as AP predicted, Juno spacecraft in deep trouble, since gravity is EM gravity with a terrible spin component

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 19:25:37 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Re: Is Juno now lost??
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2016 02:25:37 +0000

Re: Is Juno now lost??

On Friday, October 14, 2016 at 2:32:47 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Has Juno spacecraft spun out of control because NASA does not have the correct math equations for gravity and thus Jupiter gravity caused Juno to wreck? Seems as though no news is bad news for if I remember correctly that 14 days period for the next 34 circuits around Jupiter and it has been far more than 14 days elapsed since Juno checked in to radio Earth.
>
> AP

Long time since Juno was in the news. Has it already crashed, and NASA is keeping it quiet.

AP

It was 6 hours ago that I posted the above to sci.physics wondering why the lack of news on Juno since they were going into a 14 day orbit and it is long past 14 days.

So I wonder if my post caused alarm at NASA, that they felt they had to get the news out of troubles with Juno.

I see two reports now that Juno is changing its mission. One report titled "NASA delays the period reduction maneuver (PRM) of Juno spacecraft" further stating problems of the "valves".

Now, could a unwanted spin acquired by the EM gravity of Jupiter cause valves to go heywire?

Or, is it just a unwanted spin that is causing problems.

You see, my reservations of Juno is that we do not know the force of gravity well enough to have a successful Jupiter probe. And like Hitomi, earlier this year that spun out of control and perished, that Juno will have a similar fate.

Gravity is EM and is magnetism and electricity, and not the old fashioned silly "suck gravity". And General Relativity is all wrong and horsemanure. Gravity is from Maxwell Equations. And I am afraid that the mission of Juno will disappoint. But, it will be enormously important for Earth, because for the first time we will shift from the stupid gravity of General Relativity, and shift over to gravity as EM, Maxwell theory.

You see, the preparation and arming Juno was an arming with false physics of suck gravity, when we should have armed Juno with EM gravity of Maxwell theory. That theory demands a spin be placed upon the spacecraft and if the math for the spacecraft does not have a "spin factor" arming for spin correction, well, the chances of Juno surviving to its full mission is severely cut down.

Now I think this valve issue is a excuse rather than announcing all the concerns and all the troubles that Juno is now experiencing.

And I hope that NASA is 100% honest if Juno crashes due to spin, and not make up some cockamamie story that a meteor or debris hit Juno and it destroyed Juno. Please be honest if Juno spins out of control and the reason for its loss.

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

So now, these valves that are disfunctional, can it be so because of unwanted spin picked up from Jupiter's gravity. I realize that the engineers build a "spin control apparatus into Juno", but were they were not figuring on a huge abnormal spin to the entire probe which this huge spin would affect valves.

I realize the spin control, has helped to remove unwanted spin up to now, but that Jupiter, the largest planet in the solar system is going to have the largest gravity upon a spacecraft of any planet, and that idea was not factored into the design and engineering of Juno, that gravity is not a "suck gravity of the fake General Relativity theory" but that gravity is a EM Maxwell Equations gravity. Just as a electric motor, from Faraday's law, has a spin to the motor-- (what is a motor without spin), so that the gravity of Jupiter is going to pile a lot of spin upon Juno, and although the engineers and scientists that built Juno prepared Juno for "suck gravity". They did not and could not prepare Juno for EM gravity, since they never heard of EM gravity until these postings of mine.

Gravity is a force from the Maxwell Equations and so, it is just a matter of time before Juno completely fails its mission prematurely. Looks like that premature failure is being seen with the "broken valves" under a unwanted spin.

But, as Juno fails, its greatest gift to humanity, will be to recognize our suck gravity--really is a stupid idea, and that gravity is all EM, all from the Maxwell Equations and theory, and if Juno fails prematurely, it will have saved us in the realization of the true physics is EM and Maxwell theory.

Not only will Juno failure teach us real gravity, but teach us to throw out all this crazy physics of Big Bang, black holes, gravity waves, dark matter, dark energy, Higgs boson, Standard Model, Doppler light shift, all that crazy nattering nutter physics built up by loons of physics, loons who have no logic in their mind. Trouble in a science like physics, when you have no physicist with a Logical mind like Maxwell in 1860, is that physics becomes inundated with fakeries-- black holes, quarks, strings, dark matter, etc etc. So when physics has not a single physicist with a head of logic, you have trouble with piles and piles of nonsense that passes off as physics. And with Juno, just about to fail and crash, we can see that physics has not a single physicist with a head of logic.

AP

[Michael Moroney]

Right on schedule.

I predicted months ago that if Juno had *any* problem whatsoever, Archie
Pu would take credit for it, no matter whether the problem had any
relation to his made-up spin law or not. Sure enough, Juno has valve
problems and Archie is claiming he predicted it.

Of course, not much of a prediction, too easy.

The only real difference is I figured that Juno problems would most
likely be radiation effects that would act faster than predicted.

[john]

I like the leaked video of the
monster UFO circling the red spot

[Archimedes Plutonium]

So here I am trying to picture these valves which I think Lockheed built, and trying to picture them whether unwanted spin would make them behave in this manner. I wonder if I got a small valve, add spin and it disfunctions. I am trying to think of the most simple valve.

iPhone post

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Now the human body has valves, the heart valves, and it takes quite a lot of spin to affect them adversely.

But Juno is mechanical valves, and spin would be detrimental.

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Now I am guessing that the Lockheed Martin valves on Juno are solenoid-valves, and I am wondering how a spin to Juno would drastically affect or harm these valves? I would hazard to guess that since they are electrically operated that a spin of Juno would interfer with the current flow to the valves and thus delaying the time of opening the valves from a split second to that of 30 minutes to open. And as the spin of Juno becomes worse, the valves would not function at all.

You see, when you send a probe to the largest planet in the Solar System, being built under the notion of Newton gravity or the General Relativity notion of gravity, that both are suck-gravity and both are wrong, because gravity is really just an EM force and that EM gravity involves not only a attraction force but also involves imparting of a spin upon the two gravitational bound bodies. So Jupiter is imparting a huge spin component on Juno.

So the scientists and engineers that built Juno were working under the fake General Relativity theory when they should have built Juno under a EM gravity understanding.

And that is why Juno is highly likely to completely fail before its mission is accomplished.

Now if it fails before its programmed crash into Jupiter, then, how long will it stay in orbit in a failed condition it is in?

