Principle of Maximum Electricity Production by muon-as-electron inside proton toruses// physics research by Archimedes Plutonium This is AP's 238th published book of science published on Internet, Plutonium-Atom-Universe, PAU newsgroup is this.

148 views

Skip to first unread message

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Aug 22, 2024, 5:34:11 PM8/22/24

to Plutonium Atom Universe

Principle of Maximum Electricity Production by muon-as-electron inside proton toruses// physics research

by Archimedes Plutonium

This is AP's 238th published book of science published on Internet, Plutonium-Atom-Universe,

PAU newsgroup is this.

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

Preface: This is my 238th published book of science for AP // Proving the Principle of Maximum Electricity Production is done by Atoms. That is an alternative title, for this book is about proving this principle with supporting evidence. A proof in physics is far different from a proof in mathematics. For in physics we use experimental evidence to make a proof. In mathematics there is no experimental proof, no deciding experiment, for in physics we use experiments to tell us if one line of reasoning is correct and the other is wrong. In physics it is all about deciding experiments and data and facts in evidence. And in the course of doing this book of a proof of the Principle of Maximum Electricity Production, happily and by happenstance I was able to correct the cycloid curve of geometry mathematics and the rolling motion geometry. For the cycloid curve is actually a half ellipse, not a new independent curve different than a ellipse. The cycloid construction failed to make the Pointer-Marker be always perpendicular to the rolled over surface. So that when you roll a ellipse over a identical ellipse you end up with a circle.

Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of page 76 of Seaborg & Loveland "The Elements beyond Uranium" 1990, showing the torus geometry structure of protons of F orbital shapes. Many of those shapes are torus shapes, but one must keep in mind that those are hydrogen model constructs. Even so, the majority of shapes are toruses. Also, one can see from these Dirac orbitals, that the Dirac equation is flawed and in error. For the Dirac Equation was an attempt to make the Schrodinger equation be relativistic. But EM theory is already relativistic, so the world never needed a Dirac equation. So what Dirac ended up doing, was, doubling the Schrodinger equation. And we see this in the idea that the Dirac orbitals as shown in this page 76 are two toruses joined as a figure 8, when all we needed was one torus as shown as O with donut hole.

-----------------------------

Table of Contents

-----------------------------

1) My own history on this subject matter.

2) Explore some math data.

3) Looking for unique features of Torus geometry.

4) The speed of Rest Mass particles.

5) Working on Reincarnation science.

6) Preliminary-Proof of Maximum Electricity Production Principle.

7) Is Maximum Electricity Production Principle a reverse of Least Action Principle?

8) Nature is never half way in doing something, never halfway in producing electricity.

9) Efficiency of electric generator is e = B x L x v.

10) Photons and Neutrinos as the wiring system of Atoms.

11) All Atomic structure is composition of magnetic monopoles.

12) Proton, muon and neutron all composed of photons and neutrinos.

13) I need semicircle and semi ellipse cycloid waves -- so intense research into this.

14) AP uses wood blocks to better understand Torus geometry.

15) How much more surface area for torus over volume?

16) Proof that the proton is a torus with muon inside doing Faraday law for hydrogen and for higher atomic number, the geometry is a Mainframe torus with smaller toruses of S, P, D, F orbitals inside doing the Faraday law.

17) Proof of Maximum Electricity Production Principle inside Atom toruses.

-----------

Text

-----------

1) My own history on this subject matter.

I started writing this book in March of 2023, but many of the ideas go back to year 2016-2017 when I discovered the true electron of atoms was the muon stuck inside a proton torus and doing the Faraday law by the muon thrusting through the proton torus.

Often in my research the question would come up as to how much electricity is produced by the muon inside a proton torus. And it was a question of curiosity not of need. And whenever that question arose, I summarily said a atom proton with muon inside produces maximum amount of electricity that a muon thrusting through 840 windings of a proton torus, the muon itself being of 105 windings, 1 winding for every MeV.

But then the question of how much electricity produced in say a hydrogen atom started to get into questions of rate of growth of the Cosmos, of the doubling time of an atom from the Faraday law of muon thrusting through proton torus.

Finally, I needed specifics of electricity production by muon thrusting through proton torus and this need was recent in that I needed to differentiate between the geometry of a interior of an atom on whether it is composed of chains of muons circling inside a large one unit torus, or whether the S, P, D, F orbitals composed a torus and these smaller toruses inside one Mainframe torus. So here the need of telling what the true geometry of Atoms were and to tell me the true geometry, I use the Maximum Electricity Production Principle itself. Do you get more electricity from one long single proton torus and muons inside as a chain of muons? Or do you get more electricity if the protons were successively larger with a Mainframe torus and smaller toruses inside the Mainframe.

So here I was in a sort of dilemma-- do I use Maximum Electricity Production Principle to say Mainframe geometry is more electric production? Or do I find out what physicists found out as to the interior geometry is, and giving a clue as to whether it is Mainframe or one long single torus?

But I do not know if a nesting of smaller toruses inside a Mainframe is more electricity production than a single long one torus.

That question forced me to write this book and resolve the issue.

Archimedes Plutonium

Mar 18, 2023, 10:02:09 AM

to Plutonium Atom Universe

So many times I have referred to this principle in my work. Yet I never proved it true.

I think it is a natural part of another physics principle -- Least Action or Least Energy-- Feynman's pet theory.

But during the intervening years, I think I am now ready to prove Maximum Electricity Principle by geometry.

There is something very very unique about the Torus geometry. As if Torus geometry and Faraday Law are one and the same thing. Electricity loves surface area. Perhaps the torus maximizes surface area over that of volume.

We clearly can see this principle in the design of Tokamak machines are toruses.

And there must be a connection between torus geometry and Perpetual Motion of the muon stuck inside every proton doing the Faraday law with the proton as the muon speeds at nearly the speed of light zipping through the 840 windings of the 840MeV proton torus.

I think it may have gone overboard in physics history, if not history surely in education of the teaching of no perpetual motion machine. Gone way too much overboard, for the muon inside a proton torus is very much behaving like perpetual motion.

So, well, I am thinking that all I need to prove here is that the Torus geometry is super special and that surface area per volume is a Maximum. If I do that, then it wraps the conjecture-- for Faraday law is a torus geometry of maximum electricity production.

2) Explore some math data.

238th book of science for AP // Proving the Principle of Maximum Electricity Production is done by Atoms

Archimedes Plutonium

Mar 18, 2023, 11:21:39 PM

to Plutonium Atom Universe

Alright I need some math data to understand why Maximum Electricity production relates directly to having a torus geometry design.

Cube area is 6 side^2, and volume is side^3.

Sphere area is 4 pi*r^2, and volume is (4/3) (pi*r^3)

Torus area is 4(pi^2)Rr, and volume is 2(pi^2)Rr^2 where r is the radius of small circle that form the torus and R is the radius from center of donut hole to the midpoint of torus body.

So let me do some dynamical math to see how these three figures behave when made 1, then 2 then 3 , then 4, until the volume exceeds area.

Starting with Cube

Side 1 then area is 6 , while volume is 1

Side 2 then area is 24, while volume is 8

Side 3 then area is 54, while volume is 27

Side 4 then area is 96, while volume is 64

Side 5 then area is 150, while volume is 125

Side 6 then area is 216, while volume is 216 and here is where the volume takes over

Now the Sphere dynamics

Radius 1 then area is 12.56, while volume is 4.18...

Radius 2 then area is 50.24, while volume is 33.49..

Radius 3 then area is 113.04, while volume is 113.04... and from there the volume takes over

Now let me check the dynamics of the torus of area versus volume

4(pi^2)Rr, and volume is 2(pi^2)Rr^2

And a quick check would be to simply divide volume by area for a ratio. And here we have (1/2)r. If we did this with sphere we have a ratio of 1/3(r) for cube we have 1/6(side). This tells me that the torus will quickly have the volume surpass the area.

Radius 1 = r and R= 2 then area is 78.87, while volume is 39.43

Radius 2 = r and R= 4 then area is 315.50, while volume is 315.50

So let me try the cylinder for the cylinder is a straightline inconnected torus.

Cylinder area is 2pi*r*h + 2pi*r^2, while the volume is pi*r^2*height

Radius 1, height 2, then area is 12.56+6.28 = 18.84, while volume is 6.28

Radius 2, height 4, then area is 50.24+25.12 = 75.36, while volume is 50.24

Radius 3, height 6, then area is 100.48+56.52 = 157.00 while volume is 169.56

From this data table of math dynamics, tells me it is not the surface area that is the superlative in torus geometry but rather instead the volume is the superlative in things go around in a Circuit inside a geometry for maximum Volume.

3) Looking for unique features of Torus geometry.

Here I am looking for unique features of torus geometry, features that only a torus has. So that when looking at atoms and I find this feature in atoms, then I can say the Atom is torus geometry. And since the hydrogen atom is a proton and electron, if a hydrogen atom has this unique feature, I can safely say the hydrogen atom proton is a torus.

This is an excellent topic to start this book, for here I am looking as to a uniqueness of torus geometry, then looking for that same uniqueness in the proton of hydrogen atom. If I find such a uniqueness in both, I will have proven the proton is a torus geometry.

Then I will have to prove that Torus geometry yields maximum electricity in Faraday law. As the Principle of Maximum Electricity Production is the way of Atoms.

Now looking at the unique features of the Torus. Source StackExchange: The torus is the only surface that can be endowed with a metric of vanishing curvature. It is the only parallelizable surface. It is the only surface which can be turned into a topological group. Posted Feb 9, 2011.

So in that first uniqueness let us say it is the only geometry figure that can have both small numbers and large numbers as a coordinate grid system in order to have vanishing curvature and to handle all differential equations. In other words, the torus is the only geometry to have a calculus take place thereon.

On the second uniqueness, the torus is the only figure of geometry that can be round and stacked with other toruses-- ideal for neutrons as capacitors to stack unto toruses of a proton with muon inside.

On the third uniqueness, I am not sure about that one since I thrown out topology as a science study out the window.

Near the end of this book as I make my proof of Maximum Electricity Production I offer 3 of my own uniquenesses of the torus geometry. Simple, much more simple than the 3 listed above.

4) The speed of Rest Mass particles.

Now the speed of measured Alpha particles from decay is in the range of 5 to 7 percent the speed of light. What is the maximum speed of a alpha particle considering its rest mass?

The speed of measured Beta particles has been 99% speed of light.

Now, I am touching on a topic of Proof of God. An everyday proof that God exists, for physics cannot explain why particles move so fast. Every time a alpha particle is observed in Nature it is going at a speed that is huge, and every time a Beta decay is measured it is nearly speed of light. As Feynman defines the Atomic Theory "..in constant motion.." As if the Universe is alive. If not constant motion, the Cosmos is dead with motion going to zero.

So how can AP say that the proton is a torus with muon inside at nearly the speed of light circling inside the proton torus producing electricity, how can I say the muon is nearly the speed of light-- in perpetuity. Is the interior of Protons the residence of God (atomic God) to have perpetual motion? In other words, unless Physics itself can explain why the interior of atoms have nearly speed of light and perpetual motion, that this is proof of God's existence (atomic god).

Is there logical sense to say if the Speed of Light is a Constant requires a perpetual motion near the speed of light when inside a proton torus?? Something like that would save us from saying the existence of God, that atom totality, causes the interior of atoms perpetual motion at near speed of light.

See my book: All Existence.. that of the syllogism of the Atomic Theory.

My 231st published book

All Things are made up of Atoms. The Universe is a Thing. Therefore the Universe is one single Atom of 231Plutonium // Logic

by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Preface: The last time I worked on this idea was 2017, when I wrote it in my 8th edition of Atom Totality. And when I wrote it there, I was wanting to switch out the term "things" for a more scientific term such as "matter". For I was not comfortable with All things are made up of Atoms-- The Universe is a thing, therefore the Universe is an Atom. The upshot of switching "things" for "matter" made it better, but never eased my discomfort. I still felt there was room for improvement in the syllogism. Here on, 6 years later, I have finally found what makes me totally comfortable about the syllogism I have in 2023. It is not the switching of terms, but rather the inclusion of both quantifiers into the syllogism. Inclusion of the "Every or All" Universal quantifier along with the Existential quantifier that solves the logic. It ends up with "All Existence..." And the case can be made in life in general-- if stumped by a problem, best lay it aside and let the mind in subconscious find the best answer. I know in projects around the house, if I jump into them immediately I often have to "undo" that work. But if I rest and sleep on the problem for 3 weeks, I find the best way to tackle the work. In this case, I rested on the problem for 6 years, and now reaping the rewards.

This book is about the Logic form of the Atomic Theory as a syllogism. And I dare say, my book would be a nice companion book to Titus Lucretius, poet and scientist with his magnificent De Rerum Natura poem on the Atomic Theory. If not for Lucretius, much of our history knowledge of the Ancient Greek Atomic Theory would have been lost and unknown.

A Logic Syllogism can be seen to some extent as verses of a poem, Titus Lucretius lovely poem to the Atomic Theory. And for which AP believes the calendar of the world was set as year 0000 as Lucretius writes the poem in year 0000, and now we are 2,023 years later from the poem on Atomic Theory.

Cover Picture: The cover picture is my iphone photograph of a old book of 1931, so old that the pages have "yellowed". It is the only book in which I have proof that the idea the entire Universe is one big atom, is stated. It is by a chemist who has excellent writing skills and writes of the history of the Atomic Theory. I took the photograph of page 4-- A SHORT HISTORY OF ATOMISM
by J. Gregory, Univ. Leeds, 1931, page 4-- and capturing the passage where Gregory talks of the Democritean Atom the size of the entire Universe. The only difference really between Democritus Atomic Theory in Ancient Greek times almost 3,000 years ago, and AP in 2023, is that if Democritus knew the chemical table of elements, he would be looking for what element is the Atom Totality.

--- end quoting my 231st book of science ---

Recently I caught myself writing a trio of books in astronomy, starting with the concept of Stepping in Front of Sun's Forward Motion. That one book generated new concepts to make a trio of books.

In my 237th book of reconciling the fact the true electron is the muon not the 0.5MeV particle causes us to change our view and understanding of Beta decay. For Beta decay is the continual making of new magnetic monopoles by the muon thrusting through the proton toruses.

If Beta decay were the actual electrons of atoms, then my glow in the dark green dials of my compass would have gone dark a week after it was made, as the atoms transformed from radon to that of hydrogen in about a week time.

The fact that my compass is glowing as bright as when I bought it 50 years ago is testament to the fact that the muon inside proton toruses is manufacturing the 0.5MeV monopoles that allow the 50 year long glow in the dark. And that continual production of new electricity as 0.5MeV particles allows those compasses to continue to glow in the dark.

But then this science of Beta decay leads into the question of the geometry that produces maximum electricity, and modern engineering knows the answer-- tokamaks for tokamaks are toruses.

Maximum Electricity leads into the question of perpetual motion of the muon inside a hydrogen proton in a Faraday law producing electricity. So why is the world bifurcated into perpetual motion inside a proton torus and no perpetual motion outside the proton torus?

And why does a muon, put inside a empty proton torus, all of a sudden have perpetual motion?

So this leads to my third book of this trio of books-- Vis-Viva-- the spark of life itself.

5) Working on Reincarnation science.

And AP is working on his grand finale theory of science-- Reincarnation. I hope to solve this science or at least get a good way advanced into its mechanism.

From what I can tell, Reincarnation is a delivery system of information. And the best delivery system is the Light Wave = photon. One of my books is that a Light Wave is perfect DNA.

This begs the question on whether perpetual-motion is bound up with the constant speed of light. You cannot have a constant speed of light if you do not have perpetual motion of a muon inside a 840MeV proton torus of hydrogen atom, is the question.

As for Reincarnation, one has to ask how many Light Waves does it take to communicate information. Likewise, how many light waves does it take to make a picture on my TV screen for a second of time? Does it take an extraordinary large number of light-waves to form a TV picture for 1 second, or can say 1 single light wave form a TV picture for 1 second? Do we have numbers data of how many Light Waves it takes to form a picture on the TV for 1 second.

Now light waves have no rest mass, meaning they are in perpetual motion. Maybe this is why muons are in perpetual motion when inside a proton torus. Maybe there is some form of decomposition of muons into being light-waves that causes perpetual motion, or some form of conjoinment of light-waves with a muon that it is in perpetual motion inside a proton torus.

6) Preliminary-Proof of Maximum Electricity Production Principle.

Alright, I think I have the preliminary-proof that the torus is the geometry figure of Maximum Electricity Production.

Consider that the Torus is the smallest 3D geometry figure of a Closed Loop Circuit for electricity. All manner of donut holes, so long as the torus has no vertex or vertices.

And this torus itself can be built from Light Waves as the walls and interior of the torus. A Light Wave as either a Semicircle Cycloid Wave or a up and down Semicircle cosine or sine Transverse wave.

We can envision the proton as being bundled up Light Waves, also the muon. And in this vision, we can picture that because of the proton and muon being an assemblage of Light Waves of perpetual motion, that the Light Waves transfer this property to the muon inside the proton-- of its perpetual motion around the proton torus.

This immediately leads to the question of why a proton and muon have rest mass at all, if built from rest-massless photons?? Good question. And the answer has to do with the free Light Wave that is not bounded by a transverse wave. A Light Wave from the Sun is a circuit wave that is not bounded perpendicular to its motion. A proton torus is composed of Light Waves that are both lateral and perpendicular composing the walls of the torus and thus creating rest mass. A Light Wave from the Sun has only a lateral component but no perpendicular component and hence no rest mass, but still a closed loop circuit wave.

So what makes a particle have rest mass is that it has a lateral plus perpendicular component. A Light Wave has no rest mass and thus has just a lateral component.

Much like a Cycloid wave is only a lateral component.

In Old Physics they had dunces with their Higgs mechanism creating rest mass. In New Physics, rest mass is due to Light Waves in both lateral and perpendicular creating proton torus or muon torus.

I have often mentioned this principle in my physics work. However, recently with talk of the Rutherford Geiger Marsden experiment on gold foil that has a alpha particle bounce back to the gun, and sadly Rutherford misinterpreting that result. He thought it meant a dense nucleus in atoms. When far from it, atoms are toruses with no nucleus. So in thinking of the Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden experiment brings me back to the subject of Maximum Electricity Production Principle. In that Rutherford experiment can likely be the deciding experiment of proving the principle.

What Rutherford, Bohr, Geiger, Marsden never took the data in full view, to understand that a 180 degree bounce back with __Added Velocity__, meant was the alpha particle had a Head On Collision to give it extra velocity.

So, what AP needs is this principle, a principle of Maximum produced electricity of the geometry of protons as toruses and muons as electrons as rings and doing the Faraday law.

