SCI.PHYSICS FAQ, 3Aug2021// Usenet science dead, but AP's newsgroup up and running-- today's topics-- explaining gravity as a EM-force in the thread started by Jan Panteltje// stopping leg cramps, my 191st book Read my recent posts in peace

[Archimedes Plutonium]

SCI.PHYSICS FAQ, 3Aug2021// Usenet science dead, but AP's newsgroup up and running-- today's topics-- 6 EM laws replacing Maxwell Equations.

Faraday law becomes (V/(BE))' = C' =  V'BE / (BE)^2 - VB'E / (BE)^2 - VBE' / (BE)^2 where one of the three terms is electricity production, one is Lenz's law and the third is unknown.

Ampere-Maxwell law becomes (V/(CE))' = B' =  V'CE / (CE)^2 - VC'E / (CE)^2 - VCE') / (CE)^2 where one term is magnetic field production, one is parallel currents attract and third term is unknown.

Coulomb-gravity law becomes (V/(CB))' = E' =  V'CE / (CE)^2 - VC'E / (CE)^2 - VCE') / (CE)^2 where one term is inverse square with distance force, one is magnetic field path, and the third term is synchronicity.

Capacitor Law becomes   V' = (CBL)' = C'BE + CB'E + CBE' where one term is electrostatics, one term is electrodynamics and the third term is unknown.

For details see:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet in AP's newsgroup, for sci.physics and sci.math was sold by USA govt to a gang of stalkers, who pester everyone as they now own sci.physics, and the USA govt of NSF and dept of Educ probably laughing their arse off as the stalkers harass and pester everyone. In the 1980s we had fraud waste abuse of $900. toilet seats from the government. The govt learns quickly and now their fraud waste and abuse is pay Kibo Parry M, Jan Burse, Dan Christensen perhaps $100 per stalker post, providing everyone in USA govt entertainment in their soda coffee break at Washington DC. "Look, kibo just harassed AP with two more emoji's of "shit for brains". The Master in Dr. Who: ha ha ha,... ha ha ha....


https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe

Sci. Math FAQ history

From 1993 onwards to sometime around 1996 SCI.MATH FAQs were admininstered by Univ Waterloo in Canada, warning young students and newcomers of what to expect in sci.math. It worked well. And I would have liked it to be the first post permanently in sci.math. And it was done "for free".

But then corruption and fraud entered sci.math and sci.physics, for when money can be made from something, easy money, then it is not long before a new arrangement is made. So instead of a "for free FAQ". Some persons convinced the USA govt to pay stalkers to go around and pester authors 24-7-365.

A stupid decision was made by USA government sometime in the late 1990s to hire-- by the govt.-- paid for stalkers to stalk sci.math and sci.physics, in turn destroying those newsgroups and all of science on Usenet.

Not only did the stalkers invade every thread of their targeted victim, but there was a hidden agenda a "hidden sci.math and a hidden sci.physics", like a different channel, in which posts that were free of the stalkers would be channelled into this sci.math and sci.physics, so that the stalking made a "no see um" of of the targeted victim. A form of censoring. So that no-one would see a post of AP, once the stalkers had made a reply into a AP thread.

Much of the stalking comes out of std World ISP, with a fake name of Michael Moroney and many other fake names, used by Kibo Parry.

---quoting Wikipedia ---
Controversy
Many government and university installations blocked, threatened to block, or attempted to shut-down The World's Internet connection until Software Tool & Die was eventually granted permission by the National Science Foundation to provide public Internet access on "an experimental basis."
--- end quote ---

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Dr. Panchanathan , present day
France Anne Cordova
Subra Suresh
Arden Lee Bement Jr.
Rita R. Colwell
Neal Francis Lane
John Howard Gibbons 1993

Barry Shein, kibo parry std world
Jim Frost, Joe "Spike" Ilacqua

We need investigative news journalists to see how much money the govt USA via NSF or dept of Educ is enriching the pockets of Kibo Parry M., Dan Christensen, Jan Burse, and a team of allies to stalk sci.math and sci.physics. Is it in the millions of dollars? Are they paid more to stalk under a NSF grant than actual professors of math and physics are paid at MIT or CalTech to actually teach math and physics? Will the NSF hire Kibo Parry M, Dan Christensen, Jan Burse to wipe the arse of staff at NSF as they visit the toilet, for they enjoy stalkers throwing turds throughout sci.math and sci.physics? And will that be paid for in millions of dollars also.

