AP finds the Special Relativity charge mistake

[Archimedes Plutonium]

AP finds the Special Relativity charge mistake
1 post by 1 author



me (Archimedes Plutonium change)
11:23 PM (6 minutes ago)


AP is happy to announce his 84th book// Special Relativity, proven and fixed of its errors // Physics series for High School Book 11 By Archimedes Plutonium


Special Relativity, proven and fixed of its errors // Physics series for High School Book 11
By Archimedes Plutonium

This is for High School students of science. I took both physics and chemistry in High School, last two years. So anyone taking physics in High School is likely to run into this error of Special Relativity concerning mass. Many people who read physics in books or magazines, will likely, also run into this error, this fake physics.

I wrote this book so as to teach people to avoid the error. And also, the world still has plenty of fools who want to argue that speeds faster than light can exist. So we need a book that definitely sets the logic-record straight, on why no speed can go faster than light-- and the quick and short answer is-- the laws of electricity and magnetism demand no faster speed.

While going over the proof of speed of light has to be a maximum speed and also a constant maximum speed, meaning, no speed less or greater than the speed of light in a vacuum (important that we say vacuum for light can slow down in a different medium), whilst going over that proof, I found errors in the interpretation of Special Relativity (SR), errors that need to be fixed. Mind you, not errors in SR itself, but the interpretation of SR.

Cover Picture: Is the PSSC Physics textbook for High School. I studied PSSC, only a earlier edition than this one shown in a photograph. That is pages 524 and 525 of PSSC Physics, by Haber-Schaim, Cross, Dodge, Walter 1971, 3rd edition. The one I learned from was 2nd edition. And this picture shown of pages 524-525 is a picture of Faraday Law with either moving bar magnet and stationary coil loop, or, stationary bar-magnet and moving coil loop.
Length: 15 pages

Product details
File Size: 822 KB
Print Length: 15 pages
Publication Date: January 26, 2020
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B0847M53PD
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 


Click here to Reply



me (Archimedes Plutonium change)
3:41 PM (7 hours ago)

If polarity needs inclusion, then I found a second mistake in Relativity, and this recent book needs a long way to go to correct Special Relativity.

If polarity needs inclusion, then I found a second mistake in Relativity, and this recent book needs a long way to go to correct Special Relativity.

My reference sources are going to be 4th ed PHYSICS OF THE ATOM, Wehr, Richards, Adair, 1985.

On page 421, I quote:

Protons are not ejected by radioactive atoms, but they are easily formed by ionizing hydrogen. They have half the charge of alpha particles and should be good bullet particles if given enough energy. Because of their charge, they can be accelerated by causing them to fall through a potential difference.
--- end quote ---

I do not know, if only polar particles can be accelerated, not the proton+muon?

The world of science needs to get rid of "charge".

I replace it with "wire-direction" or pole. Since I have to, and must use monopole, then, pole is a good replacement.

Of course, the concept of proton as 938MeV is in the trash can. The hydrogen atom is actually 840MeV proton with a 105MeV muon stuck inside to add up to 945.

Now I have to reconcile what the positron is. What the antihydrogen atom is.

And I have to consider if Polarity (what we called charge in Old Physics) is a relativity concept, and instead of just this category of Special Relativity:


x' = delta(x - vt)
y' = y
z' = z
t' = delta (t - ((vx)/c^2))
m = delta m_0

Whether polarity needs to be included in that linear set above.

For polarity really is just direction, while the above is distance-length, time, mass

If polarity needs inclusion, then I found a second mistake in Relativity, and this recent book needs a long way to go to correct Special Relativity.

AP

This message has been deleted.



me (Archimedes Plutonium change)
4:08 PM (6 hours ago)

Re: If polarity needs inclusion, then I found a second mistake in Relativity, and this recent book needs a long way to go to correct Special Relativity.


Update: 27JAN2020, upon finishing the above book, I realized that there is probably and likely to be another mistake in Special Relativity, a mistake of omission, in that what was once called "charge" in Old Physics, needs to be also in the Lorentz transformation equations. It is very easy to see in the mind that in one frame of reference a particle looks like a "+charge", but in another opposite frame of reference it is a "-charge". I like the word "pole" or "wire-direction" rather than the word "charge".

I am going to investigate whether Lorentz transformation equations needs that extra correction, a line of "polarity" along with length, time, mass.

AP



me (Archimedes Plutonium change)
7:25 PM (3 hours ago)

Alright, there are plenty of subtraction signs in the AP equations of EM, electrodynamics All those subtraction signs can serve as Polarity (Old Physics called charge)

Alright, there are plenty of subtraction signs in the AP equations of EM, electrodynamics

All those subtraction signs can serve as Polarity (Old Physics called charge)



PHYSICS LAWS

1) all the facts of chemistry and physics
2) Voltage V = kg*m^2/A*s^3
3) Current i = A = magnetic monopoles
4) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /A*s^2
5) angular momentum L = m^2/(i)s
6) V = i*B*L New Ohm's law, law of electricity
7) V' = (i*B*L)' Capacitor Law of Physics
8) (V/i*L)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
9) (V/(B*L))' = i' Faraday law
10) (V/(i*B))' = L' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force



V' = (i*B*L)'

Using the Product Rule of Calculus. Which is (fgh)' = f'gh + fg'h +fgh'
V' = (i*B*L)'

Using the Product Rule of Calculus. Which is (fgh)' = f'gh + fg'h +fgh'

(i*B*L)' = i'*B*L + i*B'L + i*B*L'

V' = (iBL)' = i'*B*L + i*B'*L + i*B*L'



(f/gh)' = (f'gh - fg'h - fgh')/(gh)^2 Quotient Rule of differentiation

Thrusting bar magnet through coil = current + magnetic field (Lenz).

