Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Re: Archimedes Plutonium flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test

239 views

Skip to first unread message

Message has been deleted

Michael Moroney

unread,

Apr 3, 2018, 11:28:36 PM4/3/18

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> writes:

>> Subject: Far too dumb of a human is Richard L. McElroy for he allows
>> sci.physics to be polluted day in and day out, via his AIOE.org
>> Several years now, sci.physics is plagued by these spammers hiding behind
> McElroy's AIOE, and causing sci.physics to be a pollution landscape. I say
>-- never allow any AIOE posts to enter sci.physics.
>>
>> Drs.M. Plesser,Kate Scholberg
>> Drs.Alfred Goshaw, Henry Greenside of Duke Univ, are you as dumb as Aioe
>McElroy & Buck Futter//never realizing the Real Electron=3Dmuon, Real Proton=840MeV,monopole=.5MeV
>>
>> Buck Futter writes:
>>
>> 8:48 PM (30 minutes ago)
>>
>> >This is a physics group, not a chemistry group,
>> >you walking catalog of third-world rectal disorders.
>>

>Michael Moroney wrote:

>3:07 PM (2 hours ago)

>> [Archimedes Plutonium] flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

In this post:

[X] Archie responds to criticism but is unable to discuss the issue...
[X] ...with Archie's response posted in the wrong topic...
[ ] ...and to the wrong newsgroup...
[X] ...multiple times...
[X] ...in a topic/topics explicitly created by him for doing so...
[X] ...with a subject about flunking a nonexistent test never taken...
[X] ...and the subject mentions totally uninvolved people...
[X] ...who are university math or physics professors...
[X] ...at a university supposedly near the person criticizing Archie...
[X] ...but Archie got the location (and university) completely wrong...
[ ] ...and Archie demands they resign for not teaching his broken math...
[ ] ...and he includes a stalker list of physics and/or math professors...
[X] ...and Archie's actual response is completely unrelated to the topic...
[X] ...and the critic's comment has embarrassing (to AP) portion removed...
[X] ...to the extent the comment is no longer recognizable...
[X] ...includes random snippets by other critics, spammers or babblers...
[ ] ...which are attributed to yet other critics, spammers or babblers...
[ ] ...followed by yet another repost of the "12 Failures of Plutonium"...
[ ] ...or the "you gotta draw pictures of calculus" repost...
[ ] ...and includes the dumb ascii art cat/owl thing...
[ ] ...as well as ascii art of Archie's butthole...
[ ] ...and Archie doesn't realize ascii art is so 1980s...
[ ] ...and Archie brings up a "mistake" (in his view) from months ago...
[ ] ...which, of course, is not actually a mistake...

13 points. Archie is losing it.

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Apr 12, 2018, 12:37:58 AM4/12/18

On Tuesday, April 3, 2018 at 10:28:36 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:

> 13 points. Archie is losing it.

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
> Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.

Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:

>
> Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.

Message has been deleted

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Jun 19, 2018, 5:54:27 PM6/19/18

19/06/2018 #1 of Wikipedia incubator of Archimedes Plutonium < Wp‎ | aki Wp > aki > Archimedes Plutonium

Wp/aki/Archimedes Plutonium
< Wp‎ | aki
Wp > aki > Archimedes Plutonium

Jump to navigation
Jump to search

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:019.me-in-red.gif

Archimedes Plutonium (born July 5, 1950) and that is his legal name after many name changes in life, also known as Ludwig Plutonium, wrote extensively about science and mathematics on Usenet. In 1990 he became convinced that the universe could be thought of as an atom of plutonium, and changed his name to reflect this idea. He is notable for his offbeat ideas about Plutonium Atom totality, physical constants, and nonstandard models of infinite arithmetic. [1] [2]
Archimedes Plutonium, in his Usenet posts, was the first to describe the process of biasing search-engine results by planting references, and coined the phrase search-engine bombing to describe it. This later became well-known as google bombing[3] [4].

Contents [hide]
                1
                Biographical Sketch
                2
                Writing
                2.1
                Plutonium Atom Totality
                2.2
                Borderline between Finite and Infinity
                2.3
                Other Theories
                3
                Theory that Sun and Starpower are not 100% fusion but only 1/3 fusion and the majority is Faraday Law as 2/3 of the power
                3.1
                Plutonium's plea to scientists before we extinct any more wild animals-- please check out CO2 isomers, Animal-CO2 compared to Fire-CO2
                3.2
                Other Writing
                4
                Quotes
                5
                References
Biographical Sketch[edit]
Plutonium was born under the name Ludwig Poehlmann in Arzberg, Germany. He vaguely posted that he is genetically linked to the mathematician Engel who worked with Sophus Lie, and to the mathematician Widmann who was the first to write negative numbers in our modern terminology. Plutonium also makes a extraordinary claim that he is the reincarnation of the Ancient Greek mathematician Archimedes of Syracuse Greek. He believes this through "signals from the Gods", that his name changing was at one time "Ludvig" and years later, found out that Johan Ludvig Heiberg was the main historian of Archimedes, thinking that this was a "signal from the Gods" that Plutonium was now the living reincarnation of the ancient Greek mathematician. His family moved to the United States and settled near Cincinnati, Ohio, where Plutonium was adopted into the Hansen family and brought up under the name Ludwig Hansen. He got a degree in mathematics from University of Cincinnati, 1972, then teaching math in Melbourne Australia, and then getting a Masters degree from Utah State University, 1979. Under the names Ludwig Von Ludvig, then Ludwig Plutonium, he began posting to Usenet in 1993. His prolific posts quickly made him a well known usenet figure.
Plutonium was long observed on the campus of Dartmouth College, where he rode around on a bicycle and wore an orange hunting hat and a homemade cape decorated with atomic symbols in Magic Marker. Students frequently saw him using the computer cluster in the basement of the Kiewit Computation Centre, and he regularly published full-page advertisements of his claims in the student newspaper, The Dartmouth.
Plutonium worked as a "potwasher" (he preferred this term over "dishwasher" because it had the same starting letter and number of letters as plutonium) at the Hanover Inn, which the college owns. When asked on Usenet how this observed job jibed with his claims of wealth, Plutonium explained that he only took the job in order to get Internet access. In 1999 Plutonium posted various complaints about the management of Dartmouth, calling for a strike by workers there and suggesting various conspiracy theories concerning college administrators. Plutonium lost his job at Dartmouth about August of 1999.
After making what he termed "science odyssey tours" of the United States and Europe, Plutonium then moved to rural Meckling, South Dakota, where he resumed his Usenet posting, saying he now lives on a "homestead" apparently consisting of a house, two Airstream trailers, and a grove of various sorts of trees.
Plutonium was questioned by New Hampshire police during an investigation of a famous case. The crime was completely solved a short time later and he was not involved in any way, but because of his eccentricity, he was a prominent character in the reports. [5] [6]
In 2016, Archimedes Plutonium had a cancer operation to remove a Liposarcoma, similar to the physicist Richard Feynman, stricken with the same type of cancer, in the same location and about similar in size. Is Liposarcoma the cancer disease of physicists? Maxwell had stomach cancer, if memory serves. Maybe the cancer in scientists maybe due to not getting enough vitamin D, working indoors so much and not enough Sun in winter. But, the real interesting aspect of Archimedes Plutonium cancer, was that one testicle was resected in the surgery and thus leaving AP as 1/2 eunuch. And he delights in being 1/2 eunuch because Plutonium skill in doing science has increased 10 fold since leaving the hospital. His discovery that the Real Proton = 840 MeV and Real Electron = 105 MeV and the .5MeV particle as Dirac's magnetic monopole were discoveries after the cancer removal. Plutonium believes that sex organs decrease the ability to do maximum science.
Writing[edit]
Plutonium is the author of about 45 thousand postings 5*365*25, mostly in the science newsgroups such as sci.physics, sci.math from August 1993 to present day, and has his own Google newsgroup. Where he likes to archive his posts without the cacophony of background noise and ad hominem. Do science in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Plutonium Atom Totality[edit]
Plutonium Atom totality is a metaphysical idea that the universe should somehow be thought of as a gigantic atom of the element plutonium, Pu 231. It is not believed by most scientists that the universe considered as a whole is any type of atom, let alone an atom of plutonium. The cosmic atom, often written ATOM, is a manifestation of god, or the totality of all things. It is attributed with some divine properties, although the physical universe in Plutonium philosophy only obeys natural laws and does not include supernatural phenomenon.[7]
Here is the first page of Archimedes Plutonium's textbook Atom Totality, its 8th edition as posted many times in sci.physics and sci.math.
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

TRUE CHEMISTRY-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV
History Preface::

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 4:12:07 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics: A history Preface to this textbook Re: TRUE CHEMISTRY, textbook, 2018

Alright, this textbook is written as a Memoir, in that I am writing it as a notebook, my daily activity, an historical accounting, along with a textbook of facts of True Chemistry. Both a textbook on True Chemistry and a historical accounting, both combined into one. So you will see many dates of posts throughout this Memoir.
Now this book needs a Preface, to sort of tell people what it was like in the time period of 1897 when JJ Thomson discovered a .5MeV particle and then going on to believe he discovered the "electron of atoms", when in fact, what he discovered was the Magnetic Monopole of atoms. Yet the entire Scientific Community, whether physics, chemistry, biology, all were duped into thinking this .5MeV particle was the integral electron of atoms. So from 1897 until 2017 when I discovered the Real Electron = muon = 105 MeV, that community of scientists all fell duped to thinking electron= .5 MeV.
Of course, that changes all of electricity, as we understood it in 1897 through 2017. So some time in the future, few people will understand what took place from 1897 through 2017, when all scientists thought the atom was a proton at 938MeV, neutron 940MeV and electron at .5MeV. Of course, my very first proof of the Real Electron is 105 MeV was instantaneous to my mind--chemical bonding, chemical bonding-- is it possible to have covalent bonding with 938 to .5 ?? For if the Real Electron is 105 MeV then the Real Proton cannot be 938, but had to be 840MeV, and then, chemical bonding covalent of 105 versus 840, all makes sense.
This entire discovery was caused by a noting in 2016, that it takes 9 muons to make a proton (plus or minus less than 1%) To me, in science, I know all physics has outside "noise" and so when you say plus or minus less than 1%, means to me, anyway, that 9 muons = 1 proton. Now, sorry, but it took me another year from 2016 to 2017, to say-- Real Proton = 840 MeV. Sadly, to discover that 9 muons = 1 proton in 2016, took another year in 2017 to subtract 105 from 945 to see that the Real Proton was 840MeV.
And the instantaneous proof that came to my mind, is, well, you just cannot have Chemistry, the Chemical bond of covalent, if the electron is .5MeV and the proton 938MeV, for the angular-momentum is just not there to make covalent bonding. If the Real Electron is 105MeV and Real Proton is 840MeV then you have sufficient numbers of MeV for angular momentum to create covalent bonding in atoms.
But let me in this preface tell the story of how Electricity was imagined to be from 1897 to 2017. Electricity with the electron assumed as .5 MeV and proton at 938 MeV, that electricity in this view was seen as a electron particle that is wishy washy, here now, gone a second later flowing in a wire as electricity. In the new true view of electricity, electron = 105 MeV, proton = 840 MeV, it is rare for that electron of hydrogen atoms to ever leave its proton, and what electricity is-- is this monopole particle that assumes either a +1 or -1 charge and is fickle, for it can be attached to a hydrogen atom and with little to no encouragement, go flying off along a copper wire. Only, flying is a metaphor, for the Monopole is a photon or a neutrino dressed up (superposition) with .5MeV charge energy. So the monopole is a wave, a closed loop wave that becomes the shape of the closed loop wire itself. At the moment, I am rebuilding a crystal radio set I had as a Xmas gift from my father way back in about 1968. You see, the radio wave is a magnetic monopole, it is not an electron out of some atom.
I need to build this Preface into a good logical history expose of how feeble was the understanding and teaching of What the Real Electron was in science from 1897 to 2017.
How utterly feeble it is, to have millions of students around the world sitting in classes, hearing the teacher, the instructor saying that the electron is a .5MeV particle that runs along copper wires and yields electricity.
When the real truth is, that electrons are very heavy particles of 105 MeV, 1/8 the mass of the proton at 840 MeV, and it is rare, extremely rare that this massive Real Electron ever leaves its proton, but that these magnetic monopoles flit around, flit here, flit there, flit almost everywhere, and these monopoles are electricity.
AP
Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 13:32:28 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment--
Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 21:32:28 +0000
Proofs that the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV, and that the .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole, after all
Experimental PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon by Archimedes Plutonium
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.
Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 18:28:06 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: short history of subatomic particles of Physics Re: True Chemistry--
2018 textbook
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 01:28:07 +0000
short history of subatomic particles of Physics Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook
In my textbook True Chemistry, those new early pages, I need a chronology of history of how we viewed atoms, their constituent elementary particles, and electricity. For the blame as to not knowing the .5MeV particle was not the electron but a magnetic monopole, is the conceit of the minds of physicists, or should be say the naivety of the minds of physicists is that they were blown away by +1 and -1 charge. If we had taken off the table the electric charge. Then when JJ Thomson discovered this 1897 particle of .5MeV, if electric charge was not a issue, then Thomson, in my opinion would have realized it could not be the electron.
So let me make a rough sketch of the history involved, the pertinent history.
1861-1864, Maxwell wrote " A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field"-- a complete theory of electricity tying together magnetism, as EM, electromagnetism theory. Perhaps the single greatest physics book, or book in general, before the Atom Totality textbook.
1897, J.J. Thomson discovers a .5MeV particle, with a -1 charge, which he names as electron, thinking it is the electron of atoms, which, it turns out by 2017 is the Dirac magnetic monopole, and the muon is the real-electron.
1913, the Bohr model of the Atom, which gives no working role for its elementary subatomic particles of proton, electron, neutron, photon (of which the magnetic monopole is a photon with a charge energy-- or a neutrino with charge energy). Sadly, the Bohr model is lacking any sort of physical role for these subatomic particles, other than to say, let there exist a proton, let there exist a electron. It is this lack of a job or role or working marching order for subatomic particles that should have alerted all chemists, all physicists, that they have a looney tune model of the atom. In the true model of the Atom, come 2017, is that the elementary particles are doing a Faraday Law and Ampere Law sort of like a dance, a job, a commitment for their existence, inside the Atom, conducted by those protons and muons. Where protons as a coil and muon electron as a bar magnet creates new monopoles, converting Space into monopoles, and stored in neutrons as capacitors, which a hydrogen atom grows to become a deuterium atom etc etc. In other words, the creation of new atoms and heavier atoms is the job of existing atoms.
1917-1920, Rutherford discovers the proton of what he thought was 938 MeV
1931, Dirac with a paper on magnetic monopoles which in order to satisfy the quantization of electricity, which implies that monopoles must exist.
1932, Chadwick discovered the neutron of 945 MeV. Now they discovered these particles, like the neutron and proton but would have to wait years before they refined their masses on how much mass they had.
1936, Anderson & Neddermeyer discover the muon particle of 105 MeV. I do not know what year they found out it weighed 105 MeV.
Now, the big question is why are the minds of physicists so backwards, so empty of Logical thought, because when the proton was discovered by Rutherford in 1917 and could measure its mass to be roughly 940 MeV and then Thomson's particle of .5MeV. So, the puzzling question is from 1917 to 2017 is a span of time of 100 years, and the astonishment that in those 100 years, every physicist, every chemist knew of the Covalent bond of chemistry, every one of them knew what angular momentum was, or had a reasonable notion of what angular momentum means-- at least we thought they knew, yet not a single scientist ever had the thought run through their mind-- stop a minute-- how can a covalent bond of chemistry exist if the proton was 938 versus .5MeV electron ?? How, how is that possible. When that is only possible if the proton was 840 versus 105 MeV. Is the simple and short answer-- no physicist in the 20th century had a good decent logical mind to think straight, to think clear.
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 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