USA NSF---Sethuraman Panchanathan, F. Fleming Crim, Dorothy E Aronson, Brian Stone, James S Ulvestad, Rebecca Lynn Keiser, Vernon D. Ross, Lloyd Whitman, John J. Veysey, Scott Stanley

USA dept Educ, Cindy Marten, deputy

Canada's NSF-- Francois-Philippe Champagne, Ted Hewitt, Martha Crago, Frederic Bouchard, Cinthia Duclos, Normand Labrie

Investigative reporter needs to find out why Alex Lopez-Ortiz of Univ. Waterloo that had a nice, well-worked FAQ in early 1990s in Warning young students and newcomers that they will see all sorts of posts and to believe few if any of those posts. Why that FAQ disappeared in late 1990s, leaving only stalkers all over Usenet.

The FAQ worked really well and were "for free". It gave the proper Warnings to young students and newcomers that they would find all manner of posts and to believe very little of what they read because of the free-style nature of posts. Only I would have preferred they remain a permanent fixture of the very first post in sci.physics or sci.math.

So the journalist needs to investigate the corruption of where we are talking about a lot of money, perhaps millions squandered in paying the likes of stalkers Kibo Parry M, Dan Christensen, Jan Burse, to stalk day and night, year after year for 28 years now. When before Alex at Univ of Waterloo was posting for free-- the Warning. And now with stalkers, pestering authors to try to drive authors out.


Why give up a FAQ to pay millions for stalkers that ruin sci.physics and sci.math, just simply ruin and destroy it. And turn sci.math and sci.physics down to their level of idiocy-- Kibo Parry-- 938 is 12% short of 945, or Dan Christensen with 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction of the error filled Boole logic.

When sci.math and sci.physics operated beautifully with a FAQ posted from Univ Waterloo in the early 1990s. Why change, unless big, free easy money could be had.

So we need a investigative journalist to see where the govt fraud and corruption entered into the destruction of sci.math and sci.physics when a "for free guidance" was offered in a FAQ in early 1990s, where the corruption of wasting millions of dollars to pay some clinically obese stalkers Kibo and others sitting on their arse --all day long attacking posters.

And one has to investigate on whether John Gabriel was a stalker himself who would spam sci.math almost every day filling the board with 10 or more posts, whether Gabriel was some sort of "lure and bait" for stalkers Dan Christensen, Kibo Parry M, to say to NSF Dr. Panchanathan "see, you need us to stalk because of guys like Gabriel, now give us a 2 million pay rise".

In the wake of stalking, the USA government then used the sci.math and sci.physics as stomping grounds for police-drag-net-spam. One merely has to take a peek inside of sci.chem and see it is a bombed out shell of a husk of nothing but police drag net spam, so bad was sci.chem, that Dr. Panchanathan mad at how overwhelmed sci.chem had been destroyed ordering one of the stalkers to daily go into sci.chem with a dumb insipid question of chemistry, just to pretend sci.chem still had some "life" with someone of the stalkers posing a chemistry question, just to pretend it is not 100% bombed out of existence.

The Master in Dr. Who:: ha, ha, ha,,ha,ha.....ha,ha ha, hee,hee,hee, hee hee.

So what AP is going to do, is restore science newsgroups from the awful clutches of ignorant National Science Foundation Dr. Panchanathan's paid for stalkers and daily police drag net spam abominations.

AP needs to do this for most of all New True Science came from sci.physics and sci.math. People dull dumb and dirt ignorant people of science cannot stomach change and truth of science, and their reaction is predictable-- destroy the truth of science whatever means possible.

I am going to restore a daily FAQ to sci.physics and sci.math, until NSF Dr. Panchanathan grows up and his dept. grows up and furnishes a FAQ for sci.math and sci.physics. And stops and halts all payments to stalkers and stops and halts police drag net spam. Until then, AP takes over that job.

