magnetic current density deriving rest-mass 1839 and 137 Chapt13.4.05 rest-mass #1035 New Physics #1155 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Now we do have an accurate means of measuring the distances of the
nuclei of atoms and the distances of the chemical bond of atoms and we
find this measure to be about 10^6 larger for the chemical bond and we
know for a fact that the force strength of the strong nuclear force is
10^6 larger than the chemical bond. So from that data, we instantly
recognize the Strong Nuclear Force is just a chemical bonding of EM
Maxwell Equations of protons with neutrons.

What I am trying to do for the rest-mass of electron 0.51 MeV and
proton rest-mass 938.2 MeV is a similar comparison with geometry. So
that the ratio 938.2/0.51 = 1839.6 is derived from pure geometry, that
the size of the proton whether volume or surface area is 1839.6
compared to the electron's size as 1. But maybe we will never be able
to measure that.

It was two years ago I wrote these two posts on deriving the mass
ratio and the inverse fine structure constant:

sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.math
Apr 26, 2:00 pm
Date: Apr 26, 2010 3:00 PM
Author: plutonium....@gmail.com
Subject: Re: postscript Speed of Light derived from pure math #35;
ATOM TOTALITY


Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

(most snipped)


Postscript: Chapter 18: "pi" and "e" and "i" explained; inverse fine


> > structure constant, and proton to electron mass ratio, speed of
> > light,
> > all linked and explained.

(snipped)


> > So looking back at my posts on this topic, where I finally concluded:


> > speed of light = summation of meridian strips distance / log-spiral-
> > radius


> > Definition: Log-spiral radius is the 1/4 of semicircumference.


> > Definition: meridian strips are strips and not lines for they have a
> > width
> > involved and in the case of Earth in kilometers the width of the
> > strips
> > is a kilometer wide.

(i) Alright, so I have the number "pi" from pure physics as 22
subshells in 7 shells
of the 231Pu Atom Totality


(ii) I have the number "e" from pure physics as 19 occupied subshells
in 7 shells


(iii) I have the Fine-Structure Constant as 22 / (22/7)^7 from pure
physics


(iv) I have the mass ratio of proton to electron as 6 (22/7)^5 from
the fact that
231Pu has the 5f6 energy level, where the fifth energy level has
exponent 5
and the seventh energy level has exponent 7 in Fine Structure
Constant.


(v) Now I have the Speed of Light from pure math and it is :


speed of light = summation of meridian strips distance / log-spiral-
radius


Now let me see if I can write that in terms of just pi and "e" where
time is in
1 units and distance is in 1 units and using the fifth energy level:


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


sci.physics, sci.astro, sci.math
Apr 26, 2:25 pm
Date: Apr 26, 2010 3:25 PM
Author: plutonium....@gmail.com
Subject: Re: postscript Speed of Light is the same as Fine Structure
Constant
#36; ATOM TOTALITY

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> (most snipped)


> Postscript: Chapter 18: "pi" and "e" and "i" explained; inverse fine
> > > structure constant, and proton to electron mass ratio, speed
of
> > > light,
> > > all linked and explained.


> (snipped)
> > > So looking back at my posts on this topic, where I finally
concluded:


> > > speed of light = summation of meridian strips distance / log-spiral-
> > > radius


> > > Definition: Log-spiral radius is the 1/4 of semicircumference.


> > > Definition: meridian strips are strips and not lines for they have a
> > > width
> > > involved and in the case of Earth in kilometers the width of
the
> > > strips
> > > is a kilometer wide.


> (i) Alright, so I have the number "pi" from pure physics as 22
> subshells in 7 shells
> of the 231Pu Atom Totality


> (ii) I have the number "e" from pure physics as 19 occupied subshells
> in 7 shells


> (iii) I have the Fine-Structure Constant as 22 / (22/7)^7 from pure
> physics


> (iv) I have the mass ratio of proton to electron as 6 (22/7)^5 from
> the fact that
> 231Pu has the 5f6 energy level, where the fifth energy level has
> exponent 5
> and the seventh energy level has exponent 7 in Fine Structure
> Constant.


> (v) Now I have the Speed of Light from pure math and it is :


> speed of light = summation of meridian strips distance / log-spiral-
> radius


> Now let me see if I can write that in terms of just pi and "e" where
> time is in
> 1 units and distance is in 1 units and using the fifth energy
level:

So the circumference of this generalized unit distance and unit time
is that of 22


So in the equation of the Speed of Light we would have:


Speed of Light = 22 x 22/ log-spiral-radius


Now the Log-spiral-radius is going to be a tiny bit larger than the
Euclidean
radius of 7/2 = 3.5. Remember the golden-ratio-log-spiral is
approximated
by 1/4 turn circles, where sometimes it is slightly larger than the
radius of
the true 1/4 circle.


So we have 22x22/ 3.5 = 138


And the inverse fine structure constant is 137. But if we had the
tiny
bit
larger portion of the golden ratio the phi-log-spiral-radius


22x22/3.53 = 137


Now the Inverse Fine Structure Constant uses the speed of light c as
in:


hbar*c/(e^2)


But here, I have derived the Inverse Fine Structure Constant from the
speed of light itself. How is that possible? Well, I simply removed
the
hbar and the (e^2) by calling them unit distance and unit time.


So the speed of light is basically one and the same as the Fine
Structure Constant.

--- end of 2 year ago posts ---

Google's New-Newsgroups censors AP posts and halted a proper
archiving of author, but Drexel's Math Forum does not and my posts 
in
archive form is seen here:

http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986

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

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Nov 27, 1:35 am, Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
(snip)

>
>  > > > So looking back at my posts on this topic, where I finally
> concluded:
>
> > > > speed of light = summation of meridian strips distance / log-spiral-
>
>  > > > radius
>
> > > > Definition: Log-spiral radius is the 1/4 of semicircumference.
> > > > Definition: meridian strips are strips and not lines for they have a
>
>  > > > width
>  > > > involved and in the case of Earth in kilometers the width of
> the
>  > > > strips
>  > > > is a kilometer wide.
>

(snip)

>
> --- end of 2 year ago posts ---
>

Alright, I am excited tonight, for I think I finally found what
Faraday's lines of force are. In Old Physics, they dumped Faraday's
lines-of-force, saying that they had no physical reality to them and
were scaffolding. In New Physics, we dump all of quark theory, all of
string theory and all of the Standard Model, because they have no
physical reality but are only fake scaffolding.

When you include magnetic monopoles into the Symmetrical Maxwell
Equations, what do you get? Well, in the Faraday law you get an extra
term called the "magnetic current density".

Now what in the world could that possible be?

Well, come to think of it, with my attempt of deriving the speed of
light by asking how much of a width of strip of a ball of radius 1,
how much of a width of strip for lines of longitude is required for
light to make one complete revolution around that ball as the speed of
light? Light travels at 3*10^8 meters/second. Say we are given one
second, so the question is how thin of a strip for each longitude line
in order to make a distance of 3*10^8 meters?

Now that is the idea behind strips for lines of longitude.

But now, I may have a new helper on this idea of strips for lines of
longitude in the fact of Faraday's lines-of-force. Those lines of
force just maybe what the Magnetic Current Density is all about.

The moving bar magnet inside a closed loop wire that is Faraday's law,
the moving bar magnet creates lines-of-force or a magnetic current
density and it thus, causes electrons to flow as a current in the
closed loop wire.

So now, if I can tie together 1839 lines-of-force for the proton
compared to 1 line of force for the electron, I would be deriving the
mass ratio of proton/electron from purely geometry.