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Jun 20, 2018, 2:58:41 PM6/20/18

Re: 19/06/2018 #2 of Wikipedia incubator of Archimedes Plutonium < Wp‎ | aki Wp > aki > Archimedes Plutonium

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:019.me-in-red.gif

Borderline between Finite and Infinity[edit]
In early 1990s, Plutonium was trying to make sense of "what are numbers", and infinity, so in that decade of 1990s, he tried to make sense of numbers yet with infinity and explored p-adics, but by 2009, Plutonium realized that to make sense of infinity, requires a borderline between Finite and Infinity, and once he discovered where this borderline was, Plutonium dropped the Adics.
An integer in Plutonium's philosophical view includes objects which have a decimal expansion which never ends. Just as the real number 1/3 can be represented as:
1
3
=
0.33333...
{\displaystyle {1 \over 3}=0.33333...}

the infinite integer whose decimal expansion consists solely of 3s is a valid integer in Plutonium's view:
x
=
.
.
.33333

{\displaystyle x=...33333\,}

This type of number resembles the p-adic integers, but it is different because it is not considered as a convergent sequence, but as a philosophically primitive element of the mathematical universe, an integer. Addition and multiplication are defined digit by digit. Plutonium has two classes of numbers: real numbers which are infinite to the right of the decimal point and finite to the left, and adic integers which are infinite to the left and finite to the right. The two may not be added together.
It is a theorem of Peano Arithmetic that there do not exist integers x,y,z with:
x
3
+
y
3
=
z
3

{\displaystyle x^{3}+y^{3}=z^{3}\,}

but Plutonium claims that this is not a property of adic-integers. Since he believes that the adic-integers are the true integers, he concludes that Fermat's last theorem is false.[8]
Plutonium often states that the set of all integers is uncountable, which in standard mathematical language is an oxymoron. By this statement he usually means that the set of all adic-integers cannot be ordered into a list in the usual way. His proof for this claim is to apply Cantor's diagonal argument. He also sometimes states that there is a direct one-to-one map from the real numbers to the integers, which consists of taking all the digits behind the decimal point and putting them in front.[9] [10]
Adics were only a fleeting stepping stone for Plutonium. To find what the true numbers of mathematics are. And by 2018, Plutonium rejects Adics except to discuss varieties of infinite numbers.

In the 1990s, Plutonium admired these Adic numbers, but around 2009, Plutonium researched into a Infinity borderline, a natural border between Finite Numbers and Infinite Numbers. And soon thereafter Plutonium would no longer admire the Adic numbers for they were just a stepping stone to finding what True Numbers really were. The Adics to Plutonium, after the infinity borderline was found, the adics are fictional-infinite-numbers. Once, AP found the infinity borderline with Finite numbers and so, most of P-adics is dismissed by AP, just a little sliver of Adics is remaining in Logic for AP.
Since the 1990s, AP discovered the Infinity borderline to be 1*10^604 and that changes most all of mathematics. Almost everything in mathematics, that came before, is changed with a concept of a borderline between finite and infinite. Here is a small list of corrections AP found in Mathematics and Logic and is endeavoring to complete a Textbook on mathematics by 2019, titled TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS for ages 8 to 26.

Before you do 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.

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. That explanation is of course the Space in which the Logic operators govern, and the full space is area, so that is multiplication. And we see that in a geometry diagram
T T
T T where all four small squares are T valued making a 4 square
While addition is and with a Space like this
T T
T F and we have just 3 of the 4 smaller squares covered by addition.
Here you we have one truth table equal/not whose endresult is 4 trues and now we move on to AND as addition.
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.

(2nd Error)
TRUE CORRECT Numbers needed to do Math or any science like physics in particular
Alright, once we have Logic, we start mathematics, and the best place to start is how we recognize and use numbers. Math has two houses, one is Geometry and one is Numbers (Algebra). We can start with either one of them, geometry or numbers. Here we start with numbers.
DECIMAL NUMBER SYSTEM is superior to all other number systems and the only system to be used in SCIENCE, especially physics.
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. It was discovered in Ancient times by Hindu Arabic, but was slowly accepted and needed many changes along the way to our modern day use. 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.
The Binary system is 1, 10, 11, 100, 101, 110, 111, 1000, etc and those represent, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 in decimals.
Trouble is, though, one number system is superior to all other number systems, the decimal system superior. And the representation of numbers, does in fact, affect the values of numbers, except decimal. Decimal Number system is the only system that does not affect the actual true value of the number. How can that be? It is the fractions that are distorted in other number system, not decimal.
The decimal number system is the only non-corrupting system, and all other systems have failures of number values, in the fractions.
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 system. Think of it as the "e" of logarithms. 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 non-distortion, but because only Decimals can deliver a Grid System in mathematics.

(3rd Error)
A proper Coordinate System is needed, not one in which you have a continuum, rather, one in which you have Discrete 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.
Archimedes Plutonium

(4th Error)
Borderline between finite and infinity
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 by 2017 is nothing more than just piles of you know what.

(5th Error)
By April 2015, was there for the first time a picture diagram proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC, not just an analysis argument, but a geometry proof (see below). Old Math could never assemble a picture diagram of the FTC. All they could do is argue with limit concept an analysis argument, never a geometry proof of FTC.
A picture diagram proof of FTC changes all of calculus and thus, changes all of mathematics for it requires a infinity borderline to produce an actual number for the infinitesimal, and that number is the inverse of the infinity borderline. Requiring a infinity borderline to produce the infinitesimal changes all of mathematics, and throwing out the limit concept. By changing all of Calculus and thus correcting mathematics, all of math before 2015 was just trash math.
Picture Diagram needed for Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
Why no continuum and no curves exist in Math, so that the Calculus can exist, and does exist
by Archimedes Plutonium
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.
by Archimedes Plutonium

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Jun 22, 2018, 4:40:03 PM6/22/18

Re: 19/06/2018 #3 of Wp/aki/Archimedes Plutonium < Wp‎ | aki Wp > aki > Archimedes Plutonium

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:019.me-in-red.gif

(6th Error)
Irrationals do not exist, for all numbers are Rationals by Archimedes Plutonium
Simple one line proof:: any number that can be represented as a Decimal is a number that has a integer numerator and integer denominator (in this case powers of 10), hence no irrationals exist.
Many Errors of what Numbers exist.
Why no Irrationals exist-- lowest terms, anthyphairesis 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.
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 by Archimedes Plutonium
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
On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 6:06:01 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 3:50:43 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > > > > 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 starting to slow to think 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 the grand fake of 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 is 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.
Archimedes Plutonium

(7th Error)
Completing a Division correctly such as 1/3 = .3333..33(+1/3)

By Archimedes Plutonium
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)
Perhaps every math professor thinks 1/3 = .33333….. and they scold students who say
______ 3| 10000 = 3333
but they reward students who say
______ 3|1.0000 = .3333….
They fall to pieces, because they want and wish to ignore the remainder. They do not forget the remainder for left of the decimal point but when they reach right of the decimal point they fall all to pieces in a logic quagmire. ______ 3|1.0000 = .3333….. and forget about any remainder
So that truly, 1/3 is not even a number, but a division asking the person doing the division, asking what Grid System am I in?
For, 1/3 is not even a number but a division process and it depends on where the person doing the dividing wants to stop and thus include the (+1/3) ending suffix.
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
-- Archimedes Plutonium

(8th Error)
Sine & Cosine are semicircle waves, not sinusoidal
By Archimedes Plutonium
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 or wavelength, or any other parameters, the sine and cosine are ellipse waves.

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.
-- Archimedes Plutonium

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 wind.
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.
Archimedes Plutonium

(9th Error)
CONIC SECTION IS OVAL, never an ellipse; proofs below
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
by Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > 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.
Archimedes Plutonium

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
--Archimedes Plutonium

(10th Error)
Fixing the huge math error of gravity in Old Physics
By Archimedes Plutonium
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? 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 on their gravity. 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.
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 of Atom Totality, 8th edition.
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.
-- Archimedes Plutonium
AP

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Jun 24, 2018, 4:19:04 PM6/24/18

Re: 19/06/2018 #4 of Wikipedia incubator of Archimedes Plutonium < Wp‎ | aki Wp > aki > Archimedes Plutonium

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:019.me-in-red.gif

Other Theories[edit]
Some of these theories discussed in newspaper Argus Leader, 2008. [11]
1) Theory of Plate Tectonics, how continents move-- vibrations caused by Earth's core as electric motor
Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 17:09:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Geology based on Maxwell Equations textbook; 2nd edition, #1 Geophysics From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 00:09:20 +0000
Geology based on Maxwell Equations textbook; 2nd edition, #1 Geophysics
Geology based on Maxwell Equations textbook; 2nd edition, #1 Geophysics
This is rather a unique Geology textbook for instead of geology based solely on gravity as the "moving force", in this text, it is the Electromagnetic force of Maxwell Equations that governs all that happens in geology. All other geology textbooks of the past and prior to this one were based exclusively on gravity as the moving force of geology.
So, the geologist of the future is going to have to be fluent in electromagnetism and the Maxwell Equations in order to be a first rate geologist.
I do not get rid of gravity, but rather I see it for what it is worth-- 10^-40 the strength of EM force. In other words, whenever you witness gravity, you are witnessing just a tiny meager minor result of EM forces going on in the total surroundings.
Now the 1st edition of this textbook was started by me in the early 2000s by my noticing of pots and pans placed on top of the refrigerator and my constant having to scoot them because of the motor vibrations making the pots fall off. I summed those ideas into posts starting in 2006 as the 1st edition of this textbook with posts like this one:
From: "a_plutonium" <a_plu...@hotmail.com> Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.geo.geology,sci.physics.electromag Subject: Model for Continental Drift-- pots on top of refrigerator Re: Earth Core as dynamo yields 6 x 10^16 amperes and Lightning bolts yield 6 x 10^15 amperes Date: 2 Oct 2006 23:40:41 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 49

Model for Continental Drift-- pots on top of refrigerator Re: Earth Core as dynamo yields 6 x 10^16 amperes and Lightning bolts yield 6 x 10^15 amperes
Okay the best model is a refrigerator for Continental Drift. Mine is 15 amperage. The Earth as a motor is approx 6 x 10^16 amperes and with contributions from Lightning bolts is approx 7 x 10^16 The most drift cited is about 14 cm for a specific plate. With my refrigerator top, the pot will fall off by the end of the year if I do nothing. That is a drift migration of 17 centimeters. Are there more resemblances? Well the top resembles the Asthenosphere to Lithosphere boundary. I forgotten what elements are different between Asthenosphere and Lithosphere whether aluminum silicon is the dominant elements in Lithosphere and whether iron is dominant in Asthenosphere. Has any geologist made a detailed research as to what this boundary is? Would it be well defined boundary so much so that it conducts electricity so much more. And would it harbor a Standing Wave due to the Core acting as a dynamo? So that the top of a refrigerator matches the Asthenosphere to Lithosphere boundary.  So can I plug in some numbers. My refrigerator top is 71 cm by 61 cm. And what would be Earths surface area in terms of cm by cm. And my refrigerator is 15 amperes and Earth's Core as motor is 6 x 10^16 amperes. And my pots as imitators of continents drift 17 centimeters in a year due to the vibrations of motor. And the plates in plate tectonics drift about 2 to 14 centimeters per year. So is my refrigerator almost an identical model to the entire Earth as moving of the continental plates. If it is a remarkably close match on all the numbers given the different scales, then I would say that the refrigerator top must resemble in physical characteristics to the Asthenosphere to Lithosphere boundary. Not that this boundary is a iron plate, but that the boundary is very prone to Vibration from the Earth's core as a motor. And so we can study to see where the plates have the most motion such as Australia, and find out if the boundary of the Asthenosphere to Lithosphere underneath Australia is extra prone to Vibrational Movement.
--- end of 2006 old post of mine ---
--

2) Theory of First Life in the World at large-- capacitors

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 <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 <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. > > >On Sunday, April 16, 2017 at 11:46:22 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > 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 <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.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium

3) Theory of Superdeterminism -- there is no Free Will
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.