AP restoring a FAQ to SCI.PHYSICS and Directing all traffic to the only **active pure science newsgroup**
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe


What AP is going to do, if Usenet continues to hire stalkers paid for by NSF, and continues to go without a FAQ and continues to fill up the newsgroups with police drag net spam, is AP will single handedly restore a FAQ to sci.physics and sci.math, and --redirect traffic-- to the only functional sci.physics and sci.math newsgroup now available in Usenet--> the only newsgroup doing nothing but pure science--->



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.

In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.

There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium

Which was more corrupt, the stalkers Kibo, Dan and Jan or was NSF the lead corruptors, that would make Usenet sci.math and sci.physics a bombed out shell of a husk

So we see here how USA, NSF
Sethuraman Panchanathan, F. Fleming Crim, Dorothy E Aronson, Brian Stone, James S Ulvestad, Rebecca Lynn Keiser, Vernon D. Ross, Lloyd Whitman, John J. Veysey, Scott Stanley

And how Canada NSF,
Canada's NSF-- Francois-Philippe Champagne, Ted Hewitt, Martha Crago, Frederic Bouchard, Cinthia Duclos, Normand Labrie

Instructs their paid for stalkers Kibo Parry M. and Dan Christensen. To pick a victim, selected by NSF, then pester that victim in every one of his posts with hate spew, whether anagrams or mockery or swear words.

What we do not see is how much money is slided under the table for each of those stalk posts. Whether in cash or in license fees to even operate std World or in grants hidden from view and given obscure titles pretending to research somethin in internet behavior.

So when was the last time that Alex Lopez-Ortiz posted his sci.math FAQ which did a perfectly swell job of WARNING to young students and newcomers, warning that you should believe only a fraction of what you read and that sci.math is coated in cranks crackpots and worthless stalkers like Kibo and Dan teaching 938 is 12% short of 945 and that 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction due to error filled Boole logic.

So we do not see how much of taxpayers dollars is going for the likely-clinically-obese stalkers of Kibo Parry M., Dan Christensen, Jan Burse munching on chocolate bonbons sitting on their arse all day long spewing hatred. We do not see if their post nets a $100 per post spew or even more. So that they are paid thousand dollars a day, leaving the poor college professor who actually does teach math and physics, with a hundred dollars a day.

We need an investigative journalist to find out if the corrupt Kibo and Dan sought for the NSF to extract this lavish lifestyle career, or whether NSF sought for someone to stalk as a career.

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 11:33:41 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> SCI.PHYSICS FAQ, 3Aug2021// Usenet science dead, but AP's newsgroup up and running-- today's topics-- 6 EM laws replacing Maxwell Equations.

Faraday law becomes (V/(BE))' = C' = V'BE / (BE)^2 - VB'E / (BE)^2 - VBE' / (BE)^2 where one of the three terms is electricity production, one is Lenz's law and the third is electromotive force.

Ampere-Maxwell law becomes (V/(CE))' = B' = V'CE / (CE)^2 - VC'E / (CE)^2 - VCE') / (CE)^2 where one term is magnetic field production, one is parallel currents attract and third term is displacement current.

Coulomb-gravity law becomes (V/(CB))' = E' = V'CB / (CB)^2 - VC'B / (CB)^2 - VCB') / (CB)^2 where one term is inverse square with distance force, one is spin, and the third term is synchronicity to synchronize push with pull of Coulomb law.

Capacitor Law becomes V' = (CBE)' = C'BE + CB'E + CBE' where one term is electrostatics, one term is electrodynamics and the third term is unknown.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

1> > SCI.PHYSICS FAQ, 3Aug2021// Usenet science dead, but AP's newsgroup up and running-- today's topics-- 6 EM laws replacing Maxwell Equations.

> Faraday law becomes (V/(BE))' = C' = V'BE / (BE)^2 - VB'E / (BE)^2 - VBE' / (BE)^2 where one of the three terms is electricity production, one is Lenz's law and the third is electromotive force.
>
> Ampere-Maxwell law becomes (V/(CE))' = B' = V'CE / (CE)^2 - VC'E / (CE)^2 - VCE') / (CE)^2 where one term is magnetic field production, one is parallel currents attract and third term is displacement current.
>
> Coulomb-gravity law becomes (V/(CB))' = E' = V'CB / (CB)^2 - VC'B / (CB)^2 - VCB') / (CB)^2 where one term is inverse square with distance force, one is spin, and the third term is synchronicity to synchronize push with pull of Coulomb law.
>
> Capacitor Law becomes V' = (CBE)' = C'BE + CB'E + CBE' where one term is electrostatics, one term is electrodynamics and the third term is unknown.

