info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Arindam Banerjee, the anal fuckdog of science, physics, when he never learned what 1st year students learn-- Units, units units-- E=mc^2 multiplied by a scalar makes no changes-- no changes to Old Ohm's law or New Ohm's law when multiplied by sca
94 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted
Arindam Banerjee
Apr 19, 2023, 2:21:51 AM4/19/23
to
On Wednesday, 19 April 2023 at 14:54:57 UTC+10, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Re: Derivation of e=0.5mvvN(N-k)
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 9:30:53 PM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > The consequences of special relativity are so bizarre - mass becomes infinitely heavy at light speed, length becomes zero, nothing can travel faster than light, that it is a wonder why it was ever accepted. Indeed, it was a result of a great bungle, in the analysis of the results of the MMI experiment, which actually showed that light speed varied with the speed of the emitter. Thus knocking out the first postulate of SR. It was dismissed as "Jewish Physics" but then came the atom bomb with its enormous power, which apparently proved e=mcc. Nothing more to be said. It took upto the year 1998 for me to come up with a different explanation, on purely kinetic terms, based upon internal force that causes all explosions, from lighting a match to hydrogen bombs. In one dimension, and thus most simply, it is e=0.5mVVN(N-k). Let us see how this derived. We assume that the inertial condition can be broken, and thus a particle can be moved from rest, with internal force. All explosions show this, although it is correctly argued that the centre of mass remains constant. Still, in one dimension, a particle as a result of collision gets from rest a velocity v. With N consecutive hits, in the same linear dimension, the velocity becomes vN. Thus the kinetic energy from rest for mass m is 0.5m(Nv)^2 which is the energy created. When it hits something to make it stop, that kinetic energy is zero and that energy is thus destroyed. Now consider making a motor with a reactionless engine, where there is a factor k related to converting the internal energy into kinetic energy. Thus is one hit, which raises the velocity to v, the energy required is E=0.5kmv^2 and N hits require internal energy NE = 0.5kNmv^2. The energy created after N hits is found from the difference, and written above. No destruction of mass is required, and no wrong assumptions with bizarre theoretical outcomes.
> >
> > Arindam Banerjee
>
> Sci.physics has suffered 2 decades of this anal fuckdog Arindam Banerjee, must it suffer more decades??
Aw Archie, don't poo so profusely.
> Re: Derivation of e=0.5mvvN(N-k)
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 9:30:53 PM UTC-5, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> > The consequences of special relativity are so bizarre - mass becomes infinitely heavy at light speed, length becomes zero, nothing can travel faster than light, that it is a wonder why it was ever accepted. Indeed, it was a result of a great bungle, in the analysis of the results of the MMI experiment, which actually showed that light speed varied with the speed of the emitter. Thus knocking out the first postulate of SR. It was dismissed as "Jewish Physics" but then came the atom bomb with its enormous power, which apparently proved e=mcc. Nothing more to be said. It took upto the year 1998 for me to come up with a different explanation, on purely kinetic terms, based upon internal force that causes all explosions, from lighting a match to hydrogen bombs. In one dimension, and thus most simply, it is e=0.5mVVN(N-k). Let us see how this derived. We assume that the inertial condition can be broken, and thus a particle can be moved from rest, with internal force. All explosions show this, although it is correctly argued that the centre of mass remains constant. Still, in one dimension, a particle as a result of collision gets from rest a velocity v. With N consecutive hits, in the same linear dimension, the velocity becomes vN. Thus the kinetic energy from rest for mass m is 0.5m(Nv)^2 which is the energy created. When it hits something to make it stop, that kinetic energy is zero and that energy is thus destroyed. Now consider making a motor with a reactionless engine, where there is a factor k related to converting the internal energy into kinetic energy. Thus is one hit, which raises the velocity to v, the energy required is E=0.5kmv^2 and N hits require internal energy NE = 0.5kNmv^2. The energy created after N hits is found from the difference, and written above. No destruction of mass is required, and no wrong assumptions with bizarre theoretical outcomes.
> >
> > Arindam Banerjee
>
> Sci.physics has suffered 2 decades of this anal fuckdog Arindam Banerjee, must it suffer more decades??
Aw Archie, don't poo so profusely.
Message has been deleted
Arindam Banerjee
Apr 19, 2023, 3:59:45 AM4/19/23
to
On Wednesday, 19 April 2023 at 16:26:49 UTC+10, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Arindam Banerjee, the anal fuckdog of science, physics, when he never learned what 1st year students learn-- Units, units units-- E=mc^2 multiplied by a scalar makes no changes-- no changes to Old Ohm's law or New Ohm's law when multiplied by a scalar. We need not have to include a scalar multiplier in all laws of physics, only brain dead idiots like Arindam Banerjee needs a scalar multiplication.
So where is the problem, Archie? N(N-k) is the scalar multiplier for internal force. When N = 1000000 and K = 1000 the energy multiplier is 1000000*999000 and what is that Archie? Can you multiply two large numbers or does Ohm's law come in somehow?
>
> I pity physics professors and teachers when faced with a squat-shithead like Arindam Banerjee, who can never understand any physics for he fails on square one-- understanding the units of physics.
Physics teachers at high school loved me; at least one in my IIT Kharagpur hated me, Archie. Still, he could not fail me though he did give me the worst mark I ever got in my life. After getting that, I vowed to all around (I don't think they remember after 48 years) that one day, one day, I would make ALL the physics professors look extremely stupid. Well, the words of a brahmin, they cannot be wrong, what? Not that I was much of a brahmin then, but what to do, genes are genes and these days I have got a reputation for being a Sanskrit scholar, among those who have heard me recite the sacred mantras.
>
> linear momentum = MLT^-1
>
> Angular momentum = ML^2T^-1
>
> Force = MLT^-2
>
> Energy = ML^2T^-2
>
> Multiply any of them by a scalar, and nothing changes.
It does change, by the scalar involved. Surely you are not such a relativist as to think that 1 is actually 10 or 10 can be google. But then, there are those, like Moroney, who think you are.
>
> Arindam is a howling crazy fuckdog who will howl this bullshit for decades.
Others will swear by it for millenia, Archie. To the furthest end that can be reached in our universe, which incidentally, is NOT a plutonium atom, Archie. Collective noun works only so far; in grammar, not in physics.
>
> He cannot learn anything for his brain has been brain dead ever since he failed in engineering.
Pure lie. I have a First Class Honours Bachelor's degree in Electronics and Electrical Communication Engineering and a Masters degree in Computer Science from India's top institutes in engineering, IIT Kharagpur and IIT Delhi.
>
> Difficult to read a Arindam Banerjee message for 3/4 of it is a put down of science, and only a stupid tiny smidgeon of his argument is about what he should explain. Notice the assinine talk of 1st dimension, which only shows Arindam is scatterbrained oaf.
Yes, yes.
> Arindam Banerjee, the anal fuckdog of science, physics, when he never learned what 1st year students learn-- Units, units units-- E=mc^2 multiplied by a scalar makes no changes-- no changes to Old Ohm's law or New Ohm's law when multiplied by a scalar. We need not have to include a scalar multiplier in all laws of physics, only brain dead idiots like Arindam Banerjee needs a scalar multiplication.
So where is the problem, Archie? N(N-k) is the scalar multiplier for internal force. When N = 1000000 and K = 1000 the energy multiplier is 1000000*999000 and what is that Archie? Can you multiply two large numbers or does Ohm's law come in somehow?
>
> I pity physics professors and teachers when faced with a squat-shithead like Arindam Banerjee, who can never understand any physics for he fails on square one-- understanding the units of physics.
Physics teachers at high school loved me; at least one in my IIT Kharagpur hated me, Archie. Still, he could not fail me though he did give me the worst mark I ever got in my life. After getting that, I vowed to all around (I don't think they remember after 48 years) that one day, one day, I would make ALL the physics professors look extremely stupid. Well, the words of a brahmin, they cannot be wrong, what? Not that I was much of a brahmin then, but what to do, genes are genes and these days I have got a reputation for being a Sanskrit scholar, among those who have heard me recite the sacred mantras.
>
> linear momentum = MLT^-1
>
> Angular momentum = ML^2T^-1
>
> Force = MLT^-2
>
> Energy = ML^2T^-2
>
> Multiply any of them by a scalar, and nothing changes.
It does change, by the scalar involved. Surely you are not such a relativist as to think that 1 is actually 10 or 10 can be google. But then, there are those, like Moroney, who think you are.
>
> Arindam is a howling crazy fuckdog who will howl this bullshit for decades.
Others will swear by it for millenia, Archie. To the furthest end that can be reached in our universe, which incidentally, is NOT a plutonium atom, Archie. Collective noun works only so far; in grammar, not in physics.
>
> He cannot learn anything for his brain has been brain dead ever since he failed in engineering.
Pure lie. I have a First Class Honours Bachelor's degree in Electronics and Electrical Communication Engineering and a Masters degree in Computer Science from India's top institutes in engineering, IIT Kharagpur and IIT Delhi.
>
> Difficult to read a Arindam Banerjee message for 3/4 of it is a put down of science, and only a stupid tiny smidgeon of his argument is about what he should explain. Notice the assinine talk of 1st dimension, which only shows Arindam is scatterbrained oaf.
>
> Sci.physics has suffered 2 decades of this anal fuckdog Arindam Banerjee, must it suffer more decades??
Repent, Archie. Embrace my new physics and become something sane.
> Sci.physics has suffered 2 decades of this anal fuckdog Arindam Banerjee, must it suffer more decades??
Message has been deleted
Arindam Banerjee
Apr 19, 2023, 6:01:37 PM4/19/23
to
Thanks for the publicity, Archie.
Archimedes Plutonium
Apr 19, 2023, 9:53:04 PM4/19/23
to
Anurag Sharma,Babu Sujin B, Banerjee Varsha,Bhattacharya Saswata of Indian Institute of Tech, are you as stupid.. never able to see real proton = 840MeV, 0.5MeV = Dirac's monopole?
Read the entire Arindam Banerjee cesspool physics thoughts in encyclopedic format
mitchr...@gmail.com's profile photo
mitchr...@gmail.com
, …
18
unread,
Re: Anurag Sharma,Babu Sujin B, Banerjee Varsha,Bhattacharya Saswata of Indian Institute of Tech, are you as stupid and pandering fools of Climate Change like Jai Maharaj// thus never able to see real proton = 840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole?
Apr 16
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
,
2
unread,
Re: Melbourne Uni Lloyd L Hollenberg Geoffrey N Taylor Raymond R Volkas can you please vouch for the fact that Australia never had rail gun research and that the spammer Arindam Banerjee is just one liaring b.s. cluttering up sci.physics
Apr 10
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
,
3
unread,
Re: Arindam Banerjee claims do not square up Uni Melbourne--Harry M Quiney Jeffrey C McCallum Lloyd L Hollenberg, can Australia verify
Apr 10
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
, …
32
unread,
Re: Hi, I'm Arindam Banerjee and throw a flaming fresh shit turd into the middle of Physics-- why?
Apr 15
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
,
5
unread,
Re: Arindam Banerjee asks Mehta B.R. , Mehta D.S.,Narendra Modi if the 2nd derivative in Feynman's Electric field equation E = (q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')] if that 2nd derivative is the same as C'
Apr 10
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
, …
49
unread,
Re: Ghosh Sankalpa, Ghosh Santanu,Joseph Joby, Kanseri Bhaskar, Kedar B Khare of Indian Institute of Tech, are you as insane nutjob of physics as Arindam Banerjee // not able to see real proton = 840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole and real electron is
Apr 9
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
, …
50
unread,
Bhatnagar M.C. ,Indian Institute of Technology,Chatterjee R.,Chaudhary Sujeet,Das Pintu,Dhaka Rajendra S.-- is the reason none of you have confirmed real proton = 840MeV, real electron is the muon and .5MeV was Dirac monopole-- too busy on Arindam??