Maximum electricity production begs the question that protons form a geometry of toruses. Toruses inside larger toruses and all of them engaged in a Faraday law.

The bounce back of the alpha particle had to be a head-on-collision with something more massive than the alpha particle, perhaps a S-orbital torus or a P-orbital torus or a D-orbital torus or a F-orbital torus stuck inside a gold atom Mainframe torus of 6s^1, for gold is ....4f^14, 5d^10, 6s^1.

So that when Rutherford, Marsden, Geiger saw a alpha particle bounce back at 180degrees and with a greater speed than what the particle entered the gold atom, means it head on collided with a S or P or D or F orbital torus.

Now we are talking about the interior of Atoms where there is Perpetual Motion, something that no engineer can build a machine of toruses, torus inside of another torus.

But what we can do, is re-do the Rutherford gold leaf experiment and see if there are quantized energy of speed of the 180 degree bounce back alpha particle. Can we see from the data a speed that would reflect a head on collision with a S torus, with a P torus and with a D torus with a F torus?

This book is devoted to Maximum Electricity Production by Atom interiors for it then shows us the geometry of Atom interiors.

7) Is Maximum Electricity Production Principle a reverse of Least Action Principle?

I suspect the Maximum Electricity Principle is the reverse of Least Action or Least Energy principle, and here all I need do is argue that Physics laws of Electromagnetism-- its 6 AP EM laws, 4 differentiation equations each law has a "reverse". This is probably as simple as reversing the direction or signage, one being + the other being negative direction.

Let me take a break here and describe all the laws of physics as being EM laws of physics. These are a replacement of the Maxwell equations of 1860s, for the Maxwell equations are full of holes and mistakes. Worst being is Gauss's law in Maxwell equations saying no magnetic monopole exists and thus making the Maxwell equations as anti-symmetrical.

The 6 AP Equations and the 7 Laws of Physics and all sciences

0) domain law as Atomic Theory

1) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /A*s^2

2) V = C*B*L New Ohm's law, law of electricity

3) V' = (C*B*L)' Capacitor law

4) (V/C*L)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law

5) (V/(B*L))' = C' Faraday law

6) (V/(C*B))' = L' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force

All is Atom and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. This is the primal axiom of all sciences.

Electricity and Magnetism, EM, is based on a famous math equation of Voltage = C*B*L where C is amount of current, B is magnetic field, and L is angular momentum. That is New Ohm's Law.

Now you can use alternatively V = C*B*E where E is electric field and replaces L angular momentum. We use L in cases of astronomy and cosmology. Of astronauts or robot probes going to planets. But we use E for understanding how gravity works, or in theories of physics, E is most often used because all the other terms of V, C, B are terms of electricity and magnetism, and angular momentum is a term of mechanics. The two are interchangeable for they have the same units.

All the rest of physics and math equations and formulas of EM come from V=i*B*L or better yet V = C*B*E. The multiplication is often tricky for it is a generalized multiplication that sometimes we use dot product and sometimes vector cross product and sometimes just plain scalar.

Generalized multiplication is new in New Physics and mathematics.

EM equations of physics and mathematics.

Faraday Law is (V/(B*E))' = C' from the AP-Maxwell Equations you learned in 1st year College, TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS.

1) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /A*s^2

2) V = C*B*E New Ohm's law, law of electricity

3) V' = (C*B*E)' Capacitor Law of Physics

4) (V/C*E)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law

5) (V/(B*E))' = C' Faraday law

6) (V/(C*B))' = E' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force

Physics Laws

1) all the facts of chemistry and physics

2) Voltage V = kg*m^2/A*s^3

3) Current i = A = magnetic monopoles, quantity of current C =A*s

4) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /A*s^2

5) angular momentum L = m^2/(A*s), or E = m^2/(A*s)

6) V = C*B*E New Ohm's law, law of electricity

7) V' = (C*B*E)' Capacitor Law of Physics

8) (V/C*E)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law

9) (V/(B*E))' = C' Faraday law

10) (V/(C*B))' = E' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force

Can we find the Least Action principle in the AP-equations?

According to Feynman in his Lectures on Physics, volume 2, 1964, page 19-2, he defines Least Action as the integral of Kinetic energy (1/2)mv^2 subtract Potential energy mgx and says it is a parabola curve.

Alright in Feynman's Lectures on Physics, Volume 2, he goes in detail over Least Action Principle, and invokes the parabola on page 19-2. In Feynman's "The Character of Physical Law" page 46, he invokes the ellipse "We are now describing the actual motion, the ellipse, by saying something about the whole curve."

In Nature we seem to have two of these either maximum or minimum (least). The maximum we encounter is the speed of light. The minimum we encounter is this Least Action Principle.

Now I have injected a third-- the Maximum electricity production.

Is the Maximum electricity production a expression of maximum speed as light speed? Or is Maximum electricity a turned around upside down Least Action Principle?

I think the direction this is heading for, is that all three are just one, that speed of light is a maximum is the only principle and that Least Action and Maximum Electricity are just alternative statements of Speed of Light is a maximum.

On Tuesday, May 9, 2023 at 1:14:14 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> And this begs the question in Physics science, does it make sense to have a Maximum principle, a Minimum (Least Action) principle, and now a third-- a Maximum electricity production. Does it make logical sense for the world to have three of either maximum or minimum, or more logical sense that the world has but one Maximum-- speed of light, and anything else suspicious of being a minimum or maximum are merely different ways of saying-- the Speed of Light is a maximum.

> Examine Least Action and can we not see that it is a Maximum Speed of Light in disguise. Examine the idea of Maximum Electricity Production, and is it not a different way of saying the equivalent statement that speed of Light waves are a maximum speed.

> I think this is how this is going to end up, that Least Action Principle is equivalent to Speed of Light is a maximum speed and that Maximum Electricity Production is a equivalent statement to Speed of Light is maximum.

Here I am supremely fortunate that Feynman took such deep interest in "Least Action". For reviewing Feynman's volume 2 Lectures on Physics, Chapter 19: The Principle of Least Action, I am able (so I believe) of clearing the entire field of doubt and mistakes and fake physics.

The key is on page 19-8 where Feynman derives

Action = -m_0c^2 (sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2)) - q(phi + vector(v*A))

This term of - q(phi + vector(v*A) is the electric field.

From the general equation of Force = q vectors(E + v x B) we get the electric field.

On page 19-9 Feynman says "Now I want to talk about other minimum principles in physics. There are many very interesting ones. I will not try to list them all now but will only describe one more. Later on, when we come to a physical phenomenon with has a nice minimum principle, I will tell about it then."

So, coming to that paragraph in Feynman, I was of the opinion that all of physics had only the speed of light as a maximum or minimum principle. And that Least Action and mine own Maximum electricity production were actually equivalent statements of Maximum Speed is Light Waves.

But on sleeping on the issue I must not forget that the EM Spectrum contains the thermodynamics of physics, especially infrared region of EM Spectrum. And the laws of thermodynamics has a Minimum Principle. The Absolute 0 Kelvin temperature is a minimum in physics. Whereas speed of Light is a Maximum in Physics. Strangely, _all light waves_ travel at maximum speed in vaccuum but no part of space is 0 degrees Kelvin.

And thus, logically, the speed of Light as a maximum is the inverse of 0 degree Kelvin. If something were at 0 degree Kelvin in the universe, then absolute 0 kelvin is not the inverse of speed of light.

But getting back to Least Action and Maximum Electricity Production, both are equivalent statements to the maximum speed allowed in the Universe is the speed of light.

And the proof of this is what Feynman offers to us on his pages leading up to page 19-8.

When I was in College in early 1970s I had read Feynman's books and was well aware of his statement that is abhorrent to me, although well knowing then in 1970s as I know today that Feynman was just using a teaching-device to better understand for students, and is a great teaching device. When Feynman says "Does it "smell" the neighboring paths to find out whether or not they have more action?" The biology use of smelling to teach physics is unsettling to me as a college student as it is unsettling right now in 2023. The idea that forces smell what path they end up obeying. But, instead, the idea that Least Action is the same as Maximum speed of a light wave, dispenses the Feynman teaching aid of "smelling the one path that the particle ends up taking.

So, when we realize that Least Action is merely the equivalent of Light travels at a maximum speed unless traveling in a different medium, solves this "smelling".

It is always good of me, the present King of Science, to end this book on Maximum Electricity Production Principle, by fully using the last King of Science considerable input-- Dr. Feynman's input. All future King's of Science will write the updated physics textbooks for their generation of scientists. I need only comment on his prose written in Feynman's chapter 19 of Lectures on Physics, Volume 2, 1964 to make my proof at the last chapter of this book. Feynman provides all the mathematics to reassure me that Physics science has but 2 Maximum (or minimum) and those 2 are the speed of light is a maximum and temperature is a minimum at 0 degree Kelvin.

Feynman does mention that to his interpretation, physics has many such minimums. AP says no. AP says all those others that Feynman is thinking about are actually equivalent statements to Speed of Light is a maximum speed and no temperature reaches 0 Kelvin. I do not know if Feynman ever listed all the minimum and maximums he encountered in physics. But let us say he did at one time. Then, if one carefully goes through his list with the intent of showing that every one of that list is just a rewording of speed of light is a maximum or rewording that no temperature reaches 0 degree Kelvin.

In fact, those pages of chapter 19 prove the torus is the unique geometry figure of 3rd dimension that can create maximum electricity production inside a torus doing the Faraday law.

Can we find Least Action in the AP-equations?

So I look at and examine the Faraday law of AP equations.

That is C' = (V/(BE))'. Now we use the quotient rule of calculus, which is (f/gh)' = (f'gh - fg'h - fgh')/(gh)^2. And using the quotient rule renders (V/(BE))' as that of V'BE/(BE)^2 - VB'E/(BE)^2 - VBE'/(BE)^2.

Is it possible to glimpse a Integral of Kinetic energy subtract Potential energy?

Can we say that the term V'BE/(BE)^2 is Kinetic energy and one of the other two terms is Potential energy?

Now I can consider that three of the four differential equations above that of C', and B' and E', those three are division differential equations and involve the same quotient rule of calculus (f/gh)' = (f'gh - fg'h - fgh')/(gh)^2.

To make a long story short, perhaps physics has to add all the terms up of C', B', E' and that at least two of these terms coming from perhaps B magnetic field or E electric field or even C coulomb current, that at least two of the nine terms when added all up, are kinetic energy subtract potential energy. In this view, we can consider that in EM theory, that the electric field is kinetic energy while magnetic field is potential energy.

Well I save this discussion for the last chapter on proving the Maximum Electricity Production Principle.

8) Nature is never half way in doing something, never halfway in producing electricity.

Can we expect Nature in Atomic physics to be halfway committed to doing something, only halfway in producing electricity inside of Atoms? Sounds phony, for we expect Nature to be fully committed in a production line, and nothing less than full commitment.

I need a full book on Maximum Electricity Production Principle in order to say the S, P, D, F orbitals all compose toruses themselves inside a larger mainframe torus. So that Plutonium atom has a 5F mainframe torus with smaller F, D, P, S toruses inside one another as the entire smaller toruses produce electricity, in a maximum production.

The alternative is that only one torus is formed by the Protons and all the muons chain linked inside the one proton torus.

Many a times in doing the geometry of Atom interiors, I have had to resort to a Maximum Electricity Production scheme and that would call for toruses inside larger toruses.

I am going to try for 2 different methods of proof of Maximum Electricity Production.

One method is to observe what fission decay results can be. Are they always even numbered elements for the full S, P, D, F orbitals are all even numbered protons. Number of protons of S orbital, some P orbitals end in an even number. Most end up at lead Pb 82 some at barium-56.

If I can chart fission decay to be centered on S orbitals, P orbitals, perhaps D and F orbitals in spontaneous fission, then I will have supporting evidence that the interior of atoms are layers of S, P, D, F orbitals.

Then, link up saying that toruses inside other toruses provides for Maximum electricity.

Engineering trouble is-- inside a atom is perpetual motion of near speed of light, which no machine can duplicate. And we cannot engineer toruses inside larger toruses.

I suppose the Tokamak is as close as possible to modeling the interior of atoms.

So, I have two or more competing designs. The most simple is to just add on more protons in one long torus with the muons inside as a long chain. The neutrons as parallel plate capacitors would be outside the proton torus gathering up the electricity produced.

Then, the second design is that of nested toruses inside a huge mainframe torus. The S orbital organized as a torus, the P orbital another torus, the D torus, the F torus. I am thinking that extra electricity is produced if the protons organize as toruses inside a mainframe torus.

I suppose the alpha particle decay-- the helium atom-- is indication that the Nested Toruses is the interior geometry of Atoms.

Alright, Rutherford-Geiger-Marsden experiment is going to immensely help in figuring out the geometry inside of Atoms, for I can use the Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden gold leaf experiment in that a chain of muons would have a different bounce back velocity from a nested toruses of S,P,D,F nested inside a Mainframe torus. I suspect the Rutherford gold leaf experiment can pinpoint this geometry.

What I will have trouble in solving is whether I can attach the idea of Maximum Geometry Design for Maximum electricity production.

9) Efficiency of electric generator is e = B x L x v.

Here I think I may be bound to the concept of Efficiency of Motor with its formula of The strength of your generator depends on:

--- quoting Edison TechCenter.org on Internet ---

"L"-Length of the conductor in the magnetic field

"v"-Velocity of the conductor (speed of the rotor)

"B"-Strength of the electromagnetic field

You can do calculations using this formula: e = B x L x v

Efficiency of electric generator is e = B x L x v

End quoting EdisonTechCenter.org for their writing style is superior as educational—

Using that formula I backpedal to see if L or B is made maximum with a nested torus design or in a chain of muons design. Of course there are other possible geometry designs.

It is easy to show that if you nest the toruses inside a Mainframe that you duplicate the use of the B, the electromagnetic field.

For example the Gold atom has magnetic monopole configuration of 1s-2, 2s-2, 2p-6,3s-2,3p-6,3d-10,4s-2,4p-6,4d-10,4f-14,5s-2,5p-6,5d-10,6s-1

The mainframe torus of gold would be a large 6S orbital and inside the mainframe would be 13 smaller toruses all going around one another, successively, in a Faraday law.

Whereas the simple muon chain torus would have no nesting of toruses but a chain of 79 muons in a proton torus of 79 x 8 rings per proton= 632 rings, while the muon is 1 ring.

In the 180 degree bounce back in Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden experiment with its increased velocity of alpha particle, did it slam into a D orbital or P orbital, maybe the F orbital, in a head-on collision giving it the added velocity??

Continuing with the Magnetic Monopole Configuration this time of Silver then Copper.

We have gold as 1s-2, 2s-2, 2p-6,3s-2,3p-6,3d-10,4s-2,4p-6,4d-10,4f-14,5s-2,5p-6,5d-10,6s-1

Notice I said Magnetic Monopole and not electron configuration, because the true electron of Atoms is the Muon stuck inside proton toruses and what Chemistry thinks the 0.5MeV particle outside the protons is the electron is false, those are magnetic monopoles.

Silver is 1s-2, 2s-2, 2p-6,3s-2,3p-6,3d-10,4s-2,4p-6,4d-10,5s-1 Of course silver is element 47.

Copper is 1s-2, 2s-2, 2p-6,3s-2,3p-6,3d-10,4s-1 Of course copper is element 29.

Copper, Silver, Gold appear in the same column of the periodic table, they are similar in chemical behavior because of their Magnetic Monopole configuration having 1 single isolated proton at the end of their configuration.

Logically we have 2 extreme forms of Geometry for the interior of Atoms. We have one extreme where all the protons assemble into one gigantic long torus with all its rings and windings in one long torus. In this geometry the muons are a long chain connected to each other like a chain and going round and round inside the one big long proton torus.

Then we logically have the other extreme of having nested toruses inside one big mainframe torus. Here we have a Mainframe torus bigger than the other toruses which are smaller and nest inside the mainframe torus, for gold the Mainframe is 6s-1, for silver it is 5s-1 and for copper it is 4s-1. This s-1 mainframe holds the preceding 3d-10 torus, a smaller torus than the 4s-1 torus. In turn the 3d-10 torus holds the 3p-6 torus inside the 3d-10.

So, logically we already have a proof of geometry, in the fact that Maximum Electricity Production by Atoms cannot be the one long torus with no nesting inside, for that does not give us the Fact of Chemistry of copper being similar to silver being similar to gold.

And by Logic we have proven the Fact of Atomic interior structure has to be a nested sequence of toruses inside larger toruses doing the Faraday law. We had two extremes -- muon chain inside huge proton torus of no nesting and the Mainframe torus with nesting.

Sure, we can have thousands of variants of these two possibilities. But variants do not make a Maximum. The only maximum possible is either the chain of muons in one long proton torus or the nested inside a Mainframe torus.

The Periodic Table of Chemical Elements is strong supporting evidence to us that the interior geometry of Atoms is a nested sequence of toruses inside one large Mainframe torus.

Now I need to prove that in Electromagnetic Laws of Physics that this geometry of Mainframe Torus is a Principle of Maximum Electricity Production. I proceed to do that from the fact of efficiency, that the electromagnetic field in efficiency = e = B x L x v, the B is greatest or maximum with a nested sequence inside a Mainframe torus.

Now here I have to stop for a moment and worry and wonder of a factor in efficiency. The worry is that I know maximum electricity production is when the bar magnet is up close against the coil windings, with almost no space between them. So that if the magnet is loose in the thrust is less production of electricity compared to when the magnet is shortened and fat rather than loose. So the magnet is almost rubbing up against the coil windings. And possible even rubbing yields more electricity.

So I wonder where in this efficiency formula is that concern addressed? Is the rubbing or almost rubbing in the B factor-- the strength of the electromagnetic field? Or possible we need a fourth factor of how close the magnetism is to the coil. And we also need a factor of at the thrust at a angle. For we can only have efficiency of electricity production of that which is perpendicular between coil and bar magnet.

Here I think I may be bound to the concept of Efficiency of Motor with its formula of The strength of your generator depends on:

--- quoting Edison TechCenter.org on Internet ---

"L"-Length of the conductor in the magnetic field

"v"-Velocity of the conductor (speed of the rotor)

"B"-Strength of the electromagnetic field

You can do calculations using this formula: e = B x L x v

Efficiency of electric generator is e = B x L x v

End quoting EdisonTechCenter.org for their writing style is superior as educational—

Using that formula I backpedal to see if L or B is made maximum with a nested torus design or in a chain of muons design. Of course there are other possible geometry designs.

10) Photons and Neutrinos as the wiring system of Atoms.

