Discussion:
World risks Nuclear WW3 all brought about by Israel's insane quest to restore-steal all the land that was Ancient King David's Israel. 4m views
(too old to reply)
Archimedes Plutonium
2023-12-06 06:09:48 UTC
Permalink
World risks Nuclear WW3 all brought about by Israel's insane quest to restore-steal all the land that was Ancient King David's Israel.
4m views
Subscribe
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<***@gmail.com>
Dec 5, 2023, 7:05:46 PM (5 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe

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.  
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

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




If every country on Earth decided to restore their Ancient borderlines, all of Earth would be a living hell-hole. As bad as Gaza strip is at this moment-- bombed to death, no food, no water, no heat, no hospital, no medicine. All so that modern Israel becomes the same land as Ancient Israel, throwing out or killing the Palestinians.

Israel created 9-11, and then created 7Oct2023.

Please stop Israel from sparking Nuclear World War 3. For this tiny country in the Mediterranean has caused so much hatred all over the world, that is inevitable they spark Nuclear World War 3. Unless politicians and people wake up.

World risks Nuclear WW3 all brought about by Israel's insane quest to restore-steal all the land that was Ancient King David's Israel.
Archimedes Plutonium
2023-12-08 00:01:42 UTC
Permalink
David Brooks, Michael Roston,kibo Parry (Volney), reCAPTcha is it not childish to have a curse on AP, to never print his name in your newspaper, when the mature grown up act is to publish the fact in your Science section-- slant cut of cone is Oval, and is never ellipse. So that all the residents of New York state realize the truth, and intelligent people like Mr. Marshall Lett need not ask the question. People in New York state and around the world asking which is the slant cut in cone-- is it ellipse or oval??? Yet the Science section of The New York Times refusing to publish the truth because it means printing the name Archimedes Plutonium for which NYT vows to never do. For to publish the truth on conics means having to print the name Archimedes Plutonium as discoverer of the truth. And nothing worse in all the world for Mr. Sulzberger is to have to print the name Archimedes Plutonium in his newspaper. Hatred rules the The New York Times, not the truth of the world.

Mr. Brooks and Mr. Roston, what is the point in even having a The New York Times Science Section, when it cannot even answer the question of a New Yorker as Mr. Marshall Lett who wants to know if slant cut of cone is ellipse or oval.

Just because the NYT hates the guts of AP, and wants to never print his name, is no excuse in answering Mr. Lett's question. Besides, if NYT never answers the question, shows only that likely all of the NYT stories are just propaganda bias. You cannot answer science, means the rest of your newspaper is unreliable.
I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
Who am I supposed to believe?
Look, the NYT cannot even cover the truth of math or science, and thus, cannot tell the truth of social life in America of politics, of history. If you cannot tell the truth of a Oval versus Ellipse, anything else you say is likely to be the truth.

The New York Times cannot cover the truth of math or science-- Slant cut of Cone is Oval, never ellipse. Means the The New York Times is a garbage newsprint that cannot cover the truth of history, politics or the daily news.

The New York Times, certainly cannot tell the truth about math or science, certainly then, cannot tell the truth about history or politics. As soon as David Brooks opens his mouth on politics, is as soon as- turn the TV off. For The New York Times is not about the "truth of the world" but about their own childish games. A sort of Fascism of News.



David Brooks, is the NYT as dumb and stupid in politics as it is dumb and stupid in math-science-- NYT cannot tell the difference between oval and ellipse. Does Michael Roston even know what a oval is??? Is any of the Science printed in the New York Times, is any of your science truthful or is it all a bunch of garbage prattle like your ellipse is a conic section when that is false. Are there any logical brains at the NYT, or is the NYT empty of logical brains???
Mr. Sulzberger, you have a Science section in your newspaper, you have residents of New York State such as Mr. Lett. What the hell good is your Science section, Mr. Sulzberger if you cannot even answer the question-- Slant cut of Cone is Oval, never the ellipse. All because you hate the guts of AP, that your Science section refuses to tell the truth.
Mr. Marshall Lett started a thread over in sci.math, asking the question of what the slant cut in cone truly is?
I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
Who am I supposed to believe?
Mr. Kahn, is it not awfully childish of the The New York Times to hold a curse on AP, and you ignore the science truth and reality. Your motto at the Times-- "all the news fit to print" maybe should become "all the news except Archimedes Plutonium for the NYT hates his guts".

