info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Revision-Page16, 3-1, EM theory becomes the axioms over all of physics/ Atom-Totality-Universe / textbook 7th ed
66 views
Skip to first unread message
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 22, 2016, 1:28:32 PM9/22/16
to
Revision Page16, 3-1, AP/Maxwell Equations, heart of EM theory becomes the axioms over all of physics/ Atom-Totality-Universe / textbook 7th ed
There are 6 AP/Maxwell/AP laws and I added two new laws-- The law of what there is and a primal unit law to Maxwell theory:
1. Law Of What There Is-- Atomic theory, that atoms exist and are composed of subatomic particles and most of an atom in volume is empty space. All the facts of Chemistry along with Atomic Theory is the Law Of What There Is. Let us name this law the Law of Chemistry-facts.
AP/Maxwell Equations, there are 6 Laws and 5 Equations
2. Magnetic Field Primal Unit Law
3. Magnetism in Motion; Law of Magnetism
4. Electric in Motion; Law of Electricity
5. Magnetism = Electricity; Faraday/Lenz law
6. Electricity = Magnetism; Ampere/Maxwell law
Let me call it the AP/Maxwell theory since I ended up altering the entire work of Maxwell, so that Old Maxwell Equations are barely recognizable.
The five AP/Maxwell Equations
1) kg /A*s^2 = kg /A*s^2 Magnetic Field Primal Unit Law
2) dB = either photon wave structure or neutrino wave structure; Law of Magnetism
3) dC = A, or V = AR defines current, Law of Electricity
4) Faraday Law (V*R^-1)' = A*B + V*B1^2 - V*B2^2
5) Ampere Law (A*R)' = A*R + A*B1^2 - A*B2^2
In the above A is current, V is voltage, R is resistance, B is magnetic field, C is charge.
Some History of magnetism:
Now the Democritus Atomic Theory leads very naturally into electricity and magnetism which in science history starts with Thales of Miletus with amber and lodestone of (550 years before De Rerum Natura of Titus Lucretius famous poem describing the Atomic theory). The Democritus Atomic theory was 400 years before De Rerum Natura.
What Thales observed and noted was that a lodestone attracts other lodestones and attracts iron. So Thales noted in science history the first magnetism of physics.
This is a famous achievement of noting the world's first magnet and the phenomenon of magnetism. For it starts the process of magnetism and electricity which finally comes to a spectacular summit of science achievements with Ampere, Faraday, and Maxwell and the Maxwell theory as framed in the Maxwell Equations from 1830s to 1860s.
In some future year, say 3016 rather than today of 2016, physics history of note will be the Maxwell Equations of 1860s and then, nothing much of note until 2016 with the Atom Totality and the Revised Maxwell theory as the axioms over all of physics. The physics in between 1860 and 2016 will be seen as a period of a mini Dark Ages of physics with the pollution of General Relativity, Big Bang, black holes, dark matter, dark energy Higg's boson, Standard Model, gravity waves, and a long list of fake physics. Why could not the physicists after 1860 make the Maxwell theory the centerpiece of physics? Why? The answer is probably because the physicists after Maxwell of 1860 were not really bright enough, smart enough to even master the Maxwell theory, a theory that takes too much mathematical comprehension, when physicists were not mathematically inclined. We see this even with the greatest physicist of the early and middle 20th century, Dirac, who pursued the magnetic monopole, believing that Maxwell Equations were not symmetrical, unless magnetic monopoles existed. When in fact, the Maxwell Equations are even more symmetrical with the nonexistence of the magnetic monopole. Just the reverse of what Dirac was comfortable with.
The mathematics of Maxwell theory are daunting, so daunting that most physicists after Maxwell elevated junk physics such as General Relativity, just to stay in the game of physics for they could not handle the true physics which was Maxwell theory, and why by 2016, the news of the day is not that Maxwell theory is totally revised by me, but that fake physics of gravity waves is the big rage of the day.
In this textbook, we see the opposite of Dirac's driving opinion, in that you need *no magnetic monopoles* in order to have symmetry of the Maxwell theory. You need Magnetic dipoles to have magnets exist in the first place, to have duality which is a characteristic of existence, and a magnetic monopole would say existence needs no duality. Electricity Magnetism is itself a duality. So that if Dirac's magnetic monopole exists, would say that electricity exists alone and needs no magnetism, and vice versa.
THE 5 AP EQUATIONS replacing MAXWELL EQUATIONS
5 New AP/Maxwell Equations:
1. Magnetic Field Primality Unit Law, think of it as the unit of electromagnetism. The unit being the Magnetic Field. Think of it much the same way you think of the Natural Numbers defined by the Peano axioms and in which the first axiom is the existence of the primal number 1 as unit, over all the Counting Numbers that come after 1.
This axiom is easy, for it is the building block of the other 4 axioms, since most of the terms will have a magnetic field component.
velocity or speed = m/s
acceleration = m/s^2
frequency = 1/s
Force = kg*m/s^2
Pressure = kg / m*s^2
Energy = kg*m^2 / s^2
Power, or radiant flux = Energy times frequency, = kg*m^2 / s^3
Quantity of Electricity, charge, Coulomb = C = A*s
Voltage is the (a) Electric Potential, the (b) Potential Difference and (c) Electromotive Force and all with the Units of W/A = kg*m^2/A*s^3
Capacitance = farad = C/V = A^2*s^4 / kg*m^2
Electrical Resistance = ohm = kg*m^2 /A^2*s^3
Conductance = A/V = A^2*s^3 / kg*m^2
Magnetic Flux = V*s = kg*m^2 /A*s^2
Magnetic Field = tesla = kg /A*s^2
Inductance = kg*m^2 /A^2*s^2
The Magnetic Field is kg /A*s^2 and notice that most all of the EM parameters have kg /A*s^2 as a factor. That means the Magnetic Field times a multiple covers most parameters of EM. For example, Voltage is m^2/s times Magnetic Field kg/A*s^2.
I am going to need 5 equations, not 4, (actually, Maxwell in 1860s had 8 differential equations and then later on Heaviside corrupted those 8 equations with silly math of manifolds); because I need a "There exists a primal unit" and that primal unit is not the electric charge, nor the electric field with magnetic charge, because in fact there exists no electric-field, but is the magnetic dipole which forms a Field, the Magnetic Field is primal. Just like in math, we start the Naturals with "there exists 1" and from that primal starting point we build all the other counting numbers.
So the Magnetic Field Primality Unit law is
kg /A*s^2 = kg /A*s^2
That is the magnetic field, and some have suggested that the Electric Field is kg*m/A*s^3, but that cannot be true because, well, all that is, is a moving Magnetic Field, a m/s times Magnetic Field. In this textbook we learn there is no electric-field, because electricity is not dipole. If you have magnetism as dipole, you cannot have electricity as dipole.
This law says that magnetism is Dipole and that everything of electricity has a dipole component. It also means that since electricity is not primal, that electricity has no Electric Field, for if it had an electric field, would mean that there is no Primal unit in EM. Much like Math, there is only one primal number in Counting 1, and 1 goes on to build all the other Counting Numbers.
2. Magnetic Motion, Law of Magnetism
Now in this Law of Magnetism we make the mathematics easy, instead of the Goofy Gaussian overstructure that hides more than it reveals.
For math we use derivative and differential equations as rate of change and denoted as speed of m/s. In the Magnetic Field of kg /A*s^2 there is no speed, but if we multiply by speed we have kg /A*s^2 times m/s = kg*m /A*s^3. And what is that? What is kg*m /A*s^3 ?? It is not voltage because voltage is kg*m^2/A*s^3.
What kg*m^2/A*s^3 is, is magnetic field in motion and that it is either a 4 vector Double Transverse Wave or it is a Longitudinal Wave.
So, Law of Magnetism builds the Photon and builds the Neutrino because a Magnetic Field in Motion is either a 4 vector Double Transverse Wave of destructive interference, or, the Magnetic Field in Motion is a longitudinal wave as a neutrino structure.
Magnetism of magnetic fields builds the structure that is the photon and is the neutrino, both are waves of magnetic field, of lines of force.
The Photon and Neutrino are EM particles, and since there is no electric field, how are they built from Magnetic Field? Well, there are two ways of arranging magnetic field lines of force, either as transverse or as longitudinal. When Transverse, then the destructive interference of the magnetic field vectors cancel and causes the center of the wavefront to be voltage.
The Neutrino is a Longitudinal Wave built of Magnetic Fields, and sometimes a photon will ride inside a Neutrino wave, and if the neutrino closes off in a torus tube, rather than a straight line tube, the trapped photon inside the neutrino torus tube becomes a electron. The neutrino torus tube with trapped inside photon as 4 vector Double Transverse Wave of destructive interference, the entire apparatus is a electron. And so, when a neutrino of straightline motion closes off into a torus tube with trapped photon inside, becomes a electron and that is when rest mass is borne of a torus tube. Not the silly fakery of 2016 of stupid things like a Higgs boson. In fact, in this textbook we learn that the proton is 9 muons in some neutrino torus tube geometry.
3. Electric Motion, Law of Electricity
The Law of Electricity, was not about defining the Coulomb force (besides the EM force varies from R, to 1/R, to 1/R^2; so, there is no Electric Field, but rather, was meant to define what is current. It is a hole in the head of logic if we do not define electric current and then go to Faraday Law and there is electric current for the first time. It is like having a baby borne and then do the fertilization for making the baby.
Now, keeping the math simple, by a derivative or differential being the multiplication by m/s. So, what is Electric Motion, Law of Electricity? Well, we all know that electric charge in motion is current, and so the Law of Electricity must define the current. And since there is no Electric Field, there is voltage that takes that place of electric field and it is
V = kg*m^2/A*s^3
That is important, in that Voltage replaces the nonexistent electric field.
In the AP/Maxwell Equations the Law of Electricity includes V = AR where V is voltage and A is current and R is resistance, we have Ohm's law.
We see that in our units above where V = A*R
kg*m^2 /A*s^3 = A * kg*m^2 /A^2*s^3
So, in AP/Maxwell Equations, Ohm's law is incorporated into the Law of Electricity.
So, electric current A is defined as C charge times (m/s) = A. But also by Ohm's law.
We need the Law of Electricity to define current, before we see current in the Faraday law. This was a major error of the Old Maxwell Equations, that we come upon a current only when we reach Faraday's law.
Now here is where we get to the real math part of the Maxwell Equations, the Faraday and Ampere laws. And throw out that Gauss, Stokes, line integral, vector manifolds, and all other assorted nonsense. The grave errors of the Old Maxwell Equations is that they could not even derive Lenz law magnetic field in opposition to the induction magnetism. And, more importantly, they could not realize that EM was attract only, no force of repulsion, but a denial of same space occupancy that fooled every physicist until 2016.
4. Magnetic = Electric, Faraday/Lenz law
These last two laws are dynamic and so the product-rule of differentiation comes into play. We know the endresult outcome, so we have to structure the math to fit the experiment of thrusting bar magnet through coil yields current plus opposing magnetic field plus a spin term.
Now the Faraday law we see today 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, 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 both Faraday and Ampere 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 copper tube be 3 times longer to match the plastic 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*g)' = f'g + fg' + constant Product Rule of differentiation
The way to get three terms on the rightside of equation is the Product Rule and that means just simple differential Calculus, not the stir-crazy manifolds and line integrals and Stokes and other nonsense.
Thrusting bar magnet through coil = current + magnetic field (Lenz) + constant for spin.
And it must be noted that friction in the World, basically boils down to Lenz magnetic field. Friction, resistance, impedance, action reaction, all boil down to a Lenz magnetic field in opposition to a original magnetic field.
it is a sad shame, that Faradays law can exist from 1860s to 2016, while no-one sees that it does not even have a Lenz law incorporated in it. Sad that we can deliver a equation for water flow or temperature gradients, but we cannot recognize that Faraday's law math is absent of Lenz law.
All we need is just the plain and simple Product Rule of Differential Calculus. All we need is a derivative of two multiplied functions of (fg)' = f'g + g'f + C, where C is a constant. So that both Faraday and Ampere laws have three terms on rightside of equation.
So, what happens when you take the derivative of V*R^-1, V is voltage, R is resistance
(V*R^-1)' = V'*R^-1 + V*(R^-1)'
Likewise what happens with
(A*R)' = A'*R + R'*A where A is current and R is resistance.
Note: I will make R be that of the Lenz B field, so in the end, R is a magnetic field, pure magnetic field.
If we use these as given data:
(1) current through a capacitor is the derivative of the voltage across the capacitor with respect to time
(2) derivative of current is just current
(3) in appropriate places I will substitute Lenz law magnetic field B, to be R resistance
(4) derivative of B is what? B1^2 - B2^2
So now apply these I have:
Faraday Law (V*R^-1)' = V'*R^-1 + V*(R^-1)' = V'*R^-1 + V*(B)' =
A*R^-1 + V(B1^2 - B2^2) = A*B + V*B1^2 - V*B2^2
Ampere Law (A*R)' = A'*R + A*R' = A*R + A*B' = A*R + A*B1^2 - A*B2^2
Faraday Law (V*R^-1)' = A*B + V*B1^2 - V*B2^2
5. Electricity = Magnetism, Ampere law
Ampere Law (A*R)' = A*R + A*B1^2 - A*B2^2
So, a derivative of B magnetic field in 3rd dimension is basically B^2 - B^2.