Now this total overhaul of the geometry of the interior of all Atoms is going to make me say that the wiring system of atoms is the photon, neutrino as wiring system.

Specifically what I am saying here is that the muon is 105MeV and proton is 840MeV. Each 1 MeV is composed of two halves a 0.5MeV and another 0.5MeV. If we envision a ellipse or pencil ellipse or circle cut in half, with 1/2 of the circuit a 0.5MeV wave and the other half another 0.5MeV each going in opposite directions as opposite signage-- what Old Physics and Old Chemistry called "charge of positive and negative".

So when I say a proton torus is 840MeV that such is composed of 840 windings or 840 x 2 of 0.5MeV magnetic monopoles.

This reckoning is required so that I can vary the size of proton toruses to have a Gold Atom with a 6s-1 orbital be the Mainframe torus while having nested inside the 6s-1 proton configuration are the S, P, D, F smaller orbitals as smaller toruses.

In this manner, I take 1 MeV as being 2 magnetic monopoles of 0.5MeV one going in opposite direction from the other. These magnetic monopoles then can vary in size and in shape and be the wiring system of Atom's interior structure. In fact we can say that all Atom interiors are just a build up of magnetic monopoles.

This allows me to regulate the size of proton toruses. So that the Gold Mainframe torus is 6s-1, for silver it is 5s-1 and for copper it is 4s-1, and this mainframe torus much larger than the smaller toruses nested inside the Mainframe. That means I need some energy or mass that is pliable and variable. So the individual proton torus of 8 rings, whilst muon inside has 1 ring, but that the proton of 840MeV is 840 windings, whilst muon is 105 windings.

These windings have to be variable to accommodate different sizes of toruses. And this is where the photon and neutrino function. Call it a standing wave of photon as a winding of 1eV that can vary in size.

And the neutrons acting as capacitors to storage the newly minted magnetic monopoles created by the muons thrusting through proton toruses, these neutrons are body skin cover in the form of Parallel Plate capacitors over the proton toruses.

The proton and muon windings are photons having a bend to them, and the neutrino is actually part of a photon only with a different direction as a monopole where the neutrino and photon form a dipole.

The neutron as parallel plate capacitors are formed from pencil ellipses making for almost Euclidean straightline geometry. While the windings of the proton torus or muon windings are more elliptical, round.

In Old Physics, they explained radiation of a photon or neutrino from an atom as being a change of orbit for their 0.5MeV particle outside a central nucleus, and as the orbit changes, out flies a photon or neutrino.

In New Physics the radiation of a photon or neutrino is because electricity produced by Faraday law radiates out from the windings if not stored inside a neutron capacitor.

Let me list some more Mainframe toruses of particular chemical elements such as copper and silver.

Copper is 1s-2, 2s-2, 2p-6,3s-2,3p-6,3d-10,4s-1 Of course copper is element 29.

Now I am wondering about the mathematics here involved with nesting of toruses. I feel it is some form of Counting Principle, not a factorial of Permutation or Combination but rather : To find the number of ways of making several decisions in succession, multiply the number of choices that can be made in each decision.

I am going to use Copper for it has only 7 orbitals. The Mainframe is the 4s-1 and holds inside its torus all the other 6 orbitals.

So the 3d-10 is inside of 4s-1.

The 3p-6 is inside of 3d-10.

The 3s-2 is inside of 3p-6.

The 2p-6 is inside of 3s-2.

The 2s-2 is inside 2p-6.

The 1s-2 is inside of 2s-2.

So the two muons of 1s-2 as they go around inside the 1s-2 proton torus manufacture electricity. Total individual bar magnets if we counted a muon as bar magnet and each individual torus as a bar magnet, is 2.

The two muons of 2s-2 plus the 1s-2 torus (three entities acting as bar magnets inside of the 2p-6 proton torus) producing electricity. Total individual bar magnets if we counted a torus as a bar magnet, is 3.

The six muons of 2p-6 plus the 2s-2 torus, plus 1s-2 torus all inside of 2p-6 and producing electricity. Total individual bar magnets if we counted a torus as a bar magnet, is 8.

The two muons of 3s-2 plus the 2p-6 torus, plus the 2s-2 torus, plus the 1s-2 torus all inside the 3s-2 torus producing electricity. Total individual bar magnets if we counted a torus as a bar magnet, is 5.

The 6 muons of 3p-6 plus the 3s-2 torus plus 2p-6 torus, plus 2s-2 torus, plus 1s-2 torus all inside 3p-6 and producing electricity. Total individual bar magnets if we counted a torus as a bar magnet, is 10.

The ten muons of 3d-10, plus the 3p-6 torus, plus 3s-2 torus, plus 2p-6 torus, plus 2s-2 torus, plus 1s-2 torus all inside 3d-10 torus producing electricity. Total individual bar magnets if we counted a torus as a bar magnet, is 15.

The one muon of 4s-1 torus, plus the 3d-10 torus, plus the 3p-6 torus, plus 3s-2 torus, plus 2p-6 torus, plus 2s-2 torus, plus 1s-2 torus all inside the 4s-1 torus producing electricity. Total individual bar magnets if we counted a torus as a bar magnet, is 7.

So now I have two extreme cases of Atomic interior geometry that one of which is the Maximum Electricity Production via Faraday law.

The one extreme is all the protons form one big torus with the muons as a chain going around inside of 29 protons each having 840 windings. And here the muon chain is 29 muons.

As compared to the other extreme of nested toruses. So if we said each muon is a bar magnet and each torus going around is another bar magnet. In the case of Nested Toruses we have a summation of bar magnets as that of 2+3+8+5+10+15+7 = 50 individual bar magnets.

Contrast 50 bar magnets in Nested toruses with that of only 29 bar magnets in one big torus.

I suppose there is a mathematical permutation or combination that can find the answer of 50, rather than doing it by hand calculation.

And this data is what I use as proving evidence that the Nested Torus is more efficient and is Maximum Electricity Production in the Faraday law.

So I ask the question again is there a mathematics easy way of computing that 50 for copper, rather than have to hand walk through the calculations. I have never run across a application of mathematics Combinations or Permutations of nested and Counting Numbers in physics before.

Say for Silver - 47, if we assume the one huge proton torus we have a chain of 47 muons inside a single one proton torus of 47 protons strung as one torus. But if we had the Nested Torus of smaller toruses nested inside one Mainframe torus of 5s-1, what would be the number of bar magnets much higher than 47 in the chain of muons?

Does math have a easy formula that I need not hand walk through to find the answer. Or then a computer can easily be set up to calculate all the nested torus numbers.

So I am intrigued here because I am making the case that photons and neutrinos from dipoles form the wiring system inside of Atoms. That a Light Wave is 1/2 photon and the other 1/2 is neutrino as a dipole of a circuit.

And then the total function of photons and neutrinos is the wiring system inside of Atoms, composing the 840 Windings of a 840 MeV proton torus. The muon has 105 Windings and does the Faraday law with the proton inside a Atom.

It is hard to imagine in the Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden experiment of gold foil in early 1900s, hard to imagine that the ingoing alpha particle into a gold Atom interior can breach that proton torus mainframe so easily, and be shot back to the source at 180 degrees with increased velocity. Hard to imagine that the ingoing alpha particle looks at the windings and is never bothered by those windings. For a gold atom at 79 protons would be 79 x 840 windings = 66,360 Windings. Hard to imagine the ingoing alpha particle being scattered only when it runs into a S,P,D,F orbital torus head-on collision in the opposite direction, but never bothered by the 66,360 windings.

So, what I believe solves this Windings problem, is that the Windings are made out of photons and neutrinos and so a superposition of ingoing alpha particles with Windings makes for a ease of entrance of alpha particle with interior of gold atom, and a ease of exit.

And this is probably proven true because of photon emission of atoms. In the Old Rutherford-Bohr model, photon emission was thought of the 0.5MeV particle going from one orbital to another orbital producing a photon emission. In AP's torus geometry, the photon emission now becomes if one of the 840 windings of a proton, or possibly one of the 105 windings of a muon, breaks apart and is emitted outside the atom as a dipole of 1/2 photon and 1/2 neutrino and so the emission of photon or neutrino is a breakup of one of the windings. Of course we can have monopole emissions of just a photon or just a neutrino.

This is probably why fusion is so difficult but fission is common everyday occurrence. In fusion we have to line up all the Windings to be stable. While in fission, there is some crisis with the present atom and to rectify that crisis, one of the windings is reconfigured.

Anyway, what I am getting at here is that since the Rutherford-Bohr model is dead and fakery, we have to account for photon emission in a different way. And the best way is to make a function, job and task of the photon and neutrino-- as being monopoles and dipoles as the Atom's wiring system.

11) All Atomic structure is composition of magnetic monopoles.

Alright this leads directly into the idea that the composition of the Proton as a 840MeV torus and the Muon as the true electron of Atoms at 105MeV are both composed of magnetic monopoles or dipoles of photons and neutrinos.

This draws me closer to a look at Energy = mass * (speed of light)^2. For then the only difference between mass and energy is a factor of light speed.

What this seems to say is that Atoms are standing Light Waves while electricity or Lightning bolts or star radiation of EM are dynamic Light Waves. That is to say, magnetic monopoles inside a Atom cause rest mass because they are standing Light Waves, while magnetic monopoles outside the atom are moving at the speed of light and are dynamic waves with no rest mass. And here the only difference I can make of this is the shape of the closed loop circuit.

EM radiation having a different shape than the EM composing the windings of protons or electrons or neutrons.

This would also change our view of the Chemical bond. Especially the metallic bond and would be that the neutrons as skin cover of proton toruses form rectangular parallel plate capacitors. So that the metallic bond can be a entire face of a rectangular box bonded to another atom's entire face. This would allow ductile and malleable characteristics of metals.

In Old Physics, Old Chemistry, the metallic bond was vary vague and obfuscating.

The covalent bond would be where the monopole of one atom joins with the monopole of another atom and thus a dipole as the bonding agent.

The ionic bond would be the same mechanism, and traditionally it is taught in classes that the ionic and covalent are the same.

12) Proton, muon and neutron all composed of photons and neutrinos.

On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 8:16:55 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> Alright this leads directly into the idea that the composition of the Proton as a 840MeV torus and the Muon as the true electron of Atoms at 105MeV are both composed of magnetic monopoles or dipoles of photons and neutrinos.

> This draws me closer to a look at Energy = mass * (speed of light)^2. For then the only difference between mass and energy is a factor of light speed.

> What this seems to say is that Atoms are standing Light Waves while electricity or Lightning bolts or star radiation of EM are dynamic Light Waves. And here the only difference I can make of this is the shape of the closed loop circuit.

> EM radiation having a different shape than the EM composing the windings of protons or electrons or neutrons.

Alright, I think I know what this difference in shape is. That the EM Spectrum has the middle band region as Double Transverse Waves, while the ends of the Spectrum are Longitudinal Waves. Longitudinal waves are the motion of closed loop circuits, while the Double Transverse waves can be either Standing or Dynamic. The Longitudinal Wave is apparently only dynamic.

This explains why in Old Physics and Old Chemistry, they had to have their high frequency EM waves-- X rays gamma rays etc visit the nucleus.

But what is strange is that the radio waves are longitudinal waves, and explains why they easily penetrate deep into buildings. In fact some buildings can amplify these longitudinal radio waves.

Alright, this is becoming extremely interesting. I have the world divided between either a Transverse Cycloid wave or a Longitudinal Wave. Before in physics, the world was divided between particle and wave. Trouble with particle and wave duality one cannot form the other.

With Cycloid versus Longitudinal, a ring of the longitudinal wave acts as a circle rolling on a straightline forms the cycloid wave. And with AP's cycloid versus longitudinal, I build all particles from cycloid waves if we allow cycloid to be semicircle.

Interesting, I have to see how to form a semicircle transverse wave from a cycloid structure.

A proton torus is merely its windings. A muon as electron is merely its windings, both proton and muon perpendicular to one another.

So if the world is cycloid waves, how do I form semicircle waves?

I am looking on how to recover a Semicircle wave in the manner that a cycloid wave is constructed.

The natural first exploration would be to roll a ellipse. Perhaps on a level surface or perhaps on another ellipse or even a cycloid.

13) I need semicircle and semi ellipse cycloid waves -- so intense research into this.

This appeared in MathStackExchange showing that the ellipse rolled on identical ellipse does not form a circle (semicircle).

--- quoting MathStackExchange ---

I'm struggling to prove the following.

Set one ellipse in contact with a congruent one so that the minor axis of one is aligned with the major axis of the other. Now roll one round the other. The locus of the centre of the rolling ellipse is a circle centre the centre of the other, radius a + b.

Is there an obvious line of attack?

(Counterexamples in replies.)

--- end quoting MathStackExchange ---

Sometimes a Google search hinders one in finding what they want. For example I am looking for how to get a circle from rolling, but Google hits are all about using the circle and getting a cycloid.

So AP wants a hit where we use a cycloid given and roll upon that cycloid figure some other figure to obtain in the end a circle (semicircle). Almost useless to Google search for their search cannot understand I seek the reverse.

This is probably the very same flaws in all robots, AI or not AI, they cannot understand the concept of reverse.

Archimedes Plutonium

May 1, 2023, 1:48:32 PM

to Plutonium Atom Universe

Alright, some good signs in all of this mess. I am looking for rolling of closed curves that recovers or retrieves the Semicircle. While the rolling of circle on flat surface gives the cycloid. How to recover a semicircle is what I want.

Looking at Roulette Curves, I see the rolling of a circle upon another circle the center of rolling circle etches out a Trochoid.

Now we use an off-center to the rolling circle upon another circle and we get a Limacon Roulette curve.

So almost instantly I realize if we use a point on the rolling ellipse (replace rolling circle) we get a new circle.

This indicates to me that using a rolling circle on the cycloid with a point marker on the circumference starts to turn the cycloid into a Limacon shape. This then allows me to guess that a specific ellipse for a given cycloid curve will generate a Semicircle when rolled upon the cycloid curve.

This is the answer I was seeking. To have a given cycloid curve, how does one restore a Semicircle from that cycloid. And the answer appears to be that you roll a specific ellipse upon the cycloid curve.

Archimedes Plutonium

May 1, 2023, 2:00:38 PM

to Plutonium Atom Universe

Now looking at the Limacon, if we stipulate that the offcenter point has to always be as a perpendicular to the surface of the circle it is rolling over, that we generate a semicircle.

This gives me the idea that if we stipulate a ellipse rolling over a identical ellipse and have this marker always perpendicular to the surface rolled over- it generates a semicircle.

Also, if we stipulate a cycloid rolling over a identical cycloid with offcenter marker always perpendicular to surface of cycloid rolled over, also generates a semicircle.

I am surprised no-one in math or physics did this before AP does it in May of 2023, fresh new mathematics on the world scene.

Archimedes Plutonium

May 1, 2023, 7:28:19 PM

to Plutonium Atom Universe

On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 1:02:23 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> I am looking on how to recover a Semicircle wave in the manner that a cycloid wave is constructed.

> The natural first exploration would be to roll a ellipse. Perhaps on a level surface or perhaps on another ellipse or even a cycloid.

> This appeared in MathStackExchange showing that the ellipse rolled on identical ellipse does not form a circle (semicircle).

> --- quoting MathStackExchange ---

> I'm struggling to prove the following.

> Set one ellipse in contact with a congruent one so that the minor axis of one is aligned with the major axis of the other. Now roll one round the other. The locus of the centre of the rolling ellipse is a circle centre the centre of the other, radius a + b.

> Is there an obvious line of attack?

> (Counterexamples in replies.)

> --- end quoting MathStackExchange ---

Now the title of that MathStackexchange is "Rolling ellipses" question asked 9 years, 8 months ago.

And watching the animation the one ellipse traces out almost, say 99.9% of a semicircle.

But I wonder, with my keen math intuition, that if the center point was Free to rotate and if that center point were a marker so that it could be perpendicular to the surface of the second stationary ellipse, that the two ellipses indeed, trace out a circle.

Just wondering. And I need to make cut-outs of cycloids and ellipses and hand roll them. We cannot trust computer animations.

Archimedes Plutonium

May 1, 2023, 9:53:05 PM

to Plutonium Atom Universe

So, well, Wikipedia has a animation of a Limacon and the Convex Limacon is almost a circle but a part of it looks flattened.

My objection is that the point-marker is allowed to rotate. If the point marker was always staring of the circle it was revolving around at a perpendicular, then that etches out another circle.

In the MathStackExchange of a ellipse moving around the same ellipse, they almost get a circle. But I wonder if they programmed the computer animation to not be perpendicular pointer marker and thus be of the path of a circle ever so slightly.

Now it is intuitive that if the pointer-marker in Limacon was fixed stationary and perpendicular to other circle at all times that we etch out concentric circles depending on where from the center the pointer-marker is placed. As if the pointer-marker was caught in a magnetic field that did not allow it to move from being perpendicular.

Now if the pointer-marker were directly on the rim, the circumference starting out, can we expect the result to be a circle, only a circle with one point intersection with the circle it is rotating around in 360 degrees.

These figures are actually far more complicated and complex than what Wikipedia and Websites make them out to be.

Archimedes Plutonium

May 1, 2023, 10:57:40 PM

to Plutonium Atom Universe

Now I am going to go contrary to the description of the Dimpled Limacon and say that the Pointer-Marker needs to stay Perpendicular to the tangent of the surface of stationary circle. In this manner, the dimple and the flattening disappears and what we end up with is a perfect circle, larger than stationary circle and intersection of both circles at one point.

Archimedes Plutonium

May 1, 2023, 11:23:28 PM

to Plutonium Atom Universe

Now I am pretty sure this is a flaw in Old Math Geometry of their Limacon pointer marker going around like a clock as the motion of the moving circle goes around. The AP Limacon is where the pointer marker needs to stay perpendicular to the tangent of the stationary circle, thus creating a new larger circle with one intersection point. I say this because there is no other mechanical means of producing concentric circles or intersection at one point of two circles.

Physics needs the **perpendicular** for the pointer-marker, for electricity is always perpendicular to magnetism.

The Old Math Geometry Limacon is actually 2 rollings, the rolling of one circle over another and the independent rolling of a pointer marker. In the AP Limacon, there is but one rolling the circle over the other circle, while the pointer-marker is a fixed perpendicular point.

This messy obfuscation of what is moving also can solve the two identical ellipses rolling one over the other as tracing out a perfect circle. It is almost producing a perfect circle in the MathStackExchange animation but slightly off. And I am saying it is only slightly off because the animation was not programmed to allow the pointer marker, the center of the rolling ellipse to always have a perpendicular to the tangent of the stationary ellipse. You see the programmers of that animation, are like the Limacon animation and not restricting the pointer-marker to be always a perpendicular, and that is the reason it is not a perfect circle. This means having the pointer marker be a tiny tiny length, the infinitesimal of mathematics, a length of 1*10^-604, a small positive number and length that needs to stay perpendicular to stationary figure surface tangent.