4) Theory of the Mind/brain as Radio Receiver
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.

5) Theory that Light Waves and DNA are the same
This is an ongoing theory for Plutonium, in that in the 1990s, he noted that the light-wave with its electric component and magnetic field component in a transverse wave was similar to the double helix of DNA where each strand with its A, C, T, G molecules were very similar to the electric component and the magnetic field component. Plutonium even dare to say that if you can stop a high energy gamma ray, stop it, it could decompose, on the spot, into a living whole organism of something like a one celled organism.
6) Stonethrowing theory-- the origin of Humanity
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo, sci.med, sci.bio.misc From: "a_plutonium" <a_pluton...@hotmail.com> Date: 1 Mar 2007 12:05:46 -0800 Local: Thurs, Mar 1 2007 2:05 pm Subject: &1& New Book: IN THE COSMOS, ALL SPECIES THAT BECOME INTELLIGENT LIFE UNDERGO A PERIOD OF STONETHROWING TO BECOME INTELLIGENT
This book will tell us and show us how all species that ends up as an intelligent species underwent, or evolved from a behaviour of throwing rocks and stones. The pathway to intelligence all begins from the behaviour of picking up rocks and stones and throwing them.
This book will also show that Rockthrowing created bipedalism. In other words, rockthrowing or stonethrowing came first and then much later came bipedalism as a result of stonethrowing.
This book will delve into bone anatomy in detail and show us that the difference between humanity and the apes is basically the difference of the bones and muscles that accomodate throwing of rocks and stones and that the genome of humans compared to chimpanzee or orangutan or monkeys, that the major difference is that the A,C,G,T are aligned in humans so that their bones and muscles throw overarm with proficiency.
In other words the A,C,G,T pattern in humans compared to chimpanzees diverged about 8 to 10 million years ago where this prehuman was throwing rocks and stones. And then about 6 million years ago because of the THROWING created bipedalism in those throwing prehumans.
All planets that support life and have intelligent life on those planets, all of them arrived at a intelligent society because of Throwing period in their evolutionary history.
All living creatures that are intelligent life forms and can do science and art and music and technology and build cities and travel in space, all of them had to go through one and the same corridor or avenue of evolutionary history where their ancestors started to pick up rocks and stones and throw them.
Now how should I chapter this book? Perhaps I should chapter it this way. (1) Introduction and stating the theory of Stonethrowing, which I have done so above (2) the only major difference between primates and humanity is the bone and muscle genetics that allows humans to easily throw rocks and stones and whereas all the other primates lack this proficiency (3) show where the bone and muscle anatomy must have Throwing coming first in evolutionary development and Bipedalism as a natural secondary byproduct of Throwing (4) put together in a more reasonable pattern all the fossilized prehuman remains found (5) discuss the most likely historical account of prehumans for the past 15 million years

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Jun 26, 2018, 11:07:15 PM6/26/18

Re: 19/06/2018 #5 of Wikipedia incubator of Archimedes Plutonium < Wp‎ | aki Wp > aki > Archimedes Plutonium

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:019.me-in-red.gif

7) Fusion Barrier Principle-- there will never be commercial fusion power stations.
Atom Totality textbook, 2017 quote 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: Archimedes.Pluton...@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$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
In article (33FA0AB3.6...@worldnet.att.net>
Rick Spielman (rbsp...@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.

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Jun 28, 2018, 6:12:55 PM6/28/18

Re: 19/06/2018 #6 of Wikipedia incubator of Archimedes Plutonium < Wp‎ | aki Wp > aki > Archimedes Plutonium

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:019.me-in-red.gif

8) True theory of Superconductivity
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 <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.
On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 12:05:30 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: >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.
>On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 1:16:03 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: >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. >
>On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 6:51:10 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > >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.

>On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 4:51:23 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: >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.
>On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 3:03:55 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > >Why superconductivity is never AC, because it is Capacitor flow, the coldness turns the material >into a capacitor.

>On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 3:04:42 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: >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.

Theory that Sun and Starpower are not 100% fusion but only 1/3 fusion and the majority is Faraday Law as 2/3 of the power[edit]
1 56page
Sun and Stars shine, or power is got mostly from Faraday Law, of muon thrusting through proton in atoms generates monopoles turned into infrared or visible//True Chemistry
Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 11:22:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: #56page How stars like our Sun really shine and where they get their
energy-- not fusion but Faraday law// tossing out the fakery Bohr atom &
Bethe solar fusion// TRUE CHEMISTRY 2018
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 18:22:50 +0000

How stars like our Sun really shine and where they get their energy-- not fusion but Faraday law// tossing out the fakery Bohr atom & Bethe solar fusion// TRUE CHEMISTRY 2018
I mounted this challenge of truth and logic of what makes stars shine with energy, before, but only now do I seem able to point to the details.
What I am doing is tossing out the complete Bohr model of the atom, especially the part where it says:
--- quoting Mortimer CHEMISTRY: A Conceptual Approach, 4th ed, 1979, page 33 ---
4. When an electron falls back to a lower level, it emits a definite amount of energy. The energy difference between the high energy state and the low energy state is emitted in the form of a quantum of light. The light quantum has a characteristic frequency (and wave-length) and produces a characteristic spectral line In spectral studies, many atoms are absorbing energy at the same time that many others are emitting it. Each spectral line corresponds to a different electron transition.
--- end quoting Mortimer ---
I am ready to tackle this problem. Perhaps one of my finest of all corrections in physics, other than Atom Totality, for what I am about to do is tell science how the Sun really works.
Until now, no-one was able to tell how the sun really works. And what we had was Bethe fusion idea. Which is utterly silly for a logical mind. The idea that the Sun shines energy because its atoms are fusing and thus releasing energy in the fusion process is 180 degrees counter opposite the idea that the Sun and stars are so hot that they ionize their atoms. Heat, high temperature plasma physics is counter opposite to fusion.
Analogy: think of water and its molecules. If you apply heat, you send the water molecules apart, not fusing them together, but separating them.
Ionization is making a substance to be plasma physics, not the physics of fusion.
So, how does the Sun and all stars really shine with energy. What is the energy source of our Sun and all stars?
Stars shine because its atoms are doing Faraday Law of thrusting bar magnets of its muons inside the proton as a coil, yielding magnetic monopoles. Magnetic Monopoles are electricity. And in normal cool environment like Earth or planets, these monopoles inside atoms produced by the muon thrusting through protons are stored inside neutrons as capacitors. But in a star like our Sun, the environment is a hot plasma environment and the storage of the newly created monopole is not stored at all but is emitted as spectral line energy.
Stars shine with energy, not by fusion of its atoms.
Stars shine with energy, due to the Faraday Law that its atoms are converting Space in which their muons thrust through the space of a proton coil and produce monopoles, which are radiated into Space exterior of the star.
Do not get me wrong, there is a tiny tiny amount of fusion going on in stars, but the predominant outpouring of energy from stars is that of Faraday Law producing monopoles and because the environment of stars is so extremely hot, and ionizing environment, that the atoms of stars just cannot storage their monopole production and thus, radiate that energy to make stars shine.
PROOF: If the Sun were shining due to fusion, then the energy emitted would be the Bohr electron falling back to a lower energy level-- Contradiction-- for the atoms are already ionized due to high temperatures, so the atoms cannot emit energy from electrons falling into lower energy level.
So, that leaves just one plausible logical explanation. The spectral lines are created from Faraday Law producing monopoles inside of atoms of stars, and instead of storing the monopoles in neutrons, they are quickly radiated outward from the star into space.
AP

Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 12:30:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: 2#56page How stars like our Sun really shine and where they get
their energy-- not fusion but Faraday law// tossing out the fakery Bohr atom
& Bethe solar fusion// TRUE CHEMISTRY 2018
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 19:30:05 +0000
There is no doubt that the Sun is plasma physics, no doubt at all.
So, how can you have electrons falling back into a lower orbital and emit radiation of spectral lines. Fusion cannot explain that for fusion is nuclear based, not orbital based.
So the answer as to how the Sun shines, is not electrons falling back, but rather, the electrons are muons which do not ionize, and remain with their attendant proton in each atom, doing the Faraday Law, by creating new Magnetic Monopoles. And since the Sun is a plasma physics it does not allow these newly created monopoles to aggregate inside of neutrons but rather, radiate those monopoles as photon light and the star shines.
AP
Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 13:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: percent of hydrogen in stars is increasing not decreasing//How stars
like our Sun really shine and where they get their energy-- not fusion but
Faraday law// tossing out the fakery Bohr atom & Bethe solar fusion
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 20:09:26 +0000
percent of hydrogen in stars is increasing not decreasing//How stars like our Sun really shine and where they get their energy-- not fusion but Faraday law// tossing out the fakery Bohr atom & Bethe solar fusion
No-one in the 20th century had a Logical mind in science. A logical mind to say, wait a minute-- the Sun is about 5 billion years old and is 75% hydrogen 22% helium and because fusion is the source of Sun's shining, how can you have 75% hydrogen over 5 billion years. Should it not be 50% hydrogen after 5 billion years.
And rather than the hydrogen getting smaller in quantity, we see Sun and Stars becoming more hydrogen percentage.
If you base stars shining on fusion, then the percent of hydrogen should decrease in the Cosmos, not increase.
AP
Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 18:35:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: big clue that starpower was not fusion-- few gamma rays//How stars
like our Sun really shine and where they get their energy-- not fusion but
Faraday law
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2018 01:35:32 +0000
big clue that starpower was not fusion-- few gamma rays//How stars like our Sun really shine and where they get their energy-- not fusion but Faraday law
On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 6:34:09 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > The Sun and stars have too much hydrogen to be the fuel of starpower and besides, fusion is just not reliable. Now if you depended on Faraday law inside every atom— there, that is steady reliable energy— the stuff of starpower. > >
And another big big clue that warned us, starpower and the power of our Sun is not fusion energy, but is the Faraday law going on inside every atom that exists, where the muon of the atom is thrusting bar magnet and proton is coil creating magnetic monopoles out of turning Space into energy. There, that is a reliable source of energy to power our Sun and stars.
But a big big clue was missed in the 20th century, in that fusion gives off much gamma rays. And our Sun gives off little and few gamma rays. The Sun and stars are predominantly infrared 50%, visible 40% and ultraviolet 10%, absent is gamma rays, yet gamma rays are the predominant signature of fusion. In the 20th century, most scientists were more worried about their Danish roll and coffee getting cold than worried about "doing good science".
AP
On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 11:05:27 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
big clue that starpower was not fusion-- few gamma rays//How stars like our Sun really shine and where they get their energy-- not fusion but Faraday law
Here is one anomaly of the Sun’s gamma rays
—- quoting Scientific American, March 2018 —- To their surprise, the researchers found the most intense gamma rays appear strangely synced with the quietest part of the solar cycle. During the last solar minimum, from 2008 to 2009, Fermi detected eight high-energy gamma rays (each with energies greater than 100 giga–electron volts, or GeV) emitted by the sun. But over the next eight years, as solar activity built to a peak and then regressed back toward quiescence, the sun emitted no high-energy gamma rays at all. The chances of that occurring at random, Linden says, are extremely low. Most likely the gamma rays are triggered by some aspect of the sun’s activity cycle, but the details remain unclear.
Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 22:01:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 2/3 missing Solar neutrinos solved— 2/3 no fusion// stars shine mostly via Faraday law not fusion From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2018 05:01:13 +0000

2/3 missing Solar neutrinos solved— 2/3 no fusion// stars shine mostly via Faraday law not fusion

The best solution of all for missing 2/3 solar neutrinos— there is only 1/3 fusion going on— rest is Faraday law creating energy of starpower.
—- quoting Wikipedia—-
The flux of neutrinos at Earth is several ten billion per square centimetre per second, mostly from the Sun's core. They are nevertheless hard to detect, because they interact very weakly with matter, traversing the whole Earth as light does thin air. Of the three types (flavors) of neutrinos known in the Standard Model of particle physics, the Sun produces only electron neutrinos. When neutrino detectors became sensitive enough to measure the flow of electron neutrinos from the Sun, the number detected was much lower than predicted. In various experiments, the number deficit was between one half and two thirds.

Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2018 11:22:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: explaining the missing neutrinos from the Sun//Sun and Stars shine,
their power is mostly Faraday law, not fusion
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2018 18:22:44 +0000

explaining the missing neutrinos from the Sun//Sun and Stars shine, their power is mostly Faraday law, not fusion
On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: (snipped) > > 2/3 missing Solar neutrinos solved— 2/3 no fusion// stars shine mostly via Faraday law not fusion > > > The best solution of all for missing 2/3 solar neutrinos— there is only 1/3 fusion going on— rest is Faraday law creating energy of starpower. > > —- quoting Wikipedia—- > > The flux of neutrinos at Earth is several ten billion per square centimetre per second, mostly from the Sun's core. They are nevertheless hard to detect, because they interact very weakly with matter, traversing the whole Earth as light does thin air. Of the three types (flavors) of neutrinos known in the Standard Model of particle physics, the Sun produces only electron neutrinos. When neutrino detectors became sensitive enough to measure the flow of electron neutrinos from the Sun, the number detected was much lower than predicted. In various experiments, the number deficit was between one half and two thirds.
So, what I am saying here is that the theory proposed by Bethe and others that fusion is what stars power themselves with in radiating heat and energy, is wrong. For the main power of stars is that they have many atoms of a muon with a attendant proton-- mostly hydrogen 75% and helium 22%. The muon of all atoms, rarely leaves its attendant proton and does a Faraday law demonstration of muon thrusting as bar magnet through its attendant proton coil. The result is a creation of a magnetic monopole which in a less hostile environment than the star would slowly build a neutron inside that atom, but in a star, that monopole is quickly radiated out as infrared or visible photons.
This means, the predominant majority of power of our Sun and stars, is Faraday law, not fusion. And although there is some fusion going on in stars, but is only 1/3 of the amount that was previously thought. This is the reason there is a missing neutrino count for the Sun. Not because of what bozos thought, that neutrinos flip into different states and have tiny rest mass. No, that is sheer phony baloney nonsense. The missing neutrinos of the Sun is because fusion events are so rare. At least 2/3 of all the Sun and stars energy is derived from Faraday's law, converting space into magnetic monopoles, mostly of wavelength infrared and visible. This also explains why the Corona region of the Sun, just above the surface of the Sun at 6,000 K while corona is 2 million K and core is 15 million K, is because magnetic monopoles are aggregated above the surface. In electricity, magnetism, surface and above is where monopoles aggregate.
Fusion plays only a small subordinate role in star power, while Faraday Law is the main source. And that would lead to a missing neutrino count, should anyone be daft enough to think the Sun and star power is mostly all fusion.
AP [12]

Michael Moroney

unread,

Jun 28, 2018, 11:16:37 PM6/28/18

Math Failure Archimedes "just not bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium fails:

>AP writes: Google has abuse, but what good is that when it cannot recognize
>a 26 year long stalker Moroney with his ad hominem bully stalking-- never

So you are back to causing trouble again, Failure Plutonium?

Michael Moroney

unread,

Jun 28, 2018, 11:19:59 PM6/28/18

Michael Moroney

unread,

Jun 28, 2018, 11:55:20 PM6/28/18

>On Monday, May 28, 2018 at 2:00:46 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>> But can you tell us what is wrong with the following proof that the
>> ellipse is a conic section?

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Jul 1, 2018, 3:26:03 PM7/1/18

Re: 19/06/2018 #7 of Wikipedia incubator of Archimedes Plutonium < Wp‎ | aki Wp > aki > Archimedes Plutonium

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:019.me-in-red.gif

1 60page
Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2018 15:59:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: #60page Theories behind all of Chemistry// TRUE CHEMISTRY, 2018 From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2018 22:59:35 +0000
Theories behind all of Chemistry
1) Electromagnetism, for everything is EM 2) That means, since everything is EM we need a maximum EM, and that means a maximum electric coil to be the over-arching principle 3) No more of the atom and subatomic particles or elementary particles of chemistry and physics being -- just little round balls-- that sit around doing nothing, until a chemist or physicist comes a calling to count the little round balls. No, that is not science. So, all atoms and their subatomic particles have jobs, have tasks, have functions to do, have work to do, and those functions are performing the AP-Maxwell Equations.
4) Review and revise these ideas of Old Chemistry-- Hund's Rule, Aufbau, Bohr Model of Atom
5) Use the AP-Maxwell Equations as the ultimate understanding of how atoms work
--- below I quote my textbook Atom Totality, 2017 ---
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
I am going to analyze these five dynamic laws because I hope they can fetch me the answer as to whether .5MeV magnetic monopole is a singular unique particle, or whether its value of .5 can vary, just like the energy value of a photon or neutrino can vary.
So, quoting from my textbook Atom Totality, 2017 the AP-Maxwell Equations
3. Electricity = Magnetism, Ampere-Maxwell law
> On Saturday, August 19, 2017 at 3:16:37 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > 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
Five Dynamical Laws of EM theory
V = iBL New Ohm's law
V' = B*B*L + i*V*L + i*B*(i_C) Ampere-Maxwell Law
B' = 1/L - VB/i^2L - V/L^2 Faraday Law
i' = - (ii*L) Spin Law
L' = (i^2B - B^3- V^2i) / i^2B^2 Coulomb Law

6) There seems to be a overriding principle in Physics and Chemistry-- growth or growing. So that atoms want to grow to become bigger in atomic number. The Being is science of atoms, and the Becoming is atoms becoming larger atomic number atoms. Carbon, growing into Nitrogen, growing into Oxygen.
Let us take a moment to Pray:
Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Sun, 13 May 2018 10:48:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: #8 Heaven's understanding of both Physics and Math From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sun, 13 May 2018 17:48:47 +0000
Heaven's understanding of both Physics and Math
Heaven's understanding of both Physics and Math
So, summing it all up-- the Being is everything is an atom, -- from the Whole of the Universe is one big atom to the atoms inside the whole. All is atom and bonding of atoms. And the atoms, all of them are engaged in one process of growing. This growing is reflected in Faraday law and Ampere law. So, in a sense, God is 231Pu big atom and every small atom inside the big atom is doing the same thing-- growing to Becoming a higher number atomic element.
"Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me."
"Yea, though the thrusting bar magnet through the closed coil, produces monopoles; growing into a new higher atomic element."
Reincarnate me, again, into a higher life, ATOM.
AP

On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 1:22:49 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
nearby elements of the table found close together in Nature//Theories behind all of Chemistry
I do not think anyone has done a comprehensive study of the fact that elements when found in Nature usually have the next higher atomic element nearby, either as compounds or inclusions. So when we find Mn, we find Fe and when we find Fe we find Co. When we find Pt we find Au and when we find Au we find Hg. In diamonds we often find N in the carbon atoms. When we find O2 we often find FO. When we find S, we find SCl. Call it a nearby neighbor meeting, for the cause of this closeness, is that the atoms are building to become a higher atomic element and when that happens, they are together in close proximity.
This togetherness is alien to the Big Bang theory in that the explosion would have scattered the elements and separated them.
AP
Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2018 13:08:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: watch a individual atom grow from Z into Z+1 From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2018 20:08:43 +0000
watch a individual atom grow from Z into Z+1
On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 2:48:59 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Here i am asking more of a question. Trying to find where an individual atom of atomic number Z transforms via Faraday law of converting space into monopoles, storing those monopoles in a neutron which grows to be 945MeV then splitting into a proton and muon to be element Z+1. > > Can we isolate a single atom and keep an eye on it waiting for it to go from Z to Z+1. Perhaps it has already been done but the researchers too timid to report it. > >
This very much reminds me of the toy crystal-growing kits some of us had in childhood. Where we grow a crystal. I for one never had that kit nor saw any demonstration of it. I suppose it is similar to getting seawater and waiting for it to evaporate leaving behind salt crystals, my guess?
Anyway, an experiment that totally proves the Faraday Law is the Model of the Atom with its muon as bar magnet and proton as coil, can be proven all true, if we can isolate an atom, and continually watch it, and see if it grows into a new higher atomic element, from Z to Z+1. Is modern physics able to construct such an experiment that we continually observe a individual atom and watch it grow from Z into Z+1 due to Faraday law creating magnetic monopoles, storing them in a neutron which when it reaches 945 MeV becomes a newer higher atomic element. I think our modern day technology is good enough to perform this eye-witness-account experiment.
AP
On Sunday, June 17, 2018 at 10:27:38 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Table of elements masses proves AP model is true, Bohr is false Re: watch a individual atom grow from Z into Z+1
And, one of the early proofs that the AP Model of the Atom is true, and the Bohr model is false, is the atomic masses of atoms. Now we have to be careful with isotopes, in include the isotopes in our reckoning.
Recall how I discovered the muon is the real electron, in that 9 x 105 = 945 and the mass of the neutron or proton were less than 1% short.
So in the AP Model of the Atom, where neutrons are the storage capacitor sites of muons and protons creating new monopoles which are then storaged in the capacitors. Leads to the conclusion that many atoms would have fractional masses, not whole number masses, as some neutrons would only be partially full and not whole number 1 full.
Looking through PRINCIPLES OF MODERN CHEMISTRY, Oxtoby, Nachtrieb, 2nd ed, 1990
And going by the assumption that their table is experimentally performed masses, not calculated masses.
Hydrogen is 1.0079 so the sigma-error gives hydrogen a whole number 1 as mass Helium is 4.0026 and sigma-error gives helium a whole number of 4
no problems so far
Lithium is 6.941 and with sigma error that is seen as whole number 7, no problems
Beryllium is 9.0122, no problem as 9 whole number
Boron is the first problem case at 10.811 and here we have to bring in isotopes into our calculations, the percentage of isotopes can cause the mass total to not be a whole number.
The next atoms of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, fluorine are all alright as whole numbers. But neon is a bit of a problem at 20.180. If it had been 20.08, no problem but because it is 20.1, we have to see if there is a new fresh neutron being started in neon collecting at least .1 energy of magnetic monopoles.
Sodium is fine at 22.990 as a whole number of 23, but magnesium at 24.305 is an atom that has almost a 1/3 newly minted neutron growing like a crystal to become a 945 MeV neutron and possibly splitting and making the magnesium atom to become a aluminum atom. So we have to see if the sodium at 24.305 is due to isotopes or due to a fractional neutron.
Chlorine at 35.453 is almost halfway into building a new neutron, but have to check and see if the fractional .453 is due to isotopes.
So, going on down through the table of masses, we look to see if any masses are due to partial filled neutrons.
AP
blind eye on atomic masses-- it is not a whole number Re: Table of elements masses proves AP model is true, Bohr is false
Boron is alright at 10.811

10B at 20% 11B at 80%
10x20 = 200 11 x80 = 880 ___________ 10.8
In Old Physics and Old Chemistry, seldom was any research looked at closely enough. When mass reports came in-- everyone turned a blind eye to problems of "it is not a whole number".
AP

lithium is not an anomaly but sulfur is Re: Table of elements masses proves AP model is true, Bohr is false

So now, let us look at other anomalies of Atomic masses and how it is easily seen as neutrons are capacitors and can be partially filled, in New Physics.
So Lithium is 6.941
6Li with 5% abundance 7Li with 95% abundance
So, lithium is not an anomaly
6x5 = 30 7x95 = 665 _____________ 6.95 agrees with 6.94 with little sigma error

Now sulfur S is another interesting case, a anomaly or enigma, for it is registered mass of 32.066 and has isotopes
32S with 95% 34S with 5%
So you would expect the mass to be over that of 32, but so little of a value as .066 when it should be 32.1
Checking this sulfur
32x95 = 3040 34x5 = 170 ________________ 32.1
So sulfur does indeed check out as an anomaly
And so, sulfur is the first element whose atomic mass does not agree with a whole number, meaning, that the true theory of Atoms is the AP theory where Faraday Law is in operation inside of atoms, where the muon with attendant proton is creating new magnetic monopoles stored inside neutrons as capacitors and where those neutrons can be in Fractional number value. The proton with muon has to be of value 1, but the neutrons in atoms can come in all sorts of fractions, depending on how much MeV of magnetic monopoles are stored inside each neutron.
Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2018 19:34:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: chromium and germanium have mass anomalies Re: lithium and sulfur
have mass anomalies
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 02:34:55 +0000

chromium and germanium have mass anomalies Re: lithium and sulfur have mass anomalies
Chromium is a mass anomaly.
Cr has 51.996
isotopes are
50Cr with 4.3% 52Cr with 83.7% 53Cr with 9.5% 54Cr with 2.3%
Chromium should be around 52.1 not 51.9
50x4 = 200 52x84 = 4368 53x10 = 530 54x2 = 108 _____________ 52.06

Gallium at 69.723 is not an anomaly for isotopes
69Ga with 60% 71Ga with 40%
69x60 =4140 71x40 = 2840 _______________ 69.80 is within sigma error
Germanium at 72.61 is an anomaly for isotopes
70Ge with 20.52% 72Ge with 27.45% 73Ge with 7.76% 74Ge with 36.52% 76Ge with 7.75%

70x205 = 14350 72x274 = 19728 73x77 = 5621 74x365 = 27010 76x77 = 5852 __________________
72.5 anomaly for it is outside of sigma error
Still need to find the granddaddy of atomic mass error
AP