Apr 9
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
, …
66
unread,
Re: Banerjee Varsha,Indian Institute of Technology,Bhattacharya Saswata,Bhatnagar M.C. ,Chatterjee R.-- is the reason none of you have confirmed real proton = 840MeV, real electron is the muon and .5MeV was Dirac monopole--busy with imp Arindam??
Apr 9
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
, …
51
unread,
Re: Hi, I am Arindam Banerjee a arsewipe of physics,so stupid in physics I am too dumb to ask the question which is the Atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle and thus I attempt to keep Indian Institute of Technology as dumb as Arindam Banerj
Apr 9
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
, …
9
unread,
Re: Arindam Banerjee asks Anurag Sharma, Babu Sujin B, Banerjee Varsha if the 2nd derivative in Feynman's Electric field equation E = (q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')] if that 2nd derivative is the sam
Apr 9
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
, …
52
unread,
Drs.V. Venkataraman, Arnab Rai Choudhuri of Indian Institute of Science Bangalore--are you as dumb as Arindam Banerjee never realizing the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV,monopole=.5MeV // 12 proofs below
Apr 9
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
, …
Archimedes Plutonium
34
unread,
Re: Bhattacharya Saswata,Indian Institute of Technology,Bhatnagar M.C. ,Chatterjee R.,Chaudhary Sujeet,Das Pintu-- is the reason none of you have confirmed real proton = 840MeV, real electron is the muon and .5MeV was Dirac monopole--busy on
Apr 9
Read the entire Arindam Banerjee cesspool physics thoughts in encyclopedic format
mitchr...@gmail.com's profile photo
mitchr...@gmail.com
, …
18
unread,
Re: Anurag Sharma,Babu Sujin B, Banerjee Varsha,Bhattacharya Saswata of Indian Institute of Tech, are you as stupid and pandering fools of Climate Change like Jai Maharaj// thus never able to see real proton = 840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole?
Apr 16
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
,
2
unread,
Re: Melbourne Uni Lloyd L Hollenberg Geoffrey N Taylor Raymond R Volkas can you please vouch for the fact that Australia never had rail gun research and that the spammer Arindam Banerjee is just one liaring b.s. cluttering up sci.physics
Apr 10
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
,
3
unread,
Re: Arindam Banerjee claims do not square up Uni Melbourne--Harry M Quiney Jeffrey C McCallum Lloyd L Hollenberg, can Australia verify
Apr 10
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
, …
32
unread,
Re: Hi, I'm Arindam Banerjee and throw a flaming fresh shit turd into the middle of Physics-- why?
Apr 15
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
,
5
unread,
Re: Arindam Banerjee asks Mehta B.R. , Mehta D.S.,Narendra Modi if the 2nd derivative in Feynman's Electric field equation E = (q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')] if that 2nd derivative is the same as C'
Apr 10
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
, …
49
unread,
Re: Ghosh Sankalpa, Ghosh Santanu,Joseph Joby, Kanseri Bhaskar, Kedar B Khare of Indian Institute of Tech, are you as insane nutjob of physics as Arindam Banerjee // not able to see real proton = 840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole and real electron is
Apr 9
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
, …
50
unread,
Bhatnagar M.C. ,Indian Institute of Technology,Chatterjee R.,Chaudhary Sujeet,Das Pintu,Dhaka Rajendra S.-- is the reason none of you have confirmed real proton = 840MeV, real electron is the muon and .5MeV was Dirac monopole-- too busy on Arindam??
Apr 9
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
, …
66
unread,
Re: Banerjee Varsha,Indian Institute of Technology,Bhattacharya Saswata,Bhatnagar M.C. ,Chatterjee R.-- is the reason none of you have confirmed real proton = 840MeV, real electron is the muon and .5MeV was Dirac monopole--busy with imp Arindam??
Apr 9
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
, …
51
unread,
Re: Hi, I am Arindam Banerjee a arsewipe of physics,so stupid in physics I am too dumb to ask the question which is the Atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle and thus I attempt to keep Indian Institute of Technology as dumb as Arindam Banerj
Apr 9
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
, …
9
unread,
Re: Arindam Banerjee asks Anurag Sharma, Babu Sujin B, Banerjee Varsha if the 2nd derivative in Feynman's Electric field equation E = (q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')] if that 2nd derivative is the sam
Apr 9
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
, …
52
unread,
Drs.V. Venkataraman, Arnab Rai Choudhuri of Indian Institute of Science Bangalore--are you as dumb as Arindam Banerjee never realizing the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV,monopole=.5MeV // 12 proofs below
Apr 9
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
, …
Archimedes Plutonium
34
unread,
Re: Bhattacharya Saswata,Indian Institute of Technology,Bhatnagar M.C. ,Chatterjee R.,Chaudhary Sujeet,Das Pintu-- is the reason none of you have confirmed real proton = 840MeV, real electron is the muon and .5MeV was Dirac monopole--busy on
Apr 9
Arindam Banerjee
Apr 19, 2023, 9:58:14 PM4/19/23
to
On Thursday, 20 April 2023 at 08:01:37 UTC+10, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> Thanks for the publicity, Archie.
In gratitude, a small eulogy:
> Thanks for the publicity, Archie.
Great Archie, who has reduced the universe to an atom
Is supreme among modern physicists; in insanity -
Their most prized quality - he is stupendous, wondrous, awesome;
It does stretch from electron to the bounds of infinity.
Archimedes Plutonium
May 7, 2023, 6:03:56 PM5/7/23
to
Re: Bhattacharya Saswata,Indian Institute of Technology,Bhatnagar M.C. ,Chatterjee R.,Chaudhary Sujeet,Das Pintu-- is the reason none of you have confirmed real proton = 840MeV, real electron is the muon and .5MeV was Dirac monopole--busy on
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
, …
Arindam Banerjee
35
unread,
Re: Bhattacharya Saswata,Indian Institute of Technology,Bhatnagar M.C. ,Chatterjee R.,Chaudhary Sujeet,Das Pintu-- is the reason none of you have confirmed real proton = 840MeV, real electron is the muon and .5MeV was Dirac monopole--busy on
May 2
Re: Bhattacharya Saswata,Indian Institute of Technology,Bhatnagar M.C. ,Chatterjee R.,Chaudhary Sujeet,Das Pintu-- is the reason none of you have confirmed real proton = 840MeV, real electron is the muon and .5MeV was Dirac monopole--busy on
Arindam Banerjee
22
unread,
Re: Anurag Sharma,Babu Sujin B, Banerjee Varsha,Bhattacharya Saswata of Indian Institute of Tech, are you as stupid and pandering fools of Climate Change like Jai Maharaj// thus never able to see real proton = 840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole?
May 1
Re: Anurag Sharma,Babu Sujin B, Banerjee Varsha,Bhattacharya Saswata of Indian Institute of Tech, are you as stupid and pandering fools of Climate Change like Jai Maharaj// thus never able to see real proton = 840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole?
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
, …
Arindam Banerjee
53
unread,
Re: Hi, I am Arindam Banerjee a arsewipe of physics,so stupid in physics I am too dumb to ask the question which is the Atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle and thus I attempt to keep Indian Institute of Technology as dumb as Arindam Banerj
Apr 28
Re: Hi, I am Arindam Banerjee a arsewipe of physics,so stupid in physics I am too dumb to ask the question which is the Atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle and thus I attempt to keep Indian Institute of Technology as dumb as Arindam Banerj
Alan Folmsbee's profile photo
Alan Folmsbee
, …
5
unread,
Graphite has flat crystals because C nucleus has planes of protons
Apr 26
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
,
8
Arindam Banerjee
,
unread,
Re: Arindam Banerjee asks Mehta B.R. , Mehta D.S.,Narendra Modi if the 2nd derivative in Feynman's Electric field equation E = (q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')] if that 2nd derivative is the same as C'
Apr 25
Re: Arindam Banerjee asks Mehta B.R. , Mehta D.S.,Narendra Modi if the 2nd derivative in Feynman's Electric field equation E = (q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')] if that 2nd derivative is the same as C'
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
,
2
unread,
Re: Paid for anti-science spammers of disinformation like Banerjee & Valev banned from sci.math, sci.physics simply from Economic Sanctions on Russia, Iran, NK, et al
Arindam Banerjee
,
2
unread,
Apr 21
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
,
6
Arindam Banerjee
,
unread,
Re: Arindam Banerjee, the anal fuckdog of science, physics, when he never learned what 1st year students learn-- Units, units units-- E=mc^2 multiplied by a scalar makes no changes-- no changes to Old Ohm's law or New Ohm's law when multiplied by sca
Apr 19
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
,
2
unread,
Re: Melbourne Uni Lloyd L Hollenberg Geoffrey N Taylor Raymond R Volkas can you please vouch for the fact that Australia never had rail gun research and that the spammer Arindam Banerjee is just one liaring b.s. cluttering up sci.physics
Apr 10
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
,
3
unread,
Re: Arindam Banerjee claims do not square up Uni Melbourne--Harry M Quiney Jeffrey C McCallum Lloyd L Hollenberg, can Australia verify
Apr 10
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
, …
32
unread,
Re: Hi, I'm Arindam Banerjee and throw a flaming fresh shit turd into the middle of Physics-- why?
Apr 15
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
Arindam Banerjee
,
2
unread,
Re: Melbourne Uni Lloyd L Hollenberg Geoffrey N Taylor Raymond R Volkas can you please vouch for the fact that Australia never had rail gun research and that the spammer Arindam Banerjee is just one liaring b.s. cluttering up sci.physics
Apr 10
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
,
3
unread,
Re: Arindam Banerjee claims do not square up Uni Melbourne--Harry M Quiney Jeffrey C McCallum Lloyd L Hollenberg, can Australia verify
Apr 10
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
, …
32
unread,
Re: Hi, I'm Arindam Banerjee and throw a flaming fresh shit turd into the middle of Physics-- why?
Apr 15
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
, …
49
unread,
Re: Ghosh Sankalpa, Ghosh Santanu,Joseph Joby, Kanseri Bhaskar, Kedar B Khare of Indian Institute of Tech, are you as insane nutjob of physics as Arindam Banerjee // not able to see real proton = 840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole and real electron is
Apr 9
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
, …
50
unread,
Bhatnagar M.C. ,Indian Institute of Technology,Chatterjee R.,Chaudhary Sujeet,Das Pintu,Dhaka Rajendra S.-- is the reason none of you have confirmed real proton = 840MeV, real electron is the muon and .5MeV was Dirac monopole-- too busy on Arindam??
Apr 9
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
, …
66
unread,
Re: Banerjee Varsha,Indian Institute of Technology,Bhattacharya Saswata,Bhatnagar M.C. ,Chatterjee R.-- is the reason none of you have confirmed real proton = 840MeV, real electron is the muon and .5MeV was Dirac monopole--busy with imp Arindam??
Apr 9
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
, …
49
unread,
Re: Ghosh Sankalpa, Ghosh Santanu,Joseph Joby, Kanseri Bhaskar, Kedar B Khare of Indian Institute of Tech, are you as insane nutjob of physics as Arindam Banerjee // not able to see real proton = 840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole and real electron is
Apr 9
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
, …
50
unread,
Bhatnagar M.C. ,Indian Institute of Technology,Chatterjee R.,Chaudhary Sujeet,Das Pintu,Dhaka Rajendra S.-- is the reason none of you have confirmed real proton = 840MeV, real electron is the muon and .5MeV was Dirac monopole-- too busy on Arindam??
Apr 9
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
, …
66
unread,
Re: Banerjee Varsha,Indian Institute of Technology,Bhattacharya Saswata,Bhatnagar M.C. ,Chatterjee R.-- is the reason none of you have confirmed real proton = 840MeV, real electron is the muon and .5MeV was Dirac monopole--busy with imp Arindam??