Now, the good news is that it delivers everything I want:
1) three terms on rightside so we have in Faraday a current + Lenz magnetism + spin
2) three terms on rightside in Ampere in that we have current in and current out + Magnetic field + spin
3) we have Ohm's law readily derivable since it is practically involved in every term
4) we reduce the mathematics from the bizarre Old Physics to that of the much more simple minded pure differential equations giving us the New Maxwell theory.
The bad news? Well, actually, there is no bad news unless I made a mistake in derivative of B.
What I am doing above, is correcting Old Maxwell Equations for which Feynman said there was never any experiment that Old Maxwell could not solve. But Feynman was grossly wrong in that evaluation because the Old could not even deliver Lenz law, nor spin.
And one item that should have alerted every physicist and mathematician from 1860 onwards, was the item that the math used by Gauss, Heaviside is just grossly out of place, considering that the history of Physics had Ordinary Differential Equations well established by 1860, yet the Maxwell Equations are then cloaked in non mainstream, archaic and artificial math of vector manifolds, line integrals and other contrivances.
The proper choice of what math to use for these equations, would be like as if Newton chosing say, Line Integrals for his Mechanics rather than the linear math of just simple F = m*a.
So, what I am saying is why in the world would you not use the simple mathematics of Ordinary and Partial Differential Equations and discard them and chose some wacky arcane math of vector manifolds? Perhaps it was the community of mathematicians with an opportunity to "show off" with stupid silly math, but ruins the physics of Maxwell's original differential equations. Mathematicians lean towards showing off, rather than getting the physics correct.
As a point of reference, these were the Old Maxwell Equations
The Maxwell Equations in Old Physics can be seen by Halliday & Resnick, Physics, Part 2, Extended Version, 1986, page 886
Math Format of Old Physics Maxwell Equations:
div*E = r_E Law of Electricity
div*B = 0 Law of Magnetism
curlxE = -dB Faraday/Lenz law
curlxB = dE + J_E Ampere/Maxwell law
The Maxwell Equations in Old Physics can be seen by Halliday & Resnick, Physics, Part 2, Extended Version, 1986, page 886
I prefer instead of the Math Format of the equations, I prefer the Descriptive-Language Format of the Equations for they contain much more than the Math format.
--- quoting ---
Gauss's law for electricity, Describes: Charge and the electric field 1. Like charges repel and unlike charges attract, as the inverse square of their separation. 1.' A charge on a insulated conductor moves to its outer surface.
Gauss's law for magnetism, Describes: The magnetic field 2. It has thus far not been possible to verify the existence of a magnetic monopole.
Faraday's law of induction, Describes: The electrical effect of a changing magnetic field 3. A bar magnet, thrust through a closed loop of wire, will set up a current in the loop.
Ampere's law as extended by Maxwell, Describes: the magnetic effect of a changing electric field or of a current 4. The speed of light can be calculated from purely electromagnetic measurements. 4.' A current in a wire sets up a magnetic field near the wire.
--- end quoting ---
Now you can find the mathematical form of the Maxwell Equations but the descriptive, language form is probably even better than the math form because there is more math and physics to the description than just the equations. What I mean is what I have done in a later chapter where I describe the Sun as the thrusting bar magnet and Earth as a electron revolving around in a closed loop wire. Something that is easy to imagine and picture with the language description but impossible to imagine and picture with the math of the equations. The phenomenon of interactions of electricity and magnetism is more than the 5 math equations of the AP/Maxwell Equations.
So, do not be troubled if you prefer citing the language format of the AP/Maxwell Equations rather than the mathematical form of the equations, because, saying a thrusting bar magnet in a closed loop of wire produces a electric current plus Lenz magnetic opposing field plus spin, is more valuable than stating the Faraday law in math form.
New Physics is physics that comes directly out of AP/Maxwell theory with Atomic theory. Old Physics is where everyone thinks General Relativity is in the drivers seat of how physics works. In New Physics, EM theory is in the drivers seat.
. \ . . | . /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
--------------- -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
--------------- --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / . . | . \ .
Research
Disclaimer: Due to the unconventional and speculative nature of this posting and thread, it would be inadvisable for students to apply any of the contents to their school course work.
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
There are 6 AP/Maxwell/AP laws and I added two new laws-- The law of what there is and a primal unit law to Maxwell theory:
1. Law Of What There Is-- Atomic theory, that atoms exist and are composed of subatomic particles and most of an atom in volume is empty space. All the facts of Chemistry along with Atomic Theory is the Law Of What There Is. Let us name this law the Law of Chemistry-facts.
AP/Maxwell Equations, there are 6 Laws and 5 Equations
2. Magnetic Field Primal Unit Law
3. Magnetism in Motion; Law of Magnetism
4. Electric in Motion; Law of Electricity
5. Magnetism = Electricity; Faraday/Lenz law
6. Electricity = Magnetism; Ampere/Maxwell law
Let me call it the AP/Maxwell theory since I ended up altering the entire work of Maxwell, so that Old Maxwell Equations are barely recognizable.
The five AP/Maxwell Equations
1) kg /A*s^2 = kg /A*s^2 Magnetic Field Primal Unit Law
2) dB = either photon wave structure or neutrino wave structure; Law of Magnetism
3) dC = A, or V = AR defines current, Law of Electricity
4) Faraday Law (V*R^-1)' = A*B + V*B1^2 - V*B2^2
5) Ampere Law (A*R)' = A*R + A*B1^2 - A*B2^2
In the above A is current, V is voltage, R is resistance, B is magnetic field, C is charge.
Some History of magnetism:
Now the Democritus Atomic Theory leads very naturally into electricity and magnetism which in science history starts with Thales of Miletus with amber and lodestone of (550 years before De Rerum Natura of Titus Lucretius famous poem describing the Atomic theory). The Democritus Atomic theory was 400 years before De Rerum Natura.
What Thales observed and noted was that a lodestone attracts other lodestones and attracts iron. So Thales noted in science history the first magnetism of physics.
This is a famous achievement of noting the world's first magnet and the phenomenon of magnetism. For it starts the process of magnetism and electricity which finally comes to a spectacular summit of science achievements with Ampere, Faraday, and Maxwell and the Maxwell theory as framed in the Maxwell Equations from 1830s to 1860s.
In some future year, say 3016 rather than today of 2016, physics history of note will be the Maxwell Equations of 1860s and then, nothing much of note until 2016 with the Atom Totality and the Revised Maxwell theory as the axioms over all of physics. The physics in between 1860 and 2016 will be seen as a period of a mini Dark Ages of physics with the pollution of General Relativity, Big Bang, black holes, dark matter, dark energy Higg's boson, Standard Model, gravity waves, and a long list of fake physics. Why could not the physicists after 1860 make the Maxwell theory the centerpiece of physics? Why? The answer is probably because the physicists after Maxwell of 1860 were not really bright enough, smart enough to even master the Maxwell theory, a theory that takes too much mathematical comprehension, when physicists were not mathematically inclined. We see this even with the greatest physicist of the early and middle 20th century, Dirac, who pursued the magnetic monopole, believing that Maxwell Equations were not symmetrical, unless magnetic monopoles existed. When in fact, the Maxwell Equations are even more symmetrical with the nonexistence of the magnetic monopole. Just the reverse of what Dirac was comfortable with.
The mathematics of Maxwell theory are daunting, so daunting that most physicists after Maxwell elevated junk physics such as General Relativity, just to stay in the game of physics for they could not handle the true physics which was Maxwell theory, and why by 2016, the news of the day is not that Maxwell theory is totally revised by me, but that fake physics of gravity waves is the big rage of the day.
In this textbook, we see the opposite of Dirac's driving opinion, in that you need *no magnetic monopoles* in order to have symmetry of the Maxwell theory. You need Magnetic dipoles to have magnets exist in the first place, to have duality which is a characteristic of existence, and a magnetic monopole would say existence needs no duality. Electricity Magnetism is itself a duality. So that if Dirac's magnetic monopole exists, would say that electricity exists alone and needs no magnetism, and vice versa.
THE 5 AP EQUATIONS replacing MAXWELL EQUATIONS
5 New AP/Maxwell Equations:
1. Magnetic Field Primality Unit Law, think of it as the unit of electromagnetism. The unit being the Magnetic Field. Think of it much the same way you think of the Natural Numbers defined by the Peano axioms and in which the first axiom is the existence of the primal number 1 as unit, over all the Counting Numbers that come after 1.
This axiom is easy, for it is the building block of the other 4 axioms, since most of the terms will have a magnetic field component.
velocity or speed = m/s
acceleration = m/s^2
frequency = 1/s
Force = kg*m/s^2
Pressure = kg / m*s^2
Energy = kg*m^2 / s^2
Power, or radiant flux = Energy times frequency, = kg*m^2 / s^3
Quantity of Electricity, charge, Coulomb = C = A*s
Voltage is the (a) Electric Potential, the (b) Potential Difference and (c) Electromotive Force and all with the Units of W/A = kg*m^2/A*s^3
Capacitance = farad = C/V = A^2*s^4 / kg*m^2
Electrical Resistance = ohm = kg*m^2 /A^2*s^3
Conductance = A/V = A^2*s^3 / kg*m^2
Magnetic Flux = V*s = kg*m^2 /A*s^2
Magnetic Field = tesla = kg /A*s^2
Inductance = kg*m^2 /A^2*s^2
The Magnetic Field is kg /A*s^2 and notice that most all of the EM parameters have kg /A*s^2 as a factor. That means the Magnetic Field times a multiple covers most parameters of EM. For example, Voltage is m^2/s times Magnetic Field kg/A*s^2.
I am going to need 5 equations, not 4, (actually, Maxwell in 1860s had 8 differential equations and then later on Heaviside corrupted those 8 equations with silly math of manifolds); because I need a "There exists a primal unit" and that primal unit is not the electric charge, nor the electric field with magnetic charge, because in fact there exists no electric-field, but is the magnetic dipole which forms a Field, the Magnetic Field is primal. Just like in math, we start the Naturals with "there exists 1" and from that primal starting point we build all the other counting numbers.
So the Magnetic Field Primality Unit law is
kg /A*s^2 = kg /A*s^2
That is the magnetic field, and some have suggested that the Electric Field is kg*m/A*s^3, but that cannot be true because, well, all that is, is a moving Magnetic Field, a m/s times Magnetic Field. In this textbook we learn there is no electric-field, because electricity is not dipole. If you have magnetism as dipole, you cannot have electricity as dipole.
This law says that magnetism is Dipole and that everything of electricity has a dipole component. It also means that since electricity is not primal, that electricity has no Electric Field, for if it had an electric field, would mean that there is no Primal unit in EM. Much like Math, there is only one primal number in Counting 1, and 1 goes on to build all the other Counting Numbers.
2. Magnetic Motion, Law of Magnetism
Now in this Law of Magnetism we make the mathematics easy, instead of the Goofy Gaussian overstructure that hides more than it reveals.
For math we use derivative and differential equations as rate of change and denoted as speed of m/s. In the Magnetic Field of kg /A*s^2 there is no speed, but if we multiply by speed we have kg /A*s^2 times m/s = kg*m /A*s^3. And what is that? What is kg*m /A*s^3 ?? It is not voltage because voltage is kg*m^2/A*s^3.
What kg*m^2/A*s^3 is, is magnetic field in motion and that it is either a 4 vector Double Transverse Wave or it is a Longitudinal Wave.
So, Law of Magnetism builds the Photon and builds the Neutrino because a Magnetic Field in Motion is either a 4 vector Double Transverse Wave of destructive interference, or, the Magnetic Field in Motion is a longitudinal wave as a neutrino structure.
Magnetism of magnetic fields builds the structure that is the photon and is the neutrino, both are waves of magnetic field, of lines of force.
The Photon and Neutrino are EM particles, and since there is no electric field, how are they built from Magnetic Field? Well, there are two ways of arranging magnetic field lines of force, either as transverse or as longitudinal. When Transverse, then the destructive interference of the magnetic field vectors cancel and causes the center of the wavefront to be voltage.
The Neutrino is a Longitudinal Wave built of Magnetic Fields, and sometimes a photon will ride inside a Neutrino wave, and if the neutrino closes off in a torus tube, rather than a straight line tube, the trapped photon inside the neutrino torus tube becomes a electron. The neutrino torus tube with trapped inside photon as 4 vector Double Transverse Wave of destructive interference, the entire apparatus is a electron. And so, when a neutrino of straightline motion closes off into a torus tube with trapped photon inside, becomes a electron and that is when rest mass is borne of a torus tube. Not the silly fakery of 2016 of stupid things like a Higgs boson. In fact, in this textbook we learn that the proton is 9 muons in some neutrino torus tube geometry.
3. Electric Motion, Law of Electricity
The Law of Electricity, was not about defining the Coulomb force (besides the EM force varies from R, to 1/R, to 1/R^2; so, there is no Electric Field, but rather, was meant to define what is current. It is a hole in the head of logic if we do not define electric current and then go to Faraday Law and there is electric current for the first time. It is like having a baby borne and then do the fertilization for making the baby.
Now, keeping the math simple, by a derivative or differential being the multiplication by m/s. So, what is Electric Motion, Law of Electricity? Well, we all know that electric charge in motion is current, and so the Law of Electricity must define the current. And since there is no Electric Field, there is voltage that takes that place of electric field and it is
V = kg*m^2/A*s^3
That is important, in that Voltage replaces the nonexistent electric field.
In the AP/Maxwell Equations the Law of Electricity includes V = AR where V is voltage and A is current and R is resistance, we have Ohm's law.