On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 12:52:27 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: tellurium atomic mass the largest anomaly?? And best proof of AP model of Atom over Bohr Model?
Tellurium with mass 127.6
122Te with 2.5% 124Te with 4.7% 125Te with 7% 126Te with 18.8% 128Te with 31.7% 130Te with 34%
122x25 = 3050 124x47 = 5828 125x70 = 8750 126x188 = 23688 128x317 = 40576 130x340 = 44200 ___________________ 126.09
Here I may have found the largest anomaly of all atomic masses
Tellurium is probably 126 as a whole number and not 127.60
For Iodine is 126.9 with sigma error is 127 whole number.
So, what I am guessing is happening with tellurium is that a .6 neutron is being partially filled along with a whole 1 neutron.
Has any chemist or physicist tried to refine the experimental measure of tellurium mass?
AP
On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 1:15:00 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
calcium mass anomaly -- is it 4/10 of a neutron being filled ? Re: tellurium atomic mass the largest anomaly?? And best proof of AP model of Atom over Bohr Model?
Alright, potassium mass is listed at 39.098
39K with 93.2% 41K with 6.7%
39x932 = 36348 41 x 67 = 2747 _______________ 39.09
No anomaly here.
But we go to calcium mass with 40.078
40Ca with 96.9% 44Ca with 2.0%
40x969 = 38760 44x20 = 880 ___________________ 39.4 and definitely a anomaly with calcium
Are we seeing a .4 of a neutron being filled?
AP
On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 1:49:28 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: Nickel atomic mass is anomalous// And best proof of AP model of Atom over Bohr Model?
Nickel at 58.69
58Ni with 68% 60Ni with 26% 61Ni with 1% 62Ni with 3.6% 64Ni with 1%
58x68 = 3944 60x26 = 1560 61x1 = 61 62x3.6 = 223.2 64x1 = 64 ____________ 58.5 and definitely a anomaly with nickel of about .19 almost 2/10 partial filling of a neutron.
AP
On Monday, June 18, 2018 at 3:34:11 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: Atomic Mass anomalies-- sulfur, calcium, tellurium, palladium prove the AP Model of Atom 3#60page Theories behind all of Chemistry// TRUE CHEMISTRY, 2018
Palladium at 106.42 has a atomic mass anomaly
102Pd with 1% 104Pd with 11.1% 105Pd with 22.3% 106Pd with 27.3% 108Pd with 26.4% 110Pd with 11.7%
102x1 = 102 104x11.1 = 1154.4 105x22.3 = 2341.5 106x27.3 = 2893.8 108x26.4 = 2851.2 110x11.7 = 1287 ________________ 106.29
If the masses are off by more than .1, is indication that a neutron in the Element is partially filled and so not a whole number count of neutrons and protons+muon.
When any science, especially chemistry and physics, finds themselves with a anomaly, and enigma, a contradiction of experiment to theory, means there is big time problems that cannot be ignored, and go on as usual. The anomaly means that usually, the theory needs replacing. In the case of atomic masses, means, the Bohr model of the atom that consists of the idea that elementary particles are balls that perform no function other than wait around for a scientist to count the number of balls is ludicrous science. The AP Model of the Atom sees that atoms and elementary particles perform the laws of EM theory-- Faraday law, Ampere law, spin law, Coulomb law, and so the muon has a job-- bar magnet in Faraday law, proton has a job as coil in Faraday law, neutron has a job as capacitor, photon and neutrino have a job-- wires in Ampere and Faraday law, and magnetic monopoles have a job-- new and more electricity inside of atoms to grow the atom into a higher atomic number element from Z to Z+1.
AP [12]

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Jul 4, 2018, 3:37:10 PM7/4/18

Re: 19/06/2018 #8 of Wikipedia incubator of Archimedes Plutonium < Wp‎ | aki Wp > aki > Archimedes Plutonium

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:019.me-in-red.gif

Plutonium's plea to scientists before we extinct any more wild animals-- please check out CO2 isomers, Animal-CO2 compared to Fire-CO2[edit]
Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 07:38:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: N2 + hv --> N2+ + mm- Re: CO2 has two isomers, and plants only can
use animal CO2
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 14:39:00 +0000

N2 + hv --> N2+ + mm- Re: CO2 has two isomers, and plants only can use animal CO2
Now looking at another page of Brown, LeMay, Bursten > Now on page 648, 5th ed, Chemistry the Central Science, 1991, Brown, LeMay, Bursten, shows a table of minor atmospheric gases >
Looking at page 643-644
Table 18.2 Ionization Processes, Ionization Energies and wavelengths capable of causing ionization
N2 + hv O2 + hv O + hv NO + hv
"In 1901, Guglielmo Marconi carried out a sensational experiment. He received in St. John's, Newfoundland, a radio signal transmitted from Land's End, England, some 2900km away. Because radio waves were thought to travel in straight lines, it had been assumed that radio communications over large distances on Earth would be impossible. ..... In about 1924, the existence of electrons in the upper atmosphere was established by experimental studies. "
Well of course by 2017, AP would discover that these are not electrons but Magnetic Monopoles mm.
N2 + hv --> N2+ + mm-
This explains why the straightline radio wave reaches from England to Canada. Not due to electrons for the Real Electron = 105 MeV, and the .5MeV is the magnetic monopole.
So in a sense, if a really really bright physicist had noticed in 1901 or 1924, that the reason radion can go from England to Canada, even though the curvature of Earth would disallow straightline radio waves-- could have reasoned that Magnetic Monopoles existed and were .5MeV particles.
But, as history of science would reveal-- it took until 2017-- for someone to notice that 938MeV for proton was almost exactly 9 X muon of 105 MeV, to realize that the .5MeV particle was a Dirac Magnetic Monopole.
But the door was open for Marconi in 1901 onwards to make that discovery-- .5MeV was a magnetic monopole.
AP
Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 09:10:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: N2 + hv --> N2+ + mm- Re: CO2 has two isomers, and plants only can
use animal CO2
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 16:10:30 +0000
N2 + hv --> N2+ + mm- Re: CO2 has two isomers, and plants only can use animal CO2
Alright i need to spend some time on this pretty finding. Old Physics explained radio waves going from England to Canada overriding Earth’s curvature— as explained by electrons and ions in atmosphere.
But the real truth is electrons are muons and rarely leave their proton of 840 MeV. That means the atmosphere has free magnetic monopoles. Radio waves are photons. Monopoles are photons of .5MeV charge energy.
So the New Physics explanation is radio waves ride on magnetic monopoles as a superposition principle.
AP
Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 15:33:22 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: how radio waves get from England to Canada Re: N2 + hv --> N2+ + mm-
Re: CO2 has two isomers, and plants only can use animal CO2
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 11 May 2018 22:33:23 +0000
how radio waves get from England to Canada Re: N2 + hv --> N2+ + mm- Re: CO2 has two isomers, and plants only can use animal CO2
- show quoted text - Alright, let us bore into this topic. Old Physics thought that radio waves moved from England to Canada, without going into Space due to straightline travel and curvature of Earth, they thought the electrons in the atmosphere kept the radio waves negotiating the curvature.
New Physics says the electron = 105 MeV and rarely if ever leaves its home proton. So the ions are not electrons but rather magnetic monopoles. So in New Physics, the radio waves-- photons catch a ride on more photons-- magnetic monopoles with .5MeV charge energy.
Very very different viewpoints. Indeed!
AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 12:16:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: is animal CO2 any different than CO2 from fire Re: Science Council Rules the World From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 19:16:01 +0000
is animal CO2 any different than CO2 from fire Re: Science Council Rules the World
I do not think any scientist has researched this to its full extent. That given a forest, virgin forest without humans interfering, that it has large wild animals and through their daily poop and pee and eventual death and body decay of its calcium, is vital to the forest. Without its wild animals of large size, all forests are doomed to decline.
The Redwoods of California do not get its essential elements and have declined ever since the USA has become its owner. The Redwoods need that daily poop and pee and large animal carcass.
Africa used to have large forests of flora and large animals, and now, Africa large animals are reduced to 1/100 of what they were. We can also see, that the flora of Africa over the past 300 years has been reduced by 1/100 of what they were 300 years ago.
South America Amazon basin used to be a impenetrable jungle, but with the farming and clearing of land and eradication of large animals, the Amazon flora is likely to be 1/10 of what it was.
Europe has some ancient forests, like in Poland, but no where near what it was without humans all over the place. And the large animals in the Poland forest are a fraction of what they were when virgin forests. On NATURE it was revealed that it was hard to keep Lynx in that Polish forest due to poachers wanting a Lynx mounted taxiderm in their homes. Bears are routinely shoot.
Now the Great Plains of the USA where herds and herds of buffalo and deer antelope used to roam and graze. If we read accounts of the flora before man settled that region, the daily pee poop and carcasss on the Plains, made those grasslands lush as far as the eye could see.
So, there is a contract-bargain between plants and large wild animals. They need one another. The plants need that which animals provide of pee, poop, and large body carcass. If we eliminate all large wild animals, we either have to fertilize those lands with calcium, copper, potassium and other minerals, daily fertilize all lands where no large wild animals live.
Flora and forests in decline are not getting enough elements and minerals and decline where insect borers and other pests just take over the weakened flora.
Now we built a simulation Mars terrarium of sorts. I think it is in Arizona, where we have a Greenhouse completely enclosed from Earth, no earthly thing. So, if you have plants in this greenhouse and no animals obviously, how well or how poorly do those plants grow. Is a research we easily can do.
So, here is the contract bargain between plants and wild large animals. Sure the animals eat alot of the plants, but the plants what they need is that daily pee and poop and every now and then need those animal calcium bones strewn underneath their roots. Probably the iron, calcium, copper are vital.
Now, forgive me for saying this, since the peabrain scientist or nonscientist will jump up and down hollering at this. Question;; is there a difference in the CO2 that animals breathe out and the CO2 from fires and volcanoes, from coal oil gas burning, from even wood burning. All of us, whether a scientist or a howling buffoon non scientist would say there is no difference. Noone can distinguish CO2 from a breathing large wild animal and a CO2 molecule from a fire.
But, this, needs to be thoroughly checked out? I think there is possible a difference in a CO2 molecule from a horse or elephant or buffalo breathe than the CO2 from a coal fire or gasoline fire.
And, well, if there is a difference, then that contract between plants and animals is even larger than what anyone ever thought, that the link between plants and animals is a tight close link.
For the composition of air by scientists goes something like this:
78.09% nitrogen
20.95% oxygen
.93% argon
.04% carbon dioxide
.4% water vapor

Now, we as animals breathe in oxygen which is abundant in air, but take a look at CO2 and if you were a plant, would you have trouble breathing if CO2 was so rare in the atmosphere.
But then you have a large wild animal come up to this plant and breathe out CO2 and the plant would surely enjoy that huge supply of CO2, but the question here is, is that animal CO2 a bit different from car burned gasoline CO2. You see, people shoot from the hips without really science investigation. Could the CO2 from an animal have a isospin that is different from the CO2 burnt in fire or explosion, and thus the animal CO2 is the one required for plants.
AP

Other Writing[edit]
Plutonium has questioned narratives about Jesus, and formulated the idea that humans evolved as apes that could throw stones at one another. He is the author of countless other ideas and speculations, most of which claim to displace currently accepted mathematical and scientific theories, and none of which are accepted by mainstream science.
Quotes[edit]
        •        "The whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies."
        •        "God is Science, and Science is god."
        •        "God is this one big atom that comprises all the Universe, much like what Spinoza discovered some centuries past, called pantheism. Where we are a tiny part of God itself. And where there is a heaven and hell in part of the atom structure. And where we will be judged by God when we die and our photon and neutrino souls will reincarnate once again in a future life somewhere in the Cosmos."
        •        "The world's finest Bibles are current physics textbooks or biology or chemistry textbooks such as the Feynman Lectures on Physics."
        •        "When you have a foggy notion of what you are working with, it is impossible to prove much about them."
References[edit]

        1        Jump up  ↑ Joseph C. Scott. "Sometime-scientist Plutonium says science is 'gobbledygook'", The Dartmouth, September 25, 1997.
        2        Jump up  ↑ Jennifer Kahn. "Notes from Another Universe", Discover, April 2002.
        3        Jump up  ↑ http://www.ifergan.org/google-bombing.html
        4        Jump up  ↑ Law and Order on Net and Web (September 17, 1997)
        5        Jump up  ↑ Eric Francis, The Dartmouth Murders. St. Martin's True Crime, pp. 87–93.
        6        Jump up  ↑ (June 30, 2002) "Many false clues in officials' hunt for Zantop killers". Boston Globe.
        7        Jump up  ↑ http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
        8        Jump up  ↑ This has a standard counterpart: there are counterexamples to Fermat's Last Theorem in any p-adic base
        9        Jump up  ↑ http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/, for further information, see http://mathforum.org/kb/forum.jspa?forumID=13 , Archimedes Plutonium , article: 10/16/07 11 #104 In fact the definition of Reals as *all possible digit arrangements* bars or precludes Cantor ever applying a diagonal method ; new textbook: "Mathematical-Physics (p-adic primer) for students of age 6 onwards"

11. Nestor Ramos. "A King or a Crackpot", Argus Leader, June 29, 2008.
12. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Pity shame that many people, even in science, never heard of the science newsgroups such as sci.physics, sci.math, sci.chem. How is that possible??

Message has been deleted

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Aug 16, 2018, 3:49:54 PM8/16/18

page1

TRUE CHEMISTRY-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV , by Archimedes Plutonium

History Preface::

A history Preface to this textbook Re: TRUE CHEMISTRY, textbook, 2018

Alright, this textbook is written as a Memoir, in that I am writing it as a notebook, my daily activity, an historical accounting, along with a textbook of facts of True Chemistry. Both a textbook on True Chemistry and a historical accounting, both combined into one. So you will see many dates of posts throughout this Memoir.

Now this book needs a Preface, to sort of tell people what it was like in the time period of 1897 when JJ Thomson discovered a .5MeV particle and then going on to believe he discovered the "electron of atoms", when in fact, what he discovered was the Magnetic Monopole of atoms. Yet the entire Scientific Community, whether physics, chemistry, biology, all were duped into thinking this .5MeV particle was the integral electron of atoms. So from 1897 until 2017 when I discovered the Real Electron = muon = 105 MeV, that community of scientists all fell duped to thinking electron= .5 MeV.

Of course, that changes all of electricity, as we understood it in 1897 through 2017. So some time in the future, few people will understand what took place from 1897 through 2017, when all scientists thought the atom was a proton at 938MeV, neutron 940MeV and electron at .5MeV. Of course, my very first proof of the Real Electron is 105 MeV was instantaneous to my mind--chemical bonding, chemical bonding-- is it possible to have covalent bonding with 938 to .5 ?? For if the Real Electron is 105 MeV then the Real Proton cannot be 938, but had to be 840MeV, and then, chemical bonding covalent of 105 versus 840, all makes sense.

This entire discovery was caused by a noting in 2016, that it takes 9 muons to make a proton (plus or minus less than 1%) To me, in science, I know all physics has outside "noise" and so when you say plus or minus less than 1%, means to me, anyway, that 9 muons = 1 proton. Now, sorry, but it took me another year from 2016 to 2017, to say-- Real Proton = 840 MeV. Sadly, to discover that 9 muons = 1 proton in 2016, took another year in 2017 to subtract 105 from 945 to see that the Real Proton was 840MeV.

