info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
+AP's 151st book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year College, 2021 soon to be published Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> Apr 4, 2021, 12:51:22 PM (2 days ago) to Plutonium Atom Universe Call it the NEW ERA RUTHERFORD-GEIGER
43 views
Skip to first unread message
Archimedes Plutonium
Apr 6, 2021, 4:20:33 PM4/6/21
to
+AP's 151st book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year College, 2021 soon to be published
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 4, 2021, 12:51:22 PM (2 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Call it the NEW ERA RUTHERFORD-GEIGER-MARSDEN-EXPERIMENT
Where we take a Galvanometer and attach it to the 1911 Rutherford experiment gold leaf foil.
We measure the electricity produced because of the alpha particles thrusting through the proton toruses of gold atoms.
Looking for the prediction formula of how much electricity is produced.
The Prediction formula must be on the order of Emf = N * B * velocity * Length
B = tesla= magnetic flux density, I have no idea what a alpha particle B field is
N = windings, and here I need to equilibrate how many windings a gold foil represents
velocity, that is easy for the alpha particles are going a 5% speed of light into the gold proton toruses
Length, well that is the length of the gold leaf foil. I think some websites specified Rutherford-Geiger-Marsden actual length. But here I maybe concerned in making the gold leaf itself go all the way around and be a circuit gold leaf, as the electricity produced in Faraday law from inside of protons need to flow. Of course we attach a Galvanometer and what is the best engineering attachement? I suppose alligator clips at worst, maybe something better. Whatever the connectors are, should not be part of the alpha particle target.
We should get a prediction Amperage before doing the experiment. Perhaps 1 amp or more. Keeping in mind alpha particles are going very fast.
You see, it is this kind of Experiment with a prediction beforehand that Physics of the 20th and 21st century need to be doing, and not their dreadful horrible assinine postdiction of the Standard Model, a mindless game that never predicted a single thing.
AP
King of Science, especially Physics
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 4, 2021, 2:36:31 PM (2 days ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Sunday, April 4, 2021 at 12:51:22 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Call it the NEW ERA RUTHERFORD-GEIGER-MARSDEN-EXPERIMENT
Where we take a Galvanometer and attach it to the 1911 Rutherford experiment gold leaf foil.
We measure the electricity produced because of the alpha particles thrusting through the proton toruses of gold atoms.
Looking for the prediction formula of how much electricity is produced.
The Prediction formula must be on the order of Emf = N * B * velocity * Length
I am not in luck, for I see no-one ever measured the magnetic field around a alpha particle.
That means the above formula will have to find out the Magnetic Field once the experiment is completed. And the above formula will be a tool in finding the alpha particle magnetic field, but since we do not know the magnetic field before we do the experiment, means we cannot predict the amperage in the current from the alpha particles thrusting through the gold leaf protons inside of gold.
Here at home in my lab, I just conducted a experiment of the Faraday law where I entered a north magnet at one end of the coil and a south magnet at the other end of the coil and found that the needle on the galvanometer moved off the scale. A far larger reading than just entering one magnet in the coil.
This tells me that when a alpha particle enters a proton torus of gold and is met by the oncoming 79 muons moving in opposite direction, that a bountiful of electric current is produced. So every large angle recoil of alpha particles in Rutherford's gold leaf is also the largest electricity production.
So if the alpha particle magnetic field has never been measured, the AP remake of Rutherford Experiment will measure the alpha particle magnetic field.
B = tesla= magnetic flux density, I have no idea what a alpha particle B field is
N = windings, and here I need to equilibrate how many windings a gold foil represents
velocity, that is easy for the alpha particles are going a 5% speed of light into the gold proton toruses
Length, well that is the length of the gold leaf foil. I think some websites specified Rutherford-Geiger-Marsden actual length. But here I maybe concerned in making the gold leaf itself go all the way around and be a circuit gold leaf, as the electricity produced in Faraday law from inside of protons need to flow. Of course we attach a Galvanometer and what is the best engineering attachement? I suppose alligator clips at worst, maybe something better. Whatever the connectors are, should not be part of the alpha particle target.
We should get a prediction Amperage before doing the experiment. Perhaps 1 amp or more. Keeping in mind alpha particles are going very fast.
You see, it is this kind of Experiment with a prediction beforehand that Physics of the 20th and 21st century need to be doing, and not their dreadful horrible assinine postdiction of the Standard Model, a mindless game that never predicted a single thing.
AP
King of Science, especially Physics
This experiment is of top priority in all of physics, for it not only proves what the real structure of interior of atoms is. But it also teaches us the axiom that All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 5, 2021, 11:55:29 AM (yesterday)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Today I call into question the idea that Beta decay is merely Faraday Law of atoms with excess neutrons. Neutrons are capacitors and thus atomic-batteries, that leak out electricity. So in the gold leaf Rutherford experiment, as we attach a Galvanometer, we are reading in one sense beta decay and in another sense the Faraday law of alpha particles thrusting through the proton coils of the 79protons in each gold atom.
In this sense, there should be a radioactive Beta emitter that you cannot tell the difference on whether it is a well kept battery of ordinary material, or whether it comes from a lump of radioactive material.
Here we blurr the lines between what we call a battery making electricity and what we call an element that is emitting electricity by particles inside its atoms thrusting through proton coils.
AP
King of Science, especially Physics
AP
King of Science, especially physics
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 5, 2021, 1:05:15 PM (yesterday)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
I do not know how many of these beta emitters rivals the very best batteries ever made. If I recall correctly, beta emitters were used in the robots sent to Mars and outer space. They must be more reliable and far more efficient than any other type of battery. Of course, in AP theory, beta emitters are just Faraday law on the scale of the protons inside of atoms. So we need to take Beta decay out of radioactivity and place it into the section of physics teaching into the Maxwell Equations section of physics textbooks.
--- quoting Wikipedia ---
Strontium-90 is a commonly used beta emitter used in industrial sources. It decays to yttrium-90, which is itself a beta emitter. It is also used as a thermal power source in radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG) power packs. These use heat produced by radioactive decay of strontium-90 to generate heat, which can be converted to electricity using a thermocouple. Strontium-90 has a shorter half-life, produces less power, and requires more shielding than plutonium-238, but is cheaper as it is a fission product and is present in a high concentration in nuclear waste and can be relatively easily chemically extracted. Strontium-90 based RTGs have been used to power remote lighthouses.
--- end quoting ---
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 5, 2021, 1:39:16 PM (yesterday)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Now, also as we place Beta decay out of radioactivity, leaving radioactivity only as a neutron emmission or a alpha particle or larger emission. For beta decay is not really radioactivity, but is part of electricity and magnetism of the Faraday law.
But also, I need to know if we attach a galvanometer to a element like Pu238, whether we get a electricity reading. Sort of think of 238Pu as a electric generator in and of itself. You need nothing to add to the slab of Pu238 to generate electricity, it is all self contained generator.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 5, 2021, 4:53:10 PM (yesterday)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Probably not that lucky to be able to connect a Galvanometer directly to a metal or ore and immediately get a current reading. Metals that are radioactive have surprisingly high conductivity of strontium of 7.7*10^6 S/m or thorium at 6.7*10^6 S/m or uranium at 3.6*10^6 S/m or radium at 1*10^6 S/m. And it is this fact that I want to exploit, by showing that radioactive beta decay is in essence, electricity production inside of those elements proton toruses.
Considering copper has 5.9*10^7 S/m and the highest of silver at 6.2*10^7 S/m with iron being 1*10^7 S/m. Happy to see lithium is 1.1*10^7 S/m and Beryllium is 2.5*10^7 S/m. But carbon is a mere 1*10^5 S/m. Sodium is surprisingly large at 2.1*10^7 S/m. Silicon is so small and obviously a semiconductor at 1*10^3 S/m. But phosphorus, a heavy element for life right up there at 1*10^7 S/m. Whereas sulfur is incredibly small at 1*10^-15 S/m. Radioactive plutonium is 6.7*10^5 S/m, and neptunium at 8.3*10^5 S/m.
So, if we wound strontium or thorium into a wire and thrust a bar magnet we should see a reading on the Galvanometer.
But should we thrust the same bar magnet through beta radioactive emitter strontium, should the Galvanometer reading be far higher due to the fact that the radioactivity is thrusting through the strontium proton toruses causing additional electricity.
What I am going to argue here, is to remove Beta decay from radioactivity in physics, and place beta decay as not radioactivity but the mere production of electricity due to the fact that atom's protons are coils for which the thrusting muon and other particles create electricity and the 0.5MeV Dirac magnetic monopole.
In other words radioactivity is a science of neutron emission, of alpha particle emission and of large particle emission, even SF, spontaneous fission. But beta emission is part of physics of the electromagnetism chapter, the Maxwell Equations chapter should deal with beta emission, not the radioactivity department of physics.
AP
King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 5, 2021, 5:35:11 PM (yesterday)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
EXPERIMENT
So, what I need to prove is that radioactivity of Beta decay is not really radioactivity at all but is the natural process of creating Dirac magnetic monopoles in proton toruses inside of atoms and then storaging those monopoles in neutrons acting as capacitors.
So, we get strontium-90, the beta emitter and we form it into a coil wire for a Faraday law experiment thrusting through the strontium 90 with bar magnet. It should give a current reading.
Now we do the identical same thing with stable strontium, build a wire coil, thrust a bar magnet and get a electrical reading from Galvanometer. All things being equal except one uses radioactive strontium while the other uses stable strontium.
What should the end result be? I am guessing the current in stable strontium is far less than the current in beta emitter strontium.
AP
King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 5, 2021, 9:37:52 PM (yesterday)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Call it the NEW ERA RUTHERFORD-GEIGER-MARSDEN-EXPERIMENT
Where we take a Galvanometer and attach it to the 1911 Rutherford experiment gold leaf foil.
We measure the electricity produced because of the alpha particles thrusting through the proton toruses of gold atoms.
Looking for the prediction formula of how much electricity is produced.
The Prediction formula must be on the order of Emf = N * B * velocity * Length
I cannot find a known measure of the B field for alpha particle. I thought of using the B field of hydrogen proton and neutron and multiply by 2. But that is only a speculation and makes a horrible prediction.
So for the Experiment, if it has a current, it would be able to determine the B field of alpha particle for we would have the EMF the N the velocity and the length. Thus determine the B-field.
So if it works, then AP has created a new physics tool for measuring the B field of particles.
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 5, 2021, 11:26:11 PM (yesterday)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
On Monday, April 5, 2021 at 4:53:10 PM UTC-5 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Probably not that lucky to be able to connect a Galvanometer directly to a metal or ore and immediately get a current reading. Metals that are radioactive have surprisingly high conductivity of strontium of 7.7*10^6 S/m or thorium at 6.7*10^6 S/m or uranium at 3.6*10^6 S/m or radium at 1*10^6 S/m. And it is this fact that I want to exploit, by showing that radioactive beta decay is in essence, electricity production inside of those elements proton toruses.
Has anyone found that when you dope silicon with thorium or radium or uranium that you increase silicon's conductivity?