We see that in our units above where V = A*R
kg*m^2 /A*s^3 = A * kg*m^2 /A^2*s^3
So, in AP/Maxwell Equations, Ohm's law is incorporated into the Law of Electricity.
So, electric current A is defined as C charge times (m/s) = A. But also by Ohm's law.
We need the Law of Electricity to define current, before we see current in the Faraday law. This was a major error of the Old Maxwell Equations, that we come upon a current only when we reach Faraday's law.
Now here is where we get to the real math part of the Maxwell Equations, the Faraday and Ampere laws. And throw out that Gauss, Stokes, line integral, vector manifolds, and all other assorted nonsense. The grave errors of the Old Maxwell Equations is that they could not even derive Lenz law magnetic field in opposition to the induction magnetism. And, more importantly, they could not realize that EM was attract only, no force of repulsion, but a denial of same space occupancy that fooled every physicist until 2016.
4. Magnetic = Electric, Faraday/Lenz law
These last two laws are dynamic and so the product-rule of differentiation comes into play. We know the endresult outcome, so we have to structure the math to fit the experiment of thrusting bar magnet through coil yields current plus opposing magnetic field plus a spin term.
Now the Faraday law we see today 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, 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 both Faraday and Ampere 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 copper tube be 3 times longer to match the plastic 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*g)' = f'g + fg' + constant Product Rule of differentiation
The way to get three terms on the rightside of equation is the Product Rule and that means just simple differential Calculus, not the stir-crazy manifolds and line integrals and Stokes and other nonsense.
Thrusting bar magnet through coil = current + magnetic field (Lenz) + constant for spin.
And it must be noted that friction in the World, basically boils down to Lenz magnetic field. Friction, resistance, impedance, action reaction, all boil down to a Lenz magnetic field in opposition to a original magnetic field.
it is a sad shame, that Faradays law can exist from 1860s to 2016, while no-one sees that it does not even have a Lenz law incorporated in it. Sad that we can deliver a equation for water flow or temperature gradients, but we cannot recognize that Faraday's law math is absent of Lenz law.
All we need is just the plain and simple Product Rule of Differential Calculus. All we need is a derivative of two multiplied functions of (fg)' = f'g + g'f + C, where C is a constant. So that both Faraday and Ampere laws have three terms on rightside of equation.
So, what happens when you take the derivative of V*R^-1, V is voltage, R is resistance
(V*R^-1)' = V'*R^-1 + V*(R^-1)'
Likewise what happens with
(A*R)' = A'*R + R'*A where A is current and R is resistance.
Note: I will make R be that of the Lenz B field, so in the end, R is a magnetic field, pure magnetic field.
If we use these as given data:
(1) current through a capacitor is the derivative of the voltage across the capacitor with respect to time
(2) derivative of current is just current
(3) in appropriate places I will substitute Lenz law magnetic field B, to be R resistance
(4) derivative of B is what? B1^2 - B2^2
So now apply these I have:
Faraday Law (V*R^-1)' = V'*R^-1 + V*(R^-1)' = V'*R^-1 + V*(B)' =
A*R^-1 + V(B1^2 - B2^2) = A*B + V*B1^2 - V*B2^2
Ampere Law (A*R)' = A'*R + A*R' = A*R + A*B' = A*R + A*B1^2 - A*B2^2
Faraday Law (V*R^-1)' = A*B + V*B1^2 - V*B2^2
5. Electricity = Magnetism, Ampere law
Ampere Law (A*R)' = A*R + A*B1^2 - A*B2^2
So, a derivative of B magnetic field in 3rd dimension is basically B^2 - B^2.
Now, the good news is that it delivers everything I want:
1) three terms on rightside so we have in Faraday a current + Lenz magnetism + spin
2) three terms on rightside in Ampere in that we have current in and current out + Magnetic field + spin
3) we have Ohm's law readily derivable since it is practically involved in every term
4) we reduce the mathematics from the bizarre Old Physics to that of the much more simple minded pure differential equations giving us the New Maxwell theory.
The bad news? Well, actually, there is no bad news unless I made a mistake in derivative of B.
What I am doing above, is correcting Old Maxwell Equations for which Feynman said there was never any experiment that Old Maxwell could not solve. But Feynman was grossly wrong in that evaluation because the Old could not even deliver Lenz law, nor spin.
And one item that should have alerted every physicist and mathematician from 1860 onwards, was the item that the math used by Gauss, Heaviside is just grossly out of place, considering that the history of Physics had Ordinary Differential Equations well established by 1860, yet the Maxwell Equations are then cloaked in non mainstream, archaic and artificial math of vector manifolds, line integrals and other contrivances.
The proper choice of what math to use for these equations, would be like as if Newton chosing say, Line Integrals for his Mechanics rather than the linear math of just simple F = m*a.
So, what I am saying is why in the world would you not use the simple mathematics of Ordinary and Partial Differential Equations and discard them and chose some wacky arcane math of vector manifolds? Perhaps it was the community of mathematicians with an opportunity to "show off" with stupid silly math, but ruins the physics of Maxwell's original differential equations. Mathematicians lean towards showing off, rather than getting the physics correct.
As a point of reference, these were the Old Maxwell Equations
The Maxwell Equations in Old Physics can be seen by Halliday & Resnick, Physics, Part 2, Extended Version, 1986, page 886
Math Format of Old Physics Maxwell Equations:
div*E = r_E Law of Electricity
div*B = 0 Law of Magnetism
curlxE = -dB Faraday/Lenz law
curlxB = dE + J_E Ampere/Maxwell law
The Maxwell Equations in Old Physics can be seen by Halliday & Resnick, Physics, Part 2, Extended Version, 1986, page 886
I prefer instead of the Math Format of the equations, I prefer the Descriptive-Language Format of the Equations for they contain much more than the Math format.
--- quoting ---
Gauss's law for electricity, Describes: Charge and the electric field 1. Like charges repel and unlike charges attract, as the inverse square of their separation. 1.' A charge on a insulated conductor moves to its outer surface.
Gauss's law for magnetism, Describes: The magnetic field 2. It has thus far not been possible to verify the existence of a magnetic monopole.
Faraday's law of induction, Describes: The electrical effect of a changing magnetic field 3. A bar magnet, thrust through a closed loop of wire, will set up a current in the loop.
Ampere's law as extended by Maxwell, Describes: the magnetic effect of a changing electric field or of a current 4. The speed of light can be calculated from purely electromagnetic measurements. 4.' A current in a wire sets up a magnetic field near the wire.
--- end quoting ---
Now you can find the mathematical form of the Maxwell Equations but the descriptive, language form is probably even better than the math form because there is more math and physics to the description than just the equations. What I mean is what I have done in a later chapter where I describe the Sun as the thrusting bar magnet and Earth as a electron revolving around in a closed loop wire. Something that is easy to imagine and picture with the language description but impossible to imagine and picture with the math of the equations. The phenomenon of interactions of electricity and magnetism is more than the 5 math equations of the AP/Maxwell Equations.
So, do not be troubled if you prefer citing the language format of the AP/Maxwell Equations rather than the mathematical form of the equations, because, saying a thrusting bar magnet in a closed loop of wire produces a electric current plus Lenz magnetic opposing field plus spin, is more valuable than stating the Faraday law in math form.
New Physics is physics that comes directly out of AP/Maxwell theory with Atomic theory. Old Physics is where everyone thinks General Relativity is in the drivers seat of how physics works. In New Physics, EM theory is in the drivers seat.
. \ . . | . /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
--------------- -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
--------------- --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / . . | . \ .
Research
Disclaimer: Due to the unconventional and speculative nature of this posting and thread, it would be inadvisable for students to apply any of the contents to their school course work.
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
Sep 22, 2016, 8:06:55 PM9/22/16
to
At the moment I am conducting an experiment to measure spin from both Faraday's and Ampere laws.
iPhone post
AP
iPhone post
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 22, 2016, 11:02:39 PM9/22/16
to
PAGE17, 3-2, Coulomb force is attract only; AP/Maxwell-Equations-Describing all of Physics/textbook 7th ed
Coulomb force is attract only.
So, in magnetism such as the Faraday law where you have a closed loop of wire and thrust a bar magnet through the wire, back and forth, you generate a electric current in the wire. We can think of the bar magnet and wire as matter and the space around these two objects as the Void of Democritus Atomic theory. In other words, Void is Space. Void and Matter are complements, duals, of one another and both essential to one another to exist.
Physics has a concept of Complementarity which means in essence that something exists only if it has dualing parts or two parts to make the whole. As an analogy or metaphor, picture exists because of the picture itself and the whole entire surrounding Space, picture and space. The most famous Complementary dual is magnetism versus electricity. One complement requires the other complement, and the Existence of a object or phenomenon is this Complement parts. Everything that Exists has two complements. The complement of magnetism is electricity and the complement of a single atom is the space that the atom rests in.
Other complements are of energy to time; the complement of position is momentum.
The complement of the electron is the space around the electron and we call that Space the Magnetic Field. The same is true of the proton where the space around the proton is a Magnetic field. The complement of the two magnetic dipoles is the Magnetic Field or the space around the dipoles. So, the Void in Democritus Atomic theory is the Space around the magnetic dipoles or the Space around the electric charge.
Now, in writing the 6th edition of this textbook, I noticed the concept of Electric Field is phony. That between charge and current, there is nothing to be what is called an "electric field". Charge comes in discrete units, and a Field is in direct contradiction to having charge as a discrete unit. You can and must have a Magnetic Field, because you cannot have a magnetic monopole. So in writing the 6th edition, I noticed that the Electric Field was phony baloney. And I could not make a change without rewriting the entire text. That is the reason I automatically started the 7th edition.
5 AP/Maxwell Laws
kg /A*s^2 = kg /A*s^2 Magnetic Field Primal Unit Law
Faraday Law = A*B + V*B1^2 - V*B2^2
Ampere Law = A*R + A*B1^2 - A*B2^2
Notice there is a positive term in both law of electricity and law of magnetism, not to mean that there is a rest mass particle of magnetic current as there is a electric current of flow of electrons, but that there is a magnetic current of lines of force in a photon or neutrino. What flows in magnetism is lines of force, and what flows in electricity is rest mass charges.
Law of Magnetism with a positive term on rightside-- meaning no repulsion exists.
Now I should talk about the huge reason that Law of Magnetism requires dipoles and never allows monopoles, and the reason for that, is that there is only a force of Attraction in magnetism and electric charges. So that we can have a bar magnet with all the North poles crowded together at one end and all the South poles crowded together at the other end of the bar magnet. Not that North repels North, but because North attracts North. In EM there is no force of repulsion or repelling. So when you eye-witness North against North, it is not repelling but rather, what is going on is the Denial of the Same Space Occupancy. We are seeing a issue of denial of occupying the same space, not repelling. We are seeing Exclusion, like Pauli Exclusion Principle, not repulsion. We are seeing exclusion such as in the Meissner Effect in Superconductivity, not repulsion. We are seeing Hund's Rule of Chemistry, that electrons occupy in pairs only after they occupy singularly the suborbitals. We are seeing the physics of the Capacitor, that electrons attract one another and fill up the plate of a Capacitor and protons the other plate in attraction of proton to proton, not repulsion.
If the World had repelling and repulsion in EM theory, then the world would never have a nucleus of atoms with mostly protons. The world would never have Capacitors, nor Hund's rule. Nor would the World have a bar magnet in which all the North poles congregate together and all the South poles congregate at the other end.
So, in New Physics, a major reason that the Law of Magnetism has a positive term to the rightside of the equation, just as does the Law of Electricity:
dB = photon wave structure or neutrino wave structure Law of Magnetism
dC = A, or V = AR defines current Law of Electricity
Is because the forces are just Attraction forces, never repelling forces, and which we are fooled into thinking that it looks like Repulsion when in fact, all it is, is a denying of Occupying the Same Space.
Physicists have a difficult time of understanding that the concept of repel and deny of space are different concepts. If we see a enemy coming we can repel by going out and pushing the invader away. We can also, instead of repel, we can build a wall and deny the invaders to occupy our land.
So, a major, major error of Old Physics, is that they never realized EM is an attraction force only. And where it is written in the correct Maxwell Laws is the Law of Magnetism, that has a dipole, never a monopole and means that North attracts North and North attracts South poles.
We should go in depth of what this deceptive repel is and why so many people were caught in that trap of deception. It starts with two bar magnets and we see and feel a sense of repelling of like poles. But there is another concept that is not repelling but what I call Denial of Same Space Occupancy.
We see it in Hund's Rule, and in Pauli Exclusion Principle and the Aufbau Principle. We see it in atoms where electrons do not congregate with protons but with other electrons and where protons are always congregated and bunched up to form a nucleus of an atom. That means like to like that shows resistance to being squeezed together any more, is not repel but is a concept of same space occupancy denied. We see it in capacitors and in the flow of electrons in electricity that electrons gather together collectively by attraction, not by repulsion.
In the history of physics, there was a time in which we did not know how electrons and protons formed atoms of chemistry. I am talking about early years of 1900s with Thompson Model of the atom. It was nicknamed the Plum Pudding Model, where it was thought that every individual proton was tied up with a electron. So that an atom of 10 protons, neon, would have 10 paired up proton with electron to form the atom, like ten dance partners paired up. However, to the surprise of everyone, Rutherford found that electrons congregate together and protons congregate together into our modern view of the atom. This means that electron to electron is a attraction, not a repelling or repulsion.