Joseph Kahn, why even bother having a Science section at The New York Times, when your newspaper cannot even inform and teach readers the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is Oval, never the ellipse. Even your New York residents are asking question. Even your New York High School students have more geometry brains than the staff at the The New York Times.
I'm confused. On the one hand, my teachers at school always told me it was. On the other hand, the King of Science, Archimedes Plutonium, says it is not.
Who am I supposed to believe?
The New York Times should step in here, with its Science section-- for what the hell is it good for, if it cannot even tell the truth between a ellipse and a oval.
And an spamming stalker idiot Kibo Parry only confuses those already confused.
Constantly confusing posters and stalks sci.math with his failed and anti-science mischief.
Oh you need to see the ellipse-is-a-conic-section proof again? Here you go!

The New York Times, A.G. Sulzberger would rather publish that than ever publish AP's correction of Ancient Greek mathematics, that since the slant cut of Cylinder is ellipse, it is impossible for slant cut of cone be an ellipse, but rather an Oval instead. For a cylinder has 2 axes of symmetry same as ellipse, but cone has 1 axis of symmetry same as Oval.
The New York Times maintains its hatred and refusal to ever print on AP, as they did in 1994 when NYT along with Dartmouth College suspended posting account of AP for 1 month, because AP was doing science in Usenet. The NYT hates the guts of AP and all the science AP achieves and so there is a directive at NYT, to never publish the name "Archimedes Plutonium" in the NYT, no matter if even AP becomes president of NASA or National Science Foundation. Or, even if every Science magazine publishes AP, the The New York Times will not. No wonder people become anti-semitic when a newspaper invites anti-semitism.

A.G.Sulzberger, Joseph Kahn, Marc Lacey, Carolyn Ryan, Kathleen Kingsbury, David Brooks, Michael Roston, why not publish the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is never a ellipse, always a oval. Or is hatred your game more than truth and reality of the world you live in.
Let us analyze AP's Proof
In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.
The side view of a cylinder is this
| |
| |
| |
That allows cE to be the same distance as cF
But the side view of the cone is
/\E
/c \
F / \
The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF makes that distance larger than cE.
The New York Times has it correct on Darwin Evolution, but when it comes to physics, they use their newspaper to make Einstein a semigod, and trash all physicists working in physics, because the NYT starts almost every physics report, starts it out as saying..... And Einstein did this.... and ending the report with .... this proves Einstein. Some magazines have become almost as bad as NYT in physics reporting.
The New York Times, A.G. Sulzberger would rather publish what is written in a book such as Stillwell, where Stillwell does not analyze anything, than ever publish AP's correction of Ancient Greek mathematics, that since the slant cut of Cylinder is ellipse, it is impossible for slant cut of cone be an ellipse, but rather an Oval instead. For a cylinder has 2 axes of symmetry same as ellipse, but cone has 1 axis of symmetry same as Oval.
The New York Times maintains its hatred curse on AP, as they did in 1994 when NYT along with Dartmouth College suspended posting account of AP for 1 month, because AP was doing science in Usenet. The NYT hates the guts of AP and all the science AP achieves and so there is a directive at NYT, to never publish the name "Archimedes Plutonium" in the NYT, no matter if even AP becomes president of NASA or National Science Foundation.
A.G.Sulzberger, Joseph Kahn, Marc Lacey, Carolyn Ryan, Kathleen Kingsbury,David Brooks, Michael Roston why not publish the truth of science-- slant cut of cone is never a ellipse, always a oval. Or is hatred your game more than truth and reality of the world you live in.