And the instantaneous proof that came to my mind, is, well, you just cannot have Chemistry, the Chemical bond of covalent, if the electron is .5MeV and the proton 938MeV, for the angular-momentum is just not there to make covalent bonding. If the Real Electron is 105MeV and Real Proton is 840MeV then you have sufficient numbers of MeV for angular momentum to create covalent bonding in atoms.

But let me in this preface tell the story of how Electricity was imagined to be from 1897 to 2017. Electricity with the electron assumed as .5 MeV and proton at 938 MeV, that electricity in this view was seen as a electron particle that is wishy washy, here now, gone a second later flowing in a wire as electricity. In the new true view of electricity, electron = 105 MeV, proton = 840 MeV, it is rare for that electron of hydrogen atoms to ever leave its proton, and what electricity is-- is this monopole particle that assumes either a +1 or -1 charge and is fickle, for it can be attached to a hydrogen atom and with little to no encouragement, go flying off along a copper wire. Only, flying is a metaphor, for the Monopole is a photon or a neutrino dressed up (superposition) with .5MeV charge energy. So the monopole is a wave, a closed loop wave that becomes the shape of the closed loop wire itself. At the moment, I am rebuilding a crystal radio set I had as a Xmas gift from my father way back in about 1968. You see, the radio wave is a magnetic monopole, it is not an electron out of some atom.

I need to build this Preface into a good logical history expose of how feeble was the understanding and teaching of What the Real Electron was in science from 1897 to 2017.

How utterly feeble it is, to have millions of students around the world sitting in classes, hearing the teacher, the instructor saying that the electron is a .5MeV particle that runs along copper wires and yields electricity.

When the real truth is, that electrons are very heavy particles of 105 MeV, 1/8 the mass of the proton at 840 MeV, and it is rare, extremely rare that this massive Real Electron ever leaves its proton, but that these magnetic monopoles flit around, flit here, flit there, flit almost everywhere, and these monopoles are electricity.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 13:32:28 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment--
Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 21:32:28 +0000

Proofs that the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV, and that the .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole, after all

Experimental PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon
by Archimedes Plutonium

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.

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 18:28:06 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: short history of subatomic particles of Physics Re: True Chemistry--
2018 textbook
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 01:28:07 +0000

short history of subatomic particles of Physics Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook

In my textbook True Chemistry, those new early pages, I need a chronology of history of how we viewed atoms, their constituent elementary particles, and electricity. For the blame as to not knowing the .5MeV particle was not the electron but a magnetic monopole, is the conceit of the minds of physicists, or should be say the naivety of the minds of physicists is that they were blown away by +1 and -1 charge. If we had taken off the table the electric charge. Then when JJ Thomson discovered this 1897 particle of .5MeV, if electric charge was not a issue, then Thomson, in my opinion would have realized it could not be the electron.

So let me make a rough sketch of the history involved, the pertinent history.

1861-1864, Maxwell wrote " A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field"-- a complete theory of electricity tying together magnetism, as EM, electromagnetism theory. Perhaps the single greatest physics book, or book in general, before the Atom Totality textbook.

1897, J.J. Thomson discovers a .5MeV particle, with a -1 charge, which he names as electron, thinking it is the electron of atoms, which, it turns out by 2017 is the Dirac magnetic monopole, and the muon is the real-electron.

1913, the Bohr model of the Atom, which gives no working role for its elementary subatomic particles of proton, electron, neutron, photon (of which the magnetic monopole is a photon with a charge energy-- or a neutrino with charge energy). Sadly, the Bohr model is lacking any sort of physical role for these subatomic particles, other than to say, let there exist a proton, let there exist a electron. It is this lack of a job or role or working marching order for subatomic particles that should have alerted all chemists, all physicists, that they have a looney tune model of the atom. In the true model of the Atom, come 2017, is that the elementary particles are doing a Faraday Law and Ampere Law sort of like a dance, a job, a commitment for their existence, inside the Atom, conducted by those protons and muons. Where protons as a coil and muon electron as a bar magnet creates new monopoles, converting Space into monopoles, and stored in neutrons as capacitors, which a hydrogen atom grows to become a deuterium atom etc etc. In other words, the creation of new atoms and heavier atoms is the job of existing atoms.

1917-1920, Rutherford discovers the proton of what he thought was 938 MeV

1931, Dirac with a paper on magnetic monopoles which in order to satisfy the quantization of electricity, which implies that monopoles must exist.

1932, Chadwick discovered the neutron of 945 MeV. Now they discovered these particles, like the neutron and proton but would have to wait years before they refined their masses on how much mass they had.

1936, Anderson & Neddermeyer discover the muon particle of 105 MeV. I do not know what year they found out it weighed 105 MeV.

Now, the big question is why are the minds of physicists so backwards, so empty of Logical thought, because when the proton was discovered by Rutherford in 1917 and could measure its mass to be roughly 940 MeV and then Thomson's particle of .5MeV. So, the puzzling question is from 1917 to 2017 is a span of time of 100 years, and the astonishment that in those 100 years, every physicist, every chemist knew of the Covalent bond of chemistry, every one of them knew what angular momentum was, or had a reasonable notion of what angular momentum means-- at least we thought they knew, yet not a single scientist ever had the thought run through their mind-- stop a minute-- how can a covalent bond of chemistry exist if the proton was 938 versus .5MeV electron ?? How, how is that possible. When that is only possible if the proton was 840 versus 105 MeV. Is the simple and short answer-- no physicist in the 20th century had a good decent logical mind to think straight, to think clear.

AP

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Aug 18, 2018, 12:22:57 PM8/18/18

page2

Experimental Proofs and Definitions

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 23:00:27 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron =

105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>

Injection-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 06:00:28 +0000

Now here is a new proof that belongs in the first page.

Now chemistry is all about the nature and behavour of the last electrons of atoms, while the protons and neutrons of atoms play little role in chemistry. So well if that malarkey is true then the electrons flowing in copper should turn copper wire into nickel wire. Should turn iron atoms into manganese.

And why is it not doing such? Because the .5MeV particle is not the electron but a magnetic monopole and the real-electron = muon of atoms stays firmly in place with Real Proton=84MeV.

In New Chemistry atomic number is the same if you count Real Electron =105MeV or count protons.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 12:44:41 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: definition of Chemistry is all wet behind the ears in Old Chemistry
Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV,

Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>

Injection-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 19:44:41 +0000

definition of Chemistry is all wet behind the ears in Old Chemistry Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV

- hide quoted text -
On Monday, March 19, 2018 at 1:00:31 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Now here is a new proof that belongs in the first page.
>
> Now chemistry is all about the nature and behavour of the last electrons of atoms, while the protons and neutrons of atoms play little role in chemistry. So well if that malarkey is true then the electrons flowing in copper should turn copper wire into nickel wire. Should turn iron atoms into manganese.
>
> And why is it not doing such? Because the .5MeV particle is not the electron but a magnetic monopole and the real-electron = muon of atoms stays firmly in place with Real Proton=84MeV.
>
> In New Chemistry atomic number is the same if you count Real Electron =105MeV or count protons.
>

Alright, when I went to college in 1968, Univ Cincinnati, taking Freshman Chemistry (may have been sophomore year?) one of the first things we learned from the instructor is that Chemistry is about the electrons, the last few electrons of any atom. I remember the book used was Mortimer's Chemistry: A Conceptual Approach. I no longer have the textbook edition I used, but a later edition, the 4th ed. of Mortimer, 1979.

Now, Mortimer attempts to define Chemistry on page 1 by saying : "Chemistry may be defined as the science that is concerned with the characterization, composition, and transformation of matter. This definition, however, is far from adequate." Further on, Mortimer writes: "The focus of chemistry, however, is probably the chemical reaction." Trouble is, though Mortimer never defines or tells us what "chemical reaction" is. And probably the reason the UC instructor said words to the effect-- "Chemistry is about the behavior of the last electrons of atoms."

And so, what we have here, in terms of Logic, we have a massive contradiction, a massive counterintuitive definition of Chemistry. So if the science of Chemistry is basically, not all but the bulwark of chemistry is the study of the last electrons in any atom, then in electricity flow in copper, with Old Chemistries stupid notion the electron is the .5MeV particle, then, right before your very eyes, all copper wire should turn to nickel wire because is the nickel atom has 28 electrons and the copper has 29 electrons, as the electron flows into the appliance, it deprives all the copper atoms of an electron and thus, making those copper atoms become nickel atoms, even though they still have 29 protons.

You see, the only way to resolve Old Chemistry's dilemma, is to consider, that the .5MeV particle was never the electron at all, but was Dirac's Magnetic Monopole that Dirac strived to find in his lifetime for the monopole was the carrier of electricity. Electricity is not the flow of electrons, but the flow of magnetic monopoles-- those, .5MeV particles.

The Real Electron, like the Real Proton hardly ever move outside the atom they are confined in. It takes enormous amount of energy to move any electron inside an atom and that is because the Real Electron is 105MeV, what is called the muon in physics, and the Real Proton is 840MeV.

So, Old Chemistry-- every book that assumes the electron is .5MeV is now a defunct worthless trash book. Old Chemistry starts off their science with a crazy contradiction, a counterintuitive definition of Chemistry-- for they say-- Chemistry is about the last electrons of atoms, yet their ideas would thus cause copper wire to change into nickel wire by just the flow of electricity. When the Real Electron = muon, it stays behind with its 840MeV proton, securely fastened to the proton, and what is flowing as electricity is a .5 MeV magnetic monopole.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 14:32:03 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: new early page of textbook, explaining the hole in Old Chemistry Re:

True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>

Injection-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 21:32:04 +0000

new early page of textbook, explaining the hole in Old Chemistry Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook

- hide quoted text -
On Monday, March 19, 2018 at 2:44:48 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Monday, March 19, 2018 at 1:00:31 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Now here is a new proof that belongs in the first page.
> >
> > Now chemistry is all about the nature and behaviour of the last electrons of atoms, while the protons and neutrons of atoms play little role in chemistry. So well if that malarkey is true then the electrons flowing in copper should turn copper wire into nickel wire. Should turn iron atoms into manganese.
> >
> > And why is it not doing such? Because the .5MeV particle is not the electron but a magnetic monopole and the real-electron = muon of atoms stays firmly in place with Real Proton=84MeV.
> >
> > In New Chemistry atomic number is the same if you count Real Electron =105MeV or count protons.
> >
>
> Alright, when I went to college in 1968, Univ Cincinnati, taking Freshman Chemistry (may have been sophomore year?) one of the first things we learned from the instructor is that Chemistry is about the electrons, the last few electrons of any atom. I remember the book used was Mortimer's Chemistry: A Conceptual Approach. I no longer have the textbook edition I used, but a later edition, the 4th ed. of Mortimer, 1979.
>
> Now, Mortimer attempts to define Chemistry on page 1 by saying : "Chemistry may be defined as the science that is concerned with the characterization, composition, and transformation of matter. This definition, however, is far from adequate." Further on, Mortimer writes: "The focus of chemistry, however, is probably the chemical reaction." Trouble is, though Mortimer never defines or tells us what "chemical reaction" is. And probably the reason the UC instructor said words to the effect-- "Chemistry is about the behavior of the last electrons of atoms."
>
> And so, what we have here, in terms of Logic, we have a massive contradiction, a massive counterintuitive definition of Chemistry. So if the science of Chemistry is basically, not all but the bulwark of chemistry is the study of the last electrons in any atom, then in electricity flow in copper, with Old Chemistries stupid notion the electron is the .5MeV particle, then, right before your very eyes, all copper wire should turn to nickel wire because is the nickel atom has 28 electrons and the copper has 29 electrons, as the electron flows into the appliance, it deprives all the copper atoms of an electron and thus, making those copper atoms become nickel atoms, even though they still have 29 protons.
>
> You see, the only way to resolve Old Chemistry's dilemma, is to consider, that the .5MeV particle was never the electron at all, but was Dirac's Magnetic Monopole that Dirac strived to find in his lifetime for the monopole was the carrier of electricity. Electricity is not the flow of electrons, but the flow of magnetic monopoles-- those, .5MeV particles.
>
> The Real Electron, like the Real Proton hardly ever move outside the atom they are confined in. It takes enormous amount of energy to move any electron inside an atom and that is because the Real Electron is 105MeV, what is called the muon in physics, and the Real Proton is 840MeV.
>
> So, Old Chemistry-- every book that assumes the electron is .5MeV is now a defunct worthless trash book. Old Chemistry starts off their science with a crazy contradiction, a counterintuitive definition of Chemistry-- for they say-- Chemistry is about the last electrons of atoms, yet their ideas would thus cause copper wire to change into nickel wire by just the flow of electricity. When the Real Electron = muon, it stays behind with its 840MeV proton, securely fastened to the proton, and what is flowing as electricity is a .5 MeV magnetic monopole.
>

Sad that I have to go to physics to get a good enough definition of a chemical reaction. I go to Feynman Lectures on Physics, 1963, page 1-6 and 1-7

--- quoting ---

Chemical reactions

In all of the processes which have been described so far, the atoms and the ions have not changed partners, but of course there are circumstances in which the atoms do change combinations, forming new molecules. This is illustrated in Fig. 1-8. A process in which the rearrangement of the atomic partners occurs is what we call a chemical reaction.

--- end quoting Feynman ---

I have not located any author who comes outright saying "Chemistry is basically the study of the last electrons of atoms".

But the above is as close as we need to get on the fact that Old Chemistry is a Contradiction in Terms, and that Old Chemistry is Counterintuitive, if it wants people to believe that the electron is .5MeV, proton is 938 MeV and neutron is 940 MeV.