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 4:28:29 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 2:18:34 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

(snipped)

>
> Now I am guessing that the Lockheed Martin valves on Juno are solenoid-valves, and I am wondering how a spin to Juno would drastically affect or harm these valves? I would hazard to guess that since they are electrically operated that a spin of Juno would interfer with the current flow to the valves and thus delaying the time of opening the valves from a split second to that of 30 minutes to open. And as the spin of Juno becomes worse, the valves would not function at all.
>

Alright, let me try to crudely draw a solenoid valve and how it works.


coil winding to open valve OOO

needle like closure V

spring on end of V to open or close $

_______ _________ hole opening

OOO
______ V ______
$

So as electric current goes through winding creating a electromagnet which pulls the needle and opens the valve V.

> You see, when you send a probe to the largest planet in the Solar System, being built under the notion of Newton gravity or the General Relativity notion of gravity, that both are suck-gravity and both are wrong, because gravity is really just an EM force and that EM gravity involves not only a attraction force but also involves imparting of a spin upon the two gravitational bound bodies. So Jupiter is imparting a huge spin component on Juno.
>

Now, unwanted spin of the entire spacecraft of Juno can affect the solenoid valve.

> So the scientists and engineers that built Juno were working under the fake General Relativity theory when they should have built Juno under a EM gravity understanding.
>
> And that is why Juno is highly likely to completely fail before its mission is accomplished.
>
> Now if it fails before its programmed crash into Jupiter, then, how long will it stay in orbit in a failed condition it is in?
>
> AP

Juno probably has gyroscopes to monitor and correct for spin, but the fact that Jupiter is so massive and has such a large magnetic field, that Juno just was not designed to bear all of that electromagnetism, and the EM due to gravity as EM.

AP

[noTthaTguY]

roger t.h.a.t

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Now Hitomi spacecraft in Spring of 2016 rapidly spun out of control, but was there enough data collected to see if the valves on Hitomi were the first failures on board. Just as Juno valves are the first failures onboard Juno.

So that when we use Newton gravity or General Relativity, the fake math of suck gravity, when we use that fake math, and not the true blue math-- Maxwell Equations with EM gravity, then the first faliings of mechanical structure is the valves which cannot handle the extra spin given by EM gravity.

AP

[noTthaTguY]

I was just perusing a b00k in the store,
and opened it to the four equations,
each labelewd paranthetically with names of scientists,
except the one that said (no monopoles)

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 3:00:49 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Now Hitomi spacecraft in Spring of 2016 rapidly spun out of control, but was there enough data collected to see if the valves on Hitomi were the first failures on board. Just as Juno valves are the first failures onboard Juno.
>
> So that when we use Newton gravity or General Relativity, the fake math of suck gravity, when we use that fake math, and not the true blue math-- Maxwell Equations with EM gravity, then the first faliings of mechanical structure is the valves which cannot handle the extra spin given by EM gravity.
>

Hitomi was a rapid violent crash due to unwanted spin, but Juno is better built, so the unwanted spin has started and apparently the first thing to break is the valves, unless NASA is hiding more deterioration.

Probably nothing remaining of Hitomi can show a valve damage.

AP

[noTthaTguY]

or, it ran out of monopoles

[Archimedes Plutonium]

UC-Riverside math dept. failures of trig sin(2)=0 with sin(3.14..)=0; where not one single professor of math at UC sees what this student sees-- Sine is a semicircle wave

stalker and failures of trigonometry at UC Riverside Math Dept believe sin(2)=0 with sin(3.14..)=0
Mark Alber, **John Baez**, Mei-Chu Chang, Vyjayanthi Chari, Kevin Costello, Po-Ning Chen, Wee Liang Gan, Gerhard Gierz, Jacob Greenstein, Jose Gonzalez, Zhuang-dan Guan, Jim Kelliher, Sara Lapan, Michel Lapidus, Carl Mautner, Amir Moradifam, Yat Sun Poon, Ziv Ran, David Rush, Reinhard Schultz, Stefano Vidussi, David Weisbart, Fred Wilhelm, Bun Wong, Yulong Xing, Feng Xu, Qi Zhang

On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 12:57:35 PM UTC-5, noTthaTguY wrote:
> or, it ran out of monopoles
>

I would say they are failures of trigonometry since they fail to see that the unit circle centered at (1,0) traces out exactly the values of sine and thus sine is a Semicircle Wave, and sinusoid is pure fiction.

Here is a student smarter than the above listed math professors:

1. graphing functions - Why don't sine graphs consist of semicircles ...math.stackexchange.com/.../why-dont-sine-graphs-consist-of-semicircles- below-and-above-the-x-axis‎
Nov 17, 2015 ... This means that sine graphs should have a semicircle shape above the x-axis from x values of 0-180 and a mirrored semicircle below the x-axis ...

Why don't sine graphs consist of semicircles below and above the x-axis?



PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 7th ed.


Page6, 2-2 What is the Atomic theory of matter
Atom-Totality-Universe


Due to the sharp criticism in sci.physics about the Atomic theory syllogism which I cover in another page, I felt it important to include it early on. Because so very many people are just simply poor and blind of logic.

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

And the second greatest shortfall of scientists is their logical inability to correctly *interpret* the experiment data or observation data. How they so easily misinterpret the data, which is evident in a later page on the subject of a repelling force or a denial of the same space occupancy of two bar magnets. When I was a teenager in school there was a joke spreading around. I hate the joke because it involves the torture of animals such as a frog or grasshopper, and I request no-one does this joke for it is a sin to torture animals. The joke goes like this-- a scientist studies grasshoppers and says "jump hopper jump" and the hopper jumps. Then the scientist pulls off one of the hoppers legs and says "jump hopper jump" and the hopper jumps a little bit with its remaining leg. Finally the scientist pulls off the other large leg and says "jump hopper jump" and the hopper just stands there. So the scientist concludes that by pulling off the two large legs of grasshopper makes the hopper deaf in his ears. Now we all laugh at that joke because the truth is the hopper cannot jump because his means of jumping is removed. But you would be surprised that much of modern day science is the misinterpretation of the facts, data, and observations. Much of astronomy with its fakery of black holes, dark matter, dark energy is misinterpretation. Much of particle physics with its fakery of Higgs boson is misinterpretation of particle tracks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We include the Universe in the logical syllogism.

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


Syllogism

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


(2) The Universe itself is matter


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


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


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



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

PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 7th ed.