Let us analyze AP's Proof

Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E
In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.
The side view of a cylinder is this
| |
| |
| |
That allows cE to be the same distance as cF
But the side view of the cone is
/\E
/c \
F / \
The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF makes that distance larger than cE.


3rd published book
AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled


Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 14May2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
In the course of 2019 through 2022, I have had to explain this proof often on Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics. And one thing that constant explaining does for a mind of science, is reduce the proof to its stripped down minimum format, to bare bones skeleton proof. I can prove the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse in just a one sentence proof. Proof-- A single cone and oval have just one axis of symmetry, while a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, hence slant cut is always a oval, never the ellipse.
Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 827 KB
• Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 51 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
My 11th published book




World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.

To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?

Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.


Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
Mathin3D
2023-12-09 12:59:39 UTC
Permalink
In your fantasy world, how do 50 or 60 4th generation jets together with dwindling land assets win a war against an enemy that has the equipment, production and personnel to counter such?

Everybody will root for an underdog every now and then. But man, you leave no room for success. Sh t!
Archimedes Plutonium
2023-12-09 21:25:47 UTC
Permalink
Melbourne Uni,Dr.Elisabetta Barberio,Dr.Nicole F Bell,Dr.Quiney, is Arindam Banerjee correct when he claims they are too dumb to weigh the mass of oxygen and compare to mass of hydrogen in Water Electrolysis. For AP claims water is really H4O, not the stupid silly Banerjee's H2O.