Now I need to do the same thing with the cycloid, see if I can roll one cycloid over a stationary cycloid with a pointer-marker and see if I trace out a semicircle. I may have to use the midpoint of the line segment that connects the two ends of one cycloid wavelength.

Yes, I believe that returns two cycloids, one rolling on the other, to be a semicircle.

Archimedes Plutonium

May 2, 2023, 7:45:23 AM

to Plutonium Atom Universe

On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 11:23:28 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

It is understandable that people would be interested in the 2-motions of Old Math Limacon, the motion of rolling one circle over another circle, but also the motion of the Pointer-Marker, for the Limacon of Old Math is obfuscating but yields figures for Art and Artwork, but not figures for Physics of electricity and magnetism.

In Physics we are more precise than fools of Old Math with their double motions. In New Math we have only one motion, the rolling of one circle over another. Or the rolling of 1 ellipse over another and producing a new circle-- once the mess up of the motion of the pointer-marker is corrected.

In New Math, in rolling figures we allow only one motion. And we Well-Define the Pointer Marker as not having motion and has a Infinitesimal length of at least 1*10^-604 distance length. And this Pointer Marker must be perpendicular at all times to the rolled-over tangent of stationary figure. So in the MathStackExchange figure of ellipse rolling over identical ellipse, it actually is a Circle once the Pointer Marker mistakes are corrected.

Now it took me all of just 2 minutes today to get a sheet of tracing paper and trace out the cycloid on page 293 of Jacobs "Mathematics: A Human Endeavor". And then roll my second cycloid over the perimeter of Jacobs cycloid. Using the pointed tip (not the center of second cycloid but the pointed tip as Pointer-Marker. Now keeping the pointed tip always with its length as a perpendicular to the tangent of the stationary cycloid what that rolling traces out is indeed a Semicircle.

So here we can start some Conjectures:

Conjecture 1, rolling a ellipse over a identical ellipse, keeping pointer-marker perpendicular produces a circle.

Conjecture 2, rolling a circle over another circle keeping pointer-marker perpendicular produces a circle.

Conjecture 3, rolling a cycloid over identical cycloid, keeping pointer-marker perpendicular produces a semicircle.

Physics needs the **perpendicular** for the pointer-marker, for electricity is always perpendicular to magnetism.

Old Math Geometry of its roulette math and Limacon are ill-defined in their pointer-marker and theirs is mostly math for Art work, not physics electricity and magnetism.

Wrong I need just the pointed tip ends, either one will do as a pointer-marker. By tip end I am speaking of the letter C if that were a cycloid seen sideways, has two tip ends.

Yes, in geometry if you are not in the habit of first doing a problem with hand cut outs and seeing for yourself the outcome, then you are not doing geometry correctly. Those that think they can apply algebra without seeing a hand on demonstration are doing just kook math geometry.

Archimedes Plutonium

May 2, 2023, 3:23:05 PM

to Plutonium Atom Universe

Alright, good on MathStackExchange for they have something on cycloid rolling. Titled "Cycloid rolls on another identical Cycloid" 6years-4months ago. They have a animation and the figure it traces is looking like half a stadium geometry shape. However, they use as Point-Marker the center of the straightline segment of the cycloid. And I suspect they do not keep their point-marker always at a perpendicular to the surface of stationary cycloid. If they keep their point-marker perpendicular to tangent of surface, I suspect it becomes a semi-ellipse rather than half a stadium.

What AP uses as Point-Marker is either one of the corners and keeping this point-marker perpendicular, I trace out a Semicircle.

Archimedes Plutonium

May 2, 2023, 5:59:55 PM

to Plutonium Atom Universe

Major, major Geometry in Motion discovery by Archimedes Plutonium. I discovered this in this writing of 238th book. The discovery I made is that the cycloid Wave is an Ellipse wave. The error of Old Math Geometry is that they had 2 motions in a rolling circle on the straightline. They had the motion of the circle which is wanted, but they also had a 360 degree motion of the Pointer-Marker on the surface of the rolling circle. What this causes is the end product of a cycloid with 2 vertices if we put half and half together.

When we stipulate only one motion and not two motions, and when we stipulate the Point-marker is always perpendicular to the surface of straightline, that the Point-Marker is actually a infinitesimal distance length that is constantly perpendicular to the straightline, that the final curve is a ellipse and has no vertices.

A cycloid with vertices is actually a fiction geometry produced by a circle with two motions.

This chimes back to one of my conjectures a long time ago, that the only smooth curves produced by circle rolling is either ellipses or circles or New Math conic sections. There is a quantization of smooth curves as produced by conic sections and so the Old Math Geometry of Motion Geometry erred in motion by a ill-defined notion of the Point-Marker, and that this Point-Marker is ill-defined in Old Math and it has a silly stupid motion itself.

This is a huge major discovery for Geometry in Motion for it directly impacts Physics electromagnetism.

The cycloid curve of Old Math is a error filled fictional curve. Much like the slant cut of right-circular cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, and the oval broadly defined is the adding of two different ellipses to form a oval. Still within the AP conjecture-- the only smooth curves in geometry (have no vertices) are New Math conic sections.

This deserves a separate math book for it is a huge major change in Geometry of Motion.

Archimedes Plutonium

May 2, 2023, 6:15:44 PM

to Plutonium Atom Universe

Now I have a easy intuitive proof that I am correct the cycloid is actually a ellipse. Some geometers call this a synthetic proof where we argue a simple insight. In this case we focus upon the midpoint of the cycloid wave-- 1 cusp. This midpoint is rather flat and it is flat because the Pointer-Marker is parallel to the straightline it is rolling upon. That means the points on both sides of the midpoint are also parallel and thus a straightline ridge. Now for AP's Pointer Marker that is always perpendicular to straightline causes the midpoint ridge of cycloid to be higher than the points to the right and left of the midpoint ridge. This is the description of the ellipse. While the cycloid with its flat ridge actually is not a smooth curve at the ridge but contains vertices as it transits from straight line ridge to being a curve again. This constitutes a Proof that Cycloids are actually Ellipses. And also I need to show that at the ends of the cycloid cusp that those angles are different in the AP cycloid than the ill-defined Old Math cycloid.

This is again, a huge major discovery, not so much for Mathematics which used this stuff for Art and Art Work, but for Quantum Electrodynamics, for EM of physics is all about Particle and Wave, and the cycloid is the particle of the rolling circle upon the straightline which is the wave of Physics. The Faraday law of a Torus being the Proton is all about geometry of smooth curves. And geometry is basic and fundamental to physics.

Archimedes Plutonium

May 2, 2023, 8:04:56 PM

to Plutonium Atom Universe

This makes sense that circle rolled on straightline is ellipse. Ellipse rolled on identical ellipse makes circle. But it leaves out what happens when circle is rolled on ellipse or ellipse rolled on circle all of which the Pointer-Marker is kept perpendicular to rolled surface.

In the Limacon's of circle rolled over another circle produces circles when the Pointer Marker is kept perpendicular.

So what is a ellipse rolled over a circle? I hazard to guess another ellipse. And for circle rolled over ellipse, I guess another ellipse. What about two different sized ellipses? Here the problem is going to be if there is a fractional rolling? By fractional I mean both do not come to a smooth finish of 360 degrees and have left-over arc-length. In those cases I would say look and examine the curve to see if it is going to be a circle or becoming a ellipse.

Archimedes Plutonium

May 2, 2023, 9:54:19 PM

to Plutonium Atom Universe

This deserves a new separate math book on the massive corrections and changes to Geometry in Motion. The rolling requires only 1 motion as a category of figures. If we have two items in motion such as the circle then the Marker-Point in motion also, then different geometry figures result.

But also, I need to well-define the concept of Smooth Curve in New Math. Old Math was pathetic on this issue also.

So I have the Conjecture that all and only smooth curves in mathematics can all be got from cone, and cylinder cuts. Anything that is not a cone and cylinder cut is not a Smooth Curve.

And let me get on what that Well-Defined Smooth Curve is. I speculate that the well defined smooth curve in discrete math since all of math geometry is discrete with its Decimal Grid Number System-- there exists empty space between any two given numbers in mathematics. So a well defined smooth curve, each point and its successor point and predecessor point is related by the number constant of pi=3.14159.... If a point is not related to the next point on a curve (discrete geometry) by 3.1415... then the curve is __not smooth___ and we call that point a vertex.

In line geometry we had no trouble in defining a vertex as where a angle that is not 180 degrees from one point to the next occurs.

But in curve geometry of Old Math, they never well-defined a vertex on a curve. I define it as a breakdown in pi = 3.14..... of a point and its successor point.

Archimedes Plutonium

May 3, 2023, 11:25:59 PM

to Plutonium Atom Universe

Flaws and error in Old Math's Limacon, in Cycloid, and in ellipses rolling on identical ellipse-- Their unwarranted rotation of their Pointer-Marker.

The worst of these animations is Wikipedia's convex Limacon where they show the pointer marker as rotating also, when in truth, that Pointer-Marker should be at all times perpendicular to a tangent line of the stationary circle. In this way, the trace curve is another circle, larger than either the stationary or orbiting circle.

This second motion mistake when only one circle should be in motion of rolling is also seen in a answer reply on Math Stack Exchange

--- quoting MathStackExchange "Rolling ellipses" 9 years, 8 months ago ---

> I'm struggling to prove the following.

> Is there an obvious line of attack?

> (Counterexamples in replies.)

> --- end quoting MathStackExchange ---

So now, in this video animation has these dimensions-- parameters a = 2, b = 1 and shows a gray circle with radius 3. and the author claims the Locus has some deviation from perfect circle.

What AP claims in that animation, is why in the world would you have a arbitrary rotation of the Point-Marker. It is because of this arbitrary rotation that you do not trace a perfect circle, for if the Point marker were kept at a constant perpendicular to the stationary ellipse tangent, then the trace is indeed a perfect circle.

And, if AP's conjecture is true that the only smooth curves in existence in all the world are conic or cylinder sections, anything else described as a curve, has vertices.

It is the animation in Wikipedia's limacon entry that alerted me to what the error of Old Math's cycloid curve, especially the cycloid curve, and all other rolling curves mechanisms was. Why Old Math was making error-filled geometry with arbitrary motions. Allowing the pointer-marker to move arbitrarily. The Pointer Marker has to be a fixed constant perpendicular to the surface it is rolling over. Thus, the Cycloid curve is truly a Ellipse curve. And this only presses more in favor of AP's conjecture-- all the curves of math that exist are in the conic and cylinder sections, and any other curves have at least one vertex in their "body curve". The Cycloid being truly a ellipse means it has no vertex point. But Old Math's cycloid where the pointer-marker is arbitrarily in motion results in geometry figures with at least 1 or more vertices, and thus, not a smooth curve. The AP conjecture, once proven true if true, says only conic and cylinder curves are smooth curves having no vertex point.

--- quoting Wikipedia's limacon entry with animation in full display ---

In geometry, a limaçon or limacon /ˈlɪməsɒn/, also known as a limaçon of Pascal or Pascal's Snail, is defined as a roulette curve formed by the path of a point fixed to a circle when that circle rolls around the outside of a circle of equal radius. It can also be defined as the roulette formed when a circle rolls around a circle with half its radius so that the smaller circle is inside the larger circle. Thus, they belong to the family of curves called centered trochoids; more specifically, they are epitrochoids. The cardioid is the special case in which the point generating the roulette lies on the rolling circle; the resulting curve has a cusp.

Depending on the position of the point generating the curve, it may have inner and outer loops (giving the family its name), it may be heart-shaped, or it may be oval.

--- end quoting Wikipedia's limacon entry with animation in full display in a rightward box ---

14) AP uses wood blocks to better understand Torus geometry.

Archimedes Plutonium

May 4, 2023, 12:00:08 PM

to Plutonium Atom Universe

Alright, I am onto a project I love doing, totally absorbed. So I get out my geometry wood blocks and craft toruses.

The first torus comes from a 3 by 3 by 3 cube of wood blocks. There are 27 such blocks for volume of this 3by3by3 cube. We call that a 27 cubic Cube.

Now I remove the inner column of 3 blocks to make a torus geometry. As I remove that inner column I am now left with a torus of volume 27-3 = 24 cubic torus.

Now the Surface Area S.A. of 3by3by3 original cube of volume 27 cubic blocks is that of squares. The original cube has a face side of 3x3 = 9 square and there are 6 such faces so there is 9x6= 54 square area.

Now compare Volume to S.A. is 27/54 and volume is 1/2 of S.A. or S.A. is 2 times volume.

The S.A. of the torus 3by3by3 is upon removal of inner 3, the S.A. is 4 faces of 9 gives 4x9 = 36, with 2 faces of 8 is 2x8= 16, and then the faces for the donut hole are 12. Adding up those squares gives 36+16+12 = 64.

So, for this torus its volume is 24 and its Surface Area is 64 for a ratio of 24/64 = 0.375 or 2.66...

Now I do the very same accounting of the 4 by 4 by 4 cube with a donut hole of removal of inner 2by2by4.

What I am focusing in upon is that Maximum Electricity comes from a tokamak or torus geometry because of surface area so much larger than volume.

Alright, working on the 4 by 4 by 4 torus of wood blocks. So the 4 by 4 by 4 Cube is volume of 64 cubic volume and its Surface Area S.A is 16 squares for each 6 faces. That is a S.A. of 16 x 6 = 96 square S.A.

Now I remove 2 by 2 by 4 blocks in the center of 4 by 4 by 4 Cube to form a Torus. Thus the volume of this 4 by 4 by 4 torus is 64 - 16 = 48 cubic Volume of torus. the surface area of torus of 4 by 4 by 4 is going to be after removing 16 inner blocks is going to be 4 faces of 16, 2 faces of 12 squares and the donut hole inner faces are 8 x 4. So adding these squares I have (4x16) + (2x12) + (4x8) = 64+24+32 = 120 square surface area.

Summary of ratios:

For 4 by 4 by 4 Cube has volume 64 and S.A of 96, for a ratio of 64/96 or of 96/64. These ratios are 0.6666... and 1.5.

Now comparing the 3 by 3 by 3 torus ratio with 4 by 4 by 4 torus. The 3 by 3 by 3 torus ratios are 24/64 or 64/24 which is 0.375 and 2.66...

For the 4 by 4 by 4 Torus has volume of 48 and S.A. of 120. This ratio is either 48/120 or 120/48 yielding 0.4 and 2.5.

Let me spend some time to see if I made a arithmetic error.

I had better use one ratio the ratio of Surface Area / volume, so for the 4 by 4 by 4 Cube I have 96/64 = 1.5.

The 3 by 3 by 3 torus ratio is 64/24 = 2.66. The 4 by 4 by 4 torus ratio is 120/48 = 2.5. Which has me suspicious of a arithmetic error.

The 5 by 5 by 5 Cube.

Volume = 125

S.A. = 6 x 25 = 150

5 by 5 by 5 torus (by removing 3 by 3 by 5 blocks in center)

Volume = 125 - 45 = 80

S.A. = (4x25) + (2x16) + (3x3x5) = 100 +32 + 45 = 177

Ratio 177/80 = 2.212....

So I have a sliding down convergence of a sequence. The 3x3x3 torus was 2.666.... the 4x4x4 torus was 2.5 and the 5x5x5 is 2.212....

So what is the point of convergency at Infinity which is a 1*10^604 Cube? If I had to guess, I would guess the convergency is 1.61.....

Let me try another even numbered torus, the 6 by 6 by 6 torus. Usually 3 samples are good enough for Mathematical Induction proof and understanding, but in this case, I need 4 samples.

The 6 by 6 by 6 Cube

Volume is 216

S.A. = 6 x 36 = 216

6 by 6 by 6 torus (by removing inner rectangle of 4 by 4 by 6)

Volume of 6 by 6 by 6 torus is 216 - 96 = 120

S.A. of 6 by 6 by 6 torus is (4x36) + (2x20) + (4x6x4) = 144 + 40 + 96 = 280

Here my ratio of S.A. to volume of torus is 280/120 = 2.3333....

So, well, here I am stumped because I thought it would be a logarithmic decline, but not so. Or, I made several arithmetic mistakes. Or, the convergence for odd numbers is different than even numbers.

Will have to look into it, some more.

So I am not getting nice results here.

So I have a sliding down convergence of a sequence. The 3x3x3 torus was 2.666.... the 4x4x4 torus was 2.5 and the 5x5x5 is 2.212...

The 6x6x6 is looking to be 280/120 = 2.3333....

And so I must check and recheck the arithmetic.

Possibly there is a error in removing a 4 by 4 by 6 inner blocks. What if I removed only a 3 by 3 by 6 inner blocks for the donut hole. Maybe I am building a wire instead of a torus by removing so much inner blocks.

Let me try removing a 2 by 2 by 6 and see if the ratio fits better with the 2.212...

Volume of 6x6x6 is 216 and volume removed is 2x2x6 = 24. So total volume of torus is 216-24 = 192.

S.A. of torus is (4x36) + (2x32) + (6x8) = 144 + 64 + 48 = 256.

This yields a ratio of 256/192 = 1.333...

Now I could go back to the 5 by 5 by 5 Cube and make the donut hole be 1 by 1 by 5. Let me try that.

The volume of Cube 5x5x5 is 125, the volume of torus 5x5x5 is 120.

The S.A. of torus 5x5x5 is (4 x 25) + (2 x 24) + (4x5) = 100 + 48 + 20 = 168

The ratio is 168/120 = 1.4.

So, now, let me recap this sequence ratio is. For 3x3x3 = 2.666.... For 4x4x4 = 2.5. For 5x5x5 = 1.4. For 6x6x6 = 1.333...

Looking better, provided I made no arithmetic mistake or geometry mistake.

Let me try the 7 by 7 by 7 Cube and removal for the donut hole of torus of 3 by 3 by 7.

Volume of Cube is 343, and so volume of torus is 343 - 63 = 280

S.A. of torus is (4 x 49) + (2 x 40) + (7 x 12) = 196 + 80 + 84 = 360

Here the ratio for 7x7x7 torus is 360/280 = 1.285....

Yes, this is looking good for the sequence of ratios is now that of Ratio Sequence = 2.666... to 2.5 to 1.4 to 1.333... to 1.285....

So the convergence is likely to be that of 1 at infinity borderline.

Now I am looking for a OEIS sequence 2.666... to 2.5 to 1.4 to 1.333... to 1.285.... that comes close to that sequence, for if there exists a known sequence, it usually provides a formula.