Apr 9
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
, …
Arindam Banerjee
May 7, 2023, 7:11:32 PM5/7/23
to
Mr Arindam Banerjee Sir, he lifts as a feather his bow ten strong men could not budge;
Strings it with a snap, and lets fly arrows through hoops seventy times seven; with twangs such that the
Pullulating parasites: physicists, procrastinators, pfrauds, professors, politicians, pimps, prostitutes -
All scurry off as fast as their weak little legs can support them.
Back they go to their looms, the scoundrels, to "weave" blackholic cloth for stupid kings - the vast public, that is.
Archimedes Plutonium
Jun 1, 2023, 12:12:45 AM6/1/23
to
Arindam Banerjee why are you and Indian Institute of Tech too stupid to understand real electron of Atoms is the muon inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law while the 0.5MeV particle is Dirac's Magnetic Monopole?? Why such physics idiocy??
Arindam, do you want to be a physics failure all your life???
50
unread,
The law of conservation of energy
sobota, 27 maja 2023 o 23:38:22 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a): > On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 2:10:
5:16 PM
19
unread,
About the MMI bungle, leading to the horrendous disaster that is absurd physics
4:55 PM
My 137th published book
Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
#1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory
This will be AP's 137th published book on science. And the number 137 is special to me for it is the number of QED, Quantum Electrodynamics as the inverse fine structure constant. I can always remember 137 as that special constant of physics and so I can remember where Teaching True Physics was started by me.
Time has come for the world to have the authoritative textbooks for all of High School and College education. Written by the leading physics expert of the time. The last such was Feynman in the 1960s with Feynman Lectures on Physics. The time before was Maxwell in 1860s with his books and Encyclopedia Britannica editorship. The time is ripe in 2020 for the new authoritative texts on physics. It will be started in 2020 which is 60 years after Feynman. In the future, I request the physics community updates the premier physics textbook series at least every 30 years. For we can see that pattern of 30 years approximately from Faraday in 1830 to Maxwell in 1860 to Planck and Rutherford in about 1900, to Dirac in 1930 to Feynman in 1960 and finally to AP in 1990 and 2020. So much happens in physics after 30 years, that we need the revisions to take place in a timely manner. But also, as we move to Internet publishing such as Amazon's Kindle, we can see that updates can take place very fast, as editing can be a ongoing monthly or yearly activity. I for one keep constantly updating all my published books, at least I try to.
Feynman was the best to make the last authoritative textbook series for his concentration was QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, the pinnacle peak of physics during the 20th century. Of course the Atom Totality theory took over after 1990 and all of physics; for all sciences are under the Atom Totality theory.
And as QED was the pinnacle peak before 1990, the new pinnacle peak is the Atom Totality theory. The Atom Totality theory is the advancement of QED, for the Atom Totality theory primal axiom says -- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
Length: 64 pages
Product details
• File Size : 790 KB
• Publication Date : October 5, 2020
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 64 pages
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Language: : English
• ASIN : B08KS4YGWY
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #430,602 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #39 in Electromagnetic Theory
◦ #73 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
◦ #74 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#2-2, 145th published book
TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes and errors and beliefs that clutter up physics. Clearing it of its fraud and fakeries and con-artistry. I thought of doing these textbooks starting with Senior year High School, wherein I myself started learning physics. But because of so much fraud and fakery in physics education, I believe we have to drop down to Junior year High School to make a drastic and dramatic emphasis on fakery and con-artistry that so much pervades science and physics in particular. So that we have two years in High School to learn physics. And discard the nonsense of physics brainwash that Old Physics filled the halls and corridors of education.
Product details
• ASIN : B08PC99JJB
• Publication date : November 29, 2020
• Language: : English
• File size : 682 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 78 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #185,995 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #42 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #344 in Physics (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,160 in Physics (Books)
#2-3, 146th published book
TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Senior High School// Physics textbook series, book 3
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
I believe that in knowing the history of a science is knowing half of that science. And that if you are amiss of knowing the history behind a science, you have only a partial understanding of the concepts and ideas behind the science. I further believe it is easier to teach a science by teaching its history than any other means of teaching. So for senior year High School, I believe physics history is the best way of teaching physics. And in later years of physics courses, we can always pick up on details. So I devote this senior year High School physics to a history of physics, but only true physics. And there are few books written on the history of physics, so I chose Asimov's The History of Physics, 1966 as the template book for this textbook. Now Asimov's book is full of error and mistakes, and that is disappointing but all of Old Physics is full of error. On errors and mistakes of Old Physics, the best I can do is warn the students, and the largest warning of all is that whenever someone in Old Physics says "electron" what they are talking about is really the Dirac magnetic monopole. And whenever they talk about the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom, they are talking about huge huge grave mistakes, for the true atom is protons as 8 ringed toruses with a muon stuck inside of a proton doing the Faraday law and producing those magnetic monopoles as electricity. I use Asimov's book as a template but in the future, I hope to rewrite this textbook using no template at all, that is if I have time in the future.
Cover Picture: Is the book The History of Physics, by Isaac Asimov, 1966 and on top of the book are 4 cut-outs of bent circles representing magnetic monopoles which revolutionizes modern physics, especially the ElectroMagnetic theory.
Product details
◦ ASIN : B08RK33T8V
◦ Publication date : December 28, 2020
◦ Language : English
◦ File size : 794 KB
◦ Text-to-Speech : Enabled
◦ Screen Reader : Supported
◦ Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
◦ X-Ray : Not Enabled
◦ Word Wise : Enabled
◦ Sticky notes : On Kindle Scribe
◦ Print length : 124 pages
◦ Best Sellers Rank: #293,315 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #401 in Physics (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,236 in Physics (Books)
#2-4, 151st published book
TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Preface: This is AP's 151st book of science published. It is one of my most important books of science because 1st year college physics is so impressionable on students, if they should continue with physics, or look elsewhere for a career. And also, physics is a crossroad to all the other hard core sciences, where physics course is mandatory such as in chemistry or even biology. I have endeavored to make physics 1st year college to be as easy and simple to learn. In this endeavor to make physics super easy, I have made the writing such that you will see core ideas in all capital letters as single sentences as a educational tool. And I have made this textbook chapter writing follow a logical pattern of both algebra and geometry concepts, throughout. The utmost importance of logic in physics needs to be seen and understood. For I have never seen a physics book, prior to this one that is logical. Every Old Physics textbook I have seen is scatter-brained in topics and in writing. I use as template book of Halliday & Resnick because a edition of H&R was one I was taught physics at University of Cincinnati in 1969. And in 1969, I had a choice of majors, do I major in geology, or mathematics, or in physics, for I will graduate from UC in 1972. For me, geology was too easy, but physics was too tough, so I ended up majoring in mathematics. If I had been taught in 1969 using this textbook that I have written, I would have ended up majoring in physics, my first love. For physics is not hard, not hard at all, once you clear out the mistakes and the obnoxious worthless mathematics that clutters up Old Physics, and the illogic that smothers much of Old Physics.
Maybe it was good that I had those impressions of physics education of poor education, which still exists throughout physics today. Because maybe I am forced to write this book, because of that awful experience of learning physics in 1969. Without that awful experience, maybe this textbook would have never been written by me.
Cover picture is the template book of Halliday & Resnick, 1988, 3rd edition Fundamentals of Physics and sitting on top are cut outs of "half bent circles, bent at 90 degrees" to imitate magnetic monopoles. Magnetic Monopoles revolutionizes physics education, and separates-out, what is Old Physics from what is New Physics.
Product details
• ASIN : B09JW5DVYM
• Publication date : October 19, 2021
• Language : English
• File size : 1048 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 404 pages
• Best Sellers Rank: #4,844,838 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #487 in Electromagnetic Theory
◦ #1,210 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
◦ #8,751 in Electromagnetism (Books)
#2-8, 202nd published book
TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Permanent Colony on Europa// graduate school college
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle edition)
Preface: Crisis emergency times call for textbooks to reflect the times. The Sun gone Red Giant Initiation Phase as measured by NASA in the decade of 2010 to 2020 as showing a 0.005% Solar Radiation yearly increase threatens all life on Earth with extinction and oblivion. This crisis calls for "All Hands On Deck" to solve the problem. And to solve that problem we need all scientists in the work effort of getting Europa, the satellite of Jupiter to be our second home. I see no textbook for college graduate school as appropriate, unless it is a book addressing the crisis itself. Just the opposite of Nero was fiddling while Rome burned; we want All Hands on Deck, to save as much life on Earth as possible.
Cover Picture: Is my iphone photo of a Google search for Europa with Webb telescope. These are exciting times in that the Webb telescope maybe able to pinpoint life on Europa.
Product details
• ASIN : B0BC5T9JBH
• Publication date : August 27, 2022
• Language : English
• File size : 801 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 45 pages
• Lending : Enabled
#2-9, 161st published book
PHYSICSOPEDIA -- List of 137 fakes and mistakes of Old Physics// Student teaches professor Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 24Apr2022. This is AP's 161st published book of science.
Preface:
A Physicsopedia is a book of the overall assessment and evaluation of the state of the art of Physics. It is like a report card. It is a total view of the science and a judgement of the science, both of the past, present and the direction forward into the future. Its greatest use is to alert readers and people in science of what is wrong with their subject, and as a ancillary use, to alert students what to avoid in college as a waste of time.
It is not in alphabetical order but mostly, rather, has a ordering of what is most important at the start and only at the very very end. For there is no index.
Physics is the most important hard science for every other science is a specialized part of physics. And Old Physics has three key huge mistakes that this book addresses. The true theory of the Universe is the Atom Totality, not the Big Bang which is a ridiculous theory. The true electron of atoms is not the particle of 0.5MeV which turns out to be Dirac's magnetic monopole, while the true real electron of atoms is the muon of 105MeV which is stuck inside a proton torus of 8 rings of 840MeV. This causes another huge mistake, for a mistake in physics usually has a cascade effect of more and more mistakes. When we take the true electron of atoms is the muon, means the Sun and stars shine not from fusion, but from that muon thrusting through the proton torus in a Faraday law of electricity and magnetism producing electrical energy. So our Sun shines from the Faraday law, not fusion. And this implies the Sun has gone into Red Giant phase with a solar radiation increase of 0.005% yearly increase. That implies all life on Earth is in danger of going extinct as the Sun becomes more and more Red Giant, and unless humanity moves out to Europa, humanity goes extinct.
Product details
• ASIN : B09N18QPP1
• Publication date : December 3, 2021
• Language : English
• File size : 1139 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 82 pages
• Lending : Enabled
y z
| /
| /
|/______ x
More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, 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.
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
Arindam, do you want to be a physics failure all your life???
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
, …
Enes Richard
Arindam Banerjee
, …
50
unread,
The law of conservation of energy
sobota, 27 maja 2023 o 23:38:22 UTC+2 Paul Alsing napisał(a): > On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 2:10:
5:16 PM
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
, …
Enes Richard
Arindam Banerjee
, …
19
unread,
About the MMI bungle, leading to the horrendous disaster that is absurd physics
4:55 PM
My 137th published book
Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
#1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory
This will be AP's 137th published book on science. And the number 137 is special to me for it is the number of QED, Quantum Electrodynamics as the inverse fine structure constant. I can always remember 137 as that special constant of physics and so I can remember where Teaching True Physics was started by me.
Time has come for the world to have the authoritative textbooks for all of High School and College education. Written by the leading physics expert of the time. The last such was Feynman in the 1960s with Feynman Lectures on Physics. The time before was Maxwell in 1860s with his books and Encyclopedia Britannica editorship. The time is ripe in 2020 for the new authoritative texts on physics. It will be started in 2020 which is 60 years after Feynman. In the future, I request the physics community updates the premier physics textbook series at least every 30 years. For we can see that pattern of 30 years approximately from Faraday in 1830 to Maxwell in 1860 to Planck and Rutherford in about 1900, to Dirac in 1930 to Feynman in 1960 and finally to AP in 1990 and 2020. So much happens in physics after 30 years, that we need the revisions to take place in a timely manner. But also, as we move to Internet publishing such as Amazon's Kindle, we can see that updates can take place very fast, as editing can be a ongoing monthly or yearly activity. I for one keep constantly updating all my published books, at least I try to.