The Plum Pudding Model, 1904, of Thompson and the Rutherford Experiment results of 1911 discussed in depth showing how loose in logic is the science community as a whole.
I need to include in depth, the Thompson plum pudding model, for it gives us a vast and vivid view of how things easily go wrong in physics because most physicists have little to no logic in their science thinking.
So what I need to include is that Thompson, a brilliant physicist, who in 1904 proposed the Plum Pudding Model of the Atom because, he, like all those of his time believed that like charges repel and not attract. So what kind of model fits the demand of like charges repel and unlike attract? The logical model is the Plum Pudding so that electrons do not congregate nor do protons bunch together. But when Rutherford found that electrons bunch together outside a nucleus, and that protons congregating or bunch together in a nucleus, meant by logic, that like charges do not repel, but rather they attract, given perhaps some orientation hurdle, such as spin.
So, the physicists of Thompson were using logic and were logically sound in the Plum Pudding Model, but disaster struck after Rutherford in that the physicists were void and absent of logic in interpreting what Rutherford had found in 1911. Rutherford experiment tells us that like charges attract, not repel, and that what needed fixing and throwing out is the concept that like charges repel and replaced by the concept that Maxwell theory has like charges as denial of same space occupancy.
We see huge abundant evidence that like charges attract, not repel:
1) electrons congregate outside the nucleus forming the atom's electrons
2) protons congregate making a nucleus
3) electrons flow together in a wire in electricity, ditto protons
4) electrons congregate in a capacitor, ditto protons
5) Pauli Exclusion Principle
6) Hund's rule in Aufbau principle
7) Meissner effect
So that when Rutherford discovered the structure of the atom as electrons congregating together and protons congregating together, what the physics community should have done in 1911 with the Rutherford experiment on the structure of the atom, is to trashcan the concept of like charges repel and replace with the concept of Denial of Same Space Occupancy.
These two concepts are wholly different, in that repelling is not the same as denial of same space occupancy.
So here we see, in the Thompson to Rutherford history, we see that physicists rarely have the adequate logic ability to assemble correct ideas and then fail to interpret experiments addressing those ideas.
Recently in Science magazine I read where some 50% or more of the psychology science in print was just trash experiments with trash results because the experiments could not be duplicated, and that so much of science reporting is based on some statistics, or based on computer simulation, where the opinion of the researcher makes its way into the statistics or simulation and not science at all. But this can be said of over 50% of physics today is just error filled nonsense. Take for example the recent illogical LIGO experiments, where physicists imagine the existence of black holes and then when they see a blip on their monitors, they say they confirmed a gravity wave from black holes, when the blip can be caused by thousands of things in the local environment such as seismic activity. As illogical as expecting someone at home, knocking on the door; no one answering and then concluding the house was empty. The building of a sophisticated LIGO machine is something to be proud of, but then to say that blips are confirmation of your imagination of something out there is totally antiscience.
Look, if it takes over 100 years from 1911 to 2016 to correctly interpret the Rutherford experiment that no repelling or repulsion exists in Maxwell theory or in atomic theory, imagine how pathetically wrong is most of current day physics, with its nonsense of Big Bang, black holes, gravity waves, dark matter, dark energy and other assorted nonsense.
Now I need a better term for Denial of Same Space Occupancy and I need look no further than the Maxwell Equations themselves, for, if this is a true concept, it must be in the Maxwell theory. And that is very easy to spot in the Lenz's law in Faraday's law where there arises a magnetic field that opposes the original magnetic field. This is not repelling or repulsion but that of denial of same space.
The Law of Magnetism in the Maxwell theory and its most single important message is that only attraction force exists in EM. That the North to North dipole is not a repelling or repulsion but merely a denial of same space occupancy.
The Law of Electricity is attraction force only and the only major difference with magnetism is that the electric charge can come as a separate charge whereas the magnetic poles have to always be dipole and never separated.
Now one may be easily mislead into thinking that a chemical explosion is a manifestation of repelling, but if you examine chemical explosions, you find out it is attraction of atoms that cause the explosion. Fire, is the attraction of oxygen atoms to that of carbon, attaching and forming CO2 or CO.
Using Oxtoby & Nachtrieb, 2nd ed., Principles of Modern Chemistry, 1990 as source, I am going to rephrase the Pauli Exclusion Principle, and the Hund's Rule, and the Aufbau Principle keeping in mind that there is only attraction force in EM.
Pauli Exclusion Principle: no two electrons in any atom can have the same four quantum numbers of N, L, m_L, m_s. This principle stated another way is to say that all electrons attract one another, but cannot occupy the same Space, which is not a repelling force, but merely a occupancy concept.
Hund's Rule: when electrons are added to orbitals of equal energy, the electron will enter a vacant orbital before it enters an orbital with a occupant electron, and when an electron fills a orbital with another electron they have opposite spins.
So here we see evidence of attraction only but a condition that the orientation of two electrons cannot be such that they "occupy the same space".
Aufbau Principle: a systematic filling of electrons (also protons in the nucleus) of atomic orbitals, beginning with lowest orbital energy and working up.
So the Aufbau is saying that EM has attraction force only and avoids electrons from occupying the same space.
So, which is it for Feynman? Does the electron to electron repel or do the two simply deny same space occupancy-- squeezed together.
Experiment: take a magnet and have some nails. Whether you have the north pole of magnet or south pole, the nails are attracted. Do you ever see a repelling or repulsion of the nails from the magnet? No.
Now with two magnets, you are deceived by a repelling of like poles, but it is not a repelling at all, but merely a Denial of the Same Space Occupancy.
Alright, so we look at Feynman's statement of the Atomic theory "All things are made up of atoms-- little particles that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another." And we see that of "repelling upon being squeezed into one another." So that we have a force of repelling and a condition of being squeezed into one another, or, what we have are two separate and different concepts. So that Electricity & Magnetism never has repelling or repulsion but has a condition of where you have Denial of the Same Space Occupying.
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
Coulomb force is attract only.
So, in magnetism such as the Faraday law where you have a closed loop of wire and thrust a bar magnet through the wire, back and forth, you generate a electric current in the wire. We can think of the bar magnet and wire as matter and the space around these two objects as the Void of Democritus Atomic theory. In other words, Void is Space. Void and Matter are complements, duals, of one another and both essential to one another to exist.
Physics has a concept of Complementarity which means in essence that something exists only if it has dualing parts or two parts to make the whole. As an analogy or metaphor, picture exists because of the picture itself and the whole entire surrounding Space, picture and space. The most famous Complementary dual is magnetism versus electricity. One complement requires the other complement, and the Existence of a object or phenomenon is this Complement parts. Everything that Exists has two complements. The complement of magnetism is electricity and the complement of a single atom is the space that the atom rests in.
Other complements are of energy to time; the complement of position is momentum.
The complement of the electron is the space around the electron and we call that Space the Magnetic Field. The same is true of the proton where the space around the proton is a Magnetic field. The complement of the two magnetic dipoles is the Magnetic Field or the space around the dipoles. So, the Void in Democritus Atomic theory is the Space around the magnetic dipoles or the Space around the electric charge.
Now, in writing the 6th edition of this textbook, I noticed the concept of Electric Field is phony. That between charge and current, there is nothing to be what is called an "electric field". Charge comes in discrete units, and a Field is in direct contradiction to having charge as a discrete unit. You can and must have a Magnetic Field, because you cannot have a magnetic monopole. So in writing the 6th edition, I noticed that the Electric Field was phony baloney. And I could not make a change without rewriting the entire text. That is the reason I automatically started the 7th edition.
5 AP/Maxwell Laws
kg /A*s^2 = kg /A*s^2 Magnetic Field Primal Unit Law
dB = either photon wave structure or neutrino wave structure; Law of Magnetism
dC = A, or V = AR defines current Law of Electricity
Faraday Law = A*B + V*B1^2 - V*B2^2
Ampere Law = A*R + A*B1^2 - A*B2^2
Notice there is a positive term in both law of electricity and law of magnetism, not to mean that there is a rest mass particle of magnetic current as there is a electric current of flow of electrons, but that there is a magnetic current of lines of force in a photon or neutrino. What flows in magnetism is lines of force, and what flows in electricity is rest mass charges.
Law of Magnetism with a positive term on rightside-- meaning no repulsion exists.
Now I should talk about the huge reason that Law of Magnetism requires dipoles and never allows monopoles, and the reason for that, is that there is only a force of Attraction in magnetism and electric charges. So that we can have a bar magnet with all the North poles crowded together at one end and all the South poles crowded together at the other end of the bar magnet. Not that North repels North, but because North attracts North. In EM there is no force of repulsion or repelling. So when you eye-witness North against North, it is not repelling but rather, what is going on is the Denial of the Same Space Occupancy. We are seeing a issue of denial of occupying the same space, not repelling. We are seeing Exclusion, like Pauli Exclusion Principle, not repulsion. We are seeing exclusion such as in the Meissner Effect in Superconductivity, not repulsion. We are seeing Hund's Rule of Chemistry, that electrons occupy in pairs only after they occupy singularly the suborbitals. We are seeing the physics of the Capacitor, that electrons attract one another and fill up the plate of a Capacitor and protons the other plate in attraction of proton to proton, not repulsion.
If the World had repelling and repulsion in EM theory, then the world would never have a nucleus of atoms with mostly protons. The world would never have Capacitors, nor Hund's rule. Nor would the World have a bar magnet in which all the North poles congregate together and all the South poles congregate at the other end.
So, in New Physics, a major reason that the Law of Magnetism has a positive term to the rightside of the equation, just as does the Law of Electricity:
dB = photon wave structure or neutrino wave structure Law of Magnetism
dC = A, or V = AR defines current Law of Electricity
Is because the forces are just Attraction forces, never repelling forces, and which we are fooled into thinking that it looks like Repulsion when in fact, all it is, is a denying of Occupying the Same Space.
Physicists have a difficult time of understanding that the concept of repel and deny of space are different concepts. If we see a enemy coming we can repel by going out and pushing the invader away. We can also, instead of repel, we can build a wall and deny the invaders to occupy our land.
So, a major, major error of Old Physics, is that they never realized EM is an attraction force only. And where it is written in the correct Maxwell Laws is the Law of Magnetism, that has a dipole, never a monopole and means that North attracts North and North attracts South poles.
We should go in depth of what this deceptive repel is and why so many people were caught in that trap of deception. It starts with two bar magnets and we see and feel a sense of repelling of like poles. But there is another concept that is not repelling but what I call Denial of Same Space Occupancy.
We see it in Hund's Rule, and in Pauli Exclusion Principle and the Aufbau Principle. We see it in atoms where electrons do not congregate with protons but with other electrons and where protons are always congregated and bunched up to form a nucleus of an atom. That means like to like that shows resistance to being squeezed together any more, is not repel but is a concept of same space occupancy denied. We see it in capacitors and in the flow of electrons in electricity that electrons gather together collectively by attraction, not by repulsion.
In the history of physics, there was a time in which we did not know how electrons and protons formed atoms of chemistry. I am talking about early years of 1900s with Thompson Model of the atom. It was nicknamed the Plum Pudding Model, where it was thought that every individual proton was tied up with a electron. So that an atom of 10 protons, neon, would have 10 paired up proton with electron to form the atom, like ten dance partners paired up. However, to the surprise of everyone, Rutherford found that electrons congregate together and protons congregate together into our modern view of the atom. This means that electron to electron is a attraction, not a repelling or repulsion.
The Plum Pudding Model, 1904, of Thompson and the Rutherford Experiment results of 1911 discussed in depth showing how loose in logic is the science community as a whole.
I need to include in depth, the Thompson plum pudding model, for it gives us a vast and vivid view of how things easily go wrong in physics because most physicists have little to no logic in their science thinking.
So what I need to include is that Thompson, a brilliant physicist, who in 1904 proposed the Plum Pudding Model of the Atom because, he, like all those of his time believed that like charges repel and not attract. So what kind of model fits the demand of like charges repel and unlike attract? The logical model is the Plum Pudding so that electrons do not congregate nor do protons bunch together. But when Rutherford found that electrons bunch together outside a nucleus, and that protons congregating or bunch together in a nucleus, meant by logic, that like charges do not repel, but rather they attract, given perhaps some orientation hurdle, such as spin.
So, the physicists of Thompson were using logic and were logically sound in the Plum Pudding Model, but disaster struck after Rutherford in that the physicists were void and absent of logic in interpreting what Rutherford had found in 1911. Rutherford experiment tells us that like charges attract, not repel, and that what needed fixing and throwing out is the concept that like charges repel and replaced by the concept that Maxwell theory has like charges as denial of same space occupancy.
We see huge abundant evidence that like charges attract, not repel:
1) electrons congregate outside the nucleus forming the atom's electrons
2) protons congregate making a nucleus
3) electrons flow together in a wire in electricity, ditto protons
4) electrons congregate in a capacitor, ditto protons
5) Pauli Exclusion Principle
6) Hund's rule in Aufbau principle
7) Meissner effect
So that when Rutherford discovered the structure of the atom as electrons congregating together and protons congregating together, what the physics community should have done in 1911 with the Rutherford experiment on the structure of the atom, is to trashcan the concept of like charges repel and replace with the concept of Denial of Same Space Occupancy.
These two concepts are wholly different, in that repelling is not the same as denial of same space occupancy.
So here we see, in the Thompson to Rutherford history, we see that physicists rarely have the adequate logic ability to assemble correct ideas and then fail to interpret experiments addressing those ideas.