Considering copper has 5.9*10^7 S/m and the highest of silver at 6.2*10^7 S/m with iron being 1*10^7 S/m. Happy to see lithium is 1.1*10^7 S/m and Beryllium is 2.5*10^7 S/m. But carbon is a mere 1*10^5 S/m. Sodium is surprisingly large at 2.1*10^7 S/m. Silicon is so small and obviously a semiconductor at 1*10^3 S/m. But phosphorus, a heavy element for life right up there at 1*10^7 S/m. Whereas sulfur is incredibly small at 1*10^-15 S/m. Radioactive plutonium is 6.7*10^5 S/m, and neptunium at 8.3*10^5 S/m.
Here I am asking to see if Carbon 14, the beta emitter is more conductive than the normal carbon.
The beta emitter sodium 24, is that a higher conductor than the normal sodium.
So, if we wound strontium or thorium into a wire and thrust a bar magnet we should see a reading on the Galvanometer.
But should we thrust the same bar magnet through beta radioactive emitter strontium, should the Galvanometer reading be far higher due to the fact that the radioactivity is thrusting through the strontium proton toruses causing additional electricity.
What I am going to argue here, is to remove Beta decay from radioactivity in physics, and place beta decay as not radioactivity but the mere production of electricity due to the fact that atom's protons are coils for which the thrusting muon and other particles create electricity and the 0.5MeV Dirac magnetic monopole.
In other words radioactivity is a science of neutron emission, of alpha particle emission and of large particle emission, even SF, spontaneous fission. But beta emission is part of physics of the electromagnetism chapter, the Maxwell Equations chapter should deal with beta emission, not the radioactivity department of physics.
The fact that beta emission is every element up until you get to the real heavy radioactive elements, is strong indication that Beta emission is not a subject of radioactivity. But that Beta emission is about the Faraday law of protons in atoms. And a simple proof of this would be to find where instead of a helium alpha particle of +2 is found, instead a helium -2 is found, the exact opposite, because the beta particle is a magnetic monopole attached to a helium atom. This would include also a alpha particle of +0, neither +2 or -2. Beta particles are magnetic monopoles that jump aboard a alpha particle and take a free ride out of the atom. And I would not be surprised at all if there were an alpha particle of +1 or -1, mind you still 2 protons and 2 neutrons but with just one magnetic monopole free rider.
AP
King of Science
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
1:49 AM (yesterday)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
--- Quoting from the web a anomaly on beta decay ---
But what the GSI guys found was stranger still. They discovered that the normal exponential decay rate of praseodymium and promethium oscillated with a period of about 7 seconds. It was as if an oscillation had been superimposed on the normal exponential decay curve.
Their experiment is interesting because it is unique. These guys produce a handful of ions in a synchrotron and the measure each one decaying by the change it produces in the resonance of the ion beam as it circulates.
--- end quote ---
And this is a perfect anomaly to explain by AP with his theory that Beta decay is not even radioactivity, but belongs in the department of physics called Maxwell Equations and the Faraday law. For you see, beta particles are not electrons nor positrons but are Dirac magnetic monopoles, created by the muons thrusting through proton toruses and then these monopoles are usually ushered into a nearby capacitor of a neutron for storage and reformation.
A perfect anomaly, and I love the explanation because it shows how awful and horrible is a mind in physics that has no logical brains.
The quote from the above is from technologyreview.com at MIT titled Radioactive Decay Anomaly Finally Explained (Maybe)
Well, AP has a logical mind, a rare commodity in science, and so, reading this article I come upon this passage.
"These guys were measuring the radioactive decay rates of praseodymium and promethium nuclei that had been stripped of all but one or two of their electrons, leaving them with a charge in excess of +50."
Alright, well to a kook physicist, all that sounds reasonable, good and well. To a logical minded physicist, how can you even have a atom if you strip away most of its electrons. So in the above, we can see that stupid people in physics imagine that a atom can be stripped almost clean of electrons and still be say praseodymium and promethium.
Whereas AP would say, you stripped away not the electrons, for the muons inside of protons, the muons are the real electrons of atoms doing the Faraday law inside of protons and doing the Faraday law in order to create the Dirac magnetic monopoles, for which these kook physicists thought were electrons.
So, here is an experiment from Germany where they remove almost the entire lot of Dirac magnetic monopoles from atoms of Pr and Pm and still retain being atoms of Pr and Pm.
So, how painful is it, to think physicists can believe they removed electrons and still be a Pr and Pm.
And as for the anomaly problem, Dirac magnetic monopoles are dipoles and are light waves so that you can influence them in their closed loop circuit of light waves.
What I like about this anomaly, is that I not only answer the problem, but show the physics community, that the 0.5MeV particle was never the true electron of atoms. If you strip an atom of protons you destroy that atom. Likewise, if you strip the true electron = muons of an atom you again destroy the atom.
So sad, so sad that thousands enter physics, but few have a logical brain to stand upon.
AP
King of Science, especially Physics
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
3:10 PM (3 minutes ago)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Let us start with the first element in the Periodic Table that is visible and not a gas. Start with lithium and then beryllium.
Now, why are almost all physicists mindless fools of physics, to ever think that if you remove 3 electrons of lithium, you still have lithium? They sure were fooled on helium, for all of them from 1900 to 2020 thought you could remove 2 electrons of what they called 0.5MeV particles as electrons, they thought you could have helium atoms with two missing electrons.
Of course if we were to ask these fools, ask them, if you remove just one proton from helium, would you have helium? And they all chimed in saying, no, removal of just one proton and you have a different atom.
But if you asked them remove just one electron of 0.5MeV or even two electrons of 0.5MeV, again the bozos would chime in-- you still have helium.
Against this backdrop of fools of physics steps in AP. AP says that the real electron of atoms is a muon of 105MeV stuck and trapped inside a proton torus of 840MeV doing the Faraday law. So, now, remove one single muon from helium, you would have to remove a proton also, because you cannot remove the muon stuck inside the proton torus. Not even stars are able to remove the muon out of a proton torus.
So, where does all of this leave Physics? It leaves physics with the idea, that the 0.5MeV was never the electron of atoms but the product of what the muon and proton torus created the 0.5MeV particle.
So, can the bozo physicists ever admit or realize that you can remove not only 3 of those 0.5MeV so called electrons from lithium, but remove 4 or even 5 of those 0.5MeV particles from lithium and you still have remaining in your laboratory, still have remaining lithium atoms. You can call them ionized lithium, meaning only, that you drained or removed Dirac Magnetic Monopoles, but you cannot call them lithium atoms with removed electrons for the 3 muons inside every lithium atom is still there.
Same goes for beryllium, you can remove 4 of those 0.5MeV particles, even 5 or 6 of those particles and still it is beryllium because you never removed a single muon of beryllium.
This is why the website on the GSI experiment calls to question all the anomalies, the very very strange behavior of praseodymium and promethium, the strange behavior when you remove 50 particles of 0.5MeV from those atoms. Strange behavior, but still the same atoms, because not a single muon was removed. GSI was playing around with Dirac Magnetic Monopoles of 0.5MeV, not with electrons of atoms.
Can the physicists of this generation ever grow up about physics? I doubt it. Once they are brainwashed in their beliefs that the 0.5MeV particle is a atom's electron, they, in my estimation will forever be worthless nattering nutter fools of physics. Almost impossible to get their brainwashed minds to think-- "real electron is the muon trapped inside a proton torus".
AP
King of Science, especially Physics
More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, postings only to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.
In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.
I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.
There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers.
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
Apr 17, 2021, 3:56:20 PM4/17/21
to
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Apr 17, 2021, 2:35 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe, and sci.physics
New Physics theory that includes Magnetic Monopoles Re: AP's 151st book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year College, 2021 soon to be published Archimedes Plutonium.
New Physics theory that includes Magnetic Monopoles. Old Physics had "charge" and no magnetic monopole. New Physics has magnetic monopole. Let us see if we can just simply replace "charge" with magnetic monopole. That would be the best economy of theory, if a swope out of charge, replaced with magnetic monopole. Let us see if that will fix everything.
Now, things in Old Physics are not that Logical, because as H&R define in their Appendix A, Quantity of Electricity, electric charge = C = Coulomb is C= Ampere*seconds. For that makes no sense in that you have charge as less than current and all of a sudden you have charge equal to current times seconds. This in math would be like saying 2 = 3*100.
In Old Physics they had "charge" is quantity of electricity and that makes no sense.
In New Physics, let us replace completely the concept of charge and in place, put the concept of a Magnetic Monopole denoted as MM as the quantity of electricity as given by a number of MM.
So the formula in New Physics for quantity of electricity is n*MM. Where "n" is a positive integer number. Remember, that was the reason Dirac chased after the magnetic monopole existence was for the very same reason that electricity is quantized quantity, a positive integer value.
This is why H&R and Old Physics were silent and devious and missing the quantity "n" in current and charge, because they wanted no magnetic monopole. And they had all students fooled with their devious definitions.
Now the current is a flow of quantity of electricity, meaning amount times seconds, a integral of area, and that would be designated as Current = (n*MM)*seconds.
The current is not the same as Ampere. The Ampere = (n*MM)
However the current is measured in Amperes A. So we have A = (n*MM) = current/seconds.
And this makes logical sense for then current divided by seconds is equal to n*MM.
So, I suspect we need to alter H&R definitions so that Current = (n*MM)*seconds and this then delivers the true definition of charge in Old Physics as being n*MM = Ampere = current/seconds.
Now how do we view the magnetic monopole geometrically? Well, having recently done work on geometry and straightening out the conic sections in pure math. I discover that Conic Configuration is really that of <> base to base of two cones and not what Old Math had apex to apex of two cones ><. This is important because then, the base to base cones is parabola and hyperbola joining up to form not open ended curves but joining up to be either a ellipse= 2Hyperbolas or as oval = 2Parabolas. The formula of a Parabola is that of Y = x^2/b.
This is important because then we can see that the geometry of Voltage, current, Magnetic field, Electric field all becomes Y = x^2/b or Y = mx+b, making all of Physics the simple most math possible.
Historical Note: AP has been fighting the concept of "charge" longer than I can remember. I never even liked "charge" way back when I was 20 years old in 1970. Never liked it since. And has been a devil for me to replace. But I think I am at the end of the line in replacement. And that Magnetic Monopole is the replacement.
Looking good, looking good....
Alright, the definition of Ampere current is worth repeating and is the same definition marked as 1946 in all the Halliday & Resnick & Krane 1992, textbooks I have of theirs.
--- quoting H&R ---
Appendix A, quoting "Electric current, Ampere, A = ...that constant current which, if maintained in two straight parallel conductors of infinite length, of negligible circular cross section, and placed 1 meter apart in vacuum, would produce between these conductors a force equal to 2*10^-7 newton per meter of length." (1946)
--- end quoting ---
So, what AP needs is a new modern up to date definition of Ampere current. A new definition as worked out in Sample Problem 10.
Sample Problem 10
(a) Take the Voltage = kg*m^2/C*s^2 = kg*m^2/A*s^3 and make it such that Ampere appears all alone on the leftside of equation.
(b) Take the current = C = A*s so the Ampere appears all alone on leftside of equation.
(c) Take the magnetic field B = kg/C*s = kg/A*s^2 so that the Ampere appears all alone on the leftside of the equation.
(d) Take the electric field E = kg*m^2/ C*s = kg*m^2/ A*s^2 so that the Ampere appears all alone on the leftside of the equation.
Answers.