All we need is just the plain and simple Quotient Rule of Differential Calculus applied to New Ohm's law.

(V/i*L)' = B' (Ampere-Maxwell Law)

Using the Quotient Rule, which is (f/gh)' = (f'gh - fg'h - fgh')/(gh)^2

(V/i*L)' = (V'*i*L - V*i' *L - V*i*L') / (i*L)^2



(V/B*L)' = i' (Faraday Law)

Using the Quotient Rule, which is (f/gh)' = (f'gh - fg'h - fgh')/g*h^2

(V/B*L)' = (V'*B*L - V*B' *L - V*B*L') / (B*L)^2


I found the mass mistake in Special Relativity, it was simply recognizing that 1 - (1/1) is not infinite mass but 0 mass, just as the math itself says. I guess physicists had a "fruitcake fruitloop moment" when they took 0 to mean infinite mass.

But can AP fix the other mistake of Special Relativity??? Can I include Old Physics Charge as being a Relative quantity. Can I do that??

I would have to add another parameter to the Lorentz Transformation Equations


x' = delta(x - vt)
y' = y
z' = z
t' = delta (t - ((vx)/c^2))
m = delta m_0

I would have to add a category of Charge-- or, I prefer to say Polarity.

Depends on how the Delta factor plays into the problem.

The Relativity equation would yield either a 1 in quantity for a monopole or a 0 in quantity for a dipole--neutral. Meaning that there is no difference in + or -, but there is a difference in a neutral pole. So it is arbitrary as to whether north or south, east or west, plus or minus, that makes no difference, but what does make a difference is whether it is neutral, or dipole.

So what I need from the Delta Factor of Lorentz Transformation is 1 and then 0 and no other.

Here is the delta again:

Lorentz factor = delta = 1 / (sqrt(1 - (v^2/c^2))). Where t = time, v= velocity, c= speed of light.

Yes, I think I may have solved it tonight. If we consider a magnetic monopole as a light ray with charge then it gives the 0 where v^2/c^2 = 1. But if we consider the magnetic monopole as having 0 velocity we have
1- 0/c^2 is 1.

So, yes, I think I solved the problem tonight. And can include it into the High School textbook on Special Relativity.

It means that Old Physics Charge is relative just as FitzGerald distance is relative and Larmor time is relative, and AP mass is relative and now AP's charge is relative.

x' = delta(x - vt)
y' = y
z' = z
t' = delta (t - ((vx)/c^2))

m = delta m_0

charge = delta charge

[Michael Moroney]

Ant of Math and Termite of Physics Archimedes "I ate your brain" Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> fails at math and science:

>Subject: Re: AP finds the Special Relativity charge mistake

>AP is happy to announce his 84th book// Special Relativity, proven and fixed
>of its errors // Physics series for High School Book 11 By Archimedes Plutonium

>Special Relativity, proven and fixed of its errors // Physics series for
>High School Book 11
>By Archimedes Plutonium

>This is for High School students of science.

WARNING TO PARENTS: Archimedes Plutonium is offering to teach your children his
broken physics and math. BEWARE! He will corrupt the minds of your children! He
teaches bizarre false physics and math, such as the ellipse isn't a conic
section, that there are no negative numbers, no complex numbers, that a sine
wave isn't sinusoidal, plus many, many other instances of bad math and physics.

He has previously tried to corrupt our youth by posting his books on Usenet.
Fortunately, this has failed so far, perhaps in part due to the fact Usenet
is an old, dying medium few 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 to teach false Boolean logic such as 3 AND 2 = 5.
His method at doing this is particularly insidious. He'll post a false
statement that nobody believes, such as 3 OR 2 = 5, say that it is false (which
it is), but then he'll try to replace it with another similar false statement
such as 3 AND 2 = 5, in order to really confuse future computer scientists. It
is important for future computer scientists to remember that in the bitwise
Boolean logic used by computers, 3 OR 2 = 3 and 3 AND 2 = 2. Don't let
Plutonium's bad logic confuse you!

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. So perhaps he wants everyone to be a failure at
math and physics, just like he is. Perhaps he is an agent of China, in order
for them to dominate the trade 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
attempted to summon Russian robots in 2017 "to create a new, true 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.

In addition, Plutonium wants to usurp good Christians by trying to convince
students to worship his evil pagan Plutonium atom god of failure. You can
recognize the symbol of this evil pagan cult, which is an ascii-art cosmic
butthole.