Page7, 2-3 The only things that exist are Atoms; PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 7th ed.

page 2-3 The only things that exist are Atoms
Atom-Totality-Universe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Syllogism

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

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

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

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

So that the fool of logic with his "all humans are made of cells, hence a human is a cell", or worse yet, "Only things that exist are cells". So, you see, if you train in college to be a physicist or scientist, and never take any formal logic in school, you see how low your thinking can become.

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

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



Page8, 2-4 Two largest errors most people have in thinking about a Atom Totality. Atom-Totality-Universe/textbook 7th ed


PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 7th ed.

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

Now before I talk of the evidence, both physics and math evidence, let me backpedal a bit here for the reader and explain how all we see in the night sky of stars, galaxies, planets and other objects are parts, and pieces of a last electron of a big gigantic atom of 231Pu.

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

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

If you look in a chemistry textbook of what an electron looks like, it is not a ball shaped object but a whole lot of little dots that form a cloud. Physics and Chemistry call it the Electron-dot-cloud. So the Atom Totality theory is basically the idea that the dots of the electron-cloud are galaxies in the night sky.

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

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

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

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

Laypersons and nonscientists and even a large proportion of alleged scientists have two major problems and errors with the Atom Totality theory and these two errors are :
(1) They cannot envision how the universe we see is the inside of one 
big atom
(2) They mistakenly think that since plutonium is radioactive that this 
hinders the theory. They mistakenly think the Plutonium Atom Totality will decay away and -out-goes-the-Universe. Here one minute and gone the next, type of mistake.

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

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

If you examine a chemistry textbook of the 5f6 or the s, or the p or the d or the f orbital of a electron you will see a electron-dot-cloud. That the electron is not a ball but those huge number of dots. If we carry that idea all the way to its end-limit, each atom in the Cosmos is a dot, except for the Cosmic atom itself.

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

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

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


Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON

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

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

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

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


page9, 2-5 Two largest errors most people have in thinking about Atom Totality; textbook, 7th ed.


Laypersons and nonscientists and even a large proportion of alleged
scientists have two major problems and errors with the Atom Totality theory and these two errors are :

(1) They cannot envision how the universe we see is the inside of one
big atom

(2) They mistakenly think that since plutonium is radioactive that this 
hinders the theory. They mistakenly think the Plutonium Atom Totality will decay away and -out-goes-the-Universe. Here one minute and gone the next, type of mistake. Little do they know that you need a radioactive element so as to furnish the Universe with a internal clock, a clock that spews out more matter and energy from the nucleus and allows the Atom Totality to keep growing.

They never saw a chemistry or physics book showing a electron-dot-cloud.
Or, they never understood that all those dots is one electron, those 10^60 dots or 10^180 dots when you include all atoms, is equal to one electron.

They do not understand that those 10^180 dots for an electron is the 
actual single one electron itself, only, shattered into tiny dot pieces which we know of as atoms.

And so they come into the Atom Totality theory with the false notion 
that the hydrogen atom electron is one tiny ball or 1 dot and that the uranium atom has 92 tiny balls revolving around it or 92 dots, or that the plutonium atom has 94 tiny balls or 94 dots composing its electron dot cloud. When in fact, each electron of a hydrogen atom or a uranium atom or a Plutonium Atom has 10^60 or 10^180 dots that make-up or compose that specific individual electron.

When teaching the electron-dot-cloud in High School or in College, it is perhaps not taught strong enough that all those dots, 10^60 or 10^180 dots are one single distinct electron.

Now the night sky of stars and galaxies, it is estimated that there are only 10^11 galaxies and there are only 10^11 stars on average in each galaxy. So that would mean the Cosmos has 10^11 x 10^11, or 10^22 stars, and if we represent each of those stars as a dot we would thence have 10^22 dots. But each star is composed of atoms and a star is typically about 10^30 atoms so that would mean a night sky represented by dots for atoms would have 10^22 x 10^30 = 10^52 dots which is a huge number but a tiny number compared to 10^60 or 10^180 dots. If we included all the other matter in planets and in energy particles we come close to 10^60.

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON

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

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

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

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

Page10, 2-6 Differences between Big Bang and Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 7th ed.

PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + Maxwell/AP-Equations-Describing all of Physics, 6th ed.

Differences between Big Bang and Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 7th ed.

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

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

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

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

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

There is only one term that describes the Big Bang-- "explosion". And that is vagueness, and in the veils of imagination and daydreaming or nightmare dreaming.
So without doing any further work. Without doing any evidence searth 
or computations or experiments. The Big Bang should be dismissed as 
a fake theory from the start, because it lacks clarity. It lacks details. Big Bang is anti-science.
The Big Bang goes so far as to even imply that the laws of physics 
were broken at the explosion or during the explosion and that some time 
after the explosion, when things settled down, do we even have 
Physics arising, with laws of physics arising.
The Atom Totality theory says that the Universe has always been 
Quantum Mechanics because QM is atomic physics theory, and always will be Atomic Physics theory.
So any commonsense person, even those that hate doing science, can see 
the deficiencies and faults of a Big Bang. That it is deceptive and imaginary and vague. It is everything that science should not be-- obfuse and imaginary.
I am not happy with the few words and concepts of Entity, Structure, Pattern that distinguishes the Atom Totality from the Big Bang, and am looking for 
more such words of description. And this is important since the Big Bang is defeated as a fake before the starting block.

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

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

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

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

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON

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

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


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

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

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Now I wonder if ground control on Earth can monitor the spin of Juno or whether that is under automatic pilot with no constant Earth attention available.

iPhone post

AP

[noTthaTguY]

that is the question, not to be or to be.

as for your mumbling about the sine and cosine functions, and
presumably the other four, it has been routinely applied,
ever since especially Fourier proved his method.

but, you are only referring to the linear sine-wave,
one spatial dimension and one :dimension" of time,
when the actual wave is a wavefront,
per the secondpower of the speed of light ... nothing at all
to do with hte regular tetragon (or,
skware

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 1:09:56 AM UTC-5, noTthaTguY wrote:
> that is the question, not to be or to be.
>
> as for your mumbling about the sine and cosine functions, and

UC-Riverside math dept. failures of trig sin(2)=0 with sin(3.14..)=0; where not one single professor of math at UC sees what this student sees-- Sine is a semicircle wave

stalker and failures of trigonometry at UC Riverside Math Dept believe sin(2)=0 with sin(3.14..)=0
Mark Alber, **John Baez**, Mei-Chu Chang, Vyjayanthi Chari, Kevin Costello, Po-Ning Chen, Wee Liang Gan, Gerhard Gierz, Jacob Greenstein, Jose Gonzalez, Zhuang-dan Guan, Jim  Kelliher, Sara Lapan, Michel Lapidus, Carl Mautner, Amir  Moradifam, Yat Sun Poon, Ziv Ran, David Rush, Reinhard Schultz, Stefano Vidussi, David Weisbart, Fred Wilhelm, Bun Wong, Yulong Xing, Feng Xu, Qi Zhang

On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 1:09:56 AM UTC-5, noTthaTguY wrote:
> that is the question, not to be or to be.
>
> as for your mumbling about the sine and cosine functions, and

I would not say that Michel Lapidus, Carl Mautner, Amir  Moradifam, Yat Sun Poon, Ziv Ran are mumblers.