Feynman was the best to make the last authoritative textbook series for his concentration was QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, the pinnacle peak of physics during the 20th century. Of course the Atom Totality theory took over after 1990 and all of physics; for all sciences are under the Atom Totality theory.
And as QED was the pinnacle peak before 1990, the new pinnacle peak is the Atom Totality theory. The Atom Totality theory is the advancement of QED, for the Atom Totality theory primal axiom says -- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
Length: 64 pages
Product details
• File Size : 790 KB
• Publication Date : October 5, 2020
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 64 pages
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Language: : English
• ASIN : B08KS4YGWY
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #430,602 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #39 in Electromagnetic Theory
◦ #73 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
◦ #74 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#2-2, 145th published book
TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes and errors and beliefs that clutter up physics. Clearing it of its fraud and fakeries and con-artistry. I thought of doing these textbooks starting with Senior year High School, wherein I myself started learning physics. But because of so much fraud and fakery in physics education, I believe we have to drop down to Junior year High School to make a drastic and dramatic emphasis on fakery and con-artistry that so much pervades science and physics in particular. So that we have two years in High School to learn physics. And discard the nonsense of physics brainwash that Old Physics filled the halls and corridors of education.
Product details
• ASIN : B08PC99JJB
• Publication date : November 29, 2020
• Language: : English
• File size : 682 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 78 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #185,995 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #42 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #344 in Physics (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,160 in Physics (Books)
#2-3, 146th published book
TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Senior High School// Physics textbook series, book 3
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
I believe that in knowing the history of a science is knowing half of that science. And that if you are amiss of knowing the history behind a science, you have only a partial understanding of the concepts and ideas behind the science. I further believe it is easier to teach a science by teaching its history than any other means of teaching. So for senior year High School, I believe physics history is the best way of teaching physics. And in later years of physics courses, we can always pick up on details. So I devote this senior year High School physics to a history of physics, but only true physics. And there are few books written on the history of physics, so I chose Asimov's The History of Physics, 1966 as the template book for this textbook. Now Asimov's book is full of error and mistakes, and that is disappointing but all of Old Physics is full of error. On errors and mistakes of Old Physics, the best I can do is warn the students, and the largest warning of all is that whenever someone in Old Physics says "electron" what they are talking about is really the Dirac magnetic monopole. And whenever they talk about the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom, they are talking about huge huge grave mistakes, for the true atom is protons as 8 ringed toruses with a muon stuck inside of a proton doing the Faraday law and producing those magnetic monopoles as electricity. I use Asimov's book as a template but in the future, I hope to rewrite this textbook using no template at all, that is if I have time in the future.
Cover Picture: Is the book The History of Physics, by Isaac Asimov, 1966 and on top of the book are 4 cut-outs of bent circles representing magnetic monopoles which revolutionizes modern physics, especially the ElectroMagnetic theory.
Product details
◦ ASIN : B08RK33T8V
◦ Publication date : December 28, 2020
◦ Language : English
◦ File size : 794 KB
◦ Text-to-Speech : Enabled
◦ Screen Reader : Supported
◦ Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
◦ X-Ray : Not Enabled
◦ Word Wise : Enabled
◦ Sticky notes : On Kindle Scribe
◦ Print length : 124 pages
◦ Best Sellers Rank: #293,315 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #401 in Physics (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,236 in Physics (Books)
#2-4, 151st published book
TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Preface: This is AP's 151st book of science published. It is one of my most important books of science because 1st year college physics is so impressionable on students, if they should continue with physics, or look elsewhere for a career. And also, physics is a crossroad to all the other hard core sciences, where physics course is mandatory such as in chemistry or even biology. I have endeavored to make physics 1st year college to be as easy and simple to learn. In this endeavor to make physics super easy, I have made the writing such that you will see core ideas in all capital letters as single sentences as a educational tool. And I have made this textbook chapter writing follow a logical pattern of both algebra and geometry concepts, throughout. The utmost importance of logic in physics needs to be seen and understood. For I have never seen a physics book, prior to this one that is logical. Every Old Physics textbook I have seen is scatter-brained in topics and in writing. I use as template book of Halliday & Resnick because a edition of H&R was one I was taught physics at University of Cincinnati in 1969. And in 1969, I had a choice of majors, do I major in geology, or mathematics, or in physics, for I will graduate from UC in 1972. For me, geology was too easy, but physics was too tough, so I ended up majoring in mathematics. If I had been taught in 1969 using this textbook that I have written, I would have ended up majoring in physics, my first love. For physics is not hard, not hard at all, once you clear out the mistakes and the obnoxious worthless mathematics that clutters up Old Physics, and the illogic that smothers much of Old Physics.
Maybe it was good that I had those impressions of physics education of poor education, which still exists throughout physics today. Because maybe I am forced to write this book, because of that awful experience of learning physics in 1969. Without that awful experience, maybe this textbook would have never been written by me.
Cover picture is the template book of Halliday & Resnick, 1988, 3rd edition Fundamentals of Physics and sitting on top are cut outs of "half bent circles, bent at 90 degrees" to imitate magnetic monopoles. Magnetic Monopoles revolutionizes physics education, and separates-out, what is Old Physics from what is New Physics.
Product details
• ASIN : B09JW5DVYM
• Publication date : October 19, 2021
• Language : English
• File size : 1048 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 404 pages
• Best Sellers Rank: #4,844,838 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #487 in Electromagnetic Theory
◦ #1,210 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
◦ #8,751 in Electromagnetism (Books)
#2-8, 202nd published book
TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Permanent Colony on Europa// graduate school college
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle edition)
Preface: Crisis emergency times call for textbooks to reflect the times. The Sun gone Red Giant Initiation Phase as measured by NASA in the decade of 2010 to 2020 as showing a 0.005% Solar Radiation yearly increase threatens all life on Earth with extinction and oblivion. This crisis calls for "All Hands On Deck" to solve the problem. And to solve that problem we need all scientists in the work effort of getting Europa, the satellite of Jupiter to be our second home. I see no textbook for college graduate school as appropriate, unless it is a book addressing the crisis itself. Just the opposite of Nero was fiddling while Rome burned; we want All Hands on Deck, to save as much life on Earth as possible.
Cover Picture: Is my iphone photo of a Google search for Europa with Webb telescope. These are exciting times in that the Webb telescope maybe able to pinpoint life on Europa.
Product details
• ASIN : B0BC5T9JBH
• Publication date : August 27, 2022
• Language : English
• File size : 801 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 45 pages
• Lending : Enabled
#2-9, 161st published book
PHYSICSOPEDIA -- List of 137 fakes and mistakes of Old Physics// Student teaches professor Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 24Apr2022. This is AP's 161st published book of science.
Preface:
A Physicsopedia is a book of the overall assessment and evaluation of the state of the art of Physics. It is like a report card. It is a total view of the science and a judgement of the science, both of the past, present and the direction forward into the future. Its greatest use is to alert readers and people in science of what is wrong with their subject, and as a ancillary use, to alert students what to avoid in college as a waste of time.
It is not in alphabetical order but mostly, rather, has a ordering of what is most important at the start and only at the very very end. For there is no index.
Physics is the most important hard science for every other science is a specialized part of physics. And Old Physics has three key huge mistakes that this book addresses. The true theory of the Universe is the Atom Totality, not the Big Bang which is a ridiculous theory. The true electron of atoms is not the particle of 0.5MeV which turns out to be Dirac's magnetic monopole, while the true real electron of atoms is the muon of 105MeV which is stuck inside a proton torus of 8 rings of 840MeV. This causes another huge mistake, for a mistake in physics usually has a cascade effect of more and more mistakes. When we take the true electron of atoms is the muon, means the Sun and stars shine not from fusion, but from that muon thrusting through the proton torus in a Faraday law of electricity and magnetism producing electrical energy. So our Sun shines from the Faraday law, not fusion. And this implies the Sun has gone into Red Giant phase with a solar radiation increase of 0.005% yearly increase. That implies all life on Earth is in danger of going extinct as the Sun becomes more and more Red Giant, and unless humanity moves out to Europa, humanity goes extinct.
Product details
• ASIN : B09N18QPP1
• Publication date : December 3, 2021
• Language : English
• File size : 1139 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 82 pages
• Lending : Enabled
y z
| /
| /
|/______ x
More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, 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.
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
Arindam Banerjee
Jun 1, 2023, 2:01:27 AM6/1/23
to
On Thursday, 1 June 2023 at 14:12:45 UTC+10, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Arindam Banerjee
> Arindam Banerjee
Thanks for the publicity, Archie.
Latest experiments (2022) showing my invention of a new kind of rail gun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYtyOMbgiZ0
Which is improved upon in, and its potential for ejecting matter into near space , and horizontal tunneling shown in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6pjy0Wvujs&t=19s
and the following shows how a new class of linear motor violating inertia can be developed by arresting the momentum of the armature and imparting that to the whole system, giving it an increased velocity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idsIuzEajTc&t=2s
Earlier experiments (2017)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqBfwAClVlg
IFE - 1 Ground Experiments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9eGq4Oiv9s
IFE - 2 Experimental setups
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3hC48BMrno
IFE - 3 Pendulum experiments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sSPxGsLkws
IFE - 4 Evolution of spaceship
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJdM6UDPauU
IFE - 5 Hydrogen Transmission Network
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUAcx7rAplc
IFE - 6 Spaceship Design
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5Zbpvc3fdA
IFE - 7 Anti-Gravity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA9LUwqMhxY
IFE - 8 New Physics
The way the universe operates:
The cause of gravity
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/mmigkl3yZYc/m/8Rs16NCXAAAJ
Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 1
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/6UIGDNHH7n0/m/U0t-kYqgAAAJ
Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories - 2
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/CffbGTXV72c/m/5ONP6J6gAAAJ
Introduction to "A New Look Towards the Principles of Motion"
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/1wmee5C8mFs/kJMPdnFkAwAJ
Section 1
Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the design of Interstellar Spacecraft
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/GbpQC3a2d1Q/jSXQeb9kAwAJ
Section 1 (contd.)
Linear Motion, Momentum, Force, Energy, Internal Force Engines, and the design of Interstellar Spacecraft
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/P9ZiinIDhHU/ZtMQVyliBQAJ
Section 2
The Creation and Destruction of Energy
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/wY6_9V8ucSY/3nnJQk9iBQAJ
Section 3
The Structure of Heavenly Bodies
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/8jH-SQIFFDo/O1jn3HpiBQAJ
Section 4
The Nature of Explosion
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/7TkOVZigFHg/uv43_aZiBQAJ
Section 5
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics/jhgcsTq-NrQ/ZBwG8S9jBQAJ
Message has been deleted
Arindam Banerjee
Aug 22, 2023, 7:25:35 PM8/22/23
to
Volney
Aug 22, 2023, 9:03:12 PM8/22/23
to
On 8/22/2023 7:25 PM, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> Thanks for the publicity, Archie.
As the twins battle to see who is the biggest minnow in the stagnant mud
> Thanks for the publicity, Archie.
puddle of sci.physics.
Where's the popcorn. Kookfights are always great entertainment.