Melbourne Uni Dr.Quiney and McCallum is Banerjee correct in saying the Moon landing of 1969 by Apollo 11 was staged in Australia's Cooper Creek with actors from Uni Melbourne, along the Burke & Wills picnic trails?
When will they admit that 1969 moon landings were done in some US desert?
180 views
Those three robots did not even land on the moon, assuming they got there, and that is a reasonable assumption maybe.
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
, …
17
unread,
Re: Harvard's Dr. Hau and Berkeley's Sylvia Else do not do physics but just play ad hominem games
9:13 PM
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
, …
53
unread,
Drs.V. Venkataraman, Arnab Rai Choudhuri of Indian Institute of Science Bangalore--are you as dumb as Arindam Banerjee never realizing the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV,monopole=.5MeV // 12 proofs below
9:02 PM
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
, …
Volney
23
unread,
Re: Do they teach how not to steal from others in India, for I know South Africa has that problem as seen in John Gabriel, but then Arindam Banerjee is another stealer who never quotes, never cites reference source, never footnotes. For Benjamin
May 7
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
,
8
unread,
Re: Arindam Banerjee, the .... of science, physics, when he never learned what 1st year students learn-- Units, units units-- E=mc^2 multiplied by a scalar makes no changes-- no changes to Old Ohm's law or New Ohm's law when multiplied by sca
May 7
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
, …
35
unread,
Re: Bhattacharya Saswata,Indian Institute of Technology,Bhatnagar M.C. ,Chatterjee R.,Chaudhary Sujeet,Das Pintu-- is the reason none of you have confirmed real proton = 840MeV, real electron is the muon and .5MeV was Dirac monopole--busy on
May 2
, …
Arindam Banerjee
22
unread,
Re: Anurag Sharma,Babu Sujin B, Banerjee Varsha,Bhattacharya Saswata of Indian Institute of Tech, are you as stupid and pandering fools of Climate Change like Jai Maharaj// thus never able to see real proton = 840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole?
May 1
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
, …
53
unread,
Re: Hi, I am Arindam Banerjee a arsewipe of physics,so stupid in physics I am too dumb to ask the question which is the Atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle and thus I attempt to keep Indian Institute of Technology as dumb as Arindam Banerj
Apr 28
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
,
8
unread,
Re: Arindam Banerjee asks Mehta B.R. , Mehta D.S.,Narendra Modi if the 2nd derivative in Feynman's Electric field equation E = (q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')] if that 2nd derivative is the same as C'
Apr 25
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
,
2
unread,
Re: Paid for anti-science spammers of disinformation like Banerjee & Valev banned from sci.math, sci.physics simply from Economic Sanctions on Russia, Iran, NK, et al
Apr 21
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
,
2
unread,
Re: Melbourne Uni Lloyd L Hollenberg Geoffrey N Taylor Raymond R Volkas can you please vouch for the fact ...... rail gun research and that the spammer Arindam Banerjee is just one liaring b.s. cluttering up sci.physics
Apr 10
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
,
3
unread,
Re: Arindam Banerjee claims do not square up Uni Melbourne--Harry M Quiney Jeffrey C McCallum Lloyd L Hollenberg, can Australia verify
Apr 10
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
, …
32
unread,
Re: Hi, I'm Arindam Banerjee and throw a flaming fresh shit turd into the middle of Physics-- why?
Apr 15
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
, …
49
unread,
Re: Ghosh Sankalpa, Ghosh Santanu,Joseph Joby, Kanseri Bhaskar, Kedar B Khare of Indian Institute of Tech, are you as insane nutjob of physics as Arindam Banerjee // not able to see real proton = 840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole and real electron is
Apr 9
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
, …
50
unread,
Bhatnagar M.C. ,Indian Institute of Technology,Chatterjee R.,Chaudhary Sujeet,Das Pintu,Dhaka Rajendra S.-- is the reason none of you have confirmed real proton = 840MeV, real electron is the muon and .5MeV was Dirac monopole-- too busy on Arindam??
Apr 9
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
, …
66
unread,
Re: Banerjee Varsha,Indian Institute of Technology,Bhattacharya Saswata,Bhatnagar M.C. ,Chatterjee R.-- is the reason none of you have confirmed real proton = 840MeV, real electron is the muon and .5MeV was Dirac monopole--busy with imp Arindam??
Apr 9
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
, …
9
unread,
Re: Arindam Banerjee asks Anurag Sharma, Babu Sujin B, Banerjee Varsha if the 2nd derivative in Feynman's Electric field equation E = (q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')] if that 2nd derivative is the same
Apr 9
Univ Melbourne Physics dept
Harry M Quiney
Jeffrey C McCallum
Lloyd L Hollenberg
Geoffrey N Taylor
Raymond R Volkas
Rachel L Webster
James (Stuart) Burton Wyithe
Elisabetta Barberio
Nicole F Bell
Christopher T Chantler
Kenneth Crozier
David N Jamieson
Andrew McCallum Martin
Jeffrey C McCallum
Andrew Melatos
Steven Prawer
Harry M Quiney
Ann Roberts
Martin E Sevior
Michele Trenti
Duane Hamacher
Roger P Rassool
Christian Reichardt
Phillip Urquijo
Melbourne Uni Lloyd L Hollenberg Geoffrey N Taylor Raymond R Volkas can you please vouch for the fact that Australia never had rail gun research and that the spammer Arindam Banerjee is just one liaring b.s. cluttering up sci.physics

Can_Dr.Das Pintu,Dr.Shenoy M.R.,Dr.Bhatnagar M.C.,Dr.Chatterjee R., Dr.Chaudhary Sujeet, Indian Institute of Technology- please-step into the physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O. Once weighed the hydrogen test tube should be 1/4 the weight of the oxygen test tube for H4O but if mainstream chemistry is correct then 1/8 atomic mass units. My weighing scales do not go up to 0.00001 gram, and sure that Indian Institute Technology has far better precision. Thanks


Can_Srivastava Pankaj, Varshney R.K., Vijaya Prakash G. PLEASE step into a physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O. AP's homegrown lab cannot do the fine tuning experiment of weighing a test tube of electrolyzed hydrogen and oxygen from water. If AP is correct Water is really H4O, not H2O. My weighing scale is puny and insufficient for the job at hand, 0.00001 gram or less of hydrogen and oxygen test tubes. If AP is correct the hydrogen is 1/4 the weight of oxygen, if mainstream chemistry, physics is correct the hydrogen is 1/8 in amu to oxygen.

I am sure India has plenty of Quartz Crystal MicroBalance scales.