(a) V = kg*m^2/A*s^3
V*A = kg*m^2/ s^3
A = kg*m^2/ (V*s^3)
(b) C = A*s
C/s = A
A = C/s (here the student is reminded of axioms of math, which axioms?)
(c) B = kg/A*s^2
B*A = kg/s^2
A = kg/B*s^2
(d) E = kg*m^2/ A*s^2
E*A = kg*m^2/ s^2
A = kg*m^2/ E*s^2
There we worked out what the unit vector of Ampere is going to be, relative to current to Voltage, to Magnetic field and to Electric field.
The purpose and point of this new definition, is so that we can reduce all the mathematics ever needed to do Physics, reduce that mathematics to be the world's most simple, most easy mathematics possible.
We take the difficult and hard mathematics out of Physics, see it for what it is-- junk-- and replace that junk mathematics with a math system that is ultra easy, ultra simple, fun and happy to work with.
Almost every scientist can say that they have fun doing arithmetic add, subtract, multiply, divide, and find it not hard, not difficult. But, once every scientist goes to college to study calculus, there is this hideous wall of obfuscation, obscurity, and downright ugly cesspool math.
It is the job and task, whether a scientist likes it or dislikes it, to make every science especially their own, to make it as easy to comprehend, with clarity and with fun in doing. There is no excuse in making physics math as ugly as it has become. And there is no excuse in working to make all of physics math as fun, easy and clear.
So what AP is doing here in the end of the first chapter of TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year college, is to achieve that simplicity, and clarity. By doing this.
1) Make all functions in physics as polynomials, especially trigonometry.
2) Using only the Laws of EM theory of its four laws in differential format.
3) Substituting for V, i, B, E as either Y= mx+b, Y= x^2/b which are unit vectors of Ampere.
4) define Ampere current as a vector that covers both vector and vector field.
So how does this change the math of physics? It makes all the math of physics easy because there are only Polynomial functions and these functions are simple and easy to apply the calculus derivative or integral. It makes all the math of physics standard and uniform. We no longer have to learn thousands of different functions and how calculus applies to those thousands of different functions. With a standard single uniform function-- polynomials --- we are actually able to see and perceive physics forces in our minds. When you have thousands of different math functions, no mind can compare forces in our mind.
Apr 17, 2021, 2:35 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe, and sci.physics
New Physics theory that includes Magnetic Monopoles Re: AP's 151st book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year College, 2021 soon to be published Archimedes Plutonium.
New Physics theory that includes Magnetic Monopoles. Old Physics had "charge" and no magnetic monopole. New Physics has magnetic monopole. Let us see if we can just simply replace "charge" with magnetic monopole. That would be the best economy of theory, if a swope out of charge, replaced with magnetic monopole. Let us see if that will fix everything.
Now, things in Old Physics are not that Logical, because as H&R define in their Appendix A, Quantity of Electricity, electric charge = C = Coulomb is C= Ampere*seconds. For that makes no sense in that you have charge as less than current and all of a sudden you have charge equal to current times seconds. This in math would be like saying 2 = 3*100.
In Old Physics they had "charge" is quantity of electricity and that makes no sense.
In New Physics, let us replace completely the concept of charge and in place, put the concept of a Magnetic Monopole denoted as MM as the quantity of electricity as given by a number of MM.
So the formula in New Physics for quantity of electricity is n*MM. Where "n" is a positive integer number. Remember, that was the reason Dirac chased after the magnetic monopole existence was for the very same reason that electricity is quantized quantity, a positive integer value.
This is why H&R and Old Physics were silent and devious and missing the quantity "n" in current and charge, because they wanted no magnetic monopole. And they had all students fooled with their devious definitions.
Now the current is a flow of quantity of electricity, meaning amount times seconds, a integral of area, and that would be designated as Current = (n*MM)*seconds.
The current is not the same as Ampere. The Ampere = (n*MM)
However the current is measured in Amperes A. So we have A = (n*MM) = current/seconds.
And this makes logical sense for then current divided by seconds is equal to n*MM.
So, I suspect we need to alter H&R definitions so that Current = (n*MM)*seconds and this then delivers the true definition of charge in Old Physics as being n*MM = Ampere = current/seconds.
Now how do we view the magnetic monopole geometrically? Well, having recently done work on geometry and straightening out the conic sections in pure math. I discover that Conic Configuration is really that of <> base to base of two cones and not what Old Math had apex to apex of two cones ><. This is important because then, the base to base cones is parabola and hyperbola joining up to form not open ended curves but joining up to be either a ellipse= 2Hyperbolas or as oval = 2Parabolas. The formula of a Parabola is that of Y = x^2/b.
This is important because then we can see that the geometry of Voltage, current, Magnetic field, Electric field all becomes Y = x^2/b or Y = mx+b, making all of Physics the simple most math possible.
Historical Note: AP has been fighting the concept of "charge" longer than I can remember. I never even liked "charge" way back when I was 20 years old in 1970. Never liked it since. And has been a devil for me to replace. But I think I am at the end of the line in replacement. And that Magnetic Monopole is the replacement.
Looking good, looking good....
Alright, the definition of Ampere current is worth repeating and is the same definition marked as 1946 in all the Halliday & Resnick & Krane 1992, textbooks I have of theirs.
--- quoting H&R ---
Appendix A, quoting "Electric current, Ampere, A = ...that constant current which, if maintained in two straight parallel conductors of infinite length, of negligible circular cross section, and placed 1 meter apart in vacuum, would produce between these conductors a force equal to 2*10^-7 newton per meter of length." (1946)
--- end quoting ---
So, what AP needs is a new modern up to date definition of Ampere current. A new definition as worked out in Sample Problem 10.
Sample Problem 10
(a) Take the Voltage = kg*m^2/C*s^2 = kg*m^2/A*s^3 and make it such that Ampere appears all alone on the leftside of equation.
(b) Take the current = C = A*s so the Ampere appears all alone on leftside of equation.
(c) Take the magnetic field B = kg/C*s = kg/A*s^2 so that the Ampere appears all alone on the leftside of the equation.
(d) Take the electric field E = kg*m^2/ C*s = kg*m^2/ A*s^2 so that the Ampere appears all alone on the leftside of the equation.
Answers.
(a) V = kg*m^2/A*s^3
V*A = kg*m^2/ s^3
A = kg*m^2/ (V*s^3)
(b) C = A*s
C/s = A
A = C/s (here the student is reminded of axioms of math, which axioms?)
(c) B = kg/A*s^2
B*A = kg/s^2
A = kg/B*s^2
(d) E = kg*m^2/ A*s^2
E*A = kg*m^2/ s^2
A = kg*m^2/ E*s^2
There we worked out what the unit vector of Ampere is going to be, relative to current to Voltage, to Magnetic field and to Electric field.
The purpose and point of this new definition, is so that we can reduce all the mathematics ever needed to do Physics, reduce that mathematics to be the world's most simple, most easy mathematics possible.
We take the difficult and hard mathematics out of Physics, see it for what it is-- junk-- and replace that junk mathematics with a math system that is ultra easy, ultra simple, fun and happy to work with.
Almost every scientist can say that they have fun doing arithmetic add, subtract, multiply, divide, and find it not hard, not difficult. But, once every scientist goes to college to study calculus, there is this hideous wall of obfuscation, obscurity, and downright ugly cesspool math.
It is the job and task, whether a scientist likes it or dislikes it, to make every science especially their own, to make it as easy to comprehend, with clarity and with fun in doing. There is no excuse in making physics math as ugly as it has become. And there is no excuse in working to make all of physics math as fun, easy and clear.
So what AP is doing here in the end of the first chapter of TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year college, is to achieve that simplicity, and clarity. By doing this.
1) Make all functions in physics as polynomials, especially trigonometry.
2) Using only the Laws of EM theory of its four laws in differential format.
3) Substituting for V, i, B, E as either Y= mx+b, Y= x^2/b which are unit vectors of Ampere.
4) define Ampere current as a vector that covers both vector and vector field.
So how does this change the math of physics? It makes all the math of physics easy because there are only Polynomial functions and these functions are simple and easy to apply the calculus derivative or integral. It makes all the math of physics standard and uniform. We no longer have to learn thousands of different functions and how calculus applies to those thousands of different functions. With a standard single uniform function-- polynomials --- we are actually able to see and perceive physics forces in our minds. When you have thousands of different math functions, no mind can compare forces in our mind.
Archimedes Plutonium
Apr 17, 2021, 4:58:44 PM4/17/21
to
I changed my mind and will start the 1st chapter with safety in Electricity.
Electricity is extremely dangerous, and we often do not teach the dangers in school. Rather instead we avoid doing physics electricity, simply because we are scared students will get hurt, even die.
There is a problem of "age maturity" in teaching education. Are students mature enough to learn the dangers. Because we all know some kids never take lessons seriously enough and go ahead, like a young kid, go ahead and jokingly put themselves in harms way.
My Junior High School TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS in the Time Life book presents some of the dangers. But I need to make space for a list of dangers myself. And making it the first chapter of 1st year College. Here is a list of dangers I can recall in my own life.
1) I once had to clear some outdoor electric lines, not knowing if they were still active or inactive. It came down to a air conditioning system, an old one. As precaution my line cutter the size of loping shears a full Meter long, was heavily insulated handles of rubber. I snipped the electric cord. To may amazement I saw a "ball of flame" move down, slowly, not fast but slowly, to my line cutters, and it destroyed by bending out of shape the two blades of steel, then it moved backwards, this ball of flame, moved backwards to the building and into the electrical box where it blew the fuse. If those loping shears had no rubber, I am almost sure that ball would have gone through my body and severed into pieces my heart as it bent the steel blades of the lopers. The loper incident is a case of being cavalier rather than being smart, wise, or prudent. Wait to go inside, and check the electrical box, but no, much of our lives is rush rush rush.
2) This is not my own story but of another. He tells me he was working on high power lines on a platform up on the lines. And I am told that the voltage is so high up there on those lines, that the Voltage can push you right off that platform you are working from, push you clear off the platform that you fall to the ground and injure yourself.
3) Of course we are all knowledgeable of not putting ladders near a electric pole lines. This goes for kite flying also.
4) We are careful when a electric line is down from a storm. Sometimes we see it is active and starts fires. I have seen it where a pole of wood was started on fire.
5) Short circuit is something I still need to fill in with knowledge. Twice in my life I have taken a multimeter measuring for current in Amperes, and placed the electrodes on the poles and twice in my life I have witnessed the battery getting hot hot hot so very very fast, and sparks flying. I quickly remove the electrodes and worried more about whether I ruined the multimeter, when I should be worried about that battery blowing up in my face. These are little hand held batteries AA, AAA. I can just picture young kids with a multimeter and batteries blowing up in those kids face. Can we say that 1st year College students are mature enough not to "short circuit" a battery? I think if this lesson is taught in class, wisely, that knowledge is power and safety. Much better than to completely ignore the instruction and have all those kids find out the hard way by themselves.
6) With a multimeter, about the only safe reading is the Voltage. The amperage is the dangerous one. Some have said even the Ohm resistance measurement from a multimeter can be dangerous. And as far as the instrument is concerned, you can ruin it by using AC when you should use DC or vice versa. But have to explore this for more detail-- such as-- reading the owner's manual.
7) Speaking of "Short Circuit" extremely dangerous is a car battery, if for some situation you bring a screw driver or other metal rod too close to the two pole terminals and by accident short circuit the car battery, you can kill yourself.
8) I am frequently charging up the car from winter. I have a jumper cables that I attach and then turn on the power from a distance. Here the danger is a spark and with ambient gasoline nearby can lead to an explosion of the car.
9) I need to read from cover to cover the instruction manual of my multimeters. There is probably some way of electrocution by doing something wrong in sticking the electrodes of a multimeter into a wall socket of 110V in your house. Look, if it is easy to blow up a AA battery into your face, stands to reason it is easier to kill yourself by inserting electrodes into a wall socket.
AP
King of Science, who makes mistakes often, but keeps on going
Electricity is extremely dangerous, and we often do not teach the dangers in school. Rather instead we avoid doing physics electricity, simply because we are scared students will get hurt, even die.
There is a problem of "age maturity" in teaching education. Are students mature enough to learn the dangers. Because we all know some kids never take lessons seriously enough and go ahead, like a young kid, go ahead and jokingly put themselves in harms way.
My Junior High School TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS in the Time Life book presents some of the dangers. But I need to make space for a list of dangers myself. And making it the first chapter of 1st year College. Here is a list of dangers I can recall in my own life.
1) I once had to clear some outdoor electric lines, not knowing if they were still active or inactive. It came down to a air conditioning system, an old one. As precaution my line cutter the size of loping shears a full Meter long, was heavily insulated handles of rubber. I snipped the electric cord. To may amazement I saw a "ball of flame" move down, slowly, not fast but slowly, to my line cutters, and it destroyed by bending out of shape the two blades of steel, then it moved backwards, this ball of flame, moved backwards to the building and into the electrical box where it blew the fuse. If those loping shears had no rubber, I am almost sure that ball would have gone through my body and severed into pieces my heart as it bent the steel blades of the lopers. The loper incident is a case of being cavalier rather than being smart, wise, or prudent. Wait to go inside, and check the electrical box, but no, much of our lives is rush rush rush.
2) This is not my own story but of another. He tells me he was working on high power lines on a platform up on the lines. And I am told that the voltage is so high up there on those lines, that the Voltage can push you right off that platform you are working from, push you clear off the platform that you fall to the ground and injure yourself.
3) Of course we are all knowledgeable of not putting ladders near a electric pole lines. This goes for kite flying also.
4) We are careful when a electric line is down from a storm. Sometimes we see it is active and starts fires. I have seen it where a pole of wood was started on fire.
5) Short circuit is something I still need to fill in with knowledge. Twice in my life I have taken a multimeter measuring for current in Amperes, and placed the electrodes on the poles and twice in my life I have witnessed the battery getting hot hot hot so very very fast, and sparks flying. I quickly remove the electrodes and worried more about whether I ruined the multimeter, when I should be worried about that battery blowing up in my face. These are little hand held batteries AA, AAA. I can just picture young kids with a multimeter and batteries blowing up in those kids face. Can we say that 1st year College students are mature enough not to "short circuit" a battery? I think if this lesson is taught in class, wisely, that knowledge is power and safety. Much better than to completely ignore the instruction and have all those kids find out the hard way by themselves.
6) With a multimeter, about the only safe reading is the Voltage. The amperage is the dangerous one. Some have said even the Ohm resistance measurement from a multimeter can be dangerous. And as far as the instrument is concerned, you can ruin it by using AC when you should use DC or vice versa. But have to explore this for more detail-- such as-- reading the owner's manual.
7) Speaking of "Short Circuit" extremely dangerous is a car battery, if for some situation you bring a screw driver or other metal rod too close to the two pole terminals and by accident short circuit the car battery, you can kill yourself.
8) I am frequently charging up the car from winter. I have a jumper cables that I attach and then turn on the power from a distance. Here the danger is a spark and with ambient gasoline nearby can lead to an explosion of the car.
9) I need to read from cover to cover the instruction manual of my multimeters. There is probably some way of electrocution by doing something wrong in sticking the electrodes of a multimeter into a wall socket of 110V in your house. Look, if it is easy to blow up a AA battery into your face, stands to reason it is easier to kill yourself by inserting electrodes into a wall socket.
AP
King of Science, who makes mistakes often, but keeps on going
Archimedes Plutonium
Apr 17, 2021, 6:58:49 PM4/17/21
to
On Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 2:56:20 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Apr 17, 2021, 2:35 PM
> to Plutonium Atom Universe, and sci.physics
>
> New Physics theory that includes Magnetic Monopoles Re: AP's 151st book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year College, 2021 soon to be published Archimedes Plutonium.
>
> New Physics theory that includes Magnetic Monopoles. Old Physics had "charge" and no magnetic monopole. New Physics has magnetic monopole. Let us see if we can just simply replace "charge" with magnetic monopole. That would be the best economy of theory, if a swope out of charge, replaced with magnetic monopole. Let us see if that will fix everything.
>
> Now, things in Old Physics are not that Logical, because as H&R define in their Appendix A, Quantity of Electricity, electric charge = C = Coulomb is C= Ampere*seconds. For that makes no sense in that you have charge as less than current and all of a sudden you have charge equal to current times seconds. This in math would be like saying 2 = 3*100.
>
> In Old Physics they had "charge" is quantity of electricity and that makes no sense.
>
> In New Physics, let us replace completely the concept of charge and in place, put the concept of a Magnetic Monopole denoted as MM as the quantity of electricity as given by a number of MM.
>
> So the formula in New Physics for quantity of electricity is n*MM. Where "n" is a positive integer number. Remember, that was the reason Dirac chased after the magnetic monopole existence was for the very same reason that electricity is quantized quantity, a positive integer value.
>
> This is why H&R and Old Physics were silent and devious and missing the quantity "n" in current and charge, because they wanted no magnetic monopole. And they had all students fooled with their devious definitions.
>
> Now the current is a flow of quantity of electricity, meaning amount times seconds, a integral of area, and that would be designated as Current = (n*MM)*seconds.
>
> The current is not the same as Ampere. The Ampere = (n*MM)
>
So here, let me check on this again. That we have four parameters, the magnetic monopole, the current, the Ampere and seconds of time. Four items, and that is what we have on the Macro-scale, 4 items of Voltage, current, Magnetic field, Electric field and those Macro items are in math form of A= BCD or V = iBE.
> Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Apr 17, 2021, 2:35 PM
> to Plutonium Atom Universe, and sci.physics
>
> New Physics theory that includes Magnetic Monopoles Re: AP's 151st book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year College, 2021 soon to be published Archimedes Plutonium.
>
> New Physics theory that includes Magnetic Monopoles. Old Physics had "charge" and no magnetic monopole. New Physics has magnetic monopole. Let us see if we can just simply replace "charge" with magnetic monopole. That would be the best economy of theory, if a swope out of charge, replaced with magnetic monopole. Let us see if that will fix everything.
>
> Now, things in Old Physics are not that Logical, because as H&R define in their Appendix A, Quantity of Electricity, electric charge = C = Coulomb is C= Ampere*seconds. For that makes no sense in that you have charge as less than current and all of a sudden you have charge equal to current times seconds. This in math would be like saying 2 = 3*100.
>
> In Old Physics they had "charge" is quantity of electricity and that makes no sense.
>
> In New Physics, let us replace completely the concept of charge and in place, put the concept of a Magnetic Monopole denoted as MM as the quantity of electricity as given by a number of MM.
>
> So the formula in New Physics for quantity of electricity is n*MM. Where "n" is a positive integer number. Remember, that was the reason Dirac chased after the magnetic monopole existence was for the very same reason that electricity is quantized quantity, a positive integer value.
>
> This is why H&R and Old Physics were silent and devious and missing the quantity "n" in current and charge, because they wanted no magnetic monopole. And they had all students fooled with their devious definitions.
>
> Now the current is a flow of quantity of electricity, meaning amount times seconds, a integral of area, and that would be designated as Current = (n*MM)*seconds.
>
> The current is not the same as Ampere. The Ampere = (n*MM)
>
So we need the Micro-scale to be of form A= BCD which is a integral of area under graph curve.
We need this form of A= BCD for MM magnetic monopole, current = i and Ampere and seconds.
So we have on Microscale: Current = A*seconds = (nMM)*seconds.
Which can be rewritten as Ampere = current/seconds = (nMM).
Where Current is an integral and Ampere is a derivative. That sounds correct.
It means that our Ampere in Old Physics was a quantity of magnetic monopoles, far different from the idea of electric current, for that is Ampere*seconds.
Old Physics never had the Magnetic Monopole and so their logic was way off, as can be seen in all Old Physics textbooks such as Halliday & Resnick where they fumble around with quantity of electricity, fumble with current, and fumble with charge.
Here, we make "charge" be an actual physical entity-- the Dirac magnetic monopole, and the amperage we read from a Voltmeter or multimeter is not the actual current but is the number of Dirac Magnetic monopoles divided by seconds. Ampere = current/seconds = (nMM) where nMM is the total number of magnetic monopoles.
So there is a need to keep the same math form for electricity and electric current as there is for Voltage, A= BCD.
Now, this same math form allows me to make current a vector of Y= x^2/b or as Y= mx+b as polynomials, to reduce all of Physics mathematics to the simple easy calculus of application of power rules. In other words, make all math as simple as arithmetic of add, subtract, multiply, divide.
No longer is both math and physics infested as a pandemic disease with all these crazy quilt functions from trigonometry to exponential to logarithmic, but all one type of function-- polynomials.
Now in the formula of V = iBE, we have to ask since we know that B and E are of parabolic form of Y=x^2/b and that voltage is also of parabolic form Y=x^2/b. So we have to ask, must, upon demand that current "i" also needs to be of form Y=x^2/b?
Speaking as a mathematician, that if V and B and E are of form x^2/b, necessitates that current "i" is also of form x^2/b.
However, if we make all four V,i,B,E be of form Y= mx+b we can get a close approximation of the final answer.
We just cannot mix Y=mx+b with Y=x^2/b, for all have to be the same form.
Archimedes Plutonium
Apr 17, 2021, 9:37:20 PM4/17/21
to
Old Physics could never explain adequately what is going on in "short circuit" of electricity. Why it is that you put two electrodes of a multimeter on a battery and it will get so hot as to explode, yet you put a light bulb up against the poles of the battery and the battery acts normal. This in Old Physics is a incongruence of theory versus experiment. The theory in Old Physics of EM does not explain the "short circuit".
But in New Physics the theory is in congruence with the experiment, explaining that "short circuit" is capacitor electricity, all wanting to get out at the same time of closed loop dipoles from static monopoles stored inside the battery.
In New Physics, every battery is also a capacitor. Old Physics could never have the idea that a battery is both a production of electricity but also a capacitor to store electricity.
In a "short circuit" of New Physics, the magnetic monopoles as storaged static electricity quickly all become dipoles all wanting to get out at the same time. By placing a light bulb into the circuit, that resistance of the light bulb causes the monopoles to slowly and sequentially form into dipoles of electricity current flow.
In Old Physics, their mindless 0.5MeV particles, hopeless vagabond trekkers of willy nilly.
In New Physics, the battery produces magnetic monopoles from the thrusting muons inside of proton toruses and this Faraday electricity is magnetic monopoles that are storaged inside the battery as capacitor. Now when a circuit is formed of the entire battery, those monopoles join together in a sequential order to form dipoles of electric current.
So in the phenomenon of "short circuit" the sequential ordering is all lost and all the monopoles forming dipoles and closed loops of electricity rapidly escaping the battery.
But in New Physics the theory is in congruence with the experiment, explaining that "short circuit" is capacitor electricity, all wanting to get out at the same time of closed loop dipoles from static monopoles stored inside the battery.
In New Physics, every battery is also a capacitor. Old Physics could never have the idea that a battery is both a production of electricity but also a capacitor to store electricity.
In a "short circuit" of New Physics, the magnetic monopoles as storaged static electricity quickly all become dipoles all wanting to get out at the same time. By placing a light bulb into the circuit, that resistance of the light bulb causes the monopoles to slowly and sequentially form into dipoles of electricity current flow.
In Old Physics, their mindless 0.5MeV particles, hopeless vagabond trekkers of willy nilly.
In New Physics, the battery produces magnetic monopoles from the thrusting muons inside of proton toruses and this Faraday electricity is magnetic monopoles that are storaged inside the battery as capacitor. Now when a circuit is formed of the entire battery, those monopoles join together in a sequential order to form dipoles of electric current.
So in the phenomenon of "short circuit" the sequential ordering is all lost and all the monopoles forming dipoles and closed loops of electricity rapidly escaping the battery.
Archimedes Plutonium
Apr 18, 2021, 3:58:52 PM4/18/21
to
Archimedes Plutonium
Apr 18, 2021, 2:51 PM
to sci.physics
9Apr2021, SCIENCE, page 113 Particle Physics, For a change, a hint of new physics does not fade away, Reprise of storied experiment confirms muon's extra magnetism.
The Economist, April 10th, 2021, Particle Physics Model Misbehaviour, For the second time in a month, an anomaly in the laws of physics has been noted.
--- quoting---
"Who ordered that?" This was the reaction, famous in particle-physics circles, of Isidor Isaac Rabi to the discovery of the muon.
.... -- a deviation of about 0.1% from theoretical predictions about the way that muons should spin in magnetic fields--
--- end quoting---
AP writes: it is to the credit of Rabi to have a beginners logical mind to raise the question of why the World has two electrons, the little one of Thomson, in 1897, of 0.5MeV and the huge one of Anderson & Neddermeyer, in 1936, of 105MeV. But the sad fact is, no-one in physics had a gram brain of logic to go beyond Rabi's initial logic. No-one had the logical mind to say-- could we have gotten the electrons mixed up???? Could the real true electron of atoms be the muon at 105MeV and stuck and trapped inside a proton of 840MeV torus doing the Faraday Law?
So, Rabi was not intelligent in physics enough, and none of the others in physics were intelligent enough in logic to say-- "the 0.5MeV particle is actually Dirac's magnetic monopole, and the muon is the true electron of atoms".
No-one in physics from Rutherford-Bohr Model onwards was intelligent in logic to ponder--- Every Physics Particle has a job, a function, a task to do, and so the true electron of atoms is the muon trapped inside a proton torus of 840MeV and the muon is the bar magnet thrusting through the 8 rings of the proton torus acting as Faraday coil and producing electricity.
Physics had to wait for a physicist with logical intelligence to piece together the muon, by AP in 2016-2017.
The muon is going to have a large Magnetic Field because it is the bar magnet in Faraday's law inside a 840MeV proton torus coil.
Apr 18, 2021, 2:51 PM
to sci.physics
9Apr2021, SCIENCE, page 113 Particle Physics, For a change, a hint of new physics does not fade away, Reprise of storied experiment confirms muon's extra magnetism.
The Economist, April 10th, 2021, Particle Physics Model Misbehaviour, For the second time in a month, an anomaly in the laws of physics has been noted.
--- quoting---
"Who ordered that?" This was the reaction, famous in particle-physics circles, of Isidor Isaac Rabi to the discovery of the muon.
.... -- a deviation of about 0.1% from theoretical predictions about the way that muons should spin in magnetic fields--
--- end quoting---
AP writes: it is to the credit of Rabi to have a beginners logical mind to raise the question of why the World has two electrons, the little one of Thomson, in 1897, of 0.5MeV and the huge one of Anderson & Neddermeyer, in 1936, of 105MeV. But the sad fact is, no-one in physics had a gram brain of logic to go beyond Rabi's initial logic. No-one had the logical mind to say-- could we have gotten the electrons mixed up???? Could the real true electron of atoms be the muon at 105MeV and stuck and trapped inside a proton of 840MeV torus doing the Faraday Law?
So, Rabi was not intelligent in physics enough, and none of the others in physics were intelligent enough in logic to say-- "the 0.5MeV particle is actually Dirac's magnetic monopole, and the muon is the true electron of atoms".
No-one in physics from Rutherford-Bohr Model onwards was intelligent in logic to ponder--- Every Physics Particle has a job, a function, a task to do, and so the true electron of atoms is the muon trapped inside a proton torus of 840MeV and the muon is the bar magnet thrusting through the 8 rings of the proton torus acting as Faraday coil and producing electricity.
Physics had to wait for a physicist with logical intelligence to piece together the muon, by AP in 2016-2017.
The muon is going to have a large Magnetic Field because it is the bar magnet in Faraday's law inside a 840MeV proton torus coil.
Archimedes Plutonium
Apr 18, 2021, 5:03:33 PM4/18/21
to
Re: making the math of physics be the world's easiest math possible Re: +AP's 151st book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year College, 2021 soon to be published Archimedes Plutonium.
Cone theory of 3D applied to Physics as right triangle of 2D.
We all know how important right-triangles are to mathematics and physics for it creates the perpendicular of electric field versus magnetic field, each perpendicular to the other.
In 3D we take that a step further and claim the Cone is to the right triangle in 2D.
And a huge important result is the volume of a cylinder is 3 associated cones.
Now, why bother with this fact of mathematics that 1 cylinder volume = 3 associated cones volumes. Well it is important because a slant cut in a single cone is a parabola of form Y = x^2/b.
But now, if you attach two cones base to base <> we continue that slant cut into the second cone and that parabola turns into a closed loop of electricity and magnetism.
Volume of a cylinder is 1/2*pi*r^2*height (remember pi = 6.28... whenever we use radius), and this math form of volume of cylinder is A = BCD, the same math form of Voltage = current*magnetic field*electric field.
And the path of current and Ampere is x^2/b whether that path is a single cone or two cones joined at the base <>.
This allows me to Replace or Substitute Voltage, current, Magnetic field, Electric field with the simple math of Y = x^2/b.
Cone theory of 3D applied to Physics as right triangle of 2D.
We all know how important right-triangles are to mathematics and physics for it creates the perpendicular of electric field versus magnetic field, each perpendicular to the other.
In 3D we take that a step further and claim the Cone is to the right triangle in 2D.
And a huge important result is the volume of a cylinder is 3 associated cones.
Now, why bother with this fact of mathematics that 1 cylinder volume = 3 associated cones volumes. Well it is important because a slant cut in a single cone is a parabola of form Y = x^2/b.
But now, if you attach two cones base to base <> we continue that slant cut into the second cone and that parabola turns into a closed loop of electricity and magnetism.
Volume of a cylinder is 1/2*pi*r^2*height (remember pi = 6.28... whenever we use radius), and this math form of volume of cylinder is A = BCD, the same math form of Voltage = current*magnetic field*electric field.
And the path of current and Ampere is x^2/b whether that path is a single cone or two cones joined at the base <>.
This allows me to Replace or Substitute Voltage, current, Magnetic field, Electric field with the simple math of Y = x^2/b.
Archimedes Plutonium
Apr 18, 2021, 10:32:58 PM4/18/21
to
Sample Problem 11, practice with Ohm's law of Old Physics Re: AP's 151st book of science, TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year college.
Sample Problem 11, practice with Ohm's law of Old Physics
So Old Physics Ohm's law was V= iR where R is resistance but in New Physics we have V = iBE where B times E is magnetic field times Electric field.
So have a light bulb and a battery housing and battery AA of 1.5 volt. We measure the 1.5 volt with multimeter and measure the resistance ohms as 0.5 ohm and measure the amperage in series, not parallel for parallel is "short circuit". With the multimeter in series with the light bulb and battery pack I measure 3 amps.
So see if this is correct of Old Physics V = iR and 1.5 volts = 3amps * 0.5 ohms and yes that agrees.
So this is a good exercise for students to learn V=iR and to learn series as compared to parallel connection. Remember, parallel is practically short circuit, and the danger of exploding the battery with someone being injured.
So we want the safety of Connected in Series so the bulb is on controlling the current and the multimeter measuring the current.
Michael Moroney
Apr 19, 2021, 1:18:35 AM4/19/21
to
Snail of Math and Green Banded Broodsac Nemotode of Physics Archimedes "I ate my brain" Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> fails at math and science:
> Subject: Re: Muon news of extra magnetic field Re: AP's 151st book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year
WARNING TO STUDENTS, PARENTS and TEACHERS: Archimedes Plutonium is offering to
teach your children his broken physics and math. BEWARE! He will corrupt the
minds of your children! Mr. Plutonium is not content to be a failure of math
and physics all by himself. He wants everyone else to fail as well! He teaches
bizarre false physics and math, such as atoms contain the unstable muon, the
ellipse isn't a conic section, that there are no negative numbers, no complex
numbers, that a sine wave isn't sinusoidal but semicircles, cycloids or parabolas
(depending on his mood), plus many, many other instances of bad math and physics.
Plutonium has previously tried to corrupt our youth by posting his books on
Usenet. That has failed until now, perhaps in part due to the fact Usenet is an
old, dying medium few modern students even know of, much less use. However, Mr.
Plutonium has somehow duped Amazon into providing his dangerous books for free
on Kindle. This has greatly increased the danger to our students!
One of his dangerous tricks is teach false Boolean logic such as 10 AND 2 = 12.
His method at doing this is particularly insidious. He'll post a false statement
that nobody believes, such as 10 OR 2 = 12, say that it is false (which it is),
but then he'll try to replace it with another similar false statement such as
10 AND 2 = 12, in order to really confuse future computer scientists. Plutonium
is taking advantage of the fact that AND means different things in Boolean logic
and elementary arithmetic, as AND is an informal synonym for plus/addition. It is
important for future computer scientists to remember that in the bitwise Boolean
logic used by modern computers, 10 OR 2 = 10 and 10 AND 2 = 2. Of course in pure
Boolean logic the only possible values are true and false (1 or 0), so in pure
Boolean logic the statements "10 AND 2" and "10 OR 2" don't even make sense. Don't
let evil Plutonium's bad logic confuse you!
Additionally, Plutonium has started a Cult of Failure. He is trying to convince
students to worship his evil pagan Plutonium atom god of failure. This cult is
anti-science and anti-mathematics. Its only goal is to promote failure in math
and science.
Nobody knows why he wishes to corrupt the minds of our youth like this. Perhaps
he is envious of their potential success, which he never had because he is a
failure at math and science. Plutonium is not content to be a failure at math
and physics all by himself. He wants everyone to fail as well. Some claim he is
an agent of China, in order for them to dominate the world economy. Maybe he is
a minion of Kim Jong Un of North Korea. Most likely he is an agent of Putin
and Russia, because he has previously attempted to summon Russian robots in 2017
"to create a new, true mathematics" in an attempt to destroy mathematics. But the
point is, stay away, if he offers to give or sell you his dangerous books.
Especially now since they are available for free from otherwise legitimate
Amazon.
> Subject: Re: Muon news of extra magnetic field Re: AP's 151st book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year
WARNING TO STUDENTS, PARENTS and TEACHERS: Archimedes Plutonium is offering to
teach your children his broken physics and math. BEWARE! He will corrupt the
minds of your children! Mr. Plutonium is not content to be a failure of math
and physics all by himself. He wants everyone else to fail as well! He teaches
bizarre false physics and math, such as atoms contain the unstable muon, the
ellipse isn't a conic section, that there are no negative numbers, no complex
numbers, that a sine wave isn't sinusoidal but semicircles, cycloids or parabolas
(depending on his mood), plus many, many other instances of bad math and physics.
Plutonium has previously tried to corrupt our youth by posting his books on
Usenet. That has failed until now, perhaps in part due to the fact Usenet is an
old, dying medium few modern students even know of, much less use. However, Mr.
Plutonium has somehow duped Amazon into providing his dangerous books for free
on Kindle. This has greatly increased the danger to our students!
One of his dangerous tricks is teach false Boolean logic such as 10 AND 2 = 12.
His method at doing this is particularly insidious. He'll post a false statement
that nobody believes, such as 10 OR 2 = 12, say that it is false (which it is),
but then he'll try to replace it with another similar false statement such as
10 AND 2 = 12, in order to really confuse future computer scientists. Plutonium
is taking advantage of the fact that AND means different things in Boolean logic
and elementary arithmetic, as AND is an informal synonym for plus/addition. It is
important for future computer scientists to remember that in the bitwise Boolean
logic used by modern computers, 10 OR 2 = 10 and 10 AND 2 = 2. Of course in pure
Boolean logic the only possible values are true and false (1 or 0), so in pure
Boolean logic the statements "10 AND 2" and "10 OR 2" don't even make sense. Don't
let evil Plutonium's bad logic confuse you!
Additionally, Plutonium has started a Cult of Failure. He is trying to convince
students to worship his evil pagan Plutonium atom god of failure. This cult is
anti-science and anti-mathematics. Its only goal is to promote failure in math
and science.
Nobody knows why he wishes to corrupt the minds of our youth like this. Perhaps
he is envious of their potential success, which he never had because he is a
failure at math and science. Plutonium is not content to be a failure at math
and physics all by himself. He wants everyone to fail as well. Some claim he is
an agent of China, in order for them to dominate the world economy. Maybe he is
a minion of Kim Jong Un of North Korea. Most likely he is an agent of Putin
and Russia, because he has previously attempted to summon Russian robots in 2017
"to create a new, true mathematics" in an attempt to destroy mathematics. But the
point is, stay away, if he offers to give or sell you his dangerous books.
Especially now since they are available for free from otherwise legitimate
Amazon.
Message has been deleted
Archimedes Plutonium
Apr 19, 2021, 3:20:40 AM4/19/21
to
--- quoting Physical Review Letters 7Apr2021 from the web ---
We present the first results of the Fermilab National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL) Muon
g − 2 Experiment for the positive muon magnetic anomaly
a μ ≡ ( g μ − 2 ) / 2 . The anomaly is determined from the precision measurements of two angular frequencies. Intensity variation of high-energy positrons from muon decays directly encodes the difference frequency
ω a between the spin-precession and cyclotron frequencies for polarized muons in a magnetic storage ring. The storage ring magnetic field is measured using nuclear magnetic resonance probes calibrated in terms of the equivalent proton spin precession frequency ˜ ω ′ p in a spherical water sample at 34.7 ° C . The ratio ω a / ˜ ω ′ p , together with known fundamental constants, determines a μ ( FNAL ) = 116 592 040 ( 54 ) × 10^ − 11 (0.46 ppm). The result is 3.3 standard deviations greater than the standard model prediction and is in excellent agreement with the previous Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) E821 measurement. After combination with previous measurements of both μ + and μ − , the new experimental average of a μ ( Exp ) = 116 592 061 ( 41 ) × 10 − 11 (0.35 ppm) increases the tension between experiment and theory to 4.2 standard deviations.
--- end quoting journals aps org ---
We present the first results of the Fermilab National Accelerator Laboratory (FNAL) Muon
g − 2 Experiment for the positive muon magnetic anomaly
a μ ≡ ( g μ − 2 ) / 2 . The anomaly is determined from the precision measurements of two angular frequencies. Intensity variation of high-energy positrons from muon decays directly encodes the difference frequency
ω a between the spin-precession and cyclotron frequencies for polarized muons in a magnetic storage ring. The storage ring magnetic field is measured using nuclear magnetic resonance probes calibrated in terms of the equivalent proton spin precession frequency ˜ ω ′ p in a spherical water sample at 34.7 ° C . The ratio ω a / ˜ ω ′ p , together with known fundamental constants, determines a μ ( FNAL ) = 116 592 040 ( 54 ) × 10^ − 11 (0.46 ppm). The result is 3.3 standard deviations greater than the standard model prediction and is in excellent agreement with the previous Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) E821 measurement. After combination with previous measurements of both μ + and μ − , the new experimental average of a μ ( Exp ) = 116 592 061 ( 41 ) × 10 − 11 (0.35 ppm) increases the tension between experiment and theory to 4.2 standard deviations.
--- end quoting journals aps org ---
Archimedes Plutonium
Apr 19, 2021, 4:24:21 PM4/19/21
to
In New Physics, Rutherford-Bohr simply screwed-up in the interpretation of gold leaf experiment 1911 of Geiger-Marsden-Rutherford. They screwed-up because what caused the alpha particles to bounce back to source was their head-on collision with muons inside of proton toruses going almost the speed of light doing the Faraday Law and producing electricity. (Get a Newton's Cradle Experiment to see how muons can cause a alpha particle to bounce back.) There are 79 muons in each gold atom.
So the truth about internal atomic structure is that there is __no nucleus__. Atoms have no nucleus. The protons and neutrons are mostly on the surface of a torus. The proton is 840MeV torus with 105MeV muon inside going round and round at nearly the speed of light in hydrogen atom. In the gold atom there are 79 protons as a torus with 79muons assembled together going at 99% speed of light. So when alpha particles enter a proton torus and are met head-on collision with muon/s, it can bounce that alpha particle backwards from whence it came.
So Atoms have no nucleus, which raises the question of where Nuclear Energy and where Atomic bombs get their energy.
Since nuclear energy is a myth, means the energy comes from electricity and magnetism, when short circuited, that energy results in an explosion just as the atomic bomb is an explosive device.
If you look on the Internet for battery explosion, you see some sites showing a explosion, but none in a systematic experiment.
Some websites show a button battery explode. Some show the 18650 battery explode. Too many websites focus on hydrogen gas and not focused on just the release of electrical energy that is the cause of explosion in a pure-science-sense that I am focused upon. So take the hydrogen gas out of the experiment.
So, here is the experiment.
EXPERIMENT to correlate Short Circuit is equal to Atomic Bomb Explosion.
Build batteries to explode, their only reason for existence is to explode them. No use in trying batteries designed not to explode. We specifically build these batteries to measure for explosion, and the key parameter is mass.
Mass is important in this Experiment for such lightweight atoms as lithium compared to the mass density of uranium and plutonium.
So, when a plutonium bomb explodes, what is going on? Atoms have no nucleus. So we get rid of all of that nonsense talk. When a plutonium bomb explodes, the atoms of plutonium have built inside their proton toruses and neutrons as capacitors, have built up electricity and stored the electricity in the neutrons that cover the plutonium atoms as parallel plates skin cover. That is a good description of neutrons-- parallel plate skin cover.
You need fissile material for the detonation of a nuclear bomb. The fissile material acts as a Short Circuit.
So now, let us start with batteries built of lithium intended to be exploded via short circuit. The greater the mass of the lithium the larger is the explosion.
And this Logical point never bothered those in Old Physics, that a plutonium bomb required a threshold mass, that you could not build mini-plutonium-bombs. That was Old Physics, but in New Physics you can have any size of plutonium battery bomb as you want, just as you can have a button battery to a truck size battery.
Then go to say lead car batteries built not for any hydrogen gassing explosion, no, eliminate gassing. We want a explosion due only to Short Circuit. Build them to explode. Too many of the films shown on Internet are batteries that resist explosion, they heat up and melt. Here we build them for the Experiment, expressly built for high intensity explosion.
Chart the graph of mass versus energy of explosion.
We should see a direct correlation of mass of Short Circuit to atomic bomb explosion as a short circuit of plutonium.
We should start to consider that the atomic bomb is more aptly called the plutonium-battery-bomb.
AP
King of Science, especially Physics
So the truth about internal atomic structure is that there is __no nucleus__. Atoms have no nucleus. The protons and neutrons are mostly on the surface of a torus. The proton is 840MeV torus with 105MeV muon inside going round and round at nearly the speed of light in hydrogen atom. In the gold atom there are 79 protons as a torus with 79muons assembled together going at 99% speed of light. So when alpha particles enter a proton torus and are met head-on collision with muon/s, it can bounce that alpha particle backwards from whence it came.
So Atoms have no nucleus, which raises the question of where Nuclear Energy and where Atomic bombs get their energy.
Since nuclear energy is a myth, means the energy comes from electricity and magnetism, when short circuited, that energy results in an explosion just as the atomic bomb is an explosive device.
If you look on the Internet for battery explosion, you see some sites showing a explosion, but none in a systematic experiment.
Some websites show a button battery explode. Some show the 18650 battery explode. Too many websites focus on hydrogen gas and not focused on just the release of electrical energy that is the cause of explosion in a pure-science-sense that I am focused upon. So take the hydrogen gas out of the experiment.
So, here is the experiment.
EXPERIMENT to correlate Short Circuit is equal to Atomic Bomb Explosion.
Build batteries to explode, their only reason for existence is to explode them. No use in trying batteries designed not to explode. We specifically build these batteries to measure for explosion, and the key parameter is mass.
Mass is important in this Experiment for such lightweight atoms as lithium compared to the mass density of uranium and plutonium.
So, when a plutonium bomb explodes, what is going on? Atoms have no nucleus. So we get rid of all of that nonsense talk. When a plutonium bomb explodes, the atoms of plutonium have built inside their proton toruses and neutrons as capacitors, have built up electricity and stored the electricity in the neutrons that cover the plutonium atoms as parallel plates skin cover. That is a good description of neutrons-- parallel plate skin cover.
You need fissile material for the detonation of a nuclear bomb. The fissile material acts as a Short Circuit.
So now, let us start with batteries built of lithium intended to be exploded via short circuit. The greater the mass of the lithium the larger is the explosion.
And this Logical point never bothered those in Old Physics, that a plutonium bomb required a threshold mass, that you could not build mini-plutonium-bombs. That was Old Physics, but in New Physics you can have any size of plutonium battery bomb as you want, just as you can have a button battery to a truck size battery.
Then go to say lead car batteries built not for any hydrogen gassing explosion, no, eliminate gassing. We want a explosion due only to Short Circuit. Build them to explode. Too many of the films shown on Internet are batteries that resist explosion, they heat up and melt. Here we build them for the Experiment, expressly built for high intensity explosion.
Chart the graph of mass versus energy of explosion.
We should see a direct correlation of mass of Short Circuit to atomic bomb explosion as a short circuit of plutonium.
We should start to consider that the atomic bomb is more aptly called the plutonium-battery-bomb.
AP
King of Science, especially Physics
Michael Moroney
Apr 19, 2021, 6:39:08 PM4/19/21
to
Snail of Math and Green Banded Broodsac Nemotode of Physics Archimedes "I ate my brain" Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> fails at math and science:
> Subject: Since atoms have no nucleus then what is a nuclear bomb? Answer: a short circuit//
Why do you make up garbage and pretend that it's true?
> AP's 151st book TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS
Archimedes Plutonium
Apr 19, 2021, 10:00:48 PM4/19/21
to
On Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 9:32:58 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Sample Problem 11, practice with Ohm's law of Old Physics Re: AP's 151st book of science, TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year college.
>
> Sample Problem 11, practice with Ohm's law of Old Physics
>
> So Old Physics Ohm's law was V= iR where R is resistance but in New Physics we have V = iBE where B times E is magnetic field times Electric field.
>
> So have a light bulb and a battery housing and battery AA of 1.5 volt. We measure the 1.5 volt with multimeter and measure the resistance ohms as 0.5 ohm and measure the amperage in series, not parallel for parallel is "short circuit". With the multimeter in series with the light bulb and battery pack I measure 3 amps.
>
This time I used a lithium battery, a used one, measuring 1.4 volts. And same light bulb connected in series with multimeter. The resistance in ohms was 0.6 ohms. The current was 2.5 amps. Today we talk of 2500 mAmph (milli amps hour). So Old Physics Ohms law is V = iR, and substituting we have 1.4 = 0.6*2.5 and close enough.
> Sample Problem 11, practice with Ohm's law of Old Physics Re: AP's 151st book of science, TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year college.
>
> Sample Problem 11, practice with Ohm's law of Old Physics
>
> So Old Physics Ohm's law was V= iR where R is resistance but in New Physics we have V = iBE where B times E is magnetic field times Electric field.
>
> So have a light bulb and a battery housing and battery AA of 1.5 volt. We measure the 1.5 volt with multimeter and measure the resistance ohms as 0.5 ohm and measure the amperage in series, not parallel for parallel is "short circuit". With the multimeter in series with the light bulb and battery pack I measure 3 amps.
>
Looks like I need a lesson on Series Circuit versus Parallel Circuit.
But my mind is more focused on the fact that Resistance is really magnetic field times electric field and that how this allows for a steady current and not a short circuit. Somehow the B and E fields regulate the current flow. If I just but a loop around the battery, it short circuits. If I place a light bulb (resistor) into the loop, it regulates the current of the battery. So, somehow I have to have the theory of how the E field or the B field of the resistor of the light bulb regulates that 2.5 amps and avoids short circuiting. Or in the prior experiment the 3 amps, 0.5 ohms of that same light bulb.
Looking in H&R, they get to series circuit in their next chapter of electromotive force and circuits. While their Ohms law chapter is prior.
AP
King of Science, especially Physics
Archimedes Plutonium
Apr 20, 2021, 12:29:03 AM4/20/21
to
One does not have to look far for supporting evidence that the Atomic bomb is really a fancy battery, a battery that is short circuited. (Do you not just love the gracious new ideas put forth by the King of Science, so effortlessly, so much ease, so flowing in logic.)
Anyway, one can just read the Wikipedia to find overwhelming evidence that the Atomic bomb, since atoms have no nucleus, that the energy of the atomic bomb comes from a battery, some of the world's largest batteries are atomic weapons, and to explode them, they are short circuited.
Makes sense, makes utter logical sense that atomic bombs and atomic energy is just the harnessing of the electricity inside of atoms, not some silly changes in a mythical and fake nucleus. In fact, Disneyland, or Disney World or whatever they call that entertainment, should have a tour through the Fake Con Artistry of Nuclear Energy, where you ride some train through a clownish nucleus of Fake Atoms "watch out, there is a swarm of neutrons with protons over there, duck you heads".
Anyway, looking at Wikipedia "Nuclear weapon design" we immediately see, those bombs are built like a battery, a huge lithium battery.
--- quoting Wikipedia Nuclear weapon design ---
The first effort to exploit the symbiotic relationship between fission and fusion was a 1940s design that mixed fission and fusion fuel in alternating thin layers. As a single-stage device, it would have been a cumbersome application of boosted fission. It first became practical when incorporated into the secondary of a two-stage thermonuclear weapon.
The U.S. name, Alarm Clock, came from Teller: he called it that because it might "wake up the world" to the possibility of the potential of the Super.[38] The Russian name for the same design was more descriptive: Sloika (Russian: Слойка), a layered pastry cake. A single-stage Soviet Sloika was tested on August 12, 1953. No single-stage U.S. version was tested, but the Union shot of Operation Castle, April 26, 1954, was a two-stage thermonuclear device code-named Alarm Clock. Its yield, at Bikini, was 6.9 megatons.
Because the Soviet Sloika test used dry lithium-6 deuteride eight months before the first U.S. test to use it (Castle Bravo, March 1, 1954), it was sometimes claimed that the USSR won the H-bomb race, even though the United States tested and developed the first hydrogen bomb: the Ivy Mike H-bomb test. The 1952 U.S. Ivy Mike test used cryogenically cooled liquid deuterium as the fusion fuel in the secondary, and employed the D-D fusion reaction. However, the first Soviet test to use a radiation-imploded secondary, the essential feature of a true H-bomb, was on November 23, 1955, three years after Ivy Mike. In fact, real work on the implosion scheme in the Soviet Union only commenced in the very early part of 1953, several months after the successful testing of Sloika.
--- end quoting ----
If one did not know better, the above reads like designing a lead acid battery for a motor vehicle.
Look at that Lithium-6 deuteride and the liquid deuterium, much like a battery electrolyte or a capacitor's dielectric medium.
But the telltale sign that Atom Bombs (remember, atoms have no nucleus) are really fancy batteries, is the two poles of a Atom bomb, these two poles that are short circuited to make the bomb explode. Or, better say, make the battery explode.
AP
Your King of Science, whether you like it or not
Anyway, one can just read the Wikipedia to find overwhelming evidence that the Atomic bomb, since atoms have no nucleus, that the energy of the atomic bomb comes from a battery, some of the world's largest batteries are atomic weapons, and to explode them, they are short circuited.
Makes sense, makes utter logical sense that atomic bombs and atomic energy is just the harnessing of the electricity inside of atoms, not some silly changes in a mythical and fake nucleus. In fact, Disneyland, or Disney World or whatever they call that entertainment, should have a tour through the Fake Con Artistry of Nuclear Energy, where you ride some train through a clownish nucleus of Fake Atoms "watch out, there is a swarm of neutrons with protons over there, duck you heads".
Anyway, looking at Wikipedia "Nuclear weapon design" we immediately see, those bombs are built like a battery, a huge lithium battery.
--- quoting Wikipedia Nuclear weapon design ---
The first effort to exploit the symbiotic relationship between fission and fusion was a 1940s design that mixed fission and fusion fuel in alternating thin layers. As a single-stage device, it would have been a cumbersome application of boosted fission. It first became practical when incorporated into the secondary of a two-stage thermonuclear weapon.
The U.S. name, Alarm Clock, came from Teller: he called it that because it might "wake up the world" to the possibility of the potential of the Super.[38] The Russian name for the same design was more descriptive: Sloika (Russian: Слойка), a layered pastry cake. A single-stage Soviet Sloika was tested on August 12, 1953. No single-stage U.S. version was tested, but the Union shot of Operation Castle, April 26, 1954, was a two-stage thermonuclear device code-named Alarm Clock. Its yield, at Bikini, was 6.9 megatons.
Because the Soviet Sloika test used dry lithium-6 deuteride eight months before the first U.S. test to use it (Castle Bravo, March 1, 1954), it was sometimes claimed that the USSR won the H-bomb race, even though the United States tested and developed the first hydrogen bomb: the Ivy Mike H-bomb test. The 1952 U.S. Ivy Mike test used cryogenically cooled liquid deuterium as the fusion fuel in the secondary, and employed the D-D fusion reaction. However, the first Soviet test to use a radiation-imploded secondary, the essential feature of a true H-bomb, was on November 23, 1955, three years after Ivy Mike. In fact, real work on the implosion scheme in the Soviet Union only commenced in the very early part of 1953, several months after the successful testing of Sloika.
--- end quoting ----
If one did not know better, the above reads like designing a lead acid battery for a motor vehicle.
Look at that Lithium-6 deuteride and the liquid deuterium, much like a battery electrolyte or a capacitor's dielectric medium.
But the telltale sign that Atom Bombs (remember, atoms have no nucleus) are really fancy batteries, is the two poles of a Atom bomb, these two poles that are short circuited to make the bomb explode. Or, better say, make the battery explode.
AP
Your King of Science, whether you like it or not
Archimedes Plutonium
Apr 20, 2021, 12:42:30 AM4/20/21
to
Re: How the plutonium atomic bomb really works-- it is a short circuit battery bomb //Re: AP's 151st book of science, TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year college
One does not have to look far for supporting evidence that the Atomic bomb is really a fancy battery, a battery that is short circuited. (Do you not just love the gracious new ideas put forth by the King of Science, so effortlessly, so much at ease, so flowing in logic. My many detractors sure love the gracious ease for which the new ideas flow from AP, as they have time in taking notes and reflecting on what new things they learned, reminds me of College classes.)
Anyway, one can just read the Wikipedia to find overwhelming evidence that the Atomic bomb, since atoms have no nucleus, that the energy of the atomic bomb comes from a battery, some of the world's largest batteries are atomic weapons, and to explode them, they are short circuited.
Makes sense, makes utter logical sense that atomic bombs and atomic energy is just the harnessing of the electricity inside of atoms, not some silly changes in a mythical and fake nucleus. In fact, Disneyland, or Disney World or whatever they call that entertainment, should have a tour through the Fake Con Artistry of Nuclear Energy, where you ride some train through a clownish nucleus of Fake Atoms "watch out, there is a swarm of neutrons with protons over there, duck you heads".
So, I mean, just think for a moment, Old Physics wanted to unify the 4 forces, but were too stupid to accomplish that. AP accomplished that, and guess what-- the 4 forces are all just Electromagnetism force. If all the 4 forces are EM, means, well, get your logic cap on, for if all the 4 forces are electromagnetism, means a "nuclear force" was a mythical liaring. And that means a nucleus was a liaring. Makes sense, if the only true force is EM force, then we have to explain a Atomic bomb as a rearrangement of electricity and magnetism. And the way you do that, is consider that a button battery explodes with tremendous force for that tiny thing. And then consider all that mass in a plutonium, deuterium, lithium Atomic bomb.
Anyway, looking at Wikipedia "Nuclear weapon design" we immediately see, those bombs are built like a battery, a huge lithium battery.
--- quoting Wikipedia Nuclear weapon design ---
The first effort to exploit the symbiotic relationship between fission and fusion was a 1940s design that mixed fission and fusion fuel in alternating thin layers. As a single-stage device, it would have been a cumbersome application of boosted fission. It first became practical when incorporated into the secondary of a two-stage thermonuclear weapon.
The U.S. name, Alarm Clock, came from Teller: he called it that because it might "wake up the world" to the possibility of the potential of the Super.[38] The Russian name for the same design was more descriptive: Sloika (Russian: Слойка), a layered pastry cake. A single-stage Soviet Sloika was tested on August 12, 1953. No single-stage U.S. version was tested, but the Union shot of Operation Castle, April 26, 1954, was a two-stage thermonuclear device code-named Alarm Clock. Its yield, at Bikini, was 6.9 megatons.
Because the Soviet Sloika test used dry lithium-6 deuteride eight months before the first U.S. test to use it (Castle Bravo, March 1, 1954), it was sometimes claimed that the USSR won the H-bomb race, even though the United States tested and developed the first hydrogen bomb: the Ivy Mike H-bomb test. The 1952 U.S. Ivy Mike test used cryogenically cooled liquid deuterium as the fusion fuel in the secondary, and employed the D-D fusion reaction. However, the first Soviet test to use a radiation-imploded secondary, the essential feature of a true H-bomb, was on November 23, 1955, three years after Ivy Mike. In fact, real work on the implosion scheme in the Soviet Union only commenced in the very early part of 1953, several months after the successful testing of Sloika.
--- end quoting ----
If one did not know better, the above reads like designing a lead acid battery for a motor vehicle.
Look at that Lithium-6 deuteride and the liquid deuterium, much like a battery electrolyte or a capacitor's dielectric medium.
But the telltale sign that Atom Bombs (remember, atoms have no nucleus) are really fancy batteries, is the two poles of a Atom bomb, these two poles that are short circuited to make the bomb explode. Or, better say, make the battery explode.
AP
Your King of Science, whether you like it or not.
One does not have to look far for supporting evidence that the Atomic bomb is really a fancy battery, a battery that is short circuited. (Do you not just love the gracious new ideas put forth by the King of Science, so effortlessly, so much at ease, so flowing in logic. My many detractors sure love the gracious ease for which the new ideas flow from AP, as they have time in taking notes and reflecting on what new things they learned, reminds me of College classes.)
Anyway, one can just read the Wikipedia to find overwhelming evidence that the Atomic bomb, since atoms have no nucleus, that the energy of the atomic bomb comes from a battery, some of the world's largest batteries are atomic weapons, and to explode them, they are short circuited.
Makes sense, makes utter logical sense that atomic bombs and atomic energy is just the harnessing of the electricity inside of atoms, not some silly changes in a mythical and fake nucleus. In fact, Disneyland, or Disney World or whatever they call that entertainment, should have a tour through the Fake Con Artistry of Nuclear Energy, where you ride some train through a clownish nucleus of Fake Atoms "watch out, there is a swarm of neutrons with protons over there, duck you heads".
Anyway, looking at Wikipedia "Nuclear weapon design" we immediately see, those bombs are built like a battery, a huge lithium battery.
--- quoting Wikipedia Nuclear weapon design ---
The first effort to exploit the symbiotic relationship between fission and fusion was a 1940s design that mixed fission and fusion fuel in alternating thin layers. As a single-stage device, it would have been a cumbersome application of boosted fission. It first became practical when incorporated into the secondary of a two-stage thermonuclear weapon.
The U.S. name, Alarm Clock, came from Teller: he called it that because it might "wake up the world" to the possibility of the potential of the Super.[38] The Russian name for the same design was more descriptive: Sloika (Russian: Слойка), a layered pastry cake. A single-stage Soviet Sloika was tested on August 12, 1953. No single-stage U.S. version was tested, but the Union shot of Operation Castle, April 26, 1954, was a two-stage thermonuclear device code-named Alarm Clock. Its yield, at Bikini, was 6.9 megatons.
Because the Soviet Sloika test used dry lithium-6 deuteride eight months before the first U.S. test to use it (Castle Bravo, March 1, 1954), it was sometimes claimed that the USSR won the H-bomb race, even though the United States tested and developed the first hydrogen bomb: the Ivy Mike H-bomb test. The 1952 U.S. Ivy Mike test used cryogenically cooled liquid deuterium as the fusion fuel in the secondary, and employed the D-D fusion reaction. However, the first Soviet test to use a radiation-imploded secondary, the essential feature of a true H-bomb, was on November 23, 1955, three years after Ivy Mike. In fact, real work on the implosion scheme in the Soviet Union only commenced in the very early part of 1953, several months after the successful testing of Sloika.
--- end quoting ----
If one did not know better, the above reads like designing a lead acid battery for a motor vehicle.
Look at that Lithium-6 deuteride and the liquid deuterium, much like a battery electrolyte or a capacitor's dielectric medium.
But the telltale sign that Atom Bombs (remember, atoms have no nucleus) are really fancy batteries, is the two poles of a Atom bomb, these two poles that are short circuited to make the bomb explode. Or, better say, make the battery explode.
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
Apr 20, 2021, 8:06:16 PM4/20/21
to
I would almost bet that the atomic bomb trigger is a short-circuit.
--- quoting from website Atomic Heritage dot org ---
Caption: X-Ray Image of High-Explosive Lens Test Shot
The three main challenges of the implosion design were: generating enough pressure to compress the plutonium, perfecting the timing of the detonators, and achieving a symmetrical implosion. As explained by Reed, “the technique they developed for achieving the compression was to essentially wrap it in segments of explosives in a three-dimensional assembly. Think of sort of pyramid-like chunks of explosives that would fit together like a three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle, which when detonated would blow inward to crush the core.” From the outside, the implosion design resembles a soccer ball with thirty-two lenses fitted together to form a sphere. These lenses are made of a mixture of explosives, and they surrounded a softball-sized core of plutonium.
--- end quote ---
Of course the trigger is likely to be classified Top Secret.
It is not compression that is desired for the atomic bomb to explode, but rather the instantaneous rush for all the magnetic monopoles to become dipoles and to rush out of the container--- bomb explode. Here we have a plutonium battery exploding from a short circuit.
We can see this in the explosion of a button battery, that the rush to get out by electricity is the explosion.
Now, Old Physics would say we can never have a atomic bomb fit inside a button battery. New Physics would say, however small you can build a battery that can explode is the size of the smallest plutonium bomb.
Bombs are electricity and magnetism and the explosion is from Short Circuit that wants to "free itself as fast as possible".
--- quoting from website Atomic Heritage dot org ---
Caption: X-Ray Image of High-Explosive Lens Test Shot
The three main challenges of the implosion design were: generating enough pressure to compress the plutonium, perfecting the timing of the detonators, and achieving a symmetrical implosion. As explained by Reed, “the technique they developed for achieving the compression was to essentially wrap it in segments of explosives in a three-dimensional assembly. Think of sort of pyramid-like chunks of explosives that would fit together like a three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle, which when detonated would blow inward to crush the core.” From the outside, the implosion design resembles a soccer ball with thirty-two lenses fitted together to form a sphere. These lenses are made of a mixture of explosives, and they surrounded a softball-sized core of plutonium.
--- end quote ---
Of course the trigger is likely to be classified Top Secret.
It is not compression that is desired for the atomic bomb to explode, but rather the instantaneous rush for all the magnetic monopoles to become dipoles and to rush out of the container--- bomb explode. Here we have a plutonium battery exploding from a short circuit.
We can see this in the explosion of a button battery, that the rush to get out by electricity is the explosion.
Now, Old Physics would say we can never have a atomic bomb fit inside a button battery. New Physics would say, however small you can build a battery that can explode is the size of the smallest plutonium bomb.
Bombs are electricity and magnetism and the explosion is from Short Circuit that wants to "free itself as fast as possible".
Michael Moroney
Apr 20, 2021, 8:46:52 PM4/20/21
to
Snail of Math and Green Banded Broodsac Nemotode of Physics Archimedes
"I ate my brain" Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> fails at
math and science:
> Subject: Since atoms have no nucleus then what is a nuclear bomb? Answer: a short circuit//
"I ate my brain" Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> fails at
math and science:
> Subject: Since atoms have no nucleus then what is a nuclear bomb? Answer: a short circuit//
> I would almost bet that the atomic bomb trigger is a short-circuit.
Archimedes Plutonium
Apr 20, 2021, 9:58:27 PM4/20/21
to
There is a simple test to prove AP is correct on the truth about atomic bomb explosions, since atoms have no nucleus and that the tremendous energy release in a atomic bomb explosion is the synchronous conversion of every free neutron in the bomb to release its internal electricity all simultaneously.
In Old Physics the neutron was seen as a ball the resided in a nucleus trying to hold together the protons. In New Physics, every subatomic particle has a job, a task, a function. And the job of the neutron is as a capacitor to collect and store the magnetic monopoles produced by the proton + muon doing the Faraday law. So in a plutonium bomb explosion, the free neutrons all release their internal 945MeV as that of electricity. The lead battery exploding would be no different than the plutonium atomic bomb exploding. In the Lead battery the cause of explosion is the short-circuiting of the battery. Same goes for the atomic bomb is short circuited and it explodes.
Now a simple experiment proves AP correct, for in Old Physics a plutonium bomb cannot be made tiny. In New Physics, we can make a plutonium bomb as tiny as we can make a battery be tiny. So we have button size batteries and we can have a plutonium bomb be the size of a button battery. So you take the plutonium metal and mill it into thin sheets and like a small battery, you make this thin sheets of plutonium as parallel plates with electrolyte. And you have two poles. You short circuit the plutonium battery and it will explode. How much explosive damage from a button size plutonium bomb, remains to be seen.
But Old Physics would never allow such a experiment.
Now I believe some of the outer space ships have plutonium batteries installed for electricity. Those are too large for New Physics to explode by short circuiting. So if we built a miniature plutonium battery with two poles, and short circuit the battery, there should be a significant explosion.
AP
King of Science, especially physics
In Old Physics the neutron was seen as a ball the resided in a nucleus trying to hold together the protons. In New Physics, every subatomic particle has a job, a task, a function. And the job of the neutron is as a capacitor to collect and store the magnetic monopoles produced by the proton + muon doing the Faraday law. So in a plutonium bomb explosion, the free neutrons all release their internal 945MeV as that of electricity. The lead battery exploding would be no different than the plutonium atomic bomb exploding. In the Lead battery the cause of explosion is the short-circuiting of the battery. Same goes for the atomic bomb is short circuited and it explodes.
Now a simple experiment proves AP correct, for in Old Physics a plutonium bomb cannot be made tiny. In New Physics, we can make a plutonium bomb as tiny as we can make a battery be tiny. So we have button size batteries and we can have a plutonium bomb be the size of a button battery. So you take the plutonium metal and mill it into thin sheets and like a small battery, you make this thin sheets of plutonium as parallel plates with electrolyte. And you have two poles. You short circuit the plutonium battery and it will explode. How much explosive damage from a button size plutonium bomb, remains to be seen.
But Old Physics would never allow such a experiment.
Now I believe some of the outer space ships have plutonium batteries installed for electricity. Those are too large for New Physics to explode by short circuiting. So if we built a miniature plutonium battery with two poles, and short circuit the battery, there should be a significant explosion.
AP
King of Science, especially physics
0 new messages