Arindam Banerjee
Aug 22, 2023, 10:45:55 PM8/22/23
to
Archimedes Plutonium
Aug 24, 2023, 12:41:10 AM8/24/23
to
Can_Dr.Banerjee Varsha,Dr.Anurag Sharma,Dr.Babu Sujin B, - -PLEASE--step into Indian Institute Technology physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O. AP's homegrown lab cannot do the fine tuning experiment of weighing a test tube of electrolyzed hydrogen and oxygen from water. If AP is correct Water is really H4O, not H2O. My weighing scale is puny and insufficient for the job at hand, 0.00001 gram or less of hydrogen and oxygen test tubes. If AP is correct the hydrogen is 1/4 the weight of oxygen, if mainstream chemistry, physics is correct the hydrogen is 1/8 in amu to oxygen.
>
The spamming crazy fruitcake of Arindam Banerjee--his failure in physics and mind-rot opinions of physics, actually hostile towards physics-- his denial of Apollo 11, as some staged hoax from Hollywood or Bollywood.
The physics aphorisms of Arindam - repost
Wrong and wasteful investments like going to Mars with rockets, and having bigger jet engines
12:22 AM
A photon is a brief pulse of electromagnetic radiation, of high frequency, seen as an electromagnetic
Aug 2
Indian Institute of Technology
Physics dept. Anurag Sharma, Babu Sujin B, Banerjee Varsha, Bhattacharya Saswata, Bhatnagar M.C. , Chatterjee R., Chaudhary Sujeet, Das Pintu, Dhaka Rajendra S., Ghosh Joyee, Ghosh Pradipta, Ghosh Sankalpa, Ghosh Santanu, Joseph Joby, Kanseri Bhaskar, Kedar B Khare, Khare Neeraj, Kumar Sunil, Malik H.K., Mani Brajesh Kumar, Marathe Rahul, Mehta B.R. , Mehta D.S. , Mishra Amruta, Muduli P.K., Ravishankar V. , Reddy G.B. , Saxena Vikrant, Sengupta Amartya, Senthilkumaran P. ,Shenoy M.R. , Shukla A.K., Singh J.P., Singh Rajendra, Sinha Aloka, Soni Ravi Kant, Srivastava Pankaj, Varshney R.K., Vijaya Prakash G.
>
> > > > +Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within
>
> > > > +Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within
> > > >
> > > > 3m views Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within the accuracy I need for weighing a test tube of oxygen then a test tube of hydrogen from water electrolysis.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium
> > > >
> > > > In Old Chemistry and Old Physics, their subatomic particles were do nothing and no function and no job particles that sit around as balls or whiz around the outside of balls doing nothing but pointless circling.
> > > >
> > > > In New Physics and New Chemistry-- All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. Every subatomic particle has a job a function a purpose as to the Laws of Electromagnetism--- Faraday law, Coulomb law, Ampere law, Capacitor law.
> > > >
> > > > A proton is a torus of 840MeV with 840 windings, while the muon is the true electron of Atoms and is encased inside the proton torus thrusting through and producing electricity-- magnetic monopoles.
> > > >
> > > > The neutron of Atoms is a parallel plate capacitor storing the electricity of proton+muon and is skin cover on the outside of the proton torus in the form of parallel plates.
> > > >
> > > > Can hydrogen be a Atom if it is just a proton+muon? No, all atoms require to have a capacitor such as at least one neutron. Thus the Hydrogen Atom is H2 where you have 2 proton+muon where 1 of the 2 proton+muon acts like a neutron to the other proton+muon. Thus, water molecule is not H2O but rather is H4O.
> > > >
> > > > AP is waiting for experimental chemists and physicists to prove him correct that Water is H4O.
> > > >
> > > > In the meantime we have Hydroxyl which in Old Chemistry, especially Biology is OH, while AP says that is wrong and that is really H2O.
> > > >
> > > > Now glycerine is a hydroxyl with formula C3H8O3. And what I am thinking at this moment, is that hydroxyls will be an easier proof that Water is truly H4O, rather than wait for experimentalists to actually "weigh the electrolysis test tubes of oxygen and hydrogen".
> > > >
> > > > You see, with H4O as water, glycerine is C3(2 waters)O with an extra oxygen. If Water is H2O then glycerine is C3(4 waters) deficit O. It is missing an oxygen if water is H2O.
> > > >
> > > > The reason glycerine is so effective as a skin ointment is because it has glycerine, the extra O oxygen. If water were H2O, then glycerine would be a missing oxygen and not a skin lotion that works, but makes skin even more dry.
> > > >
> > > > Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium
> > > >
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > > > 12:24 AM (13 hours ago)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > >
> > > > --- quoting in part from source-- Study.com ---
> > > > Perhaps there is only two Faraday laws on Electrolysis. I am looking at the one that states: Faraday's first law of electrolysis relates the mass of a substance liberated (or deposited) at an electrode to the electric charge used (Q). A proportionality constant Z can be used:
> > > >
> > > > m = ZQ = (E/96485)(Q)
> > > >
> > > > m = mass, Q = total charge rewritten as Q = I*t amperes x time in seconds.
> > > >
> > > > This website gives an example: 5amps passed through molten Sodium Chloride for 3 hours. Calculate the mass of Sodium. E=23/1.
> > > >
> > > > m = (23/96485) (5) (3*60*60) approx 12.87 grams.
> > > >
> > > > --- end quoting in part from source-- Study.com ---
> > > >
> > > > Now has such a experiment been performed on Water to see how much atomic mass of hydrogen and of oxygen results??? If AP is correct, the formula of water is H4O, if Old Physics, Old Chemistry is correct the formula is H2O. So which is it???
> > > >
> > > > AP
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No, sorry no, Faraday's Law of Electrolysis is not going to tell the correct mass of hydrogen.
> > > >
> > > > Reading Wikipedia on Faraday's Electrolysis law.
> > > >
> > > > --- quoting Wikipedia ---
> > > > A monovalent ion requires 1 electron for discharge, a divalent ion requires 2 electrons for discharge and so on. Thus, if x electrons flow,
> > > > x/v atoms are discharged.
> > > >
> > > > So the mass m discharged is
> > > >
> > > > m= (xM)/vN_A) = (QM)/(eN_A *v) = (QM) / (vF)
> > > > where
> > > > N_A is the Avogadro constant;
> > > > Q = xe is the total charge, equal to the number of electrons (x) times the elementary charge e;
> > > > F is the Faraday constant.
> > > > --- end quoting Wikipedia ---
> > > >
> > > > No, the Faraday law of Electrolysis will not work on water with a correct answer, because H is not an atom but H2 is an Atom. And where one of the proton+muon converts to being a neutron to the other proton+muon.
> > > >
> > > > So if Faraday's law of Electrolysis was applied to water, thinking it would deliver a true answer is mistaken because the one H converts to neutron.
> > > >
> > > > So it appears that we need to directly measure the test tube of oxygen and the test tube of hydrogen by a direct mass measurement.
> > > >
> > > > AP
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > > > 1:14 AM (12 hours ago)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > > I doubt we can measure a test tube of hydrogen or test tube of oxygen, too small to determine the mass on some sort of weight scale.
> > > >
> > > > But here is a possible lucrative idea. We should be able to get pure deuterium water. Then run the electrolysis. Collect the test tubes.
> > > >
> > > > Now have some sort of balancing beam weight scale. Place the regular water of hydrogen test tube on one side, and place the deuterium water hydrogen test tube on other side. If they stay balanced, then AP is correct and Water is really H4O.
> > > >
> > > > AP
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > > > 1:48 AM (11 hours ago)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > > Cosmic Rays from Sun
> > > >
> > > > 90% of Sun's cosmic rays are 840MeV proton+muon inside = H. The hydrogen Atom is H2 where one of the H proton+muon converts to being a neutron.
> > > >
> > > > When these proton+muon hit Earth atmosphere, they can turn into pions and muons.
> > > >
> > > > I commented that H alone is a subatomic particle and that makes sense in the idea that Sun's cosmic rays are 90% these proton+muon.
> > > >
> > > > Now is interstellar hydrogen H2 and intergalactic hydrogen H2 formed when one H cosmic ray joins up with another H cosmic ray to form H2 atom?
> > > >
> > > > Is this how we get H2 in outer space? From the splitting apart of H2 into H cosmic rays?
> > > >
> > > > So how much of the Sun's hydrogen is H2 and how much is H ready to join with another H and reform back into H2. Probably little of the Sun's H is H alone, and the vast majority of the Sun's hydrogen is H2.
> > > >
> > > > How much deuterium in the Sun? And it is a higher percentage than the deuterium in water on Earth?
> > > >
> > > > AP
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > > > 3:11 AM (10 hours ago)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > > Water is the only known non-metallic substance that expands when if freezes; its density decreases and it expands approximately 9% by volume. (Source: web Lunar and Planetary Institute)
> > > >
> > > > I have to wait for experimental chemists and physicists to weigh the mass of test tubes from electrolysis, as to the verdict-- water is H4O.
> > > >
> > > > But until that news comes in, I will look for other means of proof.
> > > >
> > > > So AP says that the H2 is not a molecule but is the hydrogen Atom itself, where one proton+muon converts to a neutron and capacitates the other proton+muon which undergo the Faraday law.
> > > >
> > > > There are subatomic particles of H in the form of Cosmic Rays from the Sun, but most of the Sun's hydrogen is H2, and flips back and forth from H to rejoining to form H2. Some gets away from the Sun and is cosmic rays.
> > > >
> > > > But H2 is an Atom and H is a fleeting subatomic particle.
> > > >
> > > > So can I prove Water is H4O from the data of Spectral lines of H2 is the same as deuterium, only slight difference is that the deuterium is a full fledged neutron not a makeshift proton+muon of H.
> > > >
> > > > I suspect that special trait of water freezing is a proof that Water is H4O. Because the 840MeV proton torus with muon inside doing the Faraday law acting as a makeshift neutron capacitor for the other 840MeV proton torus with muon inside, is where H2 gets that expansion characteristic.
> > > >
> > > > A neutron is a parallel plate capacitor and those plates can expand when frozen temperature occurs. As the temperature gets colder, those plates move further apart.
> > > >
> > > > Now does deuterium which truly has a full neutron, does it expand also when frozen?? If so, does it expand as much as H2 which is 2 protons with 2 muons inside?
> > > >
> > > > So comparing the freezing and expansion of the parallel plates of a neutron in deuterium with the freezing and expansion of one of the proton+muon that is acting as a makeshift neutron in H2.
> > > >
> > > > If I can numbers correlate the H2 expansion with the Deuterium expansion would be a alternative proof that Water is really H4O and not H2O.
> > > >
> > > > AP
> > > > to
> > > > So now on Blankenship's book "Molecular Mechanisms of Photosynthesis", 2014, page 134, shows The structure of ATP, ADP, AMP. And within that structure are OH hydroxyls.
> > > >
> > > > In New Chemistry, water is truly H4O, and where hydroxyls are now H2O. And we have first proof of this in the Figure 8.1 of Blankenship's "Chemical structure of ATP".
> > > >
> > > > For in the lower left corner of the diagram, Blankenship has a H+ all alone, (really a mindless error) and has P surrounded by O-, O-, O and OH. The OH is really H2O for hydroxyls are H2O and water itself is H4O, and that would leave that mindless H+ as being hydrogen Atom of H2.
> > > >
> > > > The world of physics and chemistry should drop what they are doing and weigh the electrolysis test tube of hydrogen and oxygen to discover the correct true formula of water is H4O.
> > > >
> > > > AP is total confident, becuase an Atom cannot exist if it has no capacitor structure such as a neutron, or one of the H in H2 acting as a neutron. I am totally confident that Water formula is truly H4O. And I need look only to methane of H4C, to realize that there is no HC, no H2C, no H3C, but starts with H4C, and that tells me water starts with H4O. Totally confident that Old Chemistry, Old Physics did electrolysis experiments and the moment they saw hydrogen test tube be 2x volume of oxygen test tube, they dropped their work and went out for a Danish and coffee break, rather than finish their work--- actual physics weighing of atomic mass units (not the Faraday electrolysis law for it does not apply to water).