I have not spotted one yet.

Now I should reduce these to fractions to be more precise for the Sequence, and thus I have this to look for.

8/3 , 5/2, 7/5, 4/3, 9/7

Looking in OEIS, I do find ratio of (surface area /volume)^ (2/3)

So I am getting close.

Yes, OEIS of A232808 appears to be the formula I am looking for in the sequence-- but perhaps different in that I make torus-cubes.

--- quoting A232808 ---

More generally, the ratio (surface)/(volume)^(2/3), characteristic of the shape of a bounded 3D body, which is invariant under linear scaling and known as the surface index. Its common value for all spheres is the smallest possible among all closed 3D bodies (for a cube, for example, it is exactly 6.0).

--- end quoting ---

Now trying out this formula to see if any of my sequence is matched.

(8/3)^(2/3) = 1.922...

(5/2)^(2/3) = 1.842...

(7/5)^(2/3) = 1.251...

(4/3)^(2/3) = 1.211...

(9/7)^(2/3) = 1.182...

Cannot say any matches occurred. But it does inform me that I am looking for a similar type of formula.

Just playing around

(2.66)^0.94 = 2.5

(2.5)^0.4 = 1.4

(1.4)^0.9 = 1.33

(1.33)^0.9 = 1.25

Alright, apparently my formula would have exponent of 0.9 rather than 0.66...

Alright it has been arbitrary up to now as to what the size of the donut hole is. I can chose to remove 1 block from each tier or 4 blocks or 9 blocks from each tier. Arbitrary until now, for I remembered a recent book of mine that says the Proton torus hole is 3 times the diameter of the cross section circle diameter.

That implies the first block torus of interest for me is the 10 by 10 by 10 where I can achieve a ratio of 6 by 6 by 10 inner blocks removed as donut hole and the cross section diameter by 2, so that 2 x 3.14.. is close to 6. And this is also going to require me to have the blocks be 10 by 10 by 2 to look more like a torus than a cylinder.

So from now on I start with 10 by 10 by 2 rectangular box and I attempt to keep the donut hole diameter be approximately 3.14 times the diameter of cross section of torus diameter circle.

So for the 10 by 10 by 2, the donut hole is approximately 6 by 6 by 2 of a 6 diameter while torus diameter is 2.

--- quoting my 205th book of science ---

My 205th book of science.

Faraday Law is inverse projective-geometry of Coulomb-gravity Law//Physics-Math

by Archimedes Plutonium

Preface: This book discusses the symmetry of the 4 differential laws of Electromagnetic theory, the Faraday law, Ampere-Maxwell law, Coulomb-gravity law and the Transformer law. This book also dives into the numbers of importance of physics and math, the 1/137, the pi, the pi subtract 2.71... and much more.

Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of 840 windings of slinky toy to form a torus that is the proton torus of physics of its 840MeV with a muon stuck inside at 105MeV doing the Faraday law.

A fabulous discovery of science physics.

Alright, curiosity in my lifetime has been indefatigable. I wanted to get a rough estimate of the donut hole of 840 windings so I bought 9 more slinky toys to combine with my 2 already owned ones. And I measured what a 840 winding torus donut hole was. My torus of 840 windings has a donut hole diameter of 210 mm and has a slinky toy diameter of 65mm. That would be a total diameter of torus as 65 + 210 +65 = 340mm with the donut hole diameter 210mm.

Now I play with those numbers and see what becomes of them for the Conjectures I placed so far. The most important being the idea that 840 windings is the physical geometry of the Fine Structure Constant as a torus the produces Maximum Electricity in the Faraday law.

Alright, well it is easy to see that 210/65 is 3.230... So I went back to the lab and measured again and it was actually 205mm to 65mm. That gives me 205/65 = 3.15 and compared to pi 3.15/3.14 is a 0.3% sigma error, so close that it is automatic we announce that given any circle, and if you have 840 of those circles wound around into a torus, that the donut hole diameter divided by given circle diameter is pi number.

Now also, looking at the angle which 840 circles create in a torus is 360/840 = 0.428 degree.

Amazingly a angle of 0.428 degree is in radians that of 0.0072 or the physics Fine Structure Constant. Here I have an angle for a torus which allows for a free thrusting of a muon inside the torus, as if the muon is in a cylinder in the Faraday law. And this angle of 0.428 allows the muon to freely thrust without bumping into the torus walls.

--- end quoting from 205th book ---

Alright so the first torus of wood blocks starts with 10 by 10 by 2 where the donut hole is 6 by 6 by 2, and then the diameter of torus cross section is 2 while diameter of donut-hole is 6, almost the ratio of 3.14 to 1.

The next torus will be 11 by 11 by 2 where the donut hole is 7 by 7 by 2 giving the donut hole diameter of 7 compared to torus cross section diameter of 2. So the 10 by 10 by 2 is lower than 3.14 while the 11 by 11 by 2 is larger than the 3.14 factor.

Then I look for the 12 by 12 by 2 or the 13 by 13 by 2 to see how many blocks to remove so the factor of diameters is a factor of 3.14...

Now I measured the Block torus for 10 by 10 by 2 and those measurements are a diameter of 60mm for 2 blocks and for the donut hole is 185mm.

And the 11 by 11 by 2 block torus is 60mm and donut hole of 210mm.

You see from my 205th book of science.

Faraday Law is inverse projective-geometry of Coulomb-gravity Law//Physics-Math

the donut hole diameter has to be 3.14 times the diameter of the torus cross-section.

So a 185/60 = 3.08 while a 210/60 = 3.5.

The 10 by 10 by 2 with a donut hole of 6 by 6 by 2 is the closest to a ratio of 3.14 of donut hole diameter to cross section diameter of torus.

Now I have restricted the torus donut hole diameter to be exactly that of pi times the diameter of torus cross section. So I am guessing this restriction causes the ratio of Torus volume and Torus surface area to be the same constant no matter how large or small the torus is.

So the Volume of my 10 by 10 by 2 torus is (2 x 64) = 128 cubic blocks

The Surface area of my 10 by 10 by 2 torus is 64 block faces on top and 64 block faces on bottom. There are 80 block faces on outer side. There are 48 block faces on inner side. So 64 + 64 + 80 + 48 = 256 square block faces. The ratio of Surface Area/ Volume is 256/128 = 2.

Simple answer, and that this ratio is the same from the smallest torus to the largest at infinity, all because the restriction that the donut hole diameter by 3.14159.. times the cross section of torus diameter.

I was searching through my books and found at one time I had the mistaken notion that the proton torus was shaped like a figure 8 , two toruses connected and the muon going around this figure 8. I do not remember why I believed and accepted that. Especially now when it looks as though Nested S,P,D,F orbitals inside a Mainframe torus. This would necessitate a round torus of O and certainly not a figure 8.

So I am going to have to correct that.

15) How much more surface area for torus over volume?

Alright, I need to explore maximum volume-- least surface area which is the sphere.

From the wood blocks research exploration, if the torus donut hole diameter is fixed ratio of pi times the diameter of torus circle cross section then the surface area of torus is 2 times the volume of the torus.

Is the tetrahedron the reverse of that??? Maximum surface area; least volume? I think a hyperbolic geometry of the Horn is maximum surface area; least volume in fact one is infinite while the other is finite. I am curious if the tetrahedron is 2 times surface area over volume??

I am going to see how a torus fits into the framework of surface area compared to volume.

Cube surface area S.A. = 6(side^2) and volume = side^3

Sphere S.A. = 4(3.14..)(radius^2) and volume = (4(3.14..)(radius^3)) / 3

Tetrahedron S.A. = (sqrt3)(side^2) and volume = (sqrt2)(side^3) / 12

Icosahedron S.A. = 5(sqrt3)(side^2) and volume = (15 + 5sqrt5)(side^3)/ 12

Torus S.A. = 4(pi^2)R*r and volume = 2(pi^2)R*r^2 where r is radius of cross-section of torus while R is radius from center donut hole to midway of torus cross section.

The exciting thing about this book, was that I discovered for mathematics that the Cycloid Wave of Old Math is screwed up, in that the Pointer Marker has to be perpendicular to the surface over which the circle rolls. And this is clearly seen in the rolling of an ellipse over an identical ellipse results in a circle trace.

So in this book AP corrects Old Math on rolling motion geometry.

What AP discovered new about mathematics in this book was that the Cycloid curve is not different from a ellipse curve but is in fact a ellipse curve.

What Old Math is doing wrong in their construction of the cycloid curve, is they are allowing the Pointer-Marker to be a rotation itself and thus when they roll a ellipse over an identical ellipse, it comes out nearly a circle but not exactly a circle. AP's correction of Old Math is to say the Pointer Marker has to always be a perpendicular to the tangent at the surface rolled upon. This perpendicular constraint causes the trace of the two ellipses to be exactly a Circle.

And it harps back to a central conjecture on my part. That all the smooth curves found in geometry are a generated from conic or cylinder slices. A cycloid that is not a ellipse, a oval = 2 different ellipses joined up, circle, parabola, hyperbola. AP conjecture is that only these sections are smooth curves, all others have at least 1 vertex.

I have several physics proofs to make, keeping in mind that a proof in physics is experimental evidence.

The proof that the interior of Atoms such as gold atom is a Mainframe Torus that has nested inside the Mainframe, smaller toruses of S, P, D, F orbitals is gathered from the experimental results of the Rutherford-Geiger-Marsden Experiment 1908 - 1913. This experiment where alpha particles are shot into a gold foil and some bounced back 180 degrees back to the gun source with increased velocity from entrance velocity. This can only be true if the alpha particle rammed head-on into a S, P, D, or F orbital torus and pushed the alpha particle back 180 degrees with increased velocity, depending on which orbital hit the alpha particle head-on.

As noted in this book that the alpha particle is in no way obstructed or hindered by the windings of the Mainframe torus of gold.

So all that needs be done is repeat the Rutherford Experiment and make detailed observations of the various increased velocities of the 180 degree bounce back. A head-on collision with a F orbital would be the highest velocity bounce back. A head-on collision with a P orbital a smaller increased velocity.

17) Proof of Maximum Electricity Production Principle inside Atom toruses.

Feynman in his Lectures on Physics, volume 2, chapter 19 "The Principle of Least Action" has made it easy for me to prove Maximum Electricity Production Principle with his page 19-8 for the

Action = -m_0c^2 (sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2)) - q(phi + vector(v*A)

This term of - q(phi + vector(v*A)) is the electric field.

From the general equation of Force = q vectors(E + v x B) we get the electric field.

This is easy, for the Geometry of Magnetic Field or that of Electric Field is a torus geometry.

Early in this book I was looking for Uniqueness of the Torus. Mathematicians are not about to reveal the Physics uniqueness of a torus, but a physicist wants most of all, the physics uniqueness of the torus.

The electric current in Physics is the geometry of the wire, a closed loop wire. But that is 2nd dimension. What is the geometry of Electric and Magnetic Field in Physics for 3rd dimension? It is the Torus.

What is Unique about the Torus in physics is that it is the wire of 3rd Dimension, thus the Magnetic field and the Electric Field.

So when Feynman on page 19-8 gets the equation:: Action = -m_0c^2 (sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2)) - q(phi + vector(v*A) as Least-Action. He gets also the Maximum Electricity Production of the torus geometry.

He gets it because Least Action is Least Energy and Maximum Speed is speed of light waves. The terms Kinetic Energy and Potential Energy in the Action equation above are replaced as Electric Field for one and Magnetic Field for the other. Least Energy is Maximum Speed as Light speed. Maximum Light speed is Maximum Electricity Production.

And we can do analysis of how much more windings of cutting the Lines of Force of magnetism by nesting toruses inside a Mainframe torus, rather than one big long torus of protons and the only thing inside are chains of muons. The smallest of these nestings is the Lithium atom of atomic number 3. Its Proton configuration is 1s^2, 2s^1 with a Mainframe torus of 2s^1 with a 1s^2 torus plus muon inside the 2s^1 Mainframe. So the 1s^2 has 3 protons of 3 x 840 windings and 3 muons of 3 x 105 windings. That would be 2,520 proton windings with 315 muon windings. Inside a mainframe torus of 3 x 840 proton windings and 3 x 105 muon windings. So the Mainframe 2s^1 has the torus 1s^2 plus 3 muons going inside a torus of 2,520 in the Faraday law producing Electricity. So the total Proton windings in the Mainframe of Lithium is 2 x 2,520 = 5,040 windings in a Faraday law with muons and toruses as bar magnets of windings 315 + 315 + 5,040 = 5,670. In terms of modern day motor making the Lithium atom interior is a coil windings of 5,040 with bar magnet of 5,670 windings thrusting through.

If we compare that with the structure as being not nested S,P,D,F but simply one long big torus and the muons in a chain of muons in Faraday law we have 6 protons for the torus and inside 6 muons as a chain of muons. The torus would thus be 6 x 840 = 5,040 coil and bar magnet of 6 x 105 = 630 windings.

Compare for nested of coil 5,040 bar magnet 5,670 and that of one big torus no nesting is 5,040 and bar magnet 630 windings.

By nesting we get maximum efficiency with more windings.

Now I picture these windings of the muons and S,P,D,F orbitals as that of pencil ellipses long and filling up the interior volume of the proton coil windings. As the muons and orbitals rub tight against the interior of proton Mainframe and proton coils. This harps back to the fact of engineering that in Faraday law you need the bar magnet as tight and close to the coil in Faraday law.

zzzzzzzzzz

plutonium dot archimedes at gmail dot com. Looking for a College or University press to hardcover publish all 317+ AP books of science, likely to become 500-600 maybe even 700 books by the time I die. E-books are too prone to unbalanced-unhinged censor-editors, who can easily make your books vanish by pulling a switch. Science should never have gatekeepers, who thwart access to true science.

| /

|/______ hardcover or paperback

PAU newsgroup is this.

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

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Oct 9, 2026, 10:18:55 PM (13 days ago) Oct 9

to Plutonium Atom Universe

Add onto, review and revise.

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Oct 9, 2026, 10:31:27 PM (13 days ago) Oct 9

to Plutonium Atom Universe

I better tell the story while still clear in my mind. I came home from hospital in 2016 after cancer surgery. One would think my science acumen would drop to an all time low, but instead my science bloomed into a new burst of blooming and flowering, that it even surprised me.

For it was 2016-2017 that I saw the muon with a 105MeV and the neutron and proton with a near 945MeV mass. I am a mathematician and instantly saw that 9 x 105 =945. That meant the proton was actually only 840MeV with a muon inside it doing the Faraday law-structure.

That meant the 0.5MeV particle is not the electron of atoms but instead the magnetic monopole made by the proton+muon. In those heady-days of discovery or should I say invention, discovery-invention I was faced with the idea that the protons were individual toruses or the alternative picture were lumped all together to form just one gigantic big torus.

At first I kept the idea that the protons were individual and not one single big torus. And I kept to that idea for about 5 years. But then I changed to the idea that the protons clumped together as one large proton torus and all the muons inside, figuring that Nature had this principle I called Making Maximum Electricity. I reckoned in my mind that Nature would seek Maximum Electricity. But also, it is easier to think of the Atom as having one large Proton Torus than having say 79 individual proton toruses for the gold atom.

But here now in 2026, this Principle of Maximum Electricity Production is put to a test. A test for which the end result is not one single large proton torus for gold of all 79 protons forming a single torus but where all 79 toruses remain individual and not clumping together. Because for Gold with its 79 protons and 118 neutrons, how do we geometrically arrange 118 neutrons as parallel plate capacitors around a single proton torus, instead of arranging 118 neutrons around 79 separate individual protons??

Arrangement in a series or in a parallel connection of torus with solenoid terminals.

I suspect Radioactive decay will deliver the answer as to whether 79 individual proton toruses in gold, or whether the protons are clumped into one single large proton torus.

The answer may also reflect on whether this principle of Maximum Electricity exists or not.

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Oct 10, 2026, 7:49:09 AM (12 days ago) Oct 10

to Plutonium Atom Universe

Now what caused me to think the proton torus was just one be clump of all the protons together to make one big Proton torus is the Rutherford, Marsden, Geiger Experiment in 1906-1913.

--- quoting hyperphysics-- astr dot gsu dot edu ---

Alpha Scattering by Charge Cloud

The Rutherford scattering experiment put to rest the Thomson model of the atom, because it could be shown that a positive charge distributed throughout the classical volume of the atom could not deflect the alpha particles by more than a small fraction of a degree.

The calculation of an upper bound on the change in momentum Δp for the alpha particle can be approached in terms of the impulse of force relationship FΔt = Δp. Making use of the Coulomb force expression:

For the specific case of the 4.87 MeV alpha particle from radium-226, this estimate of the angle becomes

This calculation uses the radius 0.179 nm for the gold atom from the periodic table. It also includes the following velocity for the alpha particle calculated from the non-relativistic kinetic energy expression.

The insight gained by Rutherford and his research team, including Geiger and Marsden, was that the current picture of the atomic volume as being filled with positively charged matter could not be correct since they saw alpha deflections of more than 90°. It also told them that with radii much smaller than the atom, they could get large deflections. So this table-top experiment gave birth to the picture of the atomic nucleus as a small central core of positively charged matter, and the reasoning followed from strictly classical physics.

Index

Rutherford concepts

Scattering concepts

Beiser

HyperPhysics***** Nuclear
R Nave
Go Back

Departure From Rutherford Formula

Scattering of high energy alpha particles at a fixed angle can be used to estimate nuclear radius.

Eisberg, R. M. and Porter, C. E., Rev. Mod. Phys. 33, 190 (1961)

The mutual Coulomb repulsion of an alpha particle and a target nucleus give rise to a predictable trajectory and led to the development of the Rutherford formula. As the Geiger-Marsden data shows, the data are in agreement with the formula for a wide range of angles. With high enough alpha energies, however, the projectile punches in close enough to the nuclear center to come into range of the nuclear strong force and the distribution of scattered alphas departs from the Rutherford formula.

Considering the data above for scattering from ²⁰⁸Pb, you can use the point of departure from the Rutherford scattering formula to estimate the nuclear radius. From the closest approach calculation for this energy and angle, the impact parameter is 7.44 fm and the closest approach is 12.9 fm. If you use the nuclear radius calculation, you get 7.1 fm as the radius of this nucleus. So the estimate is not precise, but is certainly in the right range for the nucleus. It was enlightening in an era when many people thought the Thomson model applied to the positive charge in the atom - an error of about 4 orders of magnitude! But the best data for those radii were obtained from electron scattering.

ppp

In that graphic display by gsu dot edu the incoming Alpha Particle has 4.87 MeV and the outgoing bounced back Alpha Particle is not shown for gold but shown for lead to be 27.5 MeV a difference of approximately 6 times.

