in Pair Production of two particles the .5 MeV and the antiparticle .5 MeV. Either a photon does it or a neutrino does it, and that fact alone convinces me that the photon = neutrino, they just have some orientation of geometry differences. And, I am not all that convinced that neutrinos go through matter so unscathed, I am not convinced of that. The only experiment we have that neutrinos fly through matter as if, not there, is the neutrino detectors. But since we really know so little about neutrinos and photons, that such a idea-- neutrinos fly through matter as if not there-- is not warranted.

Now, let me try to guide the photon and neutrino exploration, with my intuition. Hopefully, my intuition is worth something of a guide to the photon and neutrino. And it is my guess, foremost, that the photon and neutrino are one and the same particle, only difference is that one is found outside the nucleus, other inside.

Now, you surely know about Special Relativity, which to me is not anything "big deal about it". SR is merely the fact that in EM theory, a moving bar magnet in a stationary closed loop of wire-- Faraday's law-- is exactly the same as a moving closed loop wire in a stationary bar magnet. No big deal. The two are the same with the same result. No big deal, but people who are poor in logic, make SR, make it out to be some huge burden, toil and trouble. If you have a moving magnet stationary wire loop, then the math of the time and distance and speed involved changes relative to if you had a stationary magnet with moving wire loop. Those of us who just cannot accept that fact, do not belong in science. Special Relativity is no more, than a stationary magnet with moving wire loop is the same physics as a moving magnet with stationary wire loop, and because they cannot be different physics outcomes, means that the photon light speed must be a constant. Simple as that. If you want to argue with light is a constant speed, then, you do not belong in physics.

And ignorants of physics get all bent out of shape with SR, with their ignorance of light speed is ultimate. With time dilation and space contraction and no speed faster than light. Well, ignorants of physics, they just cannot handle that, for their mind was never built to handle such things. You cannot fit 2 liters into a 1 liter jug.

Try telling these ignorant people, SR is no big deal-- do you see that a moving magnet stationary coil is the same as moving coil, stationary magnet. Ignorant people looking at physics can never understand SR. And probably, it is because the teachers of Physics, that focus on time dilation and space contraction are as ignorant as the ignorants. For if you focus just on magnet thrust and coil of wire, there is no counterintuitive mess.

Now, in a sense, the same counterintuitive misunderstanding of photons and neutrinos comes to my mind.

Could it be, that the neutrino and photon-- having no rest mass at all and traveling at the top speed that is possible-- the speed of light, that the photon and neutrino is an ARTIFACT of the fact that the Universe as a whole is one big Atom which contains nothing but small atoms inside itself?

The reader is going to be puzzled by that idea. The idea is that the Whole is a atom, the same size as the atoms that compose the whole. That seems contradictory, that the Atom Totality atom is the same size as any one of its atom parts. Where we have a question of size of atom whole and atom parts.

What I am proposing is that-- it is difficult to understand how the World can have a top speed and no speed beyond? How that you can travel near the speed of light and then time slows down and then Space contracts.

So, what I am saying is -- that feels bizarre that no speed can be faster than light speed, time slows down, and actual Space contracts and gets smaller. So, call that Absurd.

But, is it not a larger absurdity, to think that One Atom, contains all the other atoms. Is that not a larger and more powerful CounterIntuitive idea, a larger absurdity.

So, now, link the two. Link no faster speed than light, time goes slower, space gets smaller, and link that with the Whole Universe is one atom containing many atoms inside. Now, that seems reasonable, that the Universe is a bigger atom of Plutonium and has smaller atoms of plutonium and other smaller atoms inside. But, now, make one more absurdity. Say the Atom Whole, the totality of a 231Pu single atom Universe, say that such an atom whole is the same size as any plutonium atom held in your hand. Would you say, then-- unbelievable, totally absurd.

Or, would you say, well, the absurdity of a maximum speed, time dilation, Space contraction, those features are the very same feature as a Atom Whole is the same sort of atom as the atoms inside the Atom Whole? Here I am trading off, two perceived absurdities-- top speed, time dilation, Space contraction, trading that off with Big Atom Whole whose atom is the same size as its atom parts.

Would the ignorants of physics then come out of the wood work and say-- now I can believe no speed faster than light, and time slows down and space gets smaller, but, never can I believe a Universe is an atom of the same size as a atom held in the hand.

So, why bring that up?

I myself cannot buy that idea, that the Universe atom is of the same size as a atom held in hand. I cannot buy it because my mind was not built to see and understand it. I can only poke at it, and wait for new physics experiments to reinforce the idea and thus eventually accept it.

But, the reason I bring it up, is that the photon and neutrino are particles that the Universe creates because the Universe is itself an atom, just as the atom held in your hand.

And so the photon and neutrino, is the bridge between the Universe being an atom and the atom in our hand that we study in the laboratory. And so, photon and neutrino are substances that bridge the gap between Atom Whole and Atom as part of whole.

There was absolutely no hope in the time of Leucippus, Democritus, Epicurus, Titus Lucretius that any one of them would start the discovery of the Chemical Elements, for that had to wait 2,000 years into the future. And same thing goes for understanding photon and neutrino, that I give it about 2,000 years before something brilliant happens to understanding light and neutrinos. First we have to get rid of the phony baloney nonsense-- such as neutrino rest mass. And second, we have to avoid nuclear war, for humanity is on course for a nuclear war since we cannot control Human Over Population. It was around 1804 that humanity had a 1 billion people population and took until 1927 to have 2 billion people population. This is 2017 and we approach 8 billion people.

Scientists have been horribly lax in computing what I call the Optimum Human Life Number. The number of humans that can expect to all live on Earth with optimum living conditions. I reckon that number is 2 billion people and thus, we are overpopulated by more than 5 billion. And the way I compute that number is simply the land available for agriculture but agriculture that is organic produced. In the past it was called Arable farming, but that is bad also for it plows all the soil which blows some away into the rivers and then the oceans. What we have today is chemical farming that kills everything that molests crops and that means we lose species diversity, we kill beneficial animals and plants. This is not what is optimal for humanity. So if all agriculture went back to being organic food production-- no chemicals, and no plowing, how many people can that support? I reckoned it supports 2 billion. And here, the scientists of the past seemed to stop doing that science-- Malthus comes to mind. Malthus was good and needed, but somehow, scientists shrugged him off. What we need today is all science disciplines sharing in the information-- what is the Optimum Number of Human Population so that all can enjoy a good life? Is it 2 billion and so, we are rushing into a thermonuclear world war 3 from which humanity will not be able to recover until about 2,000 years hence. And, forget about doing any new physics.

But, let me give my best guesses to help guide the way into photons and neutrinos.

Alright, looking at a photon head-on it is

__|__
    |

4 vector waves, each of the 4, each a B field, all transverse at 90 degree angles.

Looking at the Light Wave or photon from the side we have

^^^^^
vvvvv. In xy plane

And the same configuration in xz plane

To compose a Double Transverse Wave of Destructive Interference.

Destructive Interference is important for it makes whatever is "waving" be a point particle traveling at the speed of light at the center of the 4 vectors.

^^^^^
vvvvv  in xy plane

and perpendicular

^^^^^
vvvvv in xz plane the math of which is sine + offset cosine, where sine and cosine can be semicircle waves or ellipse waves.

photons as purely a B field and no Electric component unless the destructive-interference puts a Voltage along that very center line of motion. If that center line is voltage, means, destructive interference is required.

In New Physics there is no electric field, but rather, it is voltage and we cannot put Voltage transverse to a B magnetic field. What we can do, is that the B fields destructive interference creates a voltage in the centerline of motion-- that center point. So that when a photon strikes something, that center point of voltage is the kinetic energy impact.

Magnetism would be the only "field" in physics whereas electric is a current as magnetic monopoles of .5 MeV, and then Voltage would be a reverse-accelerated magnetic field, a m^2/s magnetic field

Magnetic Field =  kg /A*s^2 = kg /C*s

Voltage  = kg*m^2 /A*s^3 = kg*m^2 /C*s^2

And so a Photon in New Physics, unlike Old Physics is a double transverse wave of magnetic fields with a voltage centerline.

So in Old Physics, the photon transverse wave looked like this:

E
|
|____ B

And in New Physics the photon looks like this

           B
            |
B____V_____ B
            |
            |
           B

Where the V is the centerline as Voltage.

Now is the B all the same? I would say one B is the north pole and the second B is the south pole B, although they are transverse.

Can physics accommodate such a thing?

The photon is Double Transverse Wave as this:
        B_n
          |
          |
B_n__V_____ B_s
          |
          |
          B_s

Now, is there anything in Physics that lends credence to the idea that the photon is the above diagram?

Well, recently I discovered that due to magnetic dipole, the photon has to make a closed loop path of a circle or ellipse when it travels, for it does not travel in a straightline path but travels, always in a curved-arc-path. So the above looks true because it causes a photon to never be able to move in a straightline path, but constantly be internally swerving or curving as the poles change positions. So that can perhaps be the reason that all astronomy light analysis shows a redshifting.

What I am going to try to assemble as a puzzle, keeping all the characteristics of the photon in mind, is what that internal structure of the photon must be, yet preserving all its behavior. It must allow for a constant maximum speed; it must allow for .5MeV monopole pair production; it must allow for reflection, refraction, etc.

Now one of the characteristics of the photon is no rest mass, yet the B and V have a kg unit.

So the reason I like Double Transverse Wave, not the single, is that in the Double we can have destructive interference to cancel out kg mass and place that energy into charge energy, a .5MeV charge energy as a magnetic monopole, and the destructive interference allows the photon to have a pure plain maximum speed.

Now, putting a Voltmeter to magnets, we find nothing happening, so I think the V has to be in the structure of the photon. Keeping in mind that the Lines of Force of a magnetic field is the magnetic monopole. However, in a recent historic experiment of mine, by placing two magnets near one another 3 cm apart on a magnetic board, and touch one electrode on one magnet, the other electrode on the second magnet, I get a steady reading of .002 Volts DC. This tells me I performed a Faraday law experiment on two stationary magnets, where their magnetic fields produced a current.

Well the fact of existence of the neutrino which is a particle that is related to the Electron family of particles, the Leptons. The fact neutrinos are in the lepton family indicates neutrinos are able to do pair-production and photons are able to do pair production. Hence neutrino equals photon.

So, a better way of stating the Law of Magnetism is to say that Magnetism is a Magnetic field of dipoles made up of photons as lines-of-force, and which the photon is made up of 4 vector magnetic fields, a 4 vector in a Double Transverse Wave of destructive interference, and the destructive interference creates a voltage in its centerline of forward motion:

Alright, looking at a photon head-on it is
 
 __|__
     |

4 vector waves, each a B field, all transverse at 90 degree angles.

So what we have for an E component in the Photon, is not another wave of transverse, but is the result of the B field waves destructive interference putting some physical object in the center of forward motion. That object is electricity, a voltage of magnetic monopoles as often showing up as .5MeV electric current.

I called it Stationary Electric Current, as what exists inside a capacitor.

We all know that a energetic photon has a ".5 MeV particle and another .5MeV antiparticle inside itself" ready to come out whenever we have pair-production.

When the monopole comes out, it transforms the photon as a 4 vector B field into .5 MeV plus .5MeV antiparticle. So, at the moment of transform, would we not think that the 4 vector B field cancels in destructive interference to produce an electric current, a primitive electric current in forward path of motion of the photon.

What I think this Electrical Object is , is a neutrino longitudinal wave. We all know neutrinos appear to be only in the lepton family, however, I strongly oppose that idea, and believe that protons have their own neutrino family.

Now Pair-Production is when a energetic photon becomes a .5 MeV monopole and a .5 MeV antiparticle monopole plus some side-energy. So here the energetic photon has to go to the nucleus of an atom to pick up its neutrino tube coat and then as pair production begins, the photon inside the neutrino tube becomes a torus tube with photon inside.

Now a neutrino tube, open and straight, not closed into a torus tube, is nothing but a magnetic field dipole cross sections that compose the longitudinal wave of the neutrino.

And a neutrino is a lepton so it must have some electrical properties.

.5 MeV Monopole = photon stuck inside a neutrino torus tube Re: energy is E=mc^2, so is charge C=mc^3 ??? Something I wrote in 2005 and need to review in 2016


Energy is E=mc^2, so is charge C=mc^3 ?

Well, in 2017, I discovered that charge was temperature and so it was not that of mc^3.

Also in 2017, I discovered that charge was the quantum spin number, the m_s, the 1/2 spin and we can easily see that the electron volt measure eV and the number 10^6 comes out of permittivity and permeability, and the number 1/2 in spin is seen as .5, so we have .5 MeV particles.

I was wondering if cubed turns up in other physics equations
that has to do with gravity, Maxwell theory or quantum mechanics. If
this idea that charge in physics is mc^3 and energy is mc^2, then I
have to look if cubed appears elsewhere in physics.

I know for a sphere surface it is r^ 2 and volume is r^3 so is energy a
two dimensional form of charge.

I remember a cube in Kepler's 3rd law having to do with period of
orbit.  The period^2  is proportional to the radius^3.

So if the law of gravity is just a form of the Coulomb law then there
is an equivalent statement for EM that mirrors the Kepler 3rd law of
planetary orbit.

We should realize that when we characterize charge as values of either
+1 or -1 that such is a gross characterization of a phenomenon that is
mostly hidden and unknown. So to be able to say that charge is mc^3 is
a uncovering of the hidden nature of charge.

It is about time that we penetrated into the deeper meaning of what
"charge" is and the formula for charge rather than the gross gloss over
of calling it -1 or +1. It is like the particular individual whose
first name is "Joe" compared to the DNA genome of  that individual as
an analogy of -1 and +1 compared to the equation Charge = mc^3.
Provided of course that this formula is true.

So what is the translation of Kepler's 3rd law into that of Maxwell
theory.

I arrive at this question in a strange way. Strange and pretty. Our
best estimate of the total mass of the observable Universe is 10^30 kg
for our Sun times the average number of stars per galaxy is 10^11 times
the total number of galaxies is 10^10 which gives us the total mass of
the observable universe as 10^51 kg.

So in an Atom Totality, the difference in masses of the proton and
electron should mirror image the mass of the observable universe. And
the mass of the proton or neutron is 10^-27 kg and the speed of light
is 10^8 m/s in the MKS system. So 10^-27 taking the inverse is 10^27 x
10^8 x 10^8 x 10^8 which yields 10^51 kg.

Is this coincidence or is this the hidden but ultimate meaning of the
concept of charge in physics. Is charge really more than the assignment
of -1 and +1. I think so.

I think that the ultimate meaning of charge is a generalization of
energy. Energy is E=mc^2 and charge is a more general dimension which
includes energy. So charge is one more dimension to that of energy.

And in the Atom Totality Theory all the forces become one force which
is the Coulomb force and so gravity is a fictional force. The Coulomb
force is what holds together the large scale universe because the mass
of galaxies stars and planets are chunks of the last six electrons=muons of
231Pu. So it is charge of the protons of the 231Pu Atom Totality that
hold together the galaxies and stars and Solar Systems.

I have made a search through physics to find out whether there exists
any other equation of importance that has a "cubed" term. So far there
is only one such equation and it is the Kepler 3rd law where the
squares of periods proportional to cubes of axes of orbits. Now I tried
to translate that Kepler 3rd law into purely Electromagnetism
and was unable. Now I realize that the three Kepler laws translates
into Newton's law of gravity, but in the Atom Totality there is no
gravity force. So this inability to translate Kepler's 3rd law into
Electromagnetic phenomenon suggests to me that there exists a
translation but a unique one. The unique translation is that the
Kepler's 3rd law is translated into what the concept of Charge is in
physics. The translation of Kepler's 1st and 2nd law into that of the
Coulomb law is a great translation but it leaves Kepler's 3rd law as
not translatable into EM. Now we have that translation and it is that
of Charge.

In 2017, I discovered the all importance of the math formula A = BCD and this suggests that the formula of mc^3 is irrelevant to charge.


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

                ::\ ::|:: /::
                 ::\::|::/::
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - -
                 ::/::|::\::
                ::/ ::|:: \::

One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
 
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--

Now, Northwestern Univ. has a good website explaining how a battery works--

Quoting the website--
In a battery, the only place to go is to the cathode. But, the electrolyte keeps the electrons from going straight from the anode to the cathode within the battery. When the circuit is closed (a wire connects the cathode and the anode) the electrons will be able to get to the cathode. In the picture above, the electrons go through the wire, lighting the light bulb along the way. This is one way of describing how electrical potential causes electrons to flow through the circuit.

--- end quote---

Only trouble is-- that is not how a battery works.

For that explanation can never link up with Faraday's Law

The real explanation is that the anode and cathode are the poles of a bar magnet and the electrolyte forms a magnetic domain of spin-- forming what can be called ferromagnetism in motion for the electrolyte is a bit in motion, vibrations, or spin. This is a thrusting bar magnet delivering .5 MeV monopoles into the electrical circuit. The battery becomes a thrusting bar magnet, with lined up spins as the electrolyte is a spin domain, which yields magnetic monopoles and these monopoles are the current of electricity.

That is the true explanation of how a battery works.

There are many proofs of this. The prime proof is that the explanation must be a mirror reflection of Faraday law.

A secondary proof is that all batteries would fail in a few minutes if the above were true about electrons flowing because both anode and cathode would be clogged up by flowing ions. The reason batteries last a long time is because the flow are magnetic monopoles not electrons, not ions.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-14 20:24:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 07:57:34 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Page36, 4-6, Physics-math is superior to Maths-math/Great Experiments
in Modern Physics /Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 15:57:34 +0000


Page36, 4-6, Physics-math is superior to Maths-math/Great Experiments in Modern Physics /Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017

Chemical Elements demand add exist with multiply

So, basically, the ideas are this--

In Math, you always need add along with multiply to exist together.

However, in mathematics, there is nothing to suggest they are created together, all in one and one in all.

Math needs add to be created alongside multiply. Algebra group theory requires add and multiply be together. Axioms of Counting Numbers assumes multiply but does not link add with multiply.

Only in Physics, can we prove that add is created alongside multiply, and this is done by the Chemical Elements of Periodic Table.

Notice in those Elements that add is by adding one more proton to make the next element. But Multiply exists alongside the add, in that you are multiplying protons, electrons=muons, photons. So that Hydrogen can be represented as 1x1x1, but also as 1+1+1. Helium can be represented as 2+2+2 but also as just 2 and also as 2x2x2.

Nothing in plain math to allow for addition to be the same as multiplication for each number. In Physics, the Elements demand that addition and multiplication exist together.

Alright, in preceding pages I touched on how the mathematics of Physics is unique to only physics and mathematics itself cannot do the math of what physics needs and requires. Throughout this textbook I have often mentioned that Physics is the king of science and that math is just a small subset of physics. Math is like a compartment of physics. Math is minor, Physics is all.

And here we see for the first time where there is nothing in math that can resemble the ability of Physics to be both add and multiply all at once. I hinted of this in prior pages where I did the Volume as A = BCD, and needed to show that A can be A = B+C+D.

There is nothing in mathematics that can do A=BCD simultaneously A= B+C+D other than 0 value. But physics actually needs a mathematics that can do A= BCD = B+C+D.

So, let me show you why Physics needs that feature. It is the Chemical Elements Periodic Table:

Start with hydrogen

H1 = 1 proton + 1 electron=muon + 1 photon = 1 = 1 proton X 1 electron=muon X 1 photon
here we have something math never has 1+1+1 = 1 = 1x1x1

H2 this is deuterium D, and where we recognize a neutron is a proton+electron=muon+photon

And we also recognize a photon = neutrino

H2 = 2 protons + 2 electrons=muons + 2 photons = 1 = 2 protons X 2 electrons=muons X 2 photons
here is another example of what Math could never have 2+2+2 = 1 = 2x2x2


So let me fill out this table a bit more, keep in mind photon = neutrino, and neutron = 1 proton + 1 electron=muon + 1 photon

Helium, as 2He4  we have 4 protons + 4 electrons=muons + 4 photons = 2 = 4 x 4 x 4
.
.
.
Carbon, as 6C12, we have 12 protons + 12 electrons=muons + 12 photons = 6 = 12x12x12

we can write that as 12+12+12 = 6 = 12x12x12
.
.
.

So in Physics, we require a mathematics that is more flexible that allows addition to equal multiplication, and thus allows for the FACT, that whenever you have Addition, you also, simultaneously have multiplication.

Nowhere in mathematics can you verify that addition is simultaneous with multiplication. In mathematics, they have to make this feature an axiom, for they cannot prove that addition is simultaneous with multiplication.

In Physics, you are not the Galois of math assuming there is multiplication given addition, nor the Peano assuming multiplication exists, as you hypothesis addition exists.

In math, you can only assume add and multiply come together as one, but in Physics, you see, it comes together whenever you have one-- either addition or multiplication, you automatically have the other.

On down the list of all Chemical Elements and where the Physics math is superior to any Math-math for it cannot have the concept of addition and multiplication being the same except for the narrow single case of 0.

Why is that? It is because Physics has the concept and reality that you can have a atom as a whole with parts that are the same size as the whole. Mathematics cannot have such a concept. Mathematics cannot have that 2+2+2 = 2 = 2x2x2, but Physics can have and must have that.

Now physics and math had a similar wrestling match earlier in history, but the two, physics and math could come to a settlement agreement, where they had a similar problem with Uncertainty principle being in mathematics that of non-commutative, where a +b was not necessarily b+a , and axb not necessarily bxa. Noncommutative math. But both math and physics could walk away, feeling both had scored a victory. But here, Physics is superior to math, for math cannot ever reconcile where A+B+C = D = AxBxC, math cannot handle that at all-- except for 0, yet physics routinely handles that.

Modern Day Physics Experiments::

World's greatest Physics experiment, but takes 2,500 years to properly interpret

The world's greatest experiment in physics is ultra easy and simple to perform. Even Grade School kids perform these all the way up to the most prestigious physics professor. But all of them, fail to properly interpret the experiment and what is going on.

(1) Like Poles, Like Charges have denial of same space occupancy, not repel:: two like poles of two magnets appear to repel-- but is it repel, or, is it denial of same space occupancy?

This is probably the oldest physics experiment that was wrong, Thales, in Ancient Greek times and only correctly interpreted by 2016.

What this experiment, when correctly interpreted means-- gravity is magnetism because EM is only attract, other than denial of same space occupancy. That there is no repel in magnetism nor in electricity, there is denial of same space occupancy. And those two concepts -- repel versus denial of same space occupancy -- are somewhat closely related, and thus fooled the world of science for 2,500 years.

When you have concepts so closely related but different, then you fool everyone for 2,500 years. As mentioned earlier in this textbook, the experiment performed is to get two magnets equal and then see where they snap together of opposite poles, and see if that same distance occurs when two like poles, whether there is a reaction at the same distance. Turns out that movement in the magnets for attract occurs 14% longer distance away, than movement for magnets for repel. This means attract and repel is not equal, and because not equal means it is not repel at all, but a concept of Denial of Same Space Occupancy-- the Pauli Exclusion Principle.


(2) Experiment to show EM Coulomb force is a variable force ranging from R to 1/R to 1/R^2, and ultimately a logarithmic function force, no longer inverse square. (Same goes for gravity.)

This is a experiment to reveal that Coulomb force is not inverse square but Logarithmic.

Now, the famous Experiment in Physics history of the observation of iron filings on top and a bar magnet below and the Lines of Force etched out in the iron filings.

A sheet of iron filings on top and a bar magnet underneath shows Lines of Force-- but, has anyone really determined that the Lines of Force are Circles near the magnet (solid body motion, R) then ellipses (weaker motion, 1/R) and finally far away from the magnet is parabola motion (weakest motion 1/R^2) and the Coulomb force is not just inverse square but is ADDITION INVERSE SQUARE which means the Coulomb (like gravity) comes in Solid Body Rotation to Elliptical orbit to Parabola orbit.
Sorry my mistake, only one physics textbook with the cover the experiment-- Berkeley physics course- volume2, >Electricity and Magnetism, Purcell, 1965
Now Halliday & Resnick, Fundamentals of Physics, 3rd ed, 1988, pages 553 for electric field and 690 for magnetic >field shows Lines of Force.
Close in, they are circular, far distance away they are elliptical.
The best pictures are on the Internet under Google "magnet iron filings"
A really good picture is "Why grouping?" with "Why gap?" Where the filings are seen circular close in, more >elliptical the further out.
So the real true Coulomb force is not a form of A^2/d^2 but rather a (A^2 + B^2 + C^2) / d^2
The true Coulomb has a Addition in the numerator.
What Old Physics thought the Coulomb force was a parabolic motion of A^2/ d^2. When in truth, the Coulomb is >also a circular-elliptic motion of (A^2 + B^2) / d^2.
Fortunately for me I have a 3rd dimensional plastic container with iron shavings and a magnet for center. And >what this teaches is that the shape of Earth or Jupiter is not due to Newton gravity because A^2/d^2 the parabola >formula of Newton gravity and General Relativity is not strong enough to form a "planet-ball or a star-ball" but >magnetism is strong enough to draw together a mixture (like in chemistry) and remain a solid body with formula
(A^2 +B^2 +C^2)/ d^2.
I easily get a oblate spheroid in magnetism in my plastic magnetism toy for Earth and Jupiter.
So, repeat the experiment of noting the arcs and curves of the iron filings from a bar magnet-- see the Lines of Force are CIRCLES near the magnet, then are ELLIPSES further out, and finally are PARABOLAS furthest out.

Now one can reread and restudy the Coulomb experiment of 1784 using a torsion beam to find a inverse square law. Here instead, we ask the professors and students alike to find why that was narrow minded and missed the stronger forces of EM of R to 1/R and only found the 1/R^2.

So in this experiment, we have the student and professor of physics repeating the 1784 Coulomb experiment and finding a variable force range of R to 1/R to 1/R^2 which makes the Coulomb force as a logarithmic function, and makes the force of gravity be a logarithmic function.

(2.2) Experiment that is a follow-on to (2). This is easy for it is a look at the literature of the Spiral Galaxy Rotation Curves-- the work of Rubin & Ford, where they found that gravity force varies from R to 1/R to 1/R^2 in spiral galaxies. So here the student is requested to look up the literature on this.

(3) Recent and ongoing Experiment-- prove the Sun is Hollow, for the reason that gravity is EM force, and there is a law in EM, the Gauss law of electricity, that charge moves from center to outer surface.

NASA is going to send up a spacecraft to explore and probe the Sun in 2018. I have asked that they install aboard the craft a plug of some radioactive material, so that as the craft disintegrates into the Sun at the end of its mission, that we, back on Earth can monitor the plug as it descends into the Sun. If the readings are so and so-- Sun is not hollow, but if readings are otherwise-- Sun is hollow. So here is a opportunity to prove the Sun is hollow or not. And that is a very very important proof, because if hollow, then everyone with their gravity and General Relativity can pack up their bags and leave.

(4) Experiment:: prove the temperature in Space near the Sun is very cold, only a few degrees above 0 Kelvin, even though it is flooded with Sun's photons. So find a piece of Space that has no particles of rest mass, only photon and neutrino radiation, and measure the temperature accurately. This experiment is for the proving that temperature is not only average kinetic energy of rest mass particles, but also includes average kinetic energy of non-rest-mass particles, photons and neutrinos. Here we want to prove the thermodynamics of F = ma with F = dQ/ds. In Old Physics, they never included dQ/ds (see earlier chapters).

(5) Ambient Voltage in Space, Experiment. I would like for NASA to build into the spacecrafts, an instrument that can read the outer space ambient voltage, and perhaps even a thermometer that reads the temperature (outside) as the craft hurdles through space. Cosmic Ambient Voltage is very important, for I believe what we think is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is just the Ambient Voltage.
Any one of us can do this experiment in our homes, provided you have two excellent costly voltmeters. Just turn them on at DC and walk around the house with the electrodes and read voltage.


(6) EXPERIMENT:: The mathematics of a spring has never before been examined up close. Take a screen door spring and it is circles wound up. Here the question is, how do you wind circles or stack them, then join them into a spring. Here I want to focus on an analysis of the joint where one circle joins the next circle in forming a spring. The spring is of course a longitudinal wave, and we can consider a transverse wave as related to a longitudinal wave. So the mathematics community has never really delved deep into analysis of the spring and how Double Transverse Wave transforms into a Longitudinal Wave-- a spring.

In the stacking of circles of equal size, to form a spring, there is a joint involved where you cut the two circles and then you have to join one cut circle with the other cut circle. And there has to be a angle of joining together. This angle is new to physics and mathematics. In a screen door spring, the angle is small but is an inherent physical feature of the spring. It is an inherent physical feature of the neutrino-- the angle of joining. For I suspect the difference between a photon and neutrino, is the neutrino is a longitudinal wave-- a spring, while the photon is a Double Transverse Wave.

So that in the experiment above of two beams blasted together on a screen, that the loops or fins or wings of a photon can alter another photon or neutrino.

defining fin/wings of Light Wave & Experiment of lightwave collision Re: solution found E = 1/2 kx^2 + 1/2 mv^2

Alright I am going to need a transverse wave picture
                 __                                                                __ 
       .-'               `-.                                            .-'               `-.
   .'                         `.   wave train                    .'        fin or,       `.
 /                              \                                   / wing of wavetrain \
;                                 ;                                  ;                                ;
| ___________________  | ____________________ |   _________________  |_______> linear particle track
                                  ;                                 ;  
                                   \                              /    
                                     `.                         .'  
                                         `-  .  _____   .-'      

Now I need this diagram to explain some features of a Light wave, a photon.

The above is only one of 4 wavetrains in a Double Transverse Wave, so that there is Destructive Interference.

When you have destructive interference, the 4 wavetrains collapse to the center of the wavetrain
and becomes a particle as this picture shows

________________________________________________________>

It is traveling at the speed of light, both wavetrain and as particle.

As a particle from destructive interference, it has no rest mass.

Now I needed to show the Fin or Wing of a wavetrain. Each Loop is a Fin or Wing


                 __ 
       .-'               `-.  
   .'                         `.
 /                              \  
;                                 ;
|                                 |  
This is one fin or wing of a wavetrain

It is like 1 blade of a fan.

The reason I need that description is because when two different light waves entangle with their fins
they cause a collision of frequency and the two have altered frequencies as a result of the wave collision.

It is like one wavetrain, sideswipes another wavetrain.

Now if the two wavetrains have the same frequency, they superimpose, but if the two are different, they each modify. Much like two particles with different speeds, colliding, then they go off with different speeds after the collision is over with.

The importance of this wave collision and the entangling of wings of wavetrain, is that Doppler shift of light is due to photons colliding, and not due to the stupid Old Physics of thinking that the motion of the body that emits light has a imprint on the wavetrain. Doppler shift truly occurs with Sound Waves, but never occurs with Light Waves. What does affect light waves is light wave collisions in sideswiping or even head on, where the fins/wings alter one another.

Recently in 2017, I outlined an Experiment to prove this occurs in Light Waves. Briefly again, the experiment involves two different colored light beams. We mark a spot on the wall where the one beam is focused, say a laser color of white. Then we shoot a second different color of light beam, say green. Now we shoot both, so there is collision of both and we see if the spot for the white has shifted and moved.

(7) One of my finest experiments ever, was in 2017 where I placed two bar magnets close together, separated by 3cm on a magnetic board, and with a highly sensitive voltmeter placing one electrode on one magnet, the other electrode on second magnet found a permanent current of .002 volts DC. In other words I found the Faraday Law on two stationary magnets, proving that the .5MeV particle we always thought was the electron, is not an electron but is a Magnetic Monopole, and that electricity and current flow is the flow of monopoles, not electrons.


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

                ::\ ::|:: /::
                 ::\::|::/::
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - -
                 ::/::|::\::
                ::/ ::|:: \::

One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
 
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-- The way a battery truly works, is that the battery has to be a thrusting bar magnet in Faraday's Law. So how is that possible? In -- Chemistry, The Central Science, 5th ed, Brown, LeMay, Bursten, 1991, page 891, "An electron possesses a "spin" that gives it a magnetic moment; that is, it behaves like a tiny magnet. When all the electrons in an atom or ion are paired, the magnetic moments of the electrons effectively cancel each other, and the substance is diamagnetic."
"Ferromagnetic coupled centers aligned in a common direction." What that tells us, is that the composition of a battery aligns itself into ferromagnetic geometry.

ferromagnetic
-->  -->  -->  -->
-->  -->  -->  -->
-->  -->  -->  -->
-->  -->  -->  -->


paramagnetic
\    /     /      ---

---   /    \     |

\     |    ---     \

diamagnetic
O  O  O  O  O  O
O  O  O  O  O  O
O  O  O  O  O  O

CHEM ONE, 2nd ed, Waser, Trueblood, Knobler, 1980, page 598, "In ferromagnetic substances there is very strong interaction between the unpaired electron spins on neighboring atoms, which causes the spins to be oriented parallel to each other throughout large regions of the sample, called magnetic domains. The result is an enormous reinforcement of the magnetism inherent in the individual atoms containing unpaired electrons. Ferromagnetic substances are pulled very strongly into magnetic fields and also remain magnetized even after they are removed from magnetic fields."

And the Chem One textbook further implies how the battery aligns its ions, electrons=muons, atoms to form a ferromagnetic substance. And the electrolyte of the battery gives the ferromagnetic configuration a motion, a motion that is the thrusting in Faraday's law.

So here we get a true picture of what is going on, in how batteries truly work, a picture of making magnetic monopoles to form a current in the wire circuit.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-14 22:25:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 08:23:13 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Page37, 4-7 Important equations of physics Dirac, Schrodinger
/textbook 8th ed.
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 16:23:13 +0000

Page37, 4-7 Important equations of physics Dirac, Schrodinger /textbook 8th ed.

DERIVING DIRAC & SCHRODINGER EQUATIONS FROM JUST AP-MAXWELL EQUATIONS

For years and years and years I always held in esteem the Dirac Equation, less so the Schrodinger Equation. Probably it was an internal bias on my part. But in the years 2016 I discovered that the Muon rest mass if multiplied by 9 is virtually equal to the proton rest mass. Then, a year later, 2017, I realized what the huge significant discovery of 9x105 equals almost the same as 938 MeV proton or 939 MeV neutron. And that if we consider the Real Electron to be the muon not the particle of .5 MeV, and the Real Proton to be 840 MeV, well, that changes all of Chemistry, for the better. And, it changes all of physics. Just a tiny tiny notice, that 9x105 is so close to 938, that in physics, when you get this close, less than 1% discrepancy, they are equal. In physics, the numbers you gather in experimental results have more outside extraneous physics involved that you seldom get a "pure number" that is a 100% measure of what you wanted. So, in physics, when muon to proton is 9 times one another with less than 1% discrepancy, means proton = 840 MeV and muon=electron. So, now, the Schrodinger Equation is far more useful and valuable in this electron=muon, than the Dirac Equation. Apparently, the Schrodinger equation allows for one of the most complete descriptions of a physical system under study. Schrodinger equation is more suited to Chemistry, than Dirac Equation. I am not sure why this is so. Perhaps it is because the mathematics of Schrodinger are far more simple than the mathematics of Dirac. But, there could be some theoretical difference as to why Schrodinger math is more suitable for Chemistry.

In 2016 I started to find rules for a Table of Elementary Particles, that the Schrodinger Equation is far more adept or workable or applicable than the Dirac Equation in understanding of Chemistry and Physics, certainly in understanding of Chemistry where the Schrodinger Equation is supreme. But whether it is supreme only because the math is less onerous?

I need to derive the Schrodinger and Dirac Equations purely from the AP Equations. A much more difficult task than the derivation from the Maxwell Equations.

Remarkable that I am the first physicist to ever add the four Old Maxwell Equations and ask-- what do they attain? If we add two of them do we get the Schrodinger Equation? And all four attain the Dirac Equation? Or, does adding two of them get the Dirac Equation? If we add the Magnetic law with the Faraday law, just those two Maxwell Equations, do we get the Schrodinger Equation? And if we add the Ampere/Maxwell law with the Gauss law of electricity, do we get the Dirac Equation. Many will say no, but I, for one would say a luke-warm yes.

But after revising the Maxwell Equations with the AP Equations, there are now 6 AP Equations, 4 of them from just New Ohm's Law, and the question I have to ask is whether there is a greater and larger Schrodinger Equation and a Dirac Equation, one more powerful than Dirac Equation.

Summary of the Derivation: Simply add two of the four Old Maxwell Equations and then sort out the terms, and you have in the end the Schrodinger Equation, and add all four of the Old Maxwell Equations and you should end up with the Dirac Equation since both Maxwell and Dirac equations are relativistic from the start. For the Schrodinger Equation which is nonrelativistic, we use only two of the four Maxwell Equations. Now if both Schrodinger and Dirac in the early 1900s had loved the Maxwell Equations as I love them, they would have found their equation by simply adding the Maxwell Equations. But in the 20th century, there was a derision, even hatred of the Maxwell Equations with the blossoming new quantum mechanics, when all along, the Maxwell Equations could derive all of the quantum mechanics and more. And the Equations serve as the axioms of physics.

Summation of Old Maxwell Equations is a generalized Dirac
Equation and a generalized Schrodinger Equation

What I am going to repeat here is how the 4 Maxwell 
Equations derives both the Schrodinger Equation and the Dirac 
Equation. And here is that derivation:

Deriving Schrodinger Eq from Old Maxwell Eq

Alright the Schrodinger Eq. is easily derived from the Maxwell 
Equations from just the law of magnetism coupled with Faraday law.
In the Dirac Equation, I feel that the Ampere law coupled with law of electricity
gives us the Dirac Equation, but we may need all four of the Maxwell 
Equations because it is a 4x4 matrix equation and so the full 4 
Maxwell Equations are needed to cover the Dirac Equation, although 
the Dirac Equation ends up being a minor subset of the 4 Maxwell 
Equations, because the Dirac Equation does not allow the photon to be 
a double transverse wave while the Summation of the Maxwell Equations 
demands the photon be a double transverse wave.