> > > >
> > > > When water electrolysis is physics weighed, AP is confident that there are 4H per every one oxygen O. And that Water is truly H4O.
> > > >
> > > > AP, King of Science
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > 9:34 AM (15 minutes ago)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > to
> > > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 8:56:57 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > > Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within the accuracy I need for weighing a test tube of oxygen then a test tube of hydrogen from water electrolysis.
> > > >
> > > > Now modern day physics and chemist experimenters can really do a marvelous job if they wanted to. For they could freeze the test tubes of oxygen and hydrogen to where they are liquid and compare liquids from water electrolysis.
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > 10:01 AM (5 hours ago)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > to
> > > > So, what AP is saying here is that we do electrolysis of water. We collect the two test tubes, one with oxygen the other with hydrogen.
> > > >
> > > > To prove Water is truly the formula H4O and not H2O we must weigh the masses of the two tubes to find that the ratio is 1 x 16amu to 4 x 1amu.
> > > >
> > > > The silly grotesque science error of the past was to look at volumes in the two test tubes-- "Hey-- the hydrogen is twice the volume of oxygen so the formula of water is H2O".
> > > >
> > > > No, way was that science good practice. For the correct formula of water needs to be measured by mass, by atomic mass units where Oxygen is 16amu and hydrogen is 1amu.
> > > >
> > > > I suspect a balance beam scale is good enough to see the hydrogen test tube will be 1/4 as massive as the oxygen test tube. To get within precision of electronic weighing scale of 0.00001 gram we just have to make a larger test tube of electrolysis of water.
> > > >
> > > > AP is betting that the readings will be hydrogen test tube 1/4 the mass of oxygen test tube proving Water formula is truly H4O.
> > > >
> > > > Old Physics and Old Chemistry is betting that the mass experiment will have the hydrogen test tube be 1/8 the mass of the oxygen test tube, proving Water formula is H2O.
> > > >
> > > > AP does not have these precision equipment to conduct an at-home experiment of this nature.
> > > >
> > > > AP
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > 12:38 PM (4 hours ago)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > to
> > > > So, once Water is found to actually be H4O, not H2O, we move on to methane, and ask the same question of its hydrogen bonds. Is Methane really that of H8C and not H4C.
> > > >
> > > > Well, looking in the literature for anomalies to methane, I come across a arXiv "Low and high-temperature anomalies in the physical properties of solid methane "The anomalous behavior of thermodynamic, spectral, plastic, elastic and some other properties of solid methane is discussed near 20.48K and...
> > > >
> > > > AP wonders: if they can get methane to solid form, well, I am then hopeful that the mass of the molecule can be determined. Because if methane is truly H8C, that difference of H4 in atomic mass units would be very much noticeable difference.
> > > >
> > > > Chemistry Europe--
> > > > "The Anomalous Deuterium Isotope Effect in the NMR Spectrum of Methane...
> > > >
> > > > P Vermeeren, 2023
> > > > "The abnormally long and weak methylidyne C-H bond.."
> > > > "The C-H bond of the methylidyne radical, CH*, is abnormally long and weak, even longer and..."
> > > >
> > > > AP asks, are these anomalies solved if we consider methane is actually H8C and not H4C?
> > > >
> > > > AP
>
>
> My 250th published book.
>
> TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY; H2 is the hydrogen Atom and water is H4O, not H2O// Chemistry
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
> Prologue: This textbook is 1/2 research history and 1/2 factual textbook combined as one textbook. For many of the experiments described here-in have not yet been performed, such as water is really H4O not H2O. Written in a style of history research with date-time markers, and fact telling. And there are no problem sets. This book is intended for 1st year college. Until I include problem sets and exercises, I leave it to the professor and instructor to provide such. And also, chemistry is hugely a laboratory science, even more so than physics, so a first year college student in the lab to test whether Water is really H4O and not H2O is mighty educational.
>
> Preface: This is my 250th book of science, and the first of my textbooks on Teaching True Chemistry. I have completed the Teaching True Physics and the Teaching True Mathematics textbook series. But had not yet started on a Teaching True Chemistry textbook series. What got me started on this project is the fact that no chemistry textbook had the correct formula for water which is actually H4O and not H2O. Leaving the true formula for hydroxyl groups as H2O and not OH. But none of this is possible in Old Chemistry, Old Physics where they had do-nothing subatomic particles that sit around and do nothing or go whizzing around the outside of balls in a nucleus, in a mindless circling. Once every subatomic particle has a job, task, function, then water cannot be H2O but rather H4O. And a hydrogen atom cannot be H alone but is actually H2. H2 is not a molecule of hydrogen but a full fledged Atom, a single atom of hydrogen.
>
> Cover Picture: Sorry for the crude sketch work but chemistry and physics students are going to have to learn to make such sketches in a minute or less. Just as they make Lewis diagrams or ball & stick diagrams. My 4-5 minute sketch-work of the Water molecule H4O plus the subatomic particle H, and the hydrogen atom H2. Showing how one H is a proton torus with muon inside (blue color) doing the Faraday law. Protons are toruses with many windings. Protons are the coils in Faraday law while muons are the bar magnets. Neutrons are the capacitors as parallel plates, the outer skin cover of atoms.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN : B0CCLPTBDG
> • Publication date : July 21, 2023
> • Language : English
> • File size : 788 KB
>
The spamming crazy fruitcake of Arindam Banerjee--his failure in physics and mind-rot opinions of physics, actually hostile towards physics-- his denial of Apollo 11, as some staged hoax from Hollywood or Bollywood.
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
2
Arindam Banerjee
The physics aphorisms of Arindam - repost
Wrong and wasteful investments like going to Mars with rockets, and having bigger jet engines
12:22 AM
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
What is a photon?
Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
Arindam Banerjee
A photon is a brief pulse of electromagnetic radiation, of high frequency, seen as an electromagnetic
Aug 2
Indian Institute of Technology
Physics dept. Anurag Sharma, Babu Sujin B, Banerjee Varsha, Bhattacharya Saswata, Bhatnagar M.C. , Chatterjee R., Chaudhary Sujeet, Das Pintu, Dhaka Rajendra S., Ghosh Joyee, Ghosh Pradipta, Ghosh Sankalpa, Ghosh Santanu, Joseph Joby, Kanseri Bhaskar, Kedar B Khare, Khare Neeraj, Kumar Sunil, Malik H.K., Mani Brajesh Kumar, Marathe Rahul, Mehta B.R. , Mehta D.S. , Mishra Amruta, Muduli P.K., Ravishankar V. , Reddy G.B. , Saxena Vikrant, Sengupta Amartya, Senthilkumaran P. ,Shenoy M.R. , Shukla A.K., Singh J.P., Singh Rajendra, Sinha Aloka, Soni Ravi Kant, Srivastava Pankaj, Varshney R.K., Vijaya Prakash G.
>
> > > > +Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within
>
> > > > +Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within
> > > >
> > > > 3m views Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within the accuracy I need for weighing a test tube of oxygen then a test tube of hydrogen from water electrolysis.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium
> > > >
> > > > In Old Chemistry and Old Physics, their subatomic particles were do nothing and no function and no job particles that sit around as balls or whiz around the outside of balls doing nothing but pointless circling.
> > > >
> > > > In New Physics and New Chemistry-- All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. Every subatomic particle has a job a function a purpose as to the Laws of Electromagnetism--- Faraday law, Coulomb law, Ampere law, Capacitor law.
> > > >
> > > > A proton is a torus of 840MeV with 840 windings, while the muon is the true electron of Atoms and is encased inside the proton torus thrusting through and producing electricity-- magnetic monopoles.
> > > >
> > > > The neutron of Atoms is a parallel plate capacitor storing the electricity of proton+muon and is skin cover on the outside of the proton torus in the form of parallel plates.
> > > >
> > > > Can hydrogen be a Atom if it is just a proton+muon? No, all atoms require to have a capacitor such as at least one neutron. Thus the Hydrogen Atom is H2 where you have 2 proton+muon where 1 of the 2 proton+muon acts like a neutron to the other proton+muon. Thus, water molecule is not H2O but rather is H4O.
> > > >
> > > > AP is waiting for experimental chemists and physicists to prove him correct that Water is H4O.
> > > >
> > > > In the meantime we have Hydroxyl which in Old Chemistry, especially Biology is OH, while AP says that is wrong and that is really H2O.
> > > >
> > > > Now glycerine is a hydroxyl with formula C3H8O3. And what I am thinking at this moment, is that hydroxyls will be an easier proof that Water is truly H4O, rather than wait for experimentalists to actually "weigh the electrolysis test tubes of oxygen and hydrogen".
> > > >
> > > > You see, with H4O as water, glycerine is C3(2 waters)O with an extra oxygen. If Water is H2O then glycerine is C3(4 waters) deficit O. It is missing an oxygen if water is H2O.
> > > >
> > > > The reason glycerine is so effective as a skin ointment is because it has glycerine, the extra O oxygen. If water were H2O, then glycerine would be a missing oxygen and not a skin lotion that works, but makes skin even more dry.
> > > >
> > > > Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium
> > > >
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > > > 12:24 AM (13 hours ago)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > >
> > > > --- quoting in part from source-- Study.com ---
> > > > Perhaps there is only two Faraday laws on Electrolysis. I am looking at the one that states: Faraday's first law of electrolysis relates the mass of a substance liberated (or deposited) at an electrode to the electric charge used (Q). A proportionality constant Z can be used:
> > > >
> > > > m = ZQ = (E/96485)(Q)
> > > >
> > > > m = mass, Q = total charge rewritten as Q = I*t amperes x time in seconds.
> > > >
> > > > This website gives an example: 5amps passed through molten Sodium Chloride for 3 hours. Calculate the mass of Sodium. E=23/1.
> > > >
> > > > m = (23/96485) (5) (3*60*60) approx 12.87 grams.
> > > >
> > > > --- end quoting in part from source-- Study.com ---
> > > >
> > > > Now has such a experiment been performed on Water to see how much atomic mass of hydrogen and of oxygen results??? If AP is correct, the formula of water is H4O, if Old Physics, Old Chemistry is correct the formula is H2O. So which is it???
> > > >
> > > > AP
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No, sorry no, Faraday's Law of Electrolysis is not going to tell the correct mass of hydrogen.
> > > >
> > > > Reading Wikipedia on Faraday's Electrolysis law.
> > > >
> > > > --- quoting Wikipedia ---
> > > > A monovalent ion requires 1 electron for discharge, a divalent ion requires 2 electrons for discharge and so on. Thus, if x electrons flow,
> > > > x/v atoms are discharged.
> > > >
> > > > So the mass m discharged is
> > > >
> > > > m= (xM)/vN_A) = (QM)/(eN_A *v) = (QM) / (vF)
> > > > where
> > > > N_A is the Avogadro constant;
> > > > Q = xe is the total charge, equal to the number of electrons (x) times the elementary charge e;
> > > > F is the Faraday constant.
> > > > --- end quoting Wikipedia ---
> > > >
> > > > No, the Faraday law of Electrolysis will not work on water with a correct answer, because H is not an atom but H2 is an Atom. And where one of the proton+muon converts to being a neutron to the other proton+muon.
> > > >
> > > > So if Faraday's law of Electrolysis was applied to water, thinking it would deliver a true answer is mistaken because the one H converts to neutron.
> > > >
> > > > So it appears that we need to directly measure the test tube of oxygen and the test tube of hydrogen by a direct mass measurement.
> > > >
> > > > AP
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > > > 1:14 AM (12 hours ago)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > > I doubt we can measure a test tube of hydrogen or test tube of oxygen, too small to determine the mass on some sort of weight scale.
> > > >
> > > > But here is a possible lucrative idea. We should be able to get pure deuterium water. Then run the electrolysis. Collect the test tubes.