In my discovery that the Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton= 840MeV, and neutron = 945MeV, leaving behind the .5MeV particle as Dirac's magnetic monopole. My discovery of all of that, stems from a day in 2016 when looking at tables of masses of elementary particles, I saw the muon at 105 and the proton at 938 MeV and said to myself, -- lo and behold, that is less than 1% of being 9x105 = 945. I said to myself, lo and behold 945/938 = 1.007, or, in percentage is .7%, less than 1%, and to me, that means they are really equal, that 9muons = 1 proton.

So, with that magnificent discovery in 2016 that a proton was just 9 muons, I did not assemble that beautiful discovery just yet, that the proton had to be actually just 840 MeV. Leaving me to wonder in 2017, what in the world is the .5MeV if the real-electron=105MeV, real proton = 840 MeV and thus, in 2017, I soon realized the vagabond tiny particle .5MeV was what Dirac was chasing after all his life, and ironic he was a electrical engineer before becoming a theoretical physicist.

Anyway, with the discovery that these .5MeV particles were never the electrons of atoms, I sought for proofs that the Real Electron was 105MeV and the first proof I thought of was the bonding of Chemistry, the angular momentum needed to bond a Covalent bond or Ionic bond or Metallic bond. Those bonds could never occur when the proton to electron is 938 versus .5 MeV. Bonding in Chemistry needs a ratio of at least 8 to 1, as in 840 to 105 MeV. So that was my first proof.

But reflecting on this history, now in March of 2018, I need to revamp the entire Old Chemistry. Because, well, Chemical Atoms can be classified far far far better with Atomic Number = number of muons inside an atom. Chemistry is better when we say that carbon is 6 muons, that hydrogen is 1 muon that helium is 2 muons, instead of this silly proton count of atoms. For Chemistry, basically is all about the actions and reactions of the real electron = muon. And the muons in atoms are almost, just as secure in that atom as the protons of that atom. If you think it is terribly difficult to remove a proton from an atom, well, it is almost as difficult to remove the muon from that atom.

So the Chemical Table of Elements based on atomic number = number of protons, is better served, if it is based on atomic number = number of muons.

And thus, the hideous conclusions of Old Chemistry, that you can have a copper wire conducting electricity thinking it is the flow of electrons out of the copper atoms, a truly truly hideous notion, because in reality, the flow of electricity is never the flow of electrons, but the flow of magnetic monopoles-- the particle that Dirac needed to make electromagnetism a fully complete and symmetrical theory. For without the magnetic monopole, EM theory had a huge hole in it, a fake theory until that hole was plugged.

So, see for yourself, for if Old Chemistry is correct then electricity in a copper wire would turn it into a nickel wire. But it never does that, because electricity was never about electrons flowing, it was about monopoles flowing and the copper wire remains as copper.

AP

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Aug 22, 2018, 7:11:30 PM8/22/18

page3

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 15:12:00 -0800 (PST)

Subject: radioactive Beta decay is 105 not .5 MeV Re: Chemists are smarter than
Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real

Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>

Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 23:12:00 +0000

radioactive Beta decay is it 105MeV or .5 MeV Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV

On Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 3:36:00 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV
>
>

So logically incoherent have Physicists become, so incoherent. Incoherent is a polite term for crazy, for physicists have become babbling crazy fools.

They would have you believe that Beta decay in Radioactivity is the decay of electrons as .5 MeV particles.

That means, the electric current in any electric wire is Radioactive beta decay. How silly is that?

So, do the babbling crazy fools ever consider that if Electrons = .5MeV, then a current in a wire is Radioactive Decay. Give me any 10 outstanding physicists today, any 10, and, even all put together have not one gram of Logical thought among them.

If you think the electron is the .5MeV particle, then your radioactive decay is all messed up and screwy.

If you think the Real Electron = 105 MeV, then, you have a modicum of a logical mind, because when the Real Electron = 105 MeV, it seldom ever comes out of its parent-atom. It seldom comes out unless you apply high energy to the atom to force it apart from its 840 MeV proton. Thus, when you have a neutral atom and force that atom to emit or eject a 105 MeV particle, then, then, you have Radioactive Beta Decay.

But, the run of the mill photon with .5MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy, is not any Radioactive Decay.

I am going to have to rewrite the entire textbook on Radioactive Decay.

AP

On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 1:08:56 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:

direct observance some years back in Poland of a 840 Mev particle Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV
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 ---

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Aug 26, 2018, 1:26:02 AM8/26/18

page4

More Experimental Proofs

On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 12:45:04 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:

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.

beta decay as monopoles, not electrons

On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 5:59:14 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:

Old Physics clowns could not distinguish between beta decay and electricity Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV

On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 12:48:31 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 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.
>
>

Now it seems to have escaped everyone's attention ever since JJ Thomson discovered the .5MeV particle, and since 1900 with the discovery of radioactivity and about the very same time, the Thomson discovery of this .5 MeV particle. The LOGICAL attention, that if the electron was .5MeV, then it is not distinct from beta radioactive decay. In other words, for those ignorant enough to think the electron was .5MeV, those same ignorant scientists would have to say then, that electricity is radioactive beta decay running through copper wires.

Not a single person existed from year 1900 to 2017 with a gram of logical commonsense, not a one.

For if you believe in radioactive decay, beta decay as the .5MeV particle, and believe that electricity is the flow of these .5MeV particles, then, that very same ignorant person has to believe that radioactive beta decay is electricity of .5MeV particles flowing in copper wire.

What LOGICALLY solves this dilemma, is that the .5MeV particle is not the electron but rather Dirac's magnetic monopole, and thus, there is a radioactive decay of monopoles and there is monopoles in electricity, while the Real Electron is 105 MeV and stays put inside an atom tied to its 840 MeV proton, and neither one of them-- the 105 or 840 seldom decay, unless under high enormous energy bombardment.

In Old Physics, they had no logical stance to stand on, to distinguish a beta radioactive decay compared to a electricity flow. Such is a world, where scientists operate without a logical mind, but rather, as dumb as a robotic mind trying to deal with physics. A robotic mind would think a .5MeV is radioactivity sometimes, yet , electricity the other times, only a dumb robotic mind would think that.

Now the reason I titled this small textbook as Chemists are smarter than Physicists, is because the Chemists by the Danish team::

Positively Charged Phosphorus as a Hydrogen Bond Acceptor

Anne S. Hansen, Lin Du and Henrik G. Kjaergaard*

are the first scientists to make that beautiful experimentation that the Real Electron cannot be a .5MeV particle.

And what will now happen is that other Chemists will lead more and more experiments on different atoms verifying Kjaergaard.

Physicists are far and away, far too dumb to ever realize their .5MeV particle as never the Real-Electron, for physicists are like clown acts at a circus, they are trained to do one dumb act and simply cannot ponder and think-- "could there be a mistake in identifying the real electron". Physicists are far too stupid to ask-- did I get the Real True Electron.

On Monday, February 19, 2018 at 2:48:25 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.math:
distinguish between beta decay and electricity Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV

Quoting from Wikipedia

Radioactive decay (also known as nuclear decay or radioactivity) is the process by which an unstable atomic nucleus loses energy (in terms of mass in its rest frame) by emitting radiation, such as an alpha particle, beta particle with neutrino or only a neutrino in the case of electron capture, gamma ray, or electron in the case of internal conversion. A material containing such unstable nuclei is considered radioactive. Certain highly excited short-lived nuclear states can decay through neutron emission, or more rarely, proton emission.

--- end quote ---

I may have to do a whole new periodic table of elements before this textbook is complete. It depends on features of matter such as carbon that makes graphite and carbon that makes diamond. What I mean to say here, is that the features of a element in chemistry is all about the electrons, for chemistry is mostly the study of electrons of atoms, but then when you have muons as the real electron and you have monopoles acting on atoms, it makes chemistry a whole new science to have to juggle the characteristics of muon and monopole. So that the periodic table must include muon along with monopoles.

AP

On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 7:07:49 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:

Identity Crisis when it occurs in physics Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV//.5MeV was Dirac's monopole

Identity Crisis when it occurs in physics

Now in life, we humans in social gatherings often have Identity Mistakes, I myself can barely remember someones name, just minutes after being told-- a Robert becomes a John, a Clara becomes a Karen to me, just minutes. And even facial recognition becomes blurred.

But in science, especially physics, a Identity Mistake means big big trouble ahead.

Now if we consider Columbus as a geologist, his identity mistake was to think his Americas were actually India, the Indian subcontinent near Asia. So, that was a whopping big error, and actually to this date, do not know when Columbus himself realized those land masses was nowhere near India. Did he realize years later after 1492, that the Americas was a mistaken identity of India? So, how long was it, after 1492, that people realized it was a new continent and not the Asia or India. Did it take hundred years?

Now in Chemistry, when chemists were discovering the new elements, there were many mistaken identities, where they thought they had a pure element, but turns out they had a compound.

But in Physics, mistaken identity, especially the building blocks of an atom-- proton, electron, neutron, to have a mistake of what the Real Electron is-- is the muon = 105 MeV, a mistake like that, can set the entire physics enterprise backwards for thousands of years if kept. And not only physics, but all the other sciences depend on Atomic Physics.

So, why, why, oh why, was every physicist of the last 117 years, so blithering logically stupid?

As I so often said before, to be a expert a master in Physics, you must master MOMENTUM. Momentum is the key concept of physics, and if you cannot master momentum, you are not worthy of physics. And, so, you have Covalent Bonding in Chemistry, and here comes a physicist that says the electron is .5MeV and the proton is 938MeV. If you mastered momentum, and angular momentum in this instance, you would immediately recognize, that a Covalent bonding in chemistry cannot exist if the electron is .5 while proton is 938 MeV. You can have covalent bonding if the electron is 105 versus 840MeV for the proton. A ratio of 105 to 840 allows for covalent bonding.

So, what gives for physics from 1900 to 2017, was everyone out-to-lunch, on-vacation?

AP

Michael Moroney

unread,

Aug 26, 2018, 1:31:02 AM8/26/18

Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> fails:

> Let us hype and sensationalize Gay-Logic, as observed here in sci.math--

"Us", Gay Plutonium? You are the only one attempting to turn these groups
into a gay pickup bar and accusing everyone else of being gay, you and
nobody else! "Us" is plural, meaning more than one person, not just you!

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Aug 29, 2018, 1:30:30 AM8/29/18

page5

On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 8:25:06 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:

Re: Identity Crisis when it occurs in physics Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV//.5MeV was Dirac's monopole

- show quoted text -

On Quora, someone tells us this::

Quoting::
The idea that Columbus died thinking he had found only islands off the coast of Asia is a myth. It is clear from his own writings that he realized he had encountered a new continent. On his third voyage (1496), Columbus for the first time encountered the coast of South America, in what is now Venezuela, at a point where the Orinoco River enters the sea. He originally assumed this was a large island. But a few days later, he came to the conclusion that no island could produce the quantity of fresh water which he observed at the mouth of the Orinoco, and concluded, “I believe this is a very large continent which until now has remained unknown” (“Yo estoy creído que esta es tierra firma, grandísima, de que hasta hoy no se ha sabido” in Las Casas, Historia, vol 2, p. 264).

On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 9:51:23 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:
Re: Identity Crisis when it occurs in physics Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV//.5MeV was Dirac's monopole

On stackexchange we have a differing view and one i am inclined to accept

Quoting::

Under Portuguese auspices he completed a second expedition, which set sail from Lisbon on May 31, 1501. After a halt at the Cape Verde Islands, the expedition traveled southwestward, reached the coast of Brazil, and certainly sailed as far south as the Río de la Plata, which Vespucci was the first European to discover. In all likelihood the ships took a quick run still farther south, along the coast of Patagonia to the Golfo de San Juli n or beyond. His ships returned by an unknown route, anchoring at Lisbon on July 12, 1502. This voyage is of fundamental importance in the history of geography in that Vespucci himself became convinced that the lands he had explored were not part of Asia but a New World. Unlike Columbus, who, to his death, clung to the idea that he had found the shores of Asia, Vespucci defined what had indeed been found — and for this he has been rightfully honored.

End quote.

The above implies that from 1492 to 1502 the world still thought the new land was China- India and Amerigo Vespucci said it was a new continent.

Now I believe Vespucci as the first one to realize that the landmass Columbus discovered was a new continent and took the world 10 years from start to finish to realize the mistaken identity.

Should it take Physics over 117 years to realize a mistaken identity of the electron, for the Real Electron is 105 MeV and the .5 MeV particle is the monopole.

Consider the arena where Columbus, Vespucci played in, continents, landmasses, economies and exploitation, whereas physics and science arenas are mostly about truth and knowledge, where a small set of people play. Columbus played on a larger stage involving far more people. So, could it be that when commerce plays on a stage, a mistaken identity takes only 10 years to be corrected. But when physics has mistaken identity, it takes 117 years to uncover? Is it because, when you have too many people educated to think all alike, that it takes 117 years to correct, but when you have a pool of people, none of them adhering to one idea, that it takes just 10 years to fathom the truth.

One last thing on Columbus is that he was C.C. and J.J. Thompson, and then Amerigo Vespucci for which America got its name was AV, and Archimedes Plutonium is AP. From CC to AV took 10 years, but from Thompson to AP took 2017 - 1897 = 120 years. Does that mean I get the rights and privileges to name the Real Electron the "archimuon", for the real electron is not involved in electricity, but rather the monopole is. And the real electron pretty much stays at home along side the 840 MeV proton. So the proton and the archimuon make up matter with the magnetic monopoles running as electricity of atoms.

Now, where does the Archimuon spend most of its time in the atom? Probably most of the time is bonded to the proton so you have a 105 plus 840 bonded together two particles.

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Sep 3, 2018, 5:38:58 PM9/3/18

page6

On Monday, February 19, 2018 at 8:35:22 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.math:
radius of hydrogen proton shrinks too much Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV

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 ---

On Monday, February 19, 2018 at 9:52:18 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:

only way to explain how a battery works Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV

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.

On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 12:40:26 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.math:
spin is charge and charge is spin Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV

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.

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Sep 6, 2018, 6:49:20 PM9/6/18

page7

On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 3:29:39 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:

Maxwell Equations are asymmetrical unless you have monopole Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV

7th proof the Maxwell Equations are not symmetrical without current being the flow of magnetic monopoles. Dirac spent most of his life venturing for the existence of the magnetic monopole, so that electricity is a quantized energy, to give substance to the phenomenon of electricity. Well, it turns out that in life, often, what we are so desperately searching for, is right under our very nose, but just too blind to see it. The .5MeV particle we thought was the electron is in fact a photon or neutrino dressed up with a .5MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy. And the Real true Electron is the muon at 105 MeV. So, what bothered Dirac about the magnetic monopole is the Maxwell Equations end up being asymmetrical and that bothered Dirac immensely and he kept pushing forward and forward to find that monopole.

On Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 3:29:49 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.math:
Ion theory does not support electron being .5MeV

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 everything 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 every time a atom is unbalanced in charge, is due to a buildup of monopoles on that atom.

On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 5:50:29 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:
Radioactivity rewritten Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV
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 and the hydrogen atom decay= 840MeV proton plus its 105MeV electron= muon, which in Old Physics and Old Chemistry would be seen as neutron 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.

So, all the books on Radioactivity need to be rewritten.

On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 7:26:52 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:
proton and electron=muon arrangement inside atoms Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV

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. But, however, the proton itself is a closed loop wire due to its being a composition of 8 muons, in a octet of muons, thus the electron-muon is the bar magnet and the proton is the closed loop wire.

Either way, Faradays law is preeminent, either the proton is the bar magnet and electron is the closed loop wire or the proton is the closed loop wire and electron is the bar magnet.

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.

Which begs the question, how and why are monopoles borne inside of atoms?

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Sep 9, 2018, 4:41:09 PM9/9/18

page8

On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 9:40:59 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:
solving muon magnetic moment anomaly
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.

On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 12:41:50 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:
static electricity makes no sense as removal of electrons Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV
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 ()

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Sep 12, 2018, 10:30:59 AM9/12/18

page9

Famous Experimental Proof done in Denmark, 2014

On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 5:07:26 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:
Kjaergaard's famous Danish experiment of 2014 Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV
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 <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

The below is a famous experiment of 2014, very famous because it opens a flood gate of new understanding of both Physics and of Chemistry for it proves these 5 points of issue::

1) That in Electricity Magnetism there is only a force of attraction, and all scientists were confused because what they thought was "repel" is merely a "denial of same space occupancy-- Pauli Exclusion" for exclusion is not the same as repel.

2) The real electron of atoms is a 105 MeV particle called the muon and the Real-proton is 840 MeV

3) The particle that is .5MeV we always thought was the electron way back since JJ Thomson in 1897, turns out, that this .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole, which is a photon or neutrino with a .5MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy.

4) The Real Electron and Real Proton rarely ever escape a atom, but what does escape and what is in almost all transactions of atoms is the monopole which can be either +1 or -1 of .5MeV.

5) The Real Electron is firmly bonded to the proton as 105 MeV with 840 MeV, for which the proton itself is composed of 8 muons. The neutron is actually 945 MeV and is a proton + muon + some other particles.

Kjaergaard's experiment is the first of what will become a cascade of chemistry experiments that all will prove the above 5 points of interest.

On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 5:07:26 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:
Kjaergaard's famous Danish experiment of 2014 Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV
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 <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

Scientists discover impossible hydrogen bond | ScienceNordic
sciencenordic.com/scientists-discover-impossible-hydrogen-bond‎
Mar 25, 2015 ... Scientists have discovered a new type of hydrogen bond which was previously considered impossible or at least highly improbable. "The discovery is significant because hydrogen bonds are such a fundamental part of both chemistry and biology," says Professor Henrik Kjærgaard from the Department of ...

ScienceNordic
Scientists discover impossible hydrogen bond
March 25, 2015 - 06:25
By: Lise Brix

Professor Henrik Kjærgaard and his colleagues have demonstrated that a new kind of hydrogen bond can occur between a hydrogen atom and a phosphorous atom. Pictured here is Kjærgaard in his lab at the University of Copenhagen. (Photo: University of Copenhagen)Scientists have discovered a new type of hydrogen bond which was previously considered impossible or at least highly improbable.
"The discovery is significant because hydrogen bonds are such a fundamental part of both chemistry and biology," says Professor Henrik Kjærgaard from the Department of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen. "They form the basis of biological molecules and it’s for instance hydrogen bonds that determine the boiling point of water."
He led the new study, which has been published in the Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters.

At Aarhus University, chemistry professor Jeppe Olsen is surprised....

(snipped)
Olsen points out that not only have Kjærgaard and his colleagues found the new hydrogen bond in experiments -- they have also provided "an excellent explanation" of the discovery.
The theory behind the discovery is that the atoms' charge is not uniformly distributed around their surface -- which is how simplified models say they do.
“Our discovery emphasises that the charge around the surface of an atom is not uniform. If there was a positive charge all the way around the phosphorous atom this hydrogen bond wouldn't be possible. But it is. This must mean that the charge is not uniformly distributed around the atom -- you might say that there are tiny pockets of negative charge around the phosphorus atom," says Kjærgaard.
The discovery of the special hydrogen bonds was made in experiments with infrared spectroscopy -- a method used by scientists to obtain knowledge about molecules and their vibrations by irradiating them with infrared light.

AP writes:: Sorry, but the explanation of why this bonding exists is because there is no force of repulsion in Electricity Magnetism, only attraction. There is denial of same space occupancy which is known as the Pauli Exclusion Principle.

But what will really force everyone in science to accept the idea that the real electron = 105MeV is when you break apart the hydrogen proton into a 840 MeV particle plus a 105 MeV muon.

I suspect this has already happened in Poland--

Michael Moroney

unread,

Sep 12, 2018, 3:14:18 PM9/12/18

Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> fails:

>AP writes: pretty stupid of John Conway to never admit the ellipse is never
>a conic, always a cylinder section, when even his students in class can
>prove it to John Conway by a cone, cylinder can and circle lid-- the

<snip>

Poor Archie, still struggling with the conic section problem...

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Sep 16, 2018, 5:51:01 PM9/16/18

page10

On Thursday, March 1, 2018 at 12:29:30 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:
Thermodynamics has to be completely unified to electricity/magnetism True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV

Thermodynamics only makes sense when both heat by radiation is the same as heat by convection, all being monopoles. So that the glow of green in a radium watch dial, is the same as the glow of red in a electric heater, both are emitting magnetic monopoles.

Thermodynamics has to be completely brought into the rest of the house of physics and seen as fully that of electricity and magnetism.

On Saturday, March 3, 2018 at 7:34:39 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:
Radioactivity has to be redone,completely True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV

Radioactivity has to be completely redone. It is rare that you remove a proton=840MeV and a electron=105MeV. Most radioactivity involves the .5MeV particle , the magnetic monopole of Dirac. Then the most radioactivity besides the monopole is the helium nucleus, and the neutron.

So a total rewrite of radioactivity is in the works.

rewrite the Sun fusion process True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV

The process of fusion in the Sun and stars needs rewritten, for when Real Electron = 105MeV and Real Proton = 840MeV, that most of what we thought was fusion and fission is actually just the routine interplay of magnetic monopoles of .5MeV.

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 14:18:08 -0800 (PST)

Subject: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry--
2018 textbook
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2018 22:18:09 +0000

AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV

Today starts a new Periodic Table of Chemical Elements based on the idea that 1 Proton = 8 Muons in a Faraday Law Configuration. Call it the Archimedes Plutonium Table of Chemical Elements.

Now I need the OCTET for Chemistry, which is a single proton built from 8 Muons

poor drawing of Octagon showing its 8 muons = 1 Proton

7
8 6

1 5

2 4
3

The Periodic Chemical Table starts, not with Hydrogen, but starts with a Proton being a octagon of muons, 8 muons.

Now we include the 9th particle-- the ElectronMuon which is the moving bar magnet in Faraday's Law

7
8 6

1 9th 5

2 4
3

The picture above is the ElectronMuon 9th of every Proton in every atom.

The ElectronMuon is Faraday's bar magnet that moves in and out of the Proton that the Proton itself is a Closed Loop Wire formed by 8 Muons in a octagon shape.

So, the First Chemical Element in the Periodic Table is the Proton as a 8 Muons in a octagon shape, and with a 9th Muon as the ElectronMuon of an atom-- every and any atom.

On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 5:52:49 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:
AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook

Now this idea revolutionizes all the chemical elements, because it makes us realize that everything about Atoms is a Faraday Law. So Carbon has 6 protons and 6 ElectronMuons forming a Faraday Law wire loop and bar magnets, and the neutrons providing the same. So, an electrical engineer given wire loops and bar magnets would make that pile of loops and magnets into the most efficient Faraday Law Demonstration.

On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 6:24:34 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:
AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook

What the AP periodic table of elements allows is the inclusion of isotopes.

On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 7:21:09 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:
table that includes isotopes Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook

On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 6:24:34 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:
> What the AP periodic table of elements allows is the inclusion of isotopes.

So, the neat thing about 1 Proton = 8 Muons and the ElectronMuon as 9th muon of all atoms protons and electrons, is that every Atom is a assemblage of Muons into a Closed Loop Wire with an electronMuon as bar magnet.

And then, of course, the Magnetic Monopole, a photon or neutrino dressed up with a .5MeV charge energy of either +1 or -1 charge. Now how does the Faraday law create a monopole? Well, it is not the Muon traveling in the proton octagon closed loop wire, for the Muon is the bar magnet. And what travels in the proton-as-wire is a monopole.

And if this monopole is too energetic, it leaves the proton-wire and we perceive it as a monopole radioactive decay.

AP

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Sep 20, 2018, 3:44:11 AM9/20/18

page11

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 22:35:29 -0800 (PST)

Subject: is H2O behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re: AP's Periodic

Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook

From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 06:35:29 +0000

On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 9:55:41 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:
is H2O behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook

how water is like fluorine isotope Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook

Now way way back in sci.physics history, i believe it was sometime in the 1990s i spoke of a concept of hydrogen atom systems that composes all atoms. The idea basically was there are no neutrons and each proton is linked to a muon (of course back then i thought the electron was .5 MeV).

In Hydrogen Atom Systems theory i called it HYASYS, the hydrogen atom would have number and mass of 1, helium would be 4. Oxygen would be atomic mass and number 16, and Fluorine (i keep mixing the spelling with the food flour) is 19F, but, there is a isotope of Fluorine as 18F.

We can see how the AP Element Table accommodates isotopes for each isotope is a specific number of HYASYS. In HYASYS theory, every atom is composed not of protons, electrons=105MeV but only a proton + muon.

But a curious feature appears in that water, H2O would have 18 HYASYS matching fluorine hyasys of 18F. Only realize the 2 H are bonded to oxygen while the 18F is a single atom.

But no escaping the fact that in both you have a Faraday Law acting on 9 x 18 muons in total, where 1 proton = 8muons. In HYASYS, all atoms are just a specific number of MUONS, so for Water molecule, H2O is 162 Muons. And for isotope 18F, is 162 Muons that compose 18F. Now 19F, the most common atom of fluorine is in total 171 Muons.

So, can any chemist today-- make a case that water behaves like fluorine isotope 18F? We all know water has some unique properties but so does fluorine.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 22:48:22 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Re: is H2O behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re: AP's Periodic

Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook

From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 06:48:23 +0000

Re: is H2O behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook

On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 12:35:32 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> how water is like fluorine isotope Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook
>
> Now way way back in sci.physics history, i believe it was sometime in the 1990s i spoke of a concept of hydrogen atom systems that composes all atoms. The idea basically was there are no neutrons and each proton is linked to a muon (of course back then i thought the electron was .5 MeV).
>
> In Hydrogen Atom Systems theory i called it HYASYS, the hydrogen atom would have number and mass of 1, helium would be 4. Oxygen would be atomic mass and number 16, and Fluorine (i keep mixing the spelling with the food flour) is 19F, but, there is a isotope of Fluorine as 18F.
>
> We can see how the AP Element Table accommodates isotopes for each isotope is a specific number of HYASYS. In HYASYS theory, every atom is composed not of protons, electrons=105MeV but only a proton + muon.
>
> But a curious feature appears in that water, H2O would have 18 HYASYS matching fluorine hyasys of 18F. Only realize the 2 H are bonded to oxygen while the 18F is a single atom.
>

Now, looking up that of 18F, says (Wikipedia) it has a half-life of 109.8 minutes which is oodles and oodles of time to study it. But more important, it says it turns into 18Oxygen. In other words, 18F is H2O in a transitory, phase state.

AP

Andy Smith

unread,

Sep 20, 2018, 10:44:23 AM9/20/18

Shut up imbecile.

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Sep 23, 2018, 3:53:56 PM9/23/18

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Sep 23, 2018, 4:00:01 PM9/23/18

Wish Leon Lederman well on his fight with Alzheimers-- news his family selling medals for treatment, thanks for all the contributions to physics science especially neutrino research and placing neutrinos as a topic of intense interest, wish you well Leon!!!

AP

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Sep 23, 2018, 4:04:19 PM9/23/18

Sorry Leon:: Wish Leon Lederman well on his fight with Alzheimers-- news his family selling medals for treatment, thanks for the contributions to physics science, Leon!!!

0 new messages