Now a gold atom Proton torus of all the protons clumped together into one torus is 79 x 840MeV but the Muons inside would be 79 x 105MeV = 8295 MeV moving at almost the speed of light. While the Alpha particle momentum would be 4 x 945MeV = 3780 MeV.

Here I have about a difference of 2 times different in speed. If the Alpha particle slams into a chain of 79 muons moving nearly the speed of light in a head on collision would bounce back that Alpha particle at twice the speed it entered the gold atom.

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Oct 10, 2026, 8:04:53 AM (12 days ago) Oct 10

to Plutonium Atom Universe

Last time I looked for outgoing speed of bounced back Alpha Particles I found no table.

I managed to only find that the bounced back particle of 180 degrees was a faster speed than incoming Alpha particles.

Tonight I am in better luck with a recent September posting by Jerry Cards

--- quoting Jerry Cards dot com---

FOUR PREDICTIONS FROM ONE PAPER

cosec⁴(φ/2): a steep fall-off with angle, very different from what many small random nudges would give
the thickness of the foil, as long as it is thin
the square of the central charge, because b is proportional to Ne and the formula has b²
one over the fourth power of the alpha’s speed, since b goes as 1/mu²

He also worked out how much a big bounce slows the alpha down. For gold, whose atoms are about 49 times heavier than an alpha, a 90° turn costs the particle only about 2% of its speed, so the atom as a whole must be heavy. Against aluminium the loss would be much bigger, about 14%.

6. Reading old data with new eyes

In 1911 Rutherford didn’t yet have a new experiment. What he did was re-read the existing data through his formula. First Geiger and Marsden’s 1909 back-scattering. On his theory the numbers coming back from a thick plate should grow roughly as the atomic weight to the power 3/2, and he found that the ratio stayed roughly constant from aluminium to gold: “Considering the difficulty of the experiments, the agreement between theory and experiment is reasonably good.”

Next, Geiger’s 1910 measurements of small-angle scattering in gold foil. Plugging them in, Rutherford got the size of the central charge. For foil equivalent to 0.76 cm of air, “the value of N for gold comes out to be 97.” For a thicker foil it came out at 114. The 1909 back-scattering and the 1910 small-angle scattering, he concluded, “are both explained on the hypothesis of single scattering by supposing the atom of gold has a central charge of about 100 e.”

He also showed that Crowther’s beta-particle results, which had seemed to back Thomson, fit his single-scattering theory just as well, because at the particular 50% threshold Crowther measured, the two theories only differ by a constant factor. The difference only shows up for the rare, large deflections, and there Thomson’s atom couldn’t explain the data.

Then comes the conclusion, near the end of the paper:

“Considering the evidence as a whole, it seems simplest to suppose that the atom contains a central charge distributed through a very small volume, and that the large single deflexions are due to the central charge as a whole, and not to its constituents.”
Rutherford, Phil. Mag. 21, p. 687 (1911)

7. What the paper didn’t claim

For a paper that changed the picture of matter, it is notably careful. Rutherford lists what he doesn’t know.

The sign of the charge. Scattering works the same way whether the centre is positive or negative. He assumed positive “for convenience”, and wrote that “it has not so far been found possible to obtain definite evidence to determine whether it be positive or negative.”

Whether the atom is stable. A small positive centre with electrons around it ought, on classical physics, to collapse. He left the problem for later:

“The question of the stability of the atom proposed need not be considered at this stage, for this will obviously depend upon the minute structure of the atom, and on the motion of the constituent charged parts.”
Rutherford, Phil. Mag. 21, p. 671 (1911)

Two years later Niels Bohr, who had worked in Rutherford’s lab in 1912, took up that question and answered it with quantum rules for the electrons (see our Planck 1900 and Schrödinger 1926tributes for where those ideas led).

What the centre is made of. He noted that a charge of about 100 for gold is what you would get if a gold atom were made of 49 helium atoms, each carrying two charges: “This may be only a coincidence, but it is certainly suggestive in view of the expulsion of helium atoms carrying two unit charges from radioactive matter.” It was a coincidence. But in the last paragraphs he makes a guess that pointed the right way: if the central charge is positive, an alpha particle released from it “would acquire a great velocity in moving through the electric field”, which might explain why radioactive atoms fire their alphas out so fast.

He also credits Hantaro Nagaoka, who had modelled a “Saturnian” atom with rings of electrons around a central attracting mass in 1904. And the paper ends by handing the test to the people who had set it off: “Experiments in this direction are already in progress by Geiger and Marsden.”

--- end quoting Jerry Cards dot com---

AP writes:: yes, Gold would have 79 Muons each of 105MeV while the incoming Alpha particle is 4 x 945MeV about 1/2 the momentum of the Muons. And so a head on collision of Muons against Alpha particles would eject the Alpha particle back to the source at 2 x the speed it had entered.

I hope this post causes many trained physicists to go back to the Rutherford experiment and see for themselves that The Proton of Atoms forms a single large Torus with all the muons inside, and if alpha particles are fired into aluminum or any other metal that a 180 degree bounce back with a faster speed is because of a HEAD ON COLLISION with muons inside a proton torus doing the Faraday law.

AP, King of Science

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Oct 10, 2026, 8:19:37 AM (12 days ago) Oct 10

to Plutonium Atom Universe

On Saturday, October 10, 2026 at 7:04:53 AM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Last time I looked for outgoing speed of bounced back Alpha Particles I found no table.

I managed to only find that the bounced back particle of 180 degrees was a faster speed than incoming Alpha particles.

Tonight I am in better luck with a recent September posting by Jerry Cards

--- quoting Jerry Cards dot com---

(snipped)

What the centre is made of. He noted that a charge of about 100 for gold is what you would get if a gold atom were made of 49 helium atoms, each carrying two charges: “This may be only a coincidence, but it is certainly suggestive in view of the expulsion of helium atoms carrying two unit charges from radioactive matter.” It was a coincidence. But in the last paragraphs he makes a guess that pointed the right way: if the central charge is positive, an alpha particle released from it “would acquire a great velocity in moving through the electric field”, which might explain why radioactive atoms fire their alphas out so fast.

AP writes: Going even further, this last sentence above suggests that the speed of Alpha particles in Radioactive Decay, the higher the atomic number, the faster the speed of the Alpha Particle, for the simple reason that the speed is directly tied to the number of Muons circulating around inside the Large Proton Torus, and those muons are going at almost the speed of light.

--- end quoting Jerry Cards dot com---

AP writes:: yes, Gold would have 79 Muons each of 105MeV while the incoming Alpha particle is 4 x 945MeV about 1/2 the momentum of the Muons. And so a head on collision of Muons against Alpha particles would eject the Alpha particle back to the source at 2 x the speed it had entered.

I hope this post causes many trained physicists to go back to the Rutherford experiment and see for themselves that The Proton of Atoms forms a single large Torus with all the muons inside, and if alpha particles are fired into aluminum or any other metal that a 180 degree bounce back with a faster speed is because of a HEAD ON COLLISION with muons inside a proton torus doing the Faraday law.

Since I wrote my 5 textbooks on Logic, and I respectfully request all science students throughout the world be required to take two years of College Logic, in order to help them think straight, think clearly, think correctly.

If Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden, Bohr had taken 2 years of Logic while in College, they may focused their attention on the fact that the outgoing Alpha particles of 180 degree bounce back had 2 times the speed of incoming Alpha Particles, and realized their "nuclear Atom" was phony baloney.

AP, King of Science

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Oct 10, 2026, 6:38:01 PM (12 days ago) Oct 10

to Plutonium Atom Universe

It is clear to me, 100% that the Proton Torus is one single large torus, directly in line with the number of protons in atomic-number of the atom in consideration. For that is the resounding message of the Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden Experiment.

These items are still unresolved and not clear to me.

(1) What is not clear to me at this moment in time is the "two terminals" of the Proton Torus, the anode and cathode. These two terminals supply the neutrons that surround the proton torus and are parallel plate capacitors.

(2) The geometry of the neutrons that surround the Proton Torus?

(3) The terminals anode and cathode of the neutrons and how are they connected-- series or parallel?

Can I find experiments to solve each of the 3 mentioned items above?

A-lot, a-lot to solve.

AP, King of Science

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Oct 11, 2026, 6:39:45 AM (11 days ago) Oct 11

to Plutonium Atom Universe

I am having trouble with concepts of electrode, anode, cathode in the Maxwell Equations so I turn to biology of DNA telomeres.

AP

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Oct 11, 2026, 9:27:30 AM (11 days ago) Oct 11

to Plutonium Atom Universe

So I am going to have to get out my most flexible wire and start bending. To see if I can form (1) torus coil (2) transverse wave of Light (3) double-transverse wave (I doubt it, although years back I thought this was viable).

It appears that the torus coil from a long straight wire is easy, and in the end we connect the ends to be a closed circuit.

It appears that the Transverse wave requires 2 pieces of wire, for one alone cannot form the geometry.

The Double Transverse wave, has the problem of short circuiting itself as the current goes from one closed loop to the next.

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Oct 11, 2026, 8:19:13 PM (11 days ago) Oct 11

to Plutonium Atom Universe

The idea keeps coming into my mind that rest mass particles are open circuits, while closed circuits are Light photons.

I would have to reconcile that idea with the fact that 0.5MeV is the smallest of all rest mass particles. Anything below 0.5MeV must be a Light Photon, a closed loop circuit traveling at the speed of light within the loop, the E field while the loop itself can travel from 0 up to the speed of light.

AP

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Oct 11, 2026, 10:08:42 PM (11 days ago) Oct 11

to Plutonium Atom Universe

So the Light-Photon has spin 1 while the 0.5MeV magnetic monopole has spin 1/2. Can I make physical meaning of that conundrum??

In the picture, earlier of solenoid versus toroid both have electrodes, the anode and cathode so to speak to be connected for a complete circuit, without which, no current can flow.

If we say that mass-matter with open electrodes causes that particle to spin 1/2, as one electrode is chasing after the other electrode to close the circuit, compared to, if the electrodes are closed making a full closed loop circuit is spin 1.

Let me see how far that idea goes.

AP, King of Science

P.S. I have two different threads going on here, one on Neutrinos and this one on Maximum Electricity. Both complement one another, each feeding off the ideas of the other. And in the final write up, will edit out or edit in those ideas relevant.

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Oct 12, 2026, 7:21:42 AM (10 days ago) Oct 12

to Plutonium Atom Universe

All good scientists, when stuck, go back to first beginnings. If not, they are not scientists at all but dogmatists, stuck in dogma.

So, let me fall back to first beginnings.

Why not is a Light Photon just simply a straightline segment that travels in space at the speed of light? Why not have the Light wave be just 2 straight line segments connected at front tip and end tip to make something look like a pencil circuit??

Answer: We have all these experiments showing signs of interference like that of the double slit experiment.

Alright: But why have waves as sinusoid when sinusoid is not even existing in math, as both axis have to be the same and not the x-axis and y-axis of apples and oranges. Although the cycloid wave does exist.

Why not have the Light-photon be a cycloid wave?

I know of no experiment that has evidence the Light wave is sinusoid and not cycloid.

Why do we need a transverse wave for Light wave? Why not have a straightline for the electric field and a cycloid for the magnetic field?

Recently I rechecked on whether the Atom has a single large torus of all 79 protons as one large torus or whether the 79 protons are all separate individual small toruses? And the Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden experiment proves it is one large single torus.

So here, I am now looking for that one experiment in all of physics that makes clear the geometry of the Light Wave. If the nucleus of atoms is a proton torus all revealed in one experiment, surely, the geometry of Light should be revealed by some single magnificent experiment, and apparently the Double Slit is not that experiment.

AP, King of Science

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Oct 12, 2026, 5:41:38 PM (10 days ago) Oct 12

to Plutonium Atom Universe

Yes, so for the last few days I have been amazed and pondering and fixated just on how marvelous the Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden experiment of early 1900s so fully captures the most important ideas of geometry of the Atom interior. One experiment that tells so much of the Protons and Muons.

And using that idea of one experiment telling so much, I stop to look to see if there is any Experiment for unraveling the Light-Photon as there was an experiment to unravel the interior of Atoms.

First off, where does Maxwell end up deciding that the Light-Photon is a sinusoid transverse wave??? For I think better yet would be a cycloid wave of that is not necessarily transverse.

So I need to stop and look around for the Experiment of Light-Photon wave that is as well placed as the Rutherford experiment of alpha particles shot into a gold leaf.

AP

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Oct 13, 2026, 6:38:27 AM (9 days ago) Oct 13

to Plutonium Atom Universe

Some luck for me in tracking down what experiments I need to unlock the secret of Light-Photon geometry.

I am going to need the Double Slit Experiment to prove Light is a closed loop circuit. And secondly I will need the polarization of light to prove the geometry of Light as it moves around inside its closed loop circuit.

This rings a bell for me on the Caltech Dr. Goodstein film The Mechanical Universe, a superb physics series that I recommend all students in science watch.

--- quoting my 178th book---
So like the experiment of polarization of Caltech's Dr. Goodstein "The Mechanical Universe" chapter 50. He has three polarizers. He has the first polarizer up and down, he has the second polarizer horizontal with no light getting through. Finally he places the third polarizer at 45degree to the first and second and sandwiches this third between the first and second and we have light getting through.
--- end quoting my 178th book---

Now, I am going to make a special request that this experiment be repeated only where the end screen is able to detect tiny amounts of Light.

As we watch Dr. Goodstein display the experiment, if I am correct, it should be that some light gets through when we have just the horizontal and vertical lens.

In the film, no light is claimed to get through.

In modern physics I believe we now have detectors that can pick up tiny tiny amount of light.

Goodstein would say the screen is solid black with no light getting through.

I would contend with a ultra sensor detector we may see a pattern like this, instead of solid black.

* * * *

I believe we have super sensitive detectors to see this.

----------

The resolution of the geometry of the interior of Atoms is the Rutherford gold leaf experiment. But the geometry of the neutrons is unsolved, and this likely needs a new experiment to understand the geometry of neutrons. It may require a whole new experiment, or it may simply be deciphered by the Table of Elements and the facts known.

At this moment in time I am sure that the Light wave is a cycloid not a sinusoid. But there maybe 3 parts to the wave, a E field, a B field and a straight line current whose strength is not 0.5MeV but a mere 1 eV.

I have come a long way from the Bohr Model of the atom as a dense nucleus of proton balls and neutron balls who do nothing and surrounded by tiny electron balls of 0.5MeV who do nothing but circumnavigate. The AP Model is every particle has a role in a EM law and whose geometry is that role. So the Atom has a central part of a Proton torus with Muons inside in a Faraday law. The neutrons are outside this torus storaging the electricity produced by Protons+muons.

We have over half the geometry of the interior of Atoms, and now we need the geometry of neutrons and the geometry of Light-Photons.

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Oct 13, 2026, 2:58:05 PM (9 days ago) Oct 13

to Plutonium Atom Universe

Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
1:52 PM 13Oct2026
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Great progress, and just in 2 days.

So I want to unify neutrinos within the EM Spectrum. To do that I need to know the geometry of Light-Photons. But no-one on Earth knows the true geometry of Light-Photons. So then I have to figure it out. And when stuck, go back to first beginnings.

ONE
--------

First Beginning in all of Science is the Atomic Theory-- as Feynman described it.

--- quoting ---
The Feynman Lectures on Physics, 1963
page 1-2
If, in some cataclysm, all of scientific knowledge were to be destroyed, and only one sentence passed on to the next generations of creatures, what statement would contain the most information in the fewest words? I believe it is the Atomic hypothesis (or the atomic fact, or whatever you wish to call it) that 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.
--- end quote ---

The only part I do not like of Feynman's description is the word "thing". I replace "thing/s" with all matter. For we have to distinguish between matter and empty space. And as we look at the Periodic Table of Elements in Chemistry we can easily come up with the Plutonium Atom Totality Universe.

Since all matter is made up of individual Atoms, one of the 1 to 118 known chemical elements, and since the Universe itself is Matter, hence, the Universe in total, must be One of the Indivdual chemical elements, for if not, then the Atomic theory is not Universal but only a rule of thumb. And this is the great shame of all scientists now living, they do not require them to have two years of college Logic to help them think straight, clear, and correctly before handing them a degree in science.

TWO
-------

One proceeds into Two. And Two is what I have called over the last decade(?) as the Primary Axiom over all of science--- is "All is Atom, and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism"

However, now, that I am looking for the geometry of the Light-Photon, I have come upon a startling error in my Primary Axiom. I would not call it a error but more like a side-stepping-flaw. Old Physics most most basic duality is Particle to Wave duality. Just look at any Old Physics textbook on the subject of duality, and front and center is particle to wave duality.

Through the past 20(?) years of my writing science books I have placed Electricity to Magnetism as the Fundamental, most primary duality of all dualities. I rarely ever mention particle-wave duality, for I detest the "wave" even more, I detest the "charge" in Old Physics.

So here I am on 13Oct2026, searching and solving what is the Neutrino and Light-wave geometry.

I have the Atomic theory all correct, but do I have a error or weakness in thinking Electricity to Magnetism is the key fundamental duality. Or is there a more fundamental duality than electricity to magnetism???

Last night I was watching a Dr. Goodstein episode of The Mechanical Universe, and he starts out with saying the Conservation Laws of Physics are the some of the greatest of all laws in physics and writes on the blackboard.

Conservation of Energy
Conservation of Momentum
Conservation of Angular Momentum

And we see the students of Caltech in the lecture hall writing this down in their notebook.

Well, if AP had been there, at the end of the lecture, I would have said--- not true, as Dirac noted that the universe needs a violation of Conservation, what Dirac called some sort of radioactivity in order for the Universe to grow.

So here we see, that if physicists took Logic in school, they would begin to question many of their statements that they have dogmatically memorized.

Now, going back to Feynman's Atomic theory--- notice that Feynman mentions "perpetual motion".

And the bells and whistles in my mind sounded off last night watching Dr. Goodstein.

Had AP fallen into error??? Is Electricity to magnetism the most fundamental base duality??? Or is there some more fundamental layer for duality???????

Is not Perpetual Motion and Rest-Mass far far far more basic and fundamental than is Electricity and Magnetism???

Yes, yes, indeed. When the Universe has any perpetual-motion going on, means the Conservation Laws cannot be true. None of the three laws of conservation Dr. Goodstein wrote is true. To live in a world of a succession and progression of Atom Totalities--- Hydrogen to Helium to Lithium to Beryllium on up to Plutonium Atom Totality cannot have conservation of energy for then it has no way of growing from one to the next higher entity. Maybe in a Big Bang that kook and silly idea can you have Conservation of Energy, but not in a Universe of progressive higher atomic number Totalities.