> > > >
> > > > Now have some sort of balancing beam weight scale. Place the regular water of hydrogen test tube on one side, and place the deuterium water hydrogen test tube on other side. If they stay balanced, then AP is correct and Water is really H4O.
> > > >
> > > > AP
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > > > 1:48 AM (11 hours ago)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > > Cosmic Rays from Sun
> > > >
> > > > 90% of Sun's cosmic rays are 840MeV proton+muon inside = H. The hydrogen Atom is H2 where one of the H proton+muon converts to being a neutron.
> > > >
> > > > When these proton+muon hit Earth atmosphere, they can turn into pions and muons.
> > > >
> > > > I commented that H alone is a subatomic particle and that makes sense in the idea that Sun's cosmic rays are 90% these proton+muon.
> > > >
> > > > Now is interstellar hydrogen H2 and intergalactic hydrogen H2 formed when one H cosmic ray joins up with another H cosmic ray to form H2 atom?
> > > >
> > > > Is this how we get H2 in outer space? From the splitting apart of H2 into H cosmic rays?
> > > >
> > > > So how much of the Sun's hydrogen is H2 and how much is H ready to join with another H and reform back into H2. Probably little of the Sun's H is H alone, and the vast majority of the Sun's hydrogen is H2.
> > > >
> > > > How much deuterium in the Sun? And it is a higher percentage than the deuterium in water on Earth?
> > > >
> > > > AP
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > > > 3:11 AM (10 hours ago)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > > Water is the only known non-metallic substance that expands when if freezes; its density decreases and it expands approximately 9% by volume. (Source: web Lunar and Planetary Institute)
> > > >
> > > > I have to wait for experimental chemists and physicists to weigh the mass of test tubes from electrolysis, as to the verdict-- water is H4O.
> > > >
> > > > But until that news comes in, I will look for other means of proof.
> > > >
> > > > So AP says that the H2 is not a molecule but is the hydrogen Atom itself, where one proton+muon converts to a neutron and capacitates the other proton+muon which undergo the Faraday law.
> > > >
> > > > There are subatomic particles of H in the form of Cosmic Rays from the Sun, but most of the Sun's hydrogen is H2, and flips back and forth from H to rejoining to form H2. Some gets away from the Sun and is cosmic rays.
> > > >
> > > > But H2 is an Atom and H is a fleeting subatomic particle.
> > > >
> > > > So can I prove Water is H4O from the data of Spectral lines of H2 is the same as deuterium, only slight difference is that the deuterium is a full fledged neutron not a makeshift proton+muon of H.
> > > >
> > > > I suspect that special trait of water freezing is a proof that Water is H4O. Because the 840MeV proton torus with muon inside doing the Faraday law acting as a makeshift neutron capacitor for the other 840MeV proton torus with muon inside, is where H2 gets that expansion characteristic.
> > > >
> > > > A neutron is a parallel plate capacitor and those plates can expand when frozen temperature occurs. As the temperature gets colder, those plates move further apart.
> > > >
> > > > Now does deuterium which truly has a full neutron, does it expand also when frozen?? If so, does it expand as much as H2 which is 2 protons with 2 muons inside?
> > > >
> > > > So comparing the freezing and expansion of the parallel plates of a neutron in deuterium with the freezing and expansion of one of the proton+muon that is acting as a makeshift neutron in H2.
> > > >
> > > > If I can numbers correlate the H2 expansion with the Deuterium expansion would be a alternative proof that Water is really H4O and not H2O.
> > > >
> > > > AP
> > > > to
> > > > So now on Blankenship's book "Molecular Mechanisms of Photosynthesis", 2014, page 134, shows The structure of ATP, ADP, AMP. And within that structure are OH hydroxyls.
> > > >
> > > > In New Chemistry, water is truly H4O, and where hydroxyls are now H2O. And we have first proof of this in the Figure 8.1 of Blankenship's "Chemical structure of ATP".
> > > >
> > > > For in the lower left corner of the diagram, Blankenship has a H+ all alone, (really a mindless error) and has P surrounded by O-, O-, O and OH. The OH is really H2O for hydroxyls are H2O and water itself is H4O, and that would leave that mindless H+ as being hydrogen Atom of H2.
> > > >
> > > > The world of physics and chemistry should drop what they are doing and weigh the electrolysis test tube of hydrogen and oxygen to discover the correct true formula of water is H4O.
> > > >
> > > > AP is total confident, becuase an Atom cannot exist if it has no capacitor structure such as a neutron, or one of the H in H2 acting as a neutron. I am totally confident that Water formula is truly H4O. And I need look only to methane of H4C, to realize that there is no HC, no H2C, no H3C, but starts with H4C, and that tells me water starts with H4O. Totally confident that Old Chemistry, Old Physics did electrolysis experiments and the moment they saw hydrogen test tube be 2x volume of oxygen test tube, they dropped their work and went out for a Danish and coffee break, rather than finish their work--- actual physics weighing of atomic mass units (not the Faraday electrolysis law for it does not apply to water).
> > > >
> > > > When water electrolysis is physics weighed, AP is confident that there are 4H per every one oxygen O. And that Water is truly H4O.
> > > >
> > > > AP, King of Science
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > 9:34 AM (15 minutes ago)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > to
> > > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 8:56:57 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > > Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within the accuracy I need for weighing a test tube of oxygen then a test tube of hydrogen from water electrolysis.
> > > >
> > > > Now modern day physics and chemist experimenters can really do a marvelous job if they wanted to. For they could freeze the test tubes of oxygen and hydrogen to where they are liquid and compare liquids from water electrolysis.
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > 10:01 AM (5 hours ago)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > to
> > > > So, what AP is saying here is that we do electrolysis of water. We collect the two test tubes, one with oxygen the other with hydrogen.
> > > >
> > > > To prove Water is truly the formula H4O and not H2O we must weigh the masses of the two tubes to find that the ratio is 1 x 16amu to 4 x 1amu.
> > > >
> > > > The silly grotesque science error of the past was to look at volumes in the two test tubes-- "Hey-- the hydrogen is twice the volume of oxygen so the formula of water is H2O".
> > > >
> > > > No, way was that science good practice. For the correct formula of water needs to be measured by mass, by atomic mass units where Oxygen is 16amu and hydrogen is 1amu.
> > > >
> > > > I suspect a balance beam scale is good enough to see the hydrogen test tube will be 1/4 as massive as the oxygen test tube. To get within precision of electronic weighing scale of 0.00001 gram we just have to make a larger test tube of electrolysis of water.
> > > >
> > > > AP is betting that the readings will be hydrogen test tube 1/4 the mass of oxygen test tube proving Water formula is truly H4O.
> > > >
> > > > Old Physics and Old Chemistry is betting that the mass experiment will have the hydrogen test tube be 1/8 the mass of the oxygen test tube, proving Water formula is H2O.
> > > >
> > > > AP does not have these precision equipment to conduct an at-home experiment of this nature.
> > > >
> > > > AP
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > 12:38 PM (4 hours ago)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > to
> > > > So, once Water is found to actually be H4O, not H2O, we move on to methane, and ask the same question of its hydrogen bonds. Is Methane really that of H8C and not H4C.
> > > >
> > > > Well, looking in the literature for anomalies to methane, I come across a arXiv "Low and high-temperature anomalies in the physical properties of solid methane "The anomalous behavior of thermodynamic, spectral, plastic, elastic and some other properties of solid methane is discussed near 20.48K and...
> > > >
> > > > AP wonders: if they can get methane to solid form, well, I am then hopeful that the mass of the molecule can be determined. Because if methane is truly H8C, that difference of H4 in atomic mass units would be very much noticeable difference.
> > > >
> > > > Chemistry Europe--
> > > > "The Anomalous Deuterium Isotope Effect in the NMR Spectrum of Methane...
> > > >
> > > > P Vermeeren, 2023
> > > > "The abnormally long and weak methylidyne C-H bond.."
> > > > "The C-H bond of the methylidyne radical, CH*, is abnormally long and weak, even longer and..."
> > > >
> > > > AP asks, are these anomalies solved if we consider methane is actually H8C and not H4C?
> > > >
> > > > AP
>
>
> My 250th published book.
>
> TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY; H2 is the hydrogen Atom and water is H4O, not H2O// Chemistry
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
> Prologue: This textbook is 1/2 research history and 1/2 factual textbook combined as one textbook. For many of the experiments described here-in have not yet been performed, such as water is really H4O not H2O. Written in a style of history research with date-time markers, and fact telling. And there are no problem sets. This book is intended for 1st year college. Until I include problem sets and exercises, I leave it to the professor and instructor to provide such. And also, chemistry is hugely a laboratory science, even more so than physics, so a first year college student in the lab to test whether Water is really H4O and not H2O is mighty educational.
>
> Preface: This is my 250th book of science, and the first of my textbooks on Teaching True Chemistry. I have completed the Teaching True Physics and the Teaching True Mathematics textbook series. But had not yet started on a Teaching True Chemistry textbook series. What got me started on this project is the fact that no chemistry textbook had the correct formula for water which is actually H4O and not H2O. Leaving the true formula for hydroxyl groups as H2O and not OH. But none of this is possible in Old Chemistry, Old Physics where they had do-nothing subatomic particles that sit around and do nothing or go whizzing around the outside of balls in a nucleus, in a mindless circling. Once every subatomic particle has a job, task, function, then water cannot be H2O but rather H4O. And a hydrogen atom cannot be H alone but is actually H2. H2 is not a molecule of hydrogen but a full fledged Atom, a single atom of hydrogen.
>
> Cover Picture: Sorry for the crude sketch work but chemistry and physics students are going to have to learn to make such sketches in a minute or less. Just as they make Lewis diagrams or ball & stick diagrams. My 4-5 minute sketch-work of the Water molecule H4O plus the subatomic particle H, and the hydrogen atom H2. Showing how one H is a proton torus with muon inside (blue color) doing the Faraday law. Protons are toruses with many windings. Protons are the coils in Faraday law while muons are the bar magnets. Neutrons are the capacitors as parallel plates, the outer skin cover of atoms.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN : B0CCLPTBDG
> • Publication date : July 21, 2023
> • Language : English
> • File size : 788 KB
> • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> • Screen Reader : Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Word Wise : Enabled
> • Sticky notes : On Kindle Scribe
> • Print length : 168 pages
> • Screen Reader : Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> • Word Wise : Enabled
> • Sticky notes : On Kindle Scribe
Arindam Banerjee
Aug 24, 2023, 1:19:46 AM8/24/23
to
On Thursday, 24 August 2023 at 14:41:10 UTC+10, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Can_Dr.Banerjee Varsha,Dr.Anurag Sharma,Dr.Babu Sujin B, - -PLEASE--step into Indian Institute Technology physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O. AP's homegrown lab cannot do the fine tuning experiment of weighing a test tube of electrolyzed hydrogen and oxygen from water. If AP is correct Water is really H4O, not H2O. My weighing scale is puny and insufficient for the job at hand, 0.00001 gram or less of hydrogen and oxygen test tubes. If AP is correct the hydrogen is 1/4 the weight of oxygen, if mainstream chemistry, physics is correct the hydrogen is 1/8 in amu to oxygen.
> >
>
> The spamming crazy fruitcake of Arindam Banerjee--his failure in physics and mind-rot opinions of physics, actually hostile towards physics-- his denial of Apollo 11, as some staged hoax from Hollywood or Bollywood.
> Can_Dr.Banerjee Varsha,Dr.Anurag Sharma,Dr.Babu Sujin B, - -PLEASE--step into Indian Institute Technology physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O. AP's homegrown lab cannot do the fine tuning experiment of weighing a test tube of electrolyzed hydrogen and oxygen from water. If AP is correct Water is really H4O, not H2O. My weighing scale is puny and insufficient for the job at hand, 0.00001 gram or less of hydrogen and oxygen test tubes. If AP is correct the hydrogen is 1/4 the weight of oxygen, if mainstream chemistry, physics is correct the hydrogen is 1/8 in amu to oxygen.
> >
>
> The spamming crazy fruitcake of Arindam Banerjee--his failure in physics and mind-rot opinions of physics, actually hostile towards physics-- his denial of Apollo 11, as some staged hoax from Hollywood or Bollywood.
Thanks for the publicity, Archie.
Message has been deleted
Arindam Banerjee
Aug 24, 2023, 5:30:23 PM8/24/23
to
Some fallouts from the "proposed" proof or disproof of Fermat's Last Theorem, presented below, and recently published in sci.math
Let us note that FLT (which says that a^n + b^n = c^n cannot happend for a b c n as nonzero positive integers and n>2) has not been proved yet. So who can get the first a b c for n-3...? Or n=4? Could be a few million digits long!
arcsin(sqrt(x^n)) + arcsin(sqrt(1-x^n)) = pi/2 where 0<x<1 and n can have any value had been worked out numerically to many decimal places as part of the disproof of the FLT. It was presented earlier in my facebook page, and also in sci.math.
The main point of that attempt, was to show that the terms a^n b^n c^n can be expressed as (a^(n/2))^2, (b^(n/2))^2, (c^(n/2))^2 to any place of decimals.
The values (a^(n/2)), (b^(n/2)), (c^(n/2)) could be constructed to form a triangle.
***
Effectively, that reduces a multi-dimensional construction to a two-dimenstional construction.
***
If the included angles sum to pi/2, then it is a right angled triangle.
If they do not, it is not a right angled triangle.
Assume that there is a value set of such a b c and n where a right angled triangle with such sides could be formed. a b c have to be nonzero postive integers.
In which case the included angles would be arcsin(a/c)^n/2 and arcsin(b/c)^n/2.
If x=a/c and going by our assumption that a right angled triangle is formed, thus disproving the FLT - which cannot let that ever happen - then for this assumption that it does form a right angled triangle we will have
(a^(n/2))^2 + (b^(n/2))^2 = (c^(n/2))^2
or a^n + b^n = c^n and dividing both sides by c^n
(b/c)^n = 1 - (a/c)^n = 1 - x^n
And thus we have the included angles - again, based on the assumption that a right angled triangle can be formed - to be
arcsin(a/c)^n/2
or arcsin(sqrt(x^n)
and
arcsin(b/c)^n/2
which is arcsin(sqrt(1 - x^n))
arcsin(sqrt(x^n)) + arcsin(sqrt(1-x^n)) sum up to pi/2 numerically, for all values of n, and 0<x<1, to many decimal places. This has been found by Excel spreadsheet using their ASIN() function. It is also easy to show analytically how this has to happen, given any right angled triangle.
To me, this is an indication of the possible disproof of the FLT. When you flatten the n dimensions to just two, and apply Pythagoras' theorem to the two dimensional space, you *may* get some value of a b c and n that match exactly, while countless others will not match exactly.
The number set is infinite. Beyond the scope of computation, that way. Out of that infinity of numbers, for any value of a b c and n, there could be solutions exactly satisfying the relation a^n + b^n = c^n. On the other hand, that may not happen.
I am not sure if this proves or disproves anything relating to FLT. If x is not indefinite, then perhaps integer values of a b c can be found by brute force computer methods leading to disproof of FLT. For even n, such as n=4, there are chances of getting exactness in terms of a^(n/2) b^(n/2) c^(n/2) values. Maybe there will be better luck with n=4 as opposed to n=3 - and that is a hint!
Now for the fallouts, in terms of possible new mathematical relations:
arcsin(sqrt(x^n)) + arcsin(sqrt(1-x^n)) = pi/2
boils down to
arcsin(sqrt(y)) + arcsin(sqrt(1-y)) = pi/2 where 0<y<1
(for any value of n as y=x^n is also 0<y<1 for 0<x<1)
***crucial concept step for the "disproof" of FLT, just above, as it indicates the irrelevance of n for the FLT relation, in the context of infinite numbers. ***
Here note that n need not be an integer.
Let y = sin^2(t), then substituting we get
arcsin(sqrt(sin^2(t)) + arcsin(sqrt(1-sin^2(t)) = pi/2
that is
arcsin(sin(t)) + arcsin(sqrt(cos^2(t)) = pi/2
or
t + arcsin(cos(t)) = pi/2 where 0<t<pi/2
Now taking sin on both sides and expanding
sin(t + arcsin(cos(t))) = sin(pi/2) = 1
or sin(t)cos(arcsin(cos(t)) + cos(t)sin(arcsin(cos(t)) = 1
or sin(t)cos(arcsin(cos(t)) + cos^2(t) = 1
implying
sin(t) = cos(arcsin(cos(t))
as sin^2(t) + cos^2(t) = 1
Anyway, I **hope** some new approaches and mathematical relations like the above have been made, and some new math functions found.
Arindam Banerjee
25 Aug 2023, Melbourne
Let us note that FLT (which says that a^n + b^n = c^n cannot happend for a b c n as nonzero positive integers and n>2) has not been proved yet. So who can get the first a b c for n-3...? Or n=4? Could be a few million digits long!
arcsin(sqrt(x^n)) + arcsin(sqrt(1-x^n)) = pi/2 where 0<x<1 and n can have any value had been worked out numerically to many decimal places as part of the disproof of the FLT. It was presented earlier in my facebook page, and also in sci.math.
The main point of that attempt, was to show that the terms a^n b^n c^n can be expressed as (a^(n/2))^2, (b^(n/2))^2, (c^(n/2))^2 to any place of decimals.
The values (a^(n/2)), (b^(n/2)), (c^(n/2)) could be constructed to form a triangle.
***
Effectively, that reduces a multi-dimensional construction to a two-dimenstional construction.
***
If the included angles sum to pi/2, then it is a right angled triangle.
If they do not, it is not a right angled triangle.
Assume that there is a value set of such a b c and n where a right angled triangle with such sides could be formed. a b c have to be nonzero postive integers.
In which case the included angles would be arcsin(a/c)^n/2 and arcsin(b/c)^n/2.
If x=a/c and going by our assumption that a right angled triangle is formed, thus disproving the FLT - which cannot let that ever happen - then for this assumption that it does form a right angled triangle we will have
(a^(n/2))^2 + (b^(n/2))^2 = (c^(n/2))^2
or a^n + b^n = c^n and dividing both sides by c^n
(b/c)^n = 1 - (a/c)^n = 1 - x^n
And thus we have the included angles - again, based on the assumption that a right angled triangle can be formed - to be
arcsin(a/c)^n/2
or arcsin(sqrt(x^n)
and
arcsin(b/c)^n/2
which is arcsin(sqrt(1 - x^n))
arcsin(sqrt(x^n)) + arcsin(sqrt(1-x^n)) sum up to pi/2 numerically, for all values of n, and 0<x<1, to many decimal places. This has been found by Excel spreadsheet using their ASIN() function. It is also easy to show analytically how this has to happen, given any right angled triangle.
To me, this is an indication of the possible disproof of the FLT. When you flatten the n dimensions to just two, and apply Pythagoras' theorem to the two dimensional space, you *may* get some value of a b c and n that match exactly, while countless others will not match exactly.
The number set is infinite. Beyond the scope of computation, that way. Out of that infinity of numbers, for any value of a b c and n, there could be solutions exactly satisfying the relation a^n + b^n = c^n. On the other hand, that may not happen.
I am not sure if this proves or disproves anything relating to FLT. If x is not indefinite, then perhaps integer values of a b c can be found by brute force computer methods leading to disproof of FLT. For even n, such as n=4, there are chances of getting exactness in terms of a^(n/2) b^(n/2) c^(n/2) values. Maybe there will be better luck with n=4 as opposed to n=3 - and that is a hint!
Now for the fallouts, in terms of possible new mathematical relations:
arcsin(sqrt(x^n)) + arcsin(sqrt(1-x^n)) = pi/2
boils down to
arcsin(sqrt(y)) + arcsin(sqrt(1-y)) = pi/2 where 0<y<1
(for any value of n as y=x^n is also 0<y<1 for 0<x<1)
***crucial concept step for the "disproof" of FLT, just above, as it indicates the irrelevance of n for the FLT relation, in the context of infinite numbers. ***
Here note that n need not be an integer.
Let y = sin^2(t), then substituting we get
arcsin(sqrt(sin^2(t)) + arcsin(sqrt(1-sin^2(t)) = pi/2
that is
arcsin(sin(t)) + arcsin(sqrt(cos^2(t)) = pi/2
or
t + arcsin(cos(t)) = pi/2 where 0<t<pi/2
Now taking sin on both sides and expanding
sin(t + arcsin(cos(t))) = sin(pi/2) = 1
or sin(t)cos(arcsin(cos(t)) + cos(t)sin(arcsin(cos(t)) = 1
or sin(t)cos(arcsin(cos(t)) + cos^2(t) = 1
implying
sin(t) = cos(arcsin(cos(t))
as sin^2(t) + cos^2(t) = 1
Anyway, I **hope** some new approaches and mathematical relations like the above have been made, and some new math functions found.
Arindam Banerjee
25 Aug 2023, Melbourne
Arindam Banerjee
Aug 24, 2023, 5:52:36 PM8/24/23
to
Message has been deleted
Arindam Banerjee
Oct 5, 2023, 7:49:01 PM10/5/23
to
O
> > Arindam Banerjee
> > 2
> > The physics aphorisms of Arindam - repost
> > Wrong and wasteful investments like going to Mars with rockets, and having bigger jet engines
> > 12:22 AM
> >
> > Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
> > Arindam Banerjee
> > What is a photon?
> > A photon is a brief pulse of electromagnetic radiation, of high frequency, seen as an electromagnetic
> > Aug 2
Thaniks for the publicity, Archie
> > Arindam Banerjee
> > 2
> > The physics aphorisms of Arindam - repost
> > Wrong and wasteful investments like going to Mars with rockets, and having bigger jet engines
> > 12:22 AM
> >
> > Arindam Banerjee's profile photo
> > Arindam Banerjee
> > What is a photon?
> > A photon is a brief pulse of electromagnetic radiation, of high frequency, seen as an electromagnetic
> > Aug 2
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Archimedes Plutonium
Nov 16, 2023, 8:55:37 PM11/16/23
to
Can_Dr.Chaudhary Sujeet,Dr.Banerjee Varsha,Dr.Anurag Sharma,Dr.Babu Sujin B, - -PLEASE--step into Indian Institute Technology physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O. AP's homegrown lab cannot do the fine tuning experiment of weighing a test tube of electrolyzed hydrogen and oxygen from water. If AP is correct Water is really H4O, not H2O. My weighing scale is puny and insufficient for the job at hand, 0.00001 gram or less of hydrogen and oxygen test tubes. If AP is correct the hydrogen is 1/4 the weight of oxygen, if mainstream chemistry, physics is correct the hydrogen is 1/8 in amu to oxygen.
> >
>
> The spamming crazy fruitcake of Arindam Banerjee--his failure in physics and mind-rot opinions of physics, actually hostile towards physics-- his denial of Apollo 11, as some staged hoax from Hollywood or Bollywood.
> >
>
> The spamming crazy fruitcake of Arindam Banerjee--his failure in physics and mind-rot opinions of physics, actually hostile towards physics-- his denial of Apollo 11, as some staged hoax from Hollywood or Bollywood.
Arindam Banerjee
Nov 16, 2023, 9:23:05 PM11/16/23
to
On Friday, 17 November 2023 at 12:55:37 UTC+11, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Arindam Banerjee
who now composes the following about Archie.
> > Arindam Banerjee
Nothing decent; an asshole art thou -
Rude, ignorant, devoid of shame;
Unfit to kneel before a cow,
Thou creature of low infame!
Note: "infame" was used in the English language in the 1500s, following the French original.
0 new messages