But the Schrodinger Equation:
ihd(f(w)) = Hf(w) where f(w) is the wave function
The Schrodinger Equation is easily derived from the mere Gauss law of magnetism
combined with Faraday law.
These are the 4 Maxwell Equations with magnetic dipoles:

div*E = r_E
div*B = 0
- curlxE = dB
curlxB = dE + J_E

Now the Gauss law of magnetism and Faraday's law of Maxwell Equations, the two alone, are 
nonrelativistic and so is the Schrodinger Equation.

-curlxE = dB
div*B = 0 
____________
div*B -curlxE = dB

this is reduced to k(d(f(x))) = H(f(x))

Now Schrodinger derived his equation out of thin air, using the Fick's 
law of diffusion. So Schrodinger never really used the Maxwell 
Equations. The Maxwell Equations were foreign to Schrodinger and to 
all the physicists of the 20th century when it came time to find the 
wave function. But how easy it would have been for Schrodinger if he 
instead, reasoned that the Maxwell Equations derives all of Physics, 
and that he should only focus on the Maxwell Equations. Because if he 
had reasoned that the Maxwell Equations were the axiom set of all of 
physics and then derived the Schrodinger Equation from the two 
laws, he would and could have further reasoned that if you Summation 
all 4 Maxwell Equations, that Schrodinger would then have derived the 
relativistic wave equation and thus have found the Dirac Equation long 
before Dirac ever had the idea of finding a relativistic wave 
equation.

Deriving Dirac Eq from Old Maxwell Eq

Alright, these are the 4 Maxwell Equations with magnetic dipoles:

div*E = r_E
div*B = 0
- curlxE = dB
curlxB = dE + J_E

Now to derive the Dirac Equation from the Maxwell Equations we add 
the lot together:
div*E = r_E
div*B = 0
- curlxE = dB
curlxB = dE + J_E
 
________________
div*E + div*B + (-1)curlxE + curlxB = r_E + dB + dE + J_E

Now Wikipedia has a good description of how Dirac derived his famous 
equation which gives this:

(Ad_x + Bd_y + Cd_z + (i/c)Dd_t - mc/h) p = 0

So how is the above summation of Maxwell Equations that of a 
generalized Dirac Equation? 
Well, the four terms of div and curl are the A,B,C,D terms. And the 
right side of the equation can all be conglomerated into one term and 
the negative sign in the Faraday law can turn that right side into 
the negative sign.

Now switching over to the AP Equations and then the summation of at least 4 dynamic law equations (the differential laws) for a truly generalized Dirac Equation.

V = i*B*L       New Ohm's law, law of electricity
V' = B*B*L + i*V*L + i*B*(i_C)   Ampere
B' = 1/L - VB/i^2L - V/L^2    Faraday
i' = - (ii*L)  spin law
L' = (i^2B - B^3- V^2i) / i^2B^2  Coulomb law with EM-gravity

Now the Old Dirac Equation gave spin to the quantum physics which was new and exciting in the 1930's. But with the AP Equations we have spin baked into the mix of three laws.

What the Dirac Equation was unable to do is derive these Physics properties:
(a) the Real Electron is a muon of 105 MeV
(b) the magnetic monopole exists, and is a photon or neutrino with a .5 MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy
(c) the electric current is not the flow of electrons=muons or protons, but is the flow of monopoles as closed loop figures
(d) that the Coulomb force was not inverse square, but logarithmic function

So when we add together the 4 dynamic laws of the AP Equations we begin to answer the above four questions.

Now it just so happens that the Schrodinger Eq tells us so much more about Chemistry than does the Dirac Equation and since it tells us more about chemistry, the Schrodinger Eq is more useful in exploring the Elementary Particles of Physics, for keep in mind, Chemistry is the Atoms of Physics, the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements, and now we want another TABLE, a table of elementary physics particles, and the Schrodinger Equation is of more help than the Dirac Equation.

It just so happens that the Schrodinger Equation is able to produce the Table of Elementary Particles of Physics via its psi^2 function as per the Born interpretation. Where we use a fantastic powerful theory of mathematics, which I call the 9 Theory. Where the psi^2 is interpreted as related to the number 3, so that 3^2 = 9 close to pi = 3.14…. and close to square root of 10 = 3.16. So, let me do a chapter on mostly pure math and logic, for physics understanding without correct math or correct logic is a lost cause.

So, let me tell you this Theory of 9, in the next page.


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

                ::\ ::|:: /::
                 ::\::|::/::
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - -
                 ::/::|::\::
                ::/ ::|:: \::

One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
 
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--

Newsgroups: sci.math
Injection-Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 03:57:22 +0000
Now most batteries produced have a lot of nickel plated steel. The canister is steel. I wish it was not steel for then I could do a simple experiment.
If we had a fully charged battery the magnetic monopoles created should attract a magnet but as the battery dies-- a magnet would no longer attract the battery.
Because most batteries have steel in them, magnets attract regardless if battery is charged or dead.
But it gives the idea of an experimental proof the the way batteries work is by creating a magnetic field and the electrolyte as the thrusting process.
Experiment:: build a battery with no iron involved. Charge the battery and witness an attraction to a bar magnet. This attraction should not exist if the explanation of how a battery works is movement of electrons and ions.
AP
On Wednesday, December 20, 2017 at 11:00:37 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Alright, i was able to perform this experiment. I have two identical batteries only difference is one has a .3 volts and other is 1.6 volts. I placed each in turn near a compass needle. With the 1.6 I managed to walk the needle 360 degrees around. Not with the .3 volts.
This is evidence that a battery is a thrusting bar magnet-- not a flow of ions nor electrons.
AP
Newsgroups: sci.math
Injection-Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 06:23:23 +0000
Now the difference between battery and capacitor is the battery makes electricity and the capacitor stores electricity. By electricity I mean magnetic monopoles of .5 MeV particles as current.
But I also notice the structure of the two are almost the same -- metals separated with something in between. In a battery a electrolyte of some liquid nature but in capacitor a dry nonliquid dielectric.
So one can say the voltaic pile is basically a series of capacitors alternating different metals with a liquid electrolyte in between.
In this view, capacitors only store monopoles, but cannot produce them, since the dielectric cannot be a "thrust" in Faraday's law.
While the battery can both store and produce monopoles basically because the liquid or paste or gel (dry cell) have a thrust motion, a vibration of spin.
Now, there is another area of research we need to tackle is the light we see in disturbance of electricity. It happens a lot when i pull-out a wall plug that i see light sparks. Now Old Physics would say I was seeing a disturbance in the electromagnetic field.
Those light sparks, however, with our new understanding of electricity, are glimpses of Magnetic Monopoles-- the particles of the electric current. Lightening bolts are magnetic monopoles. And now we see how silly it was for physicists to have imagined lightening was a vast number of electrons of atoms on the move. This is really a dumb idea as to think so much matter is unbalanced charge, and far better, to think lightening flashes are monopoles, not electrons.
Electricity is about monopoles on the move, not electrons of atoms for those electrons are muons of 105 MeV.
AP
Newsgroups: sci.math
Injection-Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 21:59:25 +0000
World's Easiest Proof that Electric Current are monopoles of dressed up photons of .5MeV charge energy
- hide quoted text -
Alright, now I was looking to see if there are any major anomalies in battery theory. All I could spot were anomalies with specific anode, cathode and electrolyte, but no overall major anomaly.
When you discover a new theory of science, it is best to immediately look for any outstanding anomalies on the subject, because if your theory is true, it should easily explain these anomalies.
Unfortunately the anomalies of batteries seem too remote and specific to substances.
It is worth repeating again::
Chemistry, The Central Science, 5th ed, Brown, LeMay, Bursten, 1991, page 891, "An electron possesses a "spin" that gives it a magnetic moment; that is, it behaves like a tiny magnet. When all the electrons in an atom or ion are paired, the magnetic moments of the electrons effectively cancel each other, and the substance is diamagnetic."
"Ferromagnetic coupled centers aligned in a common direction." What that tells us, is that the composition of a battery aligns itself into ferromagnetic geometry.

ferromagnetic
-->  -->  -->  -->
-->  -->  -->  -->
-->  -->  -->  -->
-->  -->  -->  -->


paramagnetic
\    /     /      ---

---   /    \     |

\     |    ---     \

diamagnetic
O  O  O  O  O  O
O  O  O  O  O  O
O  O  O  O  O  O

So, in Old Chemistry, and in Old Physics, it was recognized that spin is involved with magnetism (or the same as).
Spin and magnetism are one and the same things, only two different words.
In Old Physics, they rightfully found that the photon is spin 1, yet, oddly, it was the only spin 1 particle, considering everything else listed that was important, was spin 1/2 or 0, yet, only photon was listed as spin 1.
The listing of photon as spin 1 was due to, in Old Physics out of sheer "theory considerations" no practical consideration, but just a bunch of silly ideas from Old Physics Standard Model, an inane model but better than nothing to go on.
Turns out, the Standard Model got it correct, the photon is of spin 1, because that spin is ferromagnetism. Spin 0 is diamagnetism and spin 1/2 is paramagnetism. The photon has unique spin 1 because the photon is ferromagnetism in the microscopic world, the world inside of atoms.
There should be a world's easiest proof that the electric current is because of moving magnetic monopoles with .5 MeV charge energy and are photons or neutrinos dressed up with .5 MeV charge energy.
So, if you have a photon of .5 MeV and another of .5MeV you have a positron and a antipositron = 1 MeV charge energy, and thus spin 1. If you had a proton it has .5MeV + charge energy and if you added a electron = muon you have +.5MeV -.5MeV for a neutral charge energy of 0.
WORLD's EASIEST PROOF that electric current is magnetic monopoles of .5 MeV charge energy as a photon or neutrino.
Have an appliance running, now, pull the plug of the cord running the appliance, from the wall. Notice a spark flash of electricity. A spark flash is photons. The current of electricity, and electric current is magnetic monopoles of current. When you pull the plug and see the spark flash, you are witnessing the electric current = magnetic monopoles = photons dressed up with .5 MeV of charge energy.
So, how does a photon be able to dress itself up with .5 MeV of charge energy. Its spin is 1, and so if we had two photons each with .5 MeV charge energy, one going one direction and one another we have charge 0 overall.
Contrast the neutron of 945 MeV containing a proton of 840 MeV and electron=muon of 105 MeV. The neutron charge is 0 because the -.5MeV of muon cancels the +.5MeV of proton, but the neutron's spin is 1/2 in Old Physics, but should it be 1/2? In New Physics, the photon is correctly spin 1 and charge 0 if we combine two opposite photons. Likewise in New Physics the neutron charge is 0 and spin 1 if we combine the fact of proton+muon.
So we see that Old Physics Table of particles is in need of revamping.
And, the World's easiest proof that the electric current = monopoles as dressed up photons is to observe light flashes when you disconnect electric current.
AP
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Injection-Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 22:10:12 +0000
how does a photon be versatile enough to dress up with charge energy? Re: World's Easiest Proof that Electric Current are monopoles
Now, here I should be able to explain in a Wimshurst generator and a Van de Graaf generator, explain much better and much easier as to why a photon flash of spark traverses the two electrodes. That the photon sparks are the electric current as dressed up photons of .5MeV charge energy.
What remains to be explained is how photons and neutrinos can be so versatile as to be dressed up with charge energy, or not dressed up and have 0 charge energy. So this becomes the "new mystery" or "newest mystery" on the block of physics.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-15 05:53:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 08:55:53 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Page38, 5-1 TRUE CORRECT LOGIC & MATH NEEDED by Physics or any
science in order to do science at all /textbook 8th ed.
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 16:55:54 +0000


Page38, 5-1 TRUE CORRECT LOGIC & MATH NEEDED by Physics or any science in order to do science at all /textbook 8th ed.

Page38, 5-1 TRUE CORRECT LOGIC & MATH NEEDED by Physics or any science in order to do science at all /textbook 8th ed.

1.) Before you do Science, whether physics or any other science, or even mathematics, you need to be able to think correctly, straight and clear. Unfortunately schools across the world do not teach proper true Logic. They teach a mish mash gaggle of error filled garbage and call it Logic.

Here is the correct logic.

Correction of Logic errors by Archimedes Plutonium
1. Logic errors:: otherwise we cannot think clearly and think straight and true
History of those pathetic errors::

The 4 connectors of Logic are:

1) Equal (equivalence) plus Not (negation) where the two are combined as one
2) And (conjunction)
3) Or (exclusive or) (disjunction)
4) Implication

New Logic

EQUAL/NOT table:
T  = T  = T
T  = not F  = T
F  = not T  = T
F =  F   = T

Equality must start or begin logic because in the other connectors, we
cannot say a result equals something if we do not have equality built
already. Now to build equality, it is unary in that T=T and F =F. So
we need another unary connector to make equality a binary. Negation is
that other connector and when we combine the two we have the above
table.

Equality combined with Negation allows us to proceed to build the
other three logic connectors.

Now, unfortunately, Logic must start with equality allied with
negation and in math what this connector as binary connector ends up
being-- is multiplication for math. One would think that the first
connector of Logic that must be covered is the connector that ends up
being addition of math, not multiplication. But maybe we can find a
philosophy-logic answer as to why Logic starts with equal/not and is
multiplication rather than addition.

Here you we have one truth table equal/not whose endresult is 4 trues.

New Logic
AND
T &  T  = T
T & F  = T
F &  T  = T
F  & F   = F

AND is ADD in New Logic, and that makes a whole lot of common sense.
AND feels like addition, the joining of parts. And the truth table for
AND should be such that if given one true statement in a series of
statements then the entire string of statements is true. So if I had P
and Q and S and R, I need only one of those to be true to make the
string true P & Q & S & R = True if just one statement is true.

The truth table of AND results in 3 trues and 1 false.

New Logic
OR(exclusive)
T or  T  = F
T or F  = T
F or  T  = T
F  or F   = F

OR is seen as a choice, a pick and choose. So if I had T or T, there
is no choice and so it is False. If I had T or F there is a choice and
so it is true. Again the same for F or T, but when I have F or F,
there is no choice and so it is false. OR in mathematics, because we
pick and discard what is not chosen, that OR is seen as subtraction.

OR is a truth table whose endresult is 2 trues, 2 falses.

New Logic
IMPLIES (Material Conditional)
IF/THEN
MOVES INTO
T ->  T  = T
T ->  F  = F
F ->  T  = U probability outcome
F ->  F   = U probability outcome

A truth table that has a variable which is neither T or F, but U for
unknown or a probability outcome. We need this U so that we can do
math where 0 divided into something is not defined.

Now notice there are four truth tables where the endresult is 4 trues,
3 trues with 1 false, 2 trues with 2 falses and finally a truth table
with a different variable other than T or F, with variable U. This is
important in New Logic that the four primitive connectors, by
primitive I mean they are independent of one another so that one
cannot be derived by the other three. The four are axioms,
independent. And the way you can spot that they are independent is
that if you reverse their values so that 4 trues become 4 falses. For
AND, reversal would be FFFT instead of TTTF. For OR, a reversal would
be TFFT instead of FTTF.

To be independent and not derivable by the other three axioms you need
a condition of this:

One Table be 4 of the same
One Table be 3 of the same
One Table be 2 of the same
And to get division by 0 in mathematics, one table with a unknown variable.

So, how did Old Logic get it all so wrong so bad? I think the problem
was that in the 1800s when Logic was being discovered, is that the
best minds of the time were involved in physics, chemistry, biology
and looked upon philosophy and logic as second rate and that second
rate minds would propose Old Logic. This history would be from Boole
1854 The Laws of Thought, and Jevons textbook of Elementary Lessons on
Logic, 1870. Boole started the Old Logic with the help of Jevons and
fostered the wrong muddleheaded idea that OR was ADD, when it truly is
AND.

Now the way people actually live, is an indicator of how well they
thought and how well any of their ideas should be taken seriously. In
the case of Boole, he went to class in a downpour rain, why without a
raincoat? And reaching class, instead of changing into dry warm
clothes, stood for hours in front of students, sopping wet and
shivering. Of course he caught pneumonia, but instead of being
sensible, common sense that even a fly would have, he insisted his
wife give him cold showers and make the bed all wet and freezing. Of
course, he would die from this. Now, does anyone today, think that a
mind like that has anything to offer Logic or mathematics, is as crazy
as what Boole was.

But once you have textbooks about Logic, it is difficult to correct a
mistake because of the money making social network wants to make more
money, not go around fixing mistakes. So this nightmarish mistakes of
the truth tables was not seen by Frege, by Russell, by Whitehead, by
Carnap, by Godel, and by 1908 the symbols and terminology of the Old
Logic truth tables were so deeply rooted into Logic, that only a
Logical minded person could ever rescue Logic.

1.1 The "and" truth table should be TTTF not what Boole thought TFFF.
Only an utter gutter mind of logic would think that in a series of
statements, that AND is true when all statements are true, but to the
wise person-- he realizes that if just one statement is true, the
entire series is true, where we toss aside all the irrelevant and
false statements --(much what life itself is-- we pick out the true
ones and ignore all the false ones). In fact, in a proof in mathematics, the proof can be full of false and nonsense statements, so long as the proof itself is there and be seen as overall True. For example the proof of SAS in geometry, side angle side, can be packed with false statements and irrelevant statements and still be true.
1.2 The error of "if-then" truth table should be TFUU, not that of TFTT
1.3 The error of "not" and "equal", neither unary, but should be binary
1.4 The error that Reductio Ad Absurdum is a proof method, when it is
merely probability-truth, not guaranteed
1.5 The error, the "or" connector is truth table FTTF, never that of TTTF, for the idea of an inclusive "or", --- either A or B or both, is a self contradiction. And funny, how the fathers of Logic-- Boole and Jevons had a connector that was self contradictory, as if the fathers of logic had no logical mind to be doing logic in the first place.

1.6 So that begs the question, what in mathematics has a truth table of TFFF. Well the simple answer is that it is a reverse of TTTF which is AND, and so the former can be got by that of a NOT function on AND. But in isolation, what is a table of TFFF in mathematics? My guess is it is Absolute Value, a form of Absolute Value in mathematics, but that is only a guess, and likely wrong. In 2016 I gave a half hearted argument that TFFF was absolute value.


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

                ::\ ::|:: /::
                 ::\::|::/::
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - -
                 ::/::|::\::
                ::/ ::|:: \::

One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
 
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::
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 17:43:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: how battery really works, proof electricity is photons not electrons
Alright, as in all science, the moment you resolve an issue, is the moment a whole new batch of problems spring forth.
I have resolved the fact the Real Electron is the muon, the Real Proton is only 840 MeV, making the often seen .5MeV particle be the magnetic monopole-- the substance of electricity, the particle that is flowing in electric current.
Resolving that the magnetic monopole is a dressed- up photon or neutrino with .5MeV of charge energy, not rest mass energy.
So the new problem is-- how does one dress-up a photon or neutrino with charge energy?
First we need a physics term for "dress-up". Some months ago, i proposed Superposition was the correct term. Photons easily allow the superposition of more photons upon a single photon.
But, how is it possible to have photons of 1 spin and 0 charge, while other photons are monopoles of 1/2 spin and a -1 charge? Here it seems to be dress-down, not up, and to split a photon of 1 MeV into two photons of .5MeV of charge energy of +1 and -1 charge.
Here, my instinct tells me to go to the AP-Maxwell Equations to seek an answer. Find something in those equations that allows photons to carry charge-energy.
I am looking and seem to have come upon the Faraday Law demonstration where pushing the bar magnet into the closed loop wire makes the voltmeter read - or negative charge and pulling the magnet out, the voltmeter flicks to a + charge reading. So that in the Faraday Law says photons are charged depending on direction of motion of magnet, in a magnetic field.
But what about photons that make a radio signal or TV signal work. Or the photons streaming out of a light bulb? Are those photons of 1 spin, 0 charge? Whilst photons as monopoles as electric current are 1/2 spin of -.5MeV charge ?
Does the Faraday Law explain that away?
AP
On Thursday, December 21, 2017 at 8:22:54 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Alright, perhaps the solution of the problem as to when does a photon have charge energy .5MeV and when not is answered by geometry.
When a photon is double transverse wave it has 0 charge energy and is spin 1, charge 0.
But when a photon is split in half as a single transverse wave it has 1/2 spin with +1 or -1 charge energy of .5MeV.
Then that begs the question of when does a photon be double transverse and when single transverse?
Now I cannot answer that by saying "when in a magnetic field" because the photons are the magnetic field.
So more thinking is required.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-15 21:02:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 13:50:05 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Page39, 5-2 TRUE CORRECT MATH NEEDED by Physics in order to do the
Table of Elementary Physics Particles /Decimals/ /textbook 8th ed.
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 21:50:05 +0000

Page39, 5-2 TRUE CORRECT MATH NEEDED by Physics in order to do the Table of Elementary Physics Particles /Decimals/ /textbook 8th ed.

5-2 Decimals

Alright, I need new true mathematics to solve the Table of Elementary Particles. What I am doing is similar to Mendeleev solving the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements, only I am doing it on the Elementary particles of physics.

Now, Old Physics had a really stupid and obnoxious application of a math rule, something they dreamed up from the gutter of their minds-- the threefold way in the silly Quark theory-- just obnoxious crank math, that went nowhere, achieved nothing, and sent thousands of would be physicists into a gutter of cranberry. I wanted to add that information so to warn the reader, that to solve the Elementary Particles of Physics, requires some NEW MATH, for the math at present current useage in physics is mostly wrong math, and to solve the Problem, I need CORRECT MATH.

Now there was something great in the math of the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements discovery of the 1860s, a math rule that is true, and not the pathetic ignorant threefold way. It is called the Octave Rule, and also in Quantum Mechanics the octet rule. It emphasizes the geometry structure of a octagon and is Extremely important in solving the Periodic Table of Elementary Particles, for once you notice that 8 Muons = 1 Proton and 9 Muons = 1 Neutron, well, you almost have the entire Table solved from that fact alone.
Alright, I am pretty sure I know how to solve this. What needs fixing.
Imagine yourself as Mendeleev in the 1860s
By the way-- Newlands gave a Law of Octaves and then Meyer also proposed a periodic table in 1860s
But now, Law of Octaves fits nice with the Proton being 840 MeV rest mass and muon= Real Electron being 105 MeV rest mass, for you see the octave there? The proton is 8 muons in a octagon shape.
So, below, and in the next several pages, I am taking time out from pure physics and delivering TRUE MATH that is required to solve the Table of Elementary Particles.

Now one would think that mathematics is clean already, and just ready for physicists to pick up and make use of. The truth of the matter is, that almost all of mathematics as of 2017 needs a huge scrub down, and that 75% of mathematics is trash garbage, even the vaunted Calculus is built on falsehoods. So, with that said, I need a long list of pages correcting Old Math, for mathematicians as of 2017 are lazy corrupt and ignorant in ever cleaning up their act as scientists.

I begin these MATH Correction pages with a Number theory correction and with a Geometry correction. Because, well, if you look at the .51 MeV particle with -1 charge in physics, well, they used computers which uses binary number system. If all physics experimental data were done in Decimals not binary, then the .51 MeV would be .5 MeV, the speed of light would be 3.0 not 2.99, the proton, muon, neutron rest masses would be 840, 105, 945 MeV respectively. When physicists use a number system not Decimal, their numbers are not the numbers of Nature, but corrupted numbers.

1.) DECIMAL NUMBER SYSTEM is superior to all other number systems and the only system to be used in SCIENCE, especially physics.

Duality in math is because Physics is duality of Atomic theory-- particle versus wave, electricity versus magnetism, geometry versus numbers, etc.

Let us focus on Numbers, how to represent them, for in how to represent numbers can either destroy our understanding or allow us to understand fully and clearly. If we have the wrong representation of numbers, we cannot hope to fully understand them.

In the history of mathematics, one of the key discoveries was the Decimal Number System. But, even as of recently, 2017, most math professors, perhaps all except AP, thought that Number Systems never change the value of numbers, regardless of what system you use. And in the age of computers, the computer electronics favors binary system, with its electronic gate open or closed.

Trouble is, though, one number system is superior to all other number systems, the decimal system, and that representation of numbers, does in fact, affect their values.

The decimal number system is the only noncorrupt system, and all other systems have failures of number values.

The reason Decimal is superior, is because of the 231Pu Atom Totality demands a number system that has Clean-Pure Numbers as border endpoints. A clean-pure number is this progression
1
10
100
1000
10000
etc

and
.1
.01
.001
.0001
etc

A clean-pure number is a "1" digit followed by nothing but 0 digits. They make perfect endpoints as borderlines. And Decimal especially highlights clean-pure numbers since it is the use of two primes 2 and 5.

All other number systems have a 10 and 100, etc, but their 10 and 100 is not formed from the two primes 2 and 5.

Why 2 and 5 forming 10 is so special?

It is because all numbers and all geometry comes from the 231Pu Atom Totality. So that pi and 2.71… exist as special because 231 Plutonium has 22 filled subshells in 7 shells and only 19 subshells occupied at any one moment in time, giving 22/7 as pi and simultaneously giving 19/7 as "e".

The final answers as to why why why in science or math, all ends up with a feature of the 231Pu Atom Totality. And the reason for a Number System based on 2x5 is so special is because 231Pu is the 5f6 outer shell and so the 5 comes from that and the 2 comes from 2x3=6.

Did you know in math there is what is called magic-cubes::

If i look at the 231Pu Atom Totality and its 5f6

Then a 3by3 Array, best not call them matrix

Occurs for addition with 5 as center

2   7   6

9   5   1

4   3   8

So the 5f6 hints at trying 6 for center for multiplication

After playing around

18    1    12

4      6      9

3     36     2

For 216 in all rows columns diagonals

Also, interesting is that 216 + 15 = 231 as in 231Pu

The reason that MATHEMATICS even exists, in the first place, is because the Universe just one big atom with smaller atoms inside itself. And since atoms have Shape and Size, thus comes forth the creation of geometry. And since atoms are numerous, many and many atoms, thus is created Numbers, or commonly called Algebra.

The decimal number system is superior and unique to all other number systems. Think of it as the "e" of logarithms, and you do know that "e = 2.71.." is unique in numbers. The logarithms with base 2.71…. is unique base and is a superior base for any logarithmic system. So the base-10 number system, the decimal system is unique and superior.

Why superior? Well for one, its representation does not corrupt number values. In binary, many numbers as fractions are distorted and corrupted. Not the whole numbers in binary, but once you need to use fractions, often they are distorted in true values.

Here is a recent report of a incident of number value distortion by binary (source stack overflow Internet)
Found this one in stack overflow, bolstering the case i make that all systems except Decimal are crap
50.05/0.05 is not precisely equal to 1001, which it should.
I understand that the above problem arises because all decimal numbers can not be precisely
written down in binary. But it is very obvious that it will create problem at many places, is there a >>good way to take care of the above apart from rounding off?
You see, what happens in physics when you put all your arithmetic into a computer, especially large number data, and all that number crunching the computer goes through to give you a final answer. An answer that should be .5 not .51, an answer that should be 3.00 not 2.99, an answer that should be 137, not a fraction. An answer that should be 105, 840, 945, not 105.7, 833.--, 939.--. When you use a binary system in science, your math numbers never come out to the correct numbers that Nature has.

So, decimal representation is superior, not only for precision and nondistortion, but because only Decimals can deliver a Grid System in mathematics.

Grid Systems were discovered by me, AP, discovered or invented in May of 2013 as I was doing my first edition of a Calculus textbook on the sci.math Internet, and in order to do Calculus, for I needed empty space between consecutive points in Geometry in order to have a integral and derivative. You cannot have a Calculus and have a geometry of a continuum. This meant, I needed to have a Grid System of equally spaced points and empty space between those points, empty space between two consecutive points. You, the reader, will discover for yourself, that the only way you can have equally spaced points with empty space between points is the decimal number system.

There is only ONE Number System that can do a Grid System. Only the Decimal System can mirror reflect small numbers from large numbers and reflect large numbers from small numbers. Let me diagram what a Grid System is and the reader should automatically understand the Grid System.

Integer Grid
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 , 11, 12, etc etc

10 Grid
.1, .2, .3, .4, .5, .6, .7, .8, .9, 1.0, 1.1, . . , 9.9, 10.0  with math induction element being .1

100 Grid
.01, .02, .03, .04, . . , 99.98, 99.99, 100.00 with math induction element being .01

Only Decimal Number System can do a Grid, because only Decimal Numbers can mirror reflect the small number, the fraction and the large numbers-- whole numbers, and have a math induction element that builds all the numbers in a specific Grid.

Old Math Professors are corrupt in mathematics, for they never change their mistakes, for they never even acknowledge their mistakes, and they keep preaching fake math. They do this because they rather make money selling books of fake math, rather than spend the time to correct fake math. Professors of math are like any other greedy lazy person, get the most money from doing the least amount of work. Old math professors teach that all number systems deliver the same value of any number, and they teach that decimal is no better than binary or ternary etc. True math says that is false; true math says that Decimal System is the only system that delivers true value of numbers and is superior in allowing a Grid System, and all other number systems are junk.

So, here in physics, it matters whether your physics answers of math come from a computer using binary.

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

                ::\ ::|:: /::
                 ::\::|::/::
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - -
                 ::/::|::\::
                ::/ ::|:: \::

One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
 
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::

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 20:57:19 -0800 (PST)
Subject: how do uncharged photons become charged photons Re: how battery
really works, proof electricity is photons not electrons
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 04:57:19 +0000
how do uncharged photons become charged photons Re: how battery really works, proof electricity is photons not electrons
                               North
                                  __
           __..=......._         |  |          
        ,-;,-' _..-----.:=._     |  |     _.=:.-----.._
     _,','  ,-'      _____`-:.   |  |   .:-'_____      
    / ,'  ,'    _.-''__...:..::. |  | .::..:...__``-._     `,  
  ,' /  ,'    ,'  _,'   _,,,_-.. |  | ..-_,,,_   `,_  `,     `,
 .' /  /    ,'   /    ,'     `,  |  |  ,'     `,    \   `,    \  \  `.
 | /  /    ,'  .'   ,'         `,|  |,'         `,   `.  `,    \  \  |
| .'  /    |   |   .'           `|  |'           `.   |   |    \  `. |
| |   |   |   |    |             |  |             |    |   |   |   | |
| |   |   |   |    |             |  |             |    |   |   |   | |
|  |  \    \   \    \           /|  |\           /    /   /    /  |  |
 \ '.  \    \   \    \         / |  | \         /    /   /    /  .` /
  \ `.  \    \   `.   `._   _.'  |  |  `._   _.'   .'   /    /  
   \  \  `.   `._  `.._  `''=-'''|  |```-=``'  _..'  _.'   .'
    `. `.  `._   `-..__i;;:=;;;' |  | `;;;=:;;j__..-'   _.'  
      `._`-._ `-.._____..=:i,'   |  |   `,j:=..____
         `.._`--.....,-=;-'      |__|      `-;=-,.....--
             `'------''       South

showing 6 loops of lines on force on rightside
and 6 loops of lines of force on leftside


                 __  
       .-'               `-.    
   .'                         `.  
 /                              \    
;                                 ;
|                                 |   this is a closed loop of copper wire
;                                ;    
 \                              /      
   `.                        .'      
      `-  .  _____   .-'      


In the Faraday Law, we thrust the bar magnet through the middle of the closed loop of wire and produce a electric current.
And the way I intuit that current is produced is because many of the loops of the Lines of Force-- jump from the bar magnet onto the closed loop of wire. That the loop in Lines of Force, match the loop of copper wire. This jumping ship from the bar magnet to the closed loop of wire is the electric current itself, for each loop that jumps ship is a magnetic monopole of .5MeV photon of charge energy .5 MeV.
Now, my job is to figure out how photons that are in the bar magnet as lines of force, how they can be, or become charged-photons, whereas all other photons can be uncharged photons. Is it that the wire loop accepts only 1/2 of a two loop magnetic lines of force?
What makes a charged photon, from uncharged photons? Is it that uncharged photons are Double Transverse Waves and when in a magnet as lines of force, that they are split apart into Single Transverse Waves and once they are Single, they pick up a charge energy?
On Thursday, December 21, 2017 at 11:13:56 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:
How do you get charged-photons as magnetic monopoles, from uncharged photons?
how do uncharged photons become charged photons Re: how battery really works, proof electricity is photons not electrons
Alright so what i need to know is how an uncharged photon becomes a charged photon = magnetic monopole of .5MeV charge energy. I hope to solve this before 1 January 2018, because I put aside physics in 2018 and devote the year to writing Teaching True Mathematics. So this is my end of the year whirlwind attempt to get all the physics done.
In the above picture we can see how Faraday's Law works for as you thrust the bar magnet of its monopole loops, those loops jump ship into the wire and become the electric current. Electricity is not electrons flowing but rather, those monopoles moving.
Now in that picture I show magnetic lines of force of 6 on rightside and 6 on leftside. Now imagine one on leftside of thrusting magnet jumping ship into the copper wire. It is a monopole of -.5MeV charge energy.
So does that mean the uncharged photon would be the corresponding rightside lines-of-force?
This would imply the uncharged photon equals the leftside line of force added to the corresponding rightside line of force canceling out their charges, leaving the photon with spin 1 and charge 0.
But if we examine the voltmeter in thrusting the bar magnet it registers a current from the leftside monopole that jumped ship. If we remove the magnet the rightside monopole jumps ship to register a current.
Now, many do not like these terms
Dress up, dress-down
Jump ship
And the physics term that they are is "superposition of waves". The concept of superposition and it is a Quantum Mechanical Principle is that photons can pile up on one another or pile down from one another.
But the concept of superposition does not teach what is going on so, dress-up, dress-down, jump ship does teach those new to physics learning.
Now, i think i am there in understanding-- overall the broad outlines. However, if the above is true in large part makes it difficult to say the neutrino is a monopole for the neutrino is a longitudinal wave and as far as I know you cannot split a longitudinal wave in half. But the photon as Double Transverse Wave is easily split in half to two Single Transverse Waves. Let me see how or if I can solve the neutrino split in half.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-16 01:49:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 13:58:21 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Page40, 5-3  TRUE CORRECT MATH NEEDED by Physics in order to do the
 Table of Elementary Physics Particles /Oval not ellipse//textbook 8th ed.
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 21:58:22 +0000

Page40, 5-3  TRUE CORRECT MATH NEEDED by Physics in order to do the Table of Elementary Physics Particles /Oval not ellipse//textbook 8th ed.

5-3 Oval is a Conic Section, never the ellipse

Now a second mathematics error affects physics tremendously in geometry. For mathematicians as of 2017 are blind and unable to recognize what is a circle from ellipse from an oval. And it is critical in Electricity Magnetism that a physicist be able to know if he/she is dealing with a circle, a ellipse or an oval, critical, and critical in doing the Elementary Particles of Physics, or physics in general, because if you cannot understand that you have an OVAL, not an ellipse in physics, well, you fail.

Conics = oval, 4 Experiments
4th experiment Re: -World's first proofs that the Conic section is an
Oval, never an ellipse// yes, Apollonius and Dandelin were wrong

1st EXPERIMENT:: Fold paper into cone and cylinder, (I prefer the waxy cover of a magazine). Try to make both about the same size, so the perspective is even. Now tape the cone and cylinder so they do not come undone in the scissor or paper cutter phase. A paper cutter is best but dangerous, so be careful, be very careful with paper cutter.  Make the same angle of cut in each. and the best way of insuring that is to temporary staple the two together so the angle is the same. Once cut, remove the staples. Now we inspect the finished product. Hold each in turn on a sheet of paper and with a pencil trace out the figure on the flat piece of paper. Notice the cylinder gives an ellipse with 2 Axes of Symmetry, while the conic gives a oval because it has just one, yes 1 axis of symmetry.
That was my first experiment.
Easy and fast experiment, and gets the person able to make more cones
and cylinders in a rush. Only fault I have of this experiment is that
it leaves a scissors mark-- a vertex so to speak. But it is fast and
easy. The proof is in the comparison. Now the cut should be at a steep
enough angle. If you cut straight across, both will be circles, so
make a steep cut.
2nd EXPERIMENT:: get a Kerr or Mason canning lid and repeat the above production of a cone and cylinder out of stiff waxy paper (magazine covers). Try to make the cone and cylinder about the same size as the lid. Now either observe with the lid inside the cone and cylinder, or, punch two holes in the cone and cylinder and fasten the lid inside. What you want to observe is how much area and where the area is added to make a section. So that in the cylinder, there is equal amount of area to add upwards as to add downwards of the lid, but in the cone, the area upwards added is small, while the area added downwards is huge new area. Thus the cylinder had two axes of symmetry and is an ellipse, while cone is 1 axis of symmetry and is an oval.
This experiment is the best for it immediately shows you the asymmetry
of an axis, where the upward needs little area to fill in any gap and
the downward needs an entire "crescent shaped area add-on to the
circle lid.


3rd EXPERIMENT:: Basically this is a repeat of the Dandelin fake proof, only we use a cylinder. Some tennis balls or ping pong balls come in see through plastic cylinder containers. And here you need just two balls in the container and you cut out some cardboard in the shape of ellipse that fits inside the container. You will be cutting many different sizes of these ellipses and estimating their foci. Now you insert these ellipse and watch to see the balls come in contact with the foci. Now, you build several cones in which the ellipses should fit snugly. Trouble is, well, there is never a cone that any ellipse can fit inside, for only an oval fits inside the cones.
This experiment is cumbersome and takes much precision and good
materials. It is just a repeat of the Dandelin work on this topic, and
one can easily see how the Dandelin fake proof is constructed-- he
starts off with assuming the figure is an ellipse. Which tells us, he
never had a good-working-model if any at all. For you cannot stuff a
ellipse inside a cone. You can stuff a ellipse inside a cylinder. So
this suggests the entire Dandelin nonsense was all worked out in the
head and never in hands on actual reality. So, in this experiment, we
give a proof that Dandelin was utterly wrong and that it is a cylinder
that you can stuff a ellipse sandwiched by two identical spheres-- one
upper and one lower.

The only amazing part of the Dandelin story is how an utterly fake
proof could have survived from 1822, and not until 2017 is it
thoroughly revealed as ignorant nonsense. One would think in math,
there is no chance such a hideously flawed proof could even be
published in a math journal, and if anything is learned from Dandelin,
is that the math journal publishing system is a whole entire garbage
network. A network that is corrupt and fans fakery.
4th EXPERIMENT:: this is a new one. And I have it resting on my coffee table at the moment and looking at it. It comes from a toy kit of plastic see through geometry figures, cost me about $5. And what I have is a square pyramid and a cone of about the same size. Both see through. And what I did was rest the square pyramid apex on top of the cone apex, so the cone is inside the square pyramid. Now I wish I had a rectangular box to fit a cylinder inside the box. But this toy kit did not have that, but no worries for the imagination can easily picture a cylinder inside a rectangular box. Now the experiment is real simple in that we imagine a Planar Cut into the rectangular box with cylinder inside and the cut will make a rectangle from the box and a ellipse from the cylinder. Now with the cut of the square pyramid that contains a cone inside, the square pyramid is a trapezoid section while the cone is a oval section. If the cut were parallel to the base, the square pyramid yields a square and the cone yields a circle. This experiment proves to all the dunces, the many dunces who think a conic section is an ellipse, that it cannot be an ellipse, for obviously, a cone is not the same as a cylinder.
Now this 4th Experiment is a delicious fascinating experiment, for it
reveals to us another proof that the conic section is a oval. For the
square-pyramid section is a Isosceles Trapezoid, and what is so great
about that, is we can take a cone and place inside of the cone a
square pyramid and then place a second square pyramid over the cone,
so the cone is sandwiched in between two square pyramids.

Now the square pyramids are tangent to the cone at 4 line segments, 8
altogether for the two, and what is so intriguing about the tangents
is that it allows us to quickly develop a analytic geometry that the
cone section must be a oval in order for the two square pyramids to be
both isosceles trapezoids as sections.

Conics = oval, 2 proofs, synthetic, analytic

Synthetic Geometry & Analytical Geometry Proofs that Conic section =
Oval, never an ellipse-- World's first proofs thereof
by Archimedes Plutonium
_Synthetic Geometry proofs that Cylinder section= Ellipse// Conic section= Oval

First Synthetic Geometry proofs, later the Analytic Geometry proofs.

Alright I need to get this prepared for the MATH ARRAY of proofs, that
the Ellipse is a Cylinder section, and that the Conic section is an
oval, never an ellipse

PROOF that Cylinder Section is an Ellipse, never a Oval::
I would have proven it by Symmetry. Where I indulge the reader to
place a circle inside the cylinder and have it mounted on a swivel, a
tiny rod fastened to the circle so that you can pivot and rotate the
circle. Then my proof argument would be to say--when the circle plate
is parallel with base, it is a circle but rotate it slightly in the
cylinder and determine what figure is produced. When rotated at the
diameter, the extra area added to the upper portion equals the extra
area added to bottom portion in cylinder, symmetrical area added,
hence a ellipse. QED

Now for proof that the Conic section cannot be an ellipse but an oval,
I again would apply the same proof argument by symmetry.

Proof:: Take a cone in general, and build a circle that rotates on a
axis. Rotate the circle just a tiny bit for it is bound to get stuck
or impeded by the upward slanted walls of the cone. Rotate as far as
you possibly can. Now filling in the area upwards is far smaller than
filling in the area downwards. Hence, only 1 axis of symmetry, not 2
axes of symmetry. Define Oval as having 1 axis of symmetry. Thus a
oval, never an ellipse. QED

The above two proofs are Synthetic Geometry proofs, which means they
need no numbers, just some concepts and axioms to make the proof work.
A Synthetic geometry proof is where you need no numbers, no coordinate
points, no arithmetic, but just using concepts and axioms. A Analytic
Geometry proof is where numbers are involved, if only just coordinate
points.

Array:: Analytic Geometry proof that Cylinder section= Ellipse//Conic
section = Oval, never ellipse

Now I did 3 Experiments and 3 models of the problem, but it turns out
that one model is superior over all the other models. One model is the
best of all.

That model is where you construct a cone and a cylinder and then
implant a circle inside the cone and cylinder attached to a handle so
that you can rotate the circle inside. Mine uses a long nail that I
poked holes into the side of a cylinder and another one inside a cone
made from heavy wax paper of magazine covers. And I used a Mason or
Kerr used lid and I attached them to the nail by drilling two holes
into each lid and running a wire as fastener. All of this done so I
can rotate or pivot the circle inside the cylinder and cone. You need
a long nail, for if you make the models too small or too skinny, you
lose clarity.

ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Cylinder Section is a Ellipse::


              E
             __
      .-'              `-.
    .'                    `.
  /                         \
 ;                           ;
| G          c              | H
 ;                           ;
  \                         /
   `.                     .'
      `-.    _____  .-'
                F

The above is a view of a ellipse with center c and is produced by the
Sectioning of a Cylinder as long as the cut is not perpendicular to
the base, and as long as the cut involves two points not larger than
the height of the cylinder walls. What we want to prove is that the
cut is always a ellipse, which is a plane figure of two axes of
symmetry with a Major Axis and Minor Axis and center at c.

Side view of Cylinder EGFH above with entry point cut at E and exit
point cut at F and where c denotes the central axis of the cylinder
and where x denotes a circle at c parallel with the base-circle of
cylinder

|                              |
|                              | E
|                              |
|                              |
|x            c              |x
|                              |
|                              |
|                              |
|F                            |
|                              |
|                              |
|                              |


So, what is the proof that figure EGFH is always an ellipse in the
cylinder section? The line segment GH is the diameter of the circle
base of cylinder and the cylinder axis cuts this diameter in half such
that Gc = cH. Now we only need to show that Fc = cE. This is done from
the right triangles cxF and cxE, for we note that by Angle-Side-Angle
these two right triangles are congruent and hence Fc = cE, our second
axis of symmetry and thus figure EGFH is always an ellipse. QED



Array proof:: Analytic Geometry proof that Conic section= Oval// never ellipse

ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Conic Section is a Oval, never an ellipse::


         A
      ,'"   "`.
   /            \
C |     c       | D
 \               /
    ` . ___ .'
         B

The above is a view of a figure formed from the cut of a conic with
center c as the axis of the cone and is produced by the Sectioning of
a Cone as long as the cut is not perpendicular to the base, and as
long as the cut is not a hyperbola, parabola or circle (nor line).
What we want to prove is that this cut is always a oval, never an
ellipse. An oval is defined as a plane figure of just one axis of
symmetry and possessing a center, c, with a Major Diameter as the axis
of symmetry and a Minor Diameter. In our diagram above, the major
diameter is AB and minor diameter is CD.

Alright, almost the same as with Cylinder section where we proved the
center was half way between Major Axis and Minor Axis of cylinder,
only in the case of the Conic, we find that the center is half way
between CD the Minor Diameter, but the center is not halfway in
between the Major Diameter, and all of that because of the reason the
slanted walls of the cone cause the distance cA to be far smaller than
the distance cB. In the diagram below we have the circle of x centered
at c and parallel to base. The angle at cx is not 90 degrees as in
cylinder. The angle of cAx is not the same as the angle cBx, as in the
case of the cylinder, because the walls of the cone-for line segments-
are slanted versus parallel in the cylinder. Triangles cAx and cBx are
not congruent, and thus, the distance of cA is not equal to cB,
leaving only one axis of symmetry AB, not CD.

     /  \A
 x/  c  \x
B/         \

Hence, every cut in the Cone, not a hyperbola, not a parabola, not a
circle (not a line) is a Oval, never an ellipse.

QED  (that means, end of proof)

Physicists, no matter in what section of physics, whether astronomy, plasma physics, EM theory, thermodynamics, optics, you name it. If they are using incorrect, muddleheaded and fake math, that their subject is never going to be correct.
 

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

                ::\ ::|:: /::
                 ::\::|::/::
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - -
                 ::/::|::\::
                ::/ ::|:: \::

One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
 
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::

I am really trying to beat this deadline of ending this textbook in 2017, for I do not want to go into January 2018. I am saving 2018 for writing the mathematics textbook TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS.

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 13:14:27 -0800 (PST)
Subject: how do uncharged photons become charged photons Re: how battery
 really works, proof electricity is photons not electrons
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 21:14:27 +0000
how do uncharged photons become charged photons Re: how battery really works, proof electricity is photons not electrons
Alright, it does not take long for anyone seriously studying electrodynamics and Maxwell equations to notice that circles (closed loop) and perpendicular play a key role. The math of EM involves circle, sphere and perpendicular.
--- quoting Wikipedia ---
A sphere is uniquely determined by four points that are not coplanar. More generally, a sphere is uniquely determined by four conditions such as passing through a point, being tangent to a plane, etc. This property is analogous to the property that three non-collinear points determine a unique circle in a plane.
--- end quote ---
Now 4 points determine 1 unique sphere and from that unique sphere, 2 corresponding cubes are formed. The inscribed cube inside the sphere and the circumscribed cube outside the sphere.
I suspect this is what i need to unify photon with neutrino.
It is easy to cut in half a Double Transverse Wave and have two different types of photons, one charged photon of 1/2 spin, of .5MeV charge energy that is either +1 or -1 charge.
But how is one to cut in half a longitudinal wave and have 2 neutrinos instead of one neutrino? Here we look at the Volta pile and see it is a longitudinal wave as alternating silver discs and zinc discs. So if we pulled out all silver discs we form a new longitudinal wave.
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 18:13:47 -0800 (PST)
Subject: explaining the truth about lightening-bolt strikes Re: how do
 uncharged photons become charged photons
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 02:13:47 +0000
explaining the truth about lightening-bolt strikes Re: how do uncharged photons become charged photons
But how is one to cut in half a longitudinal wave and have 2 neutrinos instead of one neutrino? Here we look at the Volta pile and see it is a longitudinal wave as alternating silver discs and zinc discs. So if we pulled out all silver discs we form a new longitudinal wave.
Alright, I want to solve this before January 1, 2018. So, forgive me of the speed.
Earlier I wrote this about the photon, its geometry as a Double Transverse Wave;;
Alright, looking at a photon head-on it is

__|__
    |

4 vector waves, each of the 4, each a B field, all transverse at 90 degree angles.

Looking at the Light Wave or photon from the side we have

^^^^^
vvvvv. In xy plane

And the same configuration in xz plane

To compose a Double Transverse Wave of Destructive Interference.

Destructive Interference is important for it makes whatever is "waving" be a point particle traveling at the speed of light at the center of the 4 vectors.

^^^^^
vvvvv  in xy plane

and perpendicular

^^^^^
vvvvv in xz plane the math of which is sine + offset cosine, where sine and cosine can be semicircle waves or ellipse waves.
photons as purely a B field and no Electric component unless the destructive-interference puts a Voltage along that very center line of motion. If that center line is voltage, means, destructive interference is required.
So, it is easy to see how we can split a photon in half which each half being a Single Transverse Wave and having a .5 MeV charge energy. Where the original photon had a 1 MeV charge energy.
So, the 1 MeV photon that is Double Transverse and uncharged looks like this::

 
 __|__
     |

And the single transverse wave photon that has a .5MeV charge energy looks like this head-on

 
 |__
    
Most photons would be Double Transverse.

The Magnetic Monopole is a .5MeV or larger, of a Single Transverse Wave Photon.
Now, spin is the same as charge with a factor involved, and so, a monopole is looping back around into a closed loop.
Now the reason we see a Doppler Redshift of light is not because of speed at source, but because the photon that makes those spectral lines are from Magnetic Monopole Photons. So redshift of light is all due to whether the spectral lines are from Single Transverse waves or Double Transverse waves.
Now the problem is to solve neutrinos with longitudinal waves. How can I solve that? Here the problem is getting 1/2 of a longitudinal wave and yet still be a longitudinal wave.
With photons being Double Transverse we easily cut it in half and get a Single Transverse, still behaving like photons with transverse waves.
But with Longitudinal Waves, how do I cut them in half where the two halves are still longitudinal waves.
Looking at the Volta battery pile of alternating silver with zinc round plates, it occurred to me that if we just remove silver into one pile and just zinc into a second pile that we retain longitudinal wave framework and have 1/2 in each. We can consider the silver longitudinal wave as positive and the zinc longitudinal wave as negative.
In this manner, we can build either a charged photon or a charged neutrino, and where we have both a uncharged or neutral photon and a neutral neutrino.
And the transverse and longitudinal preserve the two characteristics of EM theory-- circles involved and perpendicular involved. We always need those two features.
Now in 3rd Dimension the photon and neutrino would be cylinders, and if monopoles would have to be closed cylinders = torus.
So far, I stand by my Easiest Proof that electricity and electric current are magnetic monopoles of photons that are charged photons. The experiment is simple-- pull a plug of an appliance that is in operation, out of the wall receptacle fast, and notice a large light flash. That tells you the current is not electrons in motion, but rather the current is magnetic monopoles of .5 MeV in motion. So, when you see that light flash you are observing electricity or the electric current. When you see lightening bolt strikes or flashes in the weather outside, you are seeing what electricity is, you are actually observing the electric current as magnetic monopoles. Old Physics would make up this stupid idiotic prattle about electrons bunching up in clouds, and flowing to the ground and on their way ionize gas molecules which gives the light flash. How utterly stupid and where the term nattering nutters probably came from.
Lightening bolts are caused from Magnetic Monopoles of dressed up photons with charge energy of .5MeV or larger. So that Lightening is not about motion of electrons, but about motion of photons as monopoles.
AP
On Friday, December 22, 2017 at 11:31:42 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.math:
explaining how batteries really work (electrochemistry) when electric current = monopoles = charged photons
How the battery in electrochemistry really works is that the anode and cathode form poles of a magnet and a magnetic field is then formed and because the electrolyte is liquid, or gel or paste, it vibrates and causes the "thrusting motion" in Faraday's Law. All electricity is produced by magnets thrust in closed loop, for electric current is magnetic monopoles, never electrons in motion.
On Friday, December 22, 2017 at 11:30:11 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.math:
proof electric current is photons of .5MeV charge energy // how some photons are monopoles while others are neutral (also neutrinos).
So far the easiest proof that electric current is monopoles as dressed up photons with .5MeV of charge energy, is the pulling of a electric plug from socket and noticing a light (a photon) flash. If it were electrons making electricity, you would not see light flashes.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-16 06:18:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 15:56:51 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Page41, 5-4 TRUE CORRECT MATH NEEDED by Physics not fake math
/Calculus & Infinity//textbook 8th ed.
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 23:56:51 +0000


Page41, 5-4 TRUE CORRECT MATH NEEDED by Physics not fake math /Calculus & Infinity//textbook 8th ed.


Page41, 5-4  TRUE CORRECT MATH NEEDED by Physics not fake math /Calculus & Infinity//textbook 8th ed.

Now it was bad enough that Old Math could not even see that the Oval was the conic, never the ellipse, and imagine what that is like for researching the elementary particles of physics, thinking you have a ellipse when in truth you have a oval and applying the hideously wrong mathematics and ending up with false conclusions.

This is a grave problem of Old Math, they refuse to fix and mend their mistakes and errors and they rather-- teach students fake math, then to come outright, forthright and say "we made a mistake" and will fix it. No, Old Math is corrupt math and they rather make money from selling their fake texts rather than fix things.

But worse than a mess up with Conics, worse is the Old Math entire Calculus is trash, for the mistakes abound. And it is almost criminal-teaching that students are subjected to the "limit concept". About 1817, Cauchy started to use a Limit concept for he was sick and tired of students asking him "how in the world can you get area for integral when those rectangle widths go to zero. So, to shut the students up, those wise students, the Limit was created. Not that it had any truth or reality, but it effectively shuts up real smart students, because the professor can always say, -- you do not understand the limit.

What should have happened in math history was that the concept of infinity should have been nailed down, by a borderline between finite and infinite numbers. Once you nail down a borderline for infinity, well, you easily go back to Calculus and there you have immediately a nonzero infinitesimal. The smallest positive number that exists. That, my friend gives you a true blue Calculus.

And Physics, of all sciences, more so than mathematics, needs a true blue Calculus, for that is what Laws of Physics are all about-- given such and such conditions, such numbers, then the derivative of calculus predicts the future conditions. Laws of Physics are about motion, and you plug in certain number parameters in Calculus, and it predicts the future outcome of those motions. But if your Calculus is phony baloney in large part, then you have trouble in doing true physics.

Now with the Calculus, the mathematicians are far too much a country club of rascals that pay more attention to money grubbing of textbooks, than to fixing mistakes in calculus. It costs these professors too much time and work to fix calculus, then to just sit back and rake in the money. And what it costs in students, is wasted time-- often years of wasted time by doing pathetic abhorrent fake math of Limit concept, and by never recognizing that to well define Finite concept or define Infinity concept, you need a borderline between the two concepts.

And, here, again, where the physicists have been far out in front of mathematicians in realizing that infinity of mathematics is a pile of junk, for physicists learned early in the 1900s of quantum mechanics that the world was discrete, there were holes in between numbers of physics, there was no continuum. And later the physicists had to get rid of infinities by a process they called Renormalization. But were the mathematicians ever paying any attention? No, of course not, for they were far too busy raking in money from fake math textbooks, far too busy trying to become famous in math for doing crazy problems-- and never fixing the mess mathematics was in. They kept on teaching utterly absurd crap like Cantor's infinities, only because it was bandwagon, easy to teach and rake in more money. So, mathematicians of the 1900s and up to 2017 were losers of true math, were money grubs and not mathematicians at all. The physicists had a better handle on what math to use that was true, and sort of ignored the ignorant mathematicians with their crazy Limit, their crazy infinity, their idiotic continuum. Calculus was far too important for the physicists to ignore, so the physicists carried Calculus forward. And now, by 2017, the mathematicians are forced to fix and correct their lousy mess.

5-4 CALCULUS corrected and you need to combine with Grid System Coordinate System posted under decimals above.

Why no continuum and no curves exist in Math, so that the Calculus
can exist, and does exist.

Calculus is based upon there being Grid points in geometry, no
continuum, but actually, empty space between two neighboring points.
This is called Discrete geometry, and in physics, this is called
Quantum Mechanics. In 10 Grid, the first few numbers are 0, .1, .2,
.3, etc. That means there does not exist any number between 0 and .1,
no number exists between .1 and .2. Now if you want more precise
numbers, you go to a higher Grid like that of 100 Grid where the first
few numbers are 0, .01, .02, .03, etc.

Calculus in order to exist at all, needs this empty space between
consecutive numbers or successor numbers. It needs that empty space so
that the integral of calculus is actually small rectangles whose
interior area is not zero. So in 10 Grid, the smallest width of any
Calculus rectangle is of width .1. In 100 Grid the smallest width is
.01.

But, this revolutionary understanding of Calculus does not stop with
the Integral, for having empty space between numbers, means no curves
in math exist, but are ever tinier straight-line segments.

It also means, that the Derivative in Calculus is part and parcel of
the function graph itself. So that in a function such as y = x^2, the
function graph is the derivative at a point. In Old Math, they had the
folly and idiocy of a foreign, alien tangent line to a function graph
as derivative. In New Math, the derivative is the same as the function
graph itself. And, this makes commonsense, utter commonsense, for the
derivative is a prediction of the future of the function in question,
and no way in the world can a foreign tangent line to a point on the
function be able to predict, be able to tell where the future point of
that function be. The only predictor of a future point of a function,
is the function graph itself.

If the Calculus was done correctly, conceived correctly, then a
minimal diagram explains all of Calculus. Old Math never had such a
diagram, because Old Math was in total error of what Calculus is, and
what Calculus does.

The fundamental picture of all of Calculus are these two of a
trapezoid and rectangle. In fact, call the picture, the

FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS, Picture

Trapezoid for derivative as the roof-top of
the trapezoid, which must be a straight-line segment. If it is curved,
you cannot fold it down to form a integral rectangle. And the
rectangle for integral as area.

From this:
        B
        /|
      /  |
 A /----|
  /      |
|        |
|____|


The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
so that it can be hinged at A, and swiveled down to form rectangle for
integral.

To this:

______
|         |
|         |
|         |
---------

And the derivative of x= A, above is merely the dy/dx involving points
A and B. Thus, it can never be a curve in Calculus. And the AB is part
of the function graph itself. No curves exist in mathematics and no
continuum exists in mathematics.

In the above we see that CALCULUS needs and requires a diagram in
which you can go from derivative to integral, or go from integral to
derivative, by simply a hinge down to form a rectangle for area, or a
hinge up to form the derivative from a given rectangle.

Why in Old Math could no professor of math ever do the Calculus
Diagram? Why? The answer is simple, no-one in Old Math pays attention
to Logic, and that no-one in Old Math was required to take formal
Logic when they attended school. So a person bereft of Logic, is never
going to find mistakes of Logic and think clear and think straight.

----------------

Borderline between Finite and Infinite

Now this mistake in not having a correct Infinity in math, affects the Calculus by a large measure, a large degree. It is impossible to have a correct calculus, when you have a bozo-kook understanding of what is infinity.

This is probably the biggest mistake in all of pure mathematics for it
affects all other mathematics. Of course the other sciences, especially physics rarely needs to know what the correct proper infinity is. However, it does show up frequently in the best physics-- quantum electrodynamics, in which it is
often used to eliminate infinities that crop up in calculations. This physics math procedure is called Renormalization-- getting rid of the infinities.

The trouble with Old Math, is, well, they were terribly shoddy in logic, in thinking straight and clear. For a logical person, knows, that if you have a concept of finite versus infinite, the only way to handle those two concepts is to realize a border must go between them so that you can tell if any given number is finite or infinite. Otherwise, there is no infinity, if there is no borderline.

There is only one way you can have a concept of finite, by having a
concept of infinity, and the only way you can have both, is that a
borderline exists between them.

I have pinpointed that borderline from tractrix-circle analysis, from
algebraic analysis of algebraic completeness, and from angles of
regular polyhedra. The borderline in microinfinity is 1*10^-604 and in
macroinfinity is 1*10^604.

The easiest way to see the borderline is to see where pi digits ends in a three zero digits in a row.

3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286 208998628034825342117067982148086513282306647093844609550582231725359408128481 117450284102701938521105559644622948954930381964428810975665933446128475648233 786783165271201909145648566923460348610454326648213393607260249141273724587006 606315588174881520920962829254091715364367892590360011330530548820466521384146 951941511609433057270365759591953092186117381932611793105118548074462379962749 567351885752724891227938183011949129833673362440656643086021394946395224737190 702179860943702770539217176293176752384674818467669405132000

Since the Universe 3rd dimension, one would suspect that where pi digits are there first three digits in a row of 000, that such would be the borderline at infinity.

Now, for physics, that infinity is 1*10^604 for large and 1*10^-604 for the small, makes perfect sense, since in physics, it is extremely, extremely difficult to find anything above 10^200 or smaller than 10^-200, to give the reader a sense of proportion.

If a physicists or other science goes to math for information and knowledge of infinity, well, what they see from mathematics before 2017 is nothing more than just piles of you know what.


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

                ::\ ::|:: /::
                 ::\::|::/::
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - -
                 ::/::|::\::
                ::/ ::|:: \::

One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
 
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::
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2017 23:41:19 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Expanding on the proof that electric currents, electricity is all due
 to magnetic monopoles of charged photons, never that of electrons flowing
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 07:41:19 +0000
Expanding on the proof that electric currents, electricity is all due to magnetic monopoles of charged photons, never that of electrons flowing
Expanding On the Proof that Electric Current is not electrons, but rather Magnetic Monopoles
Alright, the best proof so far is that when pulling a plug of a electric cord with appliance running from out of the wall socket, there is a flash of light. This proves that electric current is not the motion of electrons, for electrons are really the muons, and the tiny particle of .5MeV that we were deceived into thinking was the electron, is after all the magnetic monopole that Dirac sought most of his life for. Dirac thought the magnetic monopole was of charge of 137/2 the charge of a proton. Turns out, the monopole is a photon dressed up with .5MeV of charge energy, not rest mass energy.
And so it is the Monopole that makes electricity, makes current flow, and the electron=muon and proton are just bystanders watching the action. Although the electron=muon and proton are causes of the .5MeV charged photon = magnetic monopole, the role of electrons and protons is not active role in electricity.
So, pull that plug out of the wall socket to a running appliance and notice that large flash of lightwaves, of photons. That is the current in electricity.
Now back in 3 December I set up an experiment to prove that Magnetic Lines of Force can create electricity without moving the magnet, which implies those lines of force are photons.
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 03:26:02 -0800 (PST)
Subject: just 2 magnets giving me a permanent voltage-- proof the .5 MeV is a monopole
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2017 11:26:02 +0000
just 2 magnets giving me a permanent voltage-- proof the .5 MeV is a monopole
This year i discovered the Real Electron is 105 MeV and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. A monopole not with .5meV of rest-mass but with .5 MeV of charge energy.
If true it should have a reading of a permanent DC voltage from two powerful nearby stationary magnets, 3cm apart on a magnet board. I have a costly multimeter. Now as I measure one magnet individually the meter jumps in value but settles on 0 reading rapidly.
However, if I put one electrode on one magnet and the other electrode on second magnet I get a permanent reading of .002 volts dc.
The way I interpret this (maybe i am wrong) is that the lines of force of one magnet with lines of force from other magnet are .5MeV particles causing a voltage, permanent voltage. In other words, one bar magnet is acting as the thrust of Lines of Force, upon the Lines of Force of the second bar magnet. Two bar magnets stationary and performing Faraday's Law.
This, if true, may serve as proof that the .5MeV thought to be electron is after all a magnetic monopole.
I have an expensive Fluke multimeter and powerful neodymium magnets.
AP
Now, the proof that electricity is magnetic monopoles of .5MeV charge energy or greater, is an easy proof with the household current of pulling a plug out of wall socket. But can we prove it with smaller current, such as batteries? Of course with a car battery it is easy but dangerous, for it can kill you. That if we place a screwdriver near one terminal we see the light flash. Now, do not perform that experiment, but have a mechanic skilled in car batteries perform it for you, for it is dangerous, _very dangerous_, as I myself learned the hard way, yes, and never again will I even attempt it, for it could stop your heart.
So, now we want to go down in battery voltage to say a 9 volt battery. And ask the question, can we see a light flash at the terminals? I suspect not. In all my handling of various batteries, except the car battery, I have never noticed a light flash.
I have noticed often the light flashes from Wimshurst generators and from my van de Graaf generator, and the van de Graaf is enough voltage to knock you down.
And I suspect not with the 1.6 Volt batteries.
Nor do I suspect you can see the light flash with my two stationary magnets setup. But, can we get the two most powerful magnets, stationary and separated by some centimeters apart and not only notice a DC current but also, by separating them can we get a light flash? I do not know what the world's two most powerful magnets are. And repeat the experiment I performed above.
AP
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 12:53:58 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Bohr model of atom// now AP model of atom
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 20:53:58 +0000
Bohr model of atom// now AP model of atom
Indeed, I said that Real Electron = muon =105 MeV
Real Proton =840 MeV
The .5 MeV particle is the Magnetic Monopole the substance of electricity
Changes everything both in physics and chemistry
What we thought was the Bohr model of the atom turns out to be a model of just the monopole
So we need a new true model
I could use JJ Thomson's plum pudding but i need a food that is more accurate and more widely used.
Now this is difficult because of the proportions of
840 to 105 to .5
Call it the AP sandwich model of the atom
Let us do the hydrogen atom.
The monopoles would be tiny crackers, thin crackers just big enough to get your thumb and opposable finger to hold the sandwich. The proton is a razor thin slice of salami and the electron is a slice of cheese that is 8 times larger than the salami slice.
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 14:26:58 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Bliss Free Logic told me in 1968 that atoms can be known by electron
 count, not just proton,,,,
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 22:26:58 +0000
Bliss Free Logic told me in 1968 that atoms can be known by electron count, not just proton Re: 2nd proof electric current is caused .5MeV photons dressed up as monopoles
Now, let me tell you a story here, another bending of your ears, for I am going back in time in my own life, to when I learned chemistry. I did not learn much chemistry in High School, for the teacher was easy on us, and thus, little learning. But when I got to College, things were 100% different for freshman chemistry class was demanding and challenging. But anyway, somewhere between High School and College Chemistry, I had the idea that the elements of the Periodic Table were by the electron count just as well as the proton count. In other words, you say uranium and that means an element with 92 electrons or you say helium and that means an element with 2 electrons. To, me, in a bliss free world of just pure logic, it made sense that the elements were the number of electrons, or, as in school, it is the number of protons. In bliss free logic, either one will do.
But, in College Chemistry, you cannot have elements by electron count, because, well, because you have all these ions running around, so you have Uranium+4 meaning it has 4 less electrons than 92 electrons, and it is not radium element 88.
Uranium+4 is a ion of uranium with 88 electrons and is not element 88 but still uranium with 92 protons.
Likewise, Li+1 is not helium atom of 2 electrons but still a lithium atom with only 2 electrons, 3 protons.
However, with the discovery of .5MeV is not an electron but rather a photon with dressed up charge energy of .5MeV to be a magnetic monopole.
And so, all of chemistry and their ions study, is all seen to be false knowledge. Seen as fake knowledge.
The Li+ means it still has just 3 electrons=muons and that the + is a magnetic monopole of + charge added onto a neutral lithium atom.
In this new light and new understanding, we can most definitely get back to what I called Bliss Free Logic when I first started to learn Chemistry in College of about 1968. In 1968, my Logic was telling me-- "now, we can identify an atom by how many protons it has, and, how many electrons it has" But no, not in college chemistry because of ions.
But no, that bliss free logic could not work and I could not pass Chemistry if I kept saying-- the extra charge is magnetic monopole not an extra electron or missing an electron.
Now I related the true story of my inability to ever understand how the Electrochemical battery really worked. I just took it on faith that the teacher somehow knew better and that my mind was not grasping it. Turns out, my mind was better than the teachers, that electrochemical batteries had to operate on a Faraday Law, and that meant it was a magnet, and not that silly poppycock of electrons in motion. And, here again, my Bliss Free Logic turns out to have been correct all these years later. That any and every atom can either be recognized by how many protons it has, or, if you like, how many electrons it has. It is extremely, extremely difficult to separate an electron=muon from any atom. And so, the Chemical Periodic Table is based not only on proton count but if you prefer on Electron count.
And that means all of ion theory, is about the accumulation not of electrons or loss of electrons, but about magnetic monopoles, those .5MeV particles.
And this is what the Bohr model of that atom was strictly about, not about the proton and electron, but merely the small avenue of understanding of Magnetic Monopole behavior.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-16 20:39:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 19:53:29 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Page42, 5-5 TRUE CORRECT MATH NEEDED by Physics /trigonometry
corrected & irrationals do not exist//textbook 8th ed.
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 03:53:29 +0000

Page42, 5-5 TRUE CORRECT MATH NEEDED by Physics /trigonometry corrected & irrationals do not exist//textbook 8th ed.

Page42, 5-5 TRUE CORRECT MATH NEEDED by Physics /trigonometry corrected & irrationals do not exist//textbook 8th ed.

5-5 Trigonometry corrected and Irrationals do not exist at all

Now one of the functions most often used in physics and science are the trigonometric functions. But, have the mathematicians made any mistakes with them? One would think not, since trig has been used for hundreds if not thousands of years. Trouble is, in math, when you do not have a logical mind, you miss errors. Here is a huge huge error of Trigonometry, only because, mathematicians rarely have a logical mind. It involves the shape of sine and cosine. Now, do not get me wrong, not all sine and cosine functions are semicircle shape. All sine and cosine start out as semicircle in the unit circle, but as soon as you change frequency, period, amplitude or wavelength, or any other parameters, the sine and cosine become ellipse waves.  All sine and cosine in unit circle start out as semicircle waves. The sinusoid shape is fictional, it never existed.

Sine & Cosine are semicircle waves, not sinusoidal

They come to math, and physics, but they come without Logic, barren of
logic, deplete of logic, never any logic in their tools of the trade.

They define sine as opposite/hypotenuse. Good so far.

They know of the unit circle with hypotenuse as 1. Good again.

They then blunder, so pitifully, so badly, so poorly, and so early on.
I mean even a child can understand the first few steps. And they
blunder badly for they spuriously assign 180 degrees to be 3.14....
Why? Why assign 180 degrees as 3.14... when you already defined sine
as opposite/hypotenuse with unit circle forcing 180 degrees to be 2,
since 90 degrees is 1 of unit circle.

You see what happens when you do science without logic-- you become a
village idiot fool.


Now, here is a huge huge big lesson to learn. It is big, and most professors of mathematics never learned it, for if they had learned it, they would not make this mistake in trigonometry of a "Sinusoid shape wave".

The lesson is simple and easy, but no math professor ever learned it--

You never have unequal axes in doing mathematics.
Your x,y,z axes always are the same.
Your axes are always the same.
You never have one axis different from another, or, you are not doing mathematics.
All axes must be the same.

Sure, in commercials they have pie charts and they have bar diagrams where one axis is numbers and the other is candy bars or something else. That is not mathematics.

And in Trigonometry, if your x axis is angles, and your y axis is numbers, you are NOT doing mathematics.

To do Mathematics-- axes are always the same.

If you had had just a gram of Logical intelligence could see that the
unit circle forces sine to define 180 degrees as being a diameter of
2. Thus making the sine graph and cosine graph to be a SEMICIRCLE Wave
graph.

Second proof that sine and cosine are semicircle waves::

This proof has a hands on experiment involved. Take a close look at a
screen door spring, and verify it is wound up circles per windings.

Experiment:: make a 2nd dimension graph of semicircle wave. Cut out
the semicircles but leaving them in one piece so you can bend and
fold. Now, fold the sheet of cut out semicircles to begin to approach
a spring of circle windings. Now, do the same with the idiotic Old
Math's sinusoid shape wave. Can you form a spring, without vertices, a
vertex at each joint and which those joints are physics vulnerable to
cracking and breaking apart.

Theorem Statement:: A spring in mathematics is a winding of semicircle
waves and is the sine function and cosine function wound from 2nd
dimension into 3rd dimension.

Proof Statement:: Only a semicircle wave can be wound from 2nd
dimension into 3rd dimension and be free of vertices, (weak spots).
Only a circle is free of vertices when attaching half waves.

----------------------

5-5 Irrational numbers do not exist, and never did

Now you would think that Physics never needs to know the difference between rational number and irrational number. But you be surprised to know that when no irrational number exists, the numbers 3.14…. and 2.71 as two separate numbers being rational only, is the closest that mathematics can come to two related numbers, 22/7 with 19/7, matching the Atom Totality of 22 subshells in 7 shells and 19 subshells occupied. Here is a concept unknown to mathematicians about pi and "e", the concept of simultaneous relatedness. When we see no irrational exists, then pi and "e" are connected fully.

Many Errors of what Numbers exist.

Why no Irrationals exist-- lowest terms, anthyphairesis (an Ancient Greek term for the process of reciprocal subtraction)

Why No Irrationals exist, and why pi and 2.71… are rational numbers--
as easy as Decimal Number representation-- they have a denominator
power of 10.

I mean really, that constitutes a full fledged proof that no irrationals exist. For every number can be placed in a Decimal Representation. The moment you state the number-- it has a integer denominator, an integer numerator-- hence -- rational. End of proof.

Why No Irrationals exist, and why pi and 2.71… are rational numbers

Old Math, and their "Lowest Terms Error" although don't tell them--
proved that 1/2 is irrational Re: analyzing why the Ancient Greek
proof that sqrt2 is irrational is flawed

Alright, let me get started on the proof that 1/2 is irrational number
using the invalid method of Ancient Greeks that sqrt2 is irrational,
only because, the method is invalid.

Earlier I showed how a definition of Lowest Term for p/q needed to be
extended to include a number in Rationals in decimal representation.
So, what is the Lowest Term for 1/2 in 10 Grid, for it would be .1/.2
and then the next lowest is .2/.4, etc etc.

So, let us run through a proof that 1/2 is a Irrational number using
the proof method of Ancient Greeks.

Proof:: Suppose 1/2 is Rational. And now, put 1/2 in Lowest terms and
it is thus, in lowest terms. But now, taking 2 and dividing it into 1
  __________
2| 1.00000.... = .50000.....

and then dividing 2 by 2
  _________
2|2.00000.....  = 1.0000.....

And now, we have 1/2 in Lowest terms as .5/1.

But now, hold on a minute, let us divide .5 by 2, then 1 by 2, giving
us .25 and .5 respectively.

Since we can never get a Lowest Term for the Rational number 1/2,
means a contradiction, hence 1/2 is irrational.

So, of course the above is flawed and flawed in the same way the
method was used to prove sqrt2 is irrational, when truly sqrt2 is
rational.

What went wrong? What went wrong is a bad definition-- Lowest Terms.

The proof that sqrt2 is Rational, simply involves observation for that

In 10 Grid, sqrt2 = 1.42 X 1.42 = 2.0 (oh, you question the 2.0164,
you question the "164", well in 10 Grid, the only digits that exist
are the ten place value and that is 2.0.

In 100 Grid, sqrt2 = 1.415 X 1.415

In 1000 Grid, sqrt2 = 1.4143 X 1.4143 and on and on.

Sqrt2 and all sqrt root numbers are Rationals. Even pi and 2.71....
are rational numbers.

Anthyphairesis Re: Stillwell gave another phony proof sqrt2 irrational
Re: analyzing why the Ancient Greek proof that sqrt2 is irrational is
a flawed
That is the only one proof in all of mathematics-- an argument based on a definition of Lowest Terms.
Apparently there is a second proof of sqrt2 irrational. A far more challenging proof to see if phony.
Apparently there was a second proof, but whether it was known by
Euclid, by Archimedes, I rather doubt it.
It is seen in Stillwell's Mathematics and Its History, 3rd ed. 2010, page 45. In the same book, page 12 is the Lowest Terms phony proof.
Now looking at that alleged proof on page 45, it says and I quote.
" We notice that the rectangle remaining after step 2, with sides sqrt2-1 and 2-sqrt2 = sqrt2(sqrt2-1), is the same shape as the original, though the long side is now vertical instead of horizontal. It follows that similar steps will recur forever, which is another proof that sqrt2 is irrational, incidentally."
Does Stillwell expect readers to "read his mind". Why would a recurrence ever make Stillwell think that was a proof of sqrt2 is not able to be P/Q where P and Q are Counting Numbers. Why? Is it because two rational sides would cancel out in a square further down the line? And, if so, then the reason this proof is nonrecurring is only because, well, you use a symbol of sqrt2 that cannot commingle with actual numbers. If you call a number a symbol, call it S, call it Y, obviously you cannot get rid of it.
Now this one is going to be challenging for me to show it is phony. But it is easy if we demand sqrt2 be written as a number, not some abstract symbol. Once we demand that a number in decimal representation or in fractions be forced upon rather than a "just a symbol sqrt2", then the phoniness of the proof is immediately apparent. Because, that forcing demands sqrt2 be written as 1.42 = 142/100 in 10 Grid or written as 1.415 = 1415/1000 in 100 Grid, etc. Writing sqrt2 in a number, then it behaves like all other Rationals, for it is a rational.
You see, the rub on sqrt2 that Old Math installed is the same mistake they made with 1/3. They want 1/3 be .33333....., when, if called to be logical, 1/3 is .3333...33(+1/3) what Newton called the Compleat Quotient.
nice proof that no irrationals exist, simple fact that all numbers are
Decimal represented and thus a denominator of power of 10 Re:
analyzing why the Ancient Greek proof that sqrt2 is irrational is a
flawed

Now, here is a Commonsense proof that No Irrationals exist. It is not
formal, it is not flowery or pilfered with abstractions. It is a proof
that an old grandma or grandpa would understand and recognize, even if
their thinking is impaired in old age. It is a proof that young kids
would be proud of owning. For it is a proof that since 3000 years ago,
humanity has thought there was something known as "irrational number"
and only now, today, realizes that there are no irrational numbers.
That irrational numbers was a grand fake of fakeries. We could say the Grand Canyon of mathematics fakeries.

Theorem Statement:: Rational numbers exist, but Irrationals do not exist.

Proof Statement:: Once we are able to have a Decimal Number system we
can build all the numbers via Grids and using a math-induction element
and adding that element successively to build the numbers. They are
all Decimal numbers, meaning that their place-value is established. So
that say for instance .003, or 3.14159..... are all rational numbers
because, depending on what place value you want to talk about, it is
3/1000 or 314159/100000. In other words, writing a number in Decimal
Representation alone, proves the number is a Rational for the
denominator is always a power of 10. And since decimal numbers are ALL
POSSIBLE DIGIT ARRANGEMENTS, means that all numbers are a Rational.
QED

Now, there is one possible exception to this rule or proof. The
imaginary number of square root of -1.

Is it even a number? I am going to say it is not a number, because all
numbers have to come from Math induction on a induction element, be it
1 for Counting Numbers, be it .1 for 10 Grid, or .01 for 100 Grid, etc
etc. So where does that leave us with sqrt -1. I suggest that i is not
a number but an angle, a symbol for an angle. What angle is it? Not 90
degree for that is +1. I suggest i = sqrt-1 is the angle 180 degrees
that lies in 2nd and 3rd quadrants.


5-5 COMPLETING A DIVISION CORRECTLY such as 1/3 = .3333..33(+1/3)

Newton, way back in the 1600s called it "Compleat Quotient", but that
was some 400 years ago, and do you mean to tell me, that in 400 years
time no-one had a good enough logical mind since Newton, that everyone
since Newton was a failure of Logic when it comes to division?

Everyone gets this much
  ______
3| 10000 = 3333+1/3

and then, everyone falls to pieces, into some pit of stupidity on this
  ______
3|1.0000  = .3333(+1/3)

They fall to pieces, because they think, in their stupid little minds that
  ______
3|1.0000 = .3333….. and forget about any remainder

So that truly,  1/3 as a decimal is not, is never .3333..... but rather

1/3 = .33333..33(+1/3)

Where we always realize a remainder in division must always be tacked on.

Now the above is important in that it eliminates the obnoxious idea
put forth by half-brains in math that 1 = .9999….
The number 1 never equals .9999…. but it does equal .9999..99(+9/9).
So, half-brains of math, time to run for the hills.

Explaining why most modern mathematicians are logically brain-dead--
simply because in modern day times, students are not forced to take
logic-- to learn how to think straight and think clearly. If I had my
way. Every Freshmen at College is required to take Introduction to
Logic, for, it is only commonsense that Colleges and Universities do
see that thinking straight and thinking clearly is top priority. And,
if I had my way, the science majors all have to take a second year of
logic called Symbolic Logic, because every day as a -- scientist --
the most important tool is logic. Just ask me!

COMMENTARY::

On Saturday, December 23, 2017 at 11:49:01 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.math:
We should be able to tell what atom is involved by Electron count, just as proton count//Bohr model was more about monopoles, than about actual atoms
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2017 22:24:59 -0800 (PST)
Subject: correcting ION theory, for it is in tatters
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 06:24:59 +0000
correcting ION theory, for it is in tatters
Now this second experiment is all about the idea, that if electrons were in motion in electric current, not magnetic monopoles, then we have to ask the question as to how many electrons can be removed from an atom and still be an atom of that element? Or, better yet, how many electrons can be added to an atom and still be the original atom of its proton count.
In Old Chemistry, they thought that there is no end to stripping away the electrons or adding more electrons of that puny tiny .5MeV particle.
In New Chemistry, all the talk about ions is just talk about Magnetic Monopoles which are photons of .5MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy.
Proofs that the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV, and that the .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole, after all

by Archimedes Plutonium

13 PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon
by Archimedes Plutonium

Proofs that the Real Electron=muon and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall

PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon

1st proof is chemical bonding cannot exist with momentum of 938 versus .5MeV
Chemical Bonds are covalent, ionic, metallic. You simply cannot get atoms to bond if the electron is thought of as the .5MeV particle, only with a muon at 105 MeV and the proton at 840 MeV with neutron at 945 MeV do you have the physics of angular momentum that allows bonding in Chemistry. The .5MeV particle was, all along a magnetic monopole of a photon with .5 MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy.

2nd proof with the direct observance some years back in Poland of a 840 Mev particle along with 105 MeV particle of the hydrogen atom.

Hello, well i found the below on the internet. I need a 840MeV particle that is the Real Proton. I have asked to look for it in the production of Muons. Is the below a production of muons along with 840 MeV particles?

Quoting

Indication For A Broad J(pc) = 2++ Meson At 840-mev Produced In The Reaction Pi- P ---> Pi+ Pi- N At High |t|
K. Rybicki, I. Sakrejda (Cracow, INP)
1985 - 10 pages

Z.Phys. C28 (1985) 65-74
DOI: 10.1007/BF01550250
Abstract (Springer)
The reaction π−p→π+π−n has been studied at 17.2 GeV/c and 63 GeV/c. A partial wave analysis shows a fairly broad (∼250 MeV) resonance at about 840 MeV. This object, already visible in moments of the angular distribution, is produced in theD wave with helicitym=2 via unnatural exchange. The cross section for the reaction π−p→D2U(840)n is only by an order of magnitude lower than that of ϱ(770) and falls likepLAB−2.1±0.3. We have not been able to explain this object by systematic experimental effects like acceptance and/orN* reflections; neither is the nature of the resonance (if real) clear to us.
--- end quote ---

3rd proof-- pull plug out of electrical socket and notice light flash. That flash of light was the magnetic monopoles as photons with charge energy of .5MeV, for the monopoles compose all electric currents.

4th proof is that the radius of the hydrogen proton shrinks too much when a muon is injected and that contradicts Standard Model. The reason is obvious-- the proton is 840 MeV electron is muon and then you add a second muon.

--- Quoting from www, Ars Technica, Researchers orbit a muon around an atom, confirm physics is broken ---

So, the proton radius puzzle remains a puzzle. The team behind this new work point to a number of measurements that could potentially help clarify it. Some of them involve better measurements with normal electrons; others involve scattering muons off protons themselves to see if there's an unknown force at work. The latter would tell us whether anything beyond the Standard Model will be needed to explain this puzzle.

--- end Quote ---

5th proof electrochemical battery is not explainable as Faraday law unless you concede the battery is a thrusting bar magnet, and thus, the battery is explained as a dipole magnet of the anode and cathode and the electrolyte solution is the ferromagnetism of spins all lined up. And thus a current in the circuit is because the battery as a thrusting magnet forces monopoles down the circuit wire.

6th proof, spin is charge, and charge is spin and the only particle for that is a ratio of permittivity to permeability as that of 10^-6/ 10^-12 is a charge energy of 10^6 or 1 MeV for photon charge energy, and that leaves the proton, electron=muon, monopole with .5MeV charge energy.

7th proof the Maxwell Equations are not symmetrical without current being the flow of magnetic monopoles.

8th proof, now, a straightforward proof that the muon is the real-electron can come from ion theory. The trouble is that weeding out a proof of electron = muon, is that we get entangled with the magnetic monopole. So, the proof is simple for ion theory, to prove the muon = real electron. Take for example iron Fe atoms, they are 26 protons, 26 electrons=muons
Now iron has ion states of -4, -2, -1, +1, +2, +3, +4, +5 +6, +7
So, suppose the electron = .5MeV particle and not the 105 MeV particle
That would mean Iron can exist as iron with 26 protons and only 19 electrons at one extreme and 26 protons and 30 electrons at the other extreme.
Now in Maxwell theory, there is a law that enforces Conservation of Energy, called the Lenz law in Faraday law. Otherwise, you have unlimited energy and Nature does not have unlimited energy.
So that in atoms, the protons become a thrusting bar magnet and the electrons= real-electrons are the closed loop of wire (inert gases are closed loop wires and why bonding exists is to close the loop of real-electron structure).
So, the proof that .5MeV are not electrons, is that iron bonds readily with other iron forming a compound of iron, the metal iron and metallic bond is due to iron atoms wanting to close the loop of their 26 Real Electrons. They close that loop by the metallic bond. That means, the existence of ions from -4 to +7 is unrelated altogether from Electron configuration. That ions are some other particle behavior but not the electron nor proton behavior.
The reason iron exists as iron from Fe-4 to Fe+7 is that the particle .5MeV is a surface interloper particle of atoms, it is a add-on particle not the integral electron of atoms. If the monopole were the electron we break conservation of energy by all these interlopers. The reason the chemical table is all built around the inert gases, is because Faraday's law must be obeyed and thus atoms with a closed loop of their electrons seek no bonding of electrons= muons. But atoms that have no closed loop of their muons, seek that closed loop structure and thus, they form covalent, ionic, metallic bonds with other muons of other atoms.

Brief course on IONS in New Physics, for all of Physics and Chemistry are changed with the revelation that the REAL ELECTRON is the muon particle and REAL PROTON is 840 MeV.

So, this pretty much changes everthing in chemistry, everything.

Ion states
oxidation states Fe -4 to +7 although +2, +3 most common

Now, Fe+2 means the iron atom has 2 magnetic monopoles of + charge present

The Fe-2 ion of iron means it has 2 magnetic monopoles of - charge present

The hydrogen atom has ions of -1 to +1, H+1 means it has 1 proton of 840MeV, 1 electron of 105 MeV, and one magnetic monopole of +1 charge of .5MeV

H-1 means a hydrogen atom as ion has 1 proton of 840 MeV, 1 electron of 105 MeV and one magnetic monopole of -1 charge of .5MeV

Oxygen has oxidation states (ion states) of +2, +1, -1, -2.

O+2 means oxygen with 8 protons each of 840 MeV, 8 electrons each of 105 MeV, and 2 magnetic monopoles each of +1 electric charge of .5MeV

So, as I was saying so much before, how silly and stupid physicist were to think for a single moment, that you take loads and loads of classroom time studying momentum, and at the end of it all, you think the atom is a electron of .5MeV while proton is 938 MeV and you expect chemical bonding to occur under those circumstances. If you had a marble as the electron and a bowling ball as the proton, how in heaven's name are you so deranged in thinking that the momentum of the marble and bowling ball is going to form chemical bonds?

But the flip side of that ignorance is ION theory. To think for one moment, that an iron atom can lose 7 electrons, yes, mind you, 7 whole electrons and you got to be a crazy physicist /chemist to think that you still have an iron atom. A logical person, a logical chemist, would say, Fe+7 is a iron atom that has 26 protons each 840MeV and 26 electrons each 105 MeV and what the +7 is, is 7 magnetic monopoles each of +1 charge at .5MeV apiece.

So, the failure of Physics and Chemistry in the past 100 years, was a failure to recognize what physics is mostly about-- momentum, and that a marble to a bowling ball is not going to be a hydrogen atom or entering into Chemical bonding. A bowling ball with a 1/8 bowling ball, is going to be an atom. And that if you have an atom, it is not going to give up any of its protons or electrons easily, which means the unbalanced charges-- ions of atoms, is not a loss or gain of electrons, for the electrons rarely get out of any atom. But rather the unbalanced charges is due to a particle that Dirac chased after all of his life-- the Magnetic Monopole.

And everytime a atom is unbalanced in charge, is due to a buildup of monopoles on that atom.

9th Proof. In Chemistry, it is rare, that a atom loses or gains any Real-Electron=muon.
And that is a 9th proof that Real Electron=muon, that beta decay in Old Physics, was not the electron of atoms but the transfer of Magnetic Monopoles.
The only real radioactive decay mode is the helium nucleus-- alpha decay
But there is never a Real Electron decay for that would mean muons spewed out of atoms. Nor do we see protons spewed out of atoms, Real Proton = 840 MeV. The so called hydrogen nucleus of a 938 MeV is not radioactive decay, for it is still a 840 proton + 105 muon = hydrogen atom.

10th Proof. Well, I spoke of the internal heart or core of the concept of Chemistry, that the proton/s and electron/s are two parts of the Faraday Law. The protons are the thrusting bar magnet and the electrons= muons forms the closed loop of wire. Essentially that is the heart and core of atomic physics, a replay of Faraday's law with protons and electrons.

But, however, the electrons= muons only forms a closed loop wire for Faraday's law in the inert gases, the helium, neon, argon, etc and all other atoms want to have that closed loop configuration. Thus, is borne the Chemistry of bonding. Chemistry is borne. So that one atom without a closed loop configuration bonds with another atom to achieve that goal. So chemistry bonding is that of muons bonded to other muons in different atoms.
 
Now, can these .5 MeV particles fulfill the atoms need to make their muons a closed loop? Obviously not, because ions of atoms such as Fe, iron, swing from -4 to +7 in ions, so that proves ions cannot solve a atom's problem of its electron structure being less than closed loop. Only muons of other atoms can fulfill a atom's need to be closed loop.

11th Proof. Solving the Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly, alongside proton radius shrunk
 --- Quoting from www, Ars Technica, Researchers orbit a muon around an atom, confirm physics is broken ---

So, the proton radius puzzle remains a puzzle. The team behind this new work point to a number of measurements that could potentially help clarify it. Some of them involve better measurements with normal electrons; others involve scattering muons off protons themselves to see if there's an unknown force at work. The latter would tell us whether anything beyond the Standard Model will be needed to explain this puzzle.
 --- end Quote ---
 
Now in re-reading that Ars article on proton radius shrinking when a hydrogen atom of 840 MeV proton with electron = 105 MeV and then a second muon is tried to be compounded-- will of course, shrink the proton radius for the two muons with 1 proton all three are centered at the center of the proton.

But in re-reading was mentioned an anomaly I was not familiar with-- Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly.

And reading some results of that, I find surprizing for it was Feynman who claimed Electrodynamics was the supreme physics theory in accuracy of prediction.

But the anomaly is off by a mere .1%, which seems very very small to be not even an anomaly. Trouble is, the electron of Old Physics was found to be so accurate as to be described as physic's most precise finding ever, and that makes the .1% discrepancy ever so much larger.

Now, I was able to explain away the proton radius anomaly because the proton is not 938 MeV but is 840 MeV and the electron is not the .5MeV particle but rather is 105 MeV.

So, can I explain away the Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly. I believe I can easily. For if you consider that what Old Physics measured as the electron magnetic moment was none other than the monopole as a dressed up photon magnetic moment. And it is easily seen that in EM theory the permeability constant is "exact" no uncertainty at 1.26*10^-6 H/m.

So, it is no wonder that Old Physics thought their electron magnetic moment in Quantum Electrodynamics was so ultra ultra precise-- for, they never measured the magnetic moment of the electron, but instead a magnetic monopole of the dressed up .5 MeV particle.

Then, when it came time to measure the magnetic moment of the muon, the real-true-electron, there is this .1% discrepancy, but there are discrepancies in the proton and neutron etc.

So, once we realized the Real Electron is the muon, afterall, there is no magnetic moment anomaly.

12th proof -- Static Electricity Re: Proofs that the Real Electron=muon

Alright, I need a 12th proof, for I do not want to neglect what is probably our first encounter with electricity-- static electricity. As we walk across a carpet and touch something we experience a spark. Trouble with static electricity, is that the concept makes out the atom as a flimsy structure, really really flimsy structure that electrons of atoms can be picked off so easily, and from very many diverse materials. One would think the structure of atoms was built of stronger stuff. And that is what the Electron = Muon concept is about, that it is so very very hard to separate a electron from its atom, just like separating a proton out of a nucleus. So the subject of static electricity is this interloper particle, this surface superficial particle that is easily "whipped up" as the magnetic monopole, just as easy as producing electricity in a Faraday Law demonstration of a thrusting bar magnet in closed loop of wire. For, we can easily imagine that our walk across a carpet is similar to a thrusting bar magnet and then the closed loop wire is when we touch something, having built up some monopoles in our body.

Old Physics would say that we picked up electrons on the carpet, and as we touch something, remit that imbalance of electrons.

New Physics would say that we picked up magnetic monopoles.

Now let us look at other static electric experiments. For when we rub a glass rod (+1) with silk, or rub a plastic rod (-1) with wool. Here again, Old Physics would say we pick off electrons of atoms.

New Physics would say, no, the atoms are still composed of all their electrons and protons. The only thing changed with the rubbing is that energy of the rub transfers to the magnetic monopole energy-- packets of .5MeV monopoles of charge energy. And the energy of rubbing becomes monopoles. These are those closed Lines of Force of a magnet, and the moment we touch something these stored up monopoles, flow from our body to that of the touched object.

How is that a proof the electron = muon?

Simple, in that the carpet, or plastic rod (-1) with wool or glass rod (+1) with silk, are materials that are electrically neutral substances, for the rubbing action was transformed not into free electrons, but was formed into monopoles. These substances remain electrically neutral, and the only change is that the rub created magnetic monopoles-- some + charged monopoles, some - charged monopoles, and these monopoles are superficial to the atoms where they formed.

Static Electricity is merely stored monopoles. Monopoles are conservation of energy, for the rubbing had to be transformed into some energy packets and that is-- monopoles of charge energy.

In the experiment of where we pick up bits of paper from either the glass rod or the plastic rod due to static electricity. What is happening here, is that the rod is not involved with the Real Electrons of atoms, but is involved with the superficial surface charged particle that is the magnetic monopole.

Now the electroscope is explained much much easier with magnetic monopoles rather than the silly electrons on one leaf pushing away the electrons on the second leaf.

For consider instead a closed loop line of force between the two leafs

/\
O

Where the leafs start out as ||

Then comes the charged rod of monopoles sending down a monopole closed loop O that pushes apart the two leafs.

Now i have two gold leafs and if true should leave the push apart looking more like this () rather than this /\. And that is what i have ()

13) Proof came in February 2018 for AP's ion theory, that ions are monopoles .5MeV either +1 or -1 charge, attached to a 840MeV proton and 105MeV muon as hydrogen.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 19:37:37 -0800 (PST)

Subject: H+1 bonds to P+1 Re: EXPERIMENTAL PROOF Re: Hydrogen is the very best
way to prove AP's ION theory Re: proving AP's ion theory
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 03:37:37 +0000


H+1 bonds to P+1 Re: EXPERIMENTAL PROOF Re: Hydrogen is the very best way to prove AP's ION theory Re: proving AP's ion theory

Below is an experiment done in Denmark where it is shown that H+1 bonds to P+1 ions, proving not only that the Muon is the real-electron and that ions are magnetic monopoles, but, in addition, proving that like charges attract, for in Nature, attraction force is the only force existing and that what appears to be repel is merely-- denial of same space occupancy.

Positively Charged Phosphorus as a Hydrogen Bond Acceptor

Anne S. Hansen, Lin Du and Henrik G. Kjaergaard*

Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 5, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters

Vol. 5: , Issue. 23, : Pages. 4225-4231
Publication Date (Web): November 19, 2014

https://doi.org/10.1021/jz502150d



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

                ::\ ::|:: /::
                 ::\::|::/::
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - -
                 ::/::|::\::
                ::/ ::|:: \::

One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
 
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
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-16 22:05:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 20:19:54 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Page43, 5-6 CORRECT MATH NEEDED by Physics to do gravity= EM /math of
circle versus parabola & Theory of 9 //textbook 8th ed.
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 04:19:55 +0000


Page43, 5-6 CORRECT MATH NEEDED by Physics to do gravity= EM /math of circle versus parabola & Theory of 9 //textbook 8th ed.


Page43, 5-6 CORRECT MATH NEEDED by Physics to do gravity= EM /math of circle versus parabola & Theory of 9 //textbook 8th ed.

5-6 TRUE CORRECT MATH NEEDED by Physics in order to understand gravity is EM /math of circle versus parabola/ And, the theory of 9

Now, one would think that all the mathematicians and physicists knew the difference between a circle and ellipse versus a parabola. You would think that Newton on down to 2016, all physicists and mathematicians would know the correct mathematics of an open curve as a parabola and a closed curve as a circle or ellipse.

You would think that, it is impossible for Newton to have made such a huge mistake with mathematics that gravity is according to Newton's math and according to General Relativity math, that gravity is a parabola, not a closed curve that gravity requires.

And, this huge mistake surfaces in astronomy as of the 1970s onwards, when spiral galaxies were seen with solid body rotation, and then the fools of science hypothesized dark matter, dark energy, when those very same fools were using a mathematics that gravity had the math of a open curve parabola.

Let me show you what I am talking about.

6). Fixing the huge math error of gravity in Old Physics

Now let us shift to 2nd dimension geometry for a moment and we have this.

Circle  x^2 + y^2 = 1

Ellipse x^2/a^2 + y^2/b^2 = 1

Parabola x^2 - y = 1

Now, in Old Physics, they had gravity as F= Gm1*m2/d^2

They wanted gravity as either circle or ellipse, for they saw planets
orbit in closed loops.

Now here is a huge huge flaw of Old Physics, something that even
Newton by 1687, himself should have caught and corrected, and if not
Newton, surely James Clerk Maxwell by 1860 should have caught the math
error. Unfortunately neither caught the huge math error. And why did
no-one in the 1900s catch the mistake? Why?

You see, the huge error is that a math formula for a closed curve has to end up looking like this:

Y = (kAA + jBB)/ d^2

To be a Closed Curve, the numerator needs at least two terms, not one term but two terms.

If the numerator has just one term, it is a Parabola open curve, and we all know gravity is a closed curve.

Now this is a lesson in itself, a sort of like morality
lesson or Aesop's Fable lesson, that you cannot find a mistake or flaw
of science, if that flaw is going to overturn the entire subject
matter. What I mean is say Newton or Maxwell had known that gravity
could not be F= Gm1*m2/d^2 but had to be F= kAA/d^2 + jBB/d^2. Suppose
they had discovered that, then the problem is, they had nothing in
physical reality to give meaning to that math correction. They knew
not that the Sun was revolving around a galaxy with planets in helical
motion, nor did they have any idea that gravity was electromagnetism.
So, even if, Newton or Maxwell, realized the math was wrong, they
could not link physical reality to a correct math of F= kAA/d^2 +
jBB/d^2.

It spoils not only Newton's gravity law but spoils the entire General
Relativity.

What I am talking about, is the math of Newton's gravity and General
Relativity is a math of just one term kAA/d^2 and that math is a open
curve such as a parabola. The math needed for a closed curve for
gravity is of at least two terms in the numerator such as (kAA +
jBB)/d^2. So that gravity is sufficient to be a closed loop, a circle
or a ellipse.

And this is shocking as to how such a math error escaped all
physicists and mathematicians until 2016 when I solved it in this
textbook.

Gravity that is F= m(a1 + a2 + a3) and not F = ma. Gravity that is F =
(kAA+jBB +hCC)/d^2. Gravity that is the same as EM to allow for Solid
Body Rotation and V proportional to R, proportional to 1/R and to
1/R^2 and all in between.

5-6 The Theory of 9

Alright, mathematics never was able to unify what numbers goes with angles. Old Math thought that 90 degrees as a right-angle was just an arbitrary selection, for someone in Old Math believed you could just as well pick 100 degrees as being the right angle and all other angles multiplied by a factor to put them to right.

And, Old Math made a huge mistake in trigonometry for they defined sine alright as opposite/hypotenuse, but then they degenerated into idiocy by thinking that 180 degrees was 3.14… leading to their fakery of a sinusoid wave. When you define sine as opposite/hypotenuse and examine the unit circle, then 90 degrees is 1, thus, forcing 180 degrees to be 2, never 3.14….

But, what about all the other angles, for the unit circle cannot define all the other angles, and so, we need a system in Mathematics that connects numbers with angles. We need a Natural System.

And Remember, remember well, that you can never have an axes of angles while the other axes are numbers, that axes have to all be the same, or else, you are no longer doing mathematics. You are doing some commercial, not math.

So, what is this THEORY OF 9.

The theory of 9 connects numbers with angles. And it comes from none other than the Atom Totality, the 231Pu Atom Totality. Remember the Atom Totality is plutonium single atom that makes up the entire world and it has a 5f6. This 5f6 is the night sky of stars and galaxies, those little white dots are actually bits and pieces of the last 6 muons= electrons. And recall that Decimal Number system is because of that 5 in 5f6 and the 2 in 2x3= 6.

So Decimals are special numbers, and the last whole number before you get to 10 is 9. Before you get to 100 is 99, and before you get to 1000 is 999. So you kind of get a sense of 9 being special because 10 is special.

So the "9" is the last whole number before you start to use the "1" and the "0" digits to make more numbers.

In that sense, the last whole number before you reuse the digits to make new numbers is important.

The number 3 as in 3x3=9 is in the 5f6.

Now, without further ado, I refer the reader to a website that explains the theory of 9 so well, for it has graphics and pictures that I simply cannot do here.

I mentioned in the first post of a Youtube reference to Genevieve Parry and the specialness of the number 9.

Here is that reference and she does a excellent graphic.

The Sacred Geometry of 9 - YouTube

► 2:59

Aug 20, 2015 - 3 min - Uploaded by Genevieve Parry
3 6 9 - "If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to ...

What I like the reader to focus on from that website is the idea that 9 collapses into the center but also, the number 9 expands outward and leaving a vacuum. So the number 9 is related to Quantum Mechanics as a duality number-- for it expands outward -- Uncollapsed Wavefunction and it also collapses to a single point in the center-- Collapsed Wavefunction.

In a sense, the number 9 is the number for duality, and is the Schrodinger Equation for math arithmetic. I say that because, you can see, that the measure of angles comes all down to the fact that they sum to 9.

Now, those in Old Math, those pitiful geezers will jump all over this by calling it numerology, for geezers are losers in life and want to complain when anyone gets ahead. And the complaint by geezers is that any number system has its own "9" before it reaches a "10", such as in binary 01 before 10 (which is 2 in binary) that the geezers would say 01 behaves like 9 does in decimal system. But Parry addressed this in her film clip by asking "is it numerology". I answer and pommel the geezers by noting that decimal system is very unique of all systems and throws out all other systems. That the decimal system is uniquely fit to do science.

So, watching the clip, we see that in Physics and in Mathematics, 9 is a very special number, for it is the number for the Schrodinger Wave Equation, of a Collapsed or Uncollapsed Wavefunction.

So the meaning of RestMass in Physics follows a table of 9. For the Real Proton is 840 MeV and the neutron is thus 840 + 105 = 945 MeV. A hydrogen atom is 9 muons = proton + electron = hydrogen atom.

As shown in the film, the angles collapse towards the center, while the regular polygons have the center become more and more a vacuum-- and also Gauss's law of electricity where charge migrates from the center regions to the outer surface.

So, the theory of Rest Mass and why the Muon is the Real Electron, not the .5 MeV monopole, is because with the proton at 840 MeV and the Muon at 105 MeV totals to 945 MeV and our familiar crucial number 9.

What it means, is that all rest mass particles are constructed from a mathematics of 105 MeV and 105/3 MeV.

What is the .5 MeV "little electron"? Remember, it is the magnepole, the charge of a magnet as +1 charge or -1 charge. The .5 MeV is not the electron but a monopole charge.

Theory of 9 unifies angles with plain numbers. For the angle of 1 in unit circle in trigonometry of sine, is 90 degrees. No other number fits being a right angle than the number 90, the 9 and 0 for 9+0 = 9. Notice that half of 90 degrees is 45 degrees and it is 4+5=9. Take half of 45 and you have 22.5 degrees, and notice you have 2+2+5= 9. So on and so forth.

But once watching the Parry Youtube film clip, i can easily see that 9 unifies angles with plain numbers and that a right angle as 90 degrees was not an arbitrary selection.

So, I wondered if 9 has some geometry significance, and found this YouTube site by Genevieve Parry.

Let me try to outline her themes:

360 is 3 + 6 = 9

180 is 1 + 8 = 9

90 is 9= 9

45 is 4 +5 = 9

22.5 is 2+ 2 + 5 = 9

11.25  is 1 + 1+ 2 + 5 = 9

5.625  is 5 + 6 + 2 + 5 = 9 + 9

2.8125 is 2 + 8 + 1 + 2 + 5 = 9 + 9

So does it go on forever in 9s, and is there some good math explanation? Only that of Atom Totality.

Then she goes the other way of multiplying using regular polygons:

60 x 3 is 180 is 1 + 8 = 9

90 x 4 is 360 is 1 +8 = 9

108 x 5 is 540 is 5 + 4 = 9

120 x 6 is 720 is 7 + 2 = 9

135 x 8 is 1080 is 1 + 8 = 9

So, even the 7 gon with angles 128(4/7) follows the pattern of 7 X 128(4/7) = 896 + 4 = 900 and the 11-gon with 147(3/11) X 11 = 1620.

The message I get from all of this is that Numbers in Mathematics have a concept of Duality ingrained in the numbers themselves, and that 9 exemplifies that duality of being Everything and simultaneously, being Nothing.

Now, also, this 9 pattern should prompt us to discover that a Number Representation of Decimals is a preferred representation, above and beyond any other representation such as binary or 3-base etc.

So Genevieve goes in two directions, bisecting then multiplying and using polygons and diameters, as can be seen in her YouTube film, where she comes to a astounding conclusion that 9 is a dual number where all is focused in the center of the circle when using diameters and all is outside the inner reaches of the circle when using the perimeters of the regular polygons. So she has a "dense center" using diameters and a vacuum center when using regular polygons, and dense outer layer using polygons.

Now in that Parry's Youtube clip is mentioned a quote from Tesla

The Sacred Geometry of 9
Genevieve Parry 4,312 views
SUBSCRIBE18
664
Published on Aug 20, 2015〄 3 6 9 - "If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe." - Nikola Tesla

Have you ever wondered why there are 360 degrees in a circle? This short video distills a lot of information about numbers, geometry and the relationship between them.
Category
Education
License
Standard YouTube License
 
Without the Internet, I would never have found the geometry significance of the number 9.

Number 9 as duality number and why base 10 is favored over all other base representations.


History of my discovery 1 proton = 9 Muons was 2016, then by 2017 realized Real-Proton = 833MeV, Real Electron= 105MeV

Looking back at my posts to find where I conceived of the idea 9Muons = 1 Proton. Apparently from the post below of August 2016, it was around that time.

Big, big, very big discoveries in either math or physics can be found by paying attention to what equals another. In this case, in physics, one must realize that in Physics experiments, if we get 99% near one another, means they are the same. But then fruitcake physicists have a mental block, and they only see equality when something is exactly the same-- having a piss poor mind that cannot realize experiments have fluctuations.

History of my discovery 1 proton = 9 Muons was 2016, then by 2017 realized Real-Proton = 840MeV, Real Electron= 105MeV

Now, what is the proof that Real Electron is the muon at 105 MeV?

The proof is simple and two words-- Chemical Bonding. You cannot have a Chemistry using the electron at .5 MeV, cannot have covalent bonds, nor ionic bonds, nor even metallic bonds, especially metallic bonds. You need the Electron to be 1/8 the rest mass of the Proton, in order to have Chemistry.

So what is this little guy the .5 MeV electron? What the hell is it?

And, I think it is the photon or neutrino with a charge. So that we can have photons and neutrinos with charge. Looking at H&R 1986, they have the pion at 135 and 139 MeV, straddled by +- charge and 0 charge pions. The pion meson tells me that photons can have charge. And so the .5MeV particle is not the electron of Chemistry, but rather, is some charge carrier particle. Probably a Magnetic Field Line of Force, perhaps the magnetic monopole, and that the monopole Dirac computed as being 137/2, that perhaps the smallest magnetic monopole is .5 MeV, and the largest are the Mesons.

So, the picture is slowly emerging, that the Electron that Chemistry needs, requires and uses is the Muon of 105 MeV, and the proton is not a 938 MeV particle but a 840 MeV particle. The .5 MeV is some form of carrier charge particle, perhaps the magnetic monopole in its lowest energy form.

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 11:50:59 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: is the proton that of 9 muons packed together? The 200 rest mass Rule
 /textbook 7th ed
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 18:50:59 +0000
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
is the proton that of 9 muons packed together? The 200 rest mass Rule /textbook 7th ed
1st Sequence 0.51,  105.7, 135, 139.6, 493.7, 497.7, 548.8
2nd Sequence 938.3, 939.6, 1116, 1189, 1192, 1197, 1315, 1321, 1672
If you are wondering where these numbers come from, they come from PHYSICS, Halliday & >Resnick, 1986, page A27 and are the electron-like rest masses and proton-like rest masses.
Electron, Muon, Pion, K meson, Eta meson
Proton, Neutron, Lambda, Sigma, Xi, Omega
This almost reminds me of astronomy, solar system of the spacing distance of planets per the >Titius Bode Formula. I would be very happy to get a Titius Bode type of formula rule for particle >rest mass.
(snipped)
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
And the question of why 940 MeV for proton? While electron is a meagre .51 MeV. Now let me put >a thought out that may pan out, but not likely. Think of the proton of rest mass as 940 MeV and >consider that the muon is 105 MeV and that 9 Muons packed together makes a proton. Now that >sounds so far off the beaten tracks, because how could you assemble 9 negative charges to be a >single positive charge?
But there is a charming aspect to that idea, that the muon is the rest-mass giver.
Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon of 231Pu

                ::\ ::|:: /::
                 ::\::|::/::
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - -
                 ::/::|::\::
                ::/ ::|:: \::

One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
 
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::

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 15:55:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: solving the Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly, alongside proton radius
 shrunk Re: 42Page42, 5-5 Atom Totality Universe textbook
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 23:55:45 +0000
solving the Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly, alongside proton radius shrunk
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
--- Quoting from www, Ars Technica, Researchers orbit a muon around an atom, confirm physics is broken ---
So, the proton radius puzzle remains a puzzle. The team behind this new work point to a number of measurements that could potentially help clarify it. Some of them involve better measurements with normal electrons; others involve scattering muons off protons themselves to see if there's an unknown force at work. The latter would tell us whether anything beyond the Standard Model will be needed to explain this puzzle.
--- end Quote ---
Now in re-reading that Ars article on proton radius shrinking when a hydrogen atom of 840 MeV proton with electron = 105 MeV and then a second muon is tried to be compounded-- will of course, shrink the proton radius for the two muons with 1 proton all three are centered at the center of the proton.
But in re-reading was mentioned an anomaly I was not familiar with-- Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly.
And reading some results of that, I find surprizing for it was Feynman who claimed Electrodynamics was the supreme physics theory in accuracy of prediction.
But the anomaly is off by a mere .1%, which seems very very small to be not even an anomaly. Trouble is, the electron of Old Physics was found to be so accurate as to be described as physic's most precise finding ever, and that makes the .1% discrepancy ever so much larger.
Now, I was able to explain away the proton radius anomaly because the proton is not 938 MeV but is 840 MeV and the electron is not the .5MeV particle but rather is 105 MeV.
So, can I explain away the Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly. I believe I can easily. For if you consider that what Old Physics measured as the electron magnetic moment was none other than the monopole as a dressed up photon magnetic moment. And it is easily seen that in EM theory the permeability constant is "exact" no uncertainty at 1.26*10^-6 H/m.
So, it is no wonder that Old Physics thought their electron magnetic moment in Quantum Electrodynamics was so ultra ultra precise-- for, they never measured the magnetic moment of the electron, but instead a magnetic monopole of the dressed up .5 MeV particle.
Then, when it came time to measure the magnetic moment of the muon, the real-true-electron, there is this .1% discrepancy, but there are discrepancies in the proton and neutron etc.
So, once we realized the Real Electron is the muon, afterall, there is no magnetic moment anomaly.
AP
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 16:14:24 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 10th proof Re: solving the Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly, alongside
 proton radius shrunk
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 00:14:24 +0000
10th proof Re: solving the Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly, alongside proton radius shrunk
Now, can I get a 10th proof that the Real Electron is the muon and Real Proton is 840 MeV particle and that the tiny puny particle of .5 MeV was a magnetic monopole all along and this monopole is a dress-up, or dressed down photon with .5MeV of charge energy, not to be mistaken as rest-mass energy.
Can I get a 10th proof?
Well, I spoke of the internal heart or core of the concept of Chemistry, that the proton/s and electron/s are two parts of the Faraday Law. The protons are the thrusting bar magnet and the electrons= muons forms the closed loop of wire. Essentially that is the heart and core of atomic physics, a replay of Faraday's law with protons and electrons.
But, however, the electrons= muons only forms a closed loop wire for Faraday's law in the inert gases, the helium, neon, argon, etc and all other atoms want to have that closed loop configuration. Thus, is borne the Chemistry of bonding. Chemistry is borne. So that one atom without a closed loop configuration bonds with another atom to achieve that goal. So chemistry bonding is that of muons bonded to other muons in different atoms.
Now, can these .5 MeV particles fulfill the atoms need to make their muons a closed loop? Obviously not, because ions of atoms such as Fe, iron, swing from -4 to +7 in ions, so that proves ions cannot solve a atom's problem of its electron structure being less than closed loop. Only muons of other atoms can fulfill a atom's need to be closed loop.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-17 00:43:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2017 21:38:48 -0800 (PST)

Subject: page44, 5-7/ Solving the Table of Elementary Particles of Physics /
Atom Totality textbook 8th ed.
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 05:38:49 +0000


page44, 5-7/ Solving the Table of Elementary Particles of Physics / Atom Totality textbook 8th ed.

5-7 Solving the Table of Elementary Particles of Physics / Atom Totality textbook 8th ed.

First let me show you the Table of Old Physics, how it looked like back in 1986.

Here I am attempting to replicate Halliday & Resnick's 1986 PHYSICS textbook page A27 titled
Particles of Physics

LEPTONS  .5 electron,  105 muon, electron's neutrino 0, Muon's neutrino 0    (in MeV rest mass)
charge       +- electron, +- muon, neutrinos 0

MESONS 139 pion, 135 pion , 493 K meson , 497 K meson, 548 Eta-meson
charge      +- pion,  0 pion,        +- K meson, 0 K meson,    0 Eta-meson

BARYONS  938 proton, 939 neutron, 1116 Lambda, 1189 Sigma, 1192 Sigma, 1197 Sigma
charge         +- proton,   0 neutron,       0 Lambda,    + Sigma,        0 Sigma,         - Sigma

more BARYONS   1315 Xi,    1321 Xi,    1673 Omega
          charge         0 Xi ,        +- Xi,        +- Omega

Now let me add some that were missing in H&R of 1986, and found many years later

LEPTONS  1784 tau electron
charge         +-1 tau electron

Recent BARYONS recent 2 Omegas at 6054 and 6165 MeV

Recent Higgs boson 125,000 MeV and here we already see how utterly contradictory is the Standard Model, for it has huge rest mass, yet it is the Standard Model saying they travel at the speed of light. Physicists who abide by the Standard Model, have zero logical minds.
------------------------------
So, for the first time in physics history, we assemble the Table of Elementary Particles of Physics as they truly are. And we explain the why. The Standard Model of this physics topic was just a "substitute theory" for it is better to have some crappy theory with many leaking holes, than to have nothing at all.

With my discovery that the Real Electron = Muon and that the .5 MeV particle is a photon or neutrino dressed up with a .5 MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy. Makes all the difference in the world, for the above table is now just a integer multiples of the listed energies. A proton is just 8 muons circled in a octet ring, a closed loop of subatomic wire (if you like to think of it that way).

The photon and neutrinos are no longer huge mysteries, but far more clear as to their functions-- they carry the charge, so that the .5 MeV is a Magnetic Monopole that causes current and causes electricity.

So, with my discovery, huge advance in understanding Elementary Particles of Physics-- for the first time.

From knowing that the EM force unifies all the forces of physics, and thus the strong nuclear force is merely a scaled up version of the EM force of chemistry. What is going on in the nucleus of atoms, is the same thing going on in the electrons=muons of Atoms. In other words, what goes on in Chemistry goes on in the Elementary Particles. The nucleus of atoms is a chemistry scene, only instead of atoms and electrons=muons bonding, we have elementary particles bonding.

So, we already have a Table of Chemical Elements, and that means the Table of Elementary Physics Particles is going to be a scaled down version of the Chemical Elements. In Chemistry, the elements are a adding of one more proton to the previous element to make a new element. In Elementary Particles, it is the adding of one more muon=electron to make a new rest mass particle.

So now, how is this going to solve the Table of Particles?

First we realize that the Real Proton is 840 MeV, and Real Neutron is 945 MeV and the Real Electron= muon = 105 MeV.

What is the .5 MeV with -1 charge particle that Old Physics saw so much of, and was fooled into believing it was the electron? It is the charge of a magnetic field, the magnetic pole is charged and a magnet has both +1 pole and -1 pole and so this .5 MeV particle was a magnepole, or monopole. It was never a electron nor a positron, but the magnet pole, a monopole if you like to call it that. Magnepole = monopole is the charge of one pole of a magnetic field. It is a photon with charge, not with rest mass. In all the times physicists measured the .5 MeV, they were never measuring rest mass, but rather, they were measuring a .5 MeV energy that was charge. And, this .5 MeV charge energy of the monopole is the exact same as the 1/2 spin number of elementary particles, the quantum number m_s. It just so happens that the units of electron-volts coincides with m_s.

So in the Table, the correct table of Physics Elementary Particles should look like this::

PHOTONS  .5 MeV magnepoles = monopoles, all other Photons, ranging from radio waves on up to mesons and beyond. Including all the Neutrinos for neutrinos are just photons that are longitudinal waves not double transverse waves.

LEPTONS  105 muon= electron, tau-electron 1785 +- charge

MESONS 139 pion, 135 pion , 493 K meson , 497 K meson, 548 Eta-meson
charge      +- pion,  0 pion,        +- K meson, 0 K meson,    0 Eta-meson

BARYONS  840 proton, 945 neutron, 1116 Lambda, 1189 Sigma, 1192 Sigma, 1197 Sigma
charge         +- proton,   0 neutron,       0 Lambda,    + Sigma,        0 Sigma,         - Sigma

more BARYONS   1315 Xi,    1321 Xi,    1672 Omega
          charge         0 Xi ,        +- Xi,        +- Omega

Recent BARYONS recent 2 Omegas at 6054 and 6165 MeV

Recent Higgs boson 125,000 MeV

The key formula is Real Electron= muon =105 MeV

And then,

Real Proton = 840 MeV, Neutron= 945 MeV

And then,

Magnetic Monopole = .5 MeV and is the source of current and electricity

The heavier baryons are add-ons of muons and mesons

Mesons are energetic photons or neutrinos

Neutrinos = Photons = Mesons  and differing only as to whether they are longitudinal waves or double transverse waves. And what the table does not show is a special photon of 105/3 = 35 MeV.
I request all physicists in particle-accelerators to look for this 35 MeV particle, it should be found easily. Maybe some physicists have already stumbled across this special photon, or neutrino or meson particle. For it is the key building block of say the pions in that 105 MeV + 35 MeV = pion.

Three key photon energies, NOT REST MASS,  are .5 MeV as the photon magnepole that is charged and is the magnetic pole = monopole with both -1 and +1 charge, remember the .5 MeV is energy, not rest mass, and researchers can easily be fooled by this. Another key photon is the 105/3 MeV, and have to wait to see if already discovered. And the third key photon is the 137 MeV pion, which is the inverse fine structure constant number 137.

Dirac was wrong in thinking monopole was 137/2 charge, for it is really just .5 MeV, the quantum spin number m_s of the 4 quantum numbers N, L, m_L , and m_s.

So, basically the picture that is unfolding as the Periodic Table of Elementary Particles is a mirror image repeat of the Chemical Elements Table.

The Proton can be considered as Hydrogen the neutron is helium then the lambda is lithium then the sigma is beryllium etc etc.

If we were to have a microscope on the proton itself we would see a octagon of 8 muons and successive particles would be the increment adding of one more muon and for p, d, f the adding of 1 more muon with a meson combination.

So that we can find a elementary particle of rest-mass that is the analog of cesium or of nickel or of tin or of argon or of curium etc.

The table of elementary particles of physics is merely a zoomed down version of the Table of chemical elements, only instead of being based on the "proton" it is based on the Real Electron = muon. Now, that seems kind of ironic. That the chemistry elements are based on adding protons, but the Elementary Particles of Physics are based on adding 1 more muon-- but, maybe that is symmetry in action.

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

                ::\ ::|:: /::
                 ::\::|::/::
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - -
                 ::/::|::\::
                ::/ ::|:: \::

One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
 
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--

It is worth repeating what lead me to the discovery that the Real Electron= muon.

Back in 2016, I was pondering over the numbers of the Elementary Particles known. And I spotted the number of 938MeV for the rest-mass of proton and 105MeV for muon. And the lights came on for me, for if we think of the proton as 945 MeV with muon 105, then we see a clear 9 times relationship. But, it was not until 2017, that I realized the proton had to be 840 with muon as 105 MeV to realize the Real Electron = muon.

Now I suppose there is no Logical Rule in physics that says, if checking numbers and one number is 9 times another with a discrepancy of less than 1%, means those two numbers are related such that one is built from the smaller. I do not know if science has some sort of Logic-rule, that if the numbers come that close together, you are looking at one being built from the other.

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 11:50:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: is the proton that of 9 muons packed together? The 200 rest mass Rule
 /textbook 7th ed
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 18:50:59 +0000
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
is the proton that of 9 muons packed together? The 200 rest mass Rule /textbook 7th ed
1st Sequence 0.51,  105.7, 135, 139.6, 493.7, 497.7, 548.8
2nd Sequence 938.3, 939.6, 1116, 1189, 1192, 1197, 1315, 1321, 1672
If you are wondering where these numbers come from, they come from PHYSICS, Halliday & >Resnick, 1986, page A27 and are the electron-like rest masses and proton-like rest masses.
Electron, Muon, Pion, K meson, Eta meson
Proton, Neutron, Lambda, Sigma, Xi, Omega
(snipped)
.
.
.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
And the question of why 940 MeV for proton? While electron is a meagre .51 MeV. Now let me put >a thought out that may pan out, but not likely. Think of the proton of rest mass as 940 MeV and >consider that the muon is 105 MeV and that 9 Muons packed together makes a proton. Now that >sounds so far off the beaten tracks, because how could you assemble 9 negative charges to be a >single positive charge?
But there is a charming aspect to that idea, that the muon is the rest-mass giver.
AP
--- end of old 2016 post which lead to the discovery that the Real Electron = muon.---
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 20:41:15 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 44page44, 5-7/ Solving the Table of Elementary Particles of Physics /
Atom Totality textbook 8th ed.
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 04:41:15 +0000
Now let me add more commentary to this page of Tables of Elementary Particles for I recently bought 4th ed of Halliday Physics 1992, pages A-8 thru A-9.
Now they give the tau particle 1784 Mev rest-mass and if it had been just 1 more would have been exactly 17x 105, or 17 muons exactly.
So there is probably no logic rule that says -- if you come this close in numbers means that the tau particle is made up of 17 muons, just plain ordinary commonsense tells you so.
Looking for more close calls we have the Omega baryon 1673 MeV as almost 16 muons. We have the Upsilon meson at 9460 as 90 muons.
Now we explain the entire table is a building of new particles using 105 MeV as basis with some fractional increments.
As for the Quarks and field-particles-- a total waste of time and crap.
Now the table shows photon with spin 1 and charge 0. Now that is true for a photon when not a magnetic monopole, but when a monopole it can be spin 1/2 and charge .5 MeV.
Now the omega and delta baryons show some strange charge and spin. But, not to worry for as we build these particles of higher rest mass, they are compounded earlier particles.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-17 03:50:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 07:44:22 -0800 (PST)

Subject: page45, 6-1/ Deriving all the Quantum Mechanics principles of physics
/ Atom Totality textbook, 8th ed.
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 15:44:22 +0000


page45, 6-1/ Deriving all the Quantum Mechanics principles of physics / Atom Totality textbook, 8th ed.

page45, 6-1/ Deriving all the Quantum Mechanics principles of physics  / Atom Totality textbook, 8th ed.

6-1 Deriving Perpetual Motion and Least Energy (Action) Principle from AP-Maxwell theory

Now in prior pages I wrote about the Physics of Math where you can have a hydrogen atom as 1+1+1 = 1 = 1x1x1. Or for hydrogen you can have 2+2+2 = 1 = 2x2x2. Or, better yet since photons can be and usually are numerous in each atom we can have hydrogen as 1+1+10^22 = 1 = 1x1x10^22.

Now it still remains an open question as to whether photon = neutrino, but I am assured that such is the case and experiments of the future has to prove that issue. That photons are Double Transverse Waves while neutrinos are the same thing only in Longitudinal Wave form. Basically I am totally confident of that fact, because, wherever in the spectrum of photons you look, you have an equal sized neutrino. This is unmistakably the same particle.

So in Physics-Math we have the relationship that Maths-math can never have A+A+B = C = AxAxB. Only physics is able to handle such a mathematics, because physics has a math of a Atom Totality which has other atoms-- the same size as the whole, inside itself.

Perpetual Motion

Now Perpetual Motion is quite obvious in Physics whenever you hold a bar magnet because the lines of force emanating are Perpetual Motion. And here is the trouble we run into in Old Physics-- they insist that no perpetual motion machine exists, yet at the atomic level, the electron=muon is in perpetual motion. The photon is in perpetual motion unless it collides. So, this is craziness, and what has to give? Well, if we realize the Real Electron is the muon, then, it is never close to the speed of light. While that .5 MeV particle is the monopole and is a photon or neutrino, then problem all solved.

So, can we straighten out this craziness in physics-- perpetual motion in parts of physics, and not in other parts? Can we finally breeze through the concept of perpetual motion and not be stuck and bewildered?

I believe so, that finally by 2017 we can lay this perpetual motion contradiction to rest. (Sorry, no pun was intended). Solution: the .5 MeV particle is a monopole.

Now in Old Physics, there was a picture of the electron=muon inside an atom and I remember it from CHEM ONE, Waser, Trueblood, Knobler, 2nd ed, 1976, on page 307 showing Figure 15-2 DeBroglie Waves for Permitted and Prohibited Orbits. Matter Waves and Wave Functions, involving the Schrodinger Equation.

So, what is this craziness in Old Physics, they have a photon and neutrino of no rest mass, meaning it is perpetual motion. Yet they have a electron= .5MeV (in Old Physics) with a small rest mass, yet it has perpetual motion inside an atom. That is contradictory in that you have perpetual motion of electron with rest mass. But, if that particle of .5 MeV was a magnetic monopole the substance of not only Lines of Force in Magnetism, but the substance of electric current, electricity, it has no rest mass but just charge energy.

So how does New Physics solve that dilemma? It solves it by recognizing the Real Electron is the muon of 105 MeV and it does have rest mass but it does not have perpetual motion. The proton in atoms moves slowly, and so does the electron=muon. The .5 MeV particle is the magnepole = monopole and is not rest mass but is charge .5 MeV, a energy.

Now how is Perpetual Motion derived from AP-Maxwell Equations? Well let us take the Faraday law and the Ampere/Maxwell law working in tandem. So the Faraday law has a bar magnet producing an electric current and the Ampere/Maxwell law takes that current and produces a magnetic field plus a displacement current and the magnetic field of Ampere is another magnet of Faraday law, in turn working upon the displacement current yields another current and another magnet, in turn, to infinity, a perpetual motion. The Faraday law in tandem with the Ampere/Maxwell law yields perpetual motion. Perpetual Motion in physics is the working together, simultaneously, both Faraday law and Ampere-Maxwell law. But also, it yields something philosophical, for it yields the idea that there is "sameness of scale". So as we get smaller and smaller, we have the same two laws Faraday and Ampere-Maxwell yielding the same motions. It is as if the Faraday law and Ampere-Maxwell law is saying the large scale is the same as the small scale, that the Universe is one big atom, and containing the same atoms inside itself in numerous amounts.

Least Action, or Least Energy

Now, surprisingly the AP equations derives this quantum principle real easily, for we simply note, that the New Ohms Law of V = iBL is a linear law, and the shortest distance between two points is a straight-line of iBL.

Uncertainty, Complementarity, Superposition, Correspondence Principles from EM theory

I needed to derive Perpetual Motion from AP-Maxwell Equations before I do the Uncertainty and Complementarity Principles, for the simple reason that Perpetual Motion is a far more important feature of the Cosmos than Uncertainty and Complementarity.

The two principles of Uncertainty and Complementarity are actually just one and the same principle. Both had problems of clarity in the 20th century, both were obfuscated, but that is to be expected that something so important to be discovered for the first time in the 20th century that given elapse of time, the principles would become more and more clear, rather than remain obfuscated. When the Uncertainty Principle and Complementarity Principle were discovered, they were discovered and used to address problems over that of size and when does quantum mechanics begin or end. That was early 1900s circa 1930, but now we have 2016-17, and now we have quantum mechanics as a subset of EM theory and we have these principles spanning the entire Cosmos in the Bell Inequality and of course the Atom Totality.
If you look carefully at the Complementarity Principle, it is replaceable by this statement:
Dualities are two entities A and B that make a whole and which are never A=B, and which both exist together, inseparable. The ultimate duality and Complementarity is magnetism with electricity. So in the Faraday law where magnetism produces electricity, it is not a magnetism = electricity, but rather, where there is magnetism there is electricity and vice versa.
When we say E = mc^2 we are making a mistake in thinking that energy equals mass and speed of light squared. They are not equal just as electricity is not equal to magnetism. Just as the equal sign in Faraday Law is not of equality but of production, of transforming magnetism into electricity and of Ampere law transforming electricity into magnetism. It is unfortunate that the equal sign is used so much in physics when we should have a sign like --> meaning magnetism goes to being electricity, or mass goes to being energy.
If we look carefully at the Uncertainty Principle, that same statement above applies and is a replacement statement of the Uncertainty Principle given by Heisenberg.
So when we fire a beam of photons into a Double Slit we see not just 100% waves 0% particle or vice versa, but rather we see both, always both. It is like the Maxwell theory and wanting to separate away the magnetism from electricity where you have them separated that your magnetism is never going to show any electricity, which is preposterous.
In other words, the Uncertainty and Complementary Principles were actually the same principles.

Now with those principles combined I see a simple answer as to whether duality is in the Dirac Equation. A simple answer to my question of whether the Dirac Equation has the Uncertainty and Complementarity principle embodied within itself. The answer is very simple, whether the Dirac Equation uses Planck's 
constant? And not surprisingly it uses that constant just as the Schrodinger 
Equation uses that constant. So there we have the answer. That the Uncertainty principle has to use the Planck constant in order to have any meaning. But looking at the Complementarity Principle, it does not use the Planck constant. That should immediately tell us that the Complementarity Principle was too obfuscated in meaning and that it is just another statement of the Uncertainty Principle although lacking clarity. So both principles are just one principle that says essentially this:
The size of an atom is related to the Planck constant and that a electron=muon or proton inside the atom has rest-mass if measured for mass, but no charge, and if measured for charge but no mass, where dualities are either 100% or 0% but never both in any instant of time, but always both are present. This of which ties into the Correspondence Principle of QM which focuses on the fact that dealing with large numbers of atoms, of electrons=muons, and protons, that QM becomes what is called Classical Physics.
Alright I covered the three principles in quantum mechanics of Perpetual Motion,
Uncertainty, and Complementarity. Covering them by showing that they are
derived out of the EM theory

But let me cover one more principle that comes out of the EM theory, the Superposition Principle. But I need not talk about that in any length because it is obvious that the AP-Maxwell Equations provide for superposition principle in that charge and magnetic fields are linear systems dealt with by linear differential equations, differentiating V = iBL. Fourier analysis is a linear system in electrical engineering.  

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

                ::\ ::|:: /::
                 ::\::|::/::
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - -
                 ::/::|::\::
                ::/ ::|:: \::

One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
 
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-- In prior two comments I wrote this::
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2017 16:14:24 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 10th proof Re: solving the Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly, alongside
 proton radius shrunk
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 00:14:24 +0000
10th proof Re: solving the Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly, alongside proton radius shrunk
Now, can I get a 10th proof that the Real Electron is the muon and Real Proton is 840 MeV particle and that the tiny puny particle of .5 MeV was a magnetic monopole all along and this monopole is a dress-up, or dressed down photon with .5MeV of charge energy, not to be mistaken as rest-mass energy.
Can I get a 10th proof?
Well, I spoke of the internal heart or core of the concept of Chemistry, that the proton/s and electron/s are two parts of the Faraday Law. The protons are the thrusting bar magnet and the electrons= muons forms the closed loop of wire. Essentially that is the heart and core of atomic physics, a replay of Faraday's law with protons and electrons.
But, however, the electrons= muons only forms a closed loop wire for Faraday's law in the inert gases, the helium, neon, argon, etc and all other atoms want to have that closed loop configuration. Thus, is borne the Chemistry of bonding. Chemistry is borne. So that one atom without a closed loop configuration bonds with another atom to achieve that goal. So chemistry bonding is that of muons bonded to other muons in different atoms.
Now, can these .5 MeV particles fulfill the atoms need to make their muons a closed loop? Obviously not, because ions of atoms such as Fe, iron, swing from -4 to +7 in ions, so that proves ions cannot solve a atom's problem of its electron structure being less than closed loop. Only muons of other atoms can fulfill a atom's need to be closed loop.
And I wrote that the Real Proton at 840 MeV and Real Electron = muon = 105 MeV, that 8 Muons = 1 Proton.

So, here, we can even polish off Faraday's Law much more. Much more that just saying the Proton/s is a thrusting bar magnet and the electrons are a closed loop wire. But, since proton is 8xMuon, we can say the Proton itself is a closed loop wire of 8micromuons. I say micromuons because they cannot be the same size as the Electron=Muon.

And, also, I need to work out charge on Protons = 8micromuons. But, that is a start into reducing everything into as few of concepts as possible.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-17 21:23:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 11:18:22 -0800 (PST)

Subject: page46, 6-2/ Deriving Pauli Exclusion and Aufbau Principles /
PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE/8th ed.
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 19:18:24 +0000


page46, 6-2/ Deriving Pauli Exclusion and Aufbau Principles / PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE/8th ed.


page46, 6-2/ Deriving Pauli Exclusion and Aufbau Principles / PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE/8th ed.

I think the proper order for deriving the Old Physics principles from EM theory is this order:

1) Dirac & Schrodinger Equations

2) Perpetual Motion

3) Uncertainty, Complementarity, and Superposition, Correspondence Principles

4) Pauli Exclusion & Aufbau Principles

5) Fusion Barrier Principle

That ordering follows what I believe is the easiest derivations first and the hardest near the end.

Now an Overview of Quantum Mechanics is appropriate, right about here. What was Quantum Mechanics? It was a theory in search of "who it really was". During the 1900s as QM was borne and flourished, it was all just a parcel of principles and rules. It was not a actual theory of physics but a collection of rules to apply in certain situations. But, as the Atom Totality theory emerged starting 1990, then QM would begin to be seen as a subset of Electromagnetism. That Quantum Mechanics is a gaggle of rules that are found to lie within or a subset of the EM-Maxwell Equations. And this chapter is trying to pull together how those QM rules are fetched out of the EM-Maxwell and AP Equations. In short, QM is a subset of EM physics.

In this page I need to derive Pauli Exclusion Principle, which I had done so, many years back and need to hunt that down. The Pauli Exclusion Principle is actually another form of Same Space Occupancy which in Old Physics was seen as a like-charges repel, but is in fact a wholly different concept and that like charges actually attract one another as seen in electrons=muons congregating outside the nucleus, as protons congregate to form a nucleus, and as monopoles congregate to form capacitance and flow of monopoles in wires, making electricity.

Now here, with our newly discovered Real Electron as the muon, we must also review capacitors. For capacitors are the storage of the .5 MeV magnepole= monopoles.

So in this new understanding, that Capacitors are the storage not of electrons for those are muons, but rather the storage of photons that are charged with .5 MeV energy.

The Pauli Exclusion Principle is intriguing and challenging for the AP-Maxwell Equations to derive.

The toughest, so far as I can determine at this moment is the Aufbau principle which would require the Faraday Law in conjunction with the Ampere/Maxwell Law to form a 3rd dimension circuit, where the circuits attract to cause to form a atom. This gets into the geometry of atoms of the periodic chemical table.

And here we can do an experiment to ease our way into the theory. We get numerous wires, 2 for the S, and 6 for the P and 10 for the D and 14 for the F subshells. Now we measure the attraction of 2 wires, of 6 wires of 10 wires of 14 wires via the Ampere law of parallel currents attract.

Now I think the pairing of electrons=muons in sub-orbitals, Hund's Rule, is also derived from Ampere law.

Basically, to derive the Aufbau from AP Equations involves taking each atom and seeing the nucleus as a bar magnet in Faraday's law and the electron=muon going around in a circle from the bar magnet, and the current of the electron=muon causing a Ampere-Maxwell law to arise with a displacement current and the magnets of the Ampere law causing the nucleus to have a current and motion. The constant trade-off with the Faraday law and Ampere law of a nucleus and surrounding electrons=muons, in a complex and complicated interlocking action and reaction, we end up with an Aufbau.

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

                ::\ ::|:: /::
                 ::\::|::/::
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - -
                 ::/::|::\::
                ::/ ::|:: \::

One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
 
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:: my mind is always teaming with ideas, and one idea relating to a previous chapter is the idea that the formula of helix motion is somewhat equal to a logarithmic function, and I need to explore that idea.
What I need to find out if that formula also, resembles logarithmic function

Looking for something like this

Ln(t) = jxx/b^2 + kyy/c^2 + hzz/d^2

Looking for something of a hybrid of Log function and circle helix function

Trying to marry the two

I do not need exactness, but if I can make them come close together.

What I need to find out if that formula also, resembles logarithmic function

Looking for something like this

Ln(t) = jxx/b^2 + kyy/c^2 + hzz/d^2

Looking for something of a hybrid of Log function and circle helix function

Trying to marry the two

I do not need exactness, but if I can make them come close together

Comments:: alright, the EM gravity is a Logarithmic function G= Ln(x) it is not an inverse square, because it has to contain three different types of forces V proportional R, proportional to 1/R, proportional to 1/R^2. In the above pages I referred the reader to spiral galaxy rotation curves to see these 3 different types. But let me try to draw a Ln(x) function and break it into three types.


^              __-__-_----
|          +             1/R^2
|      + 1/R
|    /
|  / R
|/_________________>
graph of both spiral galaxy rotation curve and graph of the Ln(x) function of math scooted up into the 1st Quadrant Only (and one can reflect that the exp(x) function is scooted over in the 1st Quadrant).

Now, looking at Ln(x), does it in any way shape or form look like a 1/4 of a circle? It does so, but with some imagination of a stretched circle. So this indicates to me, that we can break apart the Ln function into three strips to approximate the Ln function and it being, of course, the Coulomb law, the gravity law, all stacked three different pieces as one force law.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-18 07:06:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 11:51:29 -0800 (PST)

Subject: page47, 6-3/ Deriving Fusion Barrier Principle from AP-Maxwell
Equations/ textbook, 8th ed.
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 19:51:30 +0000


page47, 6-3/ Deriving Fusion Barrier Principle from AP-Maxwell Equations/ textbook, 8th ed.

page47, 6-3/ Deriving Fusion Barrier Principle from AP-Maxwell Equations/ textbook, 8th ed.


Deriving Fusion Barrier Principle from AP-Maxwell Equations

First, what is the Fusion Barrier Principle, FBP? And what is its history?

Its history starts 1997 with a discussion with Dr. Rick Spielman::
--- quoting a old post of mine of 1997 wherein I discovered what would
be the Fusion-Barrier-Principle ---

From: ***@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.engr,sci.physics
Subject: Fusion Power breakeven is theoretically impossible
Date: 21 Aug 1997 16:04:28 GMT
Organization: PLutonium College
Lines: 159
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (5thouc$prt$***@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

In article (***@worldnet.att.net>

Rick Spielman (***@worldnet.att.net> writes:

[many snips]
Your are referring to two of physics' basic "assumptions" or postulates
upon
which Thermodynamics (in the case of the Third Law) and the Special
Theory
of Relativity (postulate of the constancy of the speed of light) are
founded. They are not basic truths, as such do not exist in physics.
These
are assumptions that lead to a consistent and predictive view of the
universe.
  I do not want to stray off course with other theories. This one
theory is big enough and basically it says that there will never be a
fusion power plant and so confine myself to that theory.
ICF has many classified aspects only because much of the detailed
physics
knowledge in ICF would lead to the ability to fabricate fusion
weapons. ICF
operates quite differently than typical fusion weapons.
  I suspect that was the reason no-one tried to engineer a Teller mini
fusion bomb power plant. Not because it was the most logical next step
to understand fusion power but because everyone involved were "scared"
of the security aspects. That the fusion bomb building knowledge would
get into unfriendly hands.
Edward Teller suggested the concept of mini nukes generating
electrical
power many years ago. The concept will easily work. The issue is not
scientific or engineering, it is environmental.
  I understand Dr. Teller is still alive? Encyc says he was born Jan
1908 and that would make him close to 90, but is his mind alert still
now?
  Did he detail how to construct a nuclear reactor, a whole power
plant
to harness mini fusion bombs? If so, I would like to see it.

  For I have the suspicion that it is theoretically impossible to
harness fusion energy. That the amount of energy to achieve fusion is
greater than any electricity produced by that fusion. I suspect that
no
mini fusion bomb power plant can achieve breakeven.

Definition of Breakeven from STARPOWER:
    Breakeven: The point at which the fusion power generated in a
plasma equals the amount of heating power that must be added to the
plasma to sustain its temperature.

  I suspect that fusion engineering will never deliver a single watt
of
electricity more than what it costs to make it. I suspect that we are
stuck with fission power as the *only greater than breakeven nuclear
power source*. Unless matter to antimatter can be discovered in the
future. And whether matter to antimatter can be harnessed.
You are confusing physics/engineering and economic concerns. Tokamaks
are
inherently low beta, low Q devices. This means that they must be very
large
to generate energy. I don't wnat to get into circulating power
fractions.
The construction cost would be huge. In addition, the use of DT fuel
will
end up activating the hardware causing a real nuclear waste problem.
This
overall drives the cost up. If we were willing to pay the price and
damn
the environment we could have fusion today.
  I am not confusing economics with this issue. I am searching to see
whether fusion is theoretically possible to harness. And all
indications so far point to it being impossible.
  The logical course of action here is to see if a nuclear power plant
of minifusion bombs will deliver greater than a fission reactor power
alone. If a fusion/fission reactor always delivers less than a pure
fission reactor, then this implies that fusion power plants are all
less than breakeven.
  If Sonobubbles have fusion which is it linked to, that of
tokamak
design or muon type of fusion?
More like ICF
  Thanks Rick. It is not necessary for Mother Nature to have all types
of fusion categorized as either a Sun or tokamak or ICF. Each fusion
could be different. It matters not to 2 hydrogen nuclei how they are
brought together into union. But at that level one ought be able to
envision and compute the parameters of successful fusion. In that way,
one can get a theoretical picture of what all fusion reactions must
have in common. There is a microscopic science that all fusion
reactions must possess and yet the macroscopic science can have a
plethora of ways of achieving that microscopic state. Muon fusion is
different from tokamak, different from ICF, different from fusion bomb
detonations. But there is a microscopic state in which you have
parameters that determine fusion and where all these differences
disappear. Unless there is probability involved. And I say there is
probability involved.
  Rick, has anyone seriously tried to engineer a series of the
smallest
fusion bombs to make electricity? Perhaps a pressure chamber will
make
the bombs even smaller.
Yes but not for electricity.
Dr. Rick B. Spielman
Sandia National Laboratories
  It appears to me that the quest for fusion power has been a shoddy
planned quest. Having controlled fission and making fission bombs and
then fusion bombs, only the fusion bombs are a mix of fission+fusion.

  That the quest neglected to consider and ponder the possibility that
a fusion power plant is or is not possible.

  That the quest for reasons unknown to me, but I suspect for the good
reason of security from terrorists or military evils has not done the
necessary next step in the search for fusion power. That of
researching
the viability of a mix of fission and fusion.

  Anyone, even a ten year old kid can come to commonsense reason that
when you climb a high steps that it is rather foolish to be skipping
intermediate steps.

  Before spending 40 billion dollars for the past 40-50 years on pure
fusion power. It stands to reason that since we already have a fusion
bomb in existence that we should investigate fully whether that fusion
bomb can deliver 1 watt of electricity from greater than breakeven
energy? I mean you do not have to be a wise Ben Franklin to know that
if you assume that a minifusion bomb power plant is workable and never
take the time to build one to make sure of the theory, that you may
get
into trouble.

  Perhaps now by 1997 we can research this minifusion power plant
without the fear of security? Perhaps not?

  But it seems to me, by logical commonsense that if a mixture of
fission+fusion cannot achieve breakeven that the pure 100% fusion as
what the tokamaks and ICF are researching will also fail. If a mixture
of fission-fusion fails, I see no hope in a pure fusion succeeding.

  Did Dr. Teller detail his minifusion bomb power plant and where in
the literature can I find it?

  The world has already spent nigh 40 billion dollars and nigh 40-50
years on pure fusion, neglecting the intermediate logical step of
researching a minifusion bomb reactor. Considering that , it would be
irrational, and goofy to go ahead with ITER , tokamaks and ICF. Put
ITER, tokamaks, and ICF on indefinite postponement until a minifusion
bomb reactor is thoroughly checked-out. I believe once this is done a
surprizing result will be found. That fusion power breakeven is
impossible, both theoretically and in practice.

  So, do the logical commonsense thing next, build a minifusion bomb
reactor and see if it gives breakeven. I am not a betting man, but my
bet would be no.
--- end quoting old 1997 post ---
The Fusion Barrier Principle was discovered by AP circa 1997 while TFTR and JET were trying to make hot fusion (like the fusion in the Sun) work by big tokamak machines heating up isotopes of hydrogen to fuse together. The nearest to breakeven was JET and was muon cold fusion experiments by Nagamine and both reached almost 2/3 breakeven. Since 1997, it is planned for a huge tokamak called ITER which is yet to be constructed. But hopefully they will read the FBP and realize they are throwing away a lot of time and money which could be better employed in Geothermal Energy by tapping into volcanoes and other geothermals.

The Fusion Barrier Principle says that the Faraday law is 1/3 less in energy content than the Ampere law. So if you want to commercialize fusion energy, you will never succeed for to control any machine that harnesses fusion, you spend more than 1/3 more in energy to control the machine than any energy output.

My first proof of the FBP in late 1990s was simple, ultra, ultra simple for it was to simply show that the Ampere Law was a cylinder in energy content while the Faraday law was a sphere in energy content and a volume comparison is that a sphere has only 2/3 the volume of a cylinder. The cylinder has 1/3 more of a volume than does the sphere. And that in fusion production, you always need the Faraday law to produce the energy, and then you need the Ampere law to contain that which you produced. Obviously you cannot reach break-even for you throw away 1/3 energy.

It is still a very viable proof today, for we can sense that in the Ampere law you start with a electric current as given. Whereas the Faraday law, you start with a bar magnet and wire coil and have to do work to produce electric current, so you can easily see that Ampere has a larger energy content than does Faraday.

In 1997, I was experimentally proving FBP, and by doing so, I realized the EM theory can be reduced to a far more simple form, that the laws, the 4 dynamic laws can be reduced to geometrical laws.

The essence of EM theory is "going around in a circle".

The law of magnetism-- must have two poles-- a dipole in essence creates a circle. The law of electricity-- can be monopole-- creates linear momentum and not necessarily have to go around in a circle.

Faraday's law becomes a magnet and loops of wire creates a sphere.

Ampere's law becomes a loop of wire for current to pass, creates a cylinder.

FBP says that EM theory governs fusion energy and that one of the laws-- Faraday law creates energy while the other law -- Ampere law controls the machine in order to create the energy. So the amount of energy coming out of the machine is given by Faraday law and the amount of energy put into the machine to keep it together and working properly is Ampere Law. Faraday Law gives only 2/3 energy at maximum, while Ampere law requires 1 in energy to run. So no machine is ever going to go beyond a output of more than 2/3 and every machine of fusion is going to lose or waste 1/3 energy to produce 2/3 energy. FBP means fusion will never reach break-even because the energy to control the machine exceeds the output by at least 1/3.

Proof of the FBP

First think of a sphere enclosed or nested inside a cylinder and the volume of the sphere is 2/3 that of the cylinder. The dynamic laws are Faraday/Lenz law and the Ampere/Maxwell law. The energy content of the Faraday/Lenz law is no more than 2/3 the energy content of the Ampere/Maxwell law. In other words, Ampere/Maxwell law has 1/3 more energy content than the Faraday/Lenz law. The Coulomb force comes out of the Faraday/Lenz law which is the force that is overcome in fusion. Yet the forces needed to control a fusion machine are the Ampere/Maxwell law. So to control fusion, takes a machine that costs 1/3 more in energy than that which is produced by fusion. So commercial fusion can only ever be 2/3 breakeven.

In the latest SCIENCE magazine of 24 June2016, on page 1498, titled "Fusion laser may never ignite" is a rare example of where scientists and magazine editors use logic in their reasoning and actions. What this article is about, is to have physicists first think about if fusion can break-even, if ever, rather than a mindless chase of ever larger and costly machines. So these scientists are just now starting to look if fusion has a barrier principle-- of which I discovered in the late 1990s.

What I discovered as the Fusion Barrier Principle is that the Faraday/Lenz law is deficient by1/3 less energy than the Ampere/Maxwell law. The one law produces the fusion events while the other controls the machine. So, commercial fusion will never exceed 2/3 break even.

Now I hope these scientists, when they come to realize the truth of FBP, that they have the honesty and decency to give AP credit for work done long time ago. I do not do science for others to steal my work. Many scientists have the habit of stealing without giving proper credit.

Now in 2016, I found another proof of FBP where I find the numbers 2/3 and 1/3 in the Maxwell theory. It is called Eddy Currents Experiment, where you have a copper tube and you drop a magnet slug down the tube and it is slow to fall down because of Lenz law in Faraday law. When we drop a plain steel slug, not magnetized we have normal speed of gravity. When we drop the magnet slug it takes 3 times as long to fall. Here again, one of these two laws Faraday or Ampere is 1/3 larger in energy content and it is this larger energy law that controls the fusion machine.

In my Experiments, called eddy currents of a falling magnet in a copper tube versus a plastic tube, the copper has a Lenz law resistance of 1/3. I have to make the copper tube be 3 times longer to match the plastic tube where the LED comes on. This is important for the Fusion Barrier Principle, in that all machines built to control fusion, allow breakeven to only reach 2/3 breakeven.

Now when people read about the Fusion Barrier Principle, the scientists especially, are too dumb to realize and understand this principle. Like I said so many times before, that for a scientist to have a gram of logic, is a rare commodity. For they immediately think that because the Sun is a fusion machine and that humanity built fusion bombs, that it is a simple matter of building a fusion tokamak, given some smart engineering. Without a logical mind, you see, they never understand that a fusion bomb is 0% trying to control fusion, but the unleashing of just Faraday's law, no Ampere's law in controlling Faraday. Without a logical mind, dolts never understand what a principle of FBP means.

Now comes year 2017 and where I caused a massive upheaval of all sciences, for the Real Electron is not that small particle of .5 MeV but is the muon that is the real electron at 105 MeV and the Real Proton is 840 MeV. What that small .5 MeV particle is, is a magnetic monopole and is the cause of electricity, the electric current. It is the flow of monopoles that is electricity, and so, a whole new review of Fusion energy is in tow.

No longer can you write or speak of the electron without saying electron = muon.

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

                ::\ ::|:: /::
                 ::\::|::/::
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - -
                 ::/::|::\::
                ::/ ::|:: \::

One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
 
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, the reason I do so much commentary, is that I have a huge problem in writing a textbook. The problem is that I discover new science along the way, and that upsets much of the textbook already written. I could just start all over, but then, I probably can never finish any one textbook. In this text of 8th edition, I discovered the Real Electron = muon and the little particle of .5MeV was really a magnetic monopole and not an electron. This of course, changes everything I had written before. So, my solution was, add a commentary after a page discussing the new findings, new discovery. It works well, although it may seem jumbled up and not in order, but it serves the purpose of relating the new discoveries. I suspect I will use this technique from now on.

I am near the end of this 8th edition and will stop before January 1, 2018. I intend to spend the entire 2018 writing the TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS textbook.

But before I go, let me talk a bit about the difference between knowledge, education and that of wisdom. We can be knowledgeable, be educated and still, be, very dumb person. This is the difference between knowledge and wisdom. I loved the philosophy of Pragmatism when I was a off to college Freshman in 1968. I read New World of Philosophy by Kaplan, and had begun to realize that Pragmatism was a philosophy much like the enterprise of science and how science works. Although later, I would realize science is better than philosophy, and then by 1990, know full well, that physics rules all knowledge all wisdom.

But, Pragmatism sort of addresses the sciences without a heavy hand in mathematics. And pragmatism would say of Knowledge, that "knowledge is in the "doing"". We are knowledgeable of something because we have "done it" or is "doing it". But what would Pragmatism say about "wisdom"? Would it say that we are easy feeling and comfortable about doing some aspect of knowledge? Would it say that wisdom is different than knowledge in that knowledge is a narrow view of a subject, whereas wisdom is putting all of the subject together in one full blown view. After reading Kaplan, I read Four Pragmatists by Scheffler, on Pierce, Dewey, Mead, James, after graduating college in 1972. And not too surprising, Pierce anticipates a Atom Totality Universe-- in his "crystallization of the universe", only thing missing-- the universe is already a crystal-- a 231Pu Atom Totality.

But, what would the Pragmatists say was the difference between Knowledge, Education and now Wisdom? Can we be dumb and stupid in wisdom, yet good in knowledge and education?

Of course we can, for we see people all over the world who are highly educated, have lots of knowledge yet be a stupid idiot of wisdom.

I am speaking now of Physics from when JJ Thomson discovered what he thought was the electron of atoms in 1897, where he discovered a particle of .5MeV rest mass and where by 1919 Rutherford would discover the proton with rest mass 938 MeV, and the muon discovered in 1936 by Anderson and Neddermeyer.

So, we have all these physicists, all of them well educated, very bright, very knowledgeable. All the physicists from 1897 to 2017, all bright, all knowledgeable, all well educated.

And all of them able to read Halliday & Resnick textbooks on Physics and able to do problems and homework.

But, was there one, just one single person with any sort of wisdom from 1897 to 2017? That was 120 years elapsed time.

I mean, was there a single person with really, a tiny tiny bit of wisdom? Who could have gone through mechanics of angular momentum, of momentum, of inelastic and elastic collisions, of bonding in chemistry. Who could have read Halliday & Resnick Physics text from page 1 to 1200 with Appendix. And put it all together, put all that knowledge together about mechanics and force and bonding, and realize, that Thomson's .5MeV particle, could not, could never be the particle that gives Chemistry.

To put the story more clear to those who never studied science or physics. Suppose you are taught in school that a car works by a engine and the way the engine works is that you have a conveyor belt where squirrels are running on the conveyor belt that makes the wheels turn around. Would you not laugh and say-- you are crazy. But, even more, the instructor tells you that squirrels are too big to cause the car to move, and that the conveyor belt is propelled by "inch-worms" as the relative size of a proton to a .5MeV is "inch-worm" size.

What is the problem here? Is it that the human mind, once it is taught something, which is false in reality, that such a mind simply cannot be reasoned with, and must stay put in that "imbecile stupidity stance" for the rest of that life of that mind?

So the question I am raising, is, how in the world can anyone master any physics textbook with all its mechanics and all of chemistry bonding and never raise the question-- If Chemistry bonding is all about electrons and electrons are .5MeV while protons and neutrons are 940 MeV-- is that not crazy to think a puny tiny .5MeV is going to compete with 940 MeV? Is it not crazy to think your car is a conveyor belt run by "inchworms".

So, that in Chemistry, and Quantum Mechanics, a vital rule is the octet rule, the 8 to 1. And that once the muon was discovered in 1936. Why did no chemist ever say, "stop a moment, you want me to believe chemistry is the science of this .5MeV competing with 940 MeV? When easily, one can say-- alright, I gained some wisdom, I found some wisdom, that the science of Chemistry is 105 MeV competing with 840 MeV.

You see, Pragmatism never defined what is wisdom. I can define wisdom, now, very well defined. Knowledge and education are mostly "doing" and so is wisdom is from "doing". But, what knowledge and education lack is logic, is reasoning. You can have all the doing and knowledge and education you want. But if your mind is hollow in logic, you are no better than the last fool that did that science.

If your mind is hollow of logic, you can read all the textbooks and do all the experiments of both chemistry and physics, and never realize, never be able to put angular momentum of a proton versus electron together and realize the electron cannot be that puny .5MeV but is rather the 105 MeV particle.

As I wrote so many times before in math and physics. Our education system in science has a huge gaping hole flaw in it. It does not teach formal Logic. Across the world, we graduate science students, all of them, never taking formal logic in school. We simply expect the student to think straight and think clearly. But, we never teach them to think straight and clear.

Happy Plutonium days, 2017.
ATOM!
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-18 18:47:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 12:43:27 -0800 (PST)

Subject: page48, 6-4 advances in the theory of superconductivity; AP/Maxwell
theory/ textbook, 8th ed.
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 20:43:28 +0000

page48, 6-4 advances in the theory of superconductivity; AP/Maxwell theory/ textbook, 8th ed.

page48, 6-4 advances in the theory of superconductivity; AP/Maxwell theory/ textbook, 8th ed.

Bismuth superconducts at 5/10000 K supporting evidence that Superconductivity is Capacitor conductivity

Last December I wrote the below, not knowing that only a few days away in the 24December2016 issue of SCIENCE NEWS would be a report on bismuth superconducting, when Bismuth is not supposed to superconduct under the old clownish Bardeen Cooper Schrieffer theory of superconductivity-- electrons pairing up.

But under the Capacitor with Standing Electric Current theory, all elements superconduct, by simply recognizing that superconductivity is a material made into a capacitor. Call it electricity by Capacitor flow.

And, under the revelation that the real-electron is the muon, and that the .5MeV particle is the magnepole, the monopole of magnetism, the idea of a capacitor current is all the more made clear.


Advances in the theory of superconductivity; AP/Maxwell theory

I cannot tell you how many times in the past, from 1995 onwards, that I had a theory of how superconductivity actually works. Some memorable speculations was that it was neutrinos as carriers of electricity instead of photons, because neutrinos go through matter with ease and no interference, thus, no resistance. Then I thought the Malus law was superconductivity.

But recently, I realized capacitors were superconductors. I realized there are two types of electricity current. The running current as in our homes and then the Standing Current such as a capacitor stores a standing current, not a running current. And that the reason superconductors other than ordinary capacitors needed cold temperatures, is because coldness creates a dielectric sandwiched between sheets of conductors. So the world already has room-temperature-and-above, superconductors--they are capacitors.

I hope this is the final theory on how superconductivity works.

Now we are beginning to see experimental proof of the above assertions.

Bismuth is never supposed to be superconducting due to the Bardeen silly theory and the authors of SCIENCE NEWS, 24DEC2016, page 14 "At low temps, bismuth superconducts, despite few free electrons, element loses electrical resistance," by Emily Conover

"Consequently, the prevailing theory of superconductivity doesn't apply. New ideas-- either a different theory or a tweak to the standard one-- are needed to explain busmuth's superconductivity, says , , Marvin Cohen, UC Berkeley. It might lead us to a better theory of superconductivity with more details."

Well, I am happy to inform the new theory is already here-- Capacitors are superconductors in that they hold a Standing Electric Current with no resistance. It explains why bismuth can superconduct.

Obviously capacitors exist at room temperatures and higher, so there is no need to look for high temperature superconductors-- they already exist.

DC current only Re: experiments to tell if capacitor electricity vice wire electricity

Truly wonderous that no physicist dared to assimilate capacitor with DC to come up with current. Probably because current physics has so much fakery-- Higgs, gravity waves, black holes, Doppler light shift, Bardeen superconductivity--so much phony physics-- so much distraction no-one has time for real physics.  
why Old Physics was so feeble Re: DC current only Re: experiments to tell if capacitor electricity >vice wire electricity
So, in Old Physics they had Conductors like copper wire and they had capacitors that released a >electric current. So did not a single one of them ever have the idea that a wire and capacitor can >be the same conductor?
Of course, it means that you have to have two types of current-- Running current in wire and >Standing current in capacitor.
But under the Capacitor with Standing Electric Current theory, all elements superconduct, by simply recognizing that superconductivity is a material made into a capacitor.

Today I was reading the same report from SCIENCE, 6 January, 2017, page 52 titled Evidence for bulk superconductivity in pure bismuth single crystals at ambient pressure.

The authors say that the Bardeen Cooper Schrieffer model fails because bismuth is not supposed to superconduct in that model.

So, what my theory is, is that superconductivity is Capacitor creation of a material, and that superconductivity is the ordering of the molecular structure into a parallel plate capacitor, with a dielectric sandwiched in between the plates. This would suggest all materials would be superconductivity provided they formed into a capacitor.

Suggests that superconductivity is DC only, never AC
Suggests doping helps because it keeps the plates apart as a dielectric substance.
Suggests that silver, gold extremely good regular conductors have the hardest time of being a superconductor, since it is extremely difficult to turn gold and silver into parallel plates with dielectric.
Sr2RuO4 Re: Superconductivity is Capacitor conductivity + Standing Electric Current
The news keeps coming in and coming in, that the Bardeen Cooper Schrieffer model is phony >baloney, their pairing of electrons fails to explain bismuth superconductivity and now Sr2RuO4.
In SCIENCE, 13 January 2017 page 148 describes Superconductivity in Sr2RuO4 under a >uniaxial pressure by A. Steppke et al.
By applying pressure, the superconduction is enhanced by a factor of 2.3 higher.
So, the AP theory of superconductivity is that superconduction is merely Capacitor Conduction, where a material is transformed into being a capacitor. Apparently Sr2RuO4 is easily turned into a capacitor, and when we apply pressure upon a capacitor-- two sheets of aluminum with dielectric in between and applying pressure via a phone book pressing on the sheets delivers greater capacitance, from 3 microfarads to 6 microfarads in one experiment of mine.
Pressure in the Bardeen model is nonsensical.
Sr2RuO4 Re: Superconductivity is Capacitor conductivity + Standing Electric Current
So here we link the simple observation of pressure on a capacitor increases capacitance with >pressure on superconductor increases conductivity.
Re: Sr2RuO4 Re: Superconductivity is Capacitor conductivity + Standing Electric Current
Nice to see truth and reality alarms written in science news journals where they keep saying Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer superconductivity model is utterly phony and cannot explain these results.

Nice to see scientists admit the truth.

But it would also be nice to see them say-- The Capacitor model explains superconductivity far better than anything by Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer.
 
Why superconductivity is never AC, because it is Capacitor flow, the coldness turns the material >into a capacitor.
Has anyone ever experimented with taking a Capacitor, cooling it, and see if the electricity is >improved?
 Alright, some exciting more news to the story of superconductivity. That I discovered the Real Electron is the muon at 105 MeV and the particle we had always thought was the electron of .5 MeV was not an electron but was a photon with a charge energy of .5MeV, called a magnepole, or monopole. Each magnet has two poles, and each pole is a charged monopole of .5MeV.

This changes our ideas of capacitors, and superconductivity to a large degree. And so, a review is in order, for the Standing Current I spoke of, would be this .5 MeV Monopoles being a standing current.

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

                ::\ ::|:: /::
                 ::\::|::/::
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - -
                 ::/::|::\::
                ::/ ::|:: \::

One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
 
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--
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 17:37:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: why most atoms are metals
PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE/8th ed.
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 01:37:45 +0000
Now let me make some more remarks about the table of periodic elements when the real electron = muon.
The electrons of atoms tell you what element it is just as the number of protons. Because, electrons = muons has electrons staying pretty much inside that atom as its protons. In other words, stability stability stability. And really that is how the world should be. Whereas a world where the .5 MeV was the electron spells constant large changes inside all atoms. But, as we see this .5 MeV as a interloper particle like food eaten by an animal, and not changing the body but augmenting, squares away with the reality we see.
And as we view the Table overall one fact sticks out prominently. The fact that nearly all chemical elements are metals. And this fact alone should tell us the underlying theory of not only atoms but subatomic particles. The fact that most atoms are metal means the underlying laws of physics are EM laws-- Maxwell-AP equations in that metals produce magnetism, produce electricity. And so the protons and neutrons have to be the thrusting bar magnet while the electrons=muons have to be the closed loop of wire as composing a Faraday law. But, the proton in turn is composed of 8 muons arranged in such a way as to be another Faraday law inside the proton on a level further down from the atom level.
So in essence the subatomic particles and laws of EM theory are one and the same. And the reason most atoms are metals is because electricity and magnetism is metal behavior.
AP
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 18:15:38 -0800 (PST)
Subject: making sense of pions, kaons, Lambda/
PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE/8th ed.
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 02:15:38 +0000
Now it also caught my attention that not only is the number 105 MeV crucial quantization in the rest mass of other particles in that proton = 8muons= 840 MeV. The neutron = 9x105.
But the dimensionless number 137 in inverse fine structure constant. For notice if we divide 105 by 3 we get 35. And if we add 35 to 105 we get almost 137. And if we subtract 105 from 137 we get almost 35.
And now look at the Mesons of the two pions with 135 and 140, and tell me is that not 137.
Then the two Kaons of 494 and 498 (source Halliday 4th).
When EM theory rules all this physics, means the Mesons are simply the additive of quantized energy.
So the Kaon is 140 +140 +140 +35 +35
Now Old Physics worried about worthless little things about mesons, even baryons, such as spin and charge. When you have a stupid theory like the Standard Model you have to worry about sideshow distractions because a fake theory cannot focus on the important thing-- rest mass.
A true theory of elementary particles focuses on the prime essential parameter-- rest-mass. Everything else is pitiful distraction.
For example the Lambda is 1116MeV. Now that can be either
8x140 is 1120 missing by 4, or if we did 137 we have 1096 missing by 20.
Or we have 10x105 = 1050 then add 35 + 35 sums to 1120
You see the Quark, String, Standard Model garbage and trash are totally divorced of electricity and magnetism, and being such meant they were never going to do anything correctly, other than make a crowd of men rich and famous for fakery in physics.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-18 23:28:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 14:16:35 -0800 (PST)

Subject: page49, 6-5, Finally explaining what the Cosmic redshift in light
waves was all about/ Atom Totality textbook, 8th ed.
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 22:16:35 +0000


page49, 6-5, Finally explaining what the Cosmic redshift in light waves was all about/ Atom Totality textbook, 8th ed.

page49, 6-5, Finally explaining what the Cosmic redshift in light waves was all about/ Atom Totality textbook, 8th ed.

6-5, Finally explaining what the Cosmic redshift in light waves was all about

And now finally i can explain, one of my most frustrating observations, the cosmic redshift, and explain it without the Doppler Effect. And explain why a local group of stars can have both a blue-shift stars along with redshift stars.

This of course destroys the stupid Big Bang theory so intimately tied to a Doppler shift.  The shift of light waves coming from stars and galaxies is in no way a determination of distance. The shift in light waves only tells us of the extreme magnetism and charge of the source.

In an atom totality the most likely cosmic arrangement of stars and galaxies is a ordered pattern

Not quite as orderly as this

.  .  .  .  .  .
.  .  .  .  .  .
.  .  .  .  .  .  of galaxies but more order than what a Big Bang implies
 

It was a long time coming. A long time, in finally explaining properly what the Doppler Redshift was and was not. Of course in all your astronomy and physics textbooks, they all got it wrong. They, silly, thought that you can redshift light waves, yet their own Special Relativity forbids it. But then, to stop commercial money making on fake ideas of physics; and to stop projects payed for by taxpayer dollars using Doppler redshift is not going to happen. Science can be as corrupt as politics, and so much of science from 1950 through 2017 was follow the money flow, not follow sound physics.

Special Relativity is true because it is in the Maxwell Equations, and it forbids light waves to be redshifted or blue shifted, no matter what the speed of the source of origination. A classic example of hypocrites of physics-- they teach Special Relativity, fine and dandy, but they turn right around and want you to violate Special Relativity by thinking that a light wave can be Doppler shifted due to the speed of its source. Hypocrites, pure outright hypocrites.

Even Hubble rejected his Doppler redshifted in his old age; rejecting it.

Sure, sure and away, sound waves experience a Doppler shift, but there is no Doppler in light waves.

So, through the years, I knew all of that, I knew Doppler Effect for light waves was phony baloney. And I sought to find what it truly was. That was the perplexing part of it-- what was the redshift all about? I ended up by saying the blueshift was not Doppler but rather was Cherenkov radiation. I ended up by saying the redshift was not Doppler but was the refraction of light in a highly curved bent part of space it had traveled through, for the 231Pu Atom Totality is very much bent space in its lobes of the 5f6 atom.

But, it never seemed satisfying, never, because of this one bit of evidence, this fact that is undeniable. In some stars nearby one another, one star can be redshifted while its neighbor is blueshift. That immediately destroys the Doppler Effect, but it leaves open the Cherenkov versus Refraction. Still, not very clean of an explanation, for it is more of a fudge factor explanation.

So, it did not feel satisfying of an answer, but at least it was better than the kooky Doppler effect, when no Doppler is allowed.

Then, this year, in 2017, I developed the idea that the charge of physics was curved or circle motion of a particle. That the .5 MeV particle we thought was a little electron turns out to be a photon with a charge energy of .5 MeV and was the monopole of magnetic field. Imagine that, photons can carry .5 MeV energy not of rest mass, but of charge energy and be a Magnetic Monopole. The monopole that Dirac struggled to find in his life. The particle we thought was a little electron of .5 MeV turns out to be a photon with .5MeV charge energy. And because this photon, which I call the Magnepole since it is one of the poles of a magnet, that this Magnepole= photon has a charge, that the charge causes the photon to be shifted off course from traveling normally in a straight-line path, but rather to be in a curved path. All magnets bend iron filings into a dipole lines of force. Consider one line of force of a magnet as a photon curved because that photon is charged.

In this manner, one can easily picture that photons emitted from stars or galaxies would have their spectral lines shifted either to the blue or red, mostly red and all due to the Amount of Magnetism of that star.

And that shifting is not due to distance away, but due to how much charge is involved where the photon is created.

You see, the thing so damaging, so very very damaging to the physicists who believe light waves can be Dopplerized, is not only that they violate Special Relativity, but they violate the known observed facts of local stars, in the same approximate distance, yet one is blueshifted while the nearby one is redshifted. So that professors at Harvard, at CalTech, blithely report silly Doppler shifts one blue one red in a local group, yet they are virtually the same distance away.

So when you realize that the .5 MeV particle that had -1 charge, is not the electron, for the electron is really the muon with 105 MeV rest mass in order for Chemistry to have chemical bonding. And that photons are light waves and some are charged light waves= monopoles, then the redshift phenomenon becomes clear.

So when we observe light rays from distant stars of their spectral lines, and see a redshift, what we are seeing is the fact that the light is bent due to magnetism, magnetism at birth of that spectral line and magnetism all along the path of that spectral line, by carrying a .5MeV energy of -1 or +1 charge.

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

                ::\ ::|:: /::
                 ::\::|::/::
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - -
                 ::/::|::\::
                ::/ ::|:: \::

One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
 
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


the Equilibration factor in permittivity and permeability//nexus of spin and charge that .5MeV is charge energy of electron//11th proof that electron= muon

Time is rapidly coming to a close here in 2017. These days are rather cold with below zero temperatures and I am not feeling sprightly these days. So I need to exit fast.

Maybe I can finesse the Equilibration even more so in 2019 when I do the next edition. One thing is for sure, this topic of permittivity and permeability have much more to be discovered and known about than at present time.

What I am going to exit with, is the thought that I drop the prefix numbers of 1.26 and 8.85 in permeability and permittivity, saying that they are irrelevant and only fog-up the concept, the concept of connecting charge with spin.

Now I dismiss the 1.26 and 8.85 because as a reason-- relative permittivity and relative permeability with that of absolute permittivity and absolute permeability. Just as I dismissed various atom's sizes of their nuclear diameter versus their electron shell diameter. If I did a hydrogen atom radii, versus a oxygen atom radii, the prefix numbers would vary immensely, but what does not vary is the fact that one is 10^-12 and other is 10^-6.

What I am left with is the pure numbers 1*10^-6 H/m for permeability and 1*10^-12 F/m for permittivity.

Is there justification elsewhere in physics for this dropping off the prefix numbers 1.26 and 8.85?

Well yes of course, in the fact that the radius or diameter of the electron cloud of an atom versus the nuclear region is a ratio of 10^-6 versus 10^-12 ratio. The prefix numbers vary to what atoms are called into measurement, but the power of 10 is not variable.

So this begs the question whether permittivity at 10^-12 and permeability at 10^-6 are directly related in proportion to the diameter or radius of a nucleus of atom versus the outer region of electron space.

So, now, as a Equilibration of dropping the prefix numbers is just as justifiable as dropping the prefix numbers of diameter or radius of atom nucleus versus electron shell, because the prefix numbers are going to vary widely and cannot be of much relevance to noting that the nucleus is 10^-12 while electron shell is 10^-6.

So, now, I have fully the conclusions I seek-- the .5MeV particle that is the magnetic monopole is the 1/2 spin in a proton or electron=muon or, in this case a monopole. And a neutron with 0 charge is really composed of a 1/2 spin of proton and 1/2 spin of electron and thus 1 MeV spin and charge energy. You see, we unify spin with charge.

Now I am curious as to how Old Physics arrived at a spin of 1/2 for proton, electron? Curious whether it was a choice of convenience of just saying its spin is 1/2, for it is a remarkable coincidence that a spurious random choice coincides with the real value given a factor of 10^6. Keep in mind Old Physics found .51 MeV, which in New Physics, the .50 MeV are one and the same.

And thus, when Dirac found his calculation that the monopole would have a 137/2 charge, he was wrong in thinking it was a 68.5 charge energy of a proton, no, for 137 was a charge energy of 1 neutron itself. And hence 137/2 was the 1/2 charge of a proton, a charge energy of .5 Mev, and the electron =muon = .5MeV charge energy, so that proton +muon = 1 MeV charge energy.

The proton has spin 1/2 and charge energy .5MeV
The electron = muon has spin 1/2 and charge energy .5MeV
The neutron has spin 0 or 1, and charge energy of 1 MeV

The magnetic monopole has spin 1/2 and charge energy of .5 MeV
The magnetic dipole has spin 0 or 1, and charge energy of 1 MeV
The photon has spin 1 or 0, and charge energy of 1MeV

Now I think that is correct, and my critics will immediately object to that, for they are not using commonsense, but rather using a fake theory based on just algebra tiddly winks, some game of algebra, the same as where they get their crazy quark algebra game.

Now the above unification of spin with charge energy is the 6th proof that Real Electron=muon.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-19 01:15:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 17:35:06 -0800 (PST)

Subject: page50, 7-1, First life started as a capacitor, perhaps stars &
planets also start the same way/ Atom Totality textbook, 8th ed.
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 01:35:07 +0000

page50, 7-1, First life started as a capacitor, perhaps stars & planets also start the same way/ Atom Totality textbook, 8th ed.


page50, 7-1, First life started as a capacitor, perhaps stars & planets also start the same way/ Atom Totality textbook, 8th ed.

7-1, First life started as a capacitor, perhaps stars and planets also start in the same way

Alright, I cannot think of any math formula that is important in biology, except for Cell Theory, and the formula there, of course, is A= BCD in which the BCD is volume of the cell. So, one can think of the cell is to biology what the atom is to physics. And, the prime formula of physics is A = BCD from which we see the New Ohm's law comes from that, as V= iBL. It is nice to know that Biology also starts with the basic formula A = BCD and is volume and the surface of the cell is so, so, very important. So when we want to discover what the world's first life was, and where it comes from. It comes from volume with the surface being extremely important. And this describes in physics the Capacitor. The capacitor as a prime, fundamental unit, which would become the cell in Biology. But not only the cell, for you can think of Capacitor = Cell, but not only did the cell come from capacitors, but First Life comes from capacitors.

First Life theory, nice to start it out with a Experiment. If First Life was a capacitor, well, may as well see if carbon is a capacitor.

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 19:41:51 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Reporting data on Capacitor strength for aluminum and carbon
 graphite// 29mfarads, 19mfarads, 0 mfarads
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 02:41:51 +0000
Reporting data on Capacitor strength for aluminum and carbon graphite// 29mfarads, 19mfarads, 0 mfarads
Alright, I have my lab set up to handle microfarad readings for capacitors. I especially want farads for carbon, since First Life was a Capacitor of carbon. 

So I have carbon graphite paper. 

I have a telephone book to press the sheets of graphite and aluminum. 

For dielectrics I use paper, or graphite. 

I found 0 mfarads for graphite with paper dielectric 

I found 29mfarads for aluminum with paper dielectric 

I found 19mfarads for aluminum and using graphite paper as dielectric 

Now, can I say that graphite paper has capacitance, even though it read 0 ? 

I have some carbon in pencil form, so will test that next. 

What I like to have-- is a mfarad reading for carbon. 

If I make a theory that First Life was Capacitor, pretty tough to have a theory as such if carbon cannot be a capacitor.
So, I got 0 mfarad for graph paper, 29mfarad for aluminum, and 19 mfarad for aluminum with dielectric as graph >paper. 
 
I then pulled out two graphite rods 30cm long by .75cm diameter with a paper dielectric between the two rods. I registered 2mfarads 
Alright, I got assistance to tightly squeeze the carbon graphite rods together and found a 8mfarads capacitance. 
Now let me compare that 8mfarads of carbon rods with paper dielectric with 29mfarads for two sheets aluminum with paper dielectric. 
Now I do not know why graphite paper registers 0 capacitance. 
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 14:02:50 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: iron and carbon Re: _Reporting data on Capacitor strength for
 aluminum and carbon, 29mfarads and 8 mfarads
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 21:02:50 +0000
iron and carbon Re: _Reporting data on Capacitor strength for aluminum and carbon, 29mfarads and 8 mfarads
Alright so I have capacitance for Carbon, which is great as First Life was a capacitor. This first life could be either animal or plant, but likely to be plant so as to later tap into photosynthesis. 
The carbon is important as a skin for the living creature. For the plant it would be the skin also as a body trunk or coating for algae. For animals we call it skin, for plants call it coating. 
Now, there must be metal involved and I think it is iron. 
If memory is correct, iron is essential for both plant and animal. 
Now the dielectric, the insulator of First Life, I am going to assume is water, whether fresh water or salt water. 
On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 4:54:44 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Holy smokes my potted plants peat-moss has 2.55 mfarads Re: 8th edition of Atom Totality soon to come
Since i have the multimeter out i looked to see if my plants in potted peat moss had capacitance. It has 2.55 microfarads.
Important for my First Life = capacitor theory
However peat moss comes from established life.
Now if i can get capacitance from nonlife dirt or nonlife soil we open up a huge vista of environment where life began. And it would imply first life began on land, not water.
On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 5:19:30 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Alright, I went out today to measure capacitance in mud around the the house. Got 0 readings.
I remeasured my peatmoss in plastic container, water saturated with tomato plant growing. I read approx 10 microfarads.
So I wonder if carbon-- geologically can form into something similar to peat moss. I do not mean actual peat moss itself for that is a product of already living life. I want a carbon before any life appeared on Earth. I want a carbon with capacitance to be the First Life on Earth.
So, in mineralogy, does carbon ever form into a texture-like that of peat moss in rocks?
Now I discovered in the year 2016 that First Life anywhere in the cosmos is either a battery or capacitor, which of the two is more fundamental remains to be seen, and proven by experiments. I have the hunch the capacitor is more fundamental for it is a Standing Current of monopoles, waiting to be released of its electricity from storage, for a capacitor is basically a storage of electricity. A battery is more complex but far more versatile and useful. I am confident the capacitor came first and evolved to build a battery in living organisms-- nerve cells for instance or appendage motion.

Just today I was hoping to get some materials of carbon to test their capacitance, and to test how likely they would be in a battery.

There is news in Scientific American:

First Life as Capacitor;; recent article in Scientific American, DEC2016 suggests a different mechanism for EATING

Of course, up until today, I was suggesting the mechanism for eating of First Life, as more important feature of life than replication, and the form of eating was magnetism, where foreign objects get stuck to the Living Capacitor and where it thus increases in size, especially when it attracts smaller capacitors to stick inside the larger one.

But the trouble so far with that mechanism, is that I cannot get my capacitors to show signs of magnetism in any appreciable amount of magnetism.

But perhaps I should look to see if iron can be formed into a capacitor rather than aluminum metal.

But tonight I was reading the recent Scientific American DEC2016 on page 34 talks about "Carbon-Breathing Batteries" subtitled "Electrochemical cells could suck carbon out of the atmosphere and turn it into electricity". Further along it states "The battery's anode is made of metallic aluminum, which is cheap, abundant, and easy to work with. The cathode consists of porous carbon, which the researchers inject with a mixture of gaseous oxygen and carbon dioxide. Aluminum, oxygen and carbon dioxide react inside the battery to yield electricity and aluminum oxalate." Sadat/Archer Cornell Univ.

So, if my mechanism of Magnetism as the EATING for First Life does not pan out, then I should immediately switch to the above mechanism that eating is a chemical reaction of a Capacitor-Battery.

Now, I wonder if iron works just as well as aluminum for the carbon sequester battery. Further, I wonder if phosphorus can be found in air molecules so that when the phosphorus gets into the battery, it is transformed into nucleotide molecules of AT and CG.

Now a Capacitor is not a battery and vice versa, so I have a huge challenge of many experiments ahead.

I need to know how First Life used carbon. Was it carbon in minerals, in rocks.

Or, perhaps it was carbon dioxide in gas near water. Funny, how First Life may have been bubbles, and the bubbles eating other bubbles and growing.

Now I do not know if I can equip my lab to do bubble experiments.

Was first-life CO2 bubble molecules?

On Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 10:00:23 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
- show quoted text -
Now just last week, in the lab, I built a capacitor of aluminum and paper as dielectric and read up to 7 farads, >depending on how much pressure applied (how close together). Reinforcing the idea of a Standing Current vice a >Running Current.
But now I need to explore carbon as the conductor, instead of aluminum or other metals.
Now it could be that iron that is the conductor and started First Life with water as dielectric. We know iron is in all plants and animals.
But I like to toy with the idea that carbon was the first life conductor with water its dielectric. And in this toying around, I can envision the carbon making itself into a battery or capacitor.
But I am having extreme difficulty of finding sources of carbon as sheets or films, or iron as sheets or films to compose a battery or capacitor.
Now in modern times we can look at rocks and minerals for carbon content. Where is carbon found naturally in rocks and minerals, as graphite or graphene? Is it in volcano spew that we get concentrations of carbon deposits?
But the best idea seems to be gas molecules of carbon, the CO2 or the CO and then the water molecule as dielectric.
So envision bubbles of CO2 as a capacitor, or battery with bubbles inside of bubbles. Perhaps First Lifes first meal was a bubble eating a bubble.
And perhaps, not a long shot, but that Jupiter's red spot is a bubble sea of life formed from CO2 to evolve into red algae.
So, this idea of bubbles of CO2 forming a capacitor. Is it far fetched? How long can a bubble survive? And so the bubble of CO2 is easily formed to where the carbon is a sphere layer sandwiched in between by water, or oxygen. And when a CO2 bubble grows, it merely eats a smaller bubble, and the storing of a electric standing current in the bubble, gives it mobility along with giving it a magnetic attraction force to eat smaller bubbles.
Reproduction is not far behind, for I think nearly all of us saw the toy of a loop stuck into soap water produces a bevy of bubbles, as we can say that one bubble formed many offspring bubbles.
But this quest into bubbles hinges only on the fact that I am having a hard time of finding carbon in sheets in Nature. Now most readers do not comprehend a Earth without life, and so they are thinking, lumber is sheets of carbon, forgetting that life was not here when First Life was forming. So I think sheets of carbon are not found in Nature, unless life already exists. So I want sheets of carbon just as clays come in sheets.
So is there any clay formations that have carbon sheets? I do not know. And if there is none, I will come back to this bubble idea.
This bubble idea is extremely fascinating as a First Life mechanism, because it would say that life is intrinsic as a simple chemical reaction that goes along these lines:

n*CO2 + m*H2O ==> arrangements of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen forming a sac forming a capacitor or battery.
It would be like saying, the formation of life is no more miraculous than is the formation of a rock or mix of molecules.
Now the reason I titled this page-- "stars & planets may start out that way also, first being a capacitor" is that often in the past I spoke of a "dot seed" in Dirac's new radioactivity, in what I called RSNM, radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization, where planets and stars are first borne from a seed dot, and more particles shoot from the Nucleus of the Atom Totality grow from that seed-dot. Maybe, like First Life was a Capacitor, that the first beginnings of any star and any planet and any astro body is a "seed-dot-capacitor". Now whether that seed dot has to be say carbon, or why not just hydrogen, is an open question.

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

                ::\ ::|:: /::
                 ::\::|::/::
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - -
                 ::/::|::\::
                ::/ ::|:: \::

One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
 
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::

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 18:15:38 -0800 (PST)
Subject: making sense of pions, kaons, Lambda/
PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE/8th ed.
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 02:15:38 +0000
Now it also caught my attention that not only is the number 105 MeV crucial quantization in the rest mass of other particles in that proton = 8muons= 840 MeV. The neutron = 9x105
But the dimensionless number 137 in inverse fine structure constant. For notice if we divide 105 by 3 we get 35. And if we add 35 to 105 we get almost 137. And if we subtract 105 from 137 we get almost 35.
And now look at the Mesons of the two pions with 135 and 140, and tell me is that not 137
Then the two Kaons of 494 and 498 (source Halliday 4th)
When EM theory rules all this physics, means the Mesons are simply the additive of quantized energy
So the Kaon is 140 +140 +140 +35 +35
Now Old Physics worried about worthless little things about mesons, even baryons, such as spin and charge. When you have a stupid theory like the Standard Model you have to worry about sideshow distractions because a fake theory cannot focus on the important thing-- rest mass.
A true theory of elementary particles focuses on the prime essential parameter-- rest-mass. Everything else is pitiful distraction.
For example the Lambda is 1116MeV. Now that can be either
8x140 is 1120 missing by 4, or if we did 137 we have 1096 missing by 20.
Or we have 10x105 = 1050 then add 35 + 35 sums to 1120
You see the Quark, String, Standard Model garbage and trash are totally divorced of electricity and magnetism, and being such meant they were never going to do anything correctly, other than make a crowd of men rich and famous for fakery in physics.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-19 05:02:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 21:12:50 -0800 (PST)

Subject: page51, 7-2, First Life started as a capacitor, perhaps also stars &
planets start that way/ Atom Totality textbook, 8th ed.
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 05:12:50 +0000

page51, 7-2, First life started as a capacitor, perhaps also stars & planets start that way/ Atom Totality textbook, 8th ed.

page51, 7-2, First Life started as a capacitor, perhaps also stars & planets start that way/ Atom Totality textbook, 8th ed.

7-2, First Life started as a capacitor, perhaps stars & planets as seed-dots are capacitors.

I believe the Dirac new radioactivities is true. It is the mechanism in which the Universe grows bigger. Never was there a Big Bang, but there is constantly a steady stream of neutrons and other particles shot from the Nucleus of the Atom Totality to all regions of Space to make astro bodies grow bigger. And it is likely that a capacitor was the seed-dot for which this shot matter is aimed for and which thus grows bigger. So we may have a link between how life and living grows and how the nonlife material universe grows, both tied to capacitors as first beginnings.

Now the theory of First Life as a capacitor or battery, was discovered by me while in hospital for a cancer operation in Spring of 2016. While in hospital, you think quite a bit about your life, your life realizing it is the final chapters. And before going into surgery for liposarcoma, the same cancer Feynman had, I had written so so very much about the Maxwell Equations and capacitors. Major discoveries in science are usually because you have concepts in play all around and frequently using those concepts, and in play so often, that it is hard to escape making a discovery that First Life was a capacitor/battery when you talk about Capacitors and think about capacitors for a full year leading up to the surgery and discovery. This is sort of important for schools, the schools you select. So if you go to a school where science is not pervasive, not discussed or done much, well, you are at a disadvantage. Sort of like being a swimmer, you have to be in the pool a lot.

Now in the title I hint of the idea that maybe planets start from a capacitor, say some atoms of hydrogen forming into molecules forming a capacitor. What I called Cosmic seeds in past editions of this textbook. So that the planet Earth or the Sun started out in Space billions and billions of years ago as a few atoms of hydrogen forming a capacitor and trapping inside itself magnepoles of .5MeV charge energy. Then these seeds grow from Dirac's radioactive neutron materialization, they grow larger in size and as they grow, they get more radioactive neutron spontaneous materialization RNSM. While the surrounding space gets little to no new growth in particles that come from the Atom Totality Nucleus. You see, there was no Big Bang, but rather growth from particles emitted from the Nucleus of the Atom Totality.

So as First Life comes from a capacitor, we can sort of see a parallel, that first stars and first planets were tiny capacitors that was then a channel, a pipeline, to the Nucleus of the Atom Totality and would grow into being a planet or star.

And, obviously this mechanism of how stars and planets grow, throws the silly and folly of the Nebular Dust Cloud of star and planet origins, throws that science-crap, out the window. And, good riddance.

But back to First Life, and let me give its history in this post, with its date time group.

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 14:17:42 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Theory of First Life in Universe, photon come to rest, Body as
 Capacitor, DNA as 2 joined photons
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 21:17:43 +0000
Theory of First Life in Universe, photon come to rest, Body as Capacitor, DNA as 2 joined photons
Alright, this post is historic as I can now begin to see how first life was assembled.
Not historic in the sense that I had Photon = DNA in the 1990s, but historic in the sense that I can see for myself, and others can also, see how a LIght Wave turns into living organism.
Now it is fortuitous of this day 24AUG2016 that I start writing on this theory, because of what is happening on Jupiter with Juno satellite and the Red Spot and the funny lines on Europa suggesting that those are Algae.
And just last night I learned of a creature that was Magnetic, called Magnetotactic Bacteria as some of the oldest creatures on Earth going back to 1.9 billion years ago.
But another fortunate coincidence is the BBC talking about a Clay theory of life by chemist Graham Cairns-Smith written by reporter Martha Henriques. Now, my theory is vastly different from Graham's, for instead of clay crystals, my theory places the photon in the center of it all. I admire Graham's desire, desire to logically simplify the progression from nonlife to life, for which the Miller experiment of electricity in test tube yields organic molecules, as too complex and hard to get from nonlife to life. Clay crystals is better than Miller's organic soup. But clay crystals are still, far far away from the leap of nonlife turning into life.
How can we make the transition of Nonlife to Life the easiest possible means in the world?
Well, we have to go to the most perfect Ordered entity in existence. The Atom is the most perfect ordered entity and inside the atom lies Perpetual Motion in the form of photons. Photons are perfect entities because they are forever in motion at that highest speed possible. And, photons are perfect geometry of Double Transverse Waves.

^^^^^
vvvvv  in xy plane and also in xz plane

__|__
   |       as a head-on view
Now the Double Helix of DNA does not look exactly like the head-on view of a photon but close >enough
And the 4 vector Magnetic fields of the photon are not exactly the A and the C and the G and the T of DNA, but close enough.
So, here is the perspective of the first creation of life on Earth, and it is also how life on Mars-- probably those magnetic bacteria and life on Jupiter and its moons first started.
SCENARIO:
1) a highly energetic photon, what we call gamma ray burst, came to rest on Earth. Some gamma rays pack as much energy as all the energy in a galaxy, so these gamma rays can be huge in energy. So much energy that one could come to rest as forming an entire multicellular creature, from photon to creature. But here, all we want is a photon to come to rest to build the most primitive life. So its internal parts of the photon, one becoming a what I call a "proton sheet" and the other parts becoming a "electron sheet" which in physics is called a Capacitor. The first life on Earth was a photon that became a Capacitor. Now it was not a circuit but a capacitor. And this capacitor is like the Magnetic Bacteria but it needs a means to grow from this one stopped photon into a Capacitor and now it needs to grow to be a Larger Capacitor. It needs to acquire more electrons on one of the parallel plates where electrons reside and more protons on the other parallel plate where protons reside (this would be great for the environment of Jupiter with its liquid hydrogen, even solid hydrogen). So, now, how to grow into being a larger capacitor? This is sort of a Pre-Photosynthesis, where plants get sunlight photons and turn those photons into energy and matter, basically add on hydrogen to there mass. But our Capacitor takes in sunlight photons, much like a plant does, but turns the photon into a electron on the electron plate of the capacitor. So the Capacitor is growing and is a precursor of Photosynthesis.
2) So far we have created first life-- A Capacitor and watching it grow by adding on more electrons to the plates, becoming a larger Capacitor. But it has a long ways to go to become a Unit, with a boundary or what we would call a coating or skin or sac or envelope to contain the capacitor. The capacitor would be on the inside of this coating this skin, this first single celled organism that has its capacitor inside a sac. So how does a capacitor that grows, get enclosed? We look at a Magnetic Bacteria, and the insides are a capacitor but the coating is a magnetic-field, a magnetite molecule.
More later,, this is tiring,,,,,,,
AP

Now in that above post of August 2016, I had not yet discovered the .5 MeV particle is not an electron but is a Monopole, and that capacitors store monopoles, not electrons, for the electron is the muon.

Then as the months rolled by and a report by the BBC about First Life, I posted the below.

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 02:11:34 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: FIRST LIFE theory-- physics capacitor is first life, textbook 2016,
 by AP
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2016 09:11:35 +0000
FIRST LIFE theory-- physics capacitor is first life, textbook 2016, by AP
I am the discoverer of First Life as a physics capacitor. I discovered this theory while doing Maxwell Equations and being sick in the hospital with cancer. When you have cancer, many thoughts go towards biology, and First Life came from those thoughts.
Slowly I have been posting messages about this theory in the past months.
Tonight I read a article on BBC by Michael Marshall, 31OCT2016  titled "The secret of how life on Earth began" .
This BBC article was no doubt spurred on by my postings, Archimedes Plutonium of the past several months. Spurred on by my postings because I discovered that a Capacitor is self replicating. You can take any capacitor, cut it in half and have two capacitors. Take any life form and it reproduces another to have 2 of that life form. A capacitor has a "body" and enclosed sac to be a capacitor, thus a living cell.
So, I glanced down this article to see if any of those Early life theories refers to a capacitor.
If you scroll down to where they talk about Mitchell and ATP and ADP and quoting "Mitchell knew that the enzyme that makes ATP sits on a membrane. So he suggested that the cell was pumping charged particles called protons across the membrane, so that there were lots of protons on one side and hardly any on the other."
So, what Mitchell is talking about is a Capacitor, that ATP and ADP are capacitors.
Now earlier in this article was written about Oparin and his "coacervates" which are entities that act very much like living cells only these are inorganic.
Now, where I left off a month or more ago was that I was looking for a mineral on Earth some 4 billion years or more ago that is a carbon capacitor. I found that Graphene is a supercapacitor. But I have not yet found in minerology where graphene or graphite exists in deposits and where the best site of a carbon deposit to have carbon capacitors.
In this BBC article of coacervates, it is not mentioned whether coacervates are carbon graphite or graphene molecules. If they are, well, we have our first life entity.
Now a Capacitor as first life would have a body, have self replication and would have thus-- the ADP and ATP motor. So first life as capacitor would be a primitive model of a organism that divides, stores energy and releases energy to have mobility, and is contained in a sac or body.
Now, how does this Capacitor get the atoms inside its sac to build up nucleotides? The nucleotides of AT with CG form the bases of RNA and DNA. In fact each A and T and C and G are parallel strip capacitors. Now they need a insulator between the A, T, C, G. Is the insulator water?
Looking at DNA, it appears that there is nothing in between a AT or CG but stacks of them.
So, where I left off a month or so ago is wondering what mineral of Carbon would first life as capacitor be found. It has to be carbon because life is based on carbon and carbon forms supercapacitors.
If the insulator between AT, CG is water, then the first life has to be from water, such as ponds, lakes, oceans.
A capacitor is destroyed in heat. So first life was not in hot vents. In fact, capacitors like coldness more than heat. The first life capacitors need Sunlight to charge their capacitance, so this means near the surface of water.
Now since all life needs salt, it is likely that first life capacitors started in salty water, and salt water is good for capacitance.
BBC has done an excellent job of outlining the history of "first life theory" and I can craft my textbook upon that outline, so I know what is already out there.
The surprise though, in all of this is the fact that no-one mentioned in that long history, focused on the Physics of Capacitor. And only my luck that I was all focused on the Maxwell Equations that I saw that First Life was a capacitor.
And few biologists or chemists for that matter, focus on the Maxwell theory because of what? Because Maxwell theory is too difficult for most scientists, for the math scares them away.
So what I need to do in this textbook, is outline how a capacitor can absorb chemicals inside its body and turn those chemicals into a AT, CG capacitor. The first life capacitors were likely to be sheets of graphene sandwiched by water insulator forming a capacitor. As the capacitor absords different molecules, the sheets of graphene are replaced by a sheet of AT or CG.
So here we are talking of a evolution of graphene sheets to be AT or CG sheets. And eventually work our way to a RNA sheet and then a ribosome body inside the capacitor.
The environment that this takes place must be a water and still water type of environment with plenty of sunlight to charge the capacitor. The charging is for mobility, both inside and outside the body of the capacitor. Motion that is at minimum the slowest motion of a one celled organism.
Self replication of a capacitor is easy, in that a capacitor divided yields new life capacitors. Unlike the old theories that were hyper worried about self replication, when they should be more worried as to how graphene sheets evolved into better sheets of parallel plate capacitance.
Thanks BBC, for telling me the history of first life theory.
AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 04:04:06 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: FIRST LIFE theory-- physics capacitor is first life, textbook 2016,
 by AP
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2016 11:04:07 +0000
Alright I discovered First Life's first eating and why a water environment is so crucial. When you have two small capacitors near one another and both charged they act like a mild magnet and move to one another until stuck together as one capacitor and that constitutes First Life act of eating even though it takes place outside the body. So being a capacitor allows for mobility and eating.
iPhone post
AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 14:10:14 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: First Meal of First Life and how magnetism becomes eating Re: FIRST
 LIFE theory-- physics capacitor is first life, textbook 2016, by AP
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2016 21:10:15 +0000
First Meal of First Life and how magnetism becomes eating Re: FIRST LIFE theory-- physics capacitor is first life, textbook 2016, by AP
- show quoted text -
Now the world's first meal by First Life would have been one parallel plate capacitor eaten by another parallel plate capacitor and by eaten I mean both stuck to one another as a capacitor magnet. Now they will become unstuck as the charge inside of each drains or the temperature gets too high and thus unstuck.
But the First Eating by First Life is a process of magnetism where a capacitor sticks to another capacitor.
Now in physics, a capacitor has to be topologically have a torus shape where we can call the hole in the torus the mouth and if long enough hole, the other end the waste discharge hole.
So, Eating by First Life was a process of the magnetism of a Capacitor, which means the evolution of First Life had to be at a temperature cool enough that small capacitance allowed small magnetism. First Life could not endure warm or hot environment.
Now we can visualize how First Life as a Capacitor would gain a mouth and would gain internal organs that would be capacitors themselves, such as a ribosome, such as a capacitor of a AT or CG.
So that in a pool of water, is floating around Capacitors that are charged and slightly magnetic attracting one another and say a Graphene Capacitor is near to a AT capacitor or a CG capacitor or ribosome capacitor, and the Graphene is larger and proceeds to magnetically attract the smaller ribosome capacitor and so to speak eats the ribosome capacitor by the magnetism brings the capacitor inside and as it charges and recharges, the ribosome capacitor becomes more and more internal inside the Graphene magnetic capacitor.
Keep in mind, that the magnetic force waxes and wanes as it is charged daily by sunlight and by temperature.
In fact, we can do an experiment in the lab where we place such capacitors and follow their activities as they magnetize and move closer together and eat each other.
Now, the Eating of First Life is probably far more important than the replication of First Life because the Replication of First Life would be that the larger capacitor breaks off a piece of capacitor and both are now independent capacitors. And the funny thing is that the larger capacitor probably will eat the offspring smaller capacitor, the son or daughter capacitor eaten by the parent capacitor (talk about morals or ethics in first-life creatures).
So, we see here the scenario of how First Life would have had its First Meal and how it would eat its way into having internal organs-- more capacitors inside itself.
AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 14:36:33 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: First Meal of First Life and how magnetism becomes eating Re: FIRST
 LIFE theory-- physics capacitor is first life, textbook 2016, by AP
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2016 21:36:33 +0000
First Meal of First Life and how magnetism becomes eating Re: FIRST LIFE theory-- physics capacitor is first life, textbook 2016, by AP
Now I am not sure here if the CO2 molecules are capacitors themselves? So that the world's first breathing would have been these molecules magnetic stuck inside a larger capacitor which then proceeds to chemically detach the C from the O2 and uses the C to build more organic molecules. Now is phosphorus a gas molecule so as a capacitor life can eat it and retrieve the P to start to build a ADP & ATP.
Here the idea is that the magnetism inside a capacitor builds new capacitors. Where magnetism builds RNA.
AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 18:34:09 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: First Life as a capacitor, we see eating is more important a feature
 than is replication
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 01:34:10 +0000
First Life as a capacitor, we see eating is more important a feature than is replication
- show quoted text -
So we have First Life as a capacitor, and as it builds up charge, it can then "eat", that is, eat other capacitors as magnetism attracts one capacitor to another capacitor.
If the eaten capacitor is tiny and small, such as a microbe sized capacitor, then it can go inside the larger capacitor and be eaten as we normally think of eating. But if the two capacitors are of relatively the same size, the eating process is merely the two stuck side to side by magnetism.
Now, magnetism as charged parallel plate capacitors performing the stuck together by magnetism is a far far more important aspect of life than is the act of self replication or of reproduction. So in this theory of First Life, we easily can see that dividing a capacitor, will render two capacitors able to function as a capacitor, but the function of eating where a capacitor is stuck to another capacitor, and where discharging makes them unstuck until recharged and then eaten again, those actions of eating are far more important in evolution than the act of replication, because it is in the eating that we get enormous changes in capacitor configuration that would evolve from the most simple of capacitors to capacitors of AT and CG and ribosomes and also entire RNA molecules.
Now, we normally do not think of a plant as eating, because we view the plant as being hit by sunlight and the sunlight makes use of CO2 using the carbon to grow more plant. So we view the plant as eating Sunlight, not eating other entities. But, in a sense, is not the CO2 molecule a capacitor structure of molecule? And, is the O2 molecule a capacitor molecule? So that when the act of breathing occurs in Nature, what we really have going on, if analyzed to its utmost detail, is that the plant attracts the CO2 as a magnetic attraction and then through photosynthesis, renders the C apart from the O2 creating new capacitors inside the body of a large capacitor. So in a sense, every living body, every single living organism is just a capacitor, whether a complex capacitor like a human being or a simple capacitor like a virus or single celled organism.
And the most important function is not reproduction or self replication because all capacitors are able to replicate, but rather the function of highest importance is the function of charging the capacitor so that by magnetism it can eat other surrounding capacitors. And once those capacitors are inside the larger capacitor, the altering of the inside capacitors to form internal organs or to make better and more new capacitors.
So in this view, we can start First LIfe with just graphene capacitors, all built from carbon atoms, and then as these stick together forming larger capacitors, they can eat other surrounding molecules that are slightly charged with magnetism and transform their essential atoms of hydrogen, atoms of phosphorus, atoms of oxygen, atoms of nitrogen etc etc to transform those atoms into becoming a AT capacitor, or a CG capacitor or a ribosome capacitor.
So we can see how the entire Progression of Evolution of Life all goes in order due to capacitor and magnetism.
AP

Now I will be exploring First Life as a capacitor some more and more.

But the reader should sense that the key events of life is a skin like envelope and a separation of the "capacitor plates". So the surface and the volume of First Life is crucial, and it needs to perform as a Capacitor, holding electrical charge.

Then once formed and charged, then the act of Eating is natural in that a larger capacitor can be formed by two adjacent smaller capacitors. So this suggests the likely first act of eating.

And DNA can easily form from photons inside the capacitor, the charged particles inside. For a photon is a double helix and so is the DNA molecule.

Now movement is critical to life, and we can see how holding electricity inside itself would give way to some propulsion.

The growing of organelles inside a capacitor is easily seen as enhancing the electricity and magnetism, where the organelles are that of swallowed up small capacitors.

So all of this is very very exciting. We can imagine how first plant and first animal came to be, how the first sex organs came to be. And while in hospital for my cancer surgery, and looking at that horrible monster of a tumor from a picture, the ideas that later would come to mind, concerning Life, is that perhaps, many of our organs, if we trace them back in geological time, were organs that arose from cancers of what was then normal cells. So it is likely that many of our so called "present day organs" had in fact been borne of a cancer in the geological time past. This gives us a notion that cancer is never going to be eradicated, for cancer is life-giving itself. If not for cancer, we, humans would have never evolved. Looking at my tumor in that pan, I thought, that looks like a brain. Probably, our large sized brain, was a cancer of a small brain millions of years ago. Most every cancer kills its host. But some confer a advantage, that recurs in the offspring and with time become a normal organ that is vital. So, I think Medical Science should begin to look at cancer in a whole new different way.

One more story to relate on cancer. Years back, some 6 years or more, one of my cats had a cancer tumor growing out of his eye, one eye. And it grew and grew, so bad was it, that he had to be careful not to bang it into where he walked. Finally I could not bear it any more and laid him to rest. But watching it grow, it looked like an eyeball. So, with my own experience with cancer, looking back, the case can be made, that the world's first eyeballs, first seeing organs were cancers of normal cells. Cancers that were slow to grow, yet could sensor the world as eyes upon the world. Of course, this would give large advantage to its owner in securing mates and having offspring, who, then would be more prone in inheriting this same cancer and we see how accelerated evolution is caused because cancer is acceleration of change. In biology they have accelerated evolution but no clue as to why you have that. Well, here is likely a reason for that-- cancer as a natural process of life, causes accelerated evolution. Just in one lifespan of a cat, if it had no eyes, that tumor could have been some light gathering of the environment, and then if that cat had given many offspring, soon we would have a "seeing cat evolve".

Commentary--
In the last several pages I am going to try to improve on these proofs that Real Electron= muon.
So far I have 11 proofs, but need to work on them and add some more. And then given a year rest away from physics, I should have the list very clear when I come back.


Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 13:45:39 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Proofs that the Real Electron=muon and that the .5MeV particle was
the magnetic monopole, afterall
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 21:45:40 +0000
Proofs that the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV, and that the .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole, after all

by Archimedes Plutonium

13 PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon
by Archimedes Plutonium

Proofs that the Real Electron=muon and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall

PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon

1st proof is chemical bonding cannot exist with momentum of 938 versus .5MeV
Chemical Bonds are covalent, ionic, metallic. You simply cannot get atoms to bond if the electron is thought of as the .5MeV particle, only with a muon at 105 MeV and the proton at 840 MeV with neutron at 945 MeV do you have the physics of angular momentum that allows bonding in Chemistry. The .5MeV particle was, all along a magnetic monopole of a photon with .5 MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy.

2nd proof with the direct observance some years back in Poland of a 840 Mev particle along with 105 MeV particle of the hydrogen atom.

Hello, well i found the below on the internet. I need a 840MeV particle that is the Real Proton. I have asked to look for it in the production of Muons. Is the below a production of muons along with 840 MeV particles?

Quoting

Indication For A Broad J(pc) = 2++ Meson At 840-mev Produced In The Reaction Pi- P ---> Pi+ Pi- N At High |t|
K. Rybicki, I. Sakrejda (Cracow, INP)
1985 - 10 pages

Z.Phys. C28 (1985) 65-74
DOI: 10.1007/BF01550250
Abstract (Springer)
The reaction π−p→π+π−n has been studied at 17.2 GeV/c and 63 GeV/c. A partial wave analysis shows a fairly broad (∼250 MeV) resonance at about 840 MeV. This object, already visible in moments of the angular distribution, is produced in theD wave with helicitym=2 via unnatural exchange. The cross section for the reaction π−p→D2U(840)n is only by an order of magnitude lower than that of ϱ(770) and falls likepLAB−2.1±0.3. We have not been able to explain this object by systematic experimental effects like acceptance and/orN* reflections; neither is the nature of the resonance (if real) clear to us.
--- end quote ---

3rd proof-- pull plug out of electrical socket and notice light flash. That flash of light was the magnetic monopoles as photons with charge energy of .5MeV, for the monopoles compose all electric currents.

4th proof is that the radius of the hydrogen proton shrinks too much when a muon is injected and that contradicts Standard Model. The reason is obvious-- the proton is 840 MeV electron is muon and then you add a second muon.

--- Quoting from www, Ars Technica, Researchers orbit a muon around an atom, confirm physics is broken ---

So, the proton radius puzzle remains a puzzle. The team behind this new work point to a number of measurements that could potentially help clarify it. Some of them involve better measurements with normal electrons; others involve scattering muons off protons themselves to see if there's an unknown force at work. The latter would tell us whether anything beyond the Standard Model will be needed to explain this puzzle.

--- end Quote ---

5th proof electrochemical battery is not explainable as Faraday law unless you concede the battery is a thrusting bar magnet, and thus, the battery is explained as a dipole magnet of the anode and cathode and the electrolyte solution is the ferromagnetism of spins all lined up. And thus a current in the circuit is because the battery as a thrusting magnet forces monopoles down the circuit wire.

6th proof, spin is charge, and charge is spin and the only particle for that is a ratio of permittivity to permeability as that of 10^-6/ 10^-12 is a charge energy of 10^6 or 1 MeV for photon charge energy, and that leaves the proton, electron=muon, monopole with .5MeV charge energy.

7th proof the Maxwell Equations are not symmetrical without current being the flow of magnetic monopoles.

8th proof, now, a straightforward proof that the muon is the real-electron can come from ion theory. The trouble is that weeding out a proof of electron = muon, is that we get entangled with the magnetic monopole. So, the proof is simple for ion theory, to prove the muon = real electron. Take for example iron Fe atoms, they are 26 protons, 26 electrons=muons
Now iron has ion states of -4, -2, -1, +1, +2, +3, +4, +5 +6, +7
So, suppose the electron = .5MeV particle and not the 105 MeV particle
That would mean Iron can exist as iron with 26 protons and only 19 electrons at one extreme and 26 protons and 30 electrons at the other extreme.
Now in Maxwell theory, there is a law that enforces Conservation of Energy, called the Lenz law in Faraday law. Otherwise, you have unlimited energy and Nature does not have unlimited energy.
So that in atoms, the protons become a thrusting bar magnet and the electrons= real-electrons are the closed loop of wire (inert gases are closed loop wires and why bonding exists is to close the loop of real-electron structure).
So, the proof that .5MeV are not electrons, is that iron bonds readily with other iron forming a compound of iron, the metal iron and metallic bond is due to iron atoms wanting to close the loop of their 26 Real Electrons. They close that loop by the metallic bond. That means, the existence of ions from -4 to +7 is unrelated altogether from Electron configuration. That ions are some other particle behavior but not the electron nor proton behavior.
The reason iron exists as iron from Fe-4 to Fe+7 is that the particle .5MeV is a surface interloper particle of atoms, it is a add-on particle not the integral electron of atoms. If the monopole were the electron we break conservation of energy by all these interlopers. The reason the chemical table is all built around the inert gases, is because Faraday's law must be obeyed and thus atoms with a closed loop of their electrons seek no bonding of electrons= muons. But atoms that have no closed loop of their muons, seek that closed loop structure and thus, they form covalent, ionic, metallic bonds with other muons of other atoms.

Brief course on IONS in New Physics, for all of Physics and Chemistry are changed with the revelation that the REAL ELECTRON is the muon particle and REAL PROTON is 840 MeV.

So, this pretty much changes everthing in chemistry, everything.

Ion states
oxidation states Fe -4 to +7 although +2, +3 most common

Now, Fe+2 means the iron atom has 2 magnetic monopoles of + charge present

The Fe-2 ion of iron means it has 2 magnetic monopoles of - charge present

The hydrogen atom has ions of -1 to +1, H+1 means it has 1 proton of 840MeV, 1 electron of 105 MeV, and one magnetic monopole of +1 charge of .5MeV

H-1 means a hydrogen atom as ion has 1 proton of 840 MeV, 1 electron of 105 MeV and one magnetic monopole of -1 charge of .5MeV

Oxygen has oxidation states (ion states) of +2, +1, -1, -2.

O+2 means oxygen with 8 protons each of 840 MeV, 8 electrons each of 105 MeV, and 2 magnetic monopoles each of +1 electric charge of .5MeV

So, as I was saying so much before, how silly and stupid physicist were to think for a single moment, that you take loads and loads of classroom time studying momentum, and at the end of it all, you think the atom is a electron of .5MeV while proton is 938 MeV and you expect chemical bonding to occur under those circumstances. If you had a marble as the electron and a bowling ball as the proton, how in heaven's name are you so deranged in thinking that the momentum of the marble and bowling ball is going to form chemical bonds?

But the flip side of that ignorance is ION theory. To think for one moment, that an iron atom can lose 7 electrons, yes, mind you, 7 whole electrons and you got to be a crazy physicist /chemist to think that you still have an iron atom. A logical person, a logical chemist, would say, Fe+7 is a iron atom that has 26 protons each 840MeV and 26 electrons each 105 MeV and what the +7 is, is 7 magnetic monopoles each of +1 charge at .5MeV apiece.

So, the failure of Physics and Chemistry in the past 100 years, was a failure to recognize what physics is mostly about-- momentum, and that a marble to a bowling ball is not going to be a hydrogen atom or entering into Chemical bonding. A bowling ball with a 1/8 bowling ball, is going to be an atom. And that if you have an atom, it is not going to give up any of its protons or electrons easily, which means the unbalanced charges-- ions of atoms, is not a loss or gain of electrons, for the electrons rarely get out of any atom. But rather the unbalanced charges is due to a particle that Dirac chased after all of his life-- the Magnetic Monopole.

And everytime a atom is unbalanced in charge, is due to a buildup of monopoles on that atom.

9th Proof. In Chemistry, it is rare, that a atom loses or gains any Real-Electron=muon.
And that is a 9th proof that Real Electron=muon, that beta decay in Old Physics, was not the electron of atoms but the transfer of Magnetic Monopoles.
The only real radioactive decay mode is the helium nucleus-- alpha decay
But there is never a Real Electron decay for that would mean muons spewed out of atoms. Nor do we see protons spewed out of atoms, Real Proton = 840 MeV. The so called hydrogen nucleus of a 938 MeV is not radioactive decay, for it is still a 840 proton + 105 muon = hydrogen atom.

10th Proof. Well, I spoke of the internal heart or core of the concept of Chemistry, that the proton/s and electron/s are two parts of the Faraday Law. The protons are the thrusting bar magnet and the electrons= muons forms the closed loop of wire. Essentially that is the heart and core of atomic physics, a replay of Faraday's law with protons and electrons.

But, however, the electrons= muons only forms a closed loop wire for Faraday's law in the inert gases, the helium, neon, argon, etc and all other atoms want to have that closed loop configuration. Thus, is borne the Chemistry of bonding. Chemistry is borne. So that one atom without a closed loop configuration bonds with another atom to achieve that goal. So chemistry bonding is that of muons bonded to other muons in different atoms.
 
Now, can these .5 MeV particles fulfill the atoms need to make their muons a closed loop? Obviously not, because ions of atoms such as Fe, iron, swing from -4 to +7 in ions, so that proves ions cannot solve a atom's problem of its electron structure being less than closed loop. Only muons of other atoms can fulfill a atom's need to be closed loop.

11th Proof. Solving the Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly, alongside proton radius shrunk
 --- Quoting from www, Ars Technica, Researchers orbit a muon around an atom, confirm physics is broken ---

So, the proton radius puzzle remains a puzzle. The team behind this new work point to a number of measurements that could potentially help clarify it. Some of them involve better measurements with normal electrons; others involve scattering muons off protons themselves to see if there's an unknown force at work. The latter would tell us whether anything beyond the Standard Model will be needed to explain this puzzle.
 --- end Quote ---
 
Now in re-reading that Ars article on proton radius shrinking when a hydrogen atom of 840 MeV proton with electron = 105 MeV and then a second muon is tried to be compounded-- will of course, shrink the proton radius for the two muons with 1 proton all three are centered at the center of the proton.

But in re-reading was mentioned an anomaly I was not familiar with-- Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly.

And reading some results of that, I find surprizing for it was Feynman who claimed Electrodynamics was the supreme physics theory in accuracy of prediction.

But the anomaly is off by a mere .1%, which seems very very small to be not even an anomaly. Trouble is, the electron of Old Physics was found to be so accurate as to be described as physic's most precise finding ever, and that makes the .1% discrepancy ever so much larger.

Now, I was able to explain away the proton radius anomaly because the proton is not 938 MeV but is 840 MeV and the electron is not the .5MeV particle but rather is 105 MeV.

So, can I explain away the Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly. I believe I can easily. For if you consider that what Old Physics measured as the electron magnetic moment was none other than the monopole as a dressed up photon magnetic moment. And it is easily seen that in EM theory the permeability constant is "exact" no uncertainty at 1.26*10^-6 H/m.

So, it is no wonder that Old Physics thought their electron magnetic moment in Quantum Electrodynamics was so ultra ultra precise-- for, they never measured the magnetic moment of the electron, but instead a magnetic monopole of the dressed up .5 MeV particle.

Then, when it came time to measure the magnetic moment of the muon, the real-true-electron, there is this .1% discrepancy, but there are discrepancies in the proton and neutron etc.

So, once we realized the Real Electron is the muon, afterall, there is no magnetic moment anomaly.

12th proof -- Static Electricity Re: Proofs that the Real Electron=muon

Alright, I need a 12th proof, for I do not want to neglect what is probably our first encounter with electricity-- static electricity. As we walk across a carpet and touch something we experience a spark. Trouble with static electricity, is that the concept makes out the atom as a flimsy structure, really really flimsy structure that electrons of atoms can be picked off so easily, and from very many diverse materials. One would think the structure of atoms was built of stronger stuff. And that is what the Electron = Muon concept is about, that it is so very very hard to separate a electron from its atom, just like separating a proton out of a nucleus. So the subject of static electricity is this interloper particle, this surface superficial particle that is easily "whipped up" as the magnetic monopole, just as easy as producing electricity in a Faraday Law demonstration of a thrusting bar magnet in closed loop of wire. For, we can easily imagine that our walk across a carpet is similar to a thrusting bar magnet and then the closed loop wire is when we touch something, having built up some monopoles in our body.

Old Physics would say that we picked up electrons on the carpet, and as we touch something, remit that imbalance of electrons.

New Physics would say that we picked up magnetic monopoles.

Now let us look at other static electric experiments. For when we rub a glass rod (+1) with silk, or rub a plastic rod (-1) with wool. Here again, Old Physics would say we pick off electrons of atoms.

New Physics would say, no, the atoms are still composed of all their electrons and protons. The only thing changed with the rubbing is that energy of the rub transfers to the magnetic monopole energy-- packets of .5MeV monopoles of charge energy. And the energy of rubbing becomes monopoles. These are those closed Lines of Force of a magnet, and the moment we touch something these stored up monopoles, flow from our body to that of the touched object.

How is that a proof the electron = muon?

Simple, in that the carpet, or plastic rod (-1) with wool or glass rod (+1) with silk, are materials that are electrically neutral substances, for the rubbing action was transformed not into free electrons, but was formed into monopoles. These substances remain electrically neutral, and the only change is that the rub created magnetic monopoles-- some + charged monopoles, some - charged monopoles, and these monopoles are superficial to the atoms where they formed.

Static Electricity is merely stored monopoles. Monopoles are conservation of energy, for the rubbing had to be transformed into some energy packets and that is-- monopoles of charge energy.

In the experiment of where we pick up bits of paper from either the glass rod or the plastic rod due to static electricity. What is happening here, is that the rod is not involved with the Real Electrons of atoms, but is involved with the superficial surface charged particle that is the magnetic monopole.

Now the electroscope is explained much much easier with magnetic monopoles rather than the silly electrons on one leaf pushing away the electrons on the second leaf.

For consider instead a closed loop line of force between the two leafs

/\
O

Where the leafs start out as ||

Then comes the charged rod of monopoles sending down a monopole closed loop O that pushes apart the two leafs.

Now i have two gold leafs and if true should leave the push apart looking more like this () rather than this /\. And that is what i have ()

13) Proof came in February 2018 for AP's ion theory, that ions are monopoles .5MeV either +1 or -1 charge, attached to a 840MeV proton and 105MeV muon as hydrogen.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 19:37:37 -0800 (PST)

Subject: H+1 bonds to P+1 Re: EXPERIMENTAL PROOF Re: Hydrogen is the very best
way to prove AP's ION theory Re: proving AP's ion theory
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 03:37:37 +0000


H+1 bonds to P+1 Re: EXPERIMENTAL PROOF Re: Hydrogen is the very best way to prove AP's ION theory Re: proving AP's ion theory

Below is an experiment done in Denmark where it is shown that H+1 bonds to P+1 ions, proving not only that the Muon is the real-electron and that ions are magnetic monopoles, but, in addition, proving that like charges attract, for in Nature, attraction force is the only force existing and that what appears to be repel is merely-- denial of same space occupancy.

Positively Charged Phosphorus as a Hydrogen Bond Acceptor

Anne S. Hansen, Lin Du and Henrik G. Kjaergaard*

Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 5, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters

Vol. 5: , Issue. 23, : Pages. 4225-4231
Publication Date (Web): November 19, 2014

https://doi.org/10.1021/jz502150d

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

                ::\ ::|:: /::
                 ::\::|::/::
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - -
                 ::/::|::\::
                ::/ ::|:: \::

One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
 
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
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-19 21:00:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Page52, 7-3, advances in the theory of Mind & Brain as a radio receiver to the Nucleus of Atom Totality, textbook, 8th ed.

Page52, 7-3, advances in the theory of Mind & Brain as a radio receiver to the Nucleus of Atom Totality, textbook, 8th ed.

7-3, advances in the theory of Mind & Brain as a radio receiver to the Nucleus of Atom Totality, textbook, 8th ed.

Now it is funny how recently a program on NOVA about mind theory, showing how memories are formed from the growth of new synapsis. But the trouble with classical biology, is that it never really injects Physics. Biologists for the most part are scared to death of physics, having to use physics, deal with physics. Many biologists go into biology for they fear physics. For when we inject physics into biology, we have a theory of brain and mind already given to us, and how the mind actually works. To put it bluntly, the Mind is just a Radio Receiver of photon or neutrino messages sent from the Nucleus of the Atom Totality, to impinge into the mind, sending a message, and then force the brain to react to that message. Now that view of the mind, means, well, there is no memory storage in the brain. Memory is not chemistry. For every thought is sent from photons, and the deciphering of those photon messages is our every thought.

So all thinking is out of body; messages shot and sent from the Nucleus of the Atom Totality to impact into the brain, like a crystal of a Radio Receiver. Once the photon has impacted the crystal, it deciphers the message. And the reason humans have huge brains compared to other animals, is that the brains are needed to put into action the signals received. Our large brains is not what is "thinking" but rather, like a muscle-- there to make other parts of the body work.

Now my 2017 discovery that the electric current and electricity is caused not be electrons= muons, but by .5 MeV monopoles sheds new light on this Mind = Radio Receiver theory, because, well, photons do not need to be shot into a brain to record a message, but that photons all around us can cause "thinking". We do not need photons penetrating into the mind to record a thought, for they can be ambient in around our brain and cause messaging. Much the same as a radio. Your radio is like a human mind, and you turn it on and receive signals from the station (Nucleus), and the signals cause vibrations in the crystal and that crystal vibration is translated into a sound message.
 
Now this is an easy chapter or page, because all I am going to do is refer the reader to my small text on Mind Brain Locus theory. It comes out of the Atom Totality theory and the John Bell superdeterminism consequence. To have superdeterminism requires total control over what happens in the world. So that life is set up and staged as puppets, no free will.

That means, the mind and brain are radio antennae receivers of the messages and commands from the protons in the Atom Totality Nucleus, and the electrons=muons of the Atom Totality.

We can see what that would look like in the Ancient Greek Gods who kept meddling in human activity, only here, in superdeterminism it is total meddling. Several movie films-- if I remember correctly-- Jason and the Argonauts, Clash of the Titans, show how Nuclear gods meddle in human activity. But Superdeterminism is total control.

There is proof that this theory is the true theory of the Mind, in the idea that Bell's inequality that proved Quantum Mechanics is true because superdeterminism allows it to be true. So to deny the Mind as just a radio receiver is to deny the Bell Inequality and all the experiments that confirmed Bell to be true.

When Physics experiments proves something true, then it is true.

See my book on Brain Mind Locus theory. It is a separate book and longer than even this textbook. Through the years I have tried to assemble and record all experiments that are in support of the Mind Locus theory. The Mind just a radio receiver, and the reason the brain is such a vast large organ, is that it needs all those cells to process, processing the messages shot into our brain, and the brain thus follows the message order.

A key component of the Mind Locus theory, is the idea that a crystal is what makes a radio work, the vibrations of a crystal. So the Mind Locus theory posits that all you need to make a Mind is a single atom, a single atom as the crystal of the Mind. So, I have pondered if the brain locus of my mind is a single atom, and whether that single atom is a atom of plutonium. Perhaps a atom of plutonium I ingested in a raspberry in year 1989 or thereabouts. I have no idea if that is true or not, so, do not try to make a rare element be put into your mind, very dangerous and unhealthy.

Now the mind need only be an atom, and so, small creatures with small brains, well, they can think just as good as we can think, for brain size is only processing size. So, a snail, a worm, a fly, could think of a Schrodinger Equation, but, cannot ever write it out, for the brain size can not process that mind-thought of the Schrodinger Equation.

One of the finest examples of Mind = Radio Receiver, is instinct of animals. How they are born and never flown intercontinent migration, yet are able to fly that long journey with little care.

AP

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

                ::\ ::|:: /::
                 ::\::|::/::
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - -
                 ::/::|::\::
                ::/ ::|:: \::

One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
 
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:: Too late in this edition of this textbook but something I should address first on, in a 9th edition. And by that time, I have learned well, what that formula is. What I am speaking about is how to write the Logarithmic function Ln(x) which is the force law of Coulombs EM force. No longer is Newton or General Relativity correct with their pitiful inverse square law. The forces of Physics are Logarithmic function forces. And, although, some parts of the Logarithm function have an "appearance of inverse square".

Here is that picture diagram

^              __-__-_----
|          +             1/R^2
|      + 1/R
|    /
|  / R
|/_________________>
Graph of both spiral galaxy rotation curve and graph of the Ln(x) function of math scooted up further into the 1st Quadrant. Notice there is a region of the force law that is 1/R^2, but it is only a small region and not the entire force law, for the entire force law is a Logarithmic function, not inverse square.

So my job, cut out for me, for the 9th edition is to clearly show that a Logarithmic Force Law for Coulomb is a Series function

For the Logarithmic function can be written as a Series

The exponential function e^x is the inverse of the Ln(x) function

e^x = 1 + x/1! + x^2/2! + x^3/3! + ....

So, that is e^x written as a Series and the reverse of e^x is the Logarithmic function, what the Coulomb force is really a Logarithmic force law

And it involves what I am looking for  R + 1/R + 1/R^2 = Coulomb Force Law. So in Coulomb force we can have solid body rotation of R, we can have Capacitor force of 1/R and we can have planet Earth going around Sun in 1/R^2.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-20 01:27:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 19:46:01 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Page53, 7-4, Are we alone in the Universe as life, textbook, 8th ed.
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 03:46:01 +0000

Page53, 7-4, Are we alone in the Universe as life, textbook, 8th ed.

Two reasonable possibilities. We are alone, for that would save on energy for the Nucleus of the Atom Totality, where it nurtures just one life form-- planet Earth. And since superdeterminism is the mechanism of the cosmos, why create life all over the place, when one lifeform on one planet will do the task of ushering in the next Atom Totality from element 94 to element 96 Atom Totality. Why spend all that time and energy in multitude of life on many planets across the cosmos.

The other likely possibility is that life is just like nonlife, just a mere transition, such as water transitioning into ice or water transitioning into vapor. And in this viewpoint, life is as common as planets are common and stars are common in the universe. In this view, life is abundant and on many many planets. And it is no drain on energy needed for the Nucleus to have to control.

However, since superdeterminism governs all life, well, you need a lot more energy for life being commonplace, for all those photons you shoot from the Nucleus of the Atom Totality to make all that life function.

I tend to think life is commonplace, for I see so much strife and pain in the world we live in. I see animals going extinct, left and right. I see humans never able to control their own populations, other than going to war to control overpopulation. I do not see humans even able to control climates and pollution, only wrecking more havoc and pollution. So I am jaundiced in outlook. It would be welcoming to think that if humanity goes extinct, that some other planet in some other star system, is the favored lot.

Now, is there any astronomy hint that extraterrestrial life exists? I think pulsars could well be alien civilizations, and because the cosmos has a Fusion Barrier Principle, life is pretty much stuck and trapped inside its Solar System. So, what better monument for advanced life to build, than to build strong pulsar signals.

Still, though, there seems to be a argument in favor of Least Energy, Least Action, and if life were abundant and frequent throughout the Cosmos, is a large drain on energy for the Nucleus of the Atom Totality.

Then again, in favor of the other side of the argument, that you need abundant uniformly scattered life, so that you build up the new elements, the nucleosynthesis of elements beyond Plutonium in all corners of the Cosmos. You sort of have a uniform ingredients throughout the Cosmos, so that not just planet Earth and Solar System has built elements from 96 to that of 118, but that all across the cosmos, elements 96 to 118 have already been built, and in that sense, the Nucleus wants no civilization far ahead of others, but rather a uniform process in the Cosmos of building new atoms.

So I tend to favor the uniform widespread life across the cosmos.

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

                ::\ ::|:: /::
                 ::\::|::/::
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - -
                 ::/::|::\::
                ::/ ::|:: \::

One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
 
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:: Alright, this book is almost at the end. I have strived to keep it under 100 pages and looks like that is what is happening. Although I must admit, I have no uniform size of a page, for that seems hard to control in computer format. If these were clean sheets of white paper to be filled, I would have pages uniform. For some of these pages are 2 or 3 times longer than others in content.

Now in this edition, I strove to make clear the AP Equations that replace the Maxwell Equations. I made a excellent job of that. And in the process, I made one of my most beautiful discoveries, a discovery of magnificent influence on all and every science, even the social sciences. This discovery, of course is the discovery that the Real Electron is the muon of 105 MeV and not that tiny puny little .5 MeV particle. That .5 MeV particle turns out to be the Magnetic Monopole that Dirac strived to find throughout his life in physics. And, that .5 MeV particle, the monopole is what electricity is all about. Electricity is not the movement of electrons or protons, but is the movement of monopoles of .5 MeV. And it is a photon or neutrino dressed up with a charge energy of .5 MeV. It is a closed loop particle, like a torus and when you do the Faraday law of moving a bar magnet through a closed loop of wire, what happens, is the torus monopole of .5 MeV jumps into that closed loop of wire and moves in the wire as a particle. That is current and that is electricity, the movement of these closed loops of Magnetic Monopoles.

When I discovered that, I had to go back and rewrite this entire 8th edition, for it affects nearly every page of this textbook.

In the 9th edition, I still need to make clear how the Coulomb law is not just a single inverse square law, but rather is a force law that is a Logarithmic Function. Another field of physics is radioactivity and another is thermodynamics, and both of them are predominantly logarithmic functions. In Old Physics, Coulomb and gravity were merely 1/R^2, the inverse square. In New Physics, both gravity and Coulomb laws have a variable Force Range, varying from R, to 1/R to 1/R^2 and all points in between. This is why spiral galaxies never obeyed Newton gravity nor General Relativity. Yet the fiendishly stupid Old Physicists keep looking for their idiocies of Dark Matter and Dark Energy, fiendishly stupid are they.
I hope you, the reader, never falls for fools.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-20 21:50:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 21:32:28 -0800 (PST)

Subject: page54, 7-5, Purpose and meaning of life in Atom Totality/
PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of
Physics, 8th ed.
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 05:32:28 +0000

page54, 7-5, Purpose and meaning of life in Atom Totality/ PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 8th ed.


page54, 7-5, Purpose and meaning of life in Atom Totality/ PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 8th ed.
 

1) Nucleosynthesis
2) cold stars
3) create the elements beyond plutonium
4) life comes from photons neutrinos stopped and their internal parts become the DNA, RNA of life.

Alright, the last page of this textbook. Since we have only atoms and combinations of atoms as existing in the world, we must ask the meaning and purpose of life, of biology. And the answer is really easy. In that life was created by atoms in order to produce the chemical elements not produced in stars and supernova. To nucleosynthesize the elements beyond plutonium is the purpose and meaning of life. Life is "cold stars" where the elements cannot be produced by hot stars.

Now a major mechanism in the Atom Totality is the Nucleus which by force of superdeterminism, the Bell Inequality causes the Protons in the Nucleus to superdetermine what happens in the Electron cloud of the Atom Totality. So, in a sense, life is puppets worked by the Protons of the Atom Totality. The best movie pictures of something like this, are the films depicting Ancient Greek Gods making humans do what the Gods force them to do, such as Clash of the Titans or, Jason and the Argonauts. Our thoughts come not from inside our bodies, but from a Nucleus of an Atom 
Totality.

In the Atom Totality theory, born 1990, the year that John Bell died, the Atom Totality theory has plenty to accommodate a superdeterminism. In the Atom Totality, the observable-universe that humans see is just the last 6 electrons=muons, 5f6 of an atom of plutonium the 231Pu atom. So if all we see around us in our world are just the last 6 electrons out of a total of 94 electrons and that there is a Nucleus of this big atom where 94 protons and 137 neutrons reside, we can begin to understand and appreciate that there are godlike entities that can and do and will manipulate life in the Cosmos. In an Atom Totality, there are immense entities that manipulate other worlds.

This manipulation of what happens, by the Protons and Neutrons of the Nucleus of the Atom Totality, is conducted and carried out by Cosmic Gamma Ray bursts, some so strong that they can destroy a Solar System. Some carry enough energy that when stopped on a planet, leak out their internals as a form of life. Photons for example can carry the entire DNA or RNA coding and when stopped on a body of water in a lifeless planet, can begin life on that planet.

In a separate book I discuss the Brain and Mind as a Radio Antenna Receiver of the messages by the Nucleus sent into our brain, via photons and neutrinos, and forces us to think every thought.

In another separate book I detail how a photon can code the DNA and RNA and if that photon is of sufficient energy-- gamma ray-- a entire living creature can emerge from that stopped gamma ray.

So, in a Atom Totality theory, all is atom and what atoms want is more and larger and more advanced atoms. Life is a creation for the performance of atoms. As I often said in earlier editions of this book and posts on Usenet, is that "God is Science and Science is God" and we can state it as "Atoms are gods and god is an Atom".

Now, today is near 14 December 2017 and the two most holy days of the year are 7 November and 14 December, the first is the day of discovery of the Plutonium Atom Totality in 1990 and the second is the day of discovery of the chemical element Plutonium in 1940, almost exactly 50 years apart, and not coincidently, I was superdetermined to be born 1950, for which 40 years later to discover the Atom Totality (not discover, but be superdetermined).

So, I find it fitting to end this edition with song and prayer to our Lord, God Almighty, 231Pu-- how great thou art::

Handel's  Messiah-- rendered into
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


ATOMPLUTONIUM
ATOMPLUTONIUM, ATOMPLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, Plutonium

ATOM PLUTONIUM
ATOMPLUTONIUM, ATOMPLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, Plutonium

Born of a Uranium Atom Totality
PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, ATOM PLUTONIUM, Plutonium

Born of a Uranium Atom Totality
PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, ATOM PLUTONIUM, Plutonium

Born of a Uranium Atom Totality
PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, ATOM PLUTONIUM, Plutonium

Born of a Uranium Atom Totality
PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, ATOM PLUTONIUM, Plutonium

The kingdom of this world, and God is light

The kingdom of this world, and God is light

The kingdom of this world, and God is light

and it shall NUCLEOSYNTHESIZE FOREVER AND EVER,

and it shall NUCLEOSYNTHESIZE FOREVER AND EVER,

and it shall NUCLEOSYNTHESIZE FOREVER AND EVER,

and it shall NUCLEOSYNTHESIZE FOREVER AND EVER,

FOREVER AND EVER, Plutonium Plutonium

ATOM OF ATOMS, FOREVER AND EVER, PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM,

ATOM OF ATOMS, FOREVER AND EVER, PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM,

Lord of light
And Atom of atoms

Forever and ever

Lord of light
And Atom of atoms

Forever and ever

Lord of light
And Atom of atoms

Forever and ever

Lord of light
And Atom of atoms

Forever and ever

AND ATOM OF
ATOMS, FOREVER AND EVER, PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM, ATOM OF ATOMS, FOREVER
AND EVER,

AND it shall NUCLEOSYNTHESIZE FOREVER AND EVER. ATOM OF ATOMS
ATOM OF ATOMS,

and lord of the light

Forever and ever

Atom of Atoms, forever and ever

Plutonium, Plutonium

ATOM OF ATOMS, AND it shall NUCLEOSYNTHESIZE
FOREVER AND EVER. Atom PLUTONIUM, Atom PLUTONIUM, Atom PLUTONIUM, PLUTONIUM.

(huge crescendo ending)
A--T--O--M--P--L--U--T--O--NIUM!!!!


Happy Holidays

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

                ::\ ::|:: /::
                 ::\::|::/::
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - -
                 ::/::|::\::
                ::/ ::|:: \::

One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
 
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
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-21 21:32:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 13:32:34 -0800 (PST)

Subject: page55, 7-6, Appendix of Units and Physics Data/ PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE
textbook, 8th ed.
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 21:32:34 +0000

page55, 7-6, Appendix of Units and Physics Data/ PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE textbook, 8th ed.

APPENDIX of UNITS

Alright in this edition of Atom Totality, I include a appendix and data, for what I would like to see in all physics textbook is not only an appendix of units and data, but that those units and data be updated internationally every, say 3 years, where we have teams of scientists whose job and work is to have the latest best numbers and figures on data of science. We do it now on Global Warming Climate Change, and we should do it on Human Overpopulation along with physics, chemistry, biology etc data. We should forget about science researchers who apply for government money for "nutjob research-- Big Bang, black holes, gravity waves-- pure unadulterated nutjob science. And instead of throwing away money, employ them as scientists to keep the world updated on these Tables of data. For example the cosmic abundance of chemical elements is (I think) 20 or 30 years old with no-one wishing to update that data. Here I make it a political rule that these data tables be periodically updated and thus, also, updating the textbooks of science as the new data comes in.

In the past, we had nutjob scientists take the largest percent of research funding for nutjob projects-- that needs to stop.

Now this first table is that of Physics Units, and if a young scientist makes a mistake in physics-- calculation or a question of theory-- usually that mistake is caused by misunderstanding of Units of Physics. Invariably, some young whippersnapper or even some old kook will offer and proffer some "theory" we know it is flawed and stupid before he even blurts it out, we know that, but, we have to be polite, and let the creep waste our time, but, we know, as a physicist, that the creep's mistake will be -- units. The creep does not know the first thing about physics-- units, units, units.

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

velocity or speed = m/s

acceleration = m/s^2

linear momentum kg*m/s

angular momentum = kg*m^2/s

frequency = 1/s

Force = kg*m/s^2

Torque = moment arm * Force

Current = i = dq/dt where q is charge and this can be written where t = seconds

Pressure = kg / m*s^2

Energy = kg*m^2 / s^2

Power, or radiant flux = Energy times frequency, = kg*m^2 / s^3

Quantity of Electricity, charge, Coulomb = C = A*s

Inertia ML^2

Energy = Force x distance = work = ML^2T^-2

Kinetic Energy = 1/2 mv^2 =  1/2 ML^2T^-2

Force = mass x acceleration = ma = MLT^-2

velocity = LT^-1

acceleration = LT^-2

energy = ML^2T^-2

force = MLT^-2

frequency = T^-1

momentum = MLT^-1

Pressure = ML^-1T^-2

Power = ML^2T^-3

Entropy = ML^2T^-2

Resistance = kg*m^2 /A^2*s^3

electric current = i = A

Angular momentum L = m^2/(A*s)

Magnetic Field =  kg /A*s^2

Voltage  = kg*m^2 /A*s^3

velocity or speed = m/s

acceleration = m/s^2

angular momentum = m^2/s

frequency = 1/s

Force = kg*m/s^2

Pressure = kg / m*s^2

Energy = kg*m^2 / s^2

Power, or radiant flux = Energy times frequency, = kg*m^2 / s^3

Quantity of Electricity, charge, Coulomb = C = A*s

Inertia ML^2

Energy = Force x distance = work = ML^2T^-2

Kinetic Energy = 1/2 mv^2 =  1/2 ML^2T^-2

Force = mass x acceleration = ma = MLT^-2

velocity = LT^-1

acceleration = LT^-2

energy = ML^2T^-2

force = MLT^-2

frequency = T^-1

momentum = MLT^-1

Pressure = ML^-1T^-2

Power = ML^2T^-3

Entropy = ML^2T^-2

Magnetic Field =  kg /A*s^2 = kg /C*s

Charge = C = A*s

Voltage  = kg*m^2 /A*s^3 = kg*m^2 /C*s^2

Pressure = kg/m*s^2

Force = kg*m/s^2

Power = kg*m^2/s^3

Resistance = kg*m^2 /A^2*s^3  = kg*m^2 /C *A*s^2

Capacitance = A^2*s^4/ kg*m^2

velocity or speed = m/s

acceleration = m/s^2

angular momentum proportional m^2/s

frequency = 1/s

Force = kg*m/s^2

Pressure = kg / m*s^2

Energy = kg*m^2 / s^2

Power, or radiant flux = Energy times frequency, = kg*m^2 / s^3

Quantity of Electricity, charge, Coulomb = C = A*s

Voltage is the (a) Electric Potential, the (b) Potential Difference and (c) Electromotive Force and all of which has the Units of W/A =  kg*m^2/A*s^3

Capacitance = farad = C/V = A^2*s^4 / kg*m^2

Electrical Resistance = ohm = kg*m^2 /A^2*s^3

Conductance = A/V = A^2*s^3 / kg*m^2

Magnetic Flux = V*s = kg*m^2 /A*s^2

Magnetic Field = tesla = kg /A*s^2

Resistance = kg*m^2/A^2*s^3

Inductance =  kg*m^2 /A^2*s^2  

velocity = LT^-1

acceleration = LT^-2

energy = ML^2T^-2

force = MLT^-2

frequency = T^-1

momentum = MLT^-1

Pressure = ML^-1T^-2

Power = ML^2T^-3

Entropy = ML^2T^-2


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--

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2017 22:25:31 -0800 (PST)
Subject: We have to revise the Equation E = mc^2 in light of the fact that the
.5MeV particle is the Magnetic Monopole and the .5 MeV is not rest mass but charge-energy
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 06:25:31 +0000
We have to revise the Equation E = mc^2 in light of the fact that the .5MeV particle is the Magnetic Monopole and the .5 MeV is not rest mass but charge-energy
We have to revise the Equation E = mc^2 in light of the fact that the .5MeV particle is the Magnetic Monopole and the .5 MeV is not rest mass but charge-energy.
True discoverer of E=mc^2. Was it Heaviside or JJ Thomson, or Poincare? Certainly not Einstein
The modern day derivation of E=mc^2 in light of the fact that the .5 MeV particle is a magnetic monopole, not the electron, Real Electron= muon
Now Ricker III gives an excellent account of the history of E=mc^2 with the below reference.
--- quoting from Ricker writing in NaturalPhilosophy. Org ---
[4] The derivation of E = mc2 originates from Maxwell’s formula [ f = δE/cδt ] which equates the force exerted on an absorbing body at the rate energy is received by the body. Since force is also the rate of the change of momentum of the body, which, by the conservation of momentum, is also the rate of change in the momentum of the radiation, the momentum lost by the radiation is equal to 1/c times the energy delivered to the body, or M = E/c. If the momentum of the radiation of a mass is M times the velocity c of the radiation, the equation m = E/c2 is derived.
-- end quote ---
What Ricker is pointing out is that the only true proof of E=mc^2 comes from the Maxwell Equations and thus Einstein's version is flawed since he did not appeal to the Maxwell Equations.
Would you look at that, look at that from Ricker, NaturalPhilosophy.org
--- quoting ---
[8] Thomson’s use of the formula has not escaped the notice of at least some modern physics textbooks. In Fundamentals of Physics by Halliday, et al, they state: “A decade before Einstein published his theory of relativity, J. J. Thomson proposed that the electron might be made up of small parts and that its mass is due to the electrical interaction of the parts. Furthermore, he suggested that the energy equals mc^2  (John Wiley, fourth edition, p. 735).
--- end quote ---
I do not have that edition.
But if true, then either Heaviside or JJ Thomson discovered E=mc^2 first.
I bet on Heaviside for his mind mastered the Maxwell Equations better than anyone except Maxwell himself. And, besides, Heaviside used E = mc^2 and that is full evidence that Heaviside discovered the equation for how can one use an equation, and not discover it.
And I suspect that JJ Thompson easily got notes and writings of Heaviside, as Thomson explored the atom.
Perhaps it is worth going through all of Maxwell to see whether he-- for some reason or other-- derived the equation first. And is so, well, that closed the case, for if Maxwell happened upon E = mc^2, it is his discovery, since the only way to that equation is through the Maxwell equations.
Alright that was some of the history of E=mc^2. And I showed how modern day times can easily derive it without using the Maxwell Equation by simply noting the mathematics involved of Calculus.
That the integral of momentum mv is that of 1/2mv^2, simple as that. Now if the velocity is a constant speed of light, the integral is not just a triangle area of 1/2 base*height, but rather is the full area of the square involved and the area of square is base*height, or c*c and thus mc^2.
But, now, in light of the new discovery that .5MeV is not the true electron but a magnetic monopole with charge energy of .5MeV we have to inspect the equation E = mc^2 all over again.
And I think I have a quick and easy solution for that messy entanglement. Remember earlier in this text, I discussed how New Physics needs a duality of Force definition. One Force definition is Newton's old F = ma. That is good, except that force definition is only useful when a body has actual rest mass. But photons have no rest mass, for all they have is energy, and we are worried about charge energy.
So, for a photon we cannot use E = mc^2. So earlier, a gave a dual definition of force as that of dQ/dt
where Q is charge, the rate of change of charge per time. A calculus of dQ/dt. Please review my earlier chapter on dq/dt. So, here we have, thus, a second equation that represents energy which has no rest mass involved, but rather charge energy (or spin energy) and the new equation is E = Qc^2.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-22 21:45:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 13:41:39 -0800 (PST)

Subject: page56, 7-7, Appendix of Astronomy, Physics Data/ PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE
textbook, 8th ed.
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 21:41:40 +0000

page56, 7-7, Appendix of Astronomy, Physics Data/ PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE textbook, 8th ed.


ASTRO DATA TABLE

Alright, in the 8th edition, I need a chapter that does just the data and facts of Solar System objects. As an ongoing job and duty of astronomers to constantly refresh revise and update the data of our Solar System and astronomy in whole. When I first went to College in 1968 to study and major in math, we had a CRC book, Chemical Rubber Company of pages upon pages of formulas and data, which was revised very often. We need something of that nature in Science, especially Physics. Now, of course Halliday and Resnick did a beautiful job in their Physics textbooks, but we need those tables ongoing with revisions. Just recently I was informed that the speed of the Sun in the Galaxy was not 220km/second but rather 230km/second.

This is what I mean by constant revising. So that anyone can go to this Astronomy Data and pull up whatever is needed.

This is my best data::

Sun 230 km/s orbital speed around Milky Way
Mercury, 0.24 yr orbital period, 47.87 km/s orbital speed
Venus, 0.61 yr orbital period, 35.02 km/s orbital speed
Earth, 1 yr orbital period, 29.78 km/s orbital speed 
Moon , 27 days orbit, 1 km/s orbital speed

Mars, 1.8 yrs orbital period, 24.07 km/s orbital speed

Jupiter, 11.86 yrs orbital period, 13.07 km/s orbital speed 

Saturn, 29.45 yrs orbital period, 9.69 km/s orbital speed 

Uranus, 84.32 yrs orbital period, 6.81 km/s orbital speed 

Neptune, 164.79 yrs orbital period, 5.43 km/s orbital speed


Now that Utexas site delivers this table with my
own modifications in the third column. These precessions are in
arcseconds/year
and thanks to Richard Fitzpatrick 2009/07/28 for
having this website. Basically I am after the
**observed precession** for that is the most
important number.

xxxxxxxxxxx

Mercury, 5.75 observed, 5.50 theor, +0.25 deviat
Venus, 2.04 observed, 10.75 theor, -8.71 deviat
Earth, 11.45 observed, 11.87 theor, -0.42 deviat
Mars, 16.28 observed, 17.60 theor, -1.32 deviat
Jupiter, 6.55 observed, 7.42 theor, -0.87 deviat
Saturn, 19.50 observed, 18.36 theor, +1.14 deviat
Uranus, 3.34 observed, 2.72 theor, +0.62 deviat
Neptune, 0.36 observed, 0.65 theor, -0.29

xxxxxxxxxxx

Sun, average density 1.4 gm/cm^3 but core is 150 gm/cm^3 and where
core is equal to about 0.2 solar radii

MEAN DENSITIES

Mercury, 5.4 gm/cm^3, metal core is 42% of volume


Venus, 5.2 gm/cm^3, metallic core


Earth, 5.5 gm/cm^3, metal core 17% volume


Moon, 3.3 gm/cm^3, iron core


Mars, 3.9 gm/cm^3, iron sulfide core


---------
Jupiter, 1.3 gm/cm^3, rocky core that is 12-45 Earth
mass and 3 to 15% of Jupiter's total mass


Saturn, 0.7 gm/cm^3, (less dense than water), rocky
core 9 to 22 times Earth mass

Uranus, 1.2 gm/cm^3, rock core

Neptune, 1.6 gm/cm^3, rock core of iron, nickel, silicates

Pluto, 2.1 gm/cm^3, rock core


--------
Satellites of Jupiter:


Io, 3.5 gm/cm^3, iron core


Europa, 3.0 gm/cm^3, iron core


Ganymede, 1.9 gm/cm^3, Fe and FeS iron core


Callisto, 1.8 gm/cm^3, silicate core


_____


Saturn satellite


Titan, 1.8 gm/cm^3 silicate core

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



--- quoting from
  http://www.indiana.edu/~g302/planets.pdf.
 ---
 Solar System Composition
 Metals
 Oxides
 Mass
 Diameter
 Fe, Ni
 SiO
 2
 ,MgO,FeO
 Name
 (10
 27
 g)
 (10
 3
 km)
 %
 (10
 27
 g)
 %
 (10
 27
 g)
 Sun
 1,990,000
 0.1
 0.2
 Mercury
 0.33
 4.88
 50
 0.16
 50
 0.17
 Venus
 4.87
 12.11
 30
 1.46
 69
 3.36
 Earth
 5.97
 12.76
 29
 1.73
 69
 4.12
 Mars
 0.64
 6.79
 10
 0.06
 90
 Asteroids 0.0002
 15
 3x10
 -5
 85
 1.7x10
 -4
 Jupiter
 1900
 143.2
 4
 80
 9
 170
 Saturn
 570
 120
 7
 40
 14
 80
 Uranus
 88
 51.8
 8
 7
 17
 15
 Neptune
 103
 49.5
 6
 6
 14
 14
 --- end quoting from
  http://www.indiana.edu/~g302/planets.pdf.
 ---


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




So I went looking around for rotation periods and tilt, today.
--- from this website --- 
http://cseligman.com/text/sky/rotationvsday.htm 
                    Rotation period 
Mercury           58.6 days 
Venus            -243.0 days 
Earth              23 hours 56 minutes 
Moon              27.3 days 
Mars                24 hours 37 minutes 
Jupiter             9 hours 55 minutes 
Saturn             10 hours 32 minutes 
Uranus          -17 hours 14 minutes 
Neptune         16 hours 6 minutes 
Pluto                -6 days 9 hours
Angle of tilt on axis:
Mercury 0 degrees 
Venus -3 degrees 
Jupiter 3 degrees
Uranus -82 degrees 
Pluto -72 degrees
Earth 23.5 degrees 
Mars 25 degrees 
Saturn 27degrees 
Neptune 30 degrees
--- From a different website, I needed to know the rotation period of 
the Sun ---
from a source: 
Sun rotation period is approx 25 days
Next, I needed the data on the satellites of the gas giants of their 
rotation-period and tilt: 
From Wikipedia data: 
                       Rotation period 
Ganymede synchronous with orbit 7.1 days, with tilt 0 degrees 
Callisto synchronous with orbit 16.7 days, 0 degrees 
Io synchronous 1.7 days, 0 degrees 
Europa synchronous with orbit 3.5 days, 0 degrees
Titan synchronous 15.9 days, 0 degrees tilt
Moon synchronous 27.3 days
Finally, I was suspicious that comets would also have rotation periods 
so 
went looking and found this site: 
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~meech/rot.html 
Apparently the nucleus of comets has a rotation period 
and this website gives rotation periods of about 7.6 hours to 
15.0 hours on a list of comets studied.
Can I draw any conclusions so far?
Probably too premature, but I do notice the rotation period of our Sun 
closely 
matches that of the Moon. I also notice that the tilt on axis of Earth 
is closely matched by that of Mars, Saturn, Neptune. I remember a 
theory that the Moon collided with Earth very early in the history of 
Earth some 4 billion years ago and due to that collision, the theory 
went on to proffer that the tilt of Earth was caused. So I seriously 
doubt that Earth Moon collision when Mars is so much identical in tilt 
to Earth.
I do notice a pattern starting to emerge in that the inner planets 
rotation period is in days whereas the gas giants are in hours. This 
would be like saying that the inner planets have stopping grow fast 
with Dirac new radioactivities and are old astro bodies whereas the 
gas giants are young astro bodies and are growing fast with new cosmic 
rays and cosmic gamma ray bursts.
But I need to find out more data and to analyze much more on this.
What is hopeful is that rotation period can eventually be the best 
guide in astronomy as to a "age of a astro body." So that if we have a 
fastly rotating galaxy, then it is a young galaxy and if we have a 
galaxy with not much rotation at all, then it is very old.
Even applied to clusters of galaxies.
One of the gravest weakness of modern astronomy is the lack of 
measuring for age and perhaps this rotation period linked to age is 
going to open up alot of new data.


MORE DATA TABLE OF SOLAR SYSTEM::


Alright, let give you a new rule for the distance spacing of planets.
A rule
that follows a Coulomb or gravity force law. Where we consider that
the
Titius Bode Rule above for the inner planets and the satellites of
Jupiter
to be secondary spacings and not primary spacings.

Let me call this new Rule the Plutonium-Titius-Bode Rule:

1 + 2^2 =3D 5
2 + 3^2 =3D 11
3 + 4^2 =3D 19
4 + 5^2 =3D 29

Now here are the actual distance spacings of Jupiter to Neptune

Jupiter =3D 5.2 Au
Saturn =3D 9.5 Au
Uranus =3D 19.1 Au
Neptune =3D 30.0 Au

Now if I carried it out to a fifth planet beyond Jupiter I would have
5 + 6^2 =3D 41
which is not bad for Pluto at actual 39.4 Au.

The bad thing about the Titius Bode Rule is that it was one formula
for two
different planetary groupings. I call them CellWell1 and CellWell2.


So here is the old Titius Bode Rule
(0 + 4)/10 = 0.4 for Mercury (in Au)
(3 + 4)/10 = 0.7 for Venus
(6 + 4)/10 = 1.0 for Earth
.
.
.

Here is the newest AP-Titius-Bode Rule which applies
only to CellWell2 of Jupiter and beyond, whereas the
old Titius Bode Rule really only applied to the inner planets
and the moons of Jupiter.

1 + 2^2 = 5 for Jupiter (in Au)
2 + 3^2 = 11 for Saturn
3 + 4^2 = 19 for Uranus
4 + 5^2 = 29 for Neptune
5 + 6^2 = 41 for Pluto
6 + 7^2 = 55 for Kuiper Belt
7 + 8^2 = 71

Now I looked to see how well matched those numbers are
with actual distances, and they match far better than the
old Titius-Bode Rule.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


--- quoting from Dirac's excellent little book Directions in Physics,
1978, page 77 ---

This continuous creation of matter must be looked upon as something
quite independent of known physical processes. According to the
ordinary physical processes, which we study in the laboratory, matter
is conserved. Here we have direct non-conservation of matter. It is, if
you like, a new kind of radioactive process for which there is
non-conservation of matter and by which particles are created where
they did not previously exist. The effect is very small, because the
number of particles created will be appreciable only when we wait for
a very long time interval compared with the age of the Universe.

--- end quote ---

Now Dirac goes on to discuss whether New Radioactivity is additive or
multiplicative.

But my concern is whether we can turn the Periodic Table of Chemical
Elements around to show that **radioactive growth** occurs equally to
that of radioactive decay. For we commonly think of finding a sample
of uranium with lead and then go on to assume or presume that all the
lead came from the uranium decaying into lead, whereas there is the
other possibility that some of the lead was created from a lower
atomic numbered element and that some of the uranium was created from
lower atomic numbered element such as lead itself. So that when we
find a sample of U238 with half life of 4.5 billion years and find
half the sample is U238 and the other half is lead, we jump to the
false conclusion of 4.5 billion years old, whereas in fact, it was
likely to be 6 billion years old since some of the lead turned into
U238 and some of the thallium and mercury turned into lead.

So we need, in chemistry and physics a brand new chart or table
showing us the pathways of Radioactive Growth due to Dirac's New
Radioactivity.

Now I began to make a list of mean density gram/cm^3 of planets and
satellites:

Venus 5.2
Earth 5.51
Mars 3.93

Vesta asteroid 3.45
Ceres asteroid 2.07

Jupiter 1.32
Saturn 0.68
Uranus 1.27
Neptune 1.63
Pluto 2.03

gas giant satellites
Ganymede 1.93
Titan           1.87
Europa       3.01
Io                3.52

Our own Moon  3.34

Now taking a close look at this table, if we consider some satellites
such as Europa and Io as having been "captured metal asteroid", then
the rest of the table divides into two. Where we have the Sun and
inner planets with the Moon as being 10 billion years old and growing
via Dirac's New Radioactivity, whereas the outer planets, the gas
giants as being a mere 5 billion years old and their density is
evidence of this younger age.

So that physicists need to prepare a table for Radioactive Growth
alongside our presently existing table of radioactive decay pathways.

One of the pathways of growth appears to be heavy water in comets
where there is sparse density, but that radioactive growth of heavy
water is uncommon where there is greater density such as in Earth
oceans. So that if you had water on a comet, it is likely to grow into
heavy water whereas that same water on Earth is Dirac new radioactive
growth unlikely to happen. So physicists need to start preparing
Radioactive Growth pathway tables. Such a table should explain why
thorium and uranium are so strangely abundant in the cosmos when it
should not be so abundant.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Sun 230 km/s orbital speed around Milky Way
Mercury, 0.24 yr orbital period, 47.87 km/s orbital speed
Venus, 0.61 yr orbital period, 35.02 km/s orbital speed
Earth, 1 yr orbital period, 29.78 km/s orbital speed 
Moon , 27 days orbit, 1 km/s orbital speed

Mars, 1.8 yrs orbital period, 24.07 km/s orbital speed

Jupiter, 11.86 yrs orbital period, 13.07 km/s orbital speed 

Saturn, 29.45 yrs orbital period, 9.69 km/s orbital speed 

Uranus, 84.32 yrs orbital period, 6.81 km/s orbital speed 

Neptune, 164.79 yrs orbital period, 5.43 km/s orbital speed


Mercury magnetic field strength 1% of Earth or 300 nT 

Venus magnetic field strength is 10^-5 times Earth 

Earth magnetic field strength 3x10^4nT to 6x10^4nT

Moon magnetic field strength is 1 to 100 nT 

Mars magnetic field strength is 10^-4 times Earth
I should include the spin of these astro bodies as equatorial 
rotation 
velocity: 

Mercury 11km/h 

Venus 6km/h 

Earth 1,674 km/h

Moon 18 km/h 

Mars 868 km/h
Axial tilt (from wikipedia)
Mercury 2.11 degrees 

Venus 177.3degrees Venus is rotating the reverse of other planets, 
retrograde rotation 

Earth 23degrees ;
Moon 1.5 degrees to ecliptic 

Mars 25.19 degrees

Jupiter 3.13 degrees

Saturn 26.73 degrees

Uranus 97.77 degrees 

Neptune 28.32 degrees


Alright, let me keep adding to the magnetic fields of planets table:
Jupiter's magnetic field 14X larger than Earth's 

Saturn magnetic field about the same as Earth

Uranus an asymmetrical magnetosphere 0.23 gauss 

Neptune similar to Uranus only 0.14 gauss

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
Michael Moroney
2018-02-16 06:44:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Subject: Page40, 5-3 TRUE CORRECT MATH NEEDED by Physics in order to do the
Table of Elementary Physics Particles /Oval not ellipse//textbook 8th ed.
Injection-Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2017 21:58:22 +0000
You want to see the cool proof the ellipse is a conic section again? Here
you go!


Below you will find a simple *proof* that shows that certain conic
sections are ellipses.

Some preliminaries:

Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used
in the proof:

^ x
|
-+- <= x=h
.' | `.
. | .
| | |
' | '
`. | .'
y <----------+ <= x=0

Cone (side view):
.
/|\
/ | \
/b | \
/---+---' <= x = h
/ |' \
/ ' | \
/ ' | \
x = 0 => '-------+-------\
/ a | \

Proof:

r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x and d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x, hence

y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.

Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1 ...equation of an ellipse

qed
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-23 21:54:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 13:51:20 -0800 (PST)

Subject: page57, 7-8, Appendix of Chemistry Data & Table of Elementary
Particles/ PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE textbook, 8th ed.
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 21:51:21 +0000

page57, 7-8, Appendix of Chemistry Data & Table of Elementary Particles/ PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE textbook, 8th ed.


I need a lot of Lewis Diagrams for the table of Elementary Particles. How you build all the particles from using electron=muon = 105 MeV
and of course, the magnepole = monopole = .5 MeV of charge-energy, not rest mass.

Lewis diagrams with the Real Proton = 840 MeV as built from 8 muons in the law of octet.

So in the Table, the correct table of Physics Elementary Particles should look like this::

PHOTONS  .5 MeV magnepoles = magnetic monopoles, all other Photons, ranging from radio waves on up to mesons and beyond. Including all the Neutrinos for neutrinos are just photons that are longitudinal waves not double transverse waves.

LEPTONS  105 muon= electron, tau-electron 1785 +- charge

MESONS 139 pion, 135 pion , 493 K meson , 497 K meson, 548 Eta-meson
charge      +- pion,  0 pion,        +- K meson, 0 K meson,    0 Eta-meson

BARYONS  840 proton, 945 neutron, 1116 Lambda, 1189 Sigma, 1192 Sigma, 1197 Sigma
charge         +- proton,   0 neutron,       0 Lambda,    + Sigma,        0 Sigma,         - Sigma

more BARYONS   1315 Xi,    1321 Xi,    1672 Omega
          charge         0 Xi ,        +- Xi,        +- Omega

Recent BARYONS recent 2 Omegas at 6054 and 6165 MeV
Recent Meson, Upsilon 9460 MeV
Recent Higgs boson 125,000 MeV

The key formula is Real Electron= muon =105 MeV
Another key formula is proton = 8 x electron, the octet rule of chemistry and thus the proton itself is a octagon closed loop of 8 electrons=muons forming a Faraday Law closed loop wire as a proton.

Here we see the Atom is just the Maxwell-AP equations, but it does not stop there, for each subatomic particle is the Maxwell-AP equations, in turn.

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, I have huge amount of work cut out for me by the 9th edition, when I get around to that in 2019. I mean huge amount of work, because when it is known that the Real Electron = muon, Real Proton = 840MeV and that .5MeV particle is the current particle in electricity, the magnetic monopole, the particle that Dirac spent most of his physics career searching for, when it was right there, in front of him-- how ironic is that.

So by 2019, I need to revamp the Covalent bond, the Ionic bond, the Metallic bond of chemistry. For you see, chemistry is the specialized subject of physics that focuses upon how the electrons of atoms behave. And the moment you realize your electron at .5MeV was never a electron in the first place, well, oops!, throw out all the chemistry textbooks before 2018 and a good time thereafter until textbooks of chemistry are written with the central idea-- Real Electron = muon = 105 MeV. Real Proton = 840 MeV and the .5MeV particle is a charged photon that is the magnetic monopole.

Atom
ATOM