But I would say they are failures of trigonometry since they fail to see that the unit circle centered at (1,0) traces out exactly the values of sine and thus sine is a Semicircle Wave, and sinusoid is pure fiction.

Here is a student smarter than the above listed math professors:

        1.        graphing functions - Why don't sine graphs consist of semicircles ...math.stackexchange.com/.../why-dont-sine-graphs-consist-of-semicircles- below-and-above-the-x-axis‎
Nov 17, 2015 ... This means that sine graphs should have a semicircle shape above the x-axis from x values of 0-180 and a mirrored semicircle below the x-axis ...

Why don't sine graphs consist of semicircles below and above the x-axis?

Page56, 7-3, Fixing Trigonometry of its hideous contradiction sin(2)=0 with sin(3.14..)=0; that sine and cosine are really semicircle or semiellipse waves

Page56, 7-3, Fixing Trigonometry

A Gameplan for logical order (1-5):

(1) definition of sine

Rock solid definition is Sine = opposite/hypotenuse of right triangle of unit circle, radius 1, and, where there is no right triangle such as at (0,0), (1,0) (2,0) we have to fill in as to what that point is, and let me call them shot out points until I find a better term. They are shot out because no right triangle exists there to have a opposite divided by hypotenuse. The Unit Circle is the key ingredient and that it is centered on points (1,0) then (3,0) etc etc

Now I need to define the Sine Wave and it is going to be the unit circle packed together like this:

OOOOOOOOOO -->
with unit circle centers at (1,0) then (3,0) then (5,0) etc etc and where we peel off some tops and bottoms so the sine wave ends up being a Semicircle Wave when radius is 1, and SemiEllipse Wave when radius of circle is less than 1 or greater than 1. ^v^v^v sine when peeled off bottoms and tops


Now in the proof that Sine Wave is a Semicircle Wave, and that sinusoid is a fictional figure. All I need to do is plot the points of Sine with a unit circle centered at (1,0) and as I plot the points, we simply note that the points on the unit circle are identical to the points of Sine using the definition of sine. So that is a proof, a potent proof.

You do not need a "proof" when plotting points, that sine is a semicircle wave not sinusoidal. You just verify they are identical same points.

So, why did not anyone correct Math of its awful mistake of not knowing that sine and cosine are actually semicircle waves not sinusoidal waves? Well, I think the reason is that most everyone not all are logical people, who know to go to the definition first and see if the definition matches up with reality of graphing. If a person is a "loose cannon" on definitions, they usually mess up.

Another reason for the mess up is that in trigonometry before 2016, everyone kept stretching the x-axis as if that is normal behavior, put the x-axis with pi multiples of pi/4, pi/2 etc etc and then left the y-axis with the normal numbers, so that the graph was distorted just like Wikipedia distorts the x-axis with pi multiples and instead of square grids you have rectangle grids where the 1 should be on x-axis, instead you have pi/4. This distortion causes a illusion that sine and cosine look sinusoidal when in fact it is simply semicircles linked together.

Now do I need a Proof that sine and cosine are semicircle waves? No, for no-one needs a proof when they plot a point. You do not need to prove your point plotting on a graph, so long as you plot correctly.

So, if you have either sine or cosine in 1st Quadrant Only and a chain of circles centered on the line Y=1


^
|
|OOOOOOO____>
s 2 4

So our first full circle has the four coordinate points (s,1), (1,2), (2,1), (1,s), and its center is (1,1)

Now we cut off the lower half of the circle and use the upper half to build sine function. At (s,1) and (2,1) we have no right triangle of opposite side/hypotenuse, so we fill in what it should be by the neighboring points.

Because of the definition of sine as opposite side of right triangle divided by hypotenuse, in our case radius is 1 and so our hypotenuse is 1. Hence the sine value is the same as the semicircle y value. Since any portion of the sine function as a semicircle means the entire sine for its full duration is a semicircle wave. Since we use a unit circle with radius 1 and since in first quadrant only, the sine is exactly the same as the semicircle, then, the sine function is semicircle. And since the cosine is a reverse of sine of adjacent side of right triangle divided by hypotenuse, means the cosine is also a Semicircle Wave.

(2) Sine definition naturally puts 180 degrees = 2 not 3.14.. and puts 1 = 90 degrees. Here we just need to check the history of math and physics to see where trigonometry was corrupted into thinking pi= 3.14.. was a substitute for 180 degrees, when a strict definition of sine gives that 180 degrees is 2 and 90 degrees is 1. So where in math history was math corrupted by a delusional value for 180 degrees, and thence the delusion that sine is a sinusoid when in fact it is a semicircle wave.

After doing some checking the history of math itself is corrupted by people not logical enough to know what to look for. Alright, good, I found the history of this mess up of 180 degrees = pi. It was credited to Roger Cotes in 1714 as radians where he took C = pi*D and with circle radius of 1 he concludes circumference is 2pi for 360 degrees, thus pi = 180 degrees.

But that is mere convention in choosing radius as 1, diameter as 2, when another would chose radius .5 and thus diameter is 1, or unit diameter.

But, let us be frank and honest, there is such a thing as unit diameter where the radius is .5 and so the 360 degree is equal to pi and the 180 degree is pi/2. So Old Math saddled itself with just a convention, not a true blue Natural substitute of angle for number. To do that, we have to find out what numbers Sine itself ascribes to 180 and 90 degrees.

But, all of that-- radian -- is merely a convention agreement sake, and not a Natural pure derivation of what 180 degrees as a number substitute should in fact be.

And here is where the history of math, of Trigonometry history failed in Logic.

So if we could go back in time to Roger Cotes, on the day he was devising the radian, and we stopped him and told him a better course of action. By telling Cotes these words.