It will take me quite some time to get the above table all straightened out and correct. The only ones I am positively sure of at this moment is Faraday's law has Lenz's law and Ampere law has displacement current. Three of the equations are divisions differentials while only one is product rule calculus. Once finished it should make total commonsense. This is similar to a puzzle of Algebra, to get all the numbers correctly aligned in rows and columns.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Alright, I stated this many times before in other posts and books, that it is far more important to know what a physics law statement or description of experiment, than is that physics law mathematics.

So it is far more important to learn Faraday's law from the statement-- A bar magnet thrust through a closed loop of copper wire will set up a current in that copper wire, which we can read the current from a galvanometer. And then Lenz's law stated is as you thrust the bar magnet into the loop of copper wire a induced current is created which in turn creates a magnetic field that opposes the original bar magnet.

So, looking at Faraday's law which of the three terms can we say is the creation of electricity and which is Lenz's law?

C' = (V'BE/(BE)^2) - (VB'E/(BE)^2) - (VBE'/(BE)^2)

I would say the first term is production of electricity, what we traditionally know of the Faraday law main function (V'BE/(BE)^2).
I would say the term - (VB'E/(BE)^2) is Lenz's law.
And I would say the third term is electromotive force (VBE'/(BE)^2).

And to see if this is correct, I correlate that with the Ampere Maxwell law.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 12:02:27 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Alright, I stated this many times before in other posts and books, that it is far more important to know what a physics law statement or description of experiment, than is that physics law mathematics.
>
> So it is far more important to learn Faraday's law from the statement-- A bar magnet thrust through a closed loop of copper wire will set up a current in that copper wire, which we can read the current from a galvanometer. And then Lenz's law stated is as you thrust the bar magnet into the loop of copper wire a induced current is created which in turn creates a magnetic field that opposes the original bar magnet.
>
> So, looking at Faraday's law which of the three terms can we say is the creation of electricity and which is Lenz's law?
>
> C' = (V'BE/(BE)^2) - (VB'E/(BE)^2) - (VBE'/(BE)^2)
>
> I would say the first term is production of electricity, what we traditionally know of the Faraday law main function (V'BE/(BE)^2).
> I would say the term - (VB'E/(BE)^2) is Lenz's law.
> And I would say the third term is electromotive force (VBE'/(BE)^2).
>
> And to see if this is correct, I correlate that with the Ampere Maxwell law.

Using the Halliday&Resnick 1986 Part 2, PHYSICS they state the Ampere-Maxwell law on page 886 as:

The speed of light can be calculated from purely electromagnetic measurements. A current in a wire sets up a magnetic field near the wire.

So the AP-EM math law is

B' = (V'CE/(CE)^2) - (VC'E/(CE)^2) - (VCE')/(CE)^2)