Recently in Science magazine I read where some 50% or more of the psychology science in print was just trash experiments with trash results because the experiments could not be duplicated, and that so much of science reporting is based on some statistics, or based on computer simulation, where the opinion of the researcher makes its way into the statistics or simulation and not science at all. But this can be said of over 50% of physics today is just error filled nonsense. Take for example the recent illogical LIGO experiments, where physicists imagine the existence of black holes and then when they see a blip on their monitors, they say they confirmed a gravity wave from black holes, when the blip can be caused by thousands of things in the local environment such as seismic activity. As illogical as expecting someone at home, knocking on the door; no one answering and then concluding the house was empty. The building of a sophisticated LIGO machine is something to be proud of, but then to say that blips are confirmation of your imagination of something out there is totally antiscience.
Look, if it takes over 100 years from 1911 to 2016 to correctly interpret the Rutherford experiment that no repelling or repulsion exists in Maxwell theory or in atomic theory, imagine how pathetically wrong is most of current day physics, with its nonsense of Big Bang, black holes, gravity waves, dark matter, dark energy and other assorted nonsense.
Now I need a better term for Denial of Same Space Occupancy and I need look no further than the Maxwell Equations themselves, for, if this is a true concept, it must be in the Maxwell theory. And that is very easy to spot in the Lenz's law in Faraday's law where there arises a magnetic field that opposes the original magnetic field. This is not repelling or repulsion but that of denial of same space.
The Law of Magnetism in the Maxwell theory and its most single important message is that only attraction force exists in EM. That the North to North dipole is not a repelling or repulsion but merely a denial of same space occupancy.
The Law of Electricity is attraction force only and the only major difference with magnetism is that the electric charge can come as a separate charge whereas the magnetic poles have to always be dipole and never separated.
Now one may be easily mislead into thinking that a chemical explosion is a manifestation of repelling, but if you examine chemical explosions, you find out it is attraction of atoms that cause the explosion. Fire, is the attraction of oxygen atoms to that of carbon, attaching and forming CO2 or CO.
Using Oxtoby & Nachtrieb, 2nd ed., Principles of Modern Chemistry, 1990 as source, I am going to rephrase the Pauli Exclusion Principle, and the Hund's Rule, and the Aufbau Principle keeping in mind that there is only attraction force in EM.
Pauli Exclusion Principle: no two electrons in any atom can have the same four quantum numbers of N, L, m_L, m_s. This principle stated another way is to say that all electrons attract one another, but cannot occupy the same Space, which is not a repelling force, but merely a occupancy concept.
Hund's Rule: when electrons are added to orbitals of equal energy, the electron will enter a vacant orbital before it enters an orbital with a occupant electron, and when an electron fills a orbital with another electron they have opposite spins.
So here we see evidence of attraction only but a condition that the orientation of two electrons cannot be such that they "occupy the same space".
Aufbau Principle: a systematic filling of electrons (also protons in the nucleus) of atomic orbitals, beginning with lowest orbital energy and working up.
So the Aufbau is saying that EM has attraction force only and avoids electrons from occupying the same space.
So, which is it for Feynman? Does the electron to electron repel or do the two simply deny same space occupancy-- squeezed together.
Experiment: take a magnet and have some nails. Whether you have the north pole of magnet or south pole, the nails are attracted. Do you ever see a repelling or repulsion of the nails from the magnet? No.
Now with two magnets, you are deceived by a repelling of like poles, but it is not a repelling at all, but merely a Denial of the Same Space Occupancy.
Alright, so we look at Feynman's statement of the Atomic theory "All things are made up of atoms-- little particles that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another." And we see that of "repelling upon being squeezed into one another." So that we have a force of repelling and a condition of being squeezed into one another, or, what we have are two separate and different concepts. So that Electricity & Magnetism never has repelling or repulsion but has a condition of where you have Denial of the Same Space Occupying.
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 23, 2016, 1:20:23 PM9/23/16
to
On Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 12:28:32 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Revision Page16, 3-1, AP/Maxwell Equations, heart of EM theory becomes the axioms over all of physics/ Atom-Totality-Universe / textbook 7th ed
>
(snipped)
> Revision Page16, 3-1, AP/Maxwell Equations, heart of EM theory becomes the axioms over all of physics/ Atom-Totality-Universe / textbook 7th ed
>
> The five AP/Maxwell Equations
>
> 1) kg /A*s^2 = kg /A*s^2 Magnetic Field Primal Unit Law
>
> 2) dB = either photon wave structure or neutrino wave structure; Law of Magnetism
>
> 3) dC = A, or V = AR defines current, Law of Electricity
>
> 4) Faraday Law (V*R^-1)' = A*B + V*B1^2 - V*B2^2
>
> 5) Ampere Law (A*R)' = A*R + A*B1^2 - A*B2^2
>
> In the above A is current, V is voltage, R is resistance, B is magnetic field, C is charge.
>
Alright, excellent, made huge progress in experiments to find spin, the term -V*B2^2 in Faraday law and the term -A*B2^2 in Ampere law.
>
> 1) kg /A*s^2 = kg /A*s^2 Magnetic Field Primal Unit Law
>
> 2) dB = either photon wave structure or neutrino wave structure; Law of Magnetism
>
> 3) dC = A, or V = AR defines current, Law of Electricity
>
> 4) Faraday Law (V*R^-1)' = A*B + V*B1^2 - V*B2^2
>
> 5) Ampere Law (A*R)' = A*R + A*B1^2 - A*B2^2
>
> In the above A is current, V is voltage, R is resistance, B is magnetic field, C is charge.
>
After many experiments, I realized that the Electric Motor is more than just Faraday law alone, but is both the combined Faraday with the Ampere law.
In other words Electric Motor = Faraday law + Ampere law
And this is something that Maxwell theory from 1860 to 2016 never explained, never touched upon, is that the Electric Motor spin had to come from the Maxwell theory.
Everyone, every physicist thought the "spin" of an electric motor need not be an integral part of the Maxwell theory, that the spin was a byproduct or offshoot of the Maxwell theory. But, the spin is as integral of Maxwell theory as is current or voltage.
And the Maxwell theory of old, of 1860 to 2016 was deficient in realizing that it required a "spin term" in the equations. So that the true blue Maxwell theory would need three terms rightside of the equation for Faraday and for Ampere law.
When we look at a planet in orbit of the Sun, what we should see, is a EM attraction of the Planet to Sun, and that EM attraction we call gravity, only it is really EM, and the spin rotation of the planet, or of the Sun is another EM force due to the planet or Sun being particles of EM, that they are a "electric motor" that must have a spin rotation.
So, my looking for "spin" in EM, was looking for the obvious, the obvious in front of me, staring back at me-- the spin motion of an electric motor. When Hitomi spacecraft, spun out of control early this year, was because it was a "electric motor" and spun out of control. The Juno spacecraft in orbit of Jupiter at this very moment is also a "electric motor" and can easily spin out of control, if NASA does not have sufficient control over Juno.
It is a fault of Maxwell Equations, of Maxwell theory, that they never realized the spin of an electric motor has to be accounted for, by the equations themselves. And that they were missing of a "spin term".
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 23, 2016, 6:07:49 PM9/23/16
to
What I am able to do with this experiment is show that combining Faraday law and Ampere law explains the electric motor in most primitive form, however the Maxwell Equations cannot explain the Spin involved, for there is no spin term.
However, in my equations of EM where there are 3 terms on rightside of equation, do we have a actual spin term.
1. The simplest motor in the world by Igor, How to build a ... - YouTube
2. ► 3:12
3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdQHMuU_sOU Nov 4, 2011 - 3 min - Uploaded by igor30
4. A simple electric motor made of an AA battery and neodymium copper rod. ... It's a clean magnet ...
5.
6. The simplest motor in the world - YouTube
7. ► 0:21
8. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOdboRYf1hM Aug 12, 2006 - 21 sec - Uploaded by Jose Biosca
9. A very simple motor made only by a copper wire and a neodymium magnet. ... + Darrell Lim An ...
10.
1. The simplest motor in the world - YouTube
2. ► 0:21
3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOdboRYf1hM Aug 12, 2006 - 21 sec - Uploaded by Jose Biosca
4. A very simple motor made only by a copper wire and a neodymium magnet. It uses one AAA ...
5.
6. Simplest Motor made with a magnet, AA battery, and a ... - YouTube
7. ► 0:45
8. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94RpbYopUdI Sep 10, 2011 - 45 sec - Uploaded by BDGcustoms
9. See more cool ideas @ http://goo.gl/0kzqMd Very simple motor made with a magnet, AA battery ...
10.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 24, 2016, 12:35:50 AM9/24/16
to
Alright, I best describe the Experimental set-up. I take a battery AA and fasten neodynium magnets to the bottom and with bar copper wire I bend it so that it touches the top of battery of plus terminal and the copper touches the magnet at bottom, completing a circuit. The copper wire spins around as one side of the wire touches the magnet then the other side.
I think what happened here in Physics History is that Maxwell viewed such demonstrations as a after-effect of Faraday combined with Ampere law. Whereas he should have viewed such a demonstration as integral to the Faraday and Ampere law just as one produces a current and the other a magnetic field.
For this reason, spin is a required term in Faraday and Ampere laws:
5 AP/Maxwell Laws
kg /A*s^2 = kg /A*s^2 Magnetic Field Primal Unit Law
Faraday Law = (V*R^-1)' = A*B + V*B1^2 - V*B2^2 where this last term is spin
Ampere Law = (A*R)' = A*R + A*B1^2 - A*B2^2 and where this last term is spin
Strange that Maxwell used vortices of rotation as models for his equations, yet failed to have rotation spin as a term in his equations. The great practical use of electric motors is there ability to spin, and yet the Maxwell equations fell silent on spin.
AP
I think what happened here in Physics History is that Maxwell viewed such demonstrations as a after-effect of Faraday combined with Ampere law. Whereas he should have viewed such a demonstration as integral to the Faraday and Ampere law just as one produces a current and the other a magnetic field.
For this reason, spin is a required term in Faraday and Ampere laws:
5 AP/Maxwell Laws
kg /A*s^2 = kg /A*s^2 Magnetic Field Primal Unit Law
dB = either photon wave structure or neutrino wave structure; Law of Magnetism
dC = A, or V = AR, defines current Law of Electricity
Faraday Law = (V*R^-1)' = A*B + V*B1^2 - V*B2^2 where this last term is spin
Ampere Law = (A*R)' = A*R + A*B1^2 - A*B2^2 and where this last term is spin
Strange that Maxwell used vortices of rotation as models for his equations, yet failed to have rotation spin as a term in his equations. The great practical use of electric motors is there ability to spin, and yet the Maxwell equations fell silent on spin.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 24, 2016, 3:49:06 PM9/24/16
to
The true blue equations for ElectroMagnetism end up with the dynamic laws of Faraday and Ampere with a spin term included. Without the spin term, is like getting married and never having sex or knowing what sex is.
Faraday Law = (V*R^-1)' = A*B + V*B1^2 - V*B2^2 where this last term is spin
Ampere Law = (A*R)' = A*R + A*B1^2 - A*B2^2 and where this last term is spin
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 24, 2016, 6:11:14 PM9/24/16
to
Alright now I am conducting an experiment where I simply drop a magnet through a copper tube and see if magnet in is oriented differently from the magnet out. Preliminary results give a 1/4 rotation spin for a 21cm tube and neodymium magnets. I have to verify. And, this is the Faraday law only, not involving Ampere law.
iPhone post
AP
iPhone post
AP
noTthaTguY
Sep 24, 2016, 7:03:54 PM9/24/16
to
without or with Ampere, g00d luck ... we will see, iff
your hypothesis is for real
your hypothesis is for real
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 24, 2016, 9:14:27 PM9/24/16
to
On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 5:11:14 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Alright now I am conducting an experiment where I simply drop a magnet through a copper tube and see if magnet in is oriented differently from the magnet out. Preliminary results give a 1/4 rotation spin for a 21cm tube and neodymium magnets. I have to verify. And, this is the Faraday law only, not involving Ampere law.
>
Alright, I had most of the runs where I dropped a neodymium magnet down a copper tube of 42cm, yielding a current in the tube for which Lenz law has a opposing magnetic field-- so the magnet drops 1/3 as fast as in a plastic nonconductor tube. I had a steel plate at bottom so the magnet stuck fast after the fall and not bounce around.
> Alright now I am conducting an experiment where I simply drop a magnet through a copper tube and see if magnet in is oriented differently from the magnet out. Preliminary results give a 1/4 rotation spin for a 21cm tube and neodymium magnets. I have to verify. And, this is the Faraday law only, not involving Ampere law.
>
What I wanted to measure is spin given to the magnet upon falling. And there definitely is a spin, but sometimes I got a 1/2 rotation and most times I got a 1/4 rotation, that is, provided it did not spin 1.5 and 1.25 times. Copper is not see through and so I can only see the beginning and the end of each drop. I am satisfied that this is proof of a "spin term" required in Maxwell equations, a spin term in Faraday and a spin term in Ampere law, or both put together as in a electric motor.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 25, 2016, 1:24:08 AM9/25/16
to
sinusoidal is not a shape of physics Re: what waves does nature have Re: world's easiest proof that sine is a semicircle wave..