Indian Institute of Technology

Physics dept. Anurag Sharma, Babu Sujin B, Banerjee Varsha, Bhattacharya Saswata, Bhatnagar M.C. , Chatterjee R., Chaudhary Sujeet, Das Pintu, Dhaka Rajendra S., Ghosh Joyee, Ghosh Pradipta, Ghosh Sankalpa, Ghosh Santanu, Joseph Joby, Kanseri Bhaskar, Kedar B Khare, Khare Neeraj, Kumar Sunil, Malik H.K., Mani Brajesh Kumar, Marathe Rahul, Mehta B.R. , Mehta D.S. , Mishra Amruta, Muduli P.K., Ravishankar V. , Reddy G.B. , Saxena Vikrant, Sengupta Amartya, Senthilkumaran P. ,Shenoy M.R. , Shukla A.K., Singh J.P., Singh Rajendra, Sinha Aloka, Soni Ravi Kant, Srivastava Pankaj, Varshney R.K., Vijaya Prakash G.
Spam mill echo chamber, that is Arindam Banerjee a decades long spammer of sci.physics with his hatred of science and the method of science. Hate, hate, anger and hate.
Is Arindam Banerjee reflective, a reflection of why India never has a Nobel prize in chemistry or physics, for schizophrenic type of behavior-- one moment doing physics-- rail gun, next moment shouting that Apollo 11 was a staged hoax in Arizona desert and that the Sun and Earth cores are a frigid near 0 Kelvin temperature. Maybe all of Indian physics and chemistry is like this-- one moment doing science-- next moment hating science.
Is Arindam Banerjee the reason ITT fails to have a Nobel winner in chemistry or physics? Like Arindam, his hatred of science is glooming large with his constant hatred of science-- Apollo 11 was a staged hoax, Sun core is a frigid near 0 Kelvin, the man is a lunatic of science, perhaps reflecting why India fails to achieve science honors.
+Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within
+Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within
3m views Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium
Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within the accuracy I need for weighing a test tube of oxygen then a test tube of hydrogen from water electrolysis.
Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium
In Old Chemistry and Old Physics, their subatomic particles were do nothing and no function and no job particles that sit around as balls or whiz around the outside of balls doing nothing but pointless circling.
In New Physics and New Chemistry-- All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. Every subatomic particle has a job a function a purpose as to the Laws of Electromagnetism--- Faraday law, Coulomb law, Ampere law, Capacitor law.
A proton is a torus of 840MeV with 840 windings, while the muon is the true electron of Atoms and is encased inside the proton torus thrusting through and producing electricity-- magnetic monopoles.
The neutron of Atoms is a parallel plate capacitor storing the electricity of proton+muon and is skin cover on the outside of the proton torus in the form of parallel plates.
Can hydrogen be a Atom if it is just a proton+muon? No, all atoms require to have a capacitor such as at least one neutron. Thus the Hydrogen Atom is H2 where you have 2 proton+muon where 1 of the 2 proton+muon acts like a neutron to the other proton+muon. Thus, water molecule is not H2O but rather is H4O.
AP is waiting for experimental chemists and physicists to prove him correct that Water is H4O.
In the meantime we have Hydroxyl which in Old Chemistry, especially Biology is OH, while AP says that is wrong and that is really H2O.
Now glycerine is a hydroxyl with formula C3H8O3. And what I am thinking at this moment, is that hydroxyls will be an easier proof that Water is truly H4O, rather than wait for experimentalists to actually "weigh the electrolysis test tubes of oxygen and hydrogen".
You see, with H4O as water, glycerine is C3(2 waters)O with an extra oxygen. If Water is H2O then glycerine is C3(4 waters) deficit O. It is missing an oxygen if water is H2O.
The reason glycerine is so effective as a skin ointment is because it has glycerine, the extra O oxygen. If water were H2O, then glycerine would be a missing oxygen and not a skin lotion that works, but makes skin even more dry.
Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium
--- quoting in part from source-- Study.com ---
m = ZQ = (E/96485)(Q)
m = mass, Q = total charge rewritten as Q = I*t amperes x time in seconds.
This website gives an example: 5amps passed through molten Sodium Chloride for 3 hours. Calculate the mass of Sodium. E=23/1.
m = (23/96485) (5) (3*60*60) approx 12.87 grams.
--- end quoting in part from source-- Study.com ---
Now has such a experiment been performed on Water to see how much atomic mass of hydrogen and of oxygen results??? If AP is correct, the formula of water is H4O, if Old Physics, Old Chemistry is correct the formula is H2O. So which is it???
AP
No, sorry no, Faraday's Law of Electrolysis is not going to tell the correct mass of hydrogen.
Reading Wikipedia on Faraday's Electrolysis law.
--- quoting Wikipedia ---
A monovalent ion requires 1 electron for discharge, a divalent ion requires 2 electrons for discharge and so on. Thus, if x electrons flow,
x/v atoms are discharged.
So the mass m discharged is
m= (xM)/vN_A) = (QM)/(eN_A *v) = (QM) / (vF)
where
N_A is the Avogadro constant;
Q = xe is the total charge, equal to the number of electrons (x) times the elementary charge e;
F is the Faraday constant.
--- end quoting Wikipedia ---
No, the Faraday law of Electrolysis will not work on water with a correct answer, because H is not an atom but H2 is an Atom. And where one of the proton+muon converts to being a neutron to the other proton+muon.
So if Faraday's law of Electrolysis was applied to water, thinking it would deliver a true answer is mistaken because the one H converts to neutron.
So it appears that we need to directly measure the test tube of oxygen and the test tube of hydrogen by a direct mass measurement.
I doubt we can measure a test tube of hydrogen or test tube of oxygen, too small to determine the mass on some sort of weight scale.
But here is a possible lucrative idea. We should be able to get pure deuterium water. Then run the electrolysis. Collect the test tubes.
Now have some sort of balancing beam weight scale. Place the regular water of hydrogen test tube on one side, and place the deuterium water hydrogen test tube on other side. If they stay balanced, then AP is correct and Water is really H4O.
Cosmic Rays from Sun
90% of Sun's cosmic rays are 840MeV proton+muon inside = H. The hydrogen Atom is H2 where one of the H proton+muon converts to being a neutron.
When these proton+muon hit Earth atmosphere, they can turn into pions and muons.
I commented that H alone is a subatomic particle and that makes sense in the idea that Sun's cosmic rays are 90% these proton+muon.
Now is interstellar hydrogen H2 and intergalactic hydrogen H2 formed when one H cosmic ray joins up with another H cosmic ray to form H2 atom?
Is this how we get H2 in outer space? From the splitting apart of H2 into H cosmic rays?
So how much of the Sun's hydrogen is H2 and how much is H ready to join with another H and reform back into H2. Probably little of the Sun's H is H alone, and the vast majority of the Sun's hydrogen is H2.
How much deuterium in the Sun? And it is a higher percentage than the deuterium in water on Earth?
Water is the only known non-metallic substance that expands when if freezes; its density decreases and it expands approximately 9% by volume. (Source: web Lunar and Planetary Institute)
I have to wait for experimental chemists and physicists to weigh the mass of test tubes from electrolysis, as to the verdict-- water is H4O.
But until that news comes in, I will look for other means of proof.
So AP says that the H2 is not a molecule but is the hydrogen Atom itself, where one proton+muon converts to a neutron and capacitates the other proton+muon which undergo the Faraday law.
There are subatomic particles of H in the form of Cosmic Rays from the Sun, but most of the Sun's hydrogen is H2, and flips back and forth from H to rejoining to form H2. Some gets away from the Sun and is cosmic rays.
But H2 is an Atom and H is a fleeting subatomic particle.
So can I prove Water is H4O from the data of Spectral lines of H2 is the same as deuterium, only slight difference is that the deuterium is a full fledged neutron not a makeshift proton+muon of H.
I suspect that special trait of water freezing is a proof that Water is H4O. Because the 840MeV proton torus with muon inside doing the Faraday law acting as a makeshift neutron capacitor for the other 840MeV proton torus with muon inside, is where H2 gets that expansion characteristic.
A neutron is a parallel plate capacitor and those plates can expand when frozen temperature occurs. As the temperature gets colder, those plates move further apart.
Now does deuterium which truly has a full neutron, does it expand also when frozen?? If so, does it expand as much as H2 which is 2 protons with 2 muons inside?
So comparing the freezing and expansion of the parallel plates of a neutron in deuterium with the freezing and expansion of one of the proton+muon that is acting as a makeshift neutron in H2.
If I can numbers correlate the H2 expansion with the Deuterium expansion would be a alternative proof that Water is really H4O and not H2O.
AP
to
So now on Blankenship's book "Molecular Mechanisms of Photosynthesis", 2014, page 134, shows The structure of ATP, ADP, AMP. And within that structure are OH hydroxyls.
In New Chemistry, water is truly H4O, and where hydroxyls are now H2O. And we have first proof of this in the Figure 8.1 of Blankenship's "Chemical structure of ATP".
For in the lower left corner of the diagram, Blankenship has a H+ all alone, (really a mindless error) and has P surrounded by O-, O-, O and OH. The OH is really H2O for hydroxyls are H2O and water itself is H4O, and that would leave that mindless H+ as being hydrogen Atom of H2.
The world of physics and chemistry should drop what they are doing and weigh the electrolysis test tube of hydrogen and oxygen to discover the correct true formula of water is H4O.
AP is total confident, becuase an Atom cannot exist if it has no capacitor structure such as a neutron, or one of the H in H2 acting as a neutron. I am totally confident that Water formula is truly H4O. And I need look only to methane of H4C, to realize that there is no HC, no H2C, no H3C, but starts with H4C, and that tells me water starts with H4O. Totally confident that Old Chemistry, Old Physics did electrolysis experiments and the moment they saw hydrogen test tube be 2x volume of oxygen test tube, they dropped their work and went out for a Danish and coffee break, rather than finish their work--- actual physics weighing of atomic mass units (not the Faraday electrolysis law for it does not apply to water).
When water electrolysis is physics weighed, AP is confident that there are 4H per every one oxygen O. And that Water is truly H4O.
Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within the accuracy I need for weighing a test tube of oxygen then a test tube of hydrogen from water electrolysis.
Now modern day physics and chemist experimenters can really do a marvelous job if they wanted to. For they could freeze the test tubes of oxygen and hydrogen to where they are liquid and compare liquids from water electrolysis.
So, what AP is saying here is that we do electrolysis of water. We collect the two test tubes, one with oxygen the other with hydrogen.
To prove Water is truly the formula H4O and not H2O we must weigh the masses of the two tubes to find that the ratio is 1 x 16amu to 4 x 1amu.
The silly grotesque science error of the past was to look at volumes in the two test tubes-- "Hey-- the hydrogen is twice the volume of oxygen so the formula of water is H2O".
No, way was that science good practice. For the correct formula of water needs to be measured by mass, by atomic mass units where Oxygen is 16amu and hydrogen is 1amu.
I suspect a balance beam scale is good enough to see the hydrogen test tube will be 1/4 as massive as the oxygen test tube. To get within precision of electronic weighing scale of 0.00001 gram we just have to make a larger test tube of electrolysis of water.
AP is betting that the readings will be hydrogen test tube 1/4 the mass of oxygen test tube proving Water formula is truly H4O.
Old Physics and Old Chemistry is betting that the mass experiment will have the hydrogen test tube be 1/8 the mass of the oxygen test tube, proving Water formula is H2O.
AP does not have these precision equipment to conduct an at-home experiment of this nature.
So, once Water is found to actually be H4O, not H2O, we move on to methane, and ask the same question of its hydrogen bonds. Is Methane really that of H8C and not H4C.
Well, looking in the literature for anomalies to methane, I come across a arXiv "Low and high-temperature anomalies in the physical properties of solid methane "The anomalous behavior of thermodynamic, spectral, plastic, elastic and some other properties of solid methane is discussed near 20.48K and...
AP wonders: if they can get methane to solid form, well, I am then hopeful that the mass of the molecule can be determined. Because if methane is truly H8C, that difference of H4 in atomic mass units would be very much noticeable difference.
Chemistry Europe--
"The Anomalous Deuterium Isotope Effect in the NMR Spectrum of Methane...
P Vermeeren, 2023
"The abnormally long and weak methylidyne C-H bond.."
"The C-H bond of the methylidyne radical, CH*, is abnormally long and weak, even longer and..."
AP asks, are these anomalies solved if we consider methane is actually H8C and not H4C?
AP
My 250th published book.
TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY; H2 is the hydrogen Atom and water is H4O, not H2O// Chemistry
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
Prologue: This textbook is 1/2 research history and 1/2 factual textbook combined as one textbook. For many of the experiments described here-in have not yet been performed, such as water is really H4O not H2O. Written in a style of history research with date-time markers, and fact telling. And there are no problem sets. This book is intended for 1st year college. Until I include problem sets and exercises, I leave it to the professor and instructor to provide such. And also, chemistry is hugely a laboratory science, even more so than physics, so a first year college student in the lab to test whether Water is really H4O and not H2O is mighty educational.
Preface: This is my 250th book of science, and the first of my textbooks on Teaching True Chemistry. I have completed the Teaching True Physics and the Teaching True Mathematics textbook series. But had not yet started on a Teaching True Chemistry textbook series. What got me started on this project is the fact that no chemistry textbook had the correct formula for water which is actually H4O and not H2O. Leaving the true formula for hydroxyl groups as H2O and not OH. But none of this is possible in Old Chemistry, Old Physics where they had do-nothing subatomic particles that sit around and do nothing or go whizzing around the outside of balls in a nucleus, in a mindless circling. Once every subatomic particle has a job, task, function, then water cannot be H2O but rather H4O. And a hydrogen atom cannot be H alone but is actually H2. H2 is not a molecule of hydrogen but a full fledged Atom, a single atom of hydrogen.
Cover Picture: Sorry for the crude sketch work but chemistry and physics students are going to have to learn to make such sketches in a minute or less. Just as they make Lewis diagrams or ball & stick diagrams. My 4-5 minute sketch-work of the Water molecule H4O plus the subatomic particle H, and the hydrogen atom H2. Showing how one H is a proton torus with muon inside (blue color) doing the Faraday law. Protons are toruses with many windings. Protons are the coils in Faraday law while muons are the bar magnets. Neutrons are the capacitors as parallel plates, the outer skin cover of atoms.
Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0CCLPTBDG
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ July 21, 2023
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 788 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 168 pages
y z
| /
| /
|/______ x
Archimedes Plutonium
2024-01-24 01:01:34 UTC
Permalink
Pres.Debate ReCAPTcha live at the Primaries

|----------|
|______| I am healthy enough to be president

Category: Is there a Mind, in back of that mouth


DW News:: Pres.Trump, you have a second and no more to answer this question.
Trump:: bring it on.
DW News:: What is 8 times 7?
Trump:: 55
(___)

BBC News:: Pres.Biden, you have a second to respond to this question.
Biden:: Look....
BBC News:: Today is Tuesday, what day is tomorrow?
Biden:: a holiday
(___)


PBS News:: Pres.Trump, you have a second to answer this question.
Trump:: you won't mind if I eat a chocolate bar as you ask.
PBS News:: What is 200 times 10?
Trump:: 190
(___)

DW News:: Pres Biden, you have a second to answer this question.
Biden:: get on with it, bedtime is nearing.
DW News:: What is 8 times 7?
Biden:: (5 seconds later) Did you say 8 times 8?
DW News:: forget I ever asked.
Biden:: it is 88.
(___)


.............................................................................................................VERIFY
Loading...