So in a sense of Logic, Feynman contradicts Dr. Goodstein when Feynman says Perpetual Motion. I realize Feynman never knew that the proton is actually 840MeV with a Muon 105MeV inside the proton torus doing the Faraday law and that muon is in Perpetual Motion. I know that neither Dr. Goodstein nor Feynman knew that.

And so, well, ONE is the Atomic Theory TWO is the base duality is Perpetual Motion versus Rest-Mass.

Now I can link up to Electricity versus Magnetism in the Primal Axiom All is Atom, and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism.

That should read, now, instead, All is Atom and Atoms are nothing either perpetual motion or rest-mass.

Electricity comes from Electric Field and Electric Field is Perpetual Motion. This is enormous help in solving geometry.

Magnetism as far as I know, always requires Rest Mass to cause the magnetic field. You never get magnetic field unless there is rest mass present. This too is enormous help in solving the geometry of the Light-Photon and the neutrino.

AP, King of Science

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Oct 13, 2026, 5:31:31 PM (9 days ago) Oct 13

to Plutonium Atom Universe

Alright, I need to clarify the Ampere law with Maxwell extension. Also, thereby correcting it. When I learned this circa 1968-1972 while at University of Cincinnati, I was rather puzzled by the displacement current. And perhaps now, when 76 years old, I will finally understand this mysterious current.

For it looks as though the Light-Photon since it has no rest-mass, and in perpetual motion, that it cannot have a magnetic field, instead, have only a current and a electric field.

When I thought of this idea earlier today, I was taken aback, at the idea I was violating Ampere law with Maxwell Extension.

But on further reflection, the fact that Ampere law had to be revised by Maxwell to include a extension of a displacement current, is a sign to me that a new and further extension of the Ampere law in long overdue. In the AP EM Equations, both the Faraday and Coulomb and Ampere laws are division differential equations, which means that in solving, there are 3 terms as the outcome. This third term could just be the fact that no Magnetic Field arises in Light-Photon and that they carry only current and Electric Field, abiding by the idea that zero rest mass cannot have a magnetic field

In Halliday & Resnick PHYSICS Part 2; Extended Version 1986, page 884 reads:

--- quoting H&R, 1986---

Equation 40-4 shows that the term e_0 dE/dt has the dimensions of a current. Even though no motion of charge is involved, there are advantages of giving this term the name displacement current. Thus we can say that a magnetic field can be set up, either by an induction current i or by a displacement current i_d(= e_0 dE/dt), and we can rewrite equation 40-4 as

Integral B*dl = u_0( i_d + i)

The concept of displacement current permits us to retain the notion that current is continuous, a principle established for steady conduction currents in Section 31-1. In Fig. 40-1b, for example, a current i enters the positive plate and leaves the negative plate. The conduction current is not continuous across the capacitor gap because no charge is transported across this gap. However, the displacement current, i_d in the gap will prove to be exactly i, thus retaining the concept of the continuity of current.

--- end quoting H&R, 1986---

AP writes:: so I would replace the concept of Continuity in H&R teaching above, with that of "circuit". For the Ampere law to keep and retain Circuit, it must have current i and then also displacement current i_d.

Quantum Mechanics is discrete, and so the concept of continuity is struck out in physics, unless you want to disobey QM.

This helps me considerably in getting at the heart of the geometry of the Light-Photon and the Neutrino geometry.

For the Light wave need carry no Magnetic field, and rather instead, carry only current and displacement current.

This makes utter sense with the Faraday law, in which a rest mass coil and a rest mass bar magnet thrust through coil deliver a current. We have no evidence of a Displacement Magnetism the analog of displacement current, unless you want to think of Lenz's law as some sort of Displacement Magnetism but I am not able to go there.

So this helps me in constructing the Light-Photon with just using E field and current, no magnetism.

AP, King of Science

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Oct 13, 2026, 9:53:42 PM (9 days ago) Oct 13

to Plutonium Atom Universe

On Tuesday, October 13, 2026 at 5:39:47 AM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(snipped)

As we watch Dr. Goodstein display the experiment, if I am correct, it should be that some light gets through when we have just the horizontal and vertical lens.

In the film, no light is claimed to get through.

In modern physics I believe we now have detectors that can pick up tiny tiny amount of light.

Goodstein would say the screen is solid black with no light getting through.

I would contend with a ultra sensor detector we may see a pattern like this, instead of solid black.

* * * *
* * * *
* * * *
* * * *
I believe we have super sensitive detectors to see this.

So in a sense, I am thinking a polarizer is a series of Double Slits like the Double Slit Experiment.

So when you put light through horizontal

_______________
_______________
_______________
_______________

Then through Vertical

| | | |
| | | |
| | | |

That you would end up not with total darkness but rather a dot grid pattern.

* * * *
* * * *
* * * *
* * * *

So faint the eyes would not see it, but maybe we have ultra sensitive Light probes.

Recently did some research into how to break up Light in a prism then to reassemable the light again as Newton advised, put a convex lens in front of the rainbow and restore back to white light.

If a convex lens does record some light getting through both horizontal then vertical says a-lot about the geometry of the Light-Photon.

AP

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Oct 14, 2026, 1:50:16 PM (8 days ago) Oct 14

to Plutonium Atom Universe

Yes, some fruitfull progress, for it is emerging that the Proton + Muon obey the Faraday law for the geometry of the proton+ muon inside.

And that the geometry of the Light-Photon obeys the Ampere-Maxwell law with its Displacement current.

So we have two speeds involved with any given Light-Photon. We have the speed of the circuit in Space which can range from 0 to the speed of Light, while the Electric field and current inside the Photon circuit always travels at the constant speed of Light.

Rest Mass requires a magnetic field, but Perpetual Motion has no magnetic field, just an electric field and a current. The current has the additional displacement current.

This displacement current allows me to bypass the concept of Electrodes-- anode and cathode, as the electricity produced in the Proton+muon torus transfers this electricity to the Neutrons as capacitors via the Displacement Current.

Atoms interior need no electrodes.

Muon mean lifetime:: 2*10^-6 second and decays into magnetic monopole 0.5MeV plus monopole neutrino plus muon neutrino

Neutron mean lifetime:: free neutron is 800-900 seconds and decays into proton+muon inside torus plus magnetic monopole 0.5MeV plus antineutrino.

If we divide (free) Neutron lifetime by that of muon lifetime we get roughly the Speed of Light.

My longstanding belief is that neutrons are simply store-houses for an atom to build up and create a new proton torus with muon inside from the Faraday law.

The geometry of proton+muon is the Faraday Law, and that leads to the geometry of the Photon as coming directly from the Ampere-Maxwell law with its displacement current.

AP, King of Science

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Oct 14, 2026, 9:44:44 PM (8 days ago) Oct 14

to Plutonium Atom Universe

If in the future someone were to make a concordance of AP posts the one name that most often comes up by me is Faraday. The Faraday law is perhaps the most important EM law because it is the creation of electricity law. Not so much the Ampere law, nor Coulomb nor even the Ohm's law which gives rise to all the other EM laws.

And it is the Faraday law that geometrically describes the Proton+Muon as the prime essential part of any and all Atoms.

It is no accident that Faraday gave Light its first conception as a Disturbance in the Electromagnetic field. Later, Tesla embellished the "disturbance" by saying it was a longitudinal wave of compression and rarefaction.

If we think of the Light-Photon as a disturbance, then we can think of it as radioactive decay. And if we think of Light as radioactive decay disturbance of the Electromagnetic field, we can think of Light as being a disturbance of the Electric field only, not the magnetic field.

We can think of the disturbance radioactive decay as Ampere law of E field and displacement current.

The speed of light is a inverse relationship of Wavelength distance versus Frequency, so that Wavelength distance is small in X-ray, gamma ray, thus frequency has to be high to be the speed constant of 3*10^8 m/s. If the wavelength distance is large like in Radio waves, the frequency has to be small to achieve that constant speed.

So, now, let me make a First Proposition of the Geometry of Light-Photon. I probably will have to make many changes. But here is a first guess.

Light is a Circuit, a closed loop circuit that looks like a pencil ellipse for all Light of Visible and higher frequency. It is not a sinusoid wave but rather a circuit pencil ellipse of a Cycloid.

Light wave looks like this as a circuit. The top and bottom are not straightlines but rather the cycloid wave of something looking like this as a smooth curve ^^^^^^^^^^^^ for top and with bottom as smooth curve vvvvvvvvvv

_____________________________

(_____________________________)

Not what Old Physics imagined as an up and down sinusoid with a back end tail and a front tip ^v^v^v^v^.

To be a cycloid wave means there is a circle in motion and in Light, that circle is the Magnetic Field while the wave is the Electric Field E.

Tesla thought of the Light Wave as a longitudinal with compression and rarefaction, and I agree with him that the Magnetic Field circles between top and bottom of the pencil ellipse would be in a motion of compression and rarefaction.

The point on the circle of magnetism forming the cycloid wave top and bottom would be the current, while the top and bottom would be the displacement current.

Since we have Light as a radioactive decay as Ampere law, we must then ascribe the Radioactive Decay more general as being Ampere law.

So let me see if my first Proposition fits the description of all known Experiments to date on Light.

AP, King of Science

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Oct 15, 2026, 4:26:34 AM (7 days ago) Oct 15

to Plutonium Atom Universe

Yes, this first-proposal of mine is looking good, at least for one day now.

It upholds the Double-Slit Experiment in the idea that Light is a closed loop circuit that causes wave-pattern interference and as the circuit hits the screen the wave turns into particle.

It upholds the Polarization experiments in that a pencil ellipse circuit will be restricted to one plane. However, we need this new Experiment to see whether my conjecture of a horizontal than vertical polarizer although looking all black has in reality a dot grid pattern of light (I discussed earlier).

It upholds slow light experiments along with speed of light constant as a circuit has two speeds, the speed of the light inside the circuit and the speed of the circuit itself.

It upholds Ampere-Maxwell law with two currents, a regular and a displacement with the magnetic field being circular between the top and bottom path of the Light wave circuit.

It upholds the Olbers Paradox of dark night sky in that Space is full of Light radiation and the bright part of the spectrum is turned into the Radio wave part of the Spectrum. And we see Light as becoming "tired light" the further it travels from its source.

Light as disturbance in the electromagnetic field is seen as a form of radioactive decay, and so we see the entire Ampere-Maxwell law as radioactivity.

This geometry in many ways matches the geometry of the DNA molecule of biology.

Light has no rest-mass and so it is perpetual motion. Rest-mass entities are open, not closed loop and need electrodes.

Open questions
-----------------------

Is it Longitudinal wave as Tesla said, or is it transverse? Can you even have transverse waves when the wave is a closed circuit. If it is a longitudinal wave, are the base pairs of DNA the wheel of the magnetic field.

How would light carry information.

AP

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Oct 15, 2026, 11:36:30 AM (7 days ago) Oct 15

to Plutonium Atom Universe

My First Proposal of the geometry of Light-Photon is going exceptionally beautiful, although I still expect to make many tweaks of error in the future. I say exceptionally beautiful because I can relate the Light Wave as the DNA molecule of life. DNA is double-helix and so is AP Light wave as the top and bottom in sketch below is the two strand backbone of DNA. The base pairs in DNA are held together by Hydrogen bonds, and in my sketch, the Magnetic field show as the wheel of the cycloid wave of top and bottom is what Reads the base pairs in DNA, the molecule of life.

I wrote:

Top of Light-Photon
_____________________________
(_____________________________)

Bottom of Light-Photon

And in between the top and bottom is what I call a Wheel of Magnetism moving inside the top and bottom.

Top of Light-Photon
_____________________________
(_______O______________________) Wheel of Magnetism O that creates the Wave of top and bottom

Bottom of Light-Photon

AP writes: my first proposal is doing well because it incorporates DNA as a Light-Photon as a similar structure. Decades past I wrote a theory called "Light is Perfect DNA". We can certainly think of the top and bottom as the two strands that compose the DNA double backbone helix. We can think of the interior of the Light wave circuit as composed of a reader-- magnetic wheel of a cycloid wave and the interior would be perfect-base-pairs of magnetism to read for the Reader wheel.

AP, KIng of Science

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Oct 16, 2026, 2:52:03 PM (6 days ago) Oct 16

to Plutonium Atom Universe

Notice the helicase, blue triangle below. So I have a theory saying that Light-Photon equals Perfect DNA. That I can use the information and data of DNA to tell me what Light-Photon is.

By the way, life, throughout the Cosmos is created when Light transforms into primitive life from the Photons inside a capacitor such as coral reefs such as in calcium deposits in water.

So I am trying to find out the geometry of the Wheel of magnetism inside each and every Photon. Looks like helicase is that wheel, only in reverse. It is not zipping apart Light-Photon but rather generating the Light-Photon of Top and Bottom of the Light circuit pencil ellipse.

On Thursday, October 15, 2026 at 10:37:41 AM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

(snipped)

Top of Light-Photon
_____________________________
(_____________________________)

Bottom of Light-Photon

And in between the top and bottom is what I call a Wheel of Magnetism moving inside the top and bottom.

Top of Light-Photon
_____________________________
(_______O______________________) Wheel of Magnetism O that creates the Wave of top and bottom

Bottom of Light-Photon

--- quoting Wikipedia---

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Structure of E. coli helicase RuvA (note that the helicase core in RuvAB complex is RuvB and not RuvA and that RuvA alone do not show helicase activity)

Helicases are a class of enzymes that are vital to all organisms. Their main function is to unpack an organism's genetic material. Helicases are motor proteins that move directionally along a nucleic double helix, separating the two hybridized nucleic acid strands (hence helic- + -ase), via the energy gained from ATP hydrolysis. There are many helicases, representing the great variety of processes in which strand separation must be catalyzed. Approximately 1% of eukaryotic genes code for helicases.^[1]

The human genome codes for 95 non-redundant helicases: 64 RNA helicases and 31 DNA helicases.^[2] Many cellular processes, such as DNA replication, transcription, translation, recombination, DNA repairand ribosome biogenesis involve the separation of nucleic acid strands that necessitates the use of helicases. Some specialized helicases are also involved in sensing viral nucleic acids during infection and fulfill an immunological function. Genetic mutations that affect helicases can have wide-reaching impacts for an organism, due to their significance in many biological processes.

Function

Helicases are often used to separate strands of a DNA double helix or a self-annealed RNA molecule using the energy from ATP hydrolysis, a process characterized by the breaking of hydrogen bonds between annealed nucleotide bases. They also function to remove nucleic acid-associated proteins and catalyze homologous DNA recombination.^[3]Metabolic processes of RNA such as translation, transcription, ribosome biogenesis, RNA splicing, RNA transport, RNA editing, and RNA degradation are all facilitated by helicases.^[3] Helicases move incrementally along one nucleic acidstrand of the duplex with a directionality and processivity specific to each particular enzyme.

Helicases adopt different structures and oligomerization states. Whereas DnaB-like helicases unwind DNA as ring-shaped hexamers, other enzymes have been shown to be active as monomers or dimers. Studies have shown that helicases may act passively, waiting for uncatalyzed unwinding to take place and then translocating between displaced strands,^[4] or can play an active role in catalyzing strand separation using the energy generated in ATP hydrolysis.^[5] In the latter case, the helicase acts comparably to an active motor, unwinding and translocating along its substrate as a direct result of its ATPase activity.^[6] Helicases may process much faster in vivo than in vitro due to the presence of accessory proteins that aid in the destabilization of the fork junction.^[6]

Helicase (blue triangle) separates the intertwined DNA strands so that daughter strands can form.

--- end quoting Wikipedia---

ppp

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Oct 16, 2026, 3:03:17 PM (6 days ago) Oct 16

to Plutonium Atom Universe

So, I am going to apply the helicase of DNA biology to these questions as being a wheel of magnetism to create the top and bottom of the Light-Photon.

The question now becomes, is DNA molecule, would we consider that as a Transverse Wave or would we say it has a resemblance to a Longitudinal Wave that Tesla proposed?? I think it is a mix of the two, not all Transverse as the helix is a wavelike structure and its varying size of nucleotides having the appearance of a wave. But also a Longitudinal format of the nucleotides as compression and rarefaction.

A very difficult problem for me, anyway, is the tussle between having rest-mass and no rest-mass for perpetual motion. So the Light-Photon has perpetual motion and no rest mass, and by implication ----- no magnetism. And here I have a Wheel of Magnetism. So here I have come into a quantum mystery, larger than even the Double Slit mystery. The Double Slit mystery disappears if we know EM spectrum are circuits. How can I remove the mystery of perpetual motion requires no rest-mass which in turn allows for no magnetism??????

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Oct 16, 2026, 3:38:13 PM (6 days ago) Oct 16

to Plutonium Atom Universe

So the Muon 105MeV inside a Proton Torus 840MeV, where the torus is Faraday coil and Muon as bar magnet thrusting through in perpetual motion. So I have a logical problem here. I have 105 MeV rest mass in perpetual motion.

The Muon lasts as free muon for only a mean-lifetime of 2*10^-6 second turning into a 0.5MeV magnetic monopole and two different neutrinos.

How can I solve this problem of No Rest-Mass equals Perpetual Motion. And that of No Rest Mass means no magnetism???

Perhaps I can solve it by noting the decay products of the muon are all 3 of which EM Spectrum which all three have no rest mass.

Can I say the Proton at 840MeV is a rest mass particle but that the Muon is EM Spectrum and never a rest mass particle ---- unless, unless, the muon is inside a Proton Torus and then it has rest mass and a Magnetic Field????

Now the decay of Muon as listed in Wikipedia says the most common decay is monopole, and two neutrinos. What other decay forms does the Muon have????

AP

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Oct 16, 2026, 3:46:40 PM (6 days ago) Oct 16

to Plutonium Atom Universe

So I am trying to solve this problem of Perpetual Motion implies No Rest Mass and no rest mass implies no magnetism.

What does geometry say about this conundrum??

Well as far as I know a perfect hollow conducting sphere has no magnetic field.

What is the geometrical shape of DNA Helicase???? It looks like a sphere.

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Oct 16, 2026, 4:03:33 PM (6 days ago) Oct 16

to Plutonium Atom Universe

So I want some pictures of the geometry of Helicase--- is it spherical.

I am pleased to see one artist in the second to last picture below of a Google search of Helicase as the shape of a Wheel. Whether the wheel is the helicase or the pieces of unraveled DNA.