Is the first term the production of magnetism?
Is the second term something that hinders the original source electricity much like Lenz's law in Faraday law?
Is the third term the Displacement current, symmetrical with Faraday law creating a second magnetic field only here creating a second current.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 12:17:52 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 12:02:27 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Alright, I stated this many times before in other posts and books, that it is far more important to know what a physics law statement or description of experiment, than is that physics law mathematics.
> >
> > So it is far more important to learn Faraday's law from the statement-- A bar magnet thrust through a closed loop of copper wire will set up a current in that copper wire, which we can read the current from a galvanometer. And then Lenz's law stated is as you thrust the bar magnet into the loop of copper wire a induced current is created which in turn creates a magnetic field that opposes the original bar magnet.
> >
> > So, looking at Faraday's law which of the three terms can we say is the creation of electricity and which is Lenz's law?
> >
> > C' = (V'BE/(BE)^2) - (VB'E/(BE)^2) - (VBE'/(BE)^2)
> >
> > I would say the first term is production of electricity, what we traditionally know of the Faraday law main function (V'BE/(BE)^2).
> > I would say the term - (VB'E/(BE)^2) is Lenz's law.
> > And I would say the third term is electromotive force (VBE'/(BE)^2).
> >
> > And to see if this is correct, I correlate that with the Ampere Maxwell law.
> Using the Halliday&Resnick 1986 Part 2, PHYSICS they state the Ampere-Maxwell law on page 886 as:
>
> The speed of light can be calculated from purely electromagnetic measurements. A current in a wire sets up a magnetic field near the wire.
>
> So the AP-EM math law is
>
> B' = (V'CE/(CE)^2) - (VC'E/(CE)^2) - (VCE')/(CE)^2)
>
> Is the first term the production of magnetism?
> Is the second term something that hinders the original source electricity much like Lenz's law in Faraday law?
> Is the third term the Displacement current, symmetrical with Faraday law creating a second magnetic field only here creating a second current.
> > On Tuesday, August 3, 2021 at 7:18:42 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > 1> > SCI.PHYSICS FAQ, 3Aug2021// Usenet science dead, but AP's newsgroup up and running-- today's topics-- 6 EM laws replacing Maxwell Equations.
> > > > Faraday law becomes (V/(BE))' = C' = V'BE / (BE)^2 - VB'E / (BE)^2 - VBE' / (BE)^2 where one of the three terms is electricity production, one is Lenz's law and the third is electromotive force.
> > > >
> > > > Ampere-Maxwell law becomes (V/(CE))' = B' = V'CE / (CE)^2 - VC'E / (CE)^2 - VCE') / (CE)^2 where one term is magnetic field production, one is parallel currents attract and third term is displacement current.
> > > >
> > > > Coulomb-gravity law becomes (V/(CB))' = E' = V'CB / (CB)^2 - VC'B / (CB)^2 - VCB') / (CB)^2 where one term is inverse square with distance force, one is spin, and the third term is synchronicity to synchronize push with pull of Coulomb law.
> > > >
> > > > Capacitor Law becomes V' = (CBE)' = C'BE + CB'E + CBE' where one term is electrostatics, one term is electrodynamics and the third term is unknown.
> > > It will take me quite some time to get the above table all straightened out and correct. The only ones I am positively sure of at this moment is Faraday's law has Lenz's law and Ampere law has displacement current. Three of the equations are divisions differentials while only one is product rule calculus. Once finished it should make total commonsense. This is similar to a puzzle of Algebra, to get all the numbers correctly aligned in rows and columns.

We can begin to see some symmetry here, as I was hoping for. That the Lenz's law has a counterpart as the displacement current.

We take the first term which is positive valued as the production term, whether the production of electricity in Faraday law or the production of magnetic field in Ampere-Maxwell law. Next we see the negative term, the 2nd term (a subtraction and opposite direction of 1st term) as being a Lenz law in Faraday and as being a hindrance in Ampere-Maxwell law, although I have no knowledge of a Lenz type hindrance in Ampere Law. Perhaps the fact that parallel wires have attraction if flowing electricity in same direction but a denial of same space if flowing opposite direction.

Maybe this fact was never given a title as a law of physics in Old Physics, not like Lenz's law. So if this is a law that was overlooked in Old Physics then we can say the Lenz's law of Faraday law is symmetrical to the Parallel wire hindrance of Ampere law. Both 2nd terms in the divisional differential equations.

That leaves the third term as Electromotive force in Faraday, symmetrical to Displacement Current in Ampere-Maxwell law.

Symmetrically that sounds good.

Let me see what happens with the last divisional differential equation. E'.

AP

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Now I am thinking of an extension cord of closed loop wires, and those wires are close together packed in there as almost wires on top of one another, yet still a closed loop. And the current flows in 1/2 of the loop in a direction opposite the other 1/2 of the closed loop. This would then cause a form of force of impedance of the two wires (friction) as comparable to Lenz's law in Faraday law.

And we can safely say, no matter the shape of any closed loop wire, 1/2 of the current flowing is in opposite direction of the other 1/2. So is this the Lenz's law of Ampere-Maxwell law. This sort of resistance?

AP
King of Science, especially Physics

[Mostowski Collapse]

AP brain farto, more than 20 years, not a single line of math.

Archimedes Plutonium schrieb: