info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
AP's 201st book of Science// AP attempts to theorize the NASA 0.005% yearly increase in Solar Radiation measurement.
13 views
Skip to first unread message
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 18, 2021, 3:14:46 AM9/18/21
to
AP's 201st book of Science// AP attempts to theorize the NASA 0.005% yearly increase in Solar Radiation measurement.
I recently wrote my 104th book of science.
104th published book
How Gigantic insects, plants evolved in Devonian, Dragonflies // evolution series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
The Devonian geological age had gigantism of plants and animals. Some ferns and horsetails grew to the size of trees and many insects grew to a huge size, such as Dragonflies the size of a human arm. Several attempts have been given to account for this gigantic size, but none seem plausible. So I offer a theory to explain it, because it has to be some physical characteristics of Earth during the Devonian to account for gigantism in both plants and animals.
Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of a Google search on "dragonfly Devonian".
Length: 16 pages
Product details
File Size: 1166 KB
Print Length: 16 pages
Publication Date: March 24, 2020
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B086BZRQ6T
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: Not Enabled 
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #237,432 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#219 in Biology (Kindle Store)
#1526 in Biology (Books)
#6 in 30-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
And in that book I describe a calculus to use on rate of change of mass as Earth grows by the Faraday law.
Here I am trying to duplicate the number that NASA arrives at of 0.005% yearly increase in Solar Radiation for the past 10 years. They say they are coming out with new updated figure. And I eagerly anticipate that new measurement.
But what I am attempting to do here is see if I can by purely theory arrive at that number NASA measured of 0.005% yearly increase.
Excerpt from my 104th book----
So, let us do this so that all students can learn the math behind this. Much of it is calculus and using formulas, but then we lose a lot of people in biology with math that they do not use on a daily basis. It is important to recognize that if you do not use math on a daily basis, you easily get lost with the math. And that is exactly what we want to avoid in science. Math is a tool, not a wrecking ball.
So, I have the situation where Earth is 4,500,000,000 years old plus the fact that the Devonian geological age is where gigantic dragonfly start to appear and other gigantic animals and plants (giant ferns, giant horsetails, Carboniferous). The age of the Devonian was 400,000,000 years ago.
The Faraday Law inside of each atom is a doubling over time of that same atom of hydrogen. So at t_0 we have one atom of hydrogen and at t_1 we have 2 atoms of hydrogen, and at the same interval of time t_2 we doubled the 2 to be 4 now. So a doubling in physics. So we write out a chart.
Number of Hydrogen atoms Doubling time interval Math form
1 t_0 2^0
2 t_1 2^1
4 t_2 2^2
8 t_3 2^3
16 t_4 2^4
32 t_5 2^5
. . .
. . .
1,073,741,824 t_30 2^30
2,147,483,648 t_31 2^31
4,294,967,296 t_32 2^32
Now I stop there because it is nearby to the total time covered of 4,500,000,000
And here is where I divide that time of Earth existence by the number 32 in order to get what the doubling time interval is all about.
4,500,000,000/ 32 = approx 140,000,000
So my time interval in Nature for a hydrogen atom to double itself by Faraday law electricity going on inside the hydrogen atom is approx 140 million years of a time interval. Every hydrogen atom in Nature, in the Universe doubles itself in 140 million years.
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 18, 2021, 3:30:51 AM9/18/21
to
Now what I mean by theorize NASA's number of 0.005% yearly increase in Solar Radiation is that by just using Faraday Law as Solar radiation, where the muon inside of each proton torus of 8 rings and 840 MeV, that the muon thrusting through the Proton torus creates new energy in the form of radiation that is the bulk of the Sun's radiation, and that theory should deliver me a number of radiation increase of 0.005% yearly, matching the NASA data measurement.
In previous post I outlined the mathematics of how many millions of years it takes for the muon thrusting inside a proton torus to generate enough electrical energy that is storaged in a neutron that grows from 1eV eventually into its own separate hydrogen atom of 945MeV. And in that Dragonfly book, as seen above, it takes 140,000,000 years for 1 hydrogen atom to grow and recreate a new hydrogen atom, in other words the doubling rate is 140 million years.
So what this book attempts to do is derive the pure measurement of NASA of their 0.005% yearly Solar Radiation increase, is to derive that number knowing the Faraday law.
And one would think that this is a horrible ugly mathematics exercise to try to match Calculus of Faraday law with Solar Radiation increase of 0.005% yearly.