--- quoting a Google search of helicase geometry---

Video

Helicase in DNA Replication | Definition & Function Video

Study.com

The ring-shaped hexameric helicases that function at DNA replication forks | Nature Structural & Molecular Biology

Nature

Helicase in DNA Replication | Definition & Function - Lesson | Study.com

Study.com

The structure of a DnaB-family replicative helicase and its interactions with primase | Nature Structural & Molecular Biology

Nature

DNA unwinding mechanism of a eukaryotic replicative CMG helicase | Nature Communications

Nature

PDB-101: Molecule of the Month: DNA Helicase

PDB-101 - RCSB PDB

Mechanisms of hexameric helicases - PMC

PMC - NIH

Helicase - Wikipedia

Wikipedia

🧬 DNA Replication Explained | How DNA Copies Itself 🔬 How does a cell make an accurate copy of its DNA before cell division? DNA replication is the biological process through which

Facebook

The ring-shaped hexameric helicases that function at DNA replication forks | Nature Structural & Molecular Biology

Nature

DNA Helicase | Overview, Definition & Function - Video | Study.com

Study.com

Structural dynamics of DNA unwinding by a replicative helicase | Nature

Nature

Helicase Structure Solved, Provides Understanding of Molecular Motor

Bioprocess Online

DNA Helicase | Overview, Definition & Function - Lesson | Study.com

Study.com

The ring-shaped hexameric helicases that function at DNA replication forks | Nature Structural & Molecular Biology

Nature

DNA Helicases: Structure, Types, Functions, Examples

Microbe Notes

New Study Reveals the Structure of DNA Helicase at the Replication Fork | Lab Manager

Lab Manager

Structural dynamics of DNA unwinding by a replicative helicase | Nature

Nature

🧬 DNA Replication Explained | How DNA Copies Itself 🔬 How does a cell make an accurate copy of its DNA before cell division? DNA replication is the biological process through which

Facebook

Full article: Mechanisms of hexameric helicases

Taylor & Francis

Video

DNA Helicases: Structure, Superfamilies, and Mechanisms | Essential Enzymes in Molecular Biology

YouTube

DnaB Helicase Activity Is Modulated by DNA Geometry and Force: Biophysical Journal

Cell Press

Full article: Mechanisms of hexameric helicases

Taylor & Francis

DNA Helicase - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

ScienceDirect.com

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Oct 17, 2026, 3:29:16 AM (5 days ago) Oct 17

to Plutonium Atom Universe

I do not know why my best memories of when I was young, is my memories of learning physics. For example I remember well that sitting in physics and learning the Ampere-Maxwell Law of the displacement current, I reckoned it was a new current created from the regular current that creates a magnetic field and this new magnetic field is in motion that creates a displacement current via the Faraday law.

Then I looked back at the Faraday law in its creation of a new current from thrusting magnetism, and this new current created must by Ampere law create a magnetic field which is the crux of Lenz's law as a opposition to the thrusting bar magnet.

I remember the textbook saying that the Lenz's law was to have Conservation of Energy. I did not buy that argument as much as I bought the argument that Lenz's law is the analog of the displacement current in Ampere-Maxwell law.

I have yet to find a Experiment that can say, definitively if AP is wrong or correct on this idea.

Suppose I am correct, then I see the Regular Current and the Displacement Current in Ampere-Maxwell laws as the two strands in the double-helix of DNA.

Has any physicist made a percentage analysis of the Regular Current versus the Displacement Current. I do remember Halliday and Resnick saying that the displacement current was rather a large phenomenon. Could it be that the amount of Displacement current is perhaps 50% of the amount of the regular current????

As far as I know the two strands of DNA are of equal size and mass. One strand is not larger than the other strand, as far as I know.

AP, King of Science

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Oct 17, 2026, 12:13:38 PM (5 days ago) Oct 17

to Plutonium Atom Universe

EXPERIMENT to prove displacement current and Lenz's law are inverses of one another

--------------------------------------------------------

On Saturday, October 17, 2026 at 2:29:16 AM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

_I do not know why my best memories of when I was young, is my memories of learning physics. For example I remember well that sitting in physics and learning the Ampere-Maxwell Law of the displacement current, I reckoned it was a new current created from the regular current that creates a magnetic field and this new magnetic field is in motion that creates a displacement current via the Faraday law.

_Then I looked back at the Faraday law in its creation of a new current from thrusting magnetism, and this new current created must by Ampere law create a magnetic field which is the crux of Lenz's law as a opposition to the thrusting bar magnet.

_I remember the textbook saying that the Lenz's law was to have Conservation of Energy. I did not buy that argument as much as I bought the argument that Lenz's law is the analog of the displacement current in Ampere-Maxwell law.

_I have yet to find a Experiment that can say, definitively if AP is wrong or correct on this idea.

So I am offering this Experiment to prove displacement current is the reverse analog of Lenz's law.

First some definitions.

(1) Initial current in Ampere-Maxwell law = given current that creates the magnetic field. Call it the regular current or initial current.

(2) Displacement current in Ampere-Maxwell law = the current that arises from the creation of a magnetic field around the Regular current.

(3) Intial Thrusting bar magnet in Faraday law that creates a electric current in the coil. And this electric current then gives rise to a new magnetic field due to the Ampere law.

(4) Lenz's law becomes totally that of this rise of a second magnetic field.

Now, to prove by Experiment that Displacement current is the reverse analog of Lenz's law, I am going to prove it experimentally by conducting experiments of Percentage.

What is the percent of Displacement current compared to the Regular current in Ampere-Maxwell law?? It probably varies between something like 25% to 33%. But cannot be less than 25% nor greater than 33%.

Now we do the Faraday Law and experimentally measure the percent of Lenz's law push back of the Initial thrusting magnet. If we find that this Lenz's law varies between 25% and 33% matching the percentage of the Ampere Law, then I believe we have proven that Faraday Law is the inverse of the Ampere-Maxwell law.

And then I can safely claim that Ampere-Maxwell law is perfect DNA and is a form of radioactivity and that Neutrinos are part of the EM Spectrum.

AP, King of Science

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Oct 17, 2026, 3:44:13 PM (5 days ago) Oct 17

to Plutonium Atom Universe

I was reviewing Halliday & Resnick and I have been wrong all these years, thinking that the displacement current was a fraction of the conduction current and thinking that the Lenz law is a equal and opposite reaction but only a fraction of the thrusting bar magnet. No, according to H&R, both are 100%. In other words the displacement current equals the conduction current and the Lenz law reaction to bar magnet is 100%.

This then proves Ampere-Maxwell law is equal to the reverse of Faraday law.

This then allows me to say the two strands of DNA are equal and they are the analog of the displacement current and conduction current in Ampere-Maxwell law.

I pays to make a search of the literature before making a conjecture.

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Oct 18, 2026, 1:07:56 PM (4 days ago) Oct 18

to Plutonium Atom Universe

Alright, I am glad I undertook this adventure for I just learned that the Displacement Current equals the Conductor Current. It is something that can easily be misjudged in physics. We see this displacement current as being a small subset of the conductor current (what I called the initial regular current). So I am glad that I no longer was under that false impression of the Displacement Current being a subset, a far smaller current than the conductor current.

And I also had the false impression of Lenz's law in Faraday law as being a subset of the initial thrusting bar magnet, a smaller amount of magnetism. There too, the Lenz law opposition equals the thrusting bar magnet.

Although the Old Physics explanation of why they are Equal is wrong. They argue the Conservation of Energy has to be upheld that makes them Equal. I argue it is not conservation of energy at work here, but rather instead, it is the fact that electricity is a Closed Circuit and thus the top and bottom of the circuit in a pencil ellipse geometry has to equal one another.

Now I can beging to outline the Geometry of the Light-Photon.

It looks to be a closed loop pencil ellipse with top and bottom. And inside the loop are rings of magnetism acting as a wheel for cycloid geometry of wavelength and frequency. The cycloid of magnetism forms the top and bottom geometry of the pencil ellipse.

Is Light-Photon a transverse wave or a longitudinal wave??? I would say it is a mix of both. We can argue the top and bottom have a transverse feature just the same as that DNA of its nucleotides can be envisioned as transverse. But that the magnetic field inside the two strands of light of conduction current and displacement current, one top one bottom, cause the interior of these two strands be packed with magnetic rings--- as being longitudinal. In the Double Slit experiment, when the Light wave hits the screen, all those magnetic rings collapse into a sphere and thus a particle is formed.

Now I can get back to writing just about Maximum Electricity Principle. The fact that Atoms have Perpetual Motion and involves the maximum speed possible of the speed of Light, portends the idea that a Principle of Maximum Electricity exists and must exist.

AP, King of Science

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Oct 19, 2026, 1:25:18 PM (3 days ago) Oct 19

to Plutonium Atom Universe

No, I am going to have to keep posting in tandem with the thread of neutrino geometry. Maximum Electricity is all tied up with Perpetual Motion and Speed of Light.

I just recently recognized the solution to the Fermi paradox along with Olbers paradox, all summarized in the math equation of Light Attenuation-Intensity as equal to 1/distance^2.

--- quoting a post in the Fermi paradox thread---

This is a terribly difficult concept to understand. Suppose that it is possible to build Voyager 1 at exactly the spot it is now, some 25,000,000,000 km away from Earth. Brand spanking new as it was in 1977 and able to broadcast pictures in megapixels and sent these pictures back to Earth. The trouble is, we would only get a 160 bps of those sent pictures. The Attenuated Intensity of Light-Photons traveling 25,000,000,000 kilometers through Space is the reason we end up with 160 bps, even though the spacecraft is transmitting in mega-pixels.

Space absorbs Light-Photons in that relationship of Intensity = 1/distance^2.

The prime reason for the Fermi Paradox is that equation of Light.

Probably every Star with the same approximate mass as the Sun and which has planets in orbit around it, has intelligent life. And these stars are spread uniformly in galaxies. But because Light Waves cannot survive in Space at distances of 25,000,000,000 km or greater, well enough is the reason for the Fermi Paradox.

The physics literature has a term for this phenomenon--- "tired Light".

It is the cause of Olber's Paradox in addition to the Fermi Paradox. Olbers paradox asks why the night sky and Space in General is so dark, so absent of Light? And the answer is that Light-Photons survive only a distance until they disintegrate into being a part of Space itself. This breaking apart of a Light Photon is about the distance size of a Solar System. Our Sun Solar System is about 300 billion kilometer radius to the Oort Cloud.

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Oct 19, 2026, 7:03:22 PM (3 days ago) Oct 19

to Plutonium Atom Universe

I am making beautiful progress on the geometry of the Light-Photon. Today was a beautiful day of weather also, 22 degrees centigrade for the next few days. Perhaps the good weather is helping and facilitating my physics research.

The geometry of the Faraday Law is clear and obvious-- a coil circuit with a thrusting bar magnet inside.

The geometry of the Light-Photon follows the Ampere-Maxwell law, and this is not as clear and obvious as the Faraday law.

So I am working on this transforming of the DNA into a Light-Photon, for I theorize that Light equals Perfect DNA.

One can see the spiral in DNA looks like a wave, but a spiral-helical-wave. But DNA can easily explain the electric field and current as the two sugar backbones being the conduction current and the other being the displacement current, while the central hydrogen bonds be some track for magnetic cycloid track to form the helix spiral.

But what would the magnetic field be in DNA as the Ampere-Maxwell law?? Here I am guessing that the hydrogen bonds in the middle of the nucleotides is the track where a magnetic field as a coil is built from a wheel of magnetism rolls along this hydrogen bond track.

--- quoting Wikipedia---

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For a non-technical introduction to the topic, see Introduction to genetics. For other uses, see DNA (disambiguation).

The structure of the DNA double helix (type B-DNA). The atoms in the structure are colour-coded by element and the detailed structures of two base pairs are shown in the bottom right.

Simplified diagram

(10⁷ - 10¹⁰ bp)

(10³ - 10⁶ bp )

A chromosome and its packaged long strand of DNA unraveled. The DNA's base pairsencode genes, which provide functions. A human DNA can have up to 500 million base pairs with thousands of genes.

Deoxyribonucleic acid (pronunciation^ⓘ;^[1] DNA) is a polymercomposed of two polynucleotide chains that coil around each other to form a double helix. The polymer carries genetic instructions for the development, functioning, growth and reproduction of all known organisms and many viruses. DNA and ribonucleic acid (RNA) are nucleic acids. Alongside proteins, lipids and complex carbohydrates (polysaccharides), nucleic acids are one of the four major types of macromolecules that are essential for all known forms of life.

The two DNA strands are known as polynucleotides as they are composed of simpler monomeric units called nucleotides.^[2]^[3] Each nucleotide is composed of one of four nitrogen-containing nucleobases (cytosine [C], guanine [G], adenine [A] or thymine [T]), a sugar called deoxyribose, and a phosphate group. The nucleotides are joined to one another in a chain by covalent bonds (known as the phosphodiester linkage) between the sugar of one nucleotide and the phosphate of the next, resulting in an alternating sugar-phosphate backbone. The nitrogenous bases of the two separate polynucleotide strands are bound together, according to base pairing rules (A with T and C with G), with hydrogen bonds to make double-stranded DNA. The complementary nitrogenous bases are divided into two groups, the single-ringed pyrimidines and the double-ringed purines. In DNA, the pyrimidines are thymine and cytosine; the purines are adenine and guanine.

Both strands of double-stranded DNA store the same biological information. This information is replicated when the two strands separate. The two strands of DNA run in opposite directions to each other and are thus antiparallel. Attached to each sugar is one of four types of nucleobases (or bases). It is the sequenceof these four nucleobases along the backbone that encodes genetic information. RNA strands are created using DNA strands as a template in a process called transcription, where DNA bases are exchanged for their corresponding bases except in the case of thymine (T), for which RNA substitutes uracil (U).^[4] Under the genetic code, these RNA strands specify the sequence of amino acids within proteins in a process called translation.

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Oct 20, 2026, 2:56:40 AM (2 days ago) Oct 20

to Plutonium Atom Universe

The goal is to well-define the geometry of Light-Photon and also Maximum Electricity Principle. I am using one large assumption-- the theory that Light equals Perfect-DNA.

Once I have the geometry of the Light-Photon, I hope to incorporate Neutrinos as a geometrical facet of the Electromagnetic Spectrum so that the EM Spectrum has both the Light-Photon and Neutrinos all as one.

I am using Symmetry as a major tool to unlock these mysteries.

So far I have the Faraday law as its geometry is well known with basically a coil and thrusting bar magnet.

For Light-Photon, I assume it is the Ampere-Maxwell law, a inverse or reverse of the Faraday law.

I hypothesize that the geometry of Light-Photon can all be gathered from DNA, and then once I have a geometry, check it up against all known physics Experiments that are relevant, to gain validity.

Since Faraday law has a coil, I look to DNA for a coil. Obviously those spiral-helix base pairs is a coil. But in Faraday law the coil is the electric current (electric field) while the bar magnet is the magnetic field. In DNA the coil is the reverse and is the magnetic field. Now I wonder if there is a plant or animal whose DNA, whether regular or mitochondrial DNA has its base pairs closely wound together to appear almost like plates, approaching parallel plate geometry.

So in Ampere-Maxwell law I have the conduction current and the displacement current. Easy-- assume one of the strands of DNA backbone is the conduction current, while other strand is the displacement current. But I need something in DNA to be wavelike, and transverse. I achieve that by looking at the hydrogen bonds in the middle of the spiral helix where a cycloid type of wheel can form a cycloid wave, that is transverse. It may or may not be a cycloid transverse wave that follows the track laid out by the hydrogen bonds of DNA.

In the Faraday law I have a Lenz law which is produced by the current that generates a magnetic field (Ampere law) that opposes the original bar magnet field. In the Ampere-Maxwell law the newly formed magnetic field around the conduction current itself produces a new current (Faraday law) and is the displacement current. Quite a bit of symmetry here.

So I have to focus on how that cycloid track of hydrogen bonds yields a cycloid wave and wether it is transverse or monoverse. Which would need explanation in terms of polarization of light.

AP, King of Science

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Oct 20, 2026, 3:43:06 PM (2 days ago) Oct 20

to Plutonium Atom Universe

Alright, so, the base pairs of nucleotides in DNA forms a coil in Ampere-Maxwell law.

The copper wire coil in Faraday law is similar to the DNA coil.

I understand the angle in DNA of twist is 36 degrees. But can that angle be such that it approaches a Faraday coil of almost one ring touching the next ring?

Yes, it looks like Mitochondrial DNA can have a coil that matches the coil of a Faraday law coil which the copper wire strands are virtually so close together as to almost touch one another.

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Oct 21, 2026, 1:25:12 PM (yesterday) Oct 21

to Plutonium Atom Universe

So the overriding feature of Neutrinos, over that of EM Spectrum is the ability of Neutrinos to go through matter as if it was not there at all. While all the other EM waves have a difficult time of penetrating matter from radio waves to gamma waves.

This feature of Neutrinos is the defining feature of what the geometry of the Neutrino wave must be.

And we need look no further in physics than to the Sound wave, a longitudinal wave. A sound wave is best in a dense matter environment. The more matter, the better the sound wave.

This tells me that the Neutrino wave to be incorporated into the EM spectrum alongside Light waves, is to have the geometry of Neutrino wave be a longitudinal wave geometry.

Can I get a compression and rarefaction of the base pairs nucleotides in DNA???

Archimedes Plutonium

unread,

Oct 21, 2026, 2:14:50 PM (yesterday) Oct 21

to Plutonium Atom Universe

--- quoting Wikipedia---

Chemical structure of DNA; hydrogen bondsshown as dotted lines. Each end of the double helix has an exposed 5' phosphate on one strand and an exposed 3′ hydroxyl group (—OH) on the other.

DNA is a long polymer made from repeating units called nucleotides.^[6]^[7]DNA does not usually exist as a single strand, but instead as a pair of strands that are held tightly together.^[8]^[9] These two long strands coil around each other, in the shape of a double helix. The nucleotide contains both a segment of the backbone of the molecule (which holds the chain together) and a nucleobase (which interacts with the other DNA strand in the helix). A nucleobase linked to a sugar is called a nucleoside, and a base linked to a sugar and to one or more phosphate groups is called a nucleotide. A biopolymer comprising multiple

--- end quoting Wikipedia---

Here I am going to try to get a transverse wave then a longitudinal wave from the picture shown on right of the chemical structure of DNA.

If you cut the DNA down the middle at its hydrogen bond center then glue the backbone of one onto the backbone of the other we end up with a Light wave that is transverse.

On the other hand, if we leave the DNA alone except having a end and a beginning as telomeres we have what looks like a coil with plates running up and down the coil. This is the geometry of compression and rarefaction of the plates (nucleotides). And this is what I can start to make out as the Light-Photon being a neutrino as a longitudinal wave.

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages