Discussion:
Univ Western Ontario looking (perhaps publish) at AP's Atom Totality theory
Add Reply
Archimedes Plutonium
2017-06-14 18:52:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
For years now i have asked Google to engineer a "author owns his own thread" so if the original author dislikes a stalker can delete the stalker from his thread
If you post some...
Can do... do you want the blown up size graphics for your Sunday School Sermon, Dan?

Advice, speak slowly when sermonizing, sermons are not lectures, you have to be reverential..


Univ Western Ontario Looking into publishing
Janusz Adamus, Tatyana  Barron,   Dan Christensen, Graham Denham, Ajneet Dhillon, Matthias  Franz, John Jardine, Massoud Khalkhali, Nicole Lemire, Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner, David Riley, Rasul Shafikov, Gordon Sinnamon




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

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, 23 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 be 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.

In later chapters this textbook is a planned weaving in and out of the Atom Totality theory for several pages then with the Maxwell/AP equations as axioms that yields physics, for the next several pages, then back to Atom Totality, then back to Maxwell/AP axioms, etc etc. The weaving back and forth keeps the book exciting.


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 of an atom looks like.

A large proportion of people reading this textbook, think that an electron 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 looks like. And most people are aghast or stunned to find out that the electron 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 of plutonium was this:

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON

                ::\ ::|:: /::
                 ::\::|::/::
                     _ _
                    (: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 looks like. An electron 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 with the white dots of an electron 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 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.
 


Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON 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 without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.     

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe        
Archimedes Plutonium
b***@gmail.com
2017-06-14 21:22:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
repaste alarm, brainless spammer AP strikes again!
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
For years now i have asked Google to engineer a "author owns his own thread" so if the original author dislikes a stalker can delete the stalker from his thread
If you post some...
Can do... do you want the blown up size graphics for your Sunday School Sermon, Dan?
Advice, speak slowly when sermonizing, sermons are not lectures, you have to be reverential..
Univ Western Ontario Looking into publishing
Janusz Adamus, Tatyana  Barron,   Dan Christensen, Graham Denham, Ajneet Dhillon, Matthias  Franz, John Jardine, Massoud Khalkhali, Nicole Lemire, Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner, David Riley, Rasul Shafikov, Gordon Sinnamon
Page1, 1-1, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing Physics, pre-8th ed.
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, 23 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 be 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.
In later chapters this textbook is a planned weaving in and out of the Atom Totality theory for several pages then with the Maxwell/AP equations as axioms that yields physics, for the next several pages, then back to Atom Totality, then back to Maxwell/AP axioms, etc etc. The weaving back and forth keeps the book exciting.
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 of an atom looks like.
A large proportion of people reading this textbook, think that an electron 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 looks like. And most people are aghast or stunned to find out that the electron looks like millions of fine grained glass dust evenly spread over a confined space, which in physics is called the electron-dot-cloud.
Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON
                     _ _
                    (: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 looks like. An electron 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 with the white dots of an electron 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 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.
 
Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON 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 without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.     
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe        
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2017-06-15 04:45:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
For years now i have asked Google to engineer a "author owns his own thread" so if the original author dislikes a stalker can delete the stalker from his thread
If you post some...
Can do... do you want the blown up size graphics for your Sunday School Sermon, Dan?
Advice, speak slowly when sermonizing, sermons are not lectures, you have to be reverential..
Univ Western Ontario Looking into publishing
Janusz Adamus, Tatyana  Barron,   Dan Christensen, Graham Denham, Ajneet Dhillon, Matthias  Franz, John Jardine, Massoud Khalkhali, Nicole Lemire, Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner, David Riley, Rasul Shafikov, Gordon Sinnamon
Page2, 1-2, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing Physics, pre-8th ed.

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 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 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 cloud is one electron itself.

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.

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

o .

Where the electron is a ball going around a tiny ball of a proton nucleus? Probably that is their picture of an electron.

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

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

The picture of an electron 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 books and even in movies and TV. And it was stunning to me for the first time when I understood the electron was not some small ball figure circling around a nucleus, but rather a huge number of dots was the actual electron 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 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 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 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 was those dots and that the dots represent a mass chunk or piece of the electron. 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, would anyone in the survey get it correct by stiplling dots or would they draw some round ball as the electron?

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

94th ELECTRON OF 231PU

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON 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
Archimedes Plutonium
2017-06-15 12:11:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
If you post some...
Can do... do you want the blown up size graphics for your Sunday School Sermon, Dan?
Advice, speak slowly when sermonizing, sermons are not lectures, you have to be reverential..
1 > Univ Western Ontario Looking into publishing
2 > Janusz Adamus, Tatyana  Barron,   Dan Christensen, Graham Denham, Ajneet Dhillon, Matthias  Franz, John Jardine, Massoud Khalkhali, Nicole Lemire, Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner, David Riley, Rasul Shafikov, Gordon Sinnamon


Page3, 1-3, pictures of the PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE

Page3, 1-3, pictures of the PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing Physics, pre-8th ed.

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

                         94th ELECTRON OF 231PU

               Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON

                ::\ ::|:: /::
                 ::\::|::/::
                     _ _
                    (: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 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 electrons 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 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 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 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 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" looks like. So that if I had been required to take a survey of what an atom and electron looks like in High School, I would have drawn this picture:

o .

or this

o O

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

Thinking the electron 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. 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, according to Born interpretation, but according to my interpretation those dots represent 90% of the actual electron mass, the electron 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 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 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 was a dot cloud, not a ball going around.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2017-06-15 21:11:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
2> > > > For years now i have asked Google to engineer a "author owns his own thread" so if the original author dislikes a stalker can delete the stalker from his thread
3> > > If you post some...
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Can do... do you want the blown up size graphics for your Sunday School Sermon, Dan?
4> > Advice, speak slowly when sermonizing, sermons are not lectures, you have to be reverential..
5> > Univ Western Ontario Looking into publishing
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Janusz Adamus, Tatyana  Barron,   Dan Christensen, Graham Denham, Ajneet Dhillon, Matthias  Franz, John Jardine, Massoud Khalkhali, Nicole Lemire, Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner, David Riley, Rasul Shafikov, Gordon Sinnamon
6> >
Page4, 1-4, pictures of the PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE


Page4, 1-4, pictures of the PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE

Now in this page I need to cover the Born Interpretation of the Atom and its electron, and talk about Collapsed and Uncollapsed Wave function. Because the electron that moves in wires in electricity is the collapsed wavefunction. But the electron 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.

The Born Interpretation is one among many interpretations. His interpretation is that the electron 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.

My interpretation is different from Born, for the electron dot cloud. My interpretation is that the electron 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. For me, the dots are actual pieces of the electron. So every atom that exists, every particle that exists is a dot in the electron 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 part of the last electron dot cloud of the Plutonium Atom Totality.


My first encounter of what electrons look 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 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 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 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. 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 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.

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 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 without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.     

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe        
Archimedes Plutonium
b***@gmail.com
2017-06-16 07:10:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Can somebody light a candle, brain fart alarm!
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
2> > > > For years now i have asked Google to engineer a "author owns his own thread" so if the original author dislikes a stalker can delete the stalker from his thread
3> > > If you post some...
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Can do... do you want the blown up size graphics for your Sunday School Sermon, Dan?
4> > Advice, speak slowly when sermonizing, sermons are not lectures, you have to be reverential..
5> > Univ Western Ontario Looking into publishing
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Janusz Adamus, Tatyana  Barron,   Dan Christensen, Graham Denham, Ajneet Dhillon, Matthias  Franz, John Jardine, Massoud Khalkhali, Nicole Lemire, Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner, David Riley, Rasul Shafikov, Gordon Sinnamon
6> >
Page4, 1-4, pictures of the PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE
Page4, 1-4, pictures of the PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE
Now in this page I need to cover the Born Interpretation of the Atom and its electron, and talk about Collapsed and Uncollapsed Wave function. Because the electron that moves in wires in electricity is the collapsed wavefunction. But the electron 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.
The Born Interpretation is one among many interpretations. His interpretation is that the electron 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.
My interpretation is different from Born, for the electron dot cloud. My interpretation is that the electron 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. For me, the dots are actual pieces of the electron. So every atom that exists, every particle that exists is a dot in the electron 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 part of the last electron dot cloud of the Plutonium Atom Totality.
My first encounter of what electrons look 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 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 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 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. 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 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.
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 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 without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.     
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe        
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2017-06-17 23:29:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Can somebody light a candle, brain fart alarm!
               __|     \ /     |__
   _ o   ___\o    \o    |    o/    o/___   o _
    /\  /)  |     ( \  /o\  / )     |   (\  /\
___|_\______                          _____/_|__
can the insane do
Archimedes Plutonium
2017-06-16 21:10:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
ARRAY of Mathematics, using the Conservation Principle on proofs



Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
____________________________

...,

Statement of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus: The integral of calculus is the area under the function graph, and the derivative of calculus is the dy/dx of a point (x_1, y_1) to the next successor point (x_2, y_2). The integral is area of the rectangle involved with (x_1, y_1) and (x_2, y_2), and the derivative is the dy/dx of y_2 - y_1 / x_2 - x_1. Prove that the integral and derivative are inverses of one another, meaning that given one, you can get the other, they are reversible.

....,

.....,

Proof of FTC::

From this:
        /|
      /  |
    /----|
  /      |
/        |
_____


To this:

______
|         |
|         |
|         |
----------

You can always go from a trapezoid with slanted roof to being a rectangle, by merely a midpoint that etches out a right triangle tip which when folded down becomes a rectangle.

....,

Comment::
Here we see that a geometry diagram is ample proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. And a geometry diagram is preferred for its simplicity and brevity, as the Pythagorean theorem started to do with mathematics in Ancient times. Other pieces and parts of the proof are scattered among the 10^60 facts and data of the Array of math. Here we show that a Statement is proven by a kernel of math knowledge-- you take a rectangle and procure a right triangle from the midpoint of the width and form a trapezoid for derivative and then reform back to a rectangle for integral. The derivative and integral pivot back and forth on a hinge at the midpoint of the rectangle width. The two operatives of integration and differentiation are reversible operators.

.....,

.....,

Fundamental Theorem of Algebra
____________________________

...,


Old Math statement of FTA:: The fundamental theorem of algebra states that every non-constant single-variable polynomial with complex coefficients has at least one complex root. This includes polynomials with real coefficients, since every real number A is a complex number with an imaginary part equal to zero.

....,
Comment:: New Math statement theorem of FTA need not be so long, because in New Math we recognize that sqrt-1 is simply A/0 where A is a real-number (New Real Number).

Theorem-Statement of FTA:: given any polynomial with New Real Numbers, that there always exists at least one New Real Number, call it A, as a solution.

Proof of FTA: x^2 +1 = 0, goes to 1/x^2 = -1, with solution x=0 as 1/0 = sqrt-1, thus any polynomial is 1/polynomial = +-k has at least, one solution for A.

Comment:: Notice the beauty of the Statement of Theorem then Proof are almost identical in length of words. This is what happens when you have a true proof of a statement in mathematics.


Comment:: there is a huge fallout of this proof, in the fact that "i" an imaginary number is no longer needed because the Reals in 0 and any Real A where we have A/0 is a imaginary number and is a complex number. So, all of a sudden the Complex Plane and imaginary number dissolves out of math history into a gutter of shame. Whenever see "i" what that really is, is A/0 where A is any Real number.
....,

S_m

S_m+1

....,


Comment:: now the order of the ARRAY is desirable to be of a history order. But, in many cases, we can lump and repeat statements. Remember, the ARRAY is going to be huge. I am talking of volumes that would fill a entire library, just on math ARRAY. And of course, in our computer age, we have the ARRAY accessible by computer.
.....,


....,






.....,





......,




S_p+10^10

S_p+(10^10) +1

....,


....,


Comments::
No point in reading or studying anything from Godel (Goedel). He was so stupid in Logic, that it escaped his attention that the AND connector is the add, and not the OR connector. Spending a whole life in Logic, yet Godel was so dumb in logic that he believed all his life that AND truth table was TFFF, when in reality it was TTTF. The only time a AND connector is false is when there is no true statement available at all. When everything is false, is the time that AND is false. And here we have a klutz of logic, spending his entire life in Logic and never smart enough to realize AND is the ADD of Logic, not OR.

Godel was so stupid in Logic, that OR is the choice connector, chose between A or B and thus Subtraction, not addition. The OR truth table is actually FTTF since it is true only when a "choice is available".

Yet this crippled mind of Godel is touted as some brilliant person because of his silly daft ideas of completeness and consistency. His fake proofs all hinge on the notion that Infinity is poorly defined. Infinity has no borders. But if you realize that Infinity has a borderline, you cannot use infinity to pull your stupid fake proof along. So, just as Godel was ignorant of not knowing AND was Add, equally, he was ignorant that he misused the concept of infinity to make fake proofs.

So Godel is a man that was too dumb to realize AND was Add and not OR, and then, why would any rational person think that such a failure of Logic has anything to say about math completeness or consistency. He could not even tell the difference between add and subtract.

I should put this as a Comment in the ARRAY.

Now, one aspect of Godel that should have alerted people that he was bad in thinking, is that he kept thinking people were trying to poison him. And so he decided on starving to death, rather than eat some food he was deluded into thinking it was poison. Now, do you think a person of that type of mind can find truths of Nature of a complex form? No, a person who lives a life of crazy reason, only has crazy ideas to offer.

Comment:: Only during the time of Archimedes Plutonium, do mathematicians begin to look at the personal character of mathematicians and of physicists, to ponder, if living a crazy life, means, that the science work offered by such a person-- is also, just plain crazy.

.....,



.....,




.....,





Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON 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 without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.     

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe        
Archimedes Plutonium
b***@gmail.com
2017-06-17 23:52:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
repaste alarm, same shit again and again

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
ARRAY of Mathematics, using the Conservation Principle on proofs
Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
____________________________
...,
Statement of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus: The integral of calculus is the area under the function graph, and the derivative of calculus is the dy/dx of a point (x_1, y_1) to the next successor point (x_2, y_2). The integral is area of the rectangle involved with (x_1, y_1) and (x_2, y_2), and the derivative is the dy/dx of y_2 - y_1 / x_2 - x_1. Prove that the integral and derivative are inverses of one another, meaning that given one, you can get the other, they are reversible.
....,
.....,
        /|
      /  |
    /----|
  /      |
/        |
_____
______
|         |
|         |
|         |
----------
You can always go from a trapezoid with slanted roof to being a rectangle, by merely a midpoint that etches out a right triangle tip which when folded down becomes a rectangle.
....,
Here we see that a geometry diagram is ample proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. And a geometry diagram is preferred for its simplicity and brevity, as the Pythagorean theorem started to do with mathematics in Ancient times. Other pieces and parts of the proof are scattered among the 10^60 facts and data of the Array of math. Here we show that a Statement is proven by a kernel of math knowledge-- you take a rectangle and procure a right triangle from the midpoint of the width and form a trapezoid for derivative and then reform back to a rectangle for integral. The derivative and integral pivot back and forth on a hinge at the midpoint of the rectangle width. The two operatives of integration and differentiation are reversible operators.
.....,
.....,
Fundamental Theorem of Algebra
____________________________
...,
Old Math statement of FTA:: The fundamental theorem of algebra states that every non-constant single-variable polynomial with complex coefficients has at least one complex root. This includes polynomials with real coefficients, since every real number A is a complex number with an imaginary part equal to zero.
....,
Comment:: New Math statement theorem of FTA need not be so long, because in New Math we recognize that sqrt-1 is simply A/0 where A is a real-number (New Real Number).
Theorem-Statement of FTA:: given any polynomial with New Real Numbers, that there always exists at least one New Real Number, call it A, as a solution.
Proof of FTA: x^2 +1 = 0, goes to 1/x^2 = -1, with solution x=0 as 1/0 = sqrt-1, thus any polynomial is 1/polynomial = +-k has at least, one solution for A.
Comment:: Notice the beauty of the Statement of Theorem then Proof are almost identical in length of words. This is what happens when you have a true proof of a statement in mathematics.
Comment:: there is a huge fallout of this proof, in the fact that "i" an imaginary number is no longer needed because the Reals in 0 and any Real A where we have A/0 is a imaginary number and is a complex number. So, all of a sudden the Complex Plane and imaginary number dissolves out of math history into a gutter of shame. Whenever see "i" what that really is, is A/0 where A is any Real number.
....,
S_m
S_m+1
....,
Comment:: now the order of the ARRAY is desirable to be of a history order. But, in many cases, we can lump and repeat statements. Remember, the ARRAY is going to be huge. I am talking of volumes that would fill a entire library, just on math ARRAY. And of course, in our computer age, we have the ARRAY accessible by computer.
.....,
....,
.....,
......,
S_p+10^10
S_p+(10^10) +1
....,
....,
No point in reading or studying anything from Godel (Goedel). He was so stupid in Logic, that it escaped his attention that the AND connector is the add, and not the OR connector. Spending a whole life in Logic, yet Godel was so dumb in logic that he believed all his life that AND truth table was TFFF, when in reality it was TTTF. The only time a AND connector is false is when there is no true statement available at all. When everything is false, is the time that AND is false. And here we have a klutz of logic, spending his entire life in Logic and never smart enough to realize AND is the ADD of Logic, not OR.
Godel was so stupid in Logic, that OR is the choice connector, chose between A or B and thus Subtraction, not addition. The OR truth table is actually FTTF since it is true only when a "choice is available".
Yet this crippled mind of Godel is touted as some brilliant person because of his silly daft ideas of completeness and consistency. His fake proofs all hinge on the notion that Infinity is poorly defined. Infinity has no borders. But if you realize that Infinity has a borderline, you cannot use infinity to pull your stupid fake proof along. So, just as Godel was ignorant of not knowing AND was Add, equally, he was ignorant that he misused the concept of infinity to make fake proofs.
So Godel is a man that was too dumb to realize AND was Add and not OR, and then, why would any rational person think that such a failure of Logic has anything to say about math completeness or consistency. He could not even tell the difference between add and subtract.
I should put this as a Comment in the ARRAY.
Now, one aspect of Godel that should have alerted people that he was bad in thinking, is that he kept thinking people were trying to poison him. And so he decided on starving to death, rather than eat some food he was deluded into thinking it was poison. Now, do you think a person of that type of mind can find truths of Nature of a complex form? No, a person who lives a life of crazy reason, only has crazy ideas to offer.
Comment:: Only during the time of Archimedes Plutonium, do mathematicians begin to look at the personal character of mathematicians and of physicists, to ponder, if living a crazy life, means, that the science work offered by such a person-- is also, just plain crazy.
.....,
.....,
.....,
Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON 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 without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.     
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe        
Archimedes Plutonium
Loading...