But perhaps it is a tantalizing super easy calculation.
I was looking for the data of the calculation of how long it takes for radiation that is in the Core of the Sun to reach the photosphere of the Sun and then radiate outwards, being a part of the radiation that hits Earth.
And that number figure is easily found on the Internet where scientists have computed that number to be about 100,000 years for radiation in the core of the Sun to finally reach the surface of the sun and radiate outwards.
So, well, if we take 100,000 / 140,000,000 = 0.0007 which is not all that far off from 0.005.
AP
King of Science, especially Physics
In previous post I outlined the mathematics of how many millions of years it takes for the muon thrusting inside a proton torus to generate enough electrical energy that is storaged in a neutron that grows from 1eV eventually into its own separate hydrogen atom of 945MeV. And in that Dragonfly book, as seen above, it takes 140,000,000 years for 1 hydrogen atom to grow and recreate a new hydrogen atom, in other words the doubling rate is 140 million years.
So what this book attempts to do is derive the pure measurement of NASA of their 0.005% yearly Solar Radiation increase, is to derive that number knowing the Faraday law.
And one would think that this is a horrible ugly mathematics exercise to try to match Calculus of Faraday law with Solar Radiation increase of 0.005% yearly.
But perhaps it is a tantalizing super easy calculation.
I was looking for the data of the calculation of how long it takes for radiation that is in the Core of the Sun to reach the photosphere of the Sun and then radiate outwards, being a part of the radiation that hits Earth.
And that number figure is easily found on the Internet where scientists have computed that number to be about 100,000 years for radiation in the core of the Sun to finally reach the surface of the sun and radiate outwards.
So, well, if we take 100,000 / 140,000,000 = 0.0007 which is not all that far off from 0.005.
AP
King of Science, especially Physics
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 18, 2021, 2:27:29 PM9/18/21
to
Alright in my Dragonflies Gigantism book I gave the easiest math table of figuring out the size of Earth in Devonian in order for there to be gigantism of plants and insects, and found that Earth size had to be 1/8 the size it is today, and gave a table to compute the doubling of a hydrogen atom via Faraday law of approx 140,000,000 years.
What I did not discuss in that book of Dragonflies was that the Sun had to be smaller also in the Devonian due to Faraday law, and that the Solar System in Devonian was also entirely smaller. For when the Universe operates mainly on Faraday law and not the mindless stupid idea of fusion, then growth and size depend directly on mass. As hydrogen atoms of their muon thrusting through their proton create new electricity that creates new mass matter and each hydrogen atom doubles itself in approximately 140 million years. Now we have direct evidence of what I say here is true from the study of exoplanets where it is found that our Solar System is totally unlike the majority of exo-solar-systems where their jupiter size planet is circling close in to their exo-star. For at one time in the history of our solar system the sun was much smaller in mass and Earth was much closer and Jupiter was much closer to the Sun. But as Faraday law keeps working of doubling all protons in 140 million years, we now have the Solar System for what it is.
So here I am having a book on the exercise of deriving the number that NASA measured of the Solar Radiation increase of 0.005% yearly increase.
This is the most important weather and physics number in our lifetime and beyond. For the entire fate of Earth, of humanity, and life on Earth all hinges on this number. For this number means we have to colonize Europa and Ganymede and get off of Earth before the Sun swallows up Earth as a Sun Gone Red Giant.
When I started this book, I was looking for a number that comes close to 0.005 in terms of physical features of the Sun and photon radiation. And I found that attribute in the fact that it takes photons approximately 100,000 years to travel from the core of the Sun to reach the surface of the Sun and then radiate to Earth. So when I divide 100,000 by 140,000,000 I get 0.0007. So I needed to get close enough to 0.005 to tell me if I am in the same physical boundaries. And that is certainly close enough. So now I need to get even more precise.
If we take a Sphere surface area is 4pi*R^2 and volume is 4/3*pi*R^3. Now if the radius is 1 the number value of area is far larger than volume about 12 to 4. If the radius is 2, the surface area still wins with a ratio of 48 to 32, but at radius 3 the volume catches up with surface area with ratio of 108 to 108.
Now, in Astronomy we can safely say the size of Sun and our Solar System is tiny in comparison with size of galaxies, and that our Sun is of the size that Surface Area predominates over volume in this astronomy comparison.