Look, you have a definition of Sine as opposite/hypotenuse of a unit circle with radius 1. Then, define radian, not as your 180/pi but rather, define radian by strictly and only using Sine. Do not define radian for circle of diameter 2, but rather define radian as to what Sine forces radian to be defined as.

So, we have a unit circle centered at (1,0) and thus our Sine function is a semicircle wave out to (2,0), and that means that 180 degrees had been traversed, forcing the radian to be useless, because 2= 180 degrees and 1 = 90 degrees.

You see, if we had been there alongside Cotes and guiding him, math would not now have the pollution of radian.

Tell me, does any High School teacher love to teach radian? Absolutely not a single one, in my opinion, and the reason being is that it is just a convoluted pollution. A big fat piece of garbage, because a sinusoid does not exist, but rather the semicircle is the Sine and so, the radian is another piece of fakery to go along with the sinusoid. Sinusoid and radian are like liaring lies, where you make one lie and have to make up more lies to cover the first lie, a avalanche of lies.

So here in 2016, we have the chance and opportunity to set Trigonometry straight and true blue. Instead of that awful confusing crap of sinusoid and radian. The world only needed angle in degrees, and never needed some silly other measurement of radian.

Here we throw out all that fakery and make the lives of students so much more pleasant, nice and calm and relaxing and logical.

Sine is a Semicircle Wave with radius 1, if it has a different radius it is a SemiEllipse Wave, and that 180 degrees is represented by 2 and 90 degrees represented by 1. Throw the radian in the garbage bin where it belongs.

When Sine is properly well defined as opposite/hypotenuse of Unit Circle centered on (1,0) and for cosine, unit circle centered on (0,0) then both sine and cosine are semicircle waves, not the fictional sinusoid. And this fakery of sinusoid was established by the Scotsman Stuart Kenny in 1789? And Wikipedia lists radians as credited to Roger Cotes in 1714.

Now, how in the world are you going to credit Cotes with radians when Cotes never graphed the fakery Sinusoid?

And, how are you going to credit Kenny with sinusoid some 70 years after Cotes if Kenny (not all that sure about this) never used radians?

So what I am saying is that you cannot go back in history and assign credit, just because you have a scent or wiff of a discovery in the writings when in fact, Cotes never had the silly radian in the first place.

For Trigonometry history, true history, we need to go back to where any mathematician actually graphed the sine function with radian and showing a sinusoid type of figure, so it must have been far after 1789, and I would guess it is Fourier.

So, let us be precise in history as we expect math to be a precision study.


Perhaps I should include in this page the idea that in Trigonometry, we want the ideas of that science to be involved more with Rational numbers whenever possible. So that a 180 degrees being 2 and 90 degrees being 1, and throwing out radians altogether, is to be preferred over a system that deals so heavily in transcendental pi.

In other words, trigonometry with Y=0 at x=2 is far better of a science than Y=0 whenever x=pi and multiples of pi.

The true trigonometry has less and less of transcendental numbers, and more and more of rational numbers.

Also, now, with Sine as Semicircle and 180 degrees being 2 since a unit circle centered at (1,0) intercepts at (0,0) and then next interception is (2,0) so that 180 degrees by sine is 2 and that 90 degrees is then 1.

But notice also, that to have 90 degees be that of 1 concords or harmonizes with the idea that the radius of unit circle is 1 and that the right triangle with 90 degrees being 1.

In Old Math, they had 90 degrees be pi/2 = 1.57.. yet their hypotenuse and radius were 1.

So in New Math, we see we must have radius 1 equal to hypotenuse 1 equal to angle 90 degrees equal 1.  
 
(3) Sine most important characteristic is Radius and minor features are amplitude, period, phase. Here I plot a few points for Sine with radius 2 and show it is a flattened ellipse with major-axis on x-axis and that Sine with radius .5 is another ellipse only it is resting with its minor axis on x-axis. Also discuss the formula of Sine of Y = A* sin(Bx +C) + D
 
Where A is amplitude
B involves period
-C/B involves phase
D involves phase

And the most important feature of Sine is Radius of circle that creates either a Semicircle Wave or a SemiEllipse Wave

Here are websites spelling out some details of these features of sine:

The amplitude of a sinusoidal function is one-half of the positive difference between the maximum and minimum values of a function. Amplitude is the magnitude (height) of the oscillation (wave) of a sinusoidal function. Sometimes it is referred to as the "peak from center" of the graph. The maximum of y = sin x is 1.
Trig Graphing Vocabulary - Regents Exam Prep Center
www.regentsprep.org/regents/math/algtrig/att7/graphvocab.htm
Trig Graphing Vocabulary - Regents Exam Prep Center
www.regentsprep.org/regents/math/algtrig/att7/graphvocab.htm‎
The amplitude of a sinusoidal function is one-half of the positive difference between the maximum and minimum values of a function. Amplitude is the magnitude (height) of the oscillation (wave) of a sinusoidal function. Sometimes it is referred to as the "peak from center" of the graph. The maximum of y = sin x is 1.
Amplitude, Period, Phase Shift and Frequency - Math is Fun
https://www.mathsisfun.com/.../amplitude-period-frequency-phase-shift.html‎
Example: 3 sin(100t + 1) amplitude is A = 3. period is 2π/100 = 0.02 π phase shift is −C/B = −1/100 = −0.01. vertical shift is D = 0.
Amplitude, Period and Frequency | CK-12 Foundation
www.ck12.org/book/CK-12-Trigonometry---Second.../2.5/‎
Calculate the amplitude and period of a sine or cosine curve. Calculate the ... of sine and cosine waves involving changes in amplitude and period (frequency).
Period and Frequency of Sine and Cosine - AlgebraLAB
www.algebralab.org/lessons/lesson.aspx?file...trigperiodfreq.xml‎
Introduction: In this lesson, the period and frequency of basic graphs of sine and ... In physics texts, these periodic, sinusoidal graphs are generally divided into ...
Amplitude & period of sinusoidal functions from equation | Khan ...


Now, here I must start to caution the reader when doing a sine wave with different sorts of amplitude, period and phase. In that when you, say, multiply a amplitude of 3 to a wave, at (0,0) you distort the wave being acquired because anything times 0 is still 0. So I have used the 0 in (0,0) as "s" not as 0.

(4) Sinusoid is a illusion, delusion and does not exist in the Universe, only in the mind's of careless mathematicians

Well, here, I mean, what kook can believe that Y=sine for every point between (0,0) to (2,0) follows and tracks the unit circle of the graph of a Semicircle, both having identical values for Y, and yet not realizing that sine is a Semicircle, and that person must be a kook of math.


And here is where a student is smarter than the math professors:

Now I am really grateful that this student placed his question on Stack Exchange, because if I were alone in this perception that sine is really a semicircle wave, then it is much harder to convince people with a modicum of commonsense. But when a student sees the truth, I can just simply point a professor of math towards the student, and say to the professor-- "you should be ashamed of yourself for trying to perpetuate a fraud".

Here is a student smarter than math professors at Colleges and Universities:

        1.        graphing functions - Why don't sine graphs consist of semicircles ...math.stackexchange.com/.../why-dont-sine-graphs-consist-of-semicircles- below-and-above-the-x-axis‎
Nov 17, 2015 ... This means that sine graphs should have a semicircle shape above the x-axis from x values of 0-180 and a mirrored semicircle below the x-axis ...

Why don't sine graphs consist of semicircles below and above the x-axis?

        2.        up vote
        3.        5
        4.        down vote
        5.        favorite
        6.        1
        7.        I'd like to see the flaw in my logic in the following:
        8.        I have a circle with radius 1. Therefore:
        9.        opposite side = sin(angle) = opposite / hypotenuse = opposite / 1
        10.        See this picture for a graphic depiction.
        11.         (Large version)
        12.        Therefore, the opposite sides (in green on the picture) when changing the x value from 1 to 0 will increase in height and their co-ordinates effectively mimic the circle's curve.
        13.        Because the height of these opposite sides equals the sine of the angles, these can be mapped onto a sine graph (x-axis is the angles in degrees, y-axis is opposite side height), and should replicate the circle's curve but mirrored. This means that sine graphs should have a semicircle shape above the x-axis from x values of 0-180 and a mirrored semicircle below the x-axis from x values of 180-360.
        14.        Where have I gone wrong?
        15.        When I look at a real sine graph I can't cut out the bottom section, slide it under the positive parabola and form a circle - but why not?
        16.        Stack Exchange:asked by "ayquah" on 17 Nov 2015 titled : Why don't sine graphs consist of semicircles below and above the x-axis.
One Answer of many:
Because you are still clinging to the circle as an angle guide, not coming off to see the sine value as a ratio of lengths. – Narasimham Nov 17 '15 at 22:51


(5) Sine is a Semicircle wave when radius is 1 , and a SemiEllipse Wave when radius is not 1, but higher or lower than 1. Sine as semicircle or semiellipse is found in the CONIC SECTIONS, but a sinusoid is never found in conic sections nor in Nature, because you are asking for a figure that tracks a semicircle until you reach the end of the figure at (2,0) and ask for the figure to be stretched out to (pi,0) and that is an impossibility.

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

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.     

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

[Archimedes Plutonium]

So now, did Maxwell ever write in his writings where he speaks of electric field in the same page as he speaks of voltage? I doubt it , because he was so smart, that I would think Maxwell would have seen that voltage is the very same thing as electric field and that the electric field is stupid nonsense.

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

JUNO REQUIEM

And there she is, and there she be.
And so, yes there she be, Juno destroyed
And there she is, there she be
Do not say I did not tell you so

Life is unkind to those that ignore EM theory
Life is unkind to those that ignore gravity as EM
Life is unkind to those ignorant of EM
Life is unkind to those that stick with stuck suck gravity

Juno, spinning out of control because gravity is EM
Gravity is not Newtonian nor General Relativity
Gravity is Faraday's law in EM Maxwell theory
But try telling that to any modern day physicist
With his silly stupid dark matter, dark energy, black
holes, worm holes, Big Bang, Higgs boson and on and
on of endless nonsense

And there she be, there she is, destroyed Juno
Do not say I did not tell you so


Dirge for Hitomi

Spin spin spin spin
crackling crumpling crinkling
Folding sparking splintering
Snap bang pop boom explode

Ignorant of gravity
Gravity is EM faraday law
Gravity is EM theory
Gravity is not suck theory
Gravity is not Newtonian
Gravity is not General Relativity

AP

[Odd Bodkin]

You mourn the living?
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/juno-spacecraft-in-safe-mode-for-latest-jupiter-flyby

--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Archimedes Plutonium]

In the news today is news of the crashed landing of the European Schiaparelli Mars lander with its lost communication. Did it crash land?

Did this lander spin out of control due to the European physicists not knowing that Gravity is EM gravity and not their suck Newtonian or suck General Relativity gravity.

Did the Mars lander spin out of control just as Hitomi spun out of control in Springtime of 2016?

So we have to wait and see.

And if it did spin out of control damaging the communications, then all Space travel should be discontinued until Physicists replace suck gravity with what gravity truly is-- EM gravity from the Faraday law of Maxwell Equations.

Now, I have to check into how high up into Space Hitomi reached before it broke out of control by unwanted spin. Was it a orbit far past the Space station or was it close to the Space Station height in space?

Alright the apogee of International Space Station is 409km while Hitomi was 580km.

This gives me perspective as to whether the Mars Lander could have spun out of control and thus a crash landing.

AP

[Michael Moroney]

Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> writes:

>On 10/19/2016 5:32 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>> JUNO REQUIEM

>You mourn the living?
>http://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/juno-spacecraft-in-safe-mode-for-latest-jupiter-flyby

Don't encourage him. He'll take credit for the second problem, too.

Meanwhile, no explanation how Galileo worked so well for years once the
failure of the antenna (before it ever got to Jupiter) is discounted.

Maybe the Laws of Physics don't take effect until Archie discovers
them. Won't electrical engineers and scientists be surprised when
electrons suddenly stop repelling each other (no EM repulsion and no
electric field anyway). Maybe electricity will stop working entirely
when current stops flowing because electrons in a wire stop pushing
each other along by repelling the ones ahead of them and being
repelled by the ones behind them.

[john]

Maybe Juno is being magnetized.

[Serigo]

On 10/20/2016 10:03 AM, john wrote:
> Maybe Juno is being magnetized.
>

I think it is the software, rather firmware. either not getting fully
tested enough, or the memory is getting too many errors due to radiation
if it is made out of Si.

it is a huge problem, Nasa has adressed it well in the past, but that
old knowledge is vanishing. THe space shuttle had 5 processor units to
help mitigate radiation.