On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 11:22:55 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Now Nature does not surprise us of what geometry form that waves take as we see the cover of the book Electricity and Magnetism, Berkeley Physics Course volume 2, 1965, Purcell, the front and back cover is dipole magnetism lines of force. And their shape is circular or bent circular- elliptical. They are never sinusoidal because Nature does not put two sinusoidal figures to make a closed figure. This means EM is circle physics and not sinusoidal physics. We keep sine and cosine only realizing they are semicircle waves, not sinusoidal waves.
Now if you take a circle or ellipse and divide in half and with the two parts link them together to form a wave, and concatenate that wave, it is easily done on circles and ellipses, for they remain Smooth in shape.
But now, try taking a sinusoidal wave and build one closed figure with two halves. With semicircles, you build a circle and smooth all around. With a ellipse of cut in half pieces, there is an assembly in which you have the smooth ellipse. With a sinusoid, try it to believe it, with a sinusoid, two cut in half pieces can build a closed sinusoid, however this closed sinusoid has always two bumps, two vertices like that stick out. Two semicircles when put together have nothing that sticks out. Two semiellipses when put together have nothing that sticks out. Two semisinusoids when put together always have two bumps in in the final figure.
So, now, mathematicians will never understand this principle that I now proclaim. That no laws of physics causes the math to have a geometry figure where two bumps stick out. The forces and laws of physics as laws of "smoothness". EM is smooth, gravity as EM is smooth, strong nuclear force is smooth.
So, why does math and physics have sinusoid shape? The only reason is that they are too dumb to recognize that sine and cosine are semicircle waves and that if you allow the x-axis to be distorted with numbers as angles where pi is 3.14.. but some say it is 180 degrees, while they say that 2 is never an angle, only a number. When you put distortion into the graphs, well, you end up with fictional and fake curves. No where in nature, is there a sinusoid curve, but Nature if full of circle or ellipse curves or waves.
Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON
::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And
each dot represents another galaxy.
AP
On Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 11:22:55 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Now Nature does not surprise us of what geometry form that waves take as we see the cover of the book Electricity and Magnetism, Berkeley Physics Course volume 2, 1965, Purcell, the front and back cover is dipole magnetism lines of force. And their shape is circular or bent circular- elliptical. They are never sinusoidal because Nature does not put two sinusoidal figures to make a closed figure. This means EM is circle physics and not sinusoidal physics. We keep sine and cosine only realizing they are semicircle waves, not sinusoidal waves.
Now if you take a circle or ellipse and divide in half and with the two parts link them together to form a wave, and concatenate that wave, it is easily done on circles and ellipses, for they remain Smooth in shape.
But now, try taking a sinusoidal wave and build one closed figure with two halves. With semicircles, you build a circle and smooth all around. With a ellipse of cut in half pieces, there is an assembly in which you have the smooth ellipse. With a sinusoid, try it to believe it, with a sinusoid, two cut in half pieces can build a closed sinusoid, however this closed sinusoid has always two bumps, two vertices like that stick out. Two semicircles when put together have nothing that sticks out. Two semiellipses when put together have nothing that sticks out. Two semisinusoids when put together always have two bumps in in the final figure.
So, now, mathematicians will never understand this principle that I now proclaim. That no laws of physics causes the math to have a geometry figure where two bumps stick out. The forces and laws of physics as laws of "smoothness". EM is smooth, gravity as EM is smooth, strong nuclear force is smooth.
So, why does math and physics have sinusoid shape? The only reason is that they are too dumb to recognize that sine and cosine are semicircle waves and that if you allow the x-axis to be distorted with numbers as angles where pi is 3.14.. but some say it is 180 degrees, while they say that 2 is never an angle, only a number. When you put distortion into the graphs, well, you end up with fictional and fake curves. No where in nature, is there a sinusoid curve, but Nature if full of circle or ellipse curves or waves.
Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON
::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And
each dot represents another galaxy.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 25, 2016, 5:36:37 AM9/25/16
to
Alright, I do not know how I can measure a spin of the conducting wire used in Ampere law alone. In Ampere law we only have a wire as physical hardware.
In the electric motor experiment we had battery, magnet and wire where the wire spins. Now, is that a case of just Ampere law alone or is it Faraday's law included as a combination of two laws?
iPhone post
AP
In the electric motor experiment we had battery, magnet and wire where the wire spins. Now, is that a case of just Ampere law alone or is it Faraday's law included as a combination of two laws?
iPhone post
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 25, 2016, 3:37:39 PM9/25/16
to
We recognize Sine as a Semicircle Wave and not the fictional sinusoidal Re: sine and cosine are semicircle waves, what is sec, csc?? Re: sinusoidal is not a shape of physics
On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 4:05:10 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Alright, the curves I was trying to remember were secant and cosecant graphs which look like ellipses.
>
> So, tell me, if the sine and cosine are really semicircles not sinusoids, then what does that make secant and cosecant?
>
> Are they semiellipses?
>
>
So we look in the history of math to find out where this contradiction that comes down to modern times of a schizophrenic contradiction.
The Sine function is defined in all textbooks today as being two items that are contradictions:
1) a right triangle of opposite/hypotenuse
2) the x-axis where 0, pi, 2pi have a sine value of y = 0
Trouble with this definition is that it is contradictory, in that a sine of a circle of 2 radius, 4 diameter, that the value of y = 0 would still be y=0 when x is 0, pi, 2pi. That is Old Math and contradictory math.
In New Math we realize the sine function is semicircle wave, and thus, our definition of sine is just:
1) a right triangle of opposite/hypotenuse
We have just one non-contradictory definition, and which forces the sine function to be a semicircle wave. So that for circle of radius 2 and diameter 4, our semicircles now have a amplitude of 2 rather than 1 as in the unit circle, and our y=0 values are at x is 0, 4, 8.
It is a shame that Old Math really does not cover the question of Math History, who was the first to publish the sine function as this contradictory sinusoid? This fictional curve of sinusoid? Who was it, was it Leibniz? Perhaps even Euler?
So, if you want a non-contradictory Sine function and want it to pass through y=0 when x=0, pi, 2pi, then, what you are graphing is not the Unit Circle but a circle with radius pi/2. And your graph of this Sine function is not a sinusoid but is a semicircle wave.
The Sinusoid Wave is a purely fictional construction, for it does not exist in Nature and it cannot exist in Nature, because it is a contradiction of two different and separate definitions. The Sinusoid asks us to believe that the number 1 is only a number and never an angle, while pi/3 =1.04.... is both a number and also exists as an angle. Ask us to believe in a function of sine where the one definition of right triangle fetches y=0 at 0,2,4, while the angle definition of sine fetches y=0 at 0,pi,2pi. And asks us to believe both are true simultaneously. It is one of the greatest most foolish contradictions in the history of mathematics. And the only reason it has survived so long, is that math teaching allows this type of nonsense to perpetuate, because you either want a good grade in math and shut up about the contradictions or you get failed. A climate of suppression that such contradictions can prevail.
But now, the sine function is so important because it is the only type of function that can produce a chain or string of mirror images what I call a WAVE funtion. No algebraic function, no polynomial can produce a wave function. So sine is the only function that is WAVE. But the trouble with Old Math is that they thought this Wave was Sinusoidal, when in fact it is merely the repeating of semicircles.
Now, Physics would have the easiest proof of all that Sinusoidal is a fiction and nonexistent geometry figure. Yes, nonexistent geometry figure because you ask some numbers to be only numerical quantity while simultaneously asking other numbers to be both quantity and angle.
The Physics proof is that closed symmetrical figures have semifigures and when you put them together into one, you get either a fully smooth figure with no vertices, or you get full figures with vertices such as octagon. The circle and ellipses are fully smooth when semi is joined to semi. The Sinusoid will always have 2 vertices when semi is joined to semi. This means the sine as a sinusoid is never in the laws or forces of physics, because those laws and forces have to be 100% smooth, cannot have a glitch a catch of a vertex while in operation.
The Lines of Force in Physics in Electromagnetism are not Sinusoidal curves, they are circle or ellipse curves.
Now, do not get me wrong, for Sine plays its important role and the only thing that really changes is that we recognize Sine as a SemiCircle Wave, not the fictional sinusoidal wave.
AP
On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 4:05:10 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Alright, the curves I was trying to remember were secant and cosecant graphs which look like ellipses.
>
> So, tell me, if the sine and cosine are really semicircles not sinusoids, then what does that make secant and cosecant?
>
> Are they semiellipses?
>
>
So we look in the history of math to find out where this contradiction that comes down to modern times of a schizophrenic contradiction.
The Sine function is defined in all textbooks today as being two items that are contradictions:
1) a right triangle of opposite/hypotenuse
2) the x-axis where 0, pi, 2pi have a sine value of y = 0
Trouble with this definition is that it is contradictory, in that a sine of a circle of 2 radius, 4 diameter, that the value of y = 0 would still be y=0 when x is 0, pi, 2pi. That is Old Math and contradictory math.
In New Math we realize the sine function is semicircle wave, and thus, our definition of sine is just:
1) a right triangle of opposite/hypotenuse
We have just one non-contradictory definition, and which forces the sine function to be a semicircle wave. So that for circle of radius 2 and diameter 4, our semicircles now have a amplitude of 2 rather than 1 as in the unit circle, and our y=0 values are at x is 0, 4, 8.
It is a shame that Old Math really does not cover the question of Math History, who was the first to publish the sine function as this contradictory sinusoid? This fictional curve of sinusoid? Who was it, was it Leibniz? Perhaps even Euler?
So, if you want a non-contradictory Sine function and want it to pass through y=0 when x=0, pi, 2pi, then, what you are graphing is not the Unit Circle but a circle with radius pi/2. And your graph of this Sine function is not a sinusoid but is a semicircle wave.
The Sinusoid Wave is a purely fictional construction, for it does not exist in Nature and it cannot exist in Nature, because it is a contradiction of two different and separate definitions. The Sinusoid asks us to believe that the number 1 is only a number and never an angle, while pi/3 =1.04.... is both a number and also exists as an angle. Ask us to believe in a function of sine where the one definition of right triangle fetches y=0 at 0,2,4, while the angle definition of sine fetches y=0 at 0,pi,2pi. And asks us to believe both are true simultaneously. It is one of the greatest most foolish contradictions in the history of mathematics. And the only reason it has survived so long, is that math teaching allows this type of nonsense to perpetuate, because you either want a good grade in math and shut up about the contradictions or you get failed. A climate of suppression that such contradictions can prevail.
But now, the sine function is so important because it is the only type of function that can produce a chain or string of mirror images what I call a WAVE funtion. No algebraic function, no polynomial can produce a wave function. So sine is the only function that is WAVE. But the trouble with Old Math is that they thought this Wave was Sinusoidal, when in fact it is merely the repeating of semicircles.
Now, Physics would have the easiest proof of all that Sinusoidal is a fiction and nonexistent geometry figure. Yes, nonexistent geometry figure because you ask some numbers to be only numerical quantity while simultaneously asking other numbers to be both quantity and angle.
The Physics proof is that closed symmetrical figures have semifigures and when you put them together into one, you get either a fully smooth figure with no vertices, or you get full figures with vertices such as octagon. The circle and ellipses are fully smooth when semi is joined to semi. The Sinusoid will always have 2 vertices when semi is joined to semi. This means the sine as a sinusoid is never in the laws or forces of physics, because those laws and forces have to be 100% smooth, cannot have a glitch a catch of a vertex while in operation.
The Lines of Force in Physics in Electromagnetism are not Sinusoidal curves, they are circle or ellipse curves.
Now, do not get me wrong, for Sine plays its important role and the only thing that really changes is that we recognize Sine as a SemiCircle Wave, not the fictional sinusoidal wave.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 26, 2016, 12:16:54 AM9/26/16
to
Was Fourier the first graphing of the sine function? Re: sinusoid from rolling oblique cut cylinder, or optical illusion
On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 10:09:12 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Now when math has fakery, there are loads and loads of people who buy into the fakery and help support the fakery. They unwittingly never have a careful eye and seem to "go with the flow" of fakery enhancements. They do this not to shed light on the subject but to gain acceptance into the crowd of Old Math old timers. To get honors when honors are not due because-- well they just supported a klunker fake.
>
> On the web is xahlee.info with a website and a titled subject-- Development of Cut Cylinder, saying "Sine curve is the development of a obliquely cut right circular cylinder. (the edge of the cylinder rolled out is a sinusoid)."
>
> Now, be objective and look at it carefully and you see that the bottom portion is vastly different from the top portion.
>
> Is it possible to ever roll out a sinusoid where it touches the x-axis and so that upper portion is actually equal to bottom portion? The only way is for the circle to be in the plane that is it is rolled.
>
> And also, what is that figure without being rolled? Is it an ellipse? And if so, then why are we not able to join the upper portion with the bottom portion of the graph to form that ellipse? Does the rolling somehow exaggerate the ellipse, or is it a optical illusion, since the ellipse on the cylinder does not have 2 vertices but when joining up the bottom with top portions we have 2 vertices.
>
> Graphics, can be terribly deceiving.
>
> Again, further evidence that the sinusoid is an imaginary curve, not a real curve.
>
Truly appalling, truly appalling to want to know who invented the word " sinusoid" for the sine function, just cannot be found. And whose book or text was the first to graph sine? Was the first graphs of sine really semicircles, and that is why no-one knows?
Now Cajori on page 132, talks about Rhaeticus (1514-1567) who calculated huge tables of sine, and one has to wonder in all that time spent, did Rhaeticus ever think to graph sine?