There are known laws of Physics, Laws of Physics that electricity and magnetism rest and rely and harbor upon surfaces and not on interiors. That electricity harbors upon the surface of metals not their interior volume. And this is the reason the photosphere of the Sun is much hotter than the core interior of the Sun. In fact, this is a proof that the Sun operates not on fusion but on Faraday Law.
Having said all of the above, and putting those ideas together, we can say that the photons inside the Sun are all a minor additive, and that the photons on the Surface of the Sun are for all purposes, the Solar radiation. And this would sharpen up the calculation from that of 0.0007 to be exactly 0.005.
But my purpose is not to derive a approximation, far from it. My purpose is to derive the exact mechanism and the exact match of number 0.005. And the way that such is done is to consider that the radiation of any star is totally dependent on Mass. Here I have to correct the entire Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. That diagram was silly for it had no basis to a physical entity, no bases whatsoever. By basis, I mean something such as Mass. In the AP-diagram, mass is the single most important and the only parameter bases we need. At least Hertzsprung-Russell got the blue giants and red giants in upper regions of their plotting but they have blunders with white stars in lower regions, and theirs is disconnected.
When mass in Faraday's law is the only basis then the diagram should be linear and no disconnect.
Simply straight line diagram such as Y= 2x from Y=mx+b. For, color of star tells you mass, and size tells you mass.
In another one of my books I was searching for a astronomy more accurate distance measure. I probably have found it with this AP-diagram of simply mass and Faraday law.
Here I stray, let me get back to 0.005 physical attribute. So our Sun shines from Faraday law and our sun is growing bigger and bigger every day. There are more photons radiated by the sun tomorrow than today. And this number 0.005 comes directly from the increasing more hydrogen atoms that will exist tomorrow than exists today. Likewise, there will be more hydrogen atoms in the Sun next year, than exists in the Sun this year. The Sun will have more hydrogen atoms doing the Faraday law in 2022 than the Sun has in 2021. The increase in hydrogen atoms is an increase in solar radiation. And it is this increase in numbers of hydrogen atoms that gives us this 0.005% yearly solar radiation increase.
What I did not discuss in that book of Dragonflies was that the Sun had to be smaller also in the Devonian due to Faraday law, and that the Solar System in Devonian was also entirely smaller. For when the Universe operates mainly on Faraday law and not the mindless stupid idea of fusion, then growth and size depend directly on mass. As hydrogen atoms of their muon thrusting through their proton create new electricity that creates new mass matter and each hydrogen atom doubles itself in approximately 140 million years. Now we have direct evidence of what I say here is true from the study of exoplanets where it is found that our Solar System is totally unlike the majority of exo-solar-systems where their jupiter size planet is circling close in to their exo-star. For at one time in the history of our solar system the sun was much smaller in mass and Earth was much closer and Jupiter was much closer to the Sun. But as Faraday law keeps working of doubling all protons in 140 million years, we now have the Solar System for what it is.
So here I am having a book on the exercise of deriving the number that NASA measured of the Solar Radiation increase of 0.005% yearly increase.
This is the most important weather and physics number in our lifetime and beyond. For the entire fate of Earth, of humanity, and life on Earth all hinges on this number. For this number means we have to colonize Europa and Ganymede and get off of Earth before the Sun swallows up Earth as a Sun Gone Red Giant.
When I started this book, I was looking for a number that comes close to 0.005 in terms of physical features of the Sun and photon radiation. And I found that attribute in the fact that it takes photons approximately 100,000 years to travel from the core of the Sun to reach the surface of the Sun and then radiate to Earth. So when I divide 100,000 by 140,000,000 I get 0.0007. So I needed to get close enough to 0.005 to tell me if I am in the same physical boundaries. And that is certainly close enough. So now I need to get even more precise.
If we take a Sphere surface area is 4pi*R^2 and volume is 4/3*pi*R^3. Now if the radius is 1 the number value of area is far larger than volume about 12 to 4. If the radius is 2, the surface area still wins with a ratio of 48 to 32, but at radius 3 the volume catches up with surface area with ratio of 108 to 108.
Now, in Astronomy we can safely say the size of Sun and our Solar System is tiny in comparison with size of galaxies, and that our Sun is of the size that Surface Area predominates over volume in this astronomy comparison.
There are known laws of Physics, Laws of Physics that electricity and magnetism rest and rely and harbor upon surfaces and not on interiors. That electricity harbors upon the surface of metals not their interior volume. And this is the reason the photosphere of the Sun is much hotter than the core interior of the Sun. In fact, this is a proof that the Sun operates not on fusion but on Faraday Law.
Having said all of the above, and putting those ideas together, we can say that the photons inside the Sun are all a minor additive, and that the photons on the Surface of the Sun are for all purposes, the Solar radiation. And this would sharpen up the calculation from that of 0.0007 to be exactly 0.005.
But my purpose is not to derive a approximation, far from it. My purpose is to derive the exact mechanism and the exact match of number 0.005. And the way that such is done is to consider that the radiation of any star is totally dependent on Mass. Here I have to correct the entire Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. That diagram was silly for it had no basis to a physical entity, no bases whatsoever. By basis, I mean something such as Mass. In the AP-diagram, mass is the single most important and the only parameter bases we need. At least Hertzsprung-Russell got the blue giants and red giants in upper regions of their plotting but they have blunders with white stars in lower regions, and theirs is disconnected.
When mass in Faraday's law is the only basis then the diagram should be linear and no disconnect.
Simply straight line diagram such as Y= 2x from Y=mx+b. For, color of star tells you mass, and size tells you mass.
In another one of my books I was searching for a astronomy more accurate distance measure. I probably have found it with this AP-diagram of simply mass and Faraday law.
Here I stray, let me get back to 0.005 physical attribute. So our Sun shines from Faraday law and our sun is growing bigger and bigger every day. There are more photons radiated by the sun tomorrow than today. And this number 0.005 comes directly from the increasing more hydrogen atoms that will exist tomorrow than exists today. Likewise, there will be more hydrogen atoms in the Sun next year, than exists in the Sun this year. The Sun will have more hydrogen atoms doing the Faraday law in 2022 than the Sun has in 2021. The increase in hydrogen atoms is an increase in solar radiation. And it is this increase in numbers of hydrogen atoms that gives us this 0.005% yearly solar radiation increase.
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 18, 2021, 5:32:14 PM9/18/21
to
So, in his Dragonfly book on the doubling of all protons in the world via Faraday Law, AP discovers the number of 140 million years per doubling a proton. Now, AP has to find that same number in terms of a yearly increase in radiation of 0.005% yearly increase with Faraday law as mechanism of radiation production.
All of this is a direct linear straightline increase with mass.
All I am really doing with the math, here, is converting Doubling takes 140 million years in Faraday law. To that of radiation increase is 0.005% yearly.
Mind you, those numbers look very different, totally different-- 140,000,000, and 0.005%. Those two numbers look totally different, but both come from one and the same physical process. That a proton is a 840MeV torus of 8 rings with a muon as 1 ring of 105MeV thrusting through the proton torus and converting Space into mass as new electricity. This new electricity is storaged in neutrons that grow from 1 eV to 945MeV and become a new proton. That takes 140,000,000 years to double 1 proton to being 2 protons.
But we can express that differently by saying 0.005% yearly is the equivalent to 140,000,000 years.
So, mathematically, if we have a 945MeV proton+muon inside proton and it takes 140,000,000 years for there to be 2 (protons+muons) via Faraday law. Then is that the equivalent of a 0.005% yearly increase. This reminds me of Simple Interest versus Compound Interest. So if we take a 1 eV neutron that is a baby neutron and it needs to grow into becoming a 945,000,000 eV particle.
Now with a computer calculator we have 1.005 x 1 for first year is 1.005, then 1.005 x 1.005 = 1.01 for second year, then 1.01 x 1.005 = 1.015 for third year in eV units. And if we do that 140,000,000 do we equal 945,000,000??? If so, well the rate of 140 million years in doubling equals the same rate as a 0.005% yearly increase.
Now that can be close because, much of the electricity produced in Faraday law is radiated out from the Sun and not storaged in a "growing neutron".
All of this is a direct linear straightline increase with mass.
All I am really doing with the math, here, is converting Doubling takes 140 million years in Faraday law. To that of radiation increase is 0.005% yearly.
Mind you, those numbers look very different, totally different-- 140,000,000, and 0.005%. Those two numbers look totally different, but both come from one and the same physical process. That a proton is a 840MeV torus of 8 rings with a muon as 1 ring of 105MeV thrusting through the proton torus and converting Space into mass as new electricity. This new electricity is storaged in neutrons that grow from 1 eV to 945MeV and become a new proton. That takes 140,000,000 years to double 1 proton to being 2 protons.