Back in the old days they used core memory, which radiation could not
flip bits on. (little magnetic doughnuts w wires going through them -
you can still buy some on eBay).

[Michael Moroney]

Serigo <inv...@invalid.com> writes:

>On 10/20/2016 10:03 AM, john wrote:
>> Maybe Juno is being magnetized.
>>

>I think it is the software, rather firmware. either not getting fully
>tested enough, or the memory is getting too many errors due to radiation
>if it is made out of Si.

Yeah, it sounds like a radiation glitch to me as well. It would not be
good if Juno resets on many of its close passes in the radiation zone,
we won't get much data from it. It will be worse if it resets while
doing the burn into the lower orbit, the one it was supposed to do just
recently.

[Serigo]

On 10/20/2016 11:29 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Serigo <inv...@invalid.com> writes:
>
>> On 10/20/2016 10:03 AM, john wrote:
>>> Maybe Juno is being magnetized.
>>>
>
>> I think it is the software, rather firmware. either not getting fully
>> tested enough, or the memory is getting too many errors due to radiation
>> if it is made out of Si.
>
> Yeah, it sounds like a radiation glitch to me as well. It would not be
> good if Juno resets on many of its close passes in the radiation zone,
> we won't get much data from it. It will be worse if it resets while
> doing the burn into the lower orbit, the one it was supposed to do just
> recently.
>

for RAD HARD designs we used special layouts of ICs using the older wide
formats, some guys here designed the memory for galileo long ago.

We would also test sample a batch of Ics, by lowering them next to a
cobalt 60 source for a while, if we had more than 1% fail, they did not
pass qual, did not fly.

if juno is haveing glitches and valve timing issues, not good. Designing
for radiation is well known, I am not sure about the high EM fileds, and
getting sensors through a conductive skin. and low frequency Magnetic
field is hard to block, but they can test that on earth.

[Serigo]

if it has a conductive skin, their are induced currents that flow in the
skin, and they will re radiate into the interior.

also any holes or slots will cause EM to get inside, and it has to have
holes, but many can be covered in conductive film, like for optical. but
not the dish sending info to earth. but they can protect that with diode
in waveguide

love to see the qual results for the Juno,to see what they did. Imagine
going 50,000 mph through that huge magnetic field, the potential generated ?

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 1:33:29 PM UTC-5, Serigo wrote:
(snip)

> >
> > for RAD HARD designs we used special layouts of ICs using the older wide
> > formats, some guys here designed the memory for galileo long ago.
> >
> > We would also test sample a batch of Ics, by lowering them next to a
> > cobalt 60 source for a while, if we had more than 1% fail, they did not
> > pass qual, did not fly.
> >
> > if juno is haveing glitches and valve timing issues, not good. Designing
> > for radiation is well known, I am not sure about the high EM fileds, and
> > getting sensors through a conductive skin. and low frequency Magnetic
> > field is hard to block, but they can test that on earth.
>
> if it has a conductive skin, their are induced currents that flow in the
> skin, and they will re radiate into the interior.
>
> also any holes or slots will cause EM to get inside, and it has to have
> holes, but many can be covered in conductive film, like for optical. but
> not the dish sending info to earth. but they can protect that with diode
> in waveguide
>
> love to see the qual results for the Juno,to see what they did. Imagine
> going 50,000 mph through that huge magnetic field, the potential generated ?

Well also, the spacecraft acts like a Faraday cage to some degree, to protect it.

But the spin term involved with the AP/Maxwell equations would be there regardless of whatever type of protection you would want.

There is the example of the gravity bound asteroids of Ida and Dactyl, imparting a spin upon its partner.

There is the evidence that all planets have some spin, and that spin is due to EM-gravity.

The Space Station is the best place to see how gravity imparts spin in two gravity bound vessels-Earth and ISS. But we sadly do not study the spin force upon ISS but rather build devices to eliminate the spin on ISS imparted by Earth. It is time we monitor the spin as we get rid of it on ISS. ISS is the best laboratory to inspect and follow EM-gravity.

When Juno finally is completely destroyed, our space program should stop with all things and work on figuring out EM gravity, before venturing off on some new Solar System project that will only end in failure like Juno until EM-gravity is well known.

If you do not fully know what gravity is, most of these missions will end in failure.

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

So now the Ida and moon Dactyl, where Ida spins every 4.6 hours and Dactyl approx 8 hours.

So if the EM gravity acquires spin from the gravity bound body, since Jupiter rotates every 9 hours what would a spin of 9 hours do on Juno. Which seems that Juno could easily handle a 9 hour spin by correcting it with its gyroscopes.

Now Mars has a spin rotation similar to Earth of 1 day, but was the European Mars Lander equipped to handle a spin of 1 day while it was descending?

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

In EM-gravity the two gravitationally bound objects impart spin upon one another, something that fake General Relativity as gravity could never do. But it is true, and that we see this happen over and over again in what is called "synchronous spin rotation" of all the moons of Jupiter.

When Earth launched Juno many years ago, it was assuming that gravity was the suck gravity of Newtonian mechanics and General Relativity, but that was a assumption that was totally wrong, because gravity is coming from the Maxwell theory and Maxwell Equations. Europa and the other moons are synchronous spin with Jupiter because gravity is EM, and so when Juno arrives to orbit around Jupiter and not armed with the mathematics of EM gravity, of course Juno will fail its mission. Same as Hitomi and same as the European Mars lander of a few days ago destroyed.

When you do space missions armed with fakery gravity as General Relativity, your chances of success are 30 percent or less.

So, it is a miracle that the huge sails for collecting sunlight by Juno, those huge sails did not cause Juno to spin totally out of control on Juno's first orbit around Jupiter. A miracle that Juno lasted this long.

And we see the failing and rapid deterioration of Juno with its valve problems, and its computer problems.

What is next for Juno-- a spin out of control and a strike into Jupiter itself? Even though it had a planned 34 or more orbits?

When you go onto a huge mission of orbiting Jupiter, and armed with fake gravity, not the true gravity. Well of course, the mission is going to have a 70percent likely failure rate.

So I recommend that after Juno is past history news of its failure. I recommend that we stop and halt all future space missions and concentrate and focus on making the mathematics of Gravity as all of EM gravity, and what this means is using the spacestation ISS as the laboratory platform to iron out the mathematics involved with gravity being EM gravity.

And once we get the EM gravity ironed out, then send a mission to orbit Jupiter.

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Juno is currently in total lock down-- waiting to see if anything can be done on 14 December to fix anything and to start the main engines. Problems with valves and now with computers.

In my opinion, Juno has succumbed to EM-gravity, in which the terrible large forces of EM Maxwell theory have stricken the flight of Juno.

Our physics understanding of gravity is that of suck gravity of Newtonian and General Relativity, and is a fakery understanding of what is going on with gravity. Gravity is all about electricity and magnetism, for there is no repell force in EM theory, but rather it is all attract and what you think is repel is that of "denial of same space occupancy", a Pauli Exclusion Principle, not a repel force.

And the reason that spiral galaxies have a variable force of R to 1/R to 1/R^2 is not due to dark matter and dark energy foolishness, but is due to the fact that gravity varies in strength from Solid Body Rotation as R and then weak gravity as 1/R^2.

So the most valuable lesson of all, this year in astronomy and physics for Juno is that it teaches us, we have the wrong physics for gravity. And as Juno plunges to death into Jupiter, what we should learn is to re model our theory of gravity as a EM gravity and use the SpaceStation as a laboratory to iron out our new mathematics for spaceflight.

No-one in physics should think that sending a Juno to Jupiter equipped with fake math of gravity, will survive such a mission.

Juno had to be equipped with EM gravity to have survived.

And we see this failure in Hitomi earlier this year and now recently in the European Mars Lander that crashed in descent. The Europeans are still stuck in Suck gravity when they must start to learn EM gravity.

Think of it, think of the rings of Saturn. Do you honestly and childishly think that Saturn can have rings with a suck gravity of 1/R^2. Even a High School student can see that Saturn gravity to have such a Ring structure must be a more powerful gravity of R or 1/R but not 1/R^2.

Physics has become overrun with many idiots of logic, with their black holes and dark matter and dark energy running the show and thus failures of Juno and other satellites. Time for the real physicists to run the show.

AP

[john]

Juno gave us a good look at
Jupiter.
Interesting that the leaked video of a
UFO over the red spot has frames
that match officially-released stills
with a blacked-out spot where the
UFO is shown.
Too awkward.
Th th that's all, folks.

Juno is done.

[noTthaTguY]

you are just ignoring the tread on the ground,
the olden math as ye call it, even though
any one with a comeasureable i.q

> > that is the question, not to be or to be.
> >
> > as for your mumbling about the sine and cosine functions, and
>
> I would not say that Michel Lapidus, Carl Mautner, Amir  Moradifam, Yat Sun Poon, Ziv Ran are mumblers.
>
> But I would say they are failures of trigonometry since they fail to see that the unit circle centered at (1,0) traces out exactly the values of sine and thus sine is a Semicircle Wave, and sinusoid is pure fiction.

[noTthaTguY]

meatnt simply, eccentricity of conic section,
which is only three classes, or four classes

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 14:37:11 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: congratulate MIT's Strang geometrical interpretation of product rule
//student on StackExchange smarter than MIT math department
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 21:37:11 +0000


congratulate MIT's Strang geometrical interpretation of product rule //student on StackExchange smarter than MIT math department

Not often, not often at all that we can congratulate Strang on having a superior page on calculus over that of Apostol, Fisher&Ziebur, Ellis&Gulick and especially Stewart. But Stewart has the geometry explanation of Product Rule on page 192, (5th ed. 2003) and Strang has the geometry of Product Rule on page 72 (1991 edition) and as a bonus has the Power Rule in geometry form on page 74. So, for the first time, Strang has a superior page over others. But, Strang does make a mistake on page 76 where he says the Power Rule for (u^n)' = n(u^n-1) u', and the mistake being where does he get u' ???? But, way to go Strang. You will be happy to know that your pages here have helped me to further the Maxwell Equations as being all a application of the Product Rule upon the all possible arrangement of Ohm's law V/R, iR, V/i. And, I would argue that the Quotient Rule is redundant because we can always convert 1/R as R^-1.

Would MIT math department like to argue with me on that? That Quotent Rule is redundant??

AP

[edpr...@gmail.com]

"Juno exited safe mode as expected, is healthy and is responding to all
our commands,” said Rick Nybakken, Juno project manager from NASA's Jet
Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. "We anticipate we will be
turning on the instruments in early November to get ready for our
December flyby."

'nuf said.

[john]

Ed
"'nuf said. "
Right Ed-
no pictures last flyby?
This time?

[Odd Bodkin]

Sure gonna be hard to shoot hi-def video since there's no video camera
on board. But jump to all the expectations you want, I suppose.

[noTthaTguY]

did you lockdown Jupiter, again ... whyat?

[Archimedes Plutonium]

No wonder the European Mars Lander ended in complete failure when you have idiots like Ed doing the planning.

Just in 2016 we have Hitomi failure, Juno failure and Mars lander failure. With mindless scientists like Ed who never learn anything, NASA is in for a endless string of failures.

AP

[noTthaTguY]

when is a. p going to learm a)
conical sections, b)
quadric surface sections, or c)
secondpower planar equations

[john]

Odd

"
Sure gonna be hard to shoot hi-def video since there's no video camera
on board. But jump to all the expectations you want, I "

Odd, NASA made LOTS of videos!
Didn't you see them?
They're posted

[Odd Bodkin]

I know. Which of them is CGI animation? Which of them are non-visible
light cameras (IR, X-ray)? Which of them are stop-action assemblages
from still cameras? Can you tell?

When NASA tells on the JUNO website that there is no high-def video
camera onboard, how do you account for the videos you find on the site,
John?

[john]

Odd

"
from still cameras? Can you tell?

When NASA tells on the JUNO website that there is no high-def video
camera onboard, how do you account for the videos you find on the site, "

How good is the camera on board?
You don't need a video camera to make
one frame per 10 minutes.

[Odd Bodkin]

The specs for the cameras on board on the Juno website, John. This
should tell you everything you need to know about what kinds of imagery
you can expect from NASA and Juno. That in turn will help you
distinguish whether an alleged video you find on YouTube really was
capable of coming from Juno, or whether you've been had by a CGI
animator, which is really the issue here.

[edpr...@gmail.com]

So nice that you got me a job at NASA. Thanks 8^)


Just keep waiting for the Juno "crash".
But you will be waiting for a long time.

[john]

Well, I read them say hi-def
and you don't need 30 frames a minute
to animate a planetary transit,
so whatever. Where are those pics

[Odd Bodkin]

The pics are up on the Juno website. I assume you can Google and don't
have to try to find it via YouTube.