Kline gives some information on trigonometry, but not who graphed sine first. And then Stillwell gives zero zip information, in fact, he spends more time on a fake proof of Wiles for Fermat's Last Theorem than he spends on trigonometry, a pillar of mathematics.
It is safe to say that Sinusoid was around by the time of Fourier (1768-1830) with his work on transforms, so that we get our modern day sinusoid from Fourier. Maybe he even coined the term "sinusoid".
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 26, 2016, 2:49:12 PM9/26/16
to
My discovery that no Sinusoid wave exists but is just a illusion or delusion, allows me to now define Wave versus Particle.
A Wave in physics or math is a 2nd dimension concatenation of circles or semicircles or ellipses or semiellipses, where you can build the circle from the semicircle or ellipse from the semiellipse. A Particle in physics is a 3rd dimension concatenation of a circle or semicircle or ellpse or semiellipse into building the sphere or ellipsoid.
The wave is built from either semicircle or semiellipse for the transverse wave. The longitudinal wave is built from the full circle or full ellipse and is a tube shaped object.
The particle is a concatenation of a circle or ellipse spun around a center.
Now, the Sinusoid figure cannot be made into a 1/2 sinusoid plus 1/2 sinusoid = full closed sinuoid without having 2 vertices. A sinusoid when put together with another sinusoid leaves 2 vertices when closing the loop. The reason the semiellipse and semicircle can close the loop and be smooth all the way around and not leave any vertices is because these figures are real and existing and not like the sinusoid which is fictional because we stretch the x-axis while leaving the y -axis as normal. The sinusoid is no better than modern civilization making up a Santa Claus story of a man in red riding a sled of reindeer bearing gifts and toys, for we stretch the axis of truth.
Physics, EM theory does not support a wave that has vertices, for a force or law of physics does not have vertices.
Now this definition is very important because from it we need to go to the photon as being double-transverse wave and that means semicircles and the neutrino as longitudinal waves and that means a concatenation of circles forming a slinky type of wave that is a tube figure. And the electron is a photon inside a neutrino tube that closes off into a torus tube.
You cannot have sinusoids in any of these process.
AP
Serigo
Sep 26, 2016, 3:49:32 PM9/26/16
to
On 9/26/2016 1:48 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 11:16:54 PM UTC-5, Archimedes
> Plutonium wrote:
>> Was Fourier the first graphing of the sine function? Re: sinusoid
>> from rolling oblique cut cylinder, or optical illusion
>>
>> On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 10:09:12 PM UTC-5, Archimedes
>> Plutonium wrote:
>>> Now when math has fakery, there are loads and loads of people who
>>> buy into the fakery and help support the fakery. They unwittingly
>>> never have a careful eye and seem to "go with the flow" of fakery
>>> enhancements. They do this not to shed light on the subject but
>
> On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 11:16:54 PM UTC-5, Archimedes
> Plutonium wrote:
>> Was Fourier the first graphing of the sine function? Re: sinusoid
>> from rolling oblique cut cylinder, or optical illusion
>>
>> On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 10:09:12 PM UTC-5, Archimedes
>> Plutonium wrote:
>>> Now when math has fakery, there are loads and loads of people who
>>> buy into the fakery and help support the fakery. They unwittingly
>>> never have a careful eye and seem to "go with the flow" of fakery
>>> enhancements. They do this not to shed light on the subject but
>
> Alright, due to the recent discovery of mine that sinusoid waves are
> nonexistent,
if you have a cold, your sinusiods are inflamed.
> nonexistent,
> My discovery that no Sinusoid wave exists but is just a illusion or
> delusion, allows me to now define Wave versus Particle.
>
> The wave is built from either semicircle or semiellipse for the
> transverse wave. The longitudinal wave is built from the full circle
> or full ellipse and is a tube shaped object.
>
> Physics, EM theory does not support a wave that has vertices, for a
> force or law of physics does not have vertices.
> And the electron is a photon inside a neutrino tube that
> closes off into a torus tube.
>
>
> AP
>
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 27, 2016, 12:23:37 AM9/27/16
to
AP
noTthaTguY
Sep 27, 2016, 1:06:01 PM9/27/16
to
g00d proviso
noTthaTguY
Sep 27, 2016, 1:09:08 PM9/27/16
to
Fourier can be done spatially, or
in three coordinates plus one time parameter per relativity e.g; but iff
you cannot get sinusoidal spiral form taht,
you don't know shinolA from **** (or, that
in three coordinates plus one time parameter per relativity e.g; but iff
you cannot get sinusoidal spiral form taht,
you don't know shinolA from **** (or, that
noTthaTguY
Sep 27, 2016, 1:12:18 PM9/27/16
to
oscilloscope gives a projection of the spiral wave
in the wire, which is just a simple sinusoid (of course, or
dUh
in the wire, which is just a simple sinusoid (of course, or
dUh
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 27, 2016, 1:29:50 PM9/27/16
to
Outline of proof that sine and cosine are semicircle waves or semiellipse waves but never a sinusoid wave
Alright, this requires a proof that Sinusoid (sine and cosine) figure is a fiction, a pure slab of imagination but never reality.
Now here, what I have drawn are 9 points.
A B
. . .
D E
And labeled the relevant points of the proof
So now we have three types of possible figures to make up the sine and cosine and sinusoid function, we have semicircles, semiellipses and semisinusoids.
We can prove this in either 1st Quadrant Only using the centers on line Y=1 and figures bounded with Y=2 above and x-axis below. Or we can prove it in Old Math of its 4 quadrants where figures are bounded above by Y=1 and Y = -1. Either way is the same. For it is proven earlier, that we can take any and every function graph of Old Math that required 4 quadrants in which we expand the 1st Quadrant so that it entirely encompasses the Old Math Graph and transports the function to lie only within 1st Quadrant. In other words, math needs just 1st Quadrant Only.
But let us get back to the chore of proving that only semicircle and semiellipses can be a sine or cosine function and that the sinusoid is a fictional graph because it demands for sin(2) to have a value of 0 of unit circle along with sin(pi) to have the same value 0. Old Math was never good at recognizing or admitting their contradictions but lazily going on to keep contradictions.
So in the 9 point figure above, let us assume point C is the Y=1 intercept at (2,1) of the unit circle and previous intercept on the Y=1 line would have been (s,1)
^
|
|OOOOOOO____>
s 2 4
Now in Old Math the intercept of the sinusoid would be (s,1) then (s,pi), New Math the intercept is (s,1) (2,1).
So the point C is (2,1)
Now in New Math, what we do is cut off the lower portion of the circle to fetch a semicircle and we scoot that over to connect with (2,1) and thus provide us with a Semicircle Wave, and in this proof we prove that sine and cosine as sinusoids are impossible to build without there being a Vertex, two vertices involved, so that sinusoid is never a **smooth overall figure** but a figure that has vertices all along its path.
So, now, look at the angle of AC so that the semicircle above Y=1 touches Y=1 with angle AC and if we leave the circle alone, it exits C with CD angle. But, and however, if we cut the semicircle below Y=1 and transport the two ends so that the semicircles form a Semicircle Wave, that the angle AC is matched and equal to the angle CE, so that there remains a "smooth figure without a vertex". The same can be done for ellipses and semiellipses.
However, for a Sinusoid figure, as we cut the semisinusoid and move it, our angle AC does not match up with CE but leaves a vertex and eliminates the "smoothness".
AP
Alright, this requires a proof that Sinusoid (sine and cosine) figure is a fiction, a pure slab of imagination but never reality.
Now here, what I have drawn are 9 points.
A B
. . .
. . .
C
. . .
. . .
D E
And labeled the relevant points of the proof
So now we have three types of possible figures to make up the sine and cosine and sinusoid function, we have semicircles, semiellipses and semisinusoids.
We can prove this in either 1st Quadrant Only using the centers on line Y=1 and figures bounded with Y=2 above and x-axis below. Or we can prove it in Old Math of its 4 quadrants where figures are bounded above by Y=1 and Y = -1. Either way is the same. For it is proven earlier, that we can take any and every function graph of Old Math that required 4 quadrants in which we expand the 1st Quadrant so that it entirely encompasses the Old Math Graph and transports the function to lie only within 1st Quadrant. In other words, math needs just 1st Quadrant Only.
But let us get back to the chore of proving that only semicircle and semiellipses can be a sine or cosine function and that the sinusoid is a fictional graph because it demands for sin(2) to have a value of 0 of unit circle along with sin(pi) to have the same value 0. Old Math was never good at recognizing or admitting their contradictions but lazily going on to keep contradictions.
So in the 9 point figure above, let us assume point C is the Y=1 intercept at (2,1) of the unit circle and previous intercept on the Y=1 line would have been (s,1)
^
|
|OOOOOOO____>
s 2 4
Now in Old Math the intercept of the sinusoid would be (s,1) then (s,pi), New Math the intercept is (s,1) (2,1).
So the point C is (2,1)
Now in New Math, what we do is cut off the lower portion of the circle to fetch a semicircle and we scoot that over to connect with (2,1) and thus provide us with a Semicircle Wave, and in this proof we prove that sine and cosine as sinusoids are impossible to build without there being a Vertex, two vertices involved, so that sinusoid is never a **smooth overall figure** but a figure that has vertices all along its path.
So, now, look at the angle of AC so that the semicircle above Y=1 touches Y=1 with angle AC and if we leave the circle alone, it exits C with CD angle. But, and however, if we cut the semicircle below Y=1 and transport the two ends so that the semicircles form a Semicircle Wave, that the angle AC is matched and equal to the angle CE, so that there remains a "smooth figure without a vertex". The same can be done for ellipses and semiellipses.
However, for a Sinusoid figure, as we cut the semisinusoid and move it, our angle AC does not match up with CE but leaves a vertex and eliminates the "smoothness".
AP
Odd Bodkin
Sep 27, 2016, 1:42:06 PM9/27/16
to
On 9/27/2016 12:29 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Outline of proof that sine and cosine are semicircle waves or semiellipse waves but never a sinusoid wave
>
Every day you say silly things, but every now and again you say a
> Outline of proof that sine and cosine are semicircle waves or semiellipse waves but never a sinusoid wave
>
remarkably, spectacularly stupid thing.
All it takes is a graphing calculator app (for free) for your iPhone or
your desktop computer, and to plot the functions for sine, a circle, and
an ellipse. You will see that they cannot be made to overlap. They are
not identical functions.
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 27, 2016, 3:17:06 PM9/27/16
to
The physics failure spewed more hatred and asked for more data:
On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 12:42:06 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
(snipped)
Now, I know for sure that both Feynman and I had liposarcoma, a fat cell cancer that can grow very large before you realize you have cancer. Feynman's got to the size of a football, mine got to the size of a small watermelon. Probably both of our liposarcoma were of a large size and equal. Mine was right rear peritoneal. I suspect Feynman's was either right rear or left rear peritoneal, but only am guessing, not knowing for sure, but reading what is sourced on internet.
It is probable that neither Feynman, nor myself, will ever know with some accuracy, what caused our Liposarcoma, and it is a rare cancer. But if the world is increasing in numbers of liposarcoma, it is likely that we can decipher some chemical agent as the cause, if it is increasing. I think UK has had a near 20% rise (cannot remember the exact statistic) in liposarcoma, which would implicate some chemical used in the environment, say perhaps glyphosate or neonicotinoids or some plastics, PCB or other chemical carcinogens.
But anyway, I was wondering if Feynman had cysts on his liver? The reason I ask is because my liver is covered in cysts, and whether a cyst liver could contribute to why I came down with Liposarcoma. Now I been researching cysts on liver and find that some people are borne with a liver that is cyst covered and they have that condition all their life. Now I was never CT scanned before until this year, so I would not know if my cysts on the liver was carried around by me all my life. And the cysts of my liver seem to have not slowed my life down one bit, for I managed to be a "competition runner" and ran competition 10 K's. I probably had those cysts then and all my life.
So, I wonder if Feynman had cysts on his liver?
AP
On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 12:42:06 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
(snipped)
Now, I know for sure that both Feynman and I had liposarcoma, a fat cell cancer that can grow very large before you realize you have cancer. Feynman's got to the size of a football, mine got to the size of a small watermelon. Probably both of our liposarcoma were of a large size and equal. Mine was right rear peritoneal. I suspect Feynman's was either right rear or left rear peritoneal, but only am guessing, not knowing for sure, but reading what is sourced on internet.
It is probable that neither Feynman, nor myself, will ever know with some accuracy, what caused our Liposarcoma, and it is a rare cancer. But if the world is increasing in numbers of liposarcoma, it is likely that we can decipher some chemical agent as the cause, if it is increasing. I think UK has had a near 20% rise (cannot remember the exact statistic) in liposarcoma, which would implicate some chemical used in the environment, say perhaps glyphosate or neonicotinoids or some plastics, PCB or other chemical carcinogens.
But anyway, I was wondering if Feynman had cysts on his liver? The reason I ask is because my liver is covered in cysts, and whether a cyst liver could contribute to why I came down with Liposarcoma. Now I been researching cysts on liver and find that some people are borne with a liver that is cyst covered and they have that condition all their life. Now I was never CT scanned before until this year, so I would not know if my cysts on the liver was carried around by me all my life. And the cysts of my liver seem to have not slowed my life down one bit, for I managed to be a "competition runner" and ran competition 10 K's. I probably had those cysts then and all my life.
So, I wonder if Feynman had cysts on his liver?
AP
Odd Bodkin
Sep 27, 2016, 3:54:56 PM9/27/16
to
On 9/27/2016 2:16 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> The physics failure spewed more hatred and asked for more data:
> On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 12:42:06 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> (snipped)
I didn't ask you for more data. I have the data because I have a
> The physics failure spewed more hatred and asked for more data:
> On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 12:42:06 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> (snipped)
graphing calculator app, so I *know* your statement is wrong. What I
suggested is that you use a graphing calculator app so that *you* can
see the data that shows that your statement is wrong.
You pursued a math degree, so here's another tidbit for you to consider.
Taking only first quadrant, consider these functions where they
intercept the x-axis at the first point away from the origin. The slope
of the circle function at (x,y)=(1,0) is -[oo]. The slope of any ellipse
semi-major or semi-minor axis b at (x,y)=(b,0) is -[oo]. The slope of
the sine function through (x,y)=(pi,0) is -1.
-1 is a lot different than -[oo]. The sine function doesn't look
anything like a semicircle or semi-ellipse function.
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 27, 2016, 9:26:46 PM9/27/16
to
The physics failure, keeps stalking and asking for more data:
There are 6 Maxwell/AP theory laws and I added two new laws-- The law of what there is and a primal unit law to Maxwell theory:
1. Law Of What There Is-- Atomic theory, that atoms exist and are composed of subatomic particles and most of an atom in volume is empty space. All the facts of Chemistry along with Atomic Theory is the Law Of What There Is. Let us name this law the Law of Chemistry-facts.
AP/Maxwell Equations, there are 6 Laws and 5 Equations
2. Magnetic Field Primal Unit Law
3. Magnetism in Motion; Law of Magnetism
4. Electric in Motion; Law of Electricity
5. Magnetism = Electricity; Faraday/Lenz law
6. Electricity = Magnetism; Ampere/Maxwell law
Let me call it the AP/Maxwell theory since I ended up altering the entire work of Maxwell, so that Old Maxwell Equations are barely recognizable.
On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 2:54:56 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
(snipped)
Revision-Page16, 3-1, EM theory becomes the axioms over all of physics/ Atom-Totality-Universe / textbook 7th ed
(snipped)
There are 6 Maxwell/AP theory laws and I added two new laws-- The law of what there is and a primal unit law to Maxwell theory:
1. Law Of What There Is-- Atomic theory, that atoms exist and are composed of subatomic particles and most of an atom in volume is empty space. All the facts of Chemistry along with Atomic Theory is the Law Of What There Is. Let us name this law the Law of Chemistry-facts.
AP/Maxwell Equations, there are 6 Laws and 5 Equations
2. Magnetic Field Primal Unit Law
3. Magnetism in Motion; Law of Magnetism
4. Electric in Motion; Law of Electricity
5. Magnetism = Electricity; Faraday/Lenz law
6. Electricity = Magnetism; Ampere/Maxwell law
Let me call it the AP/Maxwell theory since I ended up altering the entire work of Maxwell, so that Old Maxwell Equations are barely recognizable.
The five AP/Maxwell Equations
1) kg /A*s^2 = kg /A*s^2 Magnetic Field Primal Unit Law
2) dB = either photon wave structure or neutrino wave structure; Law of Magnetism
3) dC = A, or V = AR defines current, Law of Electricity
4) Faraday Law (V*R^-1)' = A*B + V*B1^2 - V*B2^2
5) Ampere Law (A*R)' = A*R + A*B1^2 - A*B2^2
In the above A is current, V is voltage, R is resistance, B is magnetic field, C is charge.
1) kg /A*s^2 = kg /A*s^2 Magnetic Field Primal Unit Law
2) dB = either photon wave structure or neutrino wave structure; Law of Magnetism
3) dC = A, or V = AR defines current, Law of Electricity
4) Faraday Law (V*R^-1)' = A*B + V*B1^2 - V*B2^2
5) Ampere Law (A*R)' = A*R + A*B1^2 - A*B2^2
In the above A is current, V is voltage, R is resistance, B is magnetic field, C is charge.
kg /A*s^2 = kg /A*s^2
That is the magnetic field, and some have suggested that the Electric Field is kg*m/A*s^3, but that cannot be true because, well, all that is, is a moving Magnetic Field, a m/s times Magnetic Field. In this textbook we learn there is no electric-field, because electricity is not dipole. If you have magnetism as dipole, you cannot have electricity as dipole.
This law says that magnetism is Dipole and that everything of electricity has a dipole component. It also means that since electricity is not primal, that electricity has no Electric Field, for if it had an electric field, would mean that there is no Primal unit in EM. Much like Math, there is only one primal number in Counting 1, and 1 goes on to build all the other Counting Numbers.
2. Magnetic Motion, Law of Magnetism
Now in this Law of Magnetism we make the mathematics easy, instead of the Goofy Gaussian overstructure that hides more than it reveals.
For math we use derivative and differential equations as rate of change and denoted as speed of m/s. In the Magnetic Field of kg /A*s^2 there is no speed, but if we multiply by speed we have kg /A*s^2 times m/s = kg*m /A*s^3. And what is that? What is kg*m /A*s^3 ?? It is not voltage because voltage is kg*m^2/A*s^3.
What kg*m^2/A*s^3 is, is magnetic field in motion and that it is either a 4 vector Double Transverse Wave or it is a Longitudinal Wave.
So, Law of Magnetism builds the Photon and builds the Neutrino because a Magnetic Field in Motion is either a 4 vector Double Transverse Wave of destructive interference, or, the Magnetic Field in Motion is a longitudinal wave as a neutrino structure.
Magnetism of magnetic fields builds the structure that is the photon and is the neutrino, both are waves of magnetic field, of lines of force.
The Photon and Neutrino are EM particles, and since there is no electric field, how are they built from Magnetic Field? Well, there are two ways of arranging magnetic field lines of force, either as transverse or as longitudinal. When Transverse, then the destructive interference of the magnetic field vectors cancel and causes the center of the wavefront to be voltage.
The Neutrino is a Longitudinal Wave built of Magnetic Fields, and sometimes a photon will ride inside a Neutrino wave, and if the neutrino closes off in a torus tube, rather than a straight line tube, the trapped photon inside the neutrino torus tube becomes a electron. The neutrino torus tube with trapped inside photon as 4 vector Double Transverse Wave of destructive interference, the entire apparatus is a electron. And so, when a neutrino of straightline motion closes off into a torus tube with trapped photon inside, becomes a electron and that is when rest mass is borne of a torus tube. Not the silly fakery of 2016 of stupid things like a Higgs boson. In fact, in this textbook we learn that the proton is 9 muons in some neutrino torus tube geometry.
3. Electric Motion, Law of Electricity
The Law of Electricity, was not about defining the Coulomb force (besides the EM force varies from R, to 1/R, to 1/R^2; so, there is no Electric Field, but rather, was meant to define what is current. It is a hole in the head of logic if we do not define electric current and then go to Faraday Law and there is electric current for the first time. It is like having a baby borne and then do the fertilization for making the baby.
Now, keeping the math simple, by a derivative or differential being the multiplication by m/s. So, what is Electric Motion, Law of Electricity? Well, we all know that electric charge in motion is current, and so the Law of Electricity must define the current. And since there is no Electric Field, there is voltage that takes that place of electric field and it is
V = kg*m^2/A*s^3
That is important, in that Voltage replaces the nonexistent electric field.
In the AP/Maxwell Equations the Law of Electricity includes V = AR where V is voltage and A is current and R is resistance, we have Ohm's law.
We see that in our units above where V = A*R
kg*m^2 /A*s^3 = A * kg*m^2 /A^2*s^3
So, in AP/Maxwell Equations, Ohm's law is incorporated into the Law of Electricity.
So, electric current A is defined as C charge times (m/s) = A. But also by Ohm's law.
We need the Law of Electricity to define current, before we see current in the Faraday law. This was a major error of the Old Maxwell Equations, that we come upon a current only when we reach Faraday's law.
This law says that magnetism is Dipole and that everything of electricity has a dipole component. It also means that since electricity is not primal, that electricity has no Electric Field, for if it had an electric field, would mean that there is no Primal unit in EM. Much like Math, there is only one primal number in Counting 1, and 1 goes on to build all the other Counting Numbers.
2. Magnetic Motion, Law of Magnetism
Now in this Law of Magnetism we make the mathematics easy, instead of the Goofy Gaussian overstructure that hides more than it reveals.
For math we use derivative and differential equations as rate of change and denoted as speed of m/s. In the Magnetic Field of kg /A*s^2 there is no speed, but if we multiply by speed we have kg /A*s^2 times m/s = kg*m /A*s^3. And what is that? What is kg*m /A*s^3 ?? It is not voltage because voltage is kg*m^2/A*s^3.
What kg*m^2/A*s^3 is, is magnetic field in motion and that it is either a 4 vector Double Transverse Wave or it is a Longitudinal Wave.
So, Law of Magnetism builds the Photon and builds the Neutrino because a Magnetic Field in Motion is either a 4 vector Double Transverse Wave of destructive interference, or, the Magnetic Field in Motion is a longitudinal wave as a neutrino structure.
Magnetism of magnetic fields builds the structure that is the photon and is the neutrino, both are waves of magnetic field, of lines of force.
The Photon and Neutrino are EM particles, and since there is no electric field, how are they built from Magnetic Field? Well, there are two ways of arranging magnetic field lines of force, either as transverse or as longitudinal. When Transverse, then the destructive interference of the magnetic field vectors cancel and causes the center of the wavefront to be voltage.
The Neutrino is a Longitudinal Wave built of Magnetic Fields, and sometimes a photon will ride inside a Neutrino wave, and if the neutrino closes off in a torus tube, rather than a straight line tube, the trapped photon inside the neutrino torus tube becomes a electron. The neutrino torus tube with trapped inside photon as 4 vector Double Transverse Wave of destructive interference, the entire apparatus is a electron. And so, when a neutrino of straightline motion closes off into a torus tube with trapped photon inside, becomes a electron and that is when rest mass is borne of a torus tube. Not the silly fakery of 2016 of stupid things like a Higgs boson. In fact, in this textbook we learn that the proton is 9 muons in some neutrino torus tube geometry.
3. Electric Motion, Law of Electricity
The Law of Electricity, was not about defining the Coulomb force (besides the EM force varies from R, to 1/R, to 1/R^2; so, there is no Electric Field, but rather, was meant to define what is current. It is a hole in the head of logic if we do not define electric current and then go to Faraday Law and there is electric current for the first time. It is like having a baby borne and then do the fertilization for making the baby.
Now, keeping the math simple, by a derivative or differential being the multiplication by m/s. So, what is Electric Motion, Law of Electricity? Well, we all know that electric charge in motion is current, and so the Law of Electricity must define the current. And since there is no Electric Field, there is voltage that takes that place of electric field and it is
V = kg*m^2/A*s^3
That is important, in that Voltage replaces the nonexistent electric field.
In the AP/Maxwell Equations the Law of Electricity includes V = AR where V is voltage and A is current and R is resistance, we have Ohm's law.
We see that in our units above where V = A*R
kg*m^2 /A*s^3 = A * kg*m^2 /A^2*s^3
So, in AP/Maxwell Equations, Ohm's law is incorporated into the Law of Electricity.
So, electric current A is defined as C charge times (m/s) = A. But also by Ohm's law.
We need the Law of Electricity to define current, before we see current in the Faraday law. This was a major error of the Old Maxwell Equations, that we come upon a current only when we reach Faraday's law.
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 29, 2016, 12:55:54 AM9/29/16
to
Revision Page16, 3-1, AP/Maxwell Equations, heart of EM theory becomes the axioms over all of physics/ Atom-Totality-Universe / textbook 7th ed
Odd Bodkin
Sep 29, 2016, 6:11:56 PM9/29/16
to
On 9/27/2016 8:26 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> The physics failure, keeps stalking and asking for more data:
> On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 2:54:56 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> (snipped)
I love how you call pointing out an obvious mistake by Archimedes
> The physics failure, keeps stalking and asking for more data:
> On Tuesday, September 27, 2016 at 2:54:56 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> (snipped)
Plutonium that would be seen immediately by even an 8th grade middle
schooler in algebra class, is taken to be "stalking".
Archimedes, you seem intent on being left along to promote your own
mistakes without anyone commenting on it.
Archimedes Plutonium
Oct 2, 2016, 6:03:13 PM10/2/16
to
The physics failure, keeps stalking and asking for more data:
On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 5:11:56 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
(snipped)
Odd asks if it was wise of him to go to Trump University to study physics? As far as I know, Trump is totally anti science.
(snipped)
Trump is feces rising to the top of a dead-party (Republican); pays no taxes yet flies in a private jet
Feces rises to the top (Trump) when a party is dead (Republican Party)
Is it in the Bible that says words to the effect "Feces rises to the top when dead"?
The BBC today says that the Republicans are calling Trump a genius for not paying taxes in 18 years.
I wish the news media of PBS Newshour or Charlie Rose or David Brooks would stop this nonsense of "change candidate" in their silly analysis, because the Trump phenomenon is not change, but is the death of the Republican Party and when you have death, you have feces rising to the top.
What country has a person that pays no taxes, boasts about being rich and market savvy, pays no taxes and flies around in his private jet and expects the people of that country to vote for him? Only an insane country with insane people.
This is not a change election, for this is a election in which it is seen and known that the Republican Party is a dead party that stands for nothing but sordid sick degeneracy. The Republicans do not even believe in established science, and ought to go back into their caves and practice witchcraft.
AP
0 new messages