But we can express that differently by saying 0.005% yearly is the equivalent to 140,000,000 years.
So, mathematically, if we have a 945MeV proton+muon inside proton and it takes 140,000,000 years for there to be 2 (protons+muons) via Faraday law. Then is that the equivalent of a 0.005% yearly increase. This reminds me of Simple Interest versus Compound Interest. So if we take a 1 eV neutron that is a baby neutron and it needs to grow into becoming a 945,000,000 eV particle.
Now with a computer calculator we have 1.005 x 1 for first year is 1.005, then 1.005 x 1.005 = 1.01 for second year, then 1.01 x 1.005 = 1.015 for third year in eV units. And if we do that 140,000,000 do we equal 945,000,000??? If so, well the rate of 140 million years in doubling equals the same rate as a 0.005% yearly increase.
Now that can be close because, much of the electricity produced in Faraday law is radiated out from the Sun and not storaged in a "growing neutron".
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 18, 2021, 8:28:10 PM9/18/21
to
Now this is a good review exercise for students on Simple Interest versus Compound Interest which is a exercise also in calculus; a calculus of applied mathematics.
So say our Faraday law of doubling a proton in 140,000,000 years is Simple Interest rate. And so our starting out proton+muon = 945MeV has 140,000,000 years to build and create a new (proton+muon) by growing a 1 eV neutron into being a 945MeV neutron that becomes a proton+muon. So our Faraday Law rate of growth under Simple Interest of 0.005% yearly and for 140,000,000 years would only be 700,000 eV + 1 eV = 700,001 eV after that time period. So clearly Faraday law as simple-interest is not the calculus we need. But that was a nice refresher into simple-interest.
So is compound-interest going to solve this problem where 140,000,000 at 0.005% yearly interest going to end up being 945,000,000 eV ???? Now if it is less, then there is something else involved. But if more, then that is a good signal because some of the electricity production is radiated away from the hydrogen atom and not stored to make the neutron grow.
So say our Faraday law of doubling a proton in 140,000,000 years is Simple Interest rate. And so our starting out proton+muon = 945MeV has 140,000,000 years to build and create a new (proton+muon) by growing a 1 eV neutron into being a 945MeV neutron that becomes a proton+muon. So our Faraday Law rate of growth under Simple Interest of 0.005% yearly and for 140,000,000 years would only be 700,000 eV + 1 eV = 700,001 eV after that time period. So clearly Faraday law as simple-interest is not the calculus we need. But that was a nice refresher into simple-interest.
So is compound-interest going to solve this problem where 140,000,000 at 0.005% yearly interest going to end up being 945,000,000 eV ???? Now if it is less, then there is something else involved. But if more, then that is a good signal because some of the electricity production is radiated away from the hydrogen atom and not stored to make the neutron grow.
Archimedes Plutonium
Sep 18, 2021, 11:58:15 PM9/18/21
to
Before I do the compound interest calculus of 0.005% calculation which is quite simple but I need to find the formula of compound interest which was proven by mathematical induction to be the correct formula. And then I apply the useful logarithm properties to convert to scientific notation. Which reminds me that I probably want to write it up as a teaching lesson for my TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS.
But before I do that calculation, I need to discuss this idea of a Phase Universe. I made the assumption in my table of calculation for 140,000,000 as the Doubling interval. The assumption I made was that starting with 1 atom of hydrogen, after about 32 doubling intervals we reach 4.5 billion years of age. So, starting with one atom of hydrogen that doubles itself every 1.4*10^8 years, I assumed every proton in the solar system was in lock-step phase to double at the same time event in each of those 32 doublings. But reality of physics is probably far different, that one proton doubles while many other surrounding protons are in a different phase of doubling. And the reasoning would be that many protons end up emitting their electricity production for purposes other than building a neutron of 945MeV. Perhaps many of the stars neutron growing is in a lock-step phase growth, and perhaps the reason for the existence of pulsars or cepheid variables or other strange stars.
Can we see evidence of this Phase difference? I suspect we can see direct evidence in chemistry of atoms with variable neutron growth. Although no-one has ever reported of evidence of a 1/4 grown neutron or 1/2 grown neutron or 2/3 grown or 3/4, or 9/10 grown neutron of 945 MeV. And probably the reason for that never any report of a fractional neutron is that scientists were confused with what they called being in "ground state energy" and observing what is truly a "fractional neutron in growth".
AP
King of Science, especially Physics, where mathematics is just a snack appetizer warm-up for the King
But before I do that calculation, I need to discuss this idea of a Phase Universe. I made the assumption in my table of calculation for 140,000,000 as the Doubling interval. The assumption I made was that starting with 1 atom of hydrogen, after about 32 doubling intervals we reach 4.5 billion years of age. So, starting with one atom of hydrogen that doubles itself every 1.4*10^8 years, I assumed every proton in the solar system was in lock-step phase to double at the same time event in each of those 32 doublings. But reality of physics is probably far different, that one proton doubles while many other surrounding protons are in a different phase of doubling. And the reasoning would be that many protons end up emitting their electricity production for purposes other than building a neutron of 945MeV. Perhaps many of the stars neutron growing is in a lock-step phase growth, and perhaps the reason for the existence of pulsars or cepheid variables or other strange stars.
Can we see evidence of this Phase difference? I suspect we can see direct evidence in chemistry of atoms with variable neutron growth. Although no-one has ever reported of evidence of a 1/4 grown neutron or 1/2 grown neutron or 2/3 grown or 3/4, or 9/10 grown neutron of 945 MeV. And probably the reason for that never any report of a fractional neutron is that scientists were confused with what they called being in "ground state energy" and observing what is truly a "fractional neutron in growth".
AP
King of Science, especially Physics, where mathematics is just a snack appetizer warm-up for the King
Michael Moroney
Sep 19, 2021, 12:28:11 AM9/19/21
to
🦎 of Math and 🐍 of Physics Archimedes "imp of physics" Plutonium
<plutonium....@gmail.com> fails at math and science:
945 MeV. Why do you make up garbage and pretend that it's true?
reference is even valid, I've seen a NASA reference that solar output
peaked around 1950 and has decreased slightly since) you should be
calculating 1.00005 x 1.00005. Stoopid mistake by you!
> in eV units.
What would eV units have to do with anything? Solar output percentage
is a pure number.
> And if we
"We" who?
> do that 140,000,000 do we equal 945,000,000???
>
Be sure to use the correct numbers for your numerology! Not that it
matters, your numerology has no place in science.
<plutonium....@gmail.com> fails at math and science:
>
> All I am really doing with the math, here, is converting Doubling takes 140 million years in Faraday law. To that of radiation increase is 0.005% yearly.
>
> All I am really doing with the math, here, is converting Doubling takes 140 million years in Faraday law. To that of radiation increase is 0.005% yearly.
>
> But we can express that differently by saying 0.005% yearly is the equivalent to 140,000,000 years.
No, "we" can't. You (singular) may do so, but it's irrelevant.
>
> So, mathematically, if we have a 945MeV proton+muon inside proton and it takes 140,000,000 years for there to be 2 (protons+muons) via Faraday law. Then is that the equivalent of a 0.005% yearly increase. This reminds me of Simple Interest versus Compound Interest.
> So if we take a 1 eV neutron that is a baby neutron and it needs to grow into becoming a 945,000,000 eV particle.
"We" again? Sorry, but all neutrons are 939.565 MeV, not 1eV, and not
> So, mathematically, if we have a 945MeV proton+muon inside proton and it takes 140,000,000 years for there to be 2 (protons+muons) via Faraday law. Then is that the equivalent of a 0.005% yearly increase. This reminds me of Simple Interest versus Compound Interest.
> So if we take a 1 eV neutron that is a baby neutron and it needs to grow into becoming a 945,000,000 eV particle.
945 MeV. Why do you make up garbage and pretend that it's true?
>
> Now with a computer calculator we have 1.005 x 1 for first year is 1.005, then 1.005 x 1.005 = 1.01 for second year, then 1.01 x 1.005 = 1.015 for third year
StupidPlutonium, you math failure, 0.005% is 0.00005, so (assuming your
> Now with a computer calculator we have 1.005 x 1 for first year is 1.005, then 1.005 x 1.005 = 1.01 for second year, then 1.01 x 1.005 = 1.015 for third year
reference is even valid, I've seen a NASA reference that solar output
peaked around 1950 and has decreased slightly since) you should be
calculating 1.00005 x 1.00005. Stoopid mistake by you!
> in eV units.
What would eV units have to do with anything? Solar output percentage
is a pure number.
> And if we
"We" who?
> do that 140,000,000 do we equal 945,000,000???
>
matters, your numerology has no place in science.
0 new messages