Discussion:
+True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-06 18:33:36 UTC
Raw Message
True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV

History Preface::

On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 4:12:07 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:
A history Preface to this textbook Re: TRUE CHEMISTRY, textbook, 2018

Now this book needs a Preface, to sort of tell people what it was like in the time period of 1897 when JJ Thomson discovered a .5MeV particle and then going on to believe he discovered the "electron of atoms", when in fact, what he discovered was the Magnetic Monopole of atoms. Yet the entire Scientific Community, whether physics, chemistry, biology, all were duped into thinking this .5MeV particle was the integral electron of atoms. So from 1897 until 2017 when I discovered the Real Electron = muon = 105 MeV, that community of scientists all fell duped to thinking electron= .5 MeV.

Of course, that changes all of electricity, as we understood it in 1897 through 2017. So some time in the future, few people will understand what took place from 1897 through 2017, when all scientists thought the atom was a proton at 938MeV, neutron 940MeV and electron at .5MeV. Of course, my very first proof of the Real Electron is 105 MeV was instantaneous to my mind--chemical bonding, chemical bonding-- is it possible to have covalent bonding with 938 to .5 ??  For if the Real Electron is 105 MeV then the Real Proton cannot be 938, but had to be 840MeV, and then, chemical bonding covalent of 105 versus 840, all makes sense.

This entire discovery was caused by a noting in 2016, that it takes 9 muons to make a proton (plus or minus less than 1%) To me, in science, I know all physics has outside "noise" and so when you say plus or minus less than 1%, means to me, anyway, that 9 muons = 1 proton. Now, sorry, but it took me another year from 2016 to 2017, to say-- Real Proton = 840 MeV. Sadly, to discover that 9 muons = 1 proton in 2016, took another year in 2017 to subtract 105 from 945 to see that the Real Proton was 840MeV.

And the instantaneous proof that came to my mind, is, well, you just cannot have Chemistry, the Chemical bond of covalent, if the electron is .5MeV and the proton 938MeV, for the angular-momentum is just not there to make covalent bonding. If the Real Electron is 105MeV and Real Proton is 840MeV then you have sufficient numbers of MeV for angular momentum to create covalent bonding in atoms.

But let me in this preface tell the story of how Electricity was imagined to be from 1897 to 2017. Electricity with the electron assumed as .5 MeV and proton at 938 MeV, that electricity in this view was seen as a electron particle that is wishy washy, here now, gone a second later flowing in a wire as electricity. In the new true view of electricity, electron = 105 MeV, proton = 840 MeV, it is rare for that electron of hydrogen atoms to ever leave its proton, and what electricity is-- is this monopole particle that assumes either a +1 or -1 charge and is fickle, for it can be attached to a hydrogen atom and with little to no encouragement, go flying off along a copper wire. Only, flying is a metaphor, for the Monopole is a photon or a neutrino dressed up (superposition) with .5MeV charge energy. So the monopole is a wave, a closed loop wave that becomes the shape of the closed loop wire itself. At the moment, I am rebuilding a crystal radio set I had as a Xmas gift from my father way back in about 1968. You see, the radio wave is a magnetic monopole, it is not an electron out of some atom.

I need to build this Preface into a good logical history expose of how feeble was the understanding and teaching of What the Real Electron was in science from 1897 to 2017.

How utterly feeble it is, to have millions of students around the world sitting in classes, hearing the teacher, the instructor saying that the electron is a .5MeV particle that runs along copper wires and yields electricity.

When the real truth is, that electrons are very heavy particles of 105 MeV, 1/8 the mass of the proton at 840 MeV, and it is rare, extremely rare that this massive Real Electron ever leaves its proton, but that these magnetic monopoles flit around, flit here, flit there, flit almost everywhere, and these monopoles are electricity.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 13:32:28 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment--
Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 21:32:28 +0000

Proofs that the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV, and that the .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole, after all

Experimental PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon
by Archimedes Plutonium

PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon

1st proof is chemical bonding cannot exist with momentum of 938 versus .5MeV
Chemical Bonds are covalent, ionic, metallic. You simply cannot get atoms to bond if the electron is thought of as the .5MeV particle, only with a muon at 105 MeV and the proton at 840 MeV with neutron at 945 MeV do you have the physics of angular momentum that allows bonding in Chemistry. The .5MeV particle was, all along a magnetic monopole of a photon with .5 MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy.

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 18:28:06 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: short history of subatomic particles of Physics Re: True Chemistry--
2018 textbook
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 01:28:07 +0000

short history of subatomic particles of Physics Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook

In my textbook True Chemistry, those new early pages, I need a chronology of history of how we viewed atoms, their constituent elementary particles, and electricity. For the blame as to not knowing the .5MeV particle was not the electron but a magnetic monopole, is the conceit of the minds of physicists, or should be say the naivety of the minds of physicists is that they were blown away by +1 and -1 charge. If we had taken off the table the electric charge. Then when JJ Thomson discovered this 1897 particle of .5MeV, if electric charge was not a issue, then Thomson, in my opinion would have realized it could not be the electron.

So let me make a rough sketch of the history involved, the pertinent history.

1861-1864, Maxwell wrote " A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field"-- a complete theory of electricity tying together magnetism, as EM, electromagnetism theory. Perhaps the single greatest physics book, or book in general, before the Atom Totality textbook.

1897, J.J. Thomson discovers a .5MeV particle, with a -1 charge, which he names as electron, thinking it is the electron of atoms, which, it turns out by 2017 is the Dirac magnetic monopole, and the muon is the real-electron.

1913, the Bohr model of the Atom, which gives no working role for its elementary subatomic particles of proton, electron, neutron, photon (of which the magnetic monopole is a photon with a charge energy-- or a neutrino with charge energy). Sadly, the Bohr model is lacking any sort of physical role for these subatomic particles, other than to say, let there exist a proton, let there exist a electron. It is this lack of a job or role or working marching order for subatomic particles that should have alerted all chemists, all physicists, that they have a looney tune model of the atom. In the true model of the Atom, come 2017, is that the elementary particles are doing a Faraday Law and Ampere Law sort of like a dance, a job, a commitment for their existence, inside the Atom, conducted by those protons and muons. Where protons as a coil and muon electron as a bar magnet creates new monopoles, converting Space into monopoles, and stored in neutrons as capacitors, which a hydrogen atom grows to become a deuterium atom etc etc. In other words, the creation of new atoms and heavier atoms is the job of existing atoms.

1917-1920, Rutherford discovers the proton of what he thought was 938 MeV

1931, Dirac with a paper on magnetic monopoles which in order to satisfy the quantization of electricity, which implies that monopoles must exist.

1932, Chadwick discovered the neutron of 945 MeV. Now they discovered these particles, like the neutron and proton but would have to wait years before they refined their masses on how much mass they had.

1936, Anderson & Neddermeyer discover the muon particle of 105 MeV. I do not know what year they found out it weighed 105 MeV.

Now, the big question is why are the minds of physicists so backwards, so empty of Logical thought, because when the proton was discovered by Rutherford in 1917 and could measure its mass to be roughly 940 MeV and then Thomson's particle of .5MeV. So, the puzzling question is from 1917 to 2017 is a span of time of 100 years, and the astonishment that in those 100 years, every physicist, every chemist knew of the Covalent bond of chemistry, every one of them knew what angular momentum was, or had a reasonable notion of what angular momentum means-- at least we thought they knew, yet not a single scientist ever had the thought run through their mind-- stop a minute-- how can a covalent bond of chemistry exist if the proton was 938 versus .5MeV electron ?? How, how is that possible. When that is only possible if the proton was 840 versus 105 MeV. Is the simple and short answer-- no physicist in the 20th century had a good decent logical mind to think straight, to think clear.

AP

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu

::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ .  . | .   /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
---------------      -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
---------------      --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / .  . | .   \ .

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

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-06 21:55:44 UTC
Raw Message
#2page

#2page

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 23:00:27 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron =
105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 06:00:28 +0000

Now here is a new proof that belongs in the first page.

Now chemistry is all about the nature and behaviour of the last electrons of atoms, while the protons and neutrons of atoms play little role in chemistry. So well if that malarkey is true then the electrons flowing in copper should turn copper wire into nickel wire. Should turn iron atoms into manganese.

And why is it not doing such? Because the .5MeV particle is not the electron but a magnetic monopole and the real-electron = muon of atoms stays firmly in place with Real Proton=84MeV.

In New Chemistry atomic number is the same if you count Real Electron =105MeV or count protons.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 12:44:41 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: definition of Chemistry is all wet behind the ears in Old Chemistry
Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV,
Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 19:44:41 +0000

definition of Chemistry is all wet behind the ears in Old Chemistry Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV

- hide quoted text -
Now here is a new proof that belongs in the first page.
Now chemistry is all about the nature and behavour of the last electrons of atoms, while the protons and neutrons of atoms play little role in chemistry. So well if that malarkey is true then the electrons flowing in copper should turn copper wire into nickel wire. Should turn iron atoms into manganese.
And why is it not doing such? Because the .5MeV particle is not the electron but a magnetic monopole and the real-electron = muon of atoms stays firmly in place with Real Proton=84MeV.
In New Chemistry atomic number is the same if you count Real Electron =105MeV or count protons.
Alright, when I went to college in 1968, Univ Cincinnati, taking Freshman Chemistry (may have been sophomore year?) one of the first things we learned from the instructor is that Chemistry is about the electrons, the last few electrons of any atom. I remember the book used was Mortimer's Chemistry: A Conceptual Approach. I no longer have the textbook edition I used, but a later edition, the 4th ed. of Mortimer, 1979.

Now, Mortimer attempts to define Chemistry on page 1 by saying : "Chemistry may be defined as the science that is concerned with the characterization, composition, and transformation of matter. This definition, however, is far from adequate." Further on, Mortimer writes: "The focus of chemistry, however, is probably the chemical reaction."  Trouble is, though Mortimer never defines or tells us what "chemical reaction" is. And probably the reason the UC instructor said words to the effect-- "Chemistry is about the behavior of the last electrons of atoms."

And so, what we have here, in terms of Logic, we have a massive contradiction, a massive counterintuitive definition of Chemistry. So if the science of Chemistry is basically, not all but the bulwark of chemistry is the study of the last electrons in any atom, then in electricity flow in copper, with Old Chemistries stupid notion the electron is the .5MeV particle, then, right before your very eyes, all copper wire should turn to nickel wire because is the nickel atom has 28 electrons and the copper has 29 electrons, as the electron flows into the appliance, it deprives all the copper atoms of an electron and thus, making those copper atoms become nickel atoms, even though they still have 29 protons.

You see, the only way to resolve Old Chemistry's dilemma, is to consider, that the .5MeV particle was never the electron at all, but was Dirac's Magnetic Monopole that Dirac strived to find in his lifetime for the monopole was the carrier of electricity. Electricity is not the flow of electrons, but the flow of magnetic monopoles-- those, .5MeV particles.

The Real Electron, like the Real Proton hardly ever move outside the atom they are confined in. It takes enormous amount of energy to move any electron inside an atom and that is because the Real Electron is 105MeV, what is called the muon in physics, and the Real Proton is 840MeV.

So, Old Chemistry-- every book that assumes the electron is .5MeV is now a defunct worthless trash book. Old Chemistry starts off their science with a crazy contradiction, a counterintuitive definition of Chemistry-- for they say-- Chemistry is about the last electrons of atoms, yet their ideas would thus cause copper wire to change into nickel wire by just the flow of electricity. When the Real Electron = muon, it stays behind with its 840MeV proton, securely fastened to the proton, and what is flowing as electricity is a .5 MeV magnetic monopole.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 14:32:03 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: new early page of textbook, explaining the hole in Old Chemistry Re:
True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 21:32:04 +0000

new early page of textbook, explaining the hole in Old Chemistry Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook

- hide quoted text -
Now here is a new proof that belongs in the first page.
Now chemistry is all about the nature and behaviour of the last electrons of atoms, while the protons and neutrons of atoms play little role in chemistry. So well if that malarkey is true then the electrons flowing in copper should turn copper wire into nickel wire. Should turn iron atoms into manganese.
And why is it not doing such? Because the .5MeV particle is not the electron but a magnetic monopole and the real-electron = muon of atoms stays firmly in place with Real Proton=84MeV.
In New Chemistry atomic number is the same if you count Real Electron =105MeV or count protons.
Alright, when I went to college in 1968, Univ Cincinnati, taking Freshman Chemistry (may have been sophomore year?) one of the first things we learned from the instructor is that Chemistry is about the electrons, the last few electrons of any atom. I remember the book used was Mortimer's Chemistry: A Conceptual Approach. I no longer have the textbook edition I used, but a later edition, the 4th ed. of Mortimer, 1979.
Now, Mortimer attempts to define Chemistry on page 1 by saying : "Chemistry may be defined as the science that is concerned with the characterization, composition, and transformation of matter. This definition, however, is far from adequate." Further on, Mortimer writes: "The focus of chemistry, however, is probably the chemical reaction."  Trouble is, though Mortimer never defines or tells us what "chemical reaction" is. And probably the reason the UC instructor said words to the effect-- "Chemistry is about the behavior of the last electrons of atoms."
And so, what we have here, in terms of Logic, we have a massive contradiction, a massive counterintuitive definition of Chemistry. So if the science of Chemistry is basically, not all but the bulwark of chemistry is the study of the last electrons in any atom, then in electricity flow in copper, with Old Chemistries stupid notion the electron is the .5MeV particle, then, right before your very eyes, all copper wire should turn to nickel wire because is the nickel atom has 28 electrons and the copper has 29 electrons, as the electron flows into the appliance, it deprives all the copper atoms of an electron and thus, making those copper atoms become nickel atoms, even though they still have 29 protons.
You see, the only way to resolve Old Chemistry's dilemma, is to consider, that the .5MeV particle was never the electron at all, but was Dirac's Magnetic Monopole that Dirac strived to find in his lifetime for the monopole was the carrier of electricity. Electricity is not the flow of electrons, but the flow of magnetic monopoles-- those, .5MeV particles.
The Real Electron, like the Real Proton hardly ever move outside the atom they are confined in. It takes enormous amount of energy to move any electron inside an atom and that is because the Real Electron is 105MeV, what is called the muon in physics, and the Real Proton is 840MeV.
So, Old Chemistry-- every book that assumes the electron is .5MeV is now a defunct worthless trash book. Old Chemistry starts off their science with a crazy contradiction, a counterintuitive definition of Chemistry-- for they say-- Chemistry is about the last electrons of atoms, yet their ideas would thus cause copper wire to change into nickel wire by just the flow of electricity. When the Real Electron = muon, it stays behind with its 840MeV proton, securely fastened to the proton, and what is flowing as electricity is a .5 MeV magnetic monopole.
Sad that I have to go to physics to get a good enough definition of a chemical reaction. I go to Feynman Lectures on Physics, 1963, page 1-6 and 1-7

--- quoting ---

Chemical reactions

In all of the processes which have been described so far, the atoms and the ions have not changed partners, but of course there are circumstances in which the atoms do change combinations, forming new molecules. This is illustrated in Fig. 1-8. A process in which the rearrangement of the atomic partners occurs is what we call a chemical reaction.

--- end quoting Feynman ---

I have not located any author who comes outright saying "Chemistry is basically the study of the last electrons of atoms".

But the above is as close as we need to get on the fact that Old Chemistry is a Contradiction in Terms, and that Old Chemistry is Counterintuitive, if it wants people to believe that the electron is .5MeV, proton is 938 MeV and neutron is 940 MeV.

In my discovery that the Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton= 840MeV, and neutron = 945MeV, leaving behind the .5MeV particle as Dirac's magnetic monopole. My discovery of all of that, stems from a day in 2016 when looking at tables of masses of elementary particles, I saw the muon at 105 and the proton at 938 MeV and said to myself, -- lo and behold, that is less than 1% of being 9x105 = 945. I said to myself, lo and behold 945/938 = 1.007, or, in percentage is .7%, less than 1%, and to me, that means they are really equal, that 9muons = 1 proton.

So, with that magnificent discovery in 2016 that a proton was just 9 muons, I did not assemble that beautiful discovery just yet, that the proton had to be actually just 840 MeV. Leaving me to wonder in 2017, what in the world is the .5MeV if the real-electron=105MeV, real proton = 840 MeV and thus, in 2017, I soon realized the vagabond tiny particle .5MeV was what Dirac was chasing after all his life, and ironic he was a electrical engineer before becoming a theoretical physicist.

Anyway, with the discovery that these .5MeV particles were never the electrons of atoms, I sought for proofs that the Real Electron was 105MeV and the first proof I thought of was the bonding of Chemistry, the angular momentum needed to bond a Covalent bond or Ionic bond or Metallic bond. Those bonds could never occur when the proton to electron is 938 versus .5 MeV. Bonding in Chemistry needs a ratio of at least 8 to 1, as in 840 to 105 MeV. So that was my first proof.

But reflecting on this history, now in March of 2018, I need to revamp the entire Old Chemistry. Because, well, Chemical Atoms can be classified far far far better with Atomic Number = number of muons inside an atom. Chemistry is better when we say that carbon is 6 muons, that hydrogen is 1 muon that helium is 2 muons, instead of this silly proton count of atoms. For Chemistry, basically is all about the actions and reactions of the real electron = muon. And the muons in atoms are almost, just as secure in that atom as the protons of that atom. If you think it is terribly difficult to remove a proton from an atom, well, it is almost as difficult to remove the muon from that atom.

So the Chemical Table of Elements based on atomic number = number of protons, is better served, if it is based on atomic number = number of muons.

And thus, the hideous conclusions of Old Chemistry, that you can have a copper wire conducting electricity thinking it is the flow of electrons out of the copper atoms, a truly truly hideous notion, because in reality, the flow of electricity is never the flow of electrons, but the flow of magnetic monopoles-- the particle that Dirac needed to make electromagnetism a fully complete and symmetrical theory. For without the magnetic monopole, EM theory had a huge hole in it, a fake theory until that hole was plugged.

So, see for yourself, for if Old Chemistry is correct then electricity in a copper wire would turn it into a nickel wire. But it never does that, because electricity was never about electrons flowing, it was about monopoles flowing and the copper wire remains as copper.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 15:12:00 -0800 (PST)

Subject: radioactive Beta decay is 105 not .5 MeV Re: Chemists are smarter than
Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real
Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 23:12:00 +0000

radioactive Beta decay is it 105MeV or .5 MeV Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV
Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV
So logically incoherent have Physicists become, so incoherent. Incoherent is a polite term for crazy, for physicists have become babbling crazy fools.

They would have you believe that Beta decay in Radioactivity is the decay of electrons as .5 MeV particles.

That means, the electric current in any electric wire is Radioactive beta decay. How silly is that?

So, do the babbling crazy fools ever consider that if Electrons = .5MeV, then a current in a wire is Radioactive Decay. Give me any 10 outstanding physicists today, any 10, and, even all put together have not one gram of Logical thought among them.

If you think the electron is the .5MeV particle, then your radioactive decay is all messed up and screwy.

If you think the Real Electron = 105 MeV, then, you have a modicum of a logical mind, because when the Real Electron = 105 MeV, it seldom ever comes out of its parent-atom. It seldom comes out unless you apply high energy to the atom to force it apart from its 840 MeV proton. Thus, when you have a neutral atom and force that atom to emit or eject a 105 MeV particle, then, then, you have Radioactive Beta Decay.

But, the run of the mill photon with .5MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy, is not any Radioactive Decay.

I am going to have to rewrite the entire textbook on Radioactive Decay.

AP

On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 1:08:56 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:

direct observance some years back in Poland of a 840 Mev particle Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV
2nd proof with the direct observance some years back in Poland of a 840 Mev particle along with 105 MeV particle of the hydrogen atom.

Hello, well i found the below on the internet. I need a 840MeV particle that is the Real Proton. I have asked to look for it in the production of Muons. Is the below a production of muons along with 840 MeV particles?

Quoting

Indication For A Broad J(pc) = 2++ Meson At 840-mev Produced In The Reaction Pi- P ---> Pi+ Pi- N At High |t|
K. Rybicki, I. Sakrejda (Cracow, INP)
1985 - 10 pages

Z.Phys. C28 (1985) 65-74
DOI: 10.1007/BF01550250
Abstract (Springer)
The reaction π−p→π+π−n has been studied at 17.2 GeV/c and 63 GeV/c. A partial wave analysis shows a fairly broad (∼250 MeV) resonance at about 840 MeV. This object, already visible in moments of the angular distribution, is produced in theD wave with helicitym=2 via unnatural exchange. The cross section for the reaction π−p→D2U(840)n is only by an order of magnitude lower than that of ϱ(770) and falls likepLAB−2.1±0.3. We have not been able to explain this object by systematic experimental effects like acceptance and/orN* reflections; neither is the nature of the resonance (if real) clear to us.
--- end quote ---

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu

::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ .  . | .   /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
---------------      -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
---------------      --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / .  . | .   \ .

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

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-07 02:11:14 UTC
Raw Message
#3page

#3page

On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 12:45:04 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:

3rd proof-- pull plug out of electrical socket and notice light flash. That flash of light was the magnetic monopoles as photons with charge energy of .5MeV, for the monopoles compose all electric currents.

beta decay as monopoles, not electrons

On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 5:59:14 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:

Old Physics clowns could not distinguish between beta decay and electricity Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV
3rd proof-- pull plug out of electrical socket and notice light flash. That flash of light was the magnetic monopoles as photons with charge energy of .5MeV, for the monopoles compose all electric currents.
Now it seems to have escaped everyone's attention ever since JJ Thomson discovered the .5MeV particle, and since 1900 with the discovery of radioactivity and about the very same time, the Thomson discovery of this .5 MeV particle. The LOGICAL attention, that if the electron was .5MeV, then it is not distinct from beta radioactive decay. In other words, for those ignorant enough to think the electron was .5MeV, those same ignorant scientists would have to say then, that electricity is radioactive beta decay running through copper wires.

Not a single person existed from year 1900 to 2017 with a gram of logical commonsense, not a one.

For if you believe in radioactive decay, beta decay as the .5MeV particle, and believe that electricity is the flow of these .5MeV particles, then, that very same ignorant person has to believe that radioactive beta decay is electricity of .5MeV particles flowing in copper wire.

What LOGICALLY solves this dilemma, is that the .5MeV particle is not the electron but rather Dirac's magnetic monopole, and thus, there is a radioactive decay of monopoles and there is monopoles in electricity, while the Real Electron is 105 MeV and stays put inside an atom tied to its 840 MeV proton, and neither one of them-- the 105 or 840 seldom decay, unless under high enormous energy bombardment.

In Old Physics, they had no logical stance to stand on, to distinguish a beta radioactive decay compared to a electricity flow. Such is a world, where scientists operate without a logical mind, but rather, as dumb as a robotic mind trying to deal with physics. A robotic mind would think a .5MeV is radioactivity sometimes, yet , electricity the other times, only a dumb robotic mind would think that.

Now the reason I titled this small textbook as Chemists are smarter than Physicists, is because the Chemists by the Danish team::

Positively Charged Phosphorus as a Hydrogen Bond Acceptor

Anne S. Hansen, Lin Du and Henrik G. Kjaergaard*

are the first scientists to make that beautiful experimentation that the Real Electron cannot be a .5MeV particle.

And what will now happen is that other Chemists will lead more and more experiments on different atoms verifying Kjaergaard.

Physicists are far and away, far too dumb to ever realize their .5MeV particle as never the Real-Electron, for physicists are like clown acts at a circus, they are trained to do one dumb act and simply cannot ponder and think-- "could there be a mistake in identifying the real electron". Physicists are far too stupid to ask-- did I get the Real True Electron.

On Monday, February 19, 2018 at 2:48:25 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.math:
distinguish between beta decay and electricity Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV

Quoting from Wikipedia

Radioactive decay (also known as nuclear decay or radioactivity) is the process by which an unstable atomic nucleus loses energy (in terms of mass in its rest frame) by emitting radiation, such as an alpha particle, beta particle with neutrino or only a neutrino in the case of electron capture, gamma ray, or electron in the case of internal conversion. A material containing such unstable nuclei is considered radioactive. Certain highly excited short-lived nuclear states can decay through neutron emission, or more rarely, proton emission.

--- end quote ---

I may have to do a whole new periodic table of elements before this textbook is complete. It depends on features of matter such as carbon that makes graphite and carbon that makes diamond. What I mean to say here, is that the features of a element in chemistry is all about the electrons, for chemistry is mostly the study of electrons of atoms, but then when you have muons as the real electron and you have monopoles acting on atoms, it makes chemistry a whole new science to have to juggle the characteristics of muon and monopole. So that the periodic table must include muon along with monopoles.

AP

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu

::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ .  . | .   /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
---------------      -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
---------------      --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / .  . | .   \ .

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

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-07 18:36:51 UTC
Raw Message
#4page

#4page

On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 7:07:49 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:

Identity Crisis when it occurs in physics Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV//.5MeV was Dirac's monopole

Identity Crisis when it occurs in physics

Now in life, we humans in social gatherings often have Identity Mistakes, I myself can barely remember someones name, just minutes after being told-- a Robert becomes a John, a Clara becomes a Karen to me, just minutes. And even facial recognition becomes blurred.

But in science, especially physics, a Identity Mistake means big big trouble ahead.

Now if we consider Columbus as a geologist, his identity mistake was to think his Americas were actually India, the Indian subcontinent near Asia. So, that was a whopping big error, and actually to this date, do not know when Columbus himself realized those land masses was nowhere near India. Did he realize years later after 1492, that the Americas was a mistaken identity of India? So, how long was it, after 1492, that people realized it was a new continent and not the Asia or India. Did it take hundred years?

Now in Chemistry, when chemists were discovering the new elements, there were many mistaken identities, where they thought they had a pure element, but turns out they had a compound.

But in Physics, mistaken identity, especially the building blocks of an atom-- proton, electron, neutron, to have a mistake of what the Real Electron is-- is the muon = 105 MeV, a mistake like that, can set the entire physics enterprise backwards for thousands of years if kept. And not only physics, but all the other sciences depend on Atomic Physics.

So, why, why, oh why, was every physicist of the last 117 years, so blithering logically stupid?

As I so often said before, to be a expert a master in Physics, you must master MOMENTUM. Momentum is the key concept of physics, and if you cannot master momentum, you are not worthy of physics. And, so, you have Covalent Bonding in Chemistry, and here comes a physicist that says the electron is .5MeV and the proton is 938MeV. If you mastered momentum, and angular momentum in this instance, you would immediately recognize, that a Covalent bonding in chemistry cannot exist if the electron is .5 while proton is 938 MeV. You can have covalent bonding if the electron is 105 versus 840MeV for the proton. A ratio of 105 to 840 allows for covalent bonding.

So, what gives for physics from 1900 to 2017, was everyone out-to-lunch, on-vacation?

AP

On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 8:25:06 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:

Re: Identity Crisis when it occurs in physics Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV//.5MeV was Dirac's monopole

- show quoted text -
On Quora, someone tells us this::

Quoting::
The idea that Columbus died thinking he had found only islands off the coast of Asia is a myth. It is clear from his own writings that he realized he had encountered a new continent. On his third voyage (1496), Columbus for the first time encountered the coast of South America, in what is now Venezuela, at a point where the Orinoco River enters the sea. He originally assumed this was a large island. But a few days later, he came to the conclusion that no island could produce the quantity of fresh water which he observed at the mouth of the Orinoco, and concluded, “I believe this is a very large continent which until now has remained unknown” (“Yo estoy creído que esta es tierra firma, grandísima, de que hasta hoy no se ha sabido” in Las Casas, Historia, vol 2, p. 264).

On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 9:51:23 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:
Re: Identity Crisis when it occurs in physics Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV//.5MeV was Dirac's monopole

On stackexchange we have a differing view and one i am inclined to accept

Quoting::

Under Portuguese auspices he completed a second expedition, which set sail from Lisbon on May 31, 1501. After a halt at the Cape Verde Islands, the expedition traveled southwestward, reached the coast of Brazil, and certainly sailed as far south as the Río de la Plata, which Vespucci was the first European to discover. In all likelihood the ships took a quick run still farther south, along the coast of Patagonia to the Golfo de San Juli n or beyond. His ships returned by an unknown route, anchoring at Lisbon on July 12, 1502. This voyage is of fundamental importance in the history of geography in that Vespucci himself became convinced that the lands he had explored were not part of Asia but a New World. Unlike Columbus, who, to his death, clung to the idea that he had found the shores of Asia, Vespucci defined what had indeed been found — and for this he has been rightfully honored.

End quote.

The above implies that from 1492 to 1502 the world still thought the new land was China- India and Amerigo Vespucci said it was a new continent.

Now I believe Vespucci as the first one to realize that the landmass Columbus discovered was a new continent and took the world 10 years from start to finish to realize the mistaken identity.

Should it take Physics over 117 years to realize a mistaken identity of the electron, for the Real Electron is 105 MeV and the .5 MeV particle is the monopole.

Consider the arena where Columbus, Vespucci played in, continents, landmasses, economies and exploitation, whereas physics and science arenas are mostly about truth and knowledge, where a small set of people play. Columbus played on a larger stage involving far more people. So, could it be that when commerce plays on a stage, a mistaken identity takes only 10 years to be corrected. But when physics has mistaken identity, it takes 117 years to uncover? Is it because, when you have too many people educated to think all alike, that it takes 117 years to correct, but when you have a pool of people, none of them adhering to one idea, that it takes just 10 years to fathom the truth.

One last thing on Columbus is that he was C.C. and J.J. Thompson, and then Amerigo Vespucci for which America got its name was AV, and Archimedes Plutonium is AP. From CC to AV took 10 years, but from Thompson to AP took 2017 - 1897 = 120 years. Does that mean I get the rights and privileges to name the Real Electron the "archimuon", for the real electron is not involved in electricity, but rather the monopole is. And the real electron pretty much stays at home along side the 840 MeV proton. So the proton and the archimuon make up matter with the magnetic monopoles running as electricity of atoms.

Now, where does the Archimuon spend most of its time in the atom? Probably most of the time is bonded to the proton so you have a 105 plus 840 bonded together two particles.

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu

::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ .  . | .   /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
---------------      -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
---------------      --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / .  . | .   \ .

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

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-07 22:06:49 UTC
Raw Message
#5page

#5page

On Monday, February 19, 2018 at 8:35:22 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.math:
radius of hydrogen proton shrinks too much Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV

4th proof is that the radius of the hydrogen proton shrinks too much when a muon is injected and that contradicts Standard Model. The reason is obvious-- the proton is 840 MeV electron is muon and then you add a second muon.

--- Quoting from www, Ars Technica, Researchers orbit a muon around an atom, confirm physics is broken ---

So, the proton radius puzzle remains a puzzle. The team behind this new work point to a number of measurements that could potentially help clarify it. Some of them involve better measurements with normal electrons; others involve scattering muons off protons themselves to see if there's an unknown force at work. The latter would tell us whether anything beyond the Standard Model will be needed to explain this puzzle.

--- end Quote ---

On Monday, February 19, 2018 at 9:52:18 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:

only way to explain how a battery works Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV

5th proof electrochemical battery is not explainable as Faraday law unless you concede the battery is a thrusting bar magnet, and thus, the battery is explained as a dipole magnet of the anode and cathode and the electrolyte solution is the ferromagnetism of spins all lined up. And thus a current in the circuit is because the battery as a thrusting magnet forces monopoles down the circuit wire.

On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 12:40:26 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.math:
spin is charge and charge is spin Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV

6th proof, spin is charge, and charge is spin and the only particle for that is a ratio of permittivity to permeability as that of 10^-6/ 10^-12 is a charge energy of 10^6 or 1 MeV for photon charge energy, and that leaves the proton, electron=muon, monopole with .5MeV charge energy.

On Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 3:29:39 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:

Maxwell Equations are asymmetrical unless you have monopole Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV

7th proof the Maxwell Equations are not symmetrical without current being the flow of magnetic monopoles. Dirac spent most of his life venturing for the existence of the magnetic monopole, so that electricity is a quantized energy, to give substance to the phenomenon of electricity. Well, it turns out that in life, often, what we are so desperately searching for, is right under our very nose, but just too blind to see it. The .5MeV particle we thought was the electron is in fact a photon or neutrino dressed up with a .5MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy. And the Real true Electron is the muon at 105 MeV. So, what bothered Dirac about the magnetic monopole is the Maxwell Equations end up being asymmetrical and that bothered Dirac immensely and he kept pushing forward and forward to find that monopole.

On Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 3:29:49 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.math:
Ion theory does not support electron being .5MeV

8th proof, now, a straightforward proof that the muon is the real-electron can come from ion theory. The trouble is that weeding out a proof of electron = muon, is that we get entangled with the magnetic monopole. So, the proof is simple for ion theory, to prove the muon = real electron. Take for example iron Fe atoms, they are 26 protons, 26 electrons=muons
Now iron has ion states of -4, -2, -1, +1, +2, +3, +4, +5 +6, +7
So, suppose the electron = .5MeV particle and not the 105 MeV particle
That would mean Iron can exist as iron with 26 protons and only 19 electrons at one extreme and 26 protons and 30 electrons at the other extreme.
Now in Maxwell theory, there is a law that enforces Conservation of Energy, called the Lenz law in Faraday law. Otherwise, you have unlimited energy and Nature does not have unlimited energy.
So that in atoms, the protons become a thrusting bar magnet and the electrons= real-electrons are the closed loop of wire (inert gases are closed loop wires and why bonding exists is to close the loop of real-electron structure).
So, the proof that .5MeV are not electrons, is that iron bonds readily with other iron forming a compound of iron, the metal iron and metallic bond is due to iron atoms wanting to close the loop of their 26 Real Electrons. They close that loop by the metallic bond. That means, the existence of ions from -4 to +7 is unrelated altogether from Electron configuration. That ions are some other particle behavior but not the electron nor proton behavior.
The reason iron exists as iron from Fe-4 to Fe+7 is that the particle .5MeV is a surface interloper particle of atoms, it is a add-on particle not the integral electron of atoms. If the monopole were the electron we break conservation of energy by all these interlopers. The reason the chemical table is all built around the inert gases, is because Faraday's law must be obeyed and thus atoms with a closed loop of their electrons seek no bonding of electrons= muons. But atoms that have no closed loop of their muons, seek that closed loop structure and thus, they form covalent, ionic, metallic bonds with other muons of other atoms.

Brief course on IONS in New Physics, for all of Physics and Chemistry are changed with the revelation that the REAL ELECTRON is the muon particle and REAL PROTON is 840 MeV.

So, this pretty much changes everything in chemistry, everything.

Ion states
oxidation states Fe -4 to +7 although +2, +3 most common

Now, Fe+2 means the iron atom has 2 magnetic monopoles of + charge present

The Fe-2 ion of iron means it has 2 magnetic monopoles of - charge present

The hydrogen atom has ions of -1 to +1, H+1 means it has 1 proton of 840MeV, 1 electron of 105 MeV, and one magnetic monopole of +1 charge of .5MeV

H-1 means a hydrogen atom as ion has 1 proton of 840 MeV, 1 electron of 105 MeV and one magnetic monopole of -1 charge of .5MeV

Oxygen has oxidation states (ion states) of +2, +1, -1, -2.

O+2 means oxygen with 8 protons each of 840 MeV, 8 electrons each of 105 MeV, and 2 magnetic monopoles each of +1 electric charge of .5MeV

So, as I was saying so much before, how silly and stupid physicist were to think for a single moment, that you take loads and loads of classroom time studying momentum, and at the end of it all, you think the atom is a electron of .5MeV while proton is 938 MeV and you expect chemical bonding to occur under those circumstances. If you had a marble as the electron and a bowling ball as the proton, how in heaven's name are you so deranged in thinking that the momentum of the marble and bowling ball is going to form chemical bonds?

But the flip side of that ignorance is ION theory. To think for one moment, that an iron atom can lose 7 electrons, yes, mind you, 7 whole electrons and you got to be a crazy physicist /chemist to think that you still have an iron atom. A logical person, a logical chemist, would say, Fe+7 is a iron atom that has 26 protons each 840MeV and 26 electrons each 105 MeV and what the +7 is, is 7 magnetic monopoles each of +1 charge at .5MeV apiece.

So, the failure of Physics and Chemistry in the past 100 years, was a failure to recognize what physics is mostly about-- momentum, and that a marble to a bowling ball is not going to be a hydrogen atom or entering into Chemical bonding. A bowling ball with a 1/8 bowling ball, is going to be an atom. And that if you have an atom, it is not going to give up any of its protons or electrons easily, which means the unbalanced charges-- ions of atoms, is not a loss or gain of electrons, for the electrons rarely get out of any atom. But rather the unbalanced charges is due to a particle that Dirac chased after all of his life-- the Magnetic Monopole.

And everytime a atom is unbalanced in charge, is due to a buildup of monopoles on that atom.

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu

::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ .  . | .   /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
---------------      -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
---------------      --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / .  . | .   \ .

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

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-08 21:04:47 UTC
Raw Message
#6page

#6page

On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 5:50:29 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:
Radioactivity rewritten Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV
9th Proof. In Chemistry, it is rare, that a atom loses or gains any Real-Electron=muon.
And that is a 9th proof that Real Electron=muon, that beta decay in Old Physics, was not the electron of atoms but the transfer of Magnetic Monopoles.
The only real radioactive decay mode is the helium nucleus-- alpha decay and the hydrogen atom decay= 840MeV proton plus its 105MeV electron= muon, which in Old Physics and Old Chemistry would be seen as neutron decay.
But there is never a Real Electron decay for that would mean muons spewed out of atoms. Nor do we see protons spewed out of atoms, Real Proton = 840 MeV. The so called hydrogen nucleus of a 938 MeV is not radioactive decay, for it is still a 840 proton + 105 muon = hydrogen atom.

So, all the books on Radioactivity need to be rewritten.

On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 7:26:52 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:
proton and electron=muon arrangement inside atoms Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV

10th Proof. Well, I spoke of the internal heart or core of the concept of Chemistry, that the proton/s and electron/s are two parts of the Faraday Law. The protons are the thrusting bar magnet and the electrons= muons forms the closed loop of wire. But, however, the proton itself is a closed loop wire due to its being a composition of 8 muons, in a octet of muons, thus the electron-muon is the bar magnet and the proton is the closed loop wire.

Either way, Faradays law is preeminent, either the proton is the bar magnet and electron is the closed loop wire or the proton is the closed loop wire and electron is the bar magnet.

Essentially that is the heart and core of atomic physics, a replay of Faraday's law with protons and electrons.

But, however, the electrons= muons only forms a closed loop wire for Faraday's law in the inert gases, the helium, neon, argon, etc and all other atoms want to have that closed loop configuration. Thus, is borne the Chemistry of bonding. Chemistry is borne. So that one atom without a closed loop configuration bonds with another atom to achieve that goal. So chemistry bonding is that of muons bonded to other muons in different atoms.

Now, can these .5 MeV particles fulfill the atoms need to make their muons a closed loop? Obviously not, because ions of atoms such as Fe, iron, swing from -4 to +7 in ions, so that proves ions cannot solve a atom's problem of its electron structure being less than closed loop. Only muons of other atoms can fulfill a atom's need to be closed loop.

Which begs the question, how and why are monopoles borne inside of atoms?

On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 9:40:59 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:
solving muon magnetic moment anomaly
11th Proof. Solving the Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly, alongside proton radius shrunk
--- Quoting from www, Ars Technica, Researchers orbit a muon around an atom, confirm physics is broken ---

So, the proton radius puzzle remains a puzzle. The team behind this new work point to a number of measurements that could potentially help clarify it. Some of them involve better measurements with normal electrons; others involve scattering muons off protons themselves to see if there's an unknown force at work. The latter would tell us whether anything beyond the Standard Model will be needed to explain this puzzle.
--- end Quote ---

Now in re-reading that Ars article on proton radius shrinking when a hydrogen atom of 840 MeV proton with electron = 105 MeV and then a second muon is tried to be compounded-- will of course, shrink the proton radius for the two muons with 1 proton all three are centered at the center of the proton.

But in re-reading was mentioned an anomaly I was not familiar with-- Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly.

And reading some results of that, I find surprizing for it was Feynman who claimed Electrodynamics was the supreme physics theory in accuracy of prediction.

But the anomaly is off by a mere .1%, which seems very very small to be not even an anomaly. Trouble is, the electron of Old Physics was found to be so accurate as to be described as physic's most precise finding ever, and that makes the .1% discrepancy ever so much larger.

Now, I was able to explain away the proton radius anomaly because the proton is not 938 MeV but is 840 MeV and the electron is not the .5MeV particle but rather is 105 MeV.

So, can I explain away the Muon Magnetic Moment Anomaly. I believe I can easily. For if you consider that what Old Physics measured as the electron magnetic moment was none other than the monopole as a dressed up photon magnetic moment. And it is easily seen that in EM theory the permeability constant is "exact" no uncertainty at 1.26*10^-6 H/m.

So, it is no wonder that Old Physics thought their electron magnetic moment in Quantum Electrodynamics was so ultra ultra precise-- for, they never measured the magnetic moment of the electron, but instead a magnetic monopole of the dressed up .5 MeV particle.

Then, when it came time to measure the magnetic moment of the muon, the real-true-electron, there is this .1% discrepancy, but there are discrepancies in the proton and neutron etc.

So, once we realized the Real Electron is the muon, afterall, there is no magnetic moment anomaly.

On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 12:41:50 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:
static electricity makes no sense as removal of electrons Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV
12th proof -- Static Electricity Re: Proofs that the Real Electron=muon

Alright, I need a 12th proof, for I do not want to neglect what is probably our first encounter with electricity-- static electricity. As we walk across a carpet and touch something we experience a spark. Trouble with static electricity, is that the concept makes out the atom as a flimsy structure, really really flimsy structure that electrons of atoms can be picked off so easily, and from very many diverse materials. One would think the structure of atoms was built of stronger stuff. And that is what the Electron = Muon concept is about, that it is so very very hard to separate a electron from its atom, just like separating a proton out of a nucleus. So the subject of static electricity is this interloper particle, this surface superficial particle that is easily "whipped up" as the magnetic monopole, just as easy as producing electricity in a Faraday Law demonstration of a thrusting bar magnet in closed loop of wire. For, we can easily imagine that our walk across a carpet is similar to a thrusting bar magnet and then the closed loop wire is when we touch something, having built up some monopoles in our body.

Old Physics would say that we picked up electrons on the carpet, and as we touch something, remit that imbalance of electrons.

New Physics would say that we picked up magnetic monopoles.

Now let us look at other static electric experiments. For when we rub a glass rod (+1) with silk, or rub a plastic rod (-1) with wool. Here again, Old Physics would say we pick off electrons of atoms.

New Physics would say, no, the atoms are still composed of all their electrons and protons. The only thing changed with the rubbing is that energy of the rub transfers to the magnetic monopole energy-- packets of .5MeV monopoles of charge energy. And the energy of rubbing becomes monopoles. These are those closed Lines of Force of a magnet, and the moment we touch something these stored up monopoles, flow from our body to that of the touched object.

How is that a proof the electron = muon?

Simple, in that the carpet, or plastic rod (-1) with wool or glass rod (+1) with silk, are materials that are electrically neutral substances, for the rubbing action was transformed not into free electrons, but was formed into monopoles. These substances remain electrically neutral, and the only change is that the rub created magnetic monopoles-- some + charged monopoles, some - charged monopoles, and these monopoles are superficial to the atoms where they formed.

Static Electricity is merely stored monopoles. Monopoles are conservation of energy, for the rubbing had to be transformed into some energy packets and that is-- monopoles of charge energy.

In the experiment of where we pick up bits of paper from either the glass rod or the plastic rod due to static electricity. What is happening here, is that the rod is not involved with the Real Electrons of atoms, but is involved with the superficial surface charged particle that is the magnetic monopole.

Now the electroscope is explained much much easier with magnetic monopoles rather than the silly electrons on one leaf pushing away the electrons on the second leaf.

For consider instead a closed loop line of force between the two leafs

/\
O

Where the leafs start out as ||

Then comes the charged rod of monopoles sending down a monopole closed loop O that pushes apart the two leafs.

Now i have two gold leafs and if true should leave the push apart looking more like this () rather than this /\. And that is what i have ()

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu

::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ .  . | .   /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
---------------      -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
---------------      --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / .  . | .   \ .

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

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-09 23:01:47 UTC
Raw Message
#7page

#7page

On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 5:07:26 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:
Kjaergaard's famous Danish experiment of 2014 Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV
13) Proof came in February 2018 for AP's ion theory, that ions are monopoles .5MeV either +1 or -1 charge, attached to a 840MeV proton and 105MeV muon as hydrogen.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 19:37:37 -0800 (PST)

Subject: H+1 bonds to P+1 Re: EXPERIMENTAL PROOF Re: Hydrogen is the very best
way to prove AP's ION theory Re: proving AP's ion theory
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 03:37:37 +0000

H+1 bonds to P+1 Re: EXPERIMENTAL PROOF Re: Hydrogen is the very best way to prove AP's ION theory Re: proving AP's ion theory

The below is a famous experiment of 2014, very famous because it opens a flood gate of new understanding of both Physics and of Chemistry for it proves these 5 points of issue::

1) That in Electricity Magnetism there is only a force of attraction, and all scientists were confused because what they thought was "repel" is merely a "denial of same space occupancy-- Pauli Exclusion" for exclusion is not the same as repel.

2) The real electron of atoms is a 105 MeV particle called the muon and the Real-proton is 840 MeV

3) The particle that is .5MeV we always thought was the electron way back since JJ Thomson in 1897, turns out, that this .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole, which is a photon or neutrino with a .5MeV charge energy, not rest mass energy.

4) The Real Electron and Real Proton rarely ever escape a atom, but what does escape and what is in almost all transactions of atoms is the monopole which can be either +1 or -1 of .5MeV.

5) The Real Electron is firmly bonded to the proton as 105 MeV with 840 MeV, for which the proton itself is composed of 8 muons. The neutron is actually 945 MeV and is a proton + muon + some other particles.

Kjaergaard's experiment is the first of what will become a cascade of chemistry experiments that all will prove the above 5 points of interest.

On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 5:07:26 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:
Kjaergaard's famous Danish experiment of 2014 Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV
13) Proof came in February 2018 for AP's ion theory, that ions are monopoles .5MeV either +1 or -1 charge, attached to a 840MeV proton and 105MeV muon as hydrogen.
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2018 19:37:37 -0800 (PST)

Subject: H+1 bonds to P+1 Re: EXPERIMENTAL PROOF Re: Hydrogen is the very best
way to prove AP's ION theory Re: proving AP's ion theory
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 03:37:37 +0000

H+1 bonds to P+1 Re: EXPERIMENTAL PROOF Re: Hydrogen is the very best way to prove AP's ION theory Re: proving AP's ion theory

Below is an experiment done in Denmark where it is shown that H+1 bonds to P+1 ions, proving not only that the Muon is the real-electron and that ions are magnetic monopoles, but, in addition, proving that like charges attract, for in Nature, attraction force is the only force existing and that what appears to be repel is merely-- denial of same space occupancy.

Positively Charged Phosphorus as a Hydrogen Bond Acceptor

Anne S. Hansen, Lin Du and Henrik G. Kjaergaard*

Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 5, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters

Vol. 5: , Issue. 23, : Pages. 4225-4231
Publication Date (Web): November 19, 2014

https://doi.org/10.1021/jz502150d

Scientists discover impossible hydrogen bond | ScienceNordic
sciencenordic.com/scientists-discover-impossible-hydrogen-bond‎
Mar 25, 2015 ... Scientists have discovered a new type of hydrogen bond which was previously considered impossible or at least highly improbable. "The discovery is significant because hydrogen bonds are such a fundamental part of both chemistry and biology," says Professor Henrik Kjærgaard from the Department of ...

ScienceNordic
Scientists discover impossible hydrogen bond
March 25, 2015 - 06:25
By: Lise Brix

Professor Henrik Kjærgaard and his colleagues have demonstrated that a new kind of hydrogen bond can occur between a hydrogen atom and a phosphorous atom. Pictured here is Kjærgaard in his lab at the University of Copenhagen. (Photo: University of Copenhagen)Scientists have discovered a new type of hydrogen bond which was previously considered impossible or at least highly improbable.
"The discovery is significant because hydrogen bonds are such a fundamental part of both chemistry and biology," says Professor Henrik Kjærgaard from the Department of Chemistry at the University of Copenhagen. "They form the basis of biological molecules and it’s for instance hydrogen bonds that determine the boiling point of water."
He led the new study, which has been published in the Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters.

At Aarhus University, chemistry professor Jeppe Olsen is surprised....

(snipped)
Olsen points out that not only have Kjærgaard and his colleagues found the new hydrogen bond in experiments -- they have also provided "an excellent explanation" of the discovery.
The theory behind the discovery is that the atoms' charge is not uniformly distributed around their surface -- which is how simplified models say they do.
“Our discovery emphasises that the charge around the surface of an atom is not uniform. If there was a positive charge all the way around the phosphorous atom this hydrogen bond wouldn't be possible. But it is. This must mean that the charge is not uniformly distributed around the atom -- you might say that there are tiny pockets of negative charge around the phosphorus atom," says Kjærgaard.
The discovery of the special hydrogen bonds was made in experiments with infrared spectroscopy -- a method used by scientists to obtain knowledge about molecules and their vibrations by irradiating them with infrared light.

AP writes:: Sorry, but the explanation of why this bonding exists is because there is no force of repulsion in Electricity Magnetism, only attraction. There is denial of same space occupancy which is known as the Pauli Exclusion Principle.

But what will really force everyone in science to accept the idea that the real electron = 105MeV is when you break apart the hydrogen proton into a 840 MeV particle plus a 105 MeV muon.

I suspect this has already happened in Poland--

Quoting

Indication For A Broad J(pc) = 2++ Meson At 840-mev Produced In The Reaction Pi- P ---> Pi+ Pi- N At High |t|
K. Rybicki, I. Sakrejda (Cracow, INP)
1985 - 10 pages

Z.Phys. C28 (1985) 65-74
DOI: 10.1007/BF01550250
Abstract (Springer)
The reaction π−p→π+π−n has been studied at 17.2 GeV/c and 63 GeV/c. A partial wave analysis shows a fairly broad (∼250 MeV) resonance at about 840 MeV. This object, already visible in moments of the angular distribution, is produced in theD wave with helicitym=2 via unnatural exchange. The cross section for the reaction π−p→D2U(840)n is only by an order of magnitude lower than that of ϱ(770) and falls likepLAB−2.1±0.3. We have not been able to explain this object by systematic experimental effects like acceptance and/orN* reflections; neither is the nature of the resonance (if real) clear to us.
--- end quote ---

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu

::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ .  . | .   /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
---------------      -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
---------------      --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / .  . | .   \ .

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

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-10 23:20:26 UTC
Raw Message
#8page

#8page

On Thursday, March 1, 2018 at 12:29:30 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:
Thermodynamics has to be completely unified to electricity/magnetism True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV

Thermodynamics only makes sense when both heat by radiation is the same as heat by convection, all being monopoles. So that the glow of green in a radium watch dial, is the same as the glow of red in a electric heater, both are emitting magnetic monopoles.

Thermodynamics has to be completely brought into the rest of the house of physics and seen as fully that of electricity and magnetism.

On Saturday, March 3, 2018 at 7:34:39 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:
Radioactivity has to be redone,completely True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV

Radioactivity has to be completely redone. It is rare that you remove a proton=840MeV and a electron=105MeV. Most radioactivity involves the .5MeV particle , the magnetic monopole of Dirac. Then the most radioactivity besides the monopole is the helium nucleus, and the neutron.

So a total rewrite of radioactivity is in the works.

rewrite the Sun fusion process True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV

The process of fusion in the Sun and stars needs rewritten, for when Real Electron = 105MeV and Real Proton = 840MeV, that most of what we thought was fusion and fission is actually just the routine interplay of magnetic monopoles of .5MeV.

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 14:18:08 -0800 (PST)

Subject: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry--
2018 textbook
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2018 22:18:09 +0000

AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV

Today starts a new Periodic Table of Chemical Elements based on the idea that 1 Proton = 8 Muons in a Faraday Law Configuration. Call it the Archimedes Plutonium Table of Chemical Elements.

Now I need the OCTET for Chemistry, which is a single proton built from 8 Muons

poor drawing of Octagon showing its 8 muons = 1 Proton

7
8         6

1           5

2        4
3

The Periodic Chemical Table starts, not with Hydrogen, but starts with a Proton being a octagon of muons, 8 muons.

Now we include the 9th particle-- the ElectronMuon which is the moving bar magnet in Faraday's Law

7
8         6

1    9th   5

2        4
3

The picture above is the ElectronMuon 9th of every Proton in every atom.

The ElectronMuon is Faraday's bar magnet that moves in and out of the Proton that the Proton itself is a Closed Loop Wire formed by 8 Muons in a octagon shape.

So, the First Chemical Element in the Periodic Table is the Proton as a 8 Muons in a octagon shape, and with a 9th Muon as the ElectronMuon of an atom-- every and any atom.

On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 5:52:49 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:
AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook

Now this idea revolutionizes all the chemical elements, because it makes us realize that everything about Atoms is a Faraday Law. So Carbon has 6 protons and 6 ElectronMuons forming a Faraday Law wire loop and bar magnets, and the neutrons providing the same. So, an electrical engineer given wire loops and bar magnets would make that pile of loops and magnets into the most efficient Faraday Law Demonstration.

On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 6:24:34 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:
AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook

What the AP periodic table of elements allows is the inclusion of isotopes.

On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 7:21:09 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:
table that includes isotopes Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook
What the AP periodic table of elements allows is the inclusion of isotopes.
So, the neat thing about 1 Proton = 8 Muons and the ElectronMuon as 9th muon of all atoms protons and electrons, is that every Atom is a assemblage of Muons into a Closed Loop Wire with an electronMuon as bar magnet.

And then, of course, the Magnetic Monopole, a photon or neutrino dressed up with a .5MeV charge energy of either +1 or -1 charge. Now how does the Faraday law create a monopole? Well, it is not the Muon traveling in the proton octagon closed loop wire, for the Muon is the bar magnet. And what travels in the proton-as-wire is a monopole.

And if this monopole is too energetic, it leaves the proton-wire and we perceive it as a monopole radioactive decay.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 22:35:29 -0800 (PST)

Subject: is H2O behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re: AP's Periodic
Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 06:35:29 +0000

On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 9:55:41 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:
is H2O behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook

how water is like fluorine isotope Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook

Now way way back in sci.physics history, i believe it was sometime in the 1990s i spoke of a concept of hydrogen atom systems that composes all atoms. The idea basically was there are no neutrons and each proton is linked to a muon (of course back then i thought the electron was .5 MeV).

In Hydrogen Atom Systems theory i called it HYASYS, the hydrogen atom would have number and mass of 1, helium would be 4. Oxygen would be atomic mass and number 16, and Fluorine (i keep mixing the spelling with the food flour) is 19F, but, there is a isotope of Fluorine as 18F.

We can see how the AP Element Table accommodates isotopes for each isotope is a specific number of HYASYS. In HYASYS theory, every atom is composed not of protons, electrons=105MeV but only a proton + muon.

But a curious feature appears in that water, H2O would have 18 HYASYS matching fluorine hyasys of 18F. Only realize the 2 H are bonded to oxygen while the 18F is a single atom.

But no escaping the fact that in both you have a Faraday Law acting on 9 x 18 muons in total, where 1 proton = 8muons. In HYASYS, all atoms are just a specific number of MUONS, so for Water molecule, H2O is 162 Muons. And for isotope 18F, is 162 Muons that compose 18F. Now 19F, the most common atom of fluorine is in total 171 Muons.

So, can any chemist today-- make a case that water behaves like fluorine isotope 18F? We all know water has some unique properties but so does fluorine.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 22:48:22 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Re: is H2O behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re: AP's Periodic
Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 06:48:23 +0000

Re: is H2O behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook
how water is like fluorine isotope Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook
Now way way back in sci.physics history, i believe it was sometime in the 1990s i spoke of a concept of hydrogen atom systems that composes all atoms. The idea basically was there are no neutrons and each proton is linked to a muon (of course back then i thought the electron was .5 MeV).
In Hydrogen Atom Systems theory i called it HYASYS, the hydrogen atom would have number and mass of 1, helium would be 4. Oxygen would be atomic mass and number 16, and Fluorine (i keep mixing the spelling with the food flour) is 19F, but, there is a isotope of Fluorine as 18F.
We can see how the AP Element Table accommodates isotopes for each isotope is a specific number of HYASYS. In HYASYS theory, every atom is composed not of protons, electrons=105MeV but only a proton + muon.
But a curious feature appears in that water, H2O would have 18 HYASYS matching fluorine hyasys of 18F. Only realize the 2 H are bonded to oxygen while the 18F is a single atom.
Now, looking up that of 18F, says (Wikipedia) it has a half-life of 109.8 minutes which is oodles and oodles of time to study it. But more important, it says it turns into 18Oxygen. In other words, 18F is H2O in a transitory, phase state.

AP

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu

::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ .  . | .   /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
---------------      -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
---------------      --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / .  . | .   \ .

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

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-11 04:35:53 UTC
Raw Message
#9page

#9page

FARADAY LAW is the building Principle of Chemistry, and the world for that sake

NEED MY OLD HYASYS AND RSNM Theories back again

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 22:48:22 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Re: is H2O behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re: AP's Periodic
Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 06:48:23 +0000

Re: is H2O behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
how water is like fluorine isotope Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook
Now way way back in sci.physics history, i believe it was sometime in the 1990s i spoke of a concept of hydrogen atom systems that composes all atoms. The idea basically was there are no neutrons and each proton is linked to a muon (of course back then i thought the electron was .5 MeV).
In Hydrogen Atom Systems theory i called it HYASYS, the hydrogen atom would have number and mass of 1, helium would be 4. Oxygen would be atomic mass and number 16, and Fluorine (i keep mixing the spelling with the food flour) is 19F, but, there is a isotope of Fluorine as 18F.
We can see how the AP Element Table accommodates isotopes for each isotope is a specific number of HYASYS. In HYASYS theory, every atom is composed not of protons, electrons=105MeV but only a proton + muon.
But a curious feature appears in that water, H2O would have 18 HYASYS matching fluorine hyasys of 18F. Only realize the 2 H are bonded to oxygen while the 18F is a single atom.
Now, looking up that of 18F, says (Wikipedia) it has a half-life of 109.8 minutes which is oodles and oodles of time to study it. But more important, it says it turns into 18Oxygen. In other words, 18F is H2O in a transitory, phase state.

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 01:27:38 -0800 (PST)

Subject: the world in a science metaphor ? Re: AP's Periodic Table of
Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 09:27:39 +0000

the world in a science metaphor ? Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook

And, let us try a second one of these. We compound iron 56Fe with chromium 52Cr and the total number of HYASYS, hydrogen atom systems is 108. Now the atom that has 108 HYASYS is Silver 108Ag

Does the compound Fe+Cr resemble in chemical features that of silver Ag ?

This test maybe easier than the test of H2O with HYASYS of 2+16 = 18 and the atom that matches 18 HYASYS is the rare Fluorine of 18F

If true, to some degree, we can include chemical compounds into the Table of Periodic Elements.

Because, really, Chemistry boils down to nothing but the laws of electromagnetism of a magnet thrust through a closed loop of wire.

Philosophically, well, it is hard to imagine that the purpose of the Universe at large is a magnet thrusting through a closed loop wire. To think, that the entire Universe amounts to a magnet thrust through wire and current flows. In a sense, the magnet is father, the wire is mother, and out flows the baby current. Is this the world in a metaphor?

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 02:00:45 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Re: is H2O behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re: AP's Periodic
Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 10:00:46 +0000

Re: is H2O behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook

Now when i wrote that several hours ago, i was not really thinking about that of 18F turning into 18Oxygen for which if you think of the electron as the .5 MeV particle it is easy to accept you had Fluorine that converted to oxygen. But when you see the proton at 840 MeV electron at 105MeV, you have to question whether 18F ever existed at all, and was a H2O water molecule.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 02:18:05 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Re: is H2O behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re:AP's Periodic
Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 10:18:05 +0000

Re: is H2O behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook

Alright there is more trouble in that magnesium 23 converts to sodium 23 in Old Chemistry.

In New Chemistry it was never magnesium but rather instead was NaH a hydrogen bonded to sodium.

So here we are seeing compounds classified as being single atoms.

Also found that fluorine can be a liquid-- so i wonder if 18F was a water molecule and never a fluorine atom.

AP

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu

::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ .  . | .   /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
---------------      -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
---------------      --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / .  . | .   \ .

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

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-11 21:02:21 UTC
Raw Message
#10page

#10page

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 03:03:36 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Re: is H2O behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re: AP's Periodic
Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 11:03:36 +0000

Re: is H2O behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook

Alright the heaviest element to date is 295element118 it resembles the noble gas Radon86

Now in New Chemistry we define an Element as total number of Hyasys, hydrogen atom systems inside a particle. So the first four elements are 1H , 2H, 3H, 4He

That is hydrogen, deuterium, tritium, helium.

Now a burning question is whether every number from 1 to 295 has an element?

So in Old Chemistry there were 118 elements with their isotopes. In New Chemistry there are 295 elements and isotopes do not exist.

Now many elements are going to have duplicates such as we discussed 18O and 18F and in case of duplicates we get rid of one by indicating one is a compound of hydrogen. Where 18F is H2O of 16O.

So i think i have a table from 1 to 295 unique table verified by chemical experiments. Then the question is going to be if this table retains family resemblance of columns once we form into a table. Will the former isotopes have some family resemblance?

And will the Aufbau paradox of 20 out of 94 elements not in compliance go away?

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 14:22:35 -0800 (PST)

Subject: why HYASYS is important in New Chemistry Re: AP's Periodic
Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 22:22:35 +0000

why HYASYS is important in New Chemistry Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook

- show quoted text -
Well, there is something endearing about the HYASYS theory, Hydrogen Atom Systems, in that a Atom needs its proton and electron=muon, both together at all times for the atom to exist properly. In Old Chemistry, Old Physics, the electron is seen as some vagrant vagabond-- here today, gone tomorrow, seen as not essential to any proton. But in HYASYS, the Electron= 105 and Proton= 840MeV, the two are essential to be together-- creating Faraday's Law inside an atom.

Back in 1995, I realized the HYASYS theory but had no idea that the Real Electron = 105MeV and I was as dumb as the next guy in chemistry or physics, thinking the electron was .5MeV.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 15:17:43 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Re: why HYASYS is important in New Chemistry Re: AP's
Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 23:17:43 +0000

Re: why HYASYS is important in New Chemistry Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook

Need to totally review what the Strong Nuclear Force is in light of Real Electron = 105 MeV, Real Proton= 840 MeV and magnetic monopole = .5MeV

Decades past I solved what the Strong Nuclear force was, by simply noting the Scale, where the eV in chemical bonding of electrons becomes by scale, MeV in the nucleus. You see the distances in the nucleus is 10^6 smaller, and MeV to eV is 10^6 difference, so my solution was-- in nucleus the protons have a bonding just as electrons have a bonding along the exterior of the nucleus.

That SOLUTION still holds regardless of the fact that the electrons are muons. But, how does that fit with the idea that the muon is a Faraday law bar magnet and the proton a closed loop wire?

Is the solution to the Strong Nuclear Force, simply the fact that only Attraction exists in EM theory, and no argument of a 10^6 scale factor is needed? Is not the solution to the Strong Nuclear Force just simply the fact that all particles, no matter what charge they carry is an attraction force. And so the Strong Nuclear force was a fiction force much like centripetal centrifugal.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 14:55:39 -0800 (PST)

Subject: I need my old HYASYS theory to make the New Table of Chemical
Elements Re: Third experiment: Strong Nuclear Force is nuclear
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 22:55:40 +0000

I need my old HYASYS theory to make the New Table of Chemical Elements Re: Third experiment: Strong Nuclear Force is nuclear

Well, Todd was a friend of mine back in the mid 1990s, and is a pleasure to respond to his reply in 2018, after the immense, huge discovery that the Real Electron is 105 MeV with its attendant proton at 840 MeV.

My Hyasys theory of 1995 is stronger than ever, for all atoms need a close association of their muons with protons-- as active Faraday Law participants. In Old Chemistry and Old Physics, we really have a utterly pathetic look and view of the electron and proton inside an atom-- a view of -- they do nothing-- because the minds of physicists pre2017 was the mind of a child holding a tiny ball as electron and larger ball for proton doing nothing. Whereas New Chemistry, requires the muon and proton to at least do the Faraday Law.
But did you read any of his posting?  Either you did, and are ignoring the
facts, or you simply glossed over the parts which threaten your ideas.  The
Uncertainty Principle disallows a system of proton and electron forming
the system which we observe as the neutron.  This has been pointed out to
you several times now, and still you ignore it.
Todd needs to rethink this. I am sure Todd would agree that the Maxwell Equations are obeyed by Atom and their subatomic particles. In a world where both Todd and I thought the electron was .5MeV is a different world than when the Real Electron = 105 MeV inside an atom, and so, a Faraday Law of a Helium Atom would require all 4 of its Hydrogen Atom Systems to be a Proton as a closed wire loop and where the Muon is a bar magnet that moves inside the wire loop of proton producing a monopole.
The Uncertainty Principle does not threaten HYASYS in the least, in
fact it supports it. Where is the highest electron probability for the
hydrogen atom? Answer: greater than 90% in dead center of the proton.
Thus the bundling up of the electron of hydrogen inside the proton and
the proton inside the neutron is supported by UP.
As someone else has pointed out, there is zero probability for the electron
to be found at the center of the proton in a hydrogen atom.  - the 90 percent
you quote is for the electron to be found within the Bohr radius.
According to the Uncertainty Principle, were the electron to be bound within
delta p = hbar/2 delta x = (6.6 x 10^{-22} MeV s)/(2x10^{-15} m)
= (3.3 x 10^{-7} MeV/c)(3 x 10^{8})
~ 100 MeV/c.
Uncertainty Principle is only mumbo jumbo talk when you know almost nothing of what is going on.

I plan to go to Sioux Falls sometime soon, and we can bring in Uncertainty all we want-- whether I drive safely, whether the weather is good, do I take the correct exit? But the important thing is talk about the Certainty of things-- it is a city 2 hours drive away, and it is a trip I must make.

Todd is mistaking Uncertainty as facts of physics, mistaking what really goes on, with what can go wrong. Mistaking for what really is, for what can be imagined.
Isn't that a bit disturbing?  This is the kind of reasoning which long ago
put to rest the theory that the neutron is a combination of proton and
electron.  You might call this reasoning old fashioned and musty, but it
is solid theoretically.
The spin of the neutron is 1/2, this is undisputed.  Two spin 1/2 particles
can in no way combine to form a spin 1/2 system.  QED, that's that, and
The neutrino has zero rest mass, zero electric charge, and spin 1/2
in units of h/(2pi).  All  neutrons decay into proton, electron,
antineutrino all of which have either spin +1/2 or -1/2 such that the
combination of say +1/2 add -1/2 add +1/2 results in +1/2. Spin is no
threat to HYASYS. But to the quark theory, how is it Todd, that an
electron comes out of every neutron decay. This implies that the
electron is either a quark or a quark composite. Thus, the quark theory
So then you're saying now that the neutron is a bound system of proton,
electron and neutrino?  Does every particle which decays have to be
primordially composed of its decay products?  Sounds like that's what you're
saying.  That proposition is utterly unsound.  What composes a tau, which can
decay dozens of different ways?
__________________________________________________________________________
Todd K. Pedlar                        !  Phone: (708) 491 - 8630
Grad Student, Dept o' Physics   !  Fax:   (708) 491 - 8627
!  WWW:  http://numep1.phys.nwu.edu/tkp.html
%SYSIN-F-NOCFE, system input disabled, unable to locate coffee
I discovered what unifies Strong Nuclear Force with Coulomb force, in that the electron inside a Neutron spills out in the nucleus of an atom and goes running around holding protons glued to other protons in a Coulomb force.

Well, I have to review that discovery all over again, in light of the fact that the Real Electron is a Muon itself.

In light of the fact that there is no Repel force in electromagnetism, all is Attract force only, and that the *sensation of repel in two magnets* is not repel at all but a concept of denial of the same space occupancy. Repel in Old Physics was a imagination gone wrong-- for what is sensed is not a repulsion force, but a denial that you can get any closer-- Pauli Exclusion. Pauli Exclusion principle is not a repel force, but a state of condition, that you cannot move two objects closer together.

In this sense, we see that electrons love being together around the outside of proton nuclei. We see that protons love being together with other protons in a nucleus. This tells the man women of common sense, there is no force of repel in EM theory, in the world for that matter, of that sake. The world we live in has only Attraction force and denial of same space occupancy.

What HYASYS brings to the table of science, is the idea that electron and proton exist in some "working relationship" such as the Faraday Law, and that electron and proton do not exist as in Old Physics, where one is a tiny ball doing nothing and the proton another tiny ball doing nothing.

AP

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu

::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ .  . | .   /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
---------------      -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
---------------      --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / .  . | .   \ .

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

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

Archimedes Plutonium
Peter Pan
2018-04-12 22:59:52 UTC
Raw Message
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Now a burning question is whether every number from 1 to 295 has an element?
So in Old Chemistry there were 118 elements with their isotopes. In New Chemistry there are 295 elements and isotopes do not exist.
Now many elements are going to have duplicates such as we discussed 18O and 18F and in case of duplicates we get rid of one by indicating one is a compound of hydrogen. Where 18F is H2O of 16O.
Does the shit you spew actually make some kind of sense
to you? Or are you just telling the world you're over
the edge.
Michael Moroney
2018-04-13 05:59:12 UTC
Raw Message
Post by Peter Pan
Does the shit you spew actually make some kind of sense
to you? Or are you just telling the world you're over
the edge.
It's called "logorrhea".
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-13 03:13:26 UTC
Raw Message
#11page

#11page

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 18:17:16 -0800 (PST)

Subject: steering dumb physicists to realize the truth about 18F Re: is H2O
behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re:AP's Periodic Table of Chemical
Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2018 02:17:16 +0000

steering dumb physicists to realize the truth about 18F Re: is H2O behavior, anything like 18F ?? Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
But a curious feature appears in that water, H2O would have 18 HYASYS matching fluorine hyasys of 18F. Only realize the 2 H are bonded to oxygen while the 18F is a single atom.
Now, looking up that of 18F, says (Wikipedia) it has a half-life of 109.8 minutes which is oodles and oodles of time to study it. But more important, it says it turns into 18Oxygen. In other words, 18F is H2O in a transitory, phase state.
Now let us examine that 109.8 minutes decay of a rare form of Fluorine 18F, for it says 97% decay is beta+ into 18O and here is a supreme idiocy of Old Physics, Old Chemistry in that they silly think a .5MeV particle (what they thought was the electron) is going to slip into the nucleus and convert a proton 938MeV into a neutron of 940 MeV and emit a positron +1 charge .5MeV particle. Trouble with Old Chemistry, Old Physics, none of the would be professors ever took Logic to learn to think straight, clear and correctly, but misfits of logical reasoning.

The New Physics, New Chemistry sees that the Real Electron=105MeV, Real Proton= 840MeV and are always tied up with each other, so there is no sneeking back into the nucleus of a real electron to become a 945 neutron. In New Physics, the Electron and Proton have to be in Maxwell theory constant activity, they are not tiny balls doing nothing most of the time in an atom, no, the electron and proton are committing Faraday's Law constantly, where either the 105 acts as bar magnet or the 8Muons= 1 Proton acts as a closed loop wire in Faraday's law or vice versa.

You see, in Old Physics, those fools had the electron and proton lounging on some atomic scale beach sipping sodas. In New Physics, the electron and proton are constantly demonstrating the Faraday law of thrusting the electron into the closed wire of the 8Muons=1 proton and producing a current in that proton as wire, the current is a .5MeV magnetic monopole.

So in Old Physics view, the electron is .5MeV lounging around sitting around doing nothing and all of a sudden goes plunging into the nucleus to bind with a proton and become a neutron.

In New Physics, every proton and muon is actively involved in doing Faraday's law, one thrusting as bar magnet into the other producing a .5MeV magnetic monopole. So, in 18F, it was never a Fluorine atom at all, for its 18 HYASIS hydrogen atom systems each doing a Faraday Law, so the 18 HYASYS were almost the same as 16O bonded to 1H plus 1H. And what I like for the Chemists to do is redo all their experiments on 18F and see for themselves that 18F was never fluorine but in reality was a water molecule of 16O bound to two hydrogen atoms.

Now Kjaergaard in Denmark a chemist used infrared spectroscopy to discover that H+ atoms will bond to other +1 charged atoms, in other words, physics has no like charges repel. So I am wondering if Chemists today can repeat the experiments on 18F to see if 18F is really H2O, and never was a Fluorine atom.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
But no escaping the fact that in both you have a Faraday Law acting on 9 x 18 muons in total, where 1 proton = 8muons. In HYASYS, all atoms are just a specific number of MUONS, so for Water molecule, H2O is 162 Muons. And for isotope 18F, is 162 Muons that compose 18F. Now 19F, the most common atom of fluorine is in total 171 Muons.
So, can any chemist today-- make a case that water behaves like fluorine isotope 18F? We all know water has some unique properties but so does fluorine.
So in Old Physics, Old Chemistry, they really really need to get away from their hideous notion that the electron is a .5MeV tiny ball and the proton is a 938 MeV more massive ball and the two balls just do nothing most of the time. They have got to get to a point of realization that every proton and electron are actively engaged with one another, and the only viable activity is -- Faraday's Law.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 18:40:18 -0800 (PST)

Subject: purpose of life-- create new atoms//purpose of the World?-- convert
Space into mass (new atoms)? Re:AP's Periodic Table of Chemical
Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2018 02:40:19 +0000

purpose of life-- create new atoms//purpose of the World?-- convert Space into mass (new atoms)? Re: AP's Periodic Table of Chemical Elements:: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
And, let us try a second one of these. We compound iron 56Fe with chromium 52Cr and the total number of HYASYS, hydrogen atom systems is 108. Now the atom that has 108 HYASYS is Silver 108Ag
Does the compound Fe+Cr resemble in chemical features that of silver Ag ?
This test maybe easier than the test of H2O with HYASYS of 2+16 = 18 and the atom that matches 18 HYASYS is the rare Fluorine of 18F
If true, to some degree, we can include chemical compounds into the Table of Periodic Elements.
Because, really, Chemistry boils down to nothing but the laws of electromagnetism of a magnet thrust through a closed loop of wire.
Philosophically, well, it is hard to imagine that the purpose of the Universe at large is a magnet thrusting through a closed loop wire. To think, that the entire Universe amounts to a magnet thrust through wire and current flows. In a sense, the magnet is father, the wire is mother, and out flows the baby current. Is this the world in a metaphor?
Now sometimes when we sit aside and reflect deeply, it pays off. Many times I said that philosophy is science, only where science has no good answers, so that philosophy is at the edge of where science ends and then mostly exploratory ideas are offered to come up with answers.

Two words that describes Philosophy, is "exploratory guess". Three words to describe Science, is "best accepted truth".

Now, it is Science that says the Electron and Proton are doing a constant Faraday Law, the 105 MeV and 840 MeV particles doing Faraday Law and the result is the production of a .5MeV magnetic monopole. So in a Helium atom of its 4 protons and 4 muons, each 4 systems yielding four magnetic monopoles, constantly. Is the final picture of the World.

The purpose of Life in an Atom Totality is to create new elements that stars cannot create, as we created Elements 95 through 118 recently. Life is Cold Stars creating new atoms that hot stars cannot fuse in creating.

But, that is the purpose of Life, and philosophy would say that the purpose to the entire World, including life inside that World is merely to execute the Faraday's law, proton and electron doing a thrusting bar magnet in closed loop wire producing electric current. But now, if Philosophy examines that just a bit closer, Faraday's Law is not so empty, not so simple and rather mundane to be a Purpose of the World itself. If Life's purpose is to create new atoms, then look at what the Faraday Law does, it creates new matter, mass from Space. For the thrusting bar magnet into a closed loop wire ends up creating a particle that flows in the wire. This monopole is usually .5MeV, usually -1 charge but can be +1 charge.

So, the Purpose of Life is to create new atoms.

Is the Purpose of the World, to convert Space into creating new particles out of the space where Faraday's law operates. So, in other words, are atoms in existence to convert Space into making more and newer atoms. The purpose of Life is to make new Atoms, and so it is reasonable to think the purpose of Atoms themselves is to convert Space into creating new atoms.

This idea is embodied in another one of my old theories I dubbed as (named) RSNM, radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. For I applied for a patent on RSNM devices circa 1994. RSNM is a offshoot of Dirac's New Radioactivity as described in his book Directions in Physics.

So, I need to resurrect not only HYASYS but also RSNM, as theories vital to New Physics.

AP

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu

::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ .  . | .   /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
---------------      -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
---------------      --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / .  . | .   \ .

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

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-13 19:28:01 UTC
Raw Message
#12page

#12page

Recalling OLD POSTS on HYASYS and RSNM

From: ***@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Subject: Unifying EM , Strong Nuclear Force, and gravity (Hyasys)
Date: 1996/03/27

organization: PLutonium College
newsgroups: sci.astro,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag

Unifying EM , Strong Nuclear Force, and gravity (Hyasys)
Such as for instance, a neutron is > thought to be EM neutral but it has a tiny surface charge because a > neutron has a hydrogen atom kicking around inside of it, and the > electron and proton of the subneutron is the reason the neutron has a > surface charge. This surface charge of the neutron is the lowest > possible state and is what we usually think of as gravity. Note that > gravity is 10^40 weaker than EM. So then, in my remaking of the > universal forces of the universe, gravity is none other than the lowest > state, the lowest possible EM conditions. Given a totally neutral body > an astro body ideally neutral with no magnetic field then all the > neutrons and all the neutral particles when sum totalled are not > electrically neutral but have the lowest of low EM, which is gravity.
This relies on my HYASYS theory that all neutrons are Hydrogen Atom Systems inside. Thus there are two types of electrons, normal in atoms and nuclear when compressed into neutrons or nuclei. These nuclear electrons are the glue the binding force of protons in the nuclei. Neutrons have a slight tiny surface charge. PHYSICS WORLD recently did an article and will quote it soon. Thus, in terms of HYASYS, there are no 0 charged particles but all Neutral particles have at least a tiny surface charge reflecting the nuclear electron and proton of Hyasys inside it.   The Van Der Waals force is similar to the neutron surface charge. Van Der Waals is on the order of 1/r^6 (if memory serves me) and gravity is 1/r^2 but gravity is with mass and Waals is with EM so that if I can reconcile the Van Der Waals with gravity in force strength, then I may have experimental set-up already proving that gravity indeed is the lowest form of EM, and unlike  Andrei Sakharov who thought that gravity was a "Side Effect of EM" . Sakharov was indeed on the correct path of recognizing that gravity was ultimately EM but Sakharov never had the nuclear electron to guide him.
Thus, if I can show that Van Der Waals is the lowest EM and that it is of the same range in force strength to gravity, then I will have proved that gravity is Hyasys of nuclear electrons. I will need to clarify why when surface charge on say the neutron is only attractive. Perhaps when EM goes into its lowest state--- this gravity state --- that nuclear electrons interact-- exchange photons only with protons and thus is attractive. I think if memory serves, the Van Der Waals is also only attractive.
This is all very beautiful because within firmly established knowledge and concepts is all three forces EM, Strong Nuclear and gravity all reduced down to just EM. Where EM of Maxwell is in the middle range, and the lowest of low EM is surface charge on neutral particles such as neutrons which is really gravity, and the upper range is the nuclear electrons of Hydrogen Atom Systems in the nuclei binding protons. If true, and I am confident it is, the quest for the graviton was a birdbrain quest, because gravity is none other than the Lowest Quantum State of EM. The gravity of the Earth for the Sun would then consider all the particles summed for the Earth and Sun as say all neutrons (idealizing all the particles as neutral particles), then summation over all those neutrons of their slight surface charge and envision Faraday Lines of Force for the summation of neutron surface charges. That summation should equal what was previously computed through the inverse square law. Again, I say I need to make clearer why it is always attractive, somehow nuclear electrons exchange only with protons and vice versa. The perturbations of Mercury are thus explained better than even GR because of the Magnetic Field of the Sun and Mercury are not included in the purely summation of neutrons (idealizing all particles as 0 average charge, ie, making them all neutrons) whereas we know there are many ions in the Sun and Mercury has a Magnetic Field.
I must work on making verifiable experiments. But it is hard because the force of gravity is so weak and it is hard to point to surface charge as the culprit and not mass. Thus I should look for some 'Effect' that if the theory is correct that surface charge is what gravity is, then some effect should be observable wherein if it were solely mass that makes gravity then the effect should never occur or would not make sense. I am dreaming up experiments

AP

From: ***@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Subject: Third experiment: Strong Nuclear Force is nuclear electrons
Date: 1995/09/26

organization: Plutonium College
newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.particle,sci.chem

Third experiment: Strong Nuclear Force is nuclear electrons
>   The Strong Nuclear Force now is really protons sharing energetic > electrons at a very close range. Thus the nucleus of an atom is sort of > like a metallic bond sort of a deal.
Neutrons are not just hydrogen atoms but are energetic hydrogen atoms. When the neutron is in the nucleus what happens is that the hydrogen atom inside the neutron uses the electron of the hydrogen atom and it is a nuclear electron which has no space or size, converted into energy as per fine-structure variable of electron being within the nucleus. These nuclear electrons hold all the protons including the protons of the hydrogen atom of the neutrons, hold all the protons together.
Third experimental test. Since it is the nuclear electrons which is the glue so to speak in holding protons together, then in say an atom of neon of its 10 protons, never is it capable of labelling those 10 protons against the neutrons. In other words in all atoms beyond hydrogen, the protons are neutrons at one moment and protons at the next, and vice versa.
Any experiments performed so far which colloborates my above? If nuclear electrons and hyasis were not the case then a neutron inside a nucleus would not have the tendency to become protons and back to neutrons and vice versa, but rather instead remain their original identity as a proton or neutron and not flip back and forth.

AP

From: ***@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Subject: Strong nuclear force explained for the first time
Date: 1995/09/26

organization: PLUTONIUM COLLEGE
newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics.electromag,sci.physics.particle,sci.chem

Strong nuclear force explained for the first time

I thought it would come first by finding some window into the nucleus
such as spectral lines was the window for chemistry. I was wrong. It
was here all along and math equations for strong nuclear force or
interaction will come.
The quest for knowledge of the Strong Nuclear force will embark from the foundations that hydrogen atoms are the most basic and fundamental particle in existence. A neutron is a hydrogen atom inside itself with extra energy. Photons and neutrinos are derivatives of hydrogen atom systems. A muon decays into two neutrinos and a electron meaning that a muon was merely an extra energetic electron. Those two neutrinos were very energetic to take away the 105 MEV by the way.
The Strong Nuclear Force now is really protons sharing energetic electrons at a very close range. Thus the nucleus of an atom is sort of like a metallic bond sort of a deal.  But what about the size of the electron? Good question. In an atom of helium ***@2 for instance there are two normal electrons around the nucleus of 2 protons and 2 neutrons. Those 2 helium electrons are enormous in space as compared to say the whole of the nucleus.  Now let us examine the nucleus of its 2 protons and 2 neutrons.
Those 2 neutrons are really 2 Hydrogen Atom Systems HYASYS. Those 2 hyasys have energetic electrons. Now what happened to the sizes of those 2 hyasys electrons, well, it is well known that the fine structure variable  varies asymptotically because of distance from bare charge.  In this way, the strong nuclear force is merely the energy conversion of a normal electron down to the size of an electron in a nuclear electron. What holds the protons together up to around element 100 (Coulomb repulsion) is the fact that the strong nuclear force or interaction is merely the sharing of tiny nuclear electrons between the protons.
When a muon is ever observed it is the emergence for a brief 10^-6 sec of a energetic nuclear electron.  There should be some explanation from HYASYS as to why the 105 MEV of the muon, perhaps that is where the asymptotic fine structure constant varies sharply.  Should this all be correct, it implies that muons come in a variable MEV and not just a 105.66 MEV
Under HYASYS, there really exists only two forces or two interactions and those two are EM and Radioactivity.
Radioactivity is equal to weak interaction plus spontaneous neutron materialization (see Dirac's book DIRECTIONS IN PHYSICS)

AP

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu

::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ .  . | .   /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
---------------      -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
---------------      --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / .  . | .   \ .

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

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-14 02:44:05 UTC
Raw Message
#13page

#13page

Recalling OLD POSTS on HYASYS and RSNM

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 00:38:27 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Re: recalling my HYASYS theory of mid1990s because I need it now,
more than ever Re: Strong nuclear force explained for the first time
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 08:38:28 +0000

Re: recalling my HYASYS theory of mid1990s because I need it now, more than ever Re: Strong nuclear force explained for the first time

Now here is a post on 20SEPT1995 which I think I will use to build back my file on HYASYS. Of course, all those years before 2017, I thought like everyone else that the electron was .5MeV and proton was 938 MeV, and by 2017 the awakening occurred that the Real Electron = 105 MeV with its proton at 840 MeV and that tiny particle of .5MeV was Dirac's magnetic monopole, all along. Much like Christopher Columbus sailing in 1492, thinking he landed in India or China, when in reality, he discovered two new continents.

So I need HYASYS theory because the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements has to include Isotopes, because ATOMS are structure that obeys the laws of electricity magnetism and so a Proton at 840 MeV is a structure that is a closed loop wire of 8 muons, and the electron muon is the bar magnet-- or, vice versa, for I may have that turned around backwards. And so we see ATOMS in a whole new, brand new light, as particles that are "doing the Maxwell laws of physics"

From: ***@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics.
electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.particle
Subject: All atoms are Hydrogen Atom Systems -> Superposition Principle
Date: 20 Sep 1995 00:37:44 GMT
Organization: Plutonium College
Lines: 45
Message-ID: (43nnoo$***@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> All atoms are hydrogen atom systems (hasys). By system I mean it is a hydrogen atom + extra energy. When the extra energy term is 0, then it is just a ordinary hydrogen atom. A neutron is a hydrogen atom with extra energy. The Superposition Principle of QM, is merely an equivalent statement to the fact that all matter is the linear equations sums of Hydrogen Atom Systems. Reverse, if all atoms were not the sum total of Hydrogen Atom Systems, eg, 231PU, plutonium is merely 231 Hydrogen Atom Systems, then, physics esq Quantum Physics would have never had a Superposition principle. In other words, I have reduced the Superposition Principle of QM, and the fact that physics is linear, linear, linear partial differential equations, is because all matter, all atoms are built up from one building block Hydrogen Atom Systems. The reason neutrons act as glue for the protons is because the neutron shares that electron inside it with neighboring protons. The nucleus is sort of like a "metallic bond". The Superposition Principle == Hydrogen Atom Systems. Now, the bleeding gutter snipes of physics will be quick to spew "well what about quarks?" And I tell you what is about quarks. Quarks are merely the fact that in math, there exists 3 and only 3 geometries-- Riem, Eucl, and Loba and when you have an entity that is not ever reducible down further, or incapable of being further cut, like a proton, then it reveals all 3 possible geometries simultaneously. Quarks are not physics reality. Quark are merely the statement that a particle like a proton is bundled up into the 3 and only 3 existing geometries simultaneously. So do not bother about the mindrot of quarks when talking about the real physics, that of Hydrogen Atom Systems. And don't drivel about a electron beam or proton beam being protons and electrons in "isolation". That is circus clown physics. The Bell Inequality evinces that proton and electron are always tied or correlated. If Hydrogen Atom Systems is not true, then the Superposition Principle of QM plus the Conservation of Charge plus the Bell Inequality are not true. AP PART 1 of 3 I need my old RSNM theory and HYASYS theory in light of discovery Real Electron=105MeV, Real Proton=840MeV, the .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole Now here is a better copy of my 1993 RSNM theory which I applied a patent for. My purpose in reposting this is because I need both RSNM and HYASYS theories for making out the New Periodic Table of Chemical Elements Newsgroups: sci.physics From: ***@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) Subject: Neutron Materialization Devices, Fusion Energy Engineered: a patent Message-ID: (***@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Date: 17AUG1993, 23:21:06 GMT + Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion From: ***@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) Subject: Neutron Materialization Devices; fusion energy engineered, this is a patent Message-ID: (***@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1993 23:23:20 GMT Lines: 226 + Newsgroups: sci.physics From: ***@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) Subject: Re: Neutron Materialization Devices, Fusion Energy Engineered: a patent Message-ID: (***@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> References: (***@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 15:50:49 GMT Lines: 348 + Newsgroups: sci.physics From: ***@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) Subject: Re: Neutron Materialization Devices, Fusion Energy Engineered: a patent Message-ID: (***@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> References: (***@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 15:52:33 GMT Lines: 185 + Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion From: ***@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) Subject: Re: Neutron Materialization Devices; fusion energy engineered, this is a patent Message-ID: (***@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> References: (***@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1993 23:17:44 GMT Lines: 343 + Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion From: ***@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) Subject: Re: Neutron Materialization Devices; fusion energy engineered, this is a patent Message-ID: (***@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> References: (***@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1993 01:38:42 GMT Lines: 372 ***@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) wrote: NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION DEVICES Inventor: Ludwig Plutonium (legal name as of 08/8/91), previous name Ludwig van Ludvig Assignee: none Ser. No.: 07/737,170 Filing Date: 07/29/91 Reformatted filing: 11JUNE1993 Related U.S. Application Data This is a reformatted, revised application of my 07/737,170. References Cited U.S. Patent Documents ?? concerning muon catalyzed fusion, Alvarez et al at Berkeley ?? concerning cold fusion, Pons, Fleischmannn et al Utah U. ?? concerning cold fusion, Hagelstein & MIT 5,076,971 12/1991 W.A. Barker Other Publications 1* FEYNMAN LECTURES ON PHYSICS Volume I page 2-10, 1963 2* Directions in Physics P.A.M. Dirac, 1975 on pages 76-78 3* Cold Nuclear Fusion The electronlike particles called muons can catalyze nuclear fusion reactions, eliminating the need for powerful lasers or high-temperature plasmas. The process may one day become a commercial energy source Scientific American JUL1987 by J. Rafelski and S.E. Jones, pages 84-89. 4* Bursting a Theory on Gamma-Ray Flashes , Science News 28SEP91 page 196. 5* Jumps in Star Speeds Perplex Astronomers , Science Times of THE NEW YORK TIMES 15SEP92, pages C1 and C9.. 6* Cold Fusion -- One Year Later , Energy & Technology Review (E&TR) OCT1990, pages 1-17. 7* Upper bounds on Ícold fusion' in electrolytic cells , Nature 23NOV89 by D.E.Williams et al, pages 375-384. 8* Measurement and Analysis of Neutron and Gamma-Ray Emission Rates, Other Fusion Products, and Power in Electrochemical Cells Having Pd Cathodes, Journal of Fusion Energy Vol. 9, No. 2, 1990 by D. Albagli et al, pages 133-148. 9* Lukewarm reception for Japanese cold fusion , New Scientist 31OCT92, page 10. 10*Mercury the impossible planet? , New Scientist 1June1991 pages 26-29. 11*The Cosmic Synthesis of Lithium, Beryllium and Boron , Scientific American May 1987, by V.E. Viola and G.J. Mathews pages 39-45 12* PHYSICS OF THE ATOM , 1984,Wehr,Richards, Adair page 366 13* The Character of Physical Law Feynman 1965 page 129 14* Quantum Profiles J. Bernstein, 1991. 15* The Dartmouth 11May1993 page 7 discussing which of the Nobel prizes in physics were wrong and which of the Fields prizes were wrong. 16*PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY : THE UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY, BIOLOGY AND MATHEMATICS 7Nov90. 17* Muffling Umklapp; researchers beat the heat using pure ice, Scientific American SEP90 page 169. 18* Growth of large, high quality diamond crystals at General Electric, American Journal of Physics NOV91 page 1005-1007. 19* A denser, more perfect diamond , Science News 2NOV91 page 287. 20* The ace of diamonds packs them in , New Scientist 9NOV91 page 26. 21* McGRAW-HILL ENCYCLOPEDIA of Science & Technology Vol. 10, 7th Ed. 1992 magnetohydrodynamics pages 327-335 22* CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics 71st edition 1991 pages 10-264 to 10-267 ABSTRACT Detailed in the textbook Feynman Lectures on Physics the physics laws for the strong nuclear force were unknown, and radioactivities (weak nuclear) were only partially known. As of 7Nov90, I assert to know the complete law for radioactivities. The 4 quantum interactions (1) nuclear strong (2) radioactivities (3) electromagnetic (4) gravitation, are more fully explained than the present art of physics. There are 3 components to radioactivities, and these are (1) radioactive decay (2) radioactive growth, and (3) radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. Radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization is the largest in terms of relative coupling strength of the three. Processes to induce radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization results in the engineering of devices for the purpose of harnessing excess heat energy. Numerous physical evidences in support of radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization are detailed below such as (a) muon catalyzed fusion, (b) heat from electrochemical cells of cold fusion experiments, and (c) cosmic gamma ray-bursts. Given the fuller explanation of radioactivities, then processes are followed which induces radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. Devices (apparatuses) are engineered to induce radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization for the purpose of harnessing excess heat energy. Devices ranging from battery sized neutron materialization devices, on up to full scale neutron materialization nuclear power plants are engineered. NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION DEVICES BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION These are not perpetual motion devices but rather the derivation and utilization of radioactivities energy not understood before. The first observers of radioactivity circa late 1800's and early 1900's thought that since some of these radioactive elements were hot, e.g., uranium is warm in the hands and polonium will burn a hole through your hands, and continued to glow in the dark, e.g., radium salts glow green in the dark, that this new phenomenon was perpetual motion. Because of these unexplained radiations, the many new observers of radioactivity were quick to think that this new form of energy was perpetual motion, or violated conservation of energy-mass, or violated other physical laws. Only with quantum theory was radioactivity well understood to accord with theory and experimentation, and regarded as one of the 4 interactions (forces) of physics. Note: the concept interaction comes from Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) and is superior to the concept of force from Classical Physics. I mostly use the concept interaction in this application; reason: quantum physics is the correct physics. The discovery of radioactive decay (rd) occurred 1896, when Becquerel discovered radioactivity from uranium. It required 60 years after the discovery of radioactivity before the uses of radioactivity were applied in producing nuclear power. Fission radioactivity was technologically used in the engineering of nuclear reactors which generates nuclear power, post 1956. The discovery of radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization (rsnm) occurred in late 1990 by myself, Ludwig Plutonium (legal name change 08/8/91 from that of Ludwig van Ludvig). Then in early 1991, I discovered what induces rsnm and subsequently submitted this patent application. The technological use of rsnm will be controlled cold fusion energy by the engineering of Neutron Materialization Power Plants. Quantum mechanics via the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (UP), 1927, predicts virtual particles from out of nowhere which last for only a brief period of time. Virtual particles can be electrons, positrons, neutrons, and even molecules, but generally they are not heavier than electrons. Particle detectors, gas bubble chambers, and CERN confirm the postulation of virtual particles. The pinnacle of modern science up to my teachings was Quantum Electrodynamics (QED). According to QED, the vacuum is filled with electron-positron fields. Real electron-positron pairs are created when photons interact with these fields. Virtual electron-positron pairs, however can also exist for short quantum instants of time via UP. In late 1990, I realized that not only do virtual particles exist but that virtual particles were the first clue of particle materialization from out of nowhere and specifically of neutron materialization. The extension of virtual particles to that of actual materialized particles, and specifically to that of neutrons. Neutrons spontaneously materialize from out of nowhere as a form of radioactivity. This radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization (rsnm) is another form of radioactivities which until 1990 was undiscovered, and the ample evidences, (see below), for rsnm were unrecognized as such. I call it radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization, and I assert it is the major component of the radioactivities interaction (R). There are two other components to radioactivites and these are radioactive decay (rd) and radioactive growth (rg). Feynman in FEYNMAN LECTURES ON PHYSICS Volume I page 2-10, 1963 gives the following (my edited) account of the 4 interactions (forces) of physics with a comparison of relative coupling strengths in the table below: "There seem to be just four kinds of interaction between particles which , in the order of decreasing strength, are the strong nuclear interaction, electromagnetic interactions, electroweak interaction, and gravity. The photon is coupled to all electromagnetic interactions and the strength of the interaction is measured by some number which is 1/137. The detailed law of this coupling is known and is quantum electrodynamics QED. Gravity is coupled to all energy and this law is also known. Then there is the electroweak interaction which causes the neutron to disintegrate into proton, electron, and neutrino. This law is only partly known. The strong nuclear interaction, the meson-baryon interaction, has a strength of 1 on this scale and the law is completely unknown, although there are some known rules such as the number of baryons does not change in any reaction. " Table 2-3. Elementary Interactions Coupling Strength* Law Photon to charged particles ~10 -2 Law known Gravity to all energy ~10 -40 Law known radioactive decay ~10 -5 Law partially known Mesons to baryons ~1 Law unknown (some rules known) *The strength is a dimensionless measure of the coupling constant involved in each interaction ( ~ means approximately equal to). I change some of Feynman's teachings in the table, giving thus : (A) renaming weak nuclear as radioactivities (R). (B) radioactivities (R) consists of 3 components--(1) radioactive decay (rd), (2) radioactive growth (rg), and (3) radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization (rsnm) (C) R is only slightly weaker than the strong nuclear (SN), and the proper listing of the 4 interactions according to strength is 1) strong nuclear, 2) radioactivities 3) electromagnetic 4) gravitation. Before these teachings, the weak nuclear interaction was considered to consist of only two components, i.e., radioactive decay and radioactive growth. I assert that the weak nuclear interaction is an incomplete interaction law (or force law). What was thought of as the weak nuclear interaction before my teachings is only a small part, a small component of the overall radioactivities interaction. The radioactivities interaction consists of 1) radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization, plus 2) radioactive decay (weak nuclear), plus 3) radioactive growth (weak nuclear). Before my teachings in the art of physics 1990, the weak nuclear was vaguely understood as radioactive decay with only a notion of radioactive growth. And leaving out the most important form of radioactivity, that of radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization in order to make the interaction law or (force law) complete. When rd plus rg is added to rsnm, then I assert the interaction (force) law for radioactivities is complete. Thus the complete radioactivities (R) interaction looks like this: R = rd+rg+rsnm. Let me define rd and rg below. Radioactive growth (rg) is when an atom transmutates (transforms) by increasing in atomic number Z, such as when a uranium atom transmutates to a neptunium atom or when a neptunium atom transmutates to a plutonium atom. Radioactive growth is when the original atom goes higher in atomic number. Radioactive growth is when a neutron in the nucleus of an atom transforms into a proton, electron, and neutrino, increasing the atomic number of the original atom. The original atom before the radioactive growth had atomic number Z and after the radioactive growth has atomic number Z+1. Radioactive decay (rd) is when any atom of an atomic number Z transmutates to an atom/s of lower atomic number. For example, when uranium decays to lead and neon. Before 1990, the weak nuclear interaction was known as comprising only radioactive decay and radioactive growth. Shortly after 07/11/1990, I had postulated radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization (rsnm) from Dirac's book Directions in Physics 1975. Special note to the reader of the future: Although I have recalibrated the calendar giving it a scientific basis by starting the year 0000 with the year of the discovery of the element plutonium via nucleosynthesis, that year was 1940 in the old calendar. I choose not to use the new science calendar within this patent application for it may tend to confuse and put an extra burden on the patent examination. Using a science calendar, then the year of the Plutonium Atom Totality discovery is 0050 vice 1990 and the first year of this patent application for Neutron Materialization Devices was 0051 vice 1991. I apologize to those future generations in having to read the un-science of my generation, but they can well understand that Ludwig Plutonium lived in a time when the average person could not give a single math proof nor write out Maxwell's equations. Future generations can understand that Ludwig Plutonium by 0053 lived when sentiment and religion, vice math and physics dominated the planet Earth. Future generations will convert all the years to this new science calendar. P.A.M. Dirac specifically asserted spontaneous materialization of particles from out of nowhere in his book Directions in Physics 1975 on pages 76-78. His book states, and I quote: "Now, according to the Large Number Hypothesis, all these very large dimensionless numbers should be connected together. We should then expect that total mass /proton mass = 10^78 proportional time^2 Using the same argument again, we are therefore led to think that the total number of protons in the Universe is increasing proportionally to time^2. Thus, there must be creation of matter in the Universe, a continuous creation of matter." (Continued.) "According to the ordinary physical processes, which we study in the laboratory, matter is conserved. Here we have direct nonconservation of matter. It is, if you like, a new kind of radioactive process for which there is nonconservation of matter and by which particles are created where they did not previously exist. (Continued.) If there is new matter continually being created, the question arises: "where is it created?" There are two reasonable assumptions which one might make. One is that the new matter is continually created throughout the whole of space, and in that case, it is mostly created in intergalactic space. I call this the assumption of additive creation. Alternatively, one might make the assumption that new matter is created close by where matter already exists. That newly created matter is of the same atomic nature as the matter already existing there. This would mean that all atoms are just multiplying up. I call that the assumption of multiplicative creation." Dirac in his book discusses particle materialization out of nowhere can occur either additive or multiplicative. Dirac proposed particle materialization. I specifically propose neutron materialization and that this neutron materialization occurs both additive and multiplicative simultaneously. I had surmised from Dirac's book by late1990 that something must induce rsnm, but what the induction was I did not discover until 1991. Shortly thereafter submitting the patent application. Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu ::\ ::|:: /:: ::\::|::/:: _ _ (:Y:) - - ::/::|::\:: ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. . \ . . | . /. . . \. . .|. . /. . ..\....|.../... ::\:::|::/:: --------------- ------------- --------------- (Y) ------------- --------------- -------------- ::/:::|::\:: ../....|...\... . . /. . .|. . \. . . / . . | . \ . http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium 2018-04-16 04:01:20 UTC Permalink Raw Message #14page #14page Recalling OLD POSTS on HYASYS and RSNM PART 2 of 3 PHYSICAL EVIDENCES FOR SPONTANEOUS NEUTRON MATERIALIZATION. (1) MUON CATALYZED FUSION. The conventional physics community is in agreement over this form of fusion and readily accepts it. It was theoretically proposed by Frank and Sakharov in the late 1940's. Then Alvarez et al at Berkeley experimentally observed muon catalyzed fusion. These observations have now passed into physics facts, unlike electrochemical test tube cold fusion which is presently hotly contested and not yet established as fact. Muon catalyzed fusion is the pivotal experiment to my theoretical understanding of what induces radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. But where as the physics community thinks that in muon catalyzed experiments that muatoms of hydrogen isotopes bring about after several quantum steps the fusing together of atoms of helium, there theoretical thinking is wrong. What is really going on are several quantum steps of radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. Muon Catalyzed Fusion is physically Muon Induced Radioactive Spontaneous Neutron Materialization. Instead of requiring a changing electric potential difference V with a VandeGraaff machine, or running a changing electric current i through atoms to yield rsnm. It is the muon itself which already supplies the changing V or the changing i. Changing is important for the induction of rsnm. As important as in the laws of electromagnetism. For example, in Faraday's law of induction a changing magnetic field is required. And in Ampere's law of induction as extended by Maxwell, a changing electric field or current are required. Now consider a muon. A muon is just an extended electron, a big electron. When a muon forms a muatom, the muon in the muatom is its own variable VandeGraaff machine already within the muatom. Or a muon is a variable electric current within the muatom. Hence when there are muons in any particular sample of hydrogen isotopes, some of those muons will induce spontaneous materialization of neutrons from out of nowhere resulting in a net energy to the whole system. (2) Uniform Cosmic Gamma Ray-bursts as reported from data by NASA's Gamma Ray Observatory. Gamma rays are mostly highly energetic protons. Gamma Ray-bursts are seen uniformly throughout the sky yet there are no stellar objects for which these gamma rays can be assigned as the source having generated the gamma ray. Since no stellar objects produce these high intensity gamma rays, they are supportive evidence of spontaneously materialized neutrons which radioactively decay into energetic protons, and energetic electrons. Most of the cosmic gamma ray-bursts are of the energy frequency of hydrogen nuclei. Meaning that in space neutrons are spontaneously materialized from out of nowhere and then decay into proton, electron, neutrino system yielding the observed gamma rays. The uniformity of cosmic gamma ray-bursts is explained because spontaneous neutron materialization is a uniform process, as uniform as the uniform process of the Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation. The uniformity explanation entails my revolutionary theory of the Plutonium Atom Totality. That our observable universe is just the 94th electron, the last electron of one atom of the plutonium isotope 231, which acts as a quantum cavity, a quantum blackbody cavity. Here I can easily get too far afield by explaining why the Cosmic Background Radiation is relentlessly uniform with a blackbody temperature of 2.71 K. Why the night sky is dark because it is a quantum blackbody cavity. Why the speeds of stars are quantized, because the stars are inside a quantum blackbody cavity-- the last electron of 231Pu. But instead I refer the interested reader to my textbook, Encl 4. It is noted here that the uniformity of cosmic gamma ray-bursts were discovered after I had submitted my patent application in July of 1991. It is seen that as time goes on, supporting evidence for spontaneous neutron materialization increases. (3) The History of Cold Fusion is summarized as such: F. Paneth and K. Peters in Berlin in 1926; J. Tanberg of Sweden 1927; M. Fleischmann and S. Pons et al in Utah in 1989. But what I have new to tell the world is that it is not a fusion process. It is radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. Noone before me in the history of the world has ever proposed that neutrons come into existence spontaneously, induced through a changing electric current i or induced by a changing electric potential V. Previous to my art, the cold fusion experiments were conducted under false theory, hence their experiments turned out unpredictable. The History of Electrochemical Cold Fusion is one in which none of the pioneers realized the correct theory-- that neutrons spontaneously materialize, and materialize more often when induced by means of a changing electric current i or a changing electric potential V. I claim to know better how both electrochemical cold fusion and hot fusion work. Cold Fusion, test tube experiments were reported by Fleischmann & Pons et al, 1989. The current community of physics professors are mostly virulently opposed to the claims of cold fusion. That community holds little credence in cold fusion. But it is a fact that there are many corporate funded research programs ongoing into cold fusion, to name a few, GE fusion research, NTT researchers, and Fleischmann & Pons laboratory in France. I contend the better part of wisdom would hold that there is something going on in these electrochemical cold fusion experiments. That there is something going on in these experiments of cold fusion is what I assert is rsnm. And if the experimenters would switch fuel masses from heavy water and palladium to that of a better fuel mass of hydrogen or a mixture of hydrogen isotopes applying either changing i or changing V, then rsnm will be seen with predictable results. I assert that if these experiments are conducted with the view of radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization, and not a process of fusing atoms, not fusion. Then the experiments will become clear and the results predictable. (snipped) (4) The origin of the Sun and the planets in our Solar System, I assert, is by radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. Earth is growing more massive every day, every hour, at a rate which is not difficult to measure. The physics and astronomy community assigns this known fact of the growing accretion of the Earth to only one account, that of the sweep of Earth in its orbit collecting cosmic gas, dust, and objects. I assert that Earth is growing more massive daily by two accounts, one from the outer space planetary sweep, but more importantly from the other account of rsnm occurring in the interior of Earth induced through the changing electric current i and changing electric potential V inside Earth. When astronomers try to reconcile the account figure for Earth's daily mass accretion from cosmic sweep alone, it is not enough. I assert that the daily mass accretion by Earth is equal to the Earth's accretion from outer space plus Earth's internal accretion by rsnm. The outer space accretion is small in comparison to the internal accretion. Sea floor spreading, continental drift are a consequence of radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization in the Earth's center. The Earth of the past was a smaller planet explaining well Wegener's Gondwanaland and Continental Drift theory. The current conventional community of astronomers and physicists subscribe to some cosmic gaseous cloud approximately 5-10 billion years ago from which the protosun and protoearth formed. This is what conventional astronomy panders off. The present physics community believes that the daily mass accretion of the Earth must all come from the cosmic sweep of gas, dust, and objects. It is so sad that physics and astronomy subscribe so much to interstellar gas. They go even further by subscribing importance to intergalactic gas. They wish to explain the origin of our Sun and our planets to a primordial gas cloud. It is so sad that modern physics has reached the heights of quantum theory, and yet the accepted explanation to such important questions as the origin of planets and the origin of the stars is still back in the caveman-realm-of-thought of dust and gas clouds. Readers must ask themselves whether gas clouds should be a reasonable science explanation for much in physics and astronomy. Cosmic gas cloud hypothesis is highly suspect. The real truth I posit for the origin of planets and stars, and again I am ahead of my time, is that the Sun is a dot of the Schroedinger wave equation. A dot of the probability density distribution, a dot of the electron cloud for the 94th electron of the 231 Plutonium Atom Totality. Dots of the electron cloud are loci where large quantity of radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization occur. Protosun and Protoearth started out as a dot of the Schroedinger wave equation,i.e., a collection of atoms, which grew via rsnm to our presently observed Sun and planet Earth. This again leads into my revolutionary theory of the Plutonium Atom Totality, and I will not stray afield here but refer the interested reader to my enclosed textbook for more understanding. (5) The anomalous facts concerning the planet Mercury. The planet Mercury has 2 outstanding anomalous facts: 1) huge iron core and 2) a magnetic field. Conventional physics and astronomy are dumbfounded in explaining these two facts. But an easy and clear explanation is rsnm. The planet Mercury as all planets are dots of the electron cloud of the 94th electron of plutonium. Dots of the Schroedinger wave equation is where electromagnetic potential and current exists, and wherever it exists there occurs rsnm. (6) The case of the light chemical elements emitted from the middle of the planet Earth, e.g., helium, lithium are inexplicable by science previous to 1990, in that these elements should have escaped a long time ago, yet they continue to spew forth in steady amount. The community of physicists and geologists have no explanation. I have the explanation with radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization, since rsnm makes neutrons which some decay into hydrogen and rsnm takes some hydrogen and forms helium and with helium rsnm sometimes forms lithium. So there is a continual production and escape of newly formed light elements from the middle of the Earth. (7) The case for the light chemical elements and their anomalous quantity found in stars. The light elements of lithium, beryllium, and boron are found in too large of a proportion in stars to be accountable by fusion. For stars are so hot that these light elements would have been burned-off and the theoretical rate of creation by hot fusion of new lithium, beryllium, and boron are too low to what is actually observed. Here again is another disagreement of hot fusion theory with respect to the observables, i.e., more lithium, beryllium, and boron in stars than what there should be. And yet there are not enough light elements in the intergalactic regions of space. In summary, where the light elements are found in abundance-- hot stars they should not be there, and where they are not found in abundance-- intergalactic space, there should be more of them there. The explanation for these anomalous facts is easy once radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization is seen as the active working process. In intergalactic space there is little to no changing electric potential V or changing current flow i, and so there is little neutron materialization to form these light elements. But in stars, it is not so much that they are hot and burn off the light elements but that stars continually create via neutron materialization these light elements because of the highly changing V and i of star plasmas. (8) The cosmic abundance elements, and the uniform distribution of the chemical elements in the observable universe in the proportions that they are observed is strong evidence in support for the process of radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. Again the physics community explains the uniformity due to gaseous intergalactic clouds as a result of supernovae. But supernova are rare events. (9) The observation that when electric current i flowing through wires or through a light bulb filament or incandescent lamps are hot and eventually the wires or filaments or other parts wear-out due to the high temperatures. Those high temperatures are a result of radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization when i varies. And before these teachings, it was inexplicable as to how atoms of zinc Z=30 contaminated copper Z=29 wire, or atoms of rhenium Z=75 contaminated light bulb filaments or heating coils made of tungsten Z=74 in these materials after running electric current in the materials. With rsnm it is a direct consequence that a copper wire will have atoms of zinc, and a tungsten filament or heater will have atoms of rhenium after running a changing electric current i through, because there is radioactive growth of some of the original atoms because of rsnm. Check chemical analysis of spent electric wires and filaments by General Electric, Philips, Siemens, et al. (10) Although the missing 2/3 count of neutrinos from the Sun is not direct evidence of spontaneous neutron materialization, it is direct evidence that the currently accepted theory of hot fusion is incorrect. Why is there a missing 2/3 count? I contend that there is not a missing count of neutrinos. The mistake the physics community makes is that the 4 forces are misapplied in the theory. That when strong nuclear and gravity are considered to the 100% exclusion of radioactivities and electromagnetism then the measured neutrino count accords with theory. Vice versa, if radioactivities and electromagnetism are considered to the 100% exclusion of strong nuclear and gravity, then the actual measured neutrino count accords with theory. The 2/3 missing neutrino count from the Sun is indirect support for spontaneous neutron materialization since the neutrino count of the Sun puts the Sun and all stars, all plasma physics into quantum physics. The 4 interactions (forces) of physics have to be treated as 2 groups of 2 interactions as quantum complementary duals. The Complementary Principle states: The wave and the particle aspects of a quantum entity are both necessary for a complete description. However, both aspects cannot be revealed simultaneously in a single experiment. The aspect that is revealed is determined by the nature of the experiment being done. The 1/3 actual count of neutrinos from the Sun accords well with theory once the theory makes predictions from the use of either SN and G, excluding R and EM, and vice versa. Consider hot fusion of the Sun. And consider the neutrinos coming from the Sun. What is the nature of the neutrinos emitted through hot fusion from the Sun? What is the nature of hot fusion? Is hot fusion partially that of strong nuclear force, radioactivities force, electromagnetic force, and the force of gravity all at once? Or is hot fusion only the strong nuclear and gravity forces to the exclusion of the radioactive and electromagnetic forces? If one sets-up experimental apparatuses which measure neutrinos emitted from the Sun via the strong nuclear and gravity forces to the exclusion of radioactivities and electromagnetic forces, then that count will by different from the count theorized when all 4 forces are considered at once. (11) Patent 5,076,971 W.A. Barker 12/1991 Method for Enhancing Alpha Decay in Radioactive Materials . This method is true in practice but the theory outlined by W.A. Barker is false. The true theory behind this invention is spontaneous neutron materialization which transmutates some of the original atoms into other radioactive atoms which then decay more quickly then what the original atom was, decay into stable atoms. W.A. Barker is wrong when he asserts that rates of radioactive decay are mutable and can be enhanced, and a better term other than enhancing is alteration. Alteration of some of the original atoms in a sample. An elementary physics text will confirm with me that rates of radioactive decay are immutable: PHYSICS OF THE ATOM , 1984,Wehr, Richards, Adair on page 366 states "In showing that radioactive radiations came from uranium metal, Becquerel worked with many uranium salts and the metal itself. He used these materials crystallized, cast, and in solution. In every case it appeared that the radiations were proportional to the concentration of the uranium. It has been found that this proportionality between radiation intensity and uranium concentration continues unchanged through variations of temperature, electric and magnetic fields, pressure, and chemical composition. Since the radioactive behavior of uranium is independent of the environment of the uranium atom or its electronic structure, which changes from compound to compound, the radioactive properties of uranium were attributed to its nucleus." (snip) Dirac would agree from his book Directions in Physics that spontaneous neutron materialization is a direct violation of the conservation of energy-mass. But conservation violation is nothing new, for example: (i) It was experimentally shown that the conservation of parity was violated in 1956 by Lee and Yang. (ii) And later it was experimentally shown that charge conjugation multiply parity (CP) were not conserved. See 1964 Cronin and Fitch. (iii) It is now thus inferred by assuming if time reversal multiply charge conjugation multiply parity (TCP) is a good symmetry, that time reversal symmetry is violated. The conservation of time reversal symmetry means that if time could run backwards, would it be acceptable to the laws of physics? My textbook and this patent application both assert that the conservation of energy-mass is continually violated by the universe at large. The universe at large has to grow somehow? The present community of physics professors believe the most likely scenario of growth is the Big Bang model of the universe. I say that model is wrong. The observable universe, what we think of as the universe at large, is only the last electron of one atom of plutonium. The planet Earth is inside a Plutonium Atom Totality, a part of the 94th electron cavity. The Plutonium Atom Totality grows by radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. (snipped) My textbook PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY : THE UNIFICATION OF PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY, BIOLOGY AND MATHEMATICS 7Nov90, gives broader discussion of radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization and quantum principles which are broadly relevant to this patent application. My textbook asserts a combined generalization of the uncertainty principle, complementary principle, exclusion principle, and superposition principle in which it formulates spontaneous materialization of neutrons out of nowhere occurs throughout the observable universe both additive and multiplicative simultaneously. I bring-up my textbook because the idea and theory of radioactive neutron materialization was discovered by me during the course of writing this textbook in 1990. This patent application is a direct result of my theoretical physics thinking about the Plutonium Atom Totality. If it were not for this discovery of the atom totality, and the textbook I would have never discovered radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. What technical difficulties are there in rsnm devices? 1) It is very difficult to measure the exact count of a specific number of atoms. And extremely difficult to measure the specific count of neutrons of those counted atoms. Measuring exact counts of atoms and the neutrons of those atoms before running a changing electric current i or changing electromagnetic potential V through those atoms and checking the count afterwards is extremely difficult and never exact. 2) It is extremely difficult, and perhaps theoretically impossible to manufacture a slab of a 100% isotope of an element, whether stable or radioactive, and in the case of hydrogen gas a container of pure hydrogen. It seems as if there is always contamination by other isotopes. This contamination is in fact support of my claim of radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. That rsnm results in all samples as being impure and never reaching 100% purity. See reports on GE striving to manufacture a 100% pure carbon isotope diamond. In theory, I assert the impossibility of ever achieving 100% purity is another formulation of the Uncertainty Principle of quantum physics. 3) The best fuels for Neutron Materialization Power Plants are hydrogen isotopes, but hydrogen isotopes are very explosive and dangerous to work around when running either a changing electric current i or a changing electromagnetic potential V through. Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu ::\ ::|:: /:: ::\::|::/:: _ _ (:Y:) - - ::/::|::\:: ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. . \ . . | . /. . . \. . .|. . /. . ..\....|.../... ::\:::|::/:: --------------- ------------- --------------- (Y) ------------- --------------- -------------- ::/:::|::\:: ../....|...\... . . /. . .|. . \. . . / . . | . \ . http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium 2018-04-16 07:21:51 UTC Permalink Raw Message #15page #15page Recalling OLD POSTS on HYASYS and RSNM PART 3 of 3 DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION There are 4 and only 4 interactions. These are (1) Strong Nuclear (SN) (2) Gravitation (G) (3) Radioactivities (R), and (4) Electromagnetism (EM). There are 4 and only 4 quantum principles. These are (1) Uncertainty (UP) (2) Complementary (CP) (3) Superposition (SP), and (4) Pauli (PP). The Complementary Principle states: The wave and the particle aspects of a quantum entity are both necessary for a complete description. However, both aspects cannot be revealed simultaneously in a single experiment. The aspect that is revealed is determined by the nature of the experiment being done. By the fact of CP there exists at least 1 group of complementary duals. This 1 group consists of particle and wave. Where particle + wave = the whole description. I propose other groups of CP. Taking the 4 interactions as 2 groups of complementary duals. Then one group is Strong Nuclear and Gravity, represented as SN+G = whole description. The other group is Radioactivities (R) and Electromagnetism (EM), represented as R+EM = whole description. Applying CP to starpower. Starpower is physically measurable as either SN+G with never any R nor ever any EM. Or, starpower is physically measurable as either R+EM with never any SN nor ever any G. Thinking quantumwise, hot fusion of our Sun is a measurement from experimental set-ups for SN+G, and excluding all of R+EM. But our Sun can be measured as a huge radioactivities pile R along with electromagnetism EM, written as R+EM for a complete description. This complete description of R+EM must exclude all of SN+G. According to CP since SN+G = whole description, and R+EM = whole description. Then the relative coupling strengths of the 4 interactions has the mathematical equivalence as thus SN+G=R+EM. The relative coupling strength of SN is highest and if assigned the value 1 then gravity is experimentally measured at 10^-40 . But, 1 + 10^-40 is for all practical purposes still 1. The fact that SN+G ~1 implies that since SN+G=R+EM, then R+EM ~1. Since EM has a relative coupling strength to SN of .01, implies that R is .99. For all practical purposes then, R almost equals SN. But according to Feynman's Table of 1963, the weak nuclear (radioactive decay) has a relative coupling strength of 10-5. Since relative coupling strength for radioactive growth is even less than radioactive decay implies that there must exist another form of radioactivities other than rd and rg to complete the interaction law. Since in hot fusion processes of SN+G, hydrogen is transmutated into helium. And hydrogen which has only 1 proton and 1 electron (essentially a 1 neutron system) transmutated into helium containing 2 protons, 2 neutrons, and 2 electrons (essentially a 4 neutron system). Then the form of radioactivities which completes the radioactivities interaction (R) is radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization (rsnm). In the case of hydrogen transmutation to helium, there are 3 neutrons spontaneously materialized with one of those neutrons decaying, subsequent proton capture, electron capture. So, rsnm has the relative coupling strength of nearly .99, almost the same as SN at 1. I give Feynman's 1963 Table with my 1991 reinterpretation considering quantum principles applied to the 4 interactions: New Table for Elementary Interactions Coupling Strength Law Photon to charged particles ~ .01 Law known Gravity to all energy ~ 10^-40 Law known radioactivities rsnm+rd+rg ~ .99 Law known Mesons to baryons ~ 1 Law still unknown but more rules known Compare my table with that of Feynman's Table given above. The largest change is in the category of radioactivity. Feynman's of 1963 is this: radioactive decay ~10 ^-5 Law partially known . What I assert as new to the art of physics is that I drastically change Feynman's Table as given in 1963 and accepted all the way up to 1991. I change the art of physics through the application of quantum principles. An atom can act either energylike or timelike, and it exists in a probabilistic quantum state until a measurement is made. If energylike property is measured, the atom behaves like energy, and if a timelike property is measured, the atom behaves like time. Whether the atom is energylike or timelike is not well defined until the experimental conditions are specified. Bohr asserted that the set-up of a device determines what is measured. To measure mostly one of two noncommutative properties then the device must be so set-up such that "an influence on the very conditions which define the possible types of predictions regarding the future behavior of the system." Rewording Bohr's thought to radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization devices is: to measure mostly rsnm instead of electromagnetism requires the set-up of devices in which rsnm prevails over electromagnetism. The relative coupling strength of SN compared to EM is about 100 to 1. This implies that the relative coupling strength of SN compared to R is about 100 to 99. The periodic chart of chemical elements is evidence in agreement with these numbers. Element 100 is at the limit of statistical half-life to Spontaneous Fission stability since that is the relative coupling strength of SN to EM. Spontaneous Fission half-life instability rapidly increases with atomic number Z=99, element 99, implying that SN is balanced by R+EM when Z=100. Dirac proposed particle materialization in his book Directions in Physics. Specifically I propose neutron materialization and that this neutron materialization occurs both additive and multiplicative simultaneously. Neutron materialization occurs most often in stars in their hydrogen plasmas. Stars are magnetohydrodynamic plasmas obeying laws of electromagnetism. I refer the reader to magnetohydrodynamics, McGRAW-HILL ENCYCLOPEDIA of Science & Technology Vol. 10, 7th Ed. 1992 magnetohydrodynamics pages 327-335. I assert that a star in magnetohydrodynamics is radioactivities and electromagnetism. Hot fusion is looking at a star as predominantly SN with the quantum complementary dual of G. When a physicist wants to measure the dynamics of starpower with what is known as hot fusion, then the physicist must consider only the complementary duals of SN+G to the 100% exclusion of R+EM. But if the same physicist wanted to measure the dynamics of starpower using R+EM, then he must exclude 100% all interactions of both SN and G. Before 1991 a physicist trying to explain stellar dynamics by using strong nuclear and gravity and then mixing in the weak nuclear force and electromagnetic force was wrong. Stellar dynamics using only strong nuclear and gravitation is correct once all radioactivities and electromagnetism are excluded. The strong nuclear force is the main component of hot fusion. Hot fusion is described for the Sun where P is a proton, E an electron, N a neutron. The reaction in the Sun is P+ (P+ E- + antineutrino) into PN PN + P into PNP+ gamma ray PNP+ PNP into NPNP+ P+ P + energy But what I am teaching and this is new to the art, is that a star is measurable quantum mechanically by the complementary duals of radioactivities and electromagnetism. Stellar dynamics using only radioactivities and electromagnetism is correct once all strong nuclear and gravity are excluded. Our Sun then is seen as a radioactive pile with electromagnetism going on. Within this scheme then magnetohydrodynamics plasma fields come into the calculations. The Sun and stars are no longer seen as hot fusion spheres but instead radioactive spheres. Where rsnm is the main activity. This activity is described for the Sun where P is a proton, E an electron, N an already existing neutron, N* a spontaneous materialized neutron. The reaction in the Sun is P into PN*+ energy then PN into PNN*+ energy then PNN* into PNP+ gamma ray PNP into N*PNP+ energy What induces radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization? Since radioactivities is the quantum complementary dual to the electromagnetic, then induction for rsnm is to run either a changing electric current i or a changing electric potential difference V through a fuel mass. Any fuel mass will work but some are better than others. The best fuel mass are hydrogen and isotopes of hydrogen. The second best fuel mass are the radioactive isotopes. Here is a list of some possible fuel mass elements for radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. The following data are the electron binding energies for several elements where the units are electron volts. The source of this information is CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics 71st edition 1991 pages 10-264 to 10-267: Hydrogen (1) K 1s 16.0 Helium (2) K 1s 24.6 Oxygen (8) LI 2s 41.6 Argon (18) MIII 3p3/2 15.7 Iron (26) MIII 3p3/2 52.7 Zinc (30) MV 3d5/2 10.1 Krypton (36) NIII 4p3/2 14.1 Rubidium (37) NIII 4p3/2 15.3 Palladium (46) NIII 4p3/2 50.9 Silver (47) NIII 4p3/2 58.3 Cadmium (48) NV 4d5/2 10.7 Xenon (54) OIII 5p3/2 12.1 Cesium (55) OIII 5p3/2 12.1 Barium (56) OIII 5p3/2 14.8 Gold (79) OIII 5p3/2 57.2 Mercury (80) OV 5d5/2 7.8 Thallium (81) OV 5d5/2 12.5 Francium (87) PIII 6p3/2 15 Actinium (89) PIII 6p3/2 ? Thorium (90) PIII 6p3/2 16.6 Protoactinium (91) PIII 6p3/2 ? Uranium (92) PIII 6p3/2 16.8 The element mercury, since the binding energy for its last electron is so low at 7.8 entails that mercury is a better fuel mass for electrochemical cold fusion cells, vice heavy water. Like a double-slit Uncertainty Principle experiment, if i or V were known with 100% accuracy then rsnm would be 0%. In the language of quantum physics, when the current or potential is fixed then the wavefunction is collapsed. But when the current i or potential V are variable then the wavefunction is not collapsed, permitting rsnm to materialize. Thus the i and V must be variable. On a macroscopic level the answer to how to induce rsnm is to run a variable i or variable V on a fuel mass such as hydrogen. On a microscopic level the answer on how to induce rsnm is that it occurs most frequently when an additional electron, one more than the number of protons in the nucleus of that particular atom results. Microscopically, where rsnm occurs and what induces it is an atom which is topheavy with an additional electron beyond its chemical element number of electrons, thus exciting the materialization of a neutron from out of nowhere. For example, a hydrogen atom has only 1 electron and 1 proton, but for an instant-of-quantum-time a hydrogen atom can have 2 electrons and 1 proton. Or in the case of a plutonium atom with 94 electrons and 94 protons, it can for an instant-of-quantum-time have 95 electrons, but still have only 94 protons and remain still a plutonium atom. A hydrogen atom with 1 electron and 1 proton, if when another electron is added to the hydrogen atom system then for that instant-of-quantum-time this hydrogen atom consists of 2 electrons and 1 proton. The additional electron quantum mechanically induces rsnm in the nucleus. Subsequently, this neutron, having materialized, can either stay as a neutron in the original atom system, or radioactively decay into a proton, electron, and neutrino. If the materialized neutron remains in the nucleus of the original atom system of hydrogen, then that hydrogen atom can transform into a helium atom plus energy subsequent to the materialization of two more neutrons. The most apparent electron quantum induction for rsnm are star plasmas. The stars and Sun via plasma matter are vast electron inducers which quantum mechanically excite, induce rsnm. Our Sun is a device which has both a large changing electron current i flow and a large changing electric potential V, by the fact that it is mostly all hydrogen plasma. Before my teachings the Sun was seen as a large hot fusion device wherein the theory of hot fusion did not accord with the experimental observations for the process, e.g., the missing neutrino count. With my teachings the Sun is seen as a radioactive pile with electromagnetic plasma and there is no missing neutrino count once the correct theory is matched with the observations. The 2/3 missing neutrino count was a result of matching an incorrect theory to the observation. I assert that when the electrons of an atom are electrically excited by adding more electrons to the atom such as in a plasma state of matter in stars, then rsnm occurs. Once a neutron is materialized, it either decays into a hydrogen atom plus energy or if it materialized inside the nucleus of a preexisting atom transforming that atom into a different atom or a different isotope. Any chemical element/s, compounds, or molecules can be quantum mechanically induced into rsnm. However, hydrogen and hydrogen isotopes are the best fuels for induction to rsnm, for reason of its 1 electron subshell can easily accommodate an additional electron and still remain a hydrogen atom, having 1 proton but 2 electrons. This additional electron induces the atom into rsnm. In general, the radioactive elements/isotopes will quantum induce rsnm faster than nonradioactive elements/isotopes. The reason for this is that since radioactivities is the complementary dual to electromagnetism that a prevalence of electrons occurs via radioactive electron decay emission. Commonly known as beta decay. A sample of radioactive elements emit their own electrons which can result in electron capture by some of the atoms in the sample, consequently there is an atom which for a short quantum time has Z+1 electrons yet a Z number of protons. The rate of occurrence of rsnm for radioactive elements is governed by half-life radioactive decay and is based on the formula for radioactive rate of decay exp-lt. Using Dirac's rate of materialization as time squared t^2, and substituting t^2 into the radioactive growth and radioactive decay rate formula results in a normal Gaussian distribution curve. Thus my invention consists of processes for inducing radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization, and the devices or apparatuses engineered for the purpose of deriving energy from rsnm. These devices can range from the small size such as batteries, a collection of batteries, or test tube equipment in a science laboratory, such as electrochemical cells, on up to devices the size of a nuclear power plant. Such a neutron materialization nuclear power plant will be of a much simpler design over previous fission reactor power plants or hot fusion reactors since the energy output is not dependent on fissionable or fusionable products, rather on neutron materialization. The fuel mass of neutron materialization devices will last much longer as a fuel since the choice of a fuel can be any chemical element/s, compounds, or molecules, radioactive or not. A neutron materialization nuclear power plant can use a nonradioactive element fuel mass such as iron or hydrogen and thus safer and cleaner. Or a neutron materialization nuclear power plant can use a less dangerous radioactive isotope of thorium, uranium, or plutonium for the fuel mass. The fuel mass will have a changing electric current i flowing, or a changing electric potential V through it. The best chemical elements to use are hydrogen, and hydrogen isotopes and the radioactive elements such as plutonium, uranium, thorium, and californium. Any chemical element/s, compounds, or molecules can act as a fuel mass. Once a fuel is placed in the containment vessel, a changing electric current i is run through the fuel mass, or a changing electric potential V goes through the fuel. The containment vessel is surrounded by a substance such as water or some other substance which captures the most amount of heat from radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. These nuclear devices are an exploitation of excess heat from rsnm, a confirmation of quantum mechanical principles of uncertainty and complementary, but a violation of the conservation of energy-mass. All such devices constructed will confirm excess heat produced from the materialization of neutrons out of nowhere and thus will show the violation of energy-mass conservation. The changing i or changing V through the fuel mass will induce rsnm resulting in a net increase in total energy of the isolated system. The changing i or changing V will cause induction of rsnm resulting in net increase in total energy going out which will be observable and measurable as excess heat. The excess heat can then be converted to other usable forms of energy such as electricity. I assert that spontaneous neutron materialization is going on all around us, in stars, in the Earth. Where ever there is the strong nuclear-gravitation interaction, there is the radioactivities-electromagnetism interaction. The one group of SN+G is interchangeable and superpositioned with the other group R+EM. So, what we generally attribute to the forces of the strong nuclear-gravitation is replaceable or superposed by the radioactivities-electromagnetism. Before these teachings, a physicist would look at the Sun and say the Sun is a hot fusion device (strong nuclear force is the fusing with consequent energy emission) where gravity is pulling in hydrogen atoms and then fusing hydrogen atoms to make helium atoms with a resultant energy. I would transpose that idea and say that the Sun is a radioactivities device (mostly rsnm) where the Sun's matter is in the form of plasma, and thus the Sun is a large electromagnetic device also with changing current flow and changing electric potential and so neutrons spontaneously materialize most of which transmutate into new hydrogen atoms via radioactive decay, but some hydrogen atoms materializing neutrons inside their nucleus transmutating into new helium atoms and giving-up excess energy. I see the Sun as two pictures in which both are the same only looking at them from different quantum duals. The one is hot fusion of hydrogen into helium in the Sun made possible by the gravitational force with strong force. This is our current conventional view and it is correct if and only if radioactivities plus electromagnetism were 100% excluded. The other is the radioactivities and electromagnetism interaction where the Sun is a large collection of hydrogen atoms where spontaneous neutron materialization occurs frequently within these hydrogen atoms, transmutating hydrogen into helium heating the solar system. The foregoing detailed description of the invention has been presented for the purposes of illustration and description. It is not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the invention to the precise form disclosed. Many modifications and variations are possible in light of the above teaching. It is intended that the scope of the invention be limited not by this detailed description, but rather by the claims appended hereto. My invention covers more than just the precise thing described. It is a broad theory, and any device that is within the language of the claims is to be within the coverage of the patent. This is to prevent others from pointing to specific examples and arguing that the patent is limited to these. PRIOR DEVICES None known which are engineered for the purpose of deriving and utilizing net excess energy from radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. Noone has applied the correct theory to either hot fusion energy nor cold fusion energy. Noone before me has propounded the process of radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. And noone before me has had the idea that running a changing electric current i or an changing electric potential difference V through a fuel mass, especially hydrogen, hydrogen isotopes or the radioactive elements such as thorium, protoactinium, uranium, plutonium, californium will result in a net excess of energy. Net energy in the case of hydrogen, or hydrogen isotopes not from the chemistry of hydrogen but from nuclear neutron materialization. And net energy in the case for radioactive elements, not from the emission products of radioactive decay but from a new kind of radioactivity-- spontaneous neutron materialization out of nowhere. SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION Radioactivities interaction is comprised of three components-- (1) radioactive decay (rd) plus (2) radioactive growth (rg) plus (3) radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization (rsnm). Of these three, rsnm is the strongest in terms of relative coupling strength. The electromagnetic interaction is a quantum complementary dual to the radioactivities interaction. Thus a variable flow of electric current i or a variable electric potential V through any fuel mass will induce the materialization of neutrons from out of nowhere and that devises can be set-up, engineered, and constructed to utilize the energy of neutron materialization. CLAIM FOR THE INVENTION I claim: 1. Devices constructed, engineered, and set-up for the purpose of deriving, and using net energy from radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization. 2. A method for induction of radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization comprising: a changing electric current i flow through the fuel mass a changing electric potential difference V through the fuel mass. Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu ::\ ::|:: /:: ::\::|::/:: _ _ (:Y:) - - ::/::|::\:: ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. . \ . . | . /. . . \. . .|. . /. . ..\....|.../... ::\:::|::/:: --------------- ------------- --------------- (Y) ------------- --------------- -------------- ::/:::|::\:: ../....|...\... . . /. . .|. . \. . . / . . | . \ . http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium 2018-04-16 18:57:29 UTC Permalink Raw Message #16page #16page Recalling OLD POSTS on HYASYS and RSNM Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 17:38:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: three more history posts of mine needed Re: I need my old RSNM theory and HYASYS theory in light of discovery Real Electron=105MeV From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 01:38:49 +0000 three more history posts of mine needed Re: I need my old RSNM theory and HYASYS theory in light of discovery Real Electron=105MeV AP writes in 2018: below are three more important history posts of mine dealing with both Hydrogen Atom Systems HYASYS and that of RSMM, (called RSNM back then) I need these for history sake in light of the magnificent discovery in 2017 that the Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton=840MeV and the .5MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole. The below contain mistakes, but the value of HYASYS and RSMM overshadows any mistakes on my part. Newsgroups: sci.chem From: ***@dartmouth.edu (Ludwig Plutonium) Subject: ELEMENT 0, THE NEUTRON Message-ID: (***@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1993 03:15:11 GMT Lines: 22 What I especially want to emphasize are any superlatives of the elements, i.e. , the chemical properties and the nuclear properties which each element has which are unique, aside from the fact of the uniqueness of atomic number. Please point out any superlatives which I have overlooked. If there are mistakes in these descriptions please notify me of the mistakes. Element 0, neutron, Xyz, is a subatomic particle which has an overall neutral charge, a 0 charge, but has an internal distribution of charge as revealed through scattering experiments. Neutrons are small magnets allowing for the production of beams of neutrons. Neutrons are indispensable in the building-up of the elements for it is impossible for 2 or more protons to exist in a stable condition in a nucleus (distance range of about 10^-13 cm) without neutrons. The neutron has spin of +1/2 in terms of h/(2pi), and so acts as a fermion. The neutron with atomic mass of 1.008665 has slightly more mass than a hydrogen atom at 1.00794. Of all the atoms, only the hydrogen atom has no neutron. A neutron by itself is very unstable and it quickly radioactively decays into a hydrogen atom system of proton plus electron. The half-life of a neutron is 10.61+ 0.16 minutes, and it radioactively decays into a hydrogen atom. In the free state, neutrons are important as a propagating agent for fission chain reactions. From: ***@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.math Subject: Dirk Horst thinks the universe is unbalanced in electric charge Date: 19 Sep 1995 01:31:41 GMT Organization: Plutonium College Lines: 20 A free neutron decays into a proton and an electron. This is not the same thing as a Hydrogen atom. A Hydrogen atom is a proton that has an electron ORBITING it. I doubt that very many free neutron decay events have the result of forming a hydrogen atom. The proton and electron are far more likely to "go their own way". If I am wrong on this, I'd like to hear your sources. I am looking through Feynman or other sources. But, it is my intuition that in a neutron decay, the universe is balanced in charge by seeing quantum physics wise that the neutron was a hydrogen atom inside it. No matter, how separate or which directions the neutron decay must be a hydrogen atom system. In fact, all atoms are simply composed of hydrogen atoms plus added energy. Thus, 231PU is just 231 hydrogen atoms plus energy. Such a conception of all atoms violates no quantum mechanics rules or principles. But the opposite conception implies "free" charge which does violate QM. From: ***@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.plutonium,sci.physics,sci.physics. electromag,sci.physics.fusion,sci.physics.accelerators,sci.physics.particle Subject: All atoms are Hydrogen Atom Systems -> Superposition Principle Date: 20 Sep 1995 00:37:44 GMT Organization: Plutonium College Lines: 45 Message-ID: (43nnoo$***@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

All atoms are hydrogen atom systems (hasys). By system I mean it is a
hydrogen atom + extra energy. When the extra energy term is 0, then it
is just a ordinary hydrogen atom. A neutron is a hydrogen atom with
extra energy.

The Superposition Principle of QM, is merely an equivalent statement
to the fact that all matter is the linear equations sums of Hydrogen
Atom Systems.

Reverse, if all atoms were not the sum total of Hydrogen Atom
Systems, eg, 231PU, plutonium is merely 231 Hydrogen Atom Systems,
then, physics esq Quantum Physics would have never had a Superposition
principle.

In other words, I have reduced the Superposition Principle of QM, and
the fact that physics is linear,  linear,   linear  partial
differential equations,  is because all matter, all atoms are built up
from one building block Hydrogen Atom Systems.

The reason neutrons act as glue for the protons is because the
neutron shares that electron inside it with neighboring protons. The
nucleus is sort of like a "metallic bond".

The Superposition Principle == Hydrogen Atom Systems.

Now, the bleeding gutter snipes of physics will be quick to spew
"well what about quarks?"  And I tell you what is about quarks. Quarks
are merely the fact that in math, there exists 3 and only 3
geometries-- Riem, Eucl, and Loba and when you have an entity that is
not ever reducible down further, or incapable of being further cut,
like a proton, then it reveals all 3 possible geometries
simultaneously. Quarks are not physics reality. Quark are merely the
statement that a particle like a proton is bundled up into the 3 and
only 3 existing geometries simultaneously.  So do not bother about the
mindrot of quarks when talking about the real physics, that of Hydrogen
Atom Systems.

And don't drivel about a electron beam or proton beam being protons
and electrons in "isolation". That is circus clown physics. The Bell
Inequality evinces that proton and electron are always tied or
correlated.

If Hydrogen Atom Systems is not true, then the Superposition
Principle of QM plus the Conservation of Charge plus the Bell
Inequality are not true.

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu

::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ .  . | .   /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
---------------      -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
---------------      --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / .  . | .   \ .

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

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-16 20:26:12 UTC
Raw Message
#17page

#17page

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 15:17:58 -0800 (PST)

Subject: new understanding of how stars and Sun shine with energy-- RSMM// I
need my old RSNM theory and HYASYS theory in light of discovery Real Electron=105MeV
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2018 23:17:58 +0000

new understanding of how stars and Sun shine with energy-- RSMM// I need my old RSNM theory and HYASYS theory in light of discovery Real Electron=105MeV

Alright good, the greatest physicist of the 20th century was Dirac. Yet the dumb stupid people in physics followed Einstein. This is a warning to all future generations. If you love science, you probably love a scientist, and if you pick the correct scientist to admire, you probably will succeed. But, if you pick a bozo of science to admire, you probably will end up just frustrated in the end.

Dirac had the superior physics mind in the 1900s, and he left with two burning, yes burning questions-- both seen in his Directions of Physics book. The question of Magnetic Monopole, and the question of what I have dubbed RSNM.

Now, let me relate to you, my own personal history, so future historians will not mess that up (hopefully). On the month of the discovery of Atom Totality theory in 1990, I first learned of Dirac's Directions in Physics and read it and realized that Dirac was the closest of all physicists to a Atom Totality theory-- with his New Radioactivities, a nonconservation idea in his book.

But, I accepted fully his idea of a magnetic monopole and from 1990 on to about 2016 I fully accepted Dirac's monopole, and then, because I could never find this monopole from 1990 to 2016, while writing my book Atom Totality 8th edition, that in 2016 I reversed my stance on the Dirac monopole and gave up, that it did not exist. So from 1990 to 2016 I believed wholeheartedly that Dirac's monopole existed, but because I could not find anything to be the monopole in all those years, I gave up in 2016. But then, in 2016 I discovered that the proton at 938 was just a tiny percentage off of being 945 as 9 muons. To me, a .7% off is like being spot on, for my mind is not clouded as almost every physicist of my generation has a clouded mind. For I know that physics, when it is 945 and experiments fetch 938, is not the experiments that tell the story, but rather the .7% that tells the story. So, in 2016 I was writing the book Atom Totality and had dismissed Dirac's monopole for the first time in my life I dismissed something of Dirac. Even going so far as to say-- you cannot have a monopole and have the Maxwell Equations. That is how far my mind can swing-- totally devoted to Dirac, and once broken swing so vastly in the opposite direction. A good mind in science has to be prepared for swing of thought.

Anyway, my discovery of 9muons = 1 proton in 2016 was a big discovery, but sadly, I had to wait another full year before my mind realized, that the Real Proton had to be not 945, but rather had to be 840 MeV, so that a Real Electron = 105 MeV.

So in 2016 I discovered the 1 proton = 9 muons. In 2017, my mind was able to process that knowledge in realizing that the .5 MeV particle is not the electron, no, never is the .5 MeV an electron.
So, here, in 2017, my mind for the first time subtracted the 105 MeV from the proton at 945 giving me the Real Proton = 840 MeV.

So, on that fateful day in 2017, I subtracted 105 MeV from 945MeV and got a Real Proton = 840 MeV and the Real Electron = 105 MeV. How could I instantly justify that? Almost as fast as I discovered that, I realized this had to be true because of Chemistry bonding, for you cannot get a covalent bond in chemistry by pushing around 938 versus .5, that it takes 840 versus 105 for bonding in chemistry.

But, for the few days after I had the Real Electron and Real Proton, I was begging for-- what in the world is the .5 MeV particle, if not the electron? Then, I realized good old Dirac was back again, and here is his magnetic monopoles in blazing glory, for they are all around us, all the time.

So, that leaves me here in 2018, with Dirac's last-- wish list-- his New Radioactivity, that defies conservation of energy, yes defies conservation and read it yourself in his book Directions in Physics.

Dirac's New Radioactivities is what I now call RSNM, radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization.

Only let me tweak that a bit, for it is too much energy spontaneously created from Nature with a neutron, let me call it the RSMM for Radioactive Spontaneous Monopole Materialization.

Every time a muon inside an atom plunges through its 1proton=8muons as a atomic closed wire, obeys Faradays Law and as that muon plunges through, a monopole in that proton is created, now a monopole has energy, and what that monopole energy is coming from is the idea that Space itself is being transformed from being Space, to being a monopole. Now, you get enough of these monopoles created in a heavy atom and out can come a more massive monopole than .5MeV, but even say a gamma ray monopole of 0 charge.

Now, what RSMM is going to do, is overturn all our ideas on how Sun shines and Stars shine. In Old Physics, they thought stars and Sun are shining by fusion, converting hydrogen into helium. RSMM says something vastly different, for stars and Sun, most of their energy is the conversion of Space that they travel in, into that of monopoles which is the bulk of their energy that they emit. Stars convert Space into magnetic monopoles.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 19:29:05 -0800 (PST)

Subject: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by
Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 03:29:05 +0000

our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole

Of course Real Proton= 840MeV.

It is impossible for our sun or stars to shine with their energy from fusion alone. If it were fusion alone stars would only shine with energy of 1/1000 what they actually shine with.

So where does most of the energy of Sun and stars come from if not via fusion??

The predominant source of energy of Sun and stars comes from the atoms composing the star via Faradays Law of the hydrogen atom systems HYASYS proton+muon inside each atom.

1 proton =8muons forming a closed loop wire and the electronmuon thrusts through the proton wire creating a .5MeV monopole of either 0, -1, +1 charge. And the Sun's rays you soak up are those 0 charged monopoles.

Stars convert Space (they travel through) into magnetic monopoles and that is why stars shine for billions of years profusely and at the same time grow larger in size and mass.

The theory that fusion is the source of star energy is only a tiny meager 1/1000 of starpower.

AP

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu

::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ .  . | .   /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
---------------      -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
---------------      --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / .  . | .   \ .

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

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-17 01:44:16 UTC
Raw Message
#18page

#18page

Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole

When I post from my iphone, I make a lot of spelling and grammar errors.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Of course Real Proton= 840MeV.
It is impossible for our sun or stars to shine with their energy from fusion alone. If it were fusion alone stars would only shine with energy of 1/1000 what they actually shine with.
So, this raises the question of how old is the Sun and how much hydrogen to helium
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
So where does most of the energy of Sun and stars come from if not via fusion??
The predominant source of energy of Sun and stars comes from the atoms composing the star via Faradays Law of the hydrogen atom systems HYASYS proton+muon inside each atom.
1 proton =8muons forming a closed loop wire and the electronmuon thrusts through the proton wire creating a .5MeV monopole of either 0, -1, +1 charge. And the Sun's rays you soak up are those 0 charged monopoles.
Stars convert Space (they travel through) into magnetic monopoles and that is why stars shine for billions of years profusely and at the same time grow larger in size and mass.
Now humans have been observing the Sun with fancy science equipment for only about 200 years, and in that time would not be asking scientists, has the Sun become less massive due to outpouring of energy every minute of the year. No, that is too small a time period to ask if the Sun is depleting itself due to it shining, or, increasing its mass and size.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
The theory that fusion is the source of star energy is only a tiny meager 1/1000 of starpower.
So I went and looked up how much hydrogen and helium is in our Sun-- 91.2% hydrogen and 8.7% helium and the Sun is 4.6 billion years old according to some-- but I believe the sun is 10 billion years old. But, put that aside for now.

Let us take a simple estimate, a straightline estimate. If the fusion is the source of Sun and stars shining, and if our Sun was originally close to 99% hydrogen, then about 9% of fusion gives the sun 4.6 billion years worth of shining energy. And thus we have about 11 more periods (remember a straightline estimate) of 4.6 billion years for the Sun to shine and that would be 50.6 billion years into the future of our Sun shining.

Now, if we look up in the literature of the zombie-physicists who accept the fusion view of the Sun, they claim the Sun will go into a Red Giant phase in 5.4 billion years from now and essentially shortly thereafter stop shining altogether.

So, what I am thinking,, a logical mind at work, is that the Sun and Stars shine not from fusion, which is only a tiny tiny fraction of sunlight, but that the main source of Sun shining is its conversion of Space the Sun travels through, converting space into magnetic monopoles of 0 charge, and some of +1 or -1 charge, all via the Faraday Law, of electron=muon thrust through protons as 8muons arranged as a closed loop wire. So Faraday's law causes the creation of a electric current in the proton = 8 muons, and the electric current is monopoles. Now most of these monopoles escape out of their hydrogen atom system they were born in, escape the Sun's gravity and find themselves in outer space, especially those destined to hit Earth and make Earth warm and doing photosynthesis.

Now, here is a possible means of finding out if true that sunlight is via Faraday law converting space into monopoles.

According to Fusion, the photons have to go through a elaborate process, but according to Faraday Law, every hydrogen atom is doing the Faraday law, all uniformly doing Faraday law. So, if we measure for consistency of photon flow from the Sun would favor the Faraday Law mechanism.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 23:35:00 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Bethe's starpower depends on a 1 in 1 billion chance Re: our entire
understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV
and .5MeV = monopole
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 07:35:00 +0000

Bethe's starpower depends on a 1 in 1 billion chance Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole

Quoting Wikipedia below, on how the Sun mostly shines out energy. However, the huge problem is that daft scientists who believe in this nonsense-- must explain how it is that a proton undergoes this fusion with a probability of taking place in 1 in 1 billion years. You see, our Sun shines profusely, yet physicists of Old Physics think this dependable profuse shining has a mechanism of 1 in 1 billion. This is the silly Bethe Solar fusion. The AP Starpower is based on the Faraday Law, that each and every atom inside the Sun, everyone of them has protons composed of 8muons, where 1 proton = 8muons, and where the electron = 1 muon and the .5MeV particle is not the electron, but a magnetic monopole. Every proton inside the Sun is doing a Faraday Law mechanism where it is a 8 muon closed loop wire and the electronMuon is a bar magnet that moves inside the proton and creates a electricity of a monopole that flows in the proton. The proton can emit this monopole outside its atom and eventually escape the Sun and find its way to hitting Earth. What the Faraday law in the Sun is doing is eating up Space, and converting it into magnetic monopoles.

Now, any reader can read and believe in the farfetched silly and stupid Bethe Solar fusion with its 1 in 1 billion chance of being successful. Or, they can read AP's way of stars shining, that each and every proton inside a star is doing the Faraday law and creating monopoles out of the Space the star occupies.

We see stars shining each and every minute, each and every day. Do you honestly believe the dependability, the reliability of stars shining depends on a probability of 1 in a billion, or, do you believe in AP's view-- every proton inside a star is making sunlight, making photons.

--- quoting Wikipedia ---
followed by the beta-plus decay of the diproton to deuterium:

2
2He
→         2
1H
+
e+
+
ν
e
with the overall formula:

1
1H
+         1
1H
→         2
1H
+
e+
+
ν
e         +         0.42 MeV
This first step is extremely slow because the positron emission of the diproton to deuterium is extremely rare (the vast majority of the time, the diproton decays back into two hydrogen-1 unbound protons through proton emission). This is because the emission of the positron is brought about by the weak nuclear force, which is immensely weaker than the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force.

The half-life of a proton in the core of the Sun before it is involved in a successful proton–proton fusion is estimated to be about one billion years, even at the extreme pressures and temperatures found there.

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 23:55:49 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Re: Bethe's starpower depends on a 1 in 1 billion chance Re: our
entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron=
105MeV and .5MeV = monopole
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 07:55:50 +0000

Re: Bethe's starpower depends on a 1 in 1 billion chance Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Quoting Wikipedia below, on how the Sun mostly shines out energy. However, the huge problem is that daft scientists who believe in this nonsense-- must explain how it is that a proton undergoes this fusion with a probability of taking place in 1 in 1 billion years. You see, our Sun shines profusely, yet physicists of Old Physics think this dependable profuse shining has a mechanism of 1 in 1 billion. This is the silly Bethe Solar fusion. The AP Starpower is based on the Faraday Law, that each and every atom inside the Sun, everyone of them has protons composed of 8muons, where 1 proton = 8muons, and where the electron = 1 muon and the .5MeV particle is not the electron, but a magnetic monopole. Every proton inside the Sun is doing a Faraday Law mechanism where it is a 8 muon closed loop wire and the electronMuon is a bar magnet that moves inside the proton and creates a electricity of a monopole that flows in the proton. The proton can emit this monopole outside its atom and eventually escape the Sun and find its way to hitting Earth. What the Faraday law in the Sun is doing is eating up Space, and converting it into magnetic monopoles.
Now my critics would immediately jump up and down and say-- well, if that is true, why is planet Earth not shining for its atoms have protons and electrons doing the Faraday Law. Why is Earth not shining?

And that is a good question. And perhaps I have no fast immediate answer other than to say, you need the momentum in a hot kinetic energy environment such as the Sun and stars. Realize, that when you do the Faraday Law with a slow moving magnet, you get little current.

Now, my theory of Faraday Law causing stars to shine, not the feeble fusion in stars. If correct, then there is the good chance that large planets, like Jupiter have some "glow" or enormous radio noise of photons in the radio wave frequency. So we have on Jupiter, much radio noise but little to account for what makes Jupiter's radio wave noise. So the Faraday mechanism easily would say that some of the protons on Jupiter have a rapid motion electron=muon act as a bar magnet creating a monopole but a monopole not large like the sun, but rather radio photons.

Also, the Faraday Law Mechanism of stars shining would easily explain why the hottest part of the Sun is not its center but its outer surface.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 00:08:17 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Faraday mechanism explains Atomic Bombs better Re: our entire
understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV
and .5MeV = monopole
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 08:08:18 +0000

Faraday mechanism explains Atomic Bombs better Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole

And, alas, something I never thought I would involve with, atomic bombs. It is thought that in a fusion bomb, that atoms are fusing to create the enormous energy. But, there is always required a fission bomb explode before it sets off the fusion part of the bomb.

But, what I contend is that, although some fusion is occurring but what is really happening is that the fission part of the bomb raises the kinetic energy of the protons and their electrons=muons to perform Faraday Law and that the explosion is a maximization not of fusing protons, but rather of creating much Faraday Law electricity as monopoles.

Now a quick test of this Faraday mechanism would be to analyze the gamma radiation in a fusion bomb explosion. Does the gamma radiation fit with fusion of protons or does it fit with Faraday Law as electricity in gamma monopoles. I would guess that if Faraday Law is at work here, not fusion that you would have immensely more gamma radiation than what fusion would say.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 01:17:25 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Faraday mechanism explains Atomic Bombs better Re: our entire
understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV
and .5MeV = monopole
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 09:17:26 +0000

Faraday mechanism explains Atomic Bombs better Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole

Looking for anomalies in hydrogen bombs--

Volume 60, Issue 1
March 1955
Pages 45–52
Effects of radioactive debris from nuclear explosions on the electrical conductivity of the lower atmosphere
Authors
D. Lee Harris
First published:
March 1955Full publication history
DOI:
10.1029/JZ060i001p00045  View/save citation
Cited by (CrossRef):
14 articles Check for updates Citation tools
Abstract

An increase in the ionization near the ground due to the fall-out from a radioactive cloud formed by a nuclear explosion will increase the conductivity and lower the potential gradient in the lower atmosphere. Records of atmospheric conductivity and potential gradient from the Tucson Magnetic Observatory are compared with records of the deposition of atomic debris on the ground following the Nevada tests. The observed changes are not inconsistent with values computed from theoretical considerations. Most of the effects are confined to a very shallow layer, within a few meters of the ground.

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 01:29:09 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Faraday mechanism explains Atomic Bombs better Re: our entire
understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV
and .5MeV = monopole
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 09:29:10 +0000

Faraday mechanism explains Atomic Bombs better Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole

Now here is a remarkable website arguing that Mars had a Hydrogen bomb explosion. I would argue that his isotope studies are evidence of the Faraday Law inside of atoms and not that of fusion.

Evidence for a Large Anomalous Nuclear Explosions in Mars Past
PDFspsr.utsi.edu › articles › EvidenceforaLar...
by JE Brandenburg
Hydrogen bombs are boosted by fission of a uranium or thorium casing ~50% of ... Delayed neutrons. Acidalia debris. Gamma rays. Before event. Immediately after event. Present old surface old surface old surface.

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 12:23:01 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Faraday mechanism explains Atomic Bombs better Re: our entire
understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV
and .5MeV = monopole
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 20:23:01 +0000

Faraday mechanism explains Atomic Bombs better Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole

Now here is more information on that Mars hypothetical nuclear explosion:: of course i am going to comment line by line explaining that in nuclear fusion there is little to no fusion going on but rather a Faraday Law
--- quoting ---
By Tara MacIsaac, Epoch Times
Mars has a high concentration of the gas isotope Xenon 129 in its atmosphere. Xenon 129 is produced by nuclear reactions. The surface of the red planet also has an excess of uranium and thorium.

These conditions are likely the result of two large anomalous nuclear explosions on Mars in the past, argues propulsion scientist Dr. John Brandenburg in a 2014 paper, titled “Evidence of a Massive Thermonuclear Explosion on Mars in the Past.”

On Earth, in Oklo, Gabon, uranium was extracted in 1972 and found to have unusual properties. Natural uranium deposits all contain about 0.7 percent U235. The isotope U235 in the Oklo mine, however, showed at levels around 0.6 percent, suggesting the U235 had already been “burned.”

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu

::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ .  . | .   /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
---------------      -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
---------------      --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / .  . | .   \ .

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

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-17 18:00:49 UTC
Raw Message
#19page

#19page

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 20:23:51 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Revolutionary idea-- Sun and starpower are Faraday's Law turning
Space into monopoles, fusion is just a tiny fraction of starpower 1/1000
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 04:23:51 +0000

Revolutionary idea-- Sun and starpower are Faraday's Law turning Space into monopoles, fusion is just a tiny fraction of starpower 1/1000

Revolutionary idea-- Sun and starpower are Faraday's Law turning Space into monopoles, fusion is just a tiny fraction of starpower 1/1000

Please do not hold me to the 1/1000, it maybe something like 10^-6 rather than 10^-3.

There is no doubt in the world that fusion exists, and that fission, even more so, exists.

But, what I have discovered is that the Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV and that tiny particle .5MeV is Dirac's Magnetic Monopole. What that means for energy of the world, is that every atom is a Faraday Law Demonstration of every hydrogen atom system inside an atom. Every proton with its muon, every neutron, are constantly doing a Faraday law and producing electricity inside the atom, producing magnetic monopoles. And these monopoles can either stay inside the atom or flow out as radiation. This is where stars and our Sun get their power, their energy. There is a tad bit of fusion, but not very much, certainly not as much to let the Sun shine as it does every day of our life.

Now how is the Faraday Law conducted inside atoms? A proton is 8 muons and when formed into a octagon ring, the proton is a closed loop wire, leaving the electronmuon as a bar magnet thrust through the proton ring creates a current-- a magnetic monopole that either stays inside the atom or moves out and becomes sunlight.

Now, all atoms are Faraday law machines, so why does not Earth or Moon or Jupiter shine like a Star? Well, a astro body has to get large enough to get hot enough so that the kinetic energy of its atoms reach a temperature in which the electronmuon moves fast enough through its protons to produce radiation of star shine. But this monopole creation occurs in all atoms and although not star light, some of these monopoles are radio waves, and Jupiter has a large radio emission.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 22:51:29 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Revolutionary idea-- Sun and starpower are Faraday's Law turning
Space into monopoles, fusion is just a tiny fraction of starpower 1/1000
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 06:51:29 +0000

Below is a report from government NASA on radio emissions from Jupiter. The Faraday Law of atoms causes stars to shine and causes planets to emit radio waves.

--- quoting NASA ---

Jupiter does emit radio waves of a different sort at frequencies above 100 MHz. These are the decimetric radio waves and are believed to be emitted by extremely energetic electrons moving at close to the speed of light close to the planet near its equator. (Decimetric means tenth of a meter since the wavelength of this type of radio emission is several tenths of a meter). Jupiter's rotation period was confirmed and other properties of the magnetic field including its axial tilt were determined using decimetric radio observations.

Recently the Hubble Space telescope has been used to observe Jupiter's aurora in the ultraviolet and has found evidence of the powerful currents that are flowing between Jupiter and Io.

These spacecraft are confirming some explanations of Jupiter radio emission but are also discovering new radio phenomena that raise many more questions.

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 23:45:52 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Revolutionary idea-- Sun and starpower are Faraday's Law turning
Space into monopoles, fusion is just a tiny fraction of starpower 1/1000
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 07:45:52 +0000

So, let us do a little bit of philosophy here before turning to bed. We have a universe made of one big atom 231Pu containing mass and space. The mass is other atoms. We have stars that turn Space into more mass via Faraday law of an atom's muons thrusting through an atom's protons and creating monoples-- turning Space into new matter.

Is that appealing? A 231Pu Atom Totality becoming a new generation Atom Totality.

Let us weigh that with Life in biology. Is it acceptable that a generation of life can be happy that their kind, their species lived, prospered and multiplied, and built a new generation to carry into the future?

I can accept that purpose for biology life. But for all of the universe, i somehow am expecting more than just growth. More than just growing from 231Pu into say element 96 then the next one etc etc.

I think every human can be happy to know their life is carried on by a future generation as the meaning of life. But it seems that the cosmos as a whole needs something more in its future, more than just growth.

So, here we go from science to philosophy to religion. For we need something more than just growth to bigger and bigger, to cycle to cycle. We need something of love, to make the whole thing valuable and worthy of the journey. And i cannot think of a better analogy than humanity and plants and animals. The Atom Totality is like God compared to humans and humans are like God compared to the animals and plants. If in the growth of humans into the future it is recognized that our growth cannot proceed unless we carry all the plants and animals with us, not extincting them to make more room for more humans.

In like manner of the Atom Totality, instead of a future of ever bigger Atom Totality with lifeforms perishing in numerous cycles, what if the formula of God was that the Atom Totality becomes humanity, a humanity that carried all the plants and animals like a Noah's Ark onto the doorstep of God, where in an instant of time physics and biology entwined as one God. And then, let the cycle of matter and life begin all over again.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 13:01:07 -0800 (PST)

Subject: experiment for NASA Re: Revolutionary idea-- Sun and starpower are
Faraday's Law turning Space into monopoles, fusion is just a tiny fraction of
starpower 1/1000
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 21:01:07 +0000

experiment for NASA Re: Revolutionary idea-- Sun and starpower are Faraday's Law turning Space into monopoles, fusion is just a tiny fraction of starpower 1/1000
Below is a report from government NASA on radio emmisions from Jupiter. The Faraday Law of atoms causes stars to shine and causes planets to emit radio waves.
I do not know if NASA does experimental science? If they do, I entice them into this one.
--- quoting NASA ---
Jupiter does emit radio waves of a different sort at frequencies above 100 MHz. These are the decimetric radio waves and are believed to be emitted by extremely energetic electrons moving at close to the speed of light close to the planet near its equator. (Decimetric means tenth of a meter since the wavelength of this type of radio emission is several tenths of a meter). Jupiter's rotation period was confirmed and other properties of the magnetic field including its axial tilt were determined using decimetric radio observations.
Recently the Hubble Space telescope has been used to observe Jupiter's aurora in the ultraviolet and has found evidence of the powerful currents that are flowing between Jupiter and Io.
These spacecraft are confirming some explanations of Jupiter radio emission but are also discovering new radio phenomena that raise many more questions.
EXPERIMENT:: Now, I am going on just pure intuition and a tiny bit of experience in radio physics. So here goes.

Find a tower of metal, whether used or not used. It is a antennae of sorts. Find out if that antennae by its sheer composition emits a radio signal. I would guess yes because it is composed of metal atoms and those atoms are doing the Faraday Law. Now the planet Jupiter is a large body of atoms doing the Faraday Law and would be expected to emit much radio waves. Our metal antennae is a small body, but still doing the Faraday Law.

Now here, in this experiment I am backing into, the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation CMBR and what that is, is not the stupid silly Big Bang, but is the fact that all atoms of the entire cosmos is doing a Faraday Law and all those atoms, everyone of them is "leaking out radio waves" of however tiny and small which goes to make up the CMBR.

But here, all I want is a Experiment that proves any given object has atoms which is doing Faraday law and which has a tiny "radio wave noise".

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 13:37:29 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Call it Dirac Radioactivity or call it RSMMM Re: Revolutionary idea--
Sun and starpower are Faraday's Law turning Space into monopoles, fusion is
just a tiny fraction of starpower 1/1000
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 21:37:30 +0000

Call it Dirac Radioactivity or call it RSMMM Re: Revolutionary idea-- Sun and starpower are Faraday's Law turning Space into monopoles, fusion is just a tiny fraction of starpower 1/1000

Somewhat amazing that year 2014 was an amazing year in Chemistry Research, two experiments or observations took place in 2014 that is revolutionary science experiments. The one took place in Denmark with Dr. Kjaergaard discovering that two positive charges attract one another of hydrogen and phosphorus. To make a long story short, Kjaergaard is confirming that the Real Electron = 105 MeV and Real Proton = 840MeV and that little .5MeV particle is a magnetic monopole. That is the upshot of Kjaergaard's hugely important experiment in Denmark in 2014.

In another part of the world in 2014, Dr. Brandenburg was finding out that xenon was too much concentrated in Mars, the planet, and otherwise levels of U235 in ore deposits were too high.

Now, Dirac had two major science issues going for him most of his life-- magnetic monopoles and what he called a New Radioactivity-- how the world grows. You see, for Dirac, the Big Bang is science fiction, for Dirac sensed that the Universe grows from some form of radioactivity.

Dirac, in all his life, never found the monopole, but, it was under his nose all the time. For in 1897, JJ Thomson discovered a particle of .5MeV and the sad part about Thomson's discovery, is that he had not found the electron, which he thought this .5MeV particle was, but rather, he had found Dirac's monopole. Only by 1936 with Anderson and Neddermeyer was the REAL ELECTRON discovered, only no one realized it until 2017, by me, who saw that 9muons = 1 proton plus or minus .7% 945/938.

So, Dirac's monopole was there all along, and only by 2014 with Kjaergaard in Denmark do we start to see a massive experiment undertaking to see the theory that Real Electron = 105MeV and that Maxwell theory of EM has no force of repel, for EM has only attract force and we were fooled by Pauli Exclusion as a denial of same space occupancy. Columbus was fooled when he thought he landed in China or India. And physicists were fooled in thinking there is EM repel, when it is just denial of same space. And physicists were fooled in thinking that tiny .5MeV was the electron.

Then on to Dirac's New Radioactivity, how the universe grows. The Universe never had a Big Bang-- that is childish poppycock idea. The Universe grows bigger and more massive by a form of Radioactivity. And the mechanism is Faraday's Law. The proton is 8 muons and forms a proton closed loop wire. The muon acts like a bar magnet and as it thrusts through the proton wire creates a monopole. This is turning Space into energy/matter. So if the universe starts out as 1 Hydrogen atom, that Faraday Law on one proton one muon keeps creating monopoles which are saved and collected inside that atom of hydrogen until it has eaten up enough Space that the monopoles saved add up to a neutron. Now we have 2protons2muons doing the Faraday Law, eating up space and eventually creating a tritium atom, etc etc.

So, when Dr. Brandenburg sees xenon in abundance on Mars, it is not from a nuclear fusion bomb explosion, nor is the African U235 a past long ago bomb explosion remnant, no. What these isotope anomalies really are, is the working of Dirac's New Radioactivities. I like to call it Radioactive Spontaneous Magnetic Monopole Materialization, RSMMM.

The "spontaneous" part of the process is that Faraday's Law is not the movement of electrons in a proton that consists of 8 muons, no, the 8 muons are needed to form a octagon of geometry to be a wire. So the spontaneous part of RSMMM is the fact that Faraday's Law requires a current, and the only particle to be a current inside a proton is a magnetic monopole. Now I am not saying all Magnetic Monopoles = .5MeV, for even radio waves are monopoles and are of eV not MeV.

But, the greatest story of this Faraday Law, is that our Sun and stars shine, not because of Fusion, but because every atom in our Sun is doing a Faraday Law thrusting of muon through proton and even of proton through orbital muons, both ways-- proton through muons and muon through proton. And the enormous photons produced by Faraday's Law is what makes stars shine. There is a tiny contribution by fusion, but if stars had to depend on fusion alone, our universe would be mostly dark black, with only tiny tiny glow from fusion activity.

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 12:23:01 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Faraday mechanism explains Atomic Bombs better Re: our entire
understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV
and .5MeV = monopole
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 20:23:01 +0000

Faraday mechanism explains Atomic Bombs better Re: our entire understanding of how Sun & stars shine is overhauled by Real Electron= 105MeV and .5MeV = monopole

Now here is more information on that Mars hypothetical nuclear explosion:: of course i am going to comment line by line explaining that in nuclear fusion there is little to no fusion going on but rather a Faraday Law
--- quoting ---
By Tara MacIsaac, Epoch Times
Mars has a high concentration of the gas isotope Xenon 129 in its atmosphere. Xenon 129 is produced by nuclear reactions. The surface of the red planet also has an excess of uranium and thorium.

These conditions are likely the result of two large anomalous nuclear explosions on Mars in the past, argues propulsion scientist Dr. John Brandenburg in a 2014 paper, titled “Evidence of a Massive Thermonuclear Explosion on Mars in the Past.”

On Earth, in Oklo, Gabon, uranium was extracted in 1972 and found to have unusual properties. Natural uranium deposits all contain about 0.7 percent U235. The isotope U235 in the Oklo mine, however, showed at levels around 0.6 percent, suggesting the U235 had already been “burned.”

On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 7:38:10 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.math:
Sun and Stars shine, not due to fusion, but due to protons and muons convert Space into energy/matter via Faraday Law

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu

::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ .  . | .   /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
---------------      -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
---------------      --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / .  . | .   \ .

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

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-17 23:02:28 UTC
Raw Message
#20page

#20page

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 19:37:06 -0800 (PST)

Subject: does oxygen have a cut above the other first 8 elements? Re: Sun and
Stars shine, not due to fusion, but due to protons and muons convert Space
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 03:37:06 +0000

does oxygen have a cut above the other first 8 elements? Re: Sun and Stars shine, not due to fusion, but due to protons and muons convert Space into energy/matter via Faraday Law

Now, I believe the muon can be a closed loop wire once there is 8 muons in the orbital of an atom. That would mean element oxygen, where carbon is 2 muons short, and neon is 2 muons advanced. Now can the 10 muons in neon offer neon more stability in a Faraday demonstration?

Anyway, the Oxygen atom has 8 orbital muons which means its nucleus of 8protons and 8neutrons can be a bar thrusting magnet through that of the 8 orbital muons.

So in a Faraday Law Demonstration every single proton is a 8 muons configured into a closed loop proton wire. 1proton = 840MeV = 8muons, where 1muon = 105MeV.

So, in hydrogen there is only one way for a Faraday demonstration-- the orbital muon thrusting through the 8 muons of the single proton.

But in Oxygen there are 8 orbital muons that can form a closed loop wire, call it a orbital-muon-wire and the protons and neutrons can thrust through the 8 orbital muons producing even more magnetic monopoles than just the monopoles formed from the muons acting as bar magnet thrusting through the protons.

So, what I wonder is, if oxygen being the first such element that can produce monopoles from not just proton wires but from orbital muons as wires, wondering if that ability by oxygen is why oxygen is so very special over the other first 8 elements? I know through out Old Chemistry, there is much to do about "oxidation" and oxidation states. But is oxygen recognized for its supreme ability to Faraday Law Demonstrations, which the other first 8 elements simply cannot perform? Does it give oxygen a significant edge above and beyond hydrogen helium lithium Beryllium, Boron Carbon Nitrogen??

What say you-- Old Chemistry-- did oxygen have a cut above these others?

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 22:43:17 -0800 (PST)

Subject: does oxygen have a cut above the other first 8 elements? Re: Sun and
Stars shine, not due to fusion, but due to protons and muons convert Space
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 06:43:17 +0000

does oxygen have a cut above the other first 8 elements? Re: Sun and Stars shine, not due to fusion, but due to protons and muons convert Space into energy/matter via Faraday Law

Alright one property of oxygen that needs explanation by Faraday law theory is its combustible nature. Here i would need to explain its neighbor fluorine also, but then, have to explain why reactivity seems to all shut down with neon.

So is the fact that the orbital muons now are Faraday demonstrable at 8 and 9 cause huge reactivity but at 10 appear to shut down.

I may have to sleep on this one.

But one superlative of oxygen is that it is the 3rd most abundant element in Cosmos after hydrogen and helium. So the fact that 16O has a orbital muon wire is likely the cause of such abundance in Dirac's New Radioactivity

So how can orbital muon wire explain how neon shuts down reactivity? Here i may need to define reactivity via Maxwell theory-- something about the deformation of 8 or 9 orbital muons to become a 10 orbital muon of neon.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 22:58:04 -0800 (PST)

Subject: does oxygen have a cut above the other first 8 elements? Re: Sun and
Stars shine, not due to fusion, but due to protons and muons convert Space
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 06:58:04 +0000

does oxygen have a cut above the other first 8 elements? Re: Sun and Stars shine, not due to fusion, but due to protons and muons convert Space into energy/matter via Faraday Law

Now here i am going to question the famous Rutherford experiment the one in which he shot particles at a gold or metal leaf and where some of those particles recoiled back, telling Rutherford that nearly all the mass is concentrated in the nucleus.

I suspect that experiment needs repeating for the first 26 elements especially oxygen fluorine neon for i suspect the center of those atoms are almost empty of protons and where the protons are more likely found in the muon orbital cloud to enhance the making of orbital cloud wire for Faraday law.

I think it is hard to repeat Rutherford on non metals but not impossible.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 23:37:48 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Faraday law atomic theory Re: Sun and Stars shine, not due to fusion,
but due to protons and muons convert Space into energy/matter via Faraday Law
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 07:37:48 +0000

Faraday law atomic theory Re: Sun and Stars shine, not due to fusion, but due to protons and muons convert Space into energy/matter via Faraday Law

Now a key feature of Faraday Law atomic theory is that the protons and muons are aligned for maximum production of monopoles. Where 1proton =8muons and 1neutron =1proton +1
muon.

Now this is a job for Dirac or Tesla, not me if given, 20 protons 20 muons configure those as wires and bar magnet to yield maximum current inside a neon atom. Do the same of 19protons 19muons for fluorine and finally 16 protons 16 muons for oxygen.

I suspect many of the protons will be in orbitals along with orbital muons and a somewhat vacant center of the atom in order to achieve maximum Faraday production of monopoles.

Now the helium atom would have 4 protons 4muons and those 4protons would be 4x8= 32 muons. So, how to arrange 36 muons for maximum Faraday law. And, helium is the most stable of all inert gases all elements for that sake.

Now 36 is a perfect square, so let me check on neon, we have 20x8= 160 plus 20 is 180.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 00:02:59 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Faraday law atomic theory Re: Sun and Stars shine, not due to fusion,
but due to protons and muons convert Space into energy/matter via Faraday Law
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 08:03:00 +0000

Faraday law atomic theory Re: Sun and Stars shine, not due to fusion, but due to protons and muons convert Space into energy/matter via Faraday Law

Now i wish Tesla or Dirac was here to do this, Feynman.

For helium i have 32 muons from the 4 protons and 4 more muons for a total of 36 particles to configure into a maximum Faraday law production of magnetic monopoles. Is it best to use 2 of the 36muons as bar magnet leaving 34 muons to build a coil of 8muons of 4 windings but that leaves 2 extra muons. What if we make the bar magnet 4 muons. Would the windings be in the nucleus? I think so because you get more monopole current the tighter the magnet is thrust through (so Rutherford was right).

Now look at oxygen, 16protons, 16muons is 144 total muons, another perfect square.

More tomorrow,,, time for a milk shake and the fascinating mystery of the milk shake -- milk tastes good, but place cold milk-- has to be cold into a flask and vigorously shake so you get a lot of milk foam and now you improved the taste of milk by 10 fold over. How can air do that?

AP

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu

::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ .  . | .   /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
---------------      -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
---------------      --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / .  . | .   \ .

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

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-18 01:44:56 UTC
Raw Message
#21page

#21page

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 02:16:47 -0800 (PST)

Subject: AP's Periodic Table of Atoms in light of the fact Real Proton=
840MeV, Real Electron= 105MeV, the .5MeV= monopole
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 10:16:47 +0000

AP's Periodic Table of Atoms in light of the fact Real Proton= 840MeV, Real Electron= 105MeV, the .5MeV= monopole

Alright, i am slowly working away on this.

Old Chemistry and Old Physics had a table where their proton and electron had no job, no task to perform, as if their proton and electron could sit along and lie on a beach and do nothing.

In AP's table the proton = 8muons and forms a nuclear closed loop wire and the electronmuon acts as a bar magnet in Faraday's Law where the two constantly produce a electric current of monopoles in the proton.

So the construction of the AP table is a task for a electrical engineer more than a physicist. Because each proton and each neutron is like a wire loop and each electronmuon like a bar magnet (or vice versa) and in the case of oxygen you hand the ee 16 protons each composed of 8 muons and hand him 16 electronmuons and tell him to arrange those so he gets the maximum electric current (monopoles) in a Faraday Law demonstration.

Now i am looking in electrical engineering if there is some sort of maximum efficient arrangement for 16 closed loop wires and 16 bar magnets. Is it best to have one Faraday kit or better to have 16 kits.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 02:39:25 -0800 (PST)

Subject: AP's Periodic Table of Atoms in light of the fact Real Proton=
840MeV, Real Electron= 105MeV, the .5MeV= monopole
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 10:39:25 +0000

So let us say you were God creating the chemical elements and you create proton and muon and you want these two to obey one law Faradays law. Now you are God and the master electrical engineer. And as you create each element, each element is the maximum amount of electric current produced from the proton wire and electronmuon magnet, or, electronmuon wire and protons as bar magnet, or both.

So as God ee. For hydrogen you are handed 1proton and 1 muon and God arranges them to yield maximum current of monopoles. Now God is handed 2 protons, 2muons and again arranges them to make maximum current. Every atom is thus dealt with.

Now finally God arranges all these atoms -- 295 in total -- arranges them so there is family resemblance in columns.

What will this table look like?

In 3rd dimension is it the surface of a cone where hydrogen is the apex.

Or is it a 2nd dimension shape of a circuit board where gaps exist to house capacitors and other parts, not just wires and magnet.

Is our present day Table a reflection of a circuit board in electronics.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 03:46:49 -0800 (PST)

Subject: AP's Periodic Table of Atoms in light of the fact Real Proton=
840MeV, Real Electron= 105MeV, the .5MeV= monopole
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 11:46:50 +0000

Alright, so here, if we take the old table and include each of the d and f rows, realizing the p is 4 more than s, d is 4 more than p, f is 4 more than d. Include them all without cut-outs, and if we were to bend this table, it forms a cone with hydrogen as apex.

Now does a cone have significance in engineering or Faraday Law? It has significance if you want to amplify a wave. Can ww consider amplification as equal to maximization?

For the periodic table is a maximal Faraday Law current. And so the table that represents a integer maximal Faraday law takes the shape of the cone surface. So if we were to plot the table on a cone surface the position of one element relative to its neighbors, reflects similar properties.

Now there is a caution to old chemistry in that many elements are more similar to its neighbor in a row than its neighbor in a column.

But the awkward shape of the old table is that it was a cone laid flat.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 13:45:05 -0800 (PST)

Subject: New Chemistry Table-- two superimposed cones Re: AP's Periodic Table
of Atoms in light of the fact Real Proton= 840MeV, Real Electron= 105MeV, the
.5MeV= monopole
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 21:45:06 +0000

New Chemistry Table-- two superimposed cones Re: AP's Periodic Table of Atoms in light of the fact Real Proton= 840MeV, Real Electron= 105MeV, the .5MeV= monopole

Alright, I think I have the breakthrough I need to do the AP Table of Atoms, to replace the old chemistry Table. The Old Chemistry Table of Elements, lacked the understanding that Atoms are tiny Faraday Law Machines. Their purpose is to do the Faraday Law which converts Space into energy/matter as a magnetic monopole, the reason for converting Space is to make more Atoms. Life in biology is essentially a process of growth and increase. But that is also the purpose of Atoms-- grow and increase.
And the growth mechanism is Faraday's law, the increase mechanism is Faraday's law.

In Old Chemistry, their Table is essentially-- think of the electron as .5MeV a little ball, and the proton is 938 MeV a larger ball and that these two balls in hydrogen do nothing, then helium is 4 tiny balls with 4 massive balls doing nothing, then lithium is 7 tiny balls with 7 massive balls doing nothing. That is Old Chemistry table building. And the only thing Old Chemists did, was worry about the family resemblance that helium resembled neon that resembled argon, that lithium resembled sodium that resembled potassium etc etc.

In New Chemistry, we see the Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840 MeV and that little guy of .5MeV was not an electron but was Dirac's Magnetic Monopole. And what this does, is create a whole new different picture of a atom, any atom, because the enormous activity always going on inside an atom where the 105 particle is a bar magnet and the 840 particle is actually 8 muons that form a atomic wire closed loop and these two particles 105 and 840 are constantly doing a Faraday Law of creating atomic electricity of magnetic monopoles. Old Chemistry was lazy idling of atomic particles, New Chemistry is for all purposes a constant activity of Faraday's law.

And so the Atoms Table is the first atom with just 1muon 1 proton, the second atom is 2muons2protons, the third atom is 3muons3protons, the fourth atom is helium with 4 protons, 4 muons, all the way up to element 118 with 295protons, 295muons.

All atoms are a configuration to maximize a Faraday Law inside that atom, that means, some numbers are able to arrange themselves far better than others, such as Helium is far better able to carry out Faraday's law than is tritium or lithium.

Now I spoke last night that the best Geometry picture of the Table of Atoms is a cone surface. Let me elaborate on that by doing the Old Chemistry Table only I use just one letter of the element to get in the s,p,d,f orbitals

H H
L B B C N O F N
NM A S P S C A
K C S T V CM F C N C Z G G A S B K

more later but the form is shaping up, and the way in which we can have helium neon argon krypton then hydrogen lithium sodium be all under one another in family resemblance columns is to cut out those elements on a flat plane and bend to be a CONE.

Now, for me, growing up and learning about conic sections for the first time, I was worried about something in conic sections-- why on earth would you stack one cone onto another cone at their apex?? Why oh why would you do a crazy thing like that-- was my first thoughts on seeing conic sections. Is there ever really a need to have cones stacked in order to gain valuable knowledge and understanding in the world around us? The only reason we do such an unnatural silly thing as to stack one cone onto another cone at the apex is so that we can include hyperbolas. If it were not for hyperbolas, we would never do a conic stacking. So, I saved that bit of information of my youth in education, never really thinking any more about it, until last night.

You see, the geometry of a single cone is the best geometry for the Table of Atoms, for the New Periodic Table of Chemical Elements, on a cone surface because the rows increase but the columns need to be together.

One cone, mind you, but, now we still have a problem with a single cone, because, well Hydrogen makes up over 90% of the Cosmos and many elements are so rare, that why should they have a accounting of the same size of block as does hydrogen. So we need a New Table that factors in the abundance of the Elements. We should not have the same size of block for hydrogen as say technetium 43Tc.

So, the New Table is going to have 295 Atoms arranged numerically in order, but also, the size of block they get is according to the Cosmic abundance. So, how to do that correctly?

Well getting back to my story, as a youth I thought it crazy to stack two cones on their apex just to get hyperbolas.

But, now that craziness is going to help me out here. But I need not stack on apex, what I need is two cones where the base of one cone is the apex of the other equal cone. You see, superimpose the two cones. The Ancient Greeks could never do this as well as what we can do it today with computer graphics. We can do this in our imagination but physically we can mold a plastic cone to intersect another plastic cone such that the base of one is where the apex of the other exists.

So our New Table where Hydrogen is alone as the apex of one cone and the base of the second cone as cosmic abundance. Helium is up there close to hydrogen as the base in abundance but close to hydrogen in the other cone as apex.

So now, we take a cut of these two cones melded together that is a cut where both cones have a circle cross section (now I wonder if the circles are a constant in area-- something for the mathematicians to work out, whether area of C1 + area of C2 = a constant k no matter where the cut is performed. And if the Ancient Greeks had had this superimposed two equal cones, I am sure they would have discovered the relationship of the two circle areas.)

Anyway the s,p,d,f rows are now able to be scaled to abundance of those elements.

And once we scale them, I suspect the New Table of All Atoms becomes a two cones superimposed.

P.S. I also need mathematicians to figure out, what are the conic sections of these two superimposed cones bring, I mean a cut not parallel to base. If my imagination serves me correctly, it would be two Ovals almost like two circles, one inside the other. But the parabola cut is a mystery and whether a hyperbola exists in this new two conics, if a hyperbola exists, then we can finally, finally, get rid of the old conic section of stacking at apex.

AP

On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 4:03:13 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.math:
Now the best graphic i could spot from Google of these two nested opposite cones was this site--

The Centre Holds: Beauty, Art & the God Who is There. | the Center
“Drakes Bay” ceramic version of oil painting of God’s original creation. Christopher MacDonald ©2002 Azotus Arts. Turning and turning in the widening gyre The falcon cannot hea…

On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 4:18:31 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.math:
Now looking at a lot of images for two cones nested forming what i would call a complex cylinder since the ends are equal.

But here is an experiment easily performed at home-- two ice cream cones. One set on table at its base the other on apex held by a steady hand and putting the two close together forms a parallelogram in 2nd D. Now imagine the one going inside the other where the base of one is now the apex of the other.

I do not know if math gave a name to this object

I want to say-- spool, such as a spool of sewing thread

AP

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 17:40:57 -0800 (PST)

Subject: called Double Gyres Re: New Chemistry Table-- two superimposed cones
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 01:40:58 +0000

called Double Gyres Re: New Chemistry Table-- two superimposed cones
Now here quoting a website of YeatsVision.com that not only gives a good picture of two nested intersecting cones but says they have a name.
I am not sure this is the literary Yeats. Often, literary figures never dabble in mathematics
-- quoting
The Double Gyres
The Double Gyre Horizontal
Yeats's thought is fundamentally dualistic and, although the single gyre contains a fundamental dualism in the two boundaries of its form, the base and the apex, it is more natural for Yeats to use a doubled form. Since the apex or minimum of one element implies the maximum of its dualistic opposite, these double cones intersect so that the two gyres are the complementary opposites of each other.
Re: called Double Gyres Re: New Chemistry Table-- two superimposed cones

AP writes:  Now looking at those computer pictures I easily see the Double Cones intersecting where apex is at base does produce a hyperbola.

Now, what I am exploring is whether this depiction of two cones is far superior than Old Math's dummy depiction of apex to apex.

Because, well, I suspect New Chemistry's Table of Chemical Elements is a Double Cone Intersection.

I need to investigate whether the hyperbolas produced from cones apex to apex are the same as hyperbolas from cones apex to base.

If they are the same, then I suspect apex to base cones are far far superior not just because of Chemistry Table, but because, well a apex to base double cones is either a generalization of the Cylinder, or the Cylinder is a generalization of the double cones. What I mean here, is that the parallelogram is a generalization of the rectangle.

The final word is still not out, whether Old Math had discovered this figure a long time ago and given it a name, other than double-gyre.

And it is nice and fitting, that the mathematician who discovered the Oval was a Conic section, never the ellipse, is back again fixing even more Conic Section theory, which the Old Math community was too stupid to ever see or fix. So let us give a nice rounded applause to our hero, AP.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 18:19:56 -0800 (PST)

Subject: columns family resemblance challenged Re: New Chemistry Table-- two
superimposed cones Re: AP's Periodic Table of Atoms
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 02:19:56 +0000

columns family resemblance challenged Re: New Chemistry Table-- two superimposed cones Re: AP's Periodic Table of Atoms

Now here I need to take a break or momentary pause, not that I am tired, but because I need more facts to move on ahead.

I need a fact of Chemistry about the concept of family resemblance in columns of the Mendeleev Chart of Elements. I know that was a motivation for discovery to Mendeleev that the gases helium, neon, argon, krypton were substances that looked similar behaved similar, and we take any column and see much the same sort of concept of "family resemblance". However, as much in life as in science, we can take a good concept that stretches just too far. So I am skeptical of this need for columns of family resemblance.

And what I have in mind, is that somewhere that concept completely falls apart in the Old Chemistry Table. I do not mean that surprise-- we find a noble gas next to a metal like iron. Nothing like that. What I mean is where in the Old Chemistry table of elements, does the elements next to a particular element in a row, behave and resemble that element rather than the elements of the family column?

I think the answer is Fe iron that, at Cr, Mn, Fe, Co behave and resemble Fe more than does Ru. Os.

And even harder to say C is related to family members Sn and Pb, than to say Fe is related to Cu.

Not sure of that but have to check up on it.

So, what I am saying here, is that halfway in the first d orbital of elements, that the family resemblance of columns breaks apart. And that a new Table of Elements(Atoms) no longer has to insist a Atom fall in the column of previous atoms.

This also brings up the interesting question of some Electrochemical feature of every Atom, in the Faraday Law, that categorizes where that Element belongs in the Table. Say for instance, simple conduction of electricity.

AP

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu

::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ .  . | .   /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
---------------      -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
---------------      --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / .  . | .   \ .

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

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-18 18:35:26 UTC
Raw Message
#22page

#22page

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 20:15:20 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Re: New Chemistry Table-- two superimposed cones Re: AP's Periodic
Table of Atoms in light of the fact Real Proton= 840MeV, Real Electron=
105MeV, the .5MeV= monopole
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 04:15:21 +0000

Re: New Chemistry Table-- two superimposed cones Re: AP's Periodic Table of Atoms in light of the fact Real Proton= 840MeV, Real Electron= 105MeV, the .5MeV= monopole

On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 3:45:12 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

(snipped)

Now, let me go out a little further on the Old Periodic Table where each element is given just its first letter and each row starts with a alkali metal and ends in a noble gas

H H
L B B C N O F N
NM A S P S C A
K C S T V CM F C N C Z G G A S B K
R S Y Z NM T R R P A C  I  S S T  I  X
C B L C P N P S E G T D H E T Y  L H T W R O I P A H T P B P A R
F R A T P U N P AC B C  E FM N  L U U U U U UU U U U UU U U U

Now it is a relief for once to see the table in full without breaks and bottom panels just because the paper is not big enough to hold them in one unbroken pattern.

Now, of course, I am speculating that a double cone, one inside the other reversed so the apex end is at the base end.

\/\/
/\/\

that is 2 cones with apex at base, 2 cones intersecting at midcircle

Now the reason this is a good speculation is the atomic number represents the apex as hydrogen in one cone but the base of other represents the fact hydrogen makes up 90% of the universe. The next level down from hydrogen is helium alone and makes up 8% of the abundance of all elements so would be near the apex in one cone and hold a significant surface area of the other cone about 1/10 of that of hydrogen.

Now we get to the exciting part.

The rows

L B B C N O F N

then

NM A S P S C A

then

K C S T V CM F C N C Z G G A S B K

then

R S Y Z NM T R R P A C  I  S S T  I  X

then

C B L C P N P S E G T D H E T Y  L H T W R O I P A H T P B P A R

then

F R A T P U N P AC B C  E FM N  L U U U U U UU U U U UU U U U

should follow a mathematical formula of decreasing abundance, not each element, but the entire row abundance. And it is a double cone geometry, that can depict atomic number versus abundance.

AP

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu

::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ .  . | .   /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
---------------      -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
---------------      --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / .  . | .   \ .

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

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-19 04:12:13 UTC
Raw Message
#23page

#23page

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 13:06:49 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Scientific American, MAR2018, page53, hexacarbonyl Re: repeat the
Rutherford experiment for I think maybe the nucleus of gases are spread out
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 20:06:49 +0000

Scientific American, MAR2018, page53, hexacarbonyl Re: repeat the Rutherford experiment for I think maybe the nucleus of gases are spread out
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Now here i am going to question the famous Rutherford experiment the one in which he shot particles at a gold or metal leaf and where some of those particles recoiled back, telling Rutherford that nearly all the mass is concentrated in the nucleus.
Mind you this is just a guess, that many of the atoms nucleus, does not lie in the center of the atom carrying most of the mass. I suspect the inert gases and the first p row of elements have their protons and neutrons mostly in rings outside the center of those atoms. Unfortunately Rutherford only did his work on metal-- gold and there, most of the mass is in the center.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
I suspect that experiment needs repeating for the first 26 elements especially oxygen fluorine neon for i suspect the center of those atoms are almost empty of protons and where the protons are more likely found in the muon orbital cloud to enhance the making of orbital cloud wire for Faraday law.
I think it is hard to repeat Rutherford on non metals but not impossible.
Time for a modern day repeat of Rutherford, only this time with a inert gas, or say oxygen, hydrogen for I suspect the nuclei of these elements are in a ring around the center, not directly in the center. So sort of like the plum pudding model of Thomson, only arranged in an order of like a wire, not random and chaotic. Time to repeat Rutherford.

Now, fortunately for me, I have Scientific American March 2018, talking about the Table of Elements and talking about element 106 where it lives for about 10 seconds and was able to form a compound of Element 106 with carbon monoxide to form a hexacarbonyl of Element 106.

Now, this is fortuitous because I was having problems with getting neon oxygen fluorine and helium to obey the Faraday Law in a maximum amount of production of monopoles. And after reading that snippet of hexacarbonyl, I realized what my solution must be.

Now recently I spoke of that the Old Chemistry Table of Elements needed revision and what I dreamed up was a double cone, with apex to base intersecting at midsection, rather than the silly contraption in Old Math of two apex together. Apex to base is far far better because it is stable when built, and, besides, it is a generalization of the cylinder. For think of the cylinder as a routed out, carved out midsection, like a double cone spool.

But, anyway, reading hexacarbonyl I saw a vision of where the NEW TABLE OF ATOMS must go. Not to a double cone, but rather to Ampere's Law as geometry and Ampere's law is a torus of electric current and then the magnetic field of a torus around a torus. Get out any picture of Ampere's law and you will immediately recognize that geometry where you use the right-hand rule.

Now, I keep the Old Chemistry picture of the Table, keep it all, for it is rather excellent and good. I forget about a 3rd D table or any changes to the 2nd D table. But, where the big changes come is the ALGEBRA of the Table of Elements. The Algebra changes drastically.

This is a picture of the Old Chemistry table (using just one letter to make uniform spacing, and all the s,p,d,f rows are where they should be, not this sad cut-out view, but all intact.)

H H
L B B C N O F N
NM A S P S C A
K C S T V CM F C N C Z G G A S B K
R S Y Z NM T R R P A C  I  S S T  I  X
C B L C P N P S E G T D H E T Y  L H T W R O I P A H T P B P A R
F R A T P U N P AC B C  E FM N  L U U U U U UU U U U UU U U U

So, what did the hexacarbonyl do for my insight?

Well, for one we raise hydrogen above helium to be a single whole row and have helium be a single whole row to have 8 rows in total

H
H
L B B C N O F N
NM A S P S C A
K C S T V CM F C N C Z G G A S B K
R S Y Z NM T R R P A C  I  S S T  I  X
C B L C P N P S E G T D H E T Y  L H T W R O I P A H T P B P A R
F R A T P U N P AC B C  E FM N  L U U U U U UU U U U UU U U U

The number 8 is a crucial critical number in all of physics, for it is 1proton= 8muons. Now, I do not know if 8 shows up in the Maxwell Equations, I do know 137 shows up, but, does 8 show up? It must in the form of the s,p,d,f

Now last night, I was struggling to find how to make MAXIMUM Faraday Law upon oxygen, fluorine, neon and helium to explain them as protons as wires and muons as bar magnet. And here is where the hexacarbonyl image comes to my rescue.

Notice that if we think of the entire ROW of chemical elements as the wire that the oxygen-neon row and the sulfur-argon row is 8

Now, the next two rows are the iron-krypton and the silver-Xenon row. Now, they look like those rows have no magic number 8. And here is where the algebra sinks in. When we have a d row, we make the p elements as 3 and the d elements as 5, so that we have 3+5 = 8. That Algebra is indicative of the Ampere Law, that half of the d and half of the p are going into magnetism, while the other half is going into electric monopole current.

Now, the table has two rows of s, two rows of p, two rows of d, and two rows of f. The Algebra works on the f row, where 14/2 = 7 and now we need a 1 to make 7+1 = 8. So what happens in the f row is that 7 for magnetism, 7 for electricity and the s provides the 1 as 2/2.

So, in d row, the s orbital is masked, while the p and d are cut in half.

In f row, the d and p orbitals are masked, while the f and s are cut in half.

Mind you, this algebra is all for the sake of 8. Why 8? Well the short answer is proton = 8 muons. A longer answer is symmetry of magnetism versus electricity in the Ampere Law.

Now, getting back to the first two rows, the single hydrogen and the single helium of the second row.

For hydrogen it is 8 in the form of a single proton is 8 muons forming a closed loop wire and where that orbital muon must be magnetism of Ampere law along with the bar magnet of Faraday Law.

For helium has 36 muons in total, 32+4. But 36 is also 9x4, and hydrogen is 9 muons. The view of hydrogen is it is the atom of the monopole, and the helium atom is the atom of the dipole.

The geometry view of helium is a perfect sphere, the geometry view of hydrogen is a ellipse of its magnetism to electricity.

Now in mathematics we have another ALGEBRA that is very much similar to the above Algebra, it is the Regular Polyhedra and there again we have 6 items, pyramid, tetrahedron, hexahedron, octahedron, dodecahedron, icosahedron. The algebra of regular polyhedron so much are analogs of the Table of Chemical Elements.

AP

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu

::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ .  . | .   /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
---------------      -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
---------------      --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / .  . | .   \ .

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

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-19 21:48:26 UTC
Raw Message
#24page

#24page

On Sunday, March 11, 2018 at 3:26:18 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.math:
solving what the New Periodic Table of Chemical Elements is-- where rows are Ampere's law and columns are Faraday Law

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 16:16:54 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: RSMMM builds not only atoms, but molecules Re: Faraday law atomic
theory Re: Sun and Stars shine, not due to fusion, but due to protons and
muons convert Space into energy/matter via Faraday Law
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 23:16:54 +0000

RSMMM builds not only atoms, but molecules Re: Faraday law atomic theory Re: Sun and Stars shine, not due to fusion, but due to protons and muons convert Space into energy/matter via Faraday Law

RSMMM builds not only atoms, but molecules Re: Faraday law atomic theory Re: Sun and Stars shine, not due to fusion, but due to protons and muons convert Space into energy/matter via Faraday Law

Now the most abundant top three elements are hydrogen, helium, oxygen. I think something on the order of 90%, 8% for hydrogen and helium and then all the rest at 2% combined.

So in the theory of RSMMM, Dirac's New Radioactivities, what happens is that a atom of hydrogen via the Faraday Law, produces monopole electric current. This current can remain inside the atom or travel outside. If it remains, it can accumulate monopoles and those monopoles can become a muon itself, a rest mass particle of 105 MeV. Now, in a good hydrogen atom it can build not only 1 muon but 8 of them over time in monopole production, thus, with 8 muons built, that hydrogen atom built a proton. It can continue to build on this second proton inside the original hydrogen atom until that proton is a neutron and so the starting out hydrogen atom has transformed into a deuterium atom, in the same manner it can keep building until it becomes a tritium or even a helium atom. So with the slow process of building monopoles in a hydrogen atom it becomes deuterium to tritium to helium.

But let us look at oxygen with its 16 HYASYS, it has 16 hydrogen atom systems all of which is building a maximum electric current of magnetic monopoles, a oxygen atom can build a muon much faster than a hydrogen atom builds a muon.

Now in HYASYS and RSMMM theory, we see the lines of distinction between a molecule and an atom gets blurred. Can we really tell apart if a water molecule H2O is 18HYASYS is a regular normal oxygen atom that has built two new protons from monopoles apart from water molecule? You see, the only real difference here is that 18O or even 18F, both are 16O with two more protons with 2 muons attached.

In a sense, the building of all the Elements from Faraday Law, is hard to tell apart from chemical compounds. Water can come from oxygen binding with two hydrogen, or, water can come from a oxygen atom which builds two more protons and two muons, all inside itself.

So many, very many astronomers and cosmologists have pondered and asked the question of where does all this water come from? Especially Earth? Well, we know oxygen is the most abundant element after hydrogen and helium, so that as oxygen builds more elements, it is going to build 18O which looks like a single atom, but, can be easily seen as water.

So, here we begin to see the Table of Elements be more than just elements/isotopes, we begin to see the table as the Table of Compounds also. Methane is CH4 and we view it as five atoms bonded together. But with New Chemistry, we begin to recognize that as carbon is doing a Faraday Law production of monopoles, it builds up enough monopoles for that carbon atom to have 4 hydrogen HYASYS.

So the concepts of fusion in chemistry, physics and the concept of bonding in chemistry become awfully blurred, because those compounds can be got from just a single atom that grows by monopole production inside itself. Now, some may say, this violates conservation of energy, and like Dirac, would say-- well, what of it. One consolation though, is that Faraday Law turns Space into monopoles. We normally do not think of Space having mass, but we can think of space as having energy. And so when you produce a monopole, you take energy that is Space itself and turn it into rest mass.

We often hear everyone agree that electrons inside atoms are in perpetual motion and not bothered by that. But is perpetual motion any better and easier to accept than is violation of conservation of energy. I mean, if you accept perpetual motion why block acceptance of violation of conservation of energy. Perpetual Motion is a violation of conservation of energy.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 20:15:19 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Re: solving what the New Periodic Table of Chemical Elements is--
where rows are Ampere's law and columns are Faraday Law
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 03:15:19 +0000

Re: solving what the New Periodic Table of Chemical Elements is-- where rows are Ampere's law and columns are Faraday Law

Alright i am interested on whether there is a squared relationship involved.

Hydrogen has 1 HYASYS so 9 muons, a perfect square

Deuterium 2 hyasys 18 muons

Tritium 3 hyasys 27 muons

Helium 4 hyasys 36 muons, a perfect square

Lithium 7 hyasys 63 muons

Beryllium 9 hyasys 81 muons, a perfect square

Boron 11 hyasys 99 muons

Carbon 12 hyasys 108 muons

Nitrogen 14 hyasys 126 muons

Oxygen 16 hyasys 144 muons, a perfect square

Fluorine 19 hyasys 171 muons

Neon 20 hyasys 180 muons

AP

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 22:07:59 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Re: solving what the New Periodic Table of Chemical Elements is--
where rows are Ampere's law and columns are Faraday Law
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 05:08:00 +0000

Re: solving what the New Periodic Table of Chemical Elements is-- where rows are Ampere's law and columns are Faraday Law
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Scientific American, MAR2018, page53, hexacarbonyl Re: repeat the Rutherford experiment for I think maybe the nucleus of gases are spread out
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Now here i am going to question the famous Rutherford experiment the one in which he shot particles at a gold or metal leaf and where some of those particles recoiled back, telling Rutherford that nearly all the mass is concentrated in the nucleus.
Mind you this is just a guess, that many of the atoms nucleus, does not lie in the center of the atom carrying most of the mass. I suspect the inert gases and the first p row of elements have their protons and neutrons mostly in rings outside the center of those atoms. Unfortunately Rutherford only did his work on metal-- gold and there, most of the mass is in the center.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
I suspect that experiment needs repeating for the first 26 elements especially oxygen fluorine neon for i suspect the center of those atoms are almost empty of protons and where the protons are more likely found in the muon orbital cloud to enhance the making of orbital cloud wire for Faraday law.
I think it is hard to repeat Rutherford on non metals but not impossible.
Time for a modern day repeat of Rutherford, only this time with a inert gas, or say oxygen, hydrogen for I suspect the nuclei of these elements are in a ring around the center, not directly in the center. So sort of like the plum pudding model of Thomson, only arranged in an order of like a wire, not random and chaotic. Time to repeat Rutherford.
Now, fortunately for me, I have Scientific American March 2018, talking about the Table of Elements and talking about element 106 where it lives for about 10 seconds and was able to form a compound of Element 106 with carbon monoxide to form a hexacarbonyl of Element 106.
Now, this is fortuitous because I was having problems with getting neon oxygen fluorine and helium to obey the Faraday Law in a maximum amount of production of monopoles. And after reading that snippet of hexacarbonyl, I realized what my solution must be.
Now recently I spoke of that the Old Chemistry Table of Elements needed revision and what I dreamed up was a double cone, with apex to base intersecting at midsection, rather than the silly contraption in Old Math of two apex together. Apex to base is far far better because it is stable when built, and, besides, it is a generalization of the cylinder. For think of the cylinder as a routed out, carved out midsection, like a double cone spool.
But, anyway, reading hexacarbonyl I saw a vision of where the NEW TABLE OF ATOMS must go. Not to a double cone, but rather to Ampere's Law as geometry and Ampere's law is a torus of electric current and then the magnetic field of a torus around a torus. Get out any picture of Ampere's law and you will immediately recognize that geometry where you use the right-hand rule.
Now, I keep the Old Chemistry picture of the Table, keep it all, for it is rather excellent and good. I forget about a 3rd D table or any changes to the 2nd D table. But, where the big changes come is the ALGEBRA of the Table of Elements. The Algebra changes drastically.
This is a picture of the Old Chemistry table (using just one letter to make uniform spacing, and all the s,p,d,f rows are where they should be, not this sad cut-out view, but all intact.)
H H
L B B C N O F N
NM A S P S C A
K C S T V CM F C N C Z G G A S B K
R S Y Z NM T R R P A C  I  S S T  I  X
C B L C P N P S E G T D H E T Y  L H T W R O I P A H T P B P A R
F R A T P U N P AC B C  E FM N  L U U U U U UU U U U UU U U U
So, what did the hexacarbonyl do for my insight?
Well, for one we raise hydrogen above helium to be a single whole row and have helium be a single whole row to have 8 rows in total
So here we have 1Proton = 8Muons and 1 neutron= 9Muons

Further we have 1HYASYS = 9Muons, where HYASYS means hydrogen atom system

Now it could be, just could be that no more elements can exist beyond Element 118, could be, for that would mean we have a totally new row, a 9th row. Some reasoning for this-- an upper limit to holding 8 muons as proton and 1 orbital muon as electron is reached with 295 HYASYS.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
H
H
L B B C N O F N
NM A S P S C A
K C S T V CM F C N C Z G G A S B K
R S Y Z NM T R R P A C  I  S S T  I  X
C B L C P N P S E G T D H E T Y  L H T W R O I P A H T P B P A R
F R A T P U N P AC B C  E FM N  L U U U U U UU U U U UU U U U
To me, that would be a nice table for in a way the rows remind me of a closed loop wire in Faraday law and the column are the bar magnet.

But Ampere's law needs obeying and the Table is looking much like Amperes law in that the rows are the electric wire and wrapped around the wire with the right-hand rule is magnetic field.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
The number 8 is a crucial critical number in all of physics, for it is 1proton= 8muons. Now, I do not know if 8 shows up in the Maxwell Equations, I do know 137 shows up, but, does 8 show up? It must in the form of the s,p,d,f
Now last night, I was struggling to find how to make MAXIMUM Faraday Law upon oxygen, fluorine, neon and helium to explain them as protons as wires and muons as bar magnet. And here is where the hexacarbonyl image comes to my rescue.
Notice that if we think of the entire ROW of chemical elements as the wire that the oxygen-neon row and the sulfur-argon row is 8
Now, the next two rows are the iron-krypton and the silver-Xenon row. Now, they look like those rows have no magic number 8. And here is where the algebra sinks in. When we have a d row, we make the p elements as 3 and the d elements as 5, so that we have 3+5 = 8. That Algebra is indicative of the Ampere Law, that half of the d and half of the p are going into magnetism, while the other half is going into electric monopole current.
Now, the table has two rows of s, two rows of p, two rows of d, and two rows of f. The Algebra works on the f row, where 14/2 = 7 and now we need a 1 to make 7+1 = 8. So what happens in the f row is that 7 for magnetism, 7 for electricity and the s provides the 1 as 2/2.
So, in d row, the s orbital is masked, while the p and d are cut in half.
In f row, the d and p orbitals are masked, while the f and s are cut in half.
Mind you, this algebra is all for the sake of 8. Why 8? Well the short answer is proton = 8 muons. A longer answer is symmetry of magnetism versus electricity in the Ampere Law.
Now, getting back to the first two rows, the single hydrogen and the single helium of the second row.
For hydrogen it is 8 in the form of a single proton is 8 muons forming a closed loop wire and where that orbital muon must be magnetism of Ampere law along with the bar magnet of Faraday Law.
For helium has 36 muons in total, 32+4. But 36 is also 9x4, and hydrogen is 9 muons. The view of hydrogen is it is the atom of the monopole, and the helium atom is the atom of the dipole.
The geometry view of helium is a perfect sphere, the geometry view of hydrogen is a ellipse of its magnetism to electricity.
Now in mathematics we have another ALGEBRA that is very much similar to the above Algebra, it is the Regular Polyhedra and there again we have 6 items, pyramid, tetrahedron, hexahedron, octahedron, dodecahedron, icosahedron. The algebra of regular polyhedron so much are analogs of the Table of Chemical Elements.
So let us compare Table of Elements with Table of Regular Polyhedra
edge face vertex
tetrahedron   6   4   4
pyramid        8   5    5
cube            12   6  8
octahedron  12   8  6
dodecahedron30 12 20
icosahedron   30  20 12

Notice how they are duals, cube has 6 faces, 8 vertices while dual octahedron has 8 faces 6 vertices

Now find the duality in the Table of Elements since magnetism is dual to electricity

1st row  s hydrogen 1+8 = 9  1 muon + proton(8muons)
2nd row s helium 1+8 =9       1 muon + proton(8muons)
3rd row s+p 2+6 =8
4th row s + p 2+6=8

5th row s/2 + d/2 +p/2 = 1 + 5 + 3 = 9
6th row s/2 + d/2 + p/2 = 1 + 5+3 = 9

7th row s/2 + f/2 = 1 +7 = 8   (p becomes degenerate)
8th row s/2 + f/2 = 1 +7 = 8  (p becomes degenerate)

The algebra of Regular Polyhedra remind us as a analog of the Algebra of Table of Elements, where the Faraday law and Ampere law act like rows as wires and columns as magnetic field lines of force.

AP

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu

::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ .  . | .   /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
---------------      -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
---------------      --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / .  . | .   \ .

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

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-19 23:52:20 UTC
Raw Message
#25page

#25page

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2018 23:04:11 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Jupiter growing protons in its hydrogen Re: Revolutionary idea-- Sun
and starpower are Faraday's Law turning Space into monopoles, fusion is just
a tiny fraction of starpower 1/1000
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 06:04:11 +0000

Jupiter growing protons in its hydrogen Re: Revolutionary idea-- Sun and starpower are Faraday's Law turning Space into monopoles, fusion is just a tiny fraction of starpower 1/1000
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Revolutionary idea-- Sun and starpower are Faraday's Law turning Space into monopoles, fusion is just a tiny fraction of starpower 1/1000
Please do not hold me to the 1/1000, it maybe something like 10^-6 rather than 10^-3.
There is no doubt in the world that fusion exists, and that fission, even more so, exists.
But, what I have discovered is that the Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV and that tiny particle .5MeV is Dirac's Magnetic Monopole. What that means for energy of the world, is that every atom is a Faraday Law Demonstration of every hydrogen atom system inside an atom. Every proton with its muon, every neutron, are constantly doing a Faraday law and producing electricity inside the atom, producing magnetic monopoles. And these monopoles can either stay inside the atom or flow out as radiation. This is where stars and our Sun get their power, their energy. There is a tad bit of fusion, but not very much, certainly not as much to let the Sun shine as it does every day of our life.
So now, is there some kind of means of an atom to store the magnetic monopoles until they reach a point where they add up to being a "new proton"?

Looking at hydrogen tritium decays, I see a radioisotope of .018 MeV. For molybdenum I see .04MeV, for barium I see .03MeV.

So, what I am thinking is that as the atom orbital muon causes a creation of a monopole by passing through the 8 muons of its proton, forming a monopole of .018MeV. How does that monopole become put into storage? Is an atom like a capacitor that can store monopoles?

So, then we need 840/.018 = 46,667 such events of creation of a monopole and stored inside the atom.

A capacitor is usually two metal plates with a nonconductor in between.

So is an atom structure able to be a capacitor.

Now Jupiter is said to have metallic hydrogen and is a electrical conductor, just perfect for storing monopoles inside atoms until they "grow to be a proton".

Perhaps this is the reason Jupiter is the largest planet, with all that mass/matter production by its huge amount of metallic hydrogen.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 01:20:48 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: neutrons function was never to hold protons together, but to be a
capacitor Re: Revolutionary idea-- Sun and starpower are Faraday's Law
turning Space into monopoles, fusion is just a tiny fraction of starpower 1/1000
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 08:20:48 +0000

neutrons function was never to hold protons together, but to be a capacitor Re: Revolutionary idea-- Sun and starpower are Faraday's Law turning Space into monopoles, fusion is just a tiny fraction of starpower 1/1000
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Revolutionary idea-- Sun and starpower are Faraday's Law turning Space into monopoles, fusion is just a tiny fraction of starpower 1/1000
Please do not hold me to the 1/1000, it maybe something like 10^-6 rather than 10^-3.
Seriously, I wonder if any scientist had the brains to look to see what the ratio of hydrogen to helium was on Jupiter or Saturn and compared it to the ratio in the Sun. I mean, well, if the ratio on Jupiter and Saturn is 90%hydrogen and 8% helium and the ratio in the Sun is the same-- should tell any half brain, that the Sun is not a huge fusion machine but rather instead a Faraday Law machine that is how the Sun shines. If my memory serves me, the literature says the ratio is the same in both Sun and Jupiter.

So, the Sun shines, not from fusion, but from Faraday law inside each atom inside the Sun.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
There is no doubt in the world that fusion exists, and that fission, even more so, exists.
But, what I have discovered is that the Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV and that tiny particle .5MeV is Dirac's Magnetic Monopole. What that means for energy of the world, is that every atom is a Faraday Law Demonstration of every hydrogen atom system inside an atom. Every proton with its muon, every neutron, are constantly doing a Faraday law and producing electricity inside the atom, producing magnetic monopoles. And these monopoles can either stay inside the atom or flow out as radiation. This is where stars and our Sun get their power, their energy. There is a tad bit of fusion, but not very much, certainly not as much to let the Sun shine as it does every day of our life.
So now, is there some kind of means of an atom to store the magnetic monopoles until they reach a point where they add up to being a "new proton"?
Looking at hydrogen tritium decays, I see a radioisotope of .018 MeV. For molybdenum I see .04MeV, for barium I see .03MeV.
I just picked that one out of many radioisotopes. It is a good enough estimate of what a orbital muon in a Faraday Law thrust through a closed loop ring as a proton is 8 muons, that such a thrust, considering these muons are traveling 10-90% speed of light, that it would create a monopole of .018MeV

So, basically another proof of Faraday Law is how stars shine, would be to show the photons of our Sun are directly related to monopole production inside hydrogen and helium atoms.

And, the remarkable feature of this StarPower, is that stars seem to increase in mass and volume, never decreasing which they should decrease if fusion was in play.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
So, what I am thinking is that as the atom orbital muon causes a creation of a monopole by passing through the 8 muons of its proton, forming a monopole of .018MeV. How does that monopole become put into storage? Is an atom like a capacitor that can store monopoles?
So, then we need 840/.018 = 46,667 such events of creation of a monopole and stored inside the atom.
A capacitor is usually two metal plates with a nonconductor in between.
I have seen many a capacitor and the usual type is a rolled up cylinder. And a neutron is in an atom for what purpose? In Old Physics, the neutron was thought to deliver the Strong Nuclear Force. But, there is only a force of attraction no matter whether like charge or unlike charge, only attraction exists in EM theory, and what you always thought was repel, is not repel, for it is Pauli Exclusion-- denial of same space occupancy. The world has only an ACTIVE FORCE of ATTRACTION. The world has no repulsion, only denial of same space.

So, that leaves us with the huge question. Since neutrons are not needed to keep protons together, then, what the hell are they they for?

So, you can anticipate where this is going. Capacitors are often shaped like cylinders with contents of many sheets of metal sandwiched in between nonconductors.

So, a NEUTRON in an atom is a capacitor, and its function is to store up all those monopoles that come off the assembly line from the orbital muons and the protons as wires.

Now, do we have any numbers to verify that claim? We most certainly do. For if we look at almost any Chemical Table for the atomic mass we find Boron at 10.811 (Oxtoby Nachtrieb, 1990) where we have a neutron that is 1-.811 = .19 short.

We see Mg at 24.305 which means magnesium has a neutron that is starting to be filled to be a full 1 unit, but has only collected .305 magnetic monopoles.

We see Cl at 35.453 which means it has one neutron that is almost half full of 9muons or 945MeV. In other words, the Faraday production of monopoles in chlorine have filled a neutron to half full capacity.

We see Hg, mercury at 200.59, and here is an atom that has a bit more than a half filled neutron, being grown by the Faraday law creating monopoles.

Now it was discovered that neutrons form satellite neutrons, outside the nucleus, and this goes part and parcel with the idea that neutrons exist in atoms, not because they help hold protons together, no, not at all, but rather, their function is to storage all the monopoles created by the Faraday law upon protons with orbital muons.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 01:35:55 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: neutrons function was never to hold protons together, but to be a
capacitor Re: Revolutionary idea-- Sun and starpower are Faraday's Law
turning Space into monopoles, fusion is just a tiny fraction of starpower 1/1000
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 08:35:55 +0000

neutrons function was never to hold protons together, but to be a capacitor Re: Revolutionary idea-- Sun and starpower are Faraday's Law turning Space into monopoles, fusion is just a tiny fraction of starpower 1/1000

The below is a quote from gov, and if i am understanding it correctly indicates the sun is more abundant in hydrogen which means the Nebular dust cloud theory is trash. It also means everyone in physics and astronomy failed logic, for you cannot have a star burning up its hydrogen in fusion yet end up having more hydrogen than Jupiter.

The Galileo probe mass spectrometer: composition of Jupiter's atmosphere. - NCBI
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › pubmed
by HB Niemann · 1996 · Cited by 252 · Related articles
The measured ratio of deuterium to hydrogen (D/H) of (5 +/- 2) x 10(-5) indicates that this ratio is greater in solar-system hydrogen than in local interstellar hydrogen, and the 3He/4He ratio of (1.1 +/- 0.2) x 10(-4) provides a new value for protosolar (solar nebula) helium isotopes.

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 01:54:17 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: diagram of a proton producing monopoles and storing them in a
capacitor Re: neutrons function was never to hold protons together, but to be
a capacitor
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 08:54:18 +0000

diagram of a proton producing monopoles and storing them in a capacitor Re: neutrons function was never to hold protons together, but to be a capacitor

Now I better mend my conception of the Faraday Law with a proton as 8muons as a closed loop wire and the orbital muon as a bar magnet.

I was thinking the closed loop wire was a octet of muons

M        M

M                   M

M                   M

M        M

that is 1 proton = 8 muons

And the bar magnet is a orbital muon thrust through the center creating a magnetic monopole.

No, I think the far better picture is this

M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M

as a coil of muons, 8muons = 1proton
And each muon has a center hole so that the thrusting muon goes through a coil of 8 muons creating a monopole current in the coil

Now, possibly the neutrons are connected to the proton and as soon as the monopole is created, it flows into the neutron until that neutron is full with 945MeV.

M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N

now it maybe the case where the proton 8muons and neutron building up its 9muons are connected end to end in a torus formation so the constant thrusting of the orbital muon keeps creating more and more monopoles in the fastest time.

AP

Does the Real Electron= muon = 105 MeV, Real Proton = 840 MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole changes physics understanding of excited energy states

Well in Old Physics the electron is seen as .5MeV, in New Physics the electron is so much heavier 105MeV, so that the new view is the muon does not move around as much as .5 did. In Old Physics, it was thought the .5 particle absorbed energy and was lifted into a higher orbital, and once it came back down to a lower orbital it emitted that absorbed energy. Does the same picture hold true for New Physics?

Well, if you consider the .5MeV as a monopole particle that is a tourist particle in a atom, a particle that comes and goes and is not integral to the atom, so that excitation higher and lower states is rather a side-show of atoms and not what is really going on.

In New Physics, the muon and protons are doing a Faraday Law dance to produce more muons and the .5MeV particle is a particle that is on its way to becoming a 105MeV new muon.

In New Physics, the neutrons are Capacitors in atoms and storing this energy, and when the neutron is outside the atom, it ceases to be a capacitor and transforms into a Hydrogen Atom.

Now, the fact on Earth of BIOLUMINESCENCE, that biology can be a microscopic-Sun points to the logical fact, that Sun and stars shine, not from fusion, but rather, from the inner workings of Atoms and molecules doing a Faraday Law dance to create matter out of Space they occupy.

Imagine that-- the firefly proves that stars and our Sun is not a fusion making machine, but rather, is a Faraday Law Machine, where a muon in an atom thrusts through a proton as proton= 8muons.

Picture the Sun, and stars, not as a huge ball of atoms trying to fuse, but picture the Sun as a huger ball of fireflies. A typical light beam from a firefly are photons of 2 to 3 eV, electron volts.

Now, how many atoms in the Sun? Say 10^57, for there are approx 10^23 stars in the universe and thus about 10^80 atoms in the Universe as whole.

But anyway, say we have 10^57 fireflies in a ball in space other than the Sun. And these fireflies, would they be as bright as the Sun? Well, brighter than the Sun when all of them light up at once.

Bioluminescence is a fascinating but neglected study of physics, hugely underestimated, perhaps because, well, few physicists can even spell it correctly, without falling flat on their face.

A typical energy of bioluminescence is 2 to 3 eV. And that is the typical photon that the Sun sends to Earth in Sunlight.

So, if chemistry of biology can produce Sunlight, only a crazy fall flat on his face physicists would think that the Sun and stars shine via some stupid silly proton proton reaction of fusion.

You see, in science-- any science -- when people want an explanation of how things work-- they always-- always pick the dumbest explanation because, a dumb explanation is better than no explanation. The dumb fusion explanation is better than a coal burning on Sun explanation, but not much more better.

The huge problem with fusion is that it is so extremely difficult to work right. Bioluminescence is merely electricity. Look around the world-- do you see any fusion plants around? Now, do you see any electricity around?

The Sun shines, the Stars shine, but they shine because of electricity-- of atoms, each and every atom is doing a thrusting bar magnet through a coil ( a proton is a coil of 8 muons).

Look at how pathetic is the proton to proton fusion reaction-- with its appeal to a diproton-- 1 chance in a billion of doing a fusion event.

Look at modern society, is it a 1 in a billion chance to make electricity today? Of course not.

When any science has no explanation for how things work-- it accepts even the most dumbest of explanations of how something works.

AP

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu

::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ .  . | .   /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
---------------      -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
---------------      --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / .  . | .   \ .

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

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-23 04:15:11 UTC
Raw Message
#26page

#26page

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 13:03:55 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Analog experiment, imitating the proton as coil of 8 and muon as bar
magnet-- resulting in 2-3 eV
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 20:03:56 +0000

Analog experiment, imitating the proton as coil of 8 and muon as bar magnet-- resulting in 2-3 eV

How easy, or how hard is it, to make a ANALOG Experiment of a analog 1 proton = 8muons. Arrange those 8 entities into a coil and thrust a 1 muon analog through that coil to produce 2 to 3 eV of electricity?

Of course we cannot have a microscope so small that we peer inside a hydrogen atom and watch this Faraday Law going on.

So, we can do a Analog Experiment of getting 2 to 3 eV electricity from a coil of 8.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 14:37:45 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Re: Analog experiment, imitating the proton as coil of 8 and muon as
bar magnet-- resulting in 2-3 eV
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 21:37:46 +0000

Re: Analog experiment, imitating the proton as coil of 8 and muon as bar magnet-- resulting in 2-3 eV

You see, I do not know if the typical Sunlight, the visible, infrared and UV have a fingerprint of where they came from. Did they come from hydrogen fusion, or did they come from a Faraday Law inside all atoms that produces monopoles.

If they come from Faraday Law, the Sun and Stars can directly emit monopoles of say 3 eV wavelengths.

So, I am guessing there is a fingerprint signature, but rather hard to get at. Perhaps it is some wavelengths not usually payed any attention to.

Then, there is the anomaly of fusion for stars yet stars lack deuterium. I bet there are many many anomalies and paradoxes for those who assume the Sun is a fusion machine. The Faraday Law as star shine does not remove fusion altogether, mind you. There is a tiny amount of fusion going on in the Sun, only the bulk of the Sun's power is from Faraday Law, converting Space into electricity.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 17:27:35 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Re: Analog experiment, imitating the proton as coil of 8 and muon as
bar magnet-- resulting in 2-3 eV
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 00:27:36 +0000

Re: Analog experiment, imitating the proton as coil of 8 and muon as bar magnet-- resulting in 2-3 eV
You see, I do not know if the typical Sunlight, the visible, infrared and UV have a fingerprint of where they came from. Did they come from hydrogen fusion, or did they come from a Faraday Law inside all atoms that produces monopoles.
If they come from Faraday Law, the Sun and Stars can directly emit monopoles of say 3 eV wavelengths.
So now, let me ask a question about every chemical element mass determination.
So, I am guessing there is a fingerprint signature, but rather hard to get at. Perhaps it is some wavelengths not usually payed any attention to.
Then, there is the anomaly of fusion for stars yet stars lack deuterium. I bet there are many many anomalies and paradoxes for those who assume the Sun is a fusion machine. The Faraday Law as star shine does not remove fusion altogether, mind you. There is a tiny amount of fusion going on in the Sun, only the bulk of the Sun's power is from Faraday Law, converting Space into electricity.
In Oxtoby, Nachtrieb PRINCIPLES of MODERN CHEMISTRY, 2nd ed. 1990

Shows Hg at atomic mass of 200.59 Now why in the world would it have a .59 when protons and neutrons are all, really that of a value of 1 atomic unit. So, we should have a 200 or 2001 for Hg.

So, question, is the figure 200.59 a specific isotope or is it an average over four isotopes of 199Hg, 200Hg, 201Hg, 202Hg (Wikipedia)?

Same question for boron listed at 10.81 weight, it has two stable isotopes 10B and 11B.

So, are these weights an average weight?

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 18:56:46 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Re: Analog experiment, imitating the proton as coil of 8 and muon as
bar magnet-- resulting in 2-3 eV
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 01:56:47 +0000

Re: Analog experiment, imitating the proton as coil of 8 and muon as bar magnet-- resulting in 2-3 eV
You see, I do not know if the typical Sunlight, the visible, infrared and UV have a fingerprint of where they came from. Did they come from hydrogen fusion, or did they come from a Faraday Law inside all atoms that produces monopoles.
If they come from Faraday Law, the Sun and Stars can directly emit monopoles of say 3 eV wavelengths.
Here I probably made a mistake in my first announcement of this atomic weight of chemical elements. I am looking for a element that is not near a whole number, such as Hg is 200.59
So now, let me ask a question about every chemical element mass determination.
So, I am guessing there is a fingerprint signature, but rather hard to get at. Perhaps it is some wavelengths not usually payed any attention to.
Then, there is the anomaly of fusion for stars yet stars lack deuterium. I bet there are many many anomalies and paradoxes for those who assume the Sun is a fusion machine. The Faraday Law as star shine does not remove fusion altogether, mind you. There is a tiny amount of fusion going on in the Sun, only the bulk of the Sun's power is from Faraday Law, converting Space into electricity.
In Oxtoby, Nachtrieb PRINCIPLES of MODERN CHEMISTRY, 2nd ed. 1990
Shows Hg at atomic mass of 200.59 Now why in the world would it have a .59 when protons and neutrons are all, really that of a value of 1 atomic unit. So, we should have a 200 or 2001 for Hg.
So, question, is the figure 200.59 a specific isotope or is it an average over four isotopes of 199Hg, 200Hg, 201Hg, 202Hg (Wikipedia)?
Same question for boron listed at 10.81 weight, it has two stable isotopes 10B and 11B.
So, are these weights an average weight?
The 200.59 is probably an average weight, not a single isotope weight.

But it begs the question is there an element in which the weight mysteriously is not a whole number? If so, it would be evidentiary proof that atoms produce monopoles which they store inside that atom's neutrons.

I have the feeling that weight measurements are put into a "limbo program" meaning that researchers are not reporting any odd numbers, and instead adjusting their data to fit what they think is the number.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 21:27:17 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Re: Analog experiment, imitating the proton as coil of 8 and muon as
bar magnet-- resulting in 2-3 eV
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 04:27:18 +0000

Re: Analog experiment, imitating the proton as coil of 8 and muon as bar magnet-- resulting in 2-3 eV

Alright some progress here and funny i did not recall the Mendeleev history where the atomic mass did not match the family resemblance sequence on three spots-- argon to potassium and then cobalt to nickel and then tellurium to iodine. Mendeleev did not have isotopes. And the reason for less mass was one of the two had a single stable isotope.

Argon 39.948

Cobalt 58.933

Iodine 126.9

Now notice hydrogen is 1.0079 and neon is 4.0026 slightly above 1 and 4.

But that argon cobalt iodine are slightly below a whole number.

So can this be my long sought for elements in which they have a neutron only .9  built, and needs .1 more monopoles to make argon cobalt and  iodine.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2018 23:54:12 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Atomic mass of iodine 126.9 when it should be 127 or a little
more//proving Faraday Law builds the mass matter of the Universe
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 06:54:13 +0000

Atomic mass of iodine 126.9 when it should be 127 or a little more//proving Faraday Law builds the mass matter of the Universe
Alright some progress here and funny i did not recall the Mendeleev history where the atomic mass did not match the family resemblance sequence on three spots-- argon to potassium and then cobalt to nickel and then tellurium to iodine. Mendeleev did not have isotopes. And the reason for less mass was one of the two had a single stable isotope.
Argon 39.948
Cobalt 58.933
Iodine 126.9
Now notice hydrogen is 1.0079 and neon is 4.0026 slightly above 1 and 4.
Alright, so here is what I set out to prove, only I was hoping for a element to be stuck half way inbetween two whole numbers. I wanted something like iodine being 126.500, but 126.90 is good enough.
But that argon cobalt iodine are slightly below a whole number.
So can this be my long sought for elements in which they have a neutron only .9  built, and needs .1 more monopoles to make argon cobalt and  iodine.
So here is the argument. The atomic mass should be a whole number or just a bit above. But in the case of iodine we have 126.90 and that means not quite 127 hydrogen atom systems HYASYS. We cannot have a .9 of a neutron.

So what is happening inside of iodine? It is creating more mass/matter out of Space by its protons acting as a coil of 8 muons and the orbital muon is a bar magnet thrusting through the coil, creating a monopole current and this current runs into a neutron as a capacitor. The Faraday Law builds and creates neutrons inside of atoms as capacitors for atoms, and as each neutron is slowly built up from monopoles stored inside-- it becomes a full neutron and then that atom starts building up a new neutron.

So .9 of a neutron is almost a complete muon since a proton= 8muons and thus a neutron = 9muons. So .9 of a neutron is almost 1 full muon, not quite but almost one full muon.

Now, I am really surprized at how accurate these atomic masses are-- out to three decimal places.

AP

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu

::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ .  . | .   /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
---------------      -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
---------------      --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / .  . | .   \ .

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

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-23 22:02:10 UTC
Raw Message
#28page

#28page

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 20:19:45 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: NOVA's "Secrets of the Sun" needs overhaul Re: mitochondria mimic
neutron, ribosomes mimic magnetic monopoles, endoplasmic reticulum mimics
proton with muon
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 03:19:45 +0000

NOVA's "Secrets of the Sun" needs overhaul Re: mitochondria mimic neutron, ribosomes mimic magnetic monopoles, endoplasmic reticulum mimics proton with muon

Watched NOVA's Secrets of the Sun with Stanford's J. Hoeksema tonight, and fitting that it is broadcast right in the middle of where I show that the Sun shines not from fusion but from Faraday Law inside each and every atom in the Sun. Starpower is not fusion, although it has a small percent of its energy for sunlight, but the bulk of energy from the Sun and stars is Faraday Law of producing magnetic monopoles inside atoms.

Now, unfortunately, most of this NOVA's show is totally wrong as far as theory of the sun goes. But we can save that portion over the concern of Coronal Mass Ejection CME.

But let me correct something I recently wrote but have trouble finding for I wrote that the surface of the Sun was hotter than its interior, for what I really meant was the corona of the sun its outer atmosphere, not its surface (if we can define a plasma surface). The Corona of the sun extends millions of kilometers above the surface and at about 500 kilometers is 3 million degrees C. (Stanford)

Sun center heat is 15 million C. Sun's corona about 3 million C. Sun surface is about 6 thousand C.

So, what in this NOVA program is worth saving? About 25% is worth saving of the CME, and the damage to Earth it can do.

The parts to throw out is 75%
1) the theory of how the Sun works is not fusion fueling the Sun and stars but rather each atom creates Magnetic monopoles which is the light streaming out of stars
2) the Sun has a hollow core, and that was never mentioned in this program
3) as monopoles are the cause of star and Sun heat and light, the Corona is so much hotter because of a Magnetic Monopole wavelength is the Corona itself.
4) the program mentions Solar seismology, sound waves on surface, but I would caution that, because when monopoles create the Sun's energy, means that Radio Waves are widespread, and so, the researchers here are confusing Sound waves with that of Radio Waves.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 21:33:08 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Chemical Elements Table based on science principle-- Faraday's law//
no longer based on a fashion statement-- family resemblance
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 04:33:09 +0000

Chemical Elements Table based on science principle-- Faraday's law// no longer based on a fashion statement-- family resemblance

On Wednesday, March 14, 2018 at 4:10:01 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Alright, let us explore these data with Faraday's Law as main explanation
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
--- quoting Wikipedia ---
Iso­tope        Abun­dance        Half-life (t1/2)        Decay mode        Pro­duct
1H        99.98%        stable
2H        0.02%        stable
3H        trace        12.32 y        β−        3He
Iso­tope        Abun­dance        Half-life (t1/2)        Decay mode        Pro­duct
3He        0.0002%        stable
4He        99.9998%        stable
Notice how there seems to be a continuum of isotopes, no breaks in mass as going from mass of 1 to that of 4.

So we need to question whether inert gases have some "principle " behind them as that other elements want to -- be like the inert gases, or, whether they simple lie at the end of a row and have no "science principle to back them up as -- anything special--" For below, one can argue that potassium is more an inert gas than is argon, and iodine more an inert gas than is xenon.

So, if we built a table with 295 Isotopes in consecutive order of mass, and split them into 8 rows, would we end up with a better Table of Elements than our current table? I would say yes, because with Faraday Law running the show, the ordering of Elements must be mass, not some wishy washy family resemblance.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Here is oxygen from Wikipedia-- once i get these five sets collected will show how RSMMM Dirac's New Radioactivities creates new elements
Iso­tope        Abun­dance        Half-life (t1/2)        Decay mode        Pro­duct
16O        99.76%        stable
17O        0.04%        stable
18O        0.20%        stable
Now, with Faraday Law running the show, we run into one of the most amazing questions for anyone in science. Is there much difference between a 18F atom and a 18O atom and a molecule of H2O for, all three of them have the same mass. And if we picture each atom as protons as coil, muon as thrusting bar magnet, the lines of a chemical bond and a atom are blurred, terribly blurred.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Iso­tope        Abun­dance        Half-life (t1/2)        Decay mode        Pro­duct
18F        trace        109.8 min        β+ (97%)        18O
ε (3%)        18O
19F        100%        stable
Iso­tope        Abun­dance        Half-life (t1/2)        Decay mode        Pro­duct
20Ne        90.48%        stable
21Ne        0.27%        stable
22Ne        9.25%        stable
Explaining the mass paradox of argon to potassium, of cobalt to nickel and of tellurium to iodine
--- quoting wikipedia, and very much thanks to Wikipedia that I can fix the table ---
Iso­tope        Abun­dance        Half-life (t1/2)        Decay mode        Pro­duct
36Ar        0.334%        stable
37Ar        syn        35 d        ε        37Cl
38Ar        0.063%        stable
39Ar        trace        269 y        β−        39K
40Ar        99.604%        stable
41Ar        syn        109.34 min        β−        41K
42Ar        syn        32.9 y                β−        42K
Now here we have Argon with a huge number of isotopes, which seems ridiculous if we think of inert gases as such stable chemical elements, and other elements trying to seek to be inert gas. So if all these elements are seeking to be "inert like" why would the inert gases themselves want to be some isotope. Should not the inert gases have no isotopes. I mean, that is what a logical minded person would say. So then it means Old Physics and Old Chemistry were totally wrong on atoms, and what corrects them, is to realize the modus operandi of atoms is to grow, no matter if you are a alkali metal or a halogen or a reactive element like oxygen, or even a inert gas. All elements want to grow more neutrons inside themselves and is doing that growing all the time.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Iso­tope        Abun­dance        Half-life (t1/2)        Decay mode        Pro­duct
39K        93.258%        stable
40K        0.012%        1.248×109 y        β−        40Ca
ε        40Ar
β+        40Ar
41K        6.730%        stable
Iso­tope        Abun­dance        Half-life (t1/2)        Decay mode        Pro­duct
56Co        syn        77.27 d        ε        56Fe
57Co        syn        271.79 d        ε        57Fe
58Co        syn        70.86 d        ε        58Fe
59Co        100%        stable
60Co        syn        5.2714 y
Now here, is a case in point, the cobalt to nickel paradox. What if we actually switched the cobalt and put nickel in place and vice versa, would any chemist ever know the difference? I mean, does not the family resemblance of Ni with Rh Ir and that of Co with Pd Pt harmonize better? So that if someone just switched those two around because of mass sequence, would be an improvement on Old Chemistry's Table.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Iso­tope        Abun­dance        Half-life (t1/2)        Decay mode        Pro­duct
58Ni        68.077%        stable
59Ni        trace        7.6×104 y        ε        59Co
60Ni        26.223%        stable
61Ni        1.140%        stable
62Ni        3.635%        stable
63Ni        syn                 100 y        β−        63Cu
64Ni        0.926%        stable
Iso­tope        Abun­dance        Half-life (t1/2)        Decay mode        Pro­duct
120Te        0.09%        stable
121Te        syn        16.78 d                         ε        121Sb
122Te        2.55%        stable
123Te        0.89%[5]        stable
124Te        4.74%        stable
125Te        7.07%        stable
126Te        18.84%        stable
127Te        syn        9.35 h                           β−        127I
128Te        31.74%        2.2×1024 y        β−β−        128Xe
129Te        syn        69.6 min                       β−        129I
130Te        34.08%        7.9×1020 y        β−β−        130Xe
Iso­tope        Abun­dance        Half-life (t1/2)        Decay mode        Pro­duct
123I        syn        13 h                   ε, γ        123Te
124I        syn        4.176 d                  ε        124Te
125I        syn        59.40 d                  ε        125Te
127I        100%        stable
129I        trace        1.57×107 y        β−        129Xe
131I        syn        8.02070 d        β−, γ        131Xe
135I        syn        6.57 h                β−        135Xe
Now here, if we look at Xenon, it has an isotope even as low as 124Xe and is stable, yet iodine is only stable at 127.

So here, would it be an improvement if we said that Iodine was the last element in row that includes Rb and before iodine we had xenon.

My point is this. When humanity had to make its first Table of Elements, it was absolutely logical to base it on a concept of family resemblance, but now that science has progressed so far, so fast, a table of elements needs to be based upon Science Principle-- Faraday's law and that means a progression sequence of Mass, no longer a human fashion statement of "family resemblance".

AP

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu

::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ .  . | .   /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
---------------      -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
---------------      --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / .  . | .   \ .

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

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-24 18:17:52 UTC
Raw Message
#29page

#29page

AP's Parallelogram Cones -- new figure of geometry Re: AP math theorem of Conic Sections- apex to base
Newsgroups: sci.physics, and sci.math a few minutes later
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 03:06:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: AP math theorem of Conic Sections- apex to base Re: New Chemistry
Table-- two superimposed cones Re: AP's Periodic Table of Atoms in light of
the fact Real Proton= 840MeV, Real Electron= 105MeV, the .5MeV= monopole
Injection-Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 10:06:44 +0000
AP math theorem of Conic Sections- apex to base Re: New Chemistry Table-- two superimposed cones Re: AP's Periodic Table of Atoms in light of the fact Real Proton= 840MeV, Real Electron= 105MeV, the .5MeV= monopole
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
(snipped)
Now, let me go out a little further on the Old Periodic Table where each element is given just its first letter and each row starts with a alkali metal and ends in a noble gas
H H
L B B C N O F N
NM A S P S C A
K C S T V CM F C N C Z G G A S B K
R S Y Z NM T R R P A C  I  S S T  I  X
C B L C P N P S E G T D H E T Y  L H T W R O I P A H T P B P A R
F R A T P U N P AC B C  E FM N  L U U U U U UU U U U UU U U U
Alright, the above becomes this, of 8 rows exactly, a row given to hydrogen alone and helium row alone.
- hide quoted text -

H
H
L B B C N O F N
NM A S P S C A
K C S T V CM F C N C Z G G A S B K
R S Y Z NM T R R P A C  I  S S T  I  X
C B L C P N P S E G T D H E T Y  L H T W R O I P A H T P B P A R
F R A T P U N P AC B C  E FM N  L U U U U U UU U U U UU U U U
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Now it is a relief for once to see the table in full without breaks and bottom panels just because the paper is not big enough to hold them in one unbroken pattern.
Now, of course, I am speculating that a double cone, one inside the other reversed so the apex end is at the base end.
\/\/
/\/\
that is 2 cones with apex at base, 2 cones intersecting at midcircle
Sad for me, that 5 days is an old post for me. I mean, it feels like I am juggling a thousand ideas at once.
I have realized this morning (yes, I have new hours-- because I want to see more daylight). I have realized that I am going to need those two cones-- apex to base forming a spool-cylinder.
Now let me prove a Conjecture then its Theorem-- and perhaps, no-one has proved this before. I suspect no-one, because every book on conic sections I have ever seen has the stupid silly theory with apex to apex
v
^
Have you ever seen a Conic Section theory with apex to base? No, for I think I am the first on this.
This is apex to base Conic Section theory
A     B
\/\/
/\/\
C     D
first cone is AB and second cone is CD, they intersect at a midsection.
Alright, here I made a mistake in thinking angular momentum-- area, when I should be thinking linear, not area, thinking circumference not area
Conjecture: the conic sections of circles of both cones when added together of their areas, is equal in area to the base area AB  = area CD
That reads Conjecture: the conic sections of circles of both cones when added together of their circumference, is equal in circumference the base circumference AB = circumference CD.

I need the surfaces of the cone related to physics, not the interior of the cones in any fashion.

And this is easy to see by just setting the two cones together that you can have a rubberband go up and down the two cones without being stretched having equal circumference.
Proof:: This is easy proof if we do right triangles. So, get two plastic right triangles-- 30-60-90 and place them together as the above picture
\/|
/\|
becomes
/| /
/ |/
It forms a parallelogram
Now it is obvious to see that the radii all along the two intersecting cones is equal, hence the addition is a sum that equals the base circumference, for the apex contributes 0 area of one cone.
I doubt the math literature has ever conjectured this or proved it, I doubt it, because apex to base is a superior Conic Section theory, and so I claim the above as the Chemistry Conic theorem because it is going to be vital to the New Chemistry Periodic Table, and vital to Maxwell theory of Physics, because here we see that a conics of apex to base is essentially a cylinder, a cylinder at a slant. And its purpose in physics is extremely important for the two cones are dualistic, what one cone has the other contributes to making a full cylinder.
And, what should I name this new figure, never before given a name in math literature.

Where you place one cone, snug, up against another equal sized cone to form a TWO CONES MAKING A 3rd dimension PARALLELOGRAM figure? I call it the AP Cone Parallelogram.

Now I need to review pi in Geometry, because I have some changes there also.

AP

On Thursday, March 15, 2018 at 5:42:18 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:

New Table of Chemistry picture is two intersecting cones. Why? Because one is abundance-- other is isotopic mass

Here we have 8 rows of 118 Elements, but if we had it by mass we would have 295 isotopic mass. We need two cones intersecting because abundance is taken up mostly by hydrogen and helium so as to be the base area of one cone, but hydrogen and helium isotopic numbers occupy from 1 to 4 isotopic mass. Now, I am going to have to eat my words on a earlier post where I said the masses are continuous, for I just now see there is no isotope of mass 5, for I though lithium had it covered but no. So now I have to look and see if there are other discontinuous mass points-- such as the other inert gases.

On Thursday, March 15, 2018 at 6:26:02 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
New Table of Chemistry picture is two intersecting cones. Why? Because one is abundance-- other is isotopic mass

Now the search is on for a isotope of mass 5

Iso­tope        Abun­dance        Half-life (t1/2)        Decay mode        Pro­duct
6Li        5%        stable
7Li        95%        stable
(Wikipedia)

On Thursday, March 15, 2018 at 6:31:27 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
New Table of Chemistry picture is two intersecting cones. Why? Because one is abundance-- other is isotopic mass

Apparently some have witnessed 5He

Springer
Atomic Mass and Nuclear Binding Energy for He-5 (Helium)
Helium 2-He
Authors
Authors and affiliations
S.I. Sukhoruchkin authorZ.N. Soroko

On Thursday, March 15, 2018 at 6:34:37 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
New Table of Chemistry picture is two intersecting cones. Why? Because one is abundance-- other is isotopic mass

Apparently there is lithium 5 also

Atomic Mass and Nuclear Binding Energy for Li-5 (Lithium)
Lithium 3-Li
Authors
Authors and affiliations
S.I. Sukhoruchkin authorZ.N. Soroko

On Thursday, March 15, 2018 at 2:33:21 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:

New Table of Chemistry picture is two intersecting cones. Why? Because one is abundance-- other is isotopic mass

Now i have concerns of how we differentiate between 3H and 3He, or 5He and 5Li.

What i mean is 3H is one proton building new neutron when it already has two neutrons, while 3He is two protons building two new neutrons when it has one neutron.

This suggests a timeframe for radioactivity.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 23:50:21 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Sun shines, not from fusion but from Faraday Law creating monopoles
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 06:50:22 +0000

Sun shines, not from fusion but from Faraday Law creating monopoles

Alright, Dirac spent most of his life looking for the magnetic monopole when it was already discovered in 1897 by Thomson. Was Dirac even alive in 1897?

Anyway-- everyone who was a scientist accepted this .5MeV particle as the electron of atms and the proton as 938Mev. trouble with those numbers, is, you cannot have the covalent bond of chemistry. You need an angular momentum of electron to proton to be closer together for having a covalent bond. Thus, Real Electron = 105 MeV, Real Proton = 840 MeV gives chemistry its covalent bond.

But, what that means inside each and every atom is a dance of creation of Dirac's monopole. The dance is Faraday's law where the muon as bar magnet thrusts through the proton =8muons creating a monople. Turning Space into monopole current.

Our Sun converts Space into monopoles, and the majority of those monopole are saved and stored in the Sun in creating more atoms for the Sun but many of those monopoles are Sunlight radiating out from the sun. There is some fusion going on in the Sun but such a tiny amount compared to monopole creation that it is a footnote of why stars shine.

Our Sun is hollow-- so the fusion expressed in the NOVA show is a joke. The Sun is hollow because in electricity magnetism the laws have charge and action taking place on surface leaving the center empty. The reason our Sun's corona is hotter than surface is due to monopole wavelength.

The reason the proportion of hydrogen to helium is the same for Sun as for Jupiter for the past 5 billion years is because fusion is not what drives the Sun to shine, otherwise we would see a depletion of the Sun' hydrogen-- but we see no depletion.

The reason the neutron is unstable outside a atom-- few minutes before it decays into a 105 and 840 MeV hydrogen atom is because a neutron is a storage particle to create a hydrogen atom, but a neutron by itself cannot make monopoles.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 00:37:57 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Sun shines, not from fusion but from Faraday Law creating monopoles
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 07:37:57 +0000

Sun shines, not from fusion but from Faraday Law creating monopoles

Now in that NOVA program they were proud of the fact that someone noticed tiny ripples all over the Sun which was a nice, very nice discovery, but as usual in science no physicist had a good enough logical brain to interpret what in fact they actually discovered-- witness-- Thomson discovered a .5MeV particle in 1897 and no-one with logical brain to properly interpret that the .5MeV was not the electron but rather the monopole.

Now if memory is correct, way back in 1492, Columbus to his dying day believed he landed in China or India, and only ten years after Columbus in Amerigo Vespucci does the world recognize two new continents were discovered.

Discovery in science is often vastly different from interpreting in science. So that by 1502 did Europe realize the world had two new continents.

In physics it took from 1897 until 2017 to correctly interpret what Thomson discovered in 1897.

But now, scientists discovered ripples on the Sun and said it is due to Sound Waves, and created a new branch of Solar study called Sun seismology. But, are the correct in that interpretation? I say no, because why bring in sound physics when 99.99999% of the physics of the Sun is electricity magnetism.  Here again a case of a thousand of the best physicist easily discovering ripples but not a single one of them with a gram of a logical mind to interpret what they see in those ripples.

What i see in those ripples is sheer uniformity and uniformity is not a attribute of sound. What is uniform to create ripples on the Sun is radio waves (here is probably a tie in with the uniformity of Jupiter's bands of storms as radio wave caused.

So i surmise to sun ripples are radio waves from all those hydrogen and helium atoms creating magnetic monopoles
and emitting radio waves at a fraction eV.

For which if true then we can laugh and joke about NOVA's show where they say photons produced in Sun's core ( when it is hollow) takes 100,000 years to travel out of the interior and actually emit into outer space and 8 minutes later reach Earth.

You see this is a fault of science no matter what generation you have where only 1 or 2 individuals have a logical mind to properly interpret the data.

AP

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu

::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ .  . | .   /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
---------------      -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
---------------      --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / .  . | .   \ .

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

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-25 02:30:32 UTC
Raw Message
#30page

#30page

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 10:22:07 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: top ten most stupid definitions in Old Physics-- the winner is---
Angular Momentum (AP sets it to right)
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 17:22:08 +0000

top ten most stupid definitions in Old Physics-- the winner is--- Angular Momentum (AP sets it to right)

I think the winner would be Angular Momentum.

Now, before we discuss horrible terrible definitions in Old Physics, first we must get a handle on how stupid and flaky this gaggle of scientists were and could be-- a potential of stupidity. A perspective of how idiotic scientists can be, and get to.

So we had JJ. Thomson in 1897 discover a particle of .5MeV and calling it the electron, later, in 1919 Rutherford discovered a particle 938 MeV and he called it the proton.

Now, did either Thomson or Rutherford, or all the physicists thereafter from 1897 to 2017 ever question whether-- "perhaps we have them mis-identified". Did anyone of the physicists from 1897 to 2017 sit down at a desk or bench or lounge and think for one minute-- can a .5MeV particle and 938 MeV particle create the covalent bond, the ionic bond, the metallic bond of chemistry? Why, why was every physicist from 1897 to 2017 so absolutely dumb and ignorant about not identifying the correct electron = muon = 105 MeV and the Real Proton = 840 MeV. Why could no physicist from 1897 to 2017 realize the truth about the Real-Electron, Real Proton?

An answer to that question lies in the fact that one of the most hideous definitions in Old Physics was angular momentum. Not a single physicist from 1897 to 2017 understood a proper correct definition of Angular Momentum. Not a one, because if they did, there would not have been a time lapse of 120 years to realize the .5MeV particle of Thomson was Dirac's magnetic monopole.

Take a look at any Old Physics definition of Angular Momentum and see how crazy a bunch of physicists can get. Even Halliday and Resnick have a dirtbag fool definition of Angular Momentum on page 263 Fundamentals of Physics, 3rd ed, 1988. Look in Wikipedia for another foolish definition.

It is as if no physicist until year 2017 could ever make a true proper, intelligent definition of angular momentum. A definition that even a High School student can understand and appreciate.

So, here is the AP definition of Angular Momentum

velocity or speed = m/s

acceleration = m/s^2

angular momentum = m^2/s

frequency = 1/s

Simply, simply do a list of units, units for velocity, units for acceleration, units for frequency, thus, the units m^2/s is angular momentum.

Define linear momentum as units, then define angular momentum by units.

The crap that is seen in all Old Physics textbooks is crap, because it is not a definition starting from units. It is what some bozo physicist of the 20th century, who never saw that .5MeV was a monopole and could never realize the covalent bond exists when 105 to 840 MeV is involved in angular momentum.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2018 19:24:19 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: two of physics most important future experiments Re: Sun shines, not
from fusion but from Faraday Law creating monopoles
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 02:24:19 +0000

two of physics most important future experiments Re: Sun shines, not from fusion but from Faraday Law creating monopoles

Alright two of the physics finest ever experimental proofs will be the proof that the Real Proton = 840 MeV and the neutron is a atom's capacitor that can vary from .5MeV to 945MeV.

Now I am not sure if this Poland Experiment already "saw" the Real Proton, but never realized it. Whether they saw a 840MeV particle and dismissed it as a meson, whether it was +1 charge or not. I do not have the details on this Poland report.

On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 1:08:56 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:

direct observance some years back in Poland of a 840 Mev particle Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV
2nd proof with the direct observance some years back in Poland of a 840 Mev particle along with 105 MeV particle of the hydrogen atom.

Hello, well i found the below on the internet. I need a 840MeV particle that is the Real Proton. I have asked to look for it in the production of Muons. Is the below a production of muons along with 840 MeV particles?

Quoting

Indication For A Broad J(pc) = 2++ Meson At 840-mev Produced In The Reaction Pi- P ---> Pi+ Pi- N At High |t|
K. Rybicki, I. Sakrejda (Cracow, INP)
1985 - 10 pages

Z.Phys. C28 (1985) 65-74
DOI: 10.1007/BF01550250
Abstract (Springer)
The reaction π−p→π+π−n has been studied at 17.2 GeV/c and 63 GeV/c. A partial wave analysis shows a fairly broad (∼250 MeV) resonance at about 840 MeV. This object, already visible in moments of the angular distribution, is produced in theD wave with helicitym=2 via unnatural exchange. The cross section for the reaction π−p→D2U(840)n is only by an order of magnitude lower than that of ϱ(770) and falls likepLAB−2.1±0.3. We have not been able to explain this object by systematic experimental effects like acceptance and/orN* reflections; neither is the nature of the resonance (if real) clear to us.
--- end quote ---

Now the chemist Kjaergaard of Denmark already proved a key cornerstone of the AP-Maxwell theory in finding that the like to like charges actually attract. Read my "True Chemistry" textbook.

But another experiment that I wish can be performed, much harder than finding the 840MeV proton, much much harder. For I think it is impossible today to ever weigh a single atom. I maybe wrong because there was reports of some scanning tunnel microscope that can "see individual atoms". I do not know if that is boaster or exaggeration. Is it possible today to weigh an individual atom? Because if it is then an experimental proof of the Faraday Law as the main engine of all atoms and that the Sun shines, not from fusion but from Faraday Law, would all be proven true if this experiment can be performed.

What I am asking experimental physicists to do, drop everything else, and find out if an individual atom atomic weight is not that of precisely the count of Proton+ Electron and plus Neutrons. In other words for Deuterium, Old Physics can only get a atomic mass of 2. But in New Physics, Faraday Law, the capacitor of any atom is the neutrons and some are 1/3 filled, some 1/2 filled some 2/3 filled, some 3/4 filled and all in between. So if we can measure accurately the weight the mass of individual atoms we should find fractional weights, such as a hydrogen atom having a mass of 1.5 units, where the .5 unit is the building of 1/2 of a neutron, that will eventually become a deuterium atom.

I think in all the textbooks of mass of elements, those numbers are derived statistically, so that if one or two hydrogen atoms is 1.5, not a 1 or 2, that the 1.5 atom gets lost in the mix. Maybe we are sophisticated enough in instruments that we can weigh individual hydrogen atoms.

AP

On Sunday, March 18, 2018 at 12:30:36 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:
two of physics most important future experiments Re: Sun shines, not from fusion but from Faraday Law creating monopoles

Was reading that scientists in Germany were weighing the individual proton from vibrations of the proton. Of course to them a proton is 938MeV but to me it is 840MeV.

So, there is hope in the next few years this German team can weigh a proton and discover its mass is 840MeV.

And, routinely weigh neutrons coming up with 945MeV, but sometimes coming up with a fraction of 945 such as 315, or 525MeV. But these neutrons have to be weighed inside the parent atom.

AP

On Sunday, March 18, 2018 at 3:56:00 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:
called Halo Neutrons Re: two of physics most important future experiments

They are called Halo Neutrons-- they lie outside the nucleus.

According to Wikipedia-- some halo neutrons are 11Be, 19C, 6He, 11Li, 17B, 19B, 22C

What I believe these Halo neutrons are, are neutrons being filled up by magnetic monopoles from the proton+ muon acting as Faraday law-- producing monopoles, and these created monopoles flow into the partial filled neutrons, filling them up, until they become full capacity neutrons.

So, a good place for Experimental Physicists to find a 1/2 Neutron mass of 945/2 MeV are these Halo Neutrons.

AP

On Sunday, March 18, 2018 at 5:10:30 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:

called Halo Neutrons Re: two of physics most important future experiments

Source-- Wikipedia on neutron halo

Atomic
number        Name        # of nuclear
halo isotopes        Nuclear halo
isotopes        Halo
composition        Half-life (ms)[5]
2        helium        2        helium-6
helium-8        2 neutrons
4 neutrons        801(10)
119.1(12)
3        lithium        1        lithium-11        2 neutrons        8.75(14)
4        beryllium        2        beryllium-11
beryllium-14        1 neutron
4 neutrons        13810(80)
4.35(17)
5        boron        3        boron-8
boron-17
boron-19        1 proton
2 neutrons
4 neutrons        770(3)
5.08(5)
2.92(13)
6        carbon        2        carbon-19
carbon-22        1 neutron
2 neutrons        49(4)
6.1+1.4
−1.2
10        neon        1        neon-17        2 protons        109.2(6)
15        phosphorus        1        phosphorus-26        1 proton        43.7(6)
16        sulfur        1        sulfur-27

On Sunday, March 18, 2018 at 5:17:12 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:
called Halo Neutrons Re: two of physics most important future experiments

Perhaps experimental physicists have already discovered the Partial Filled with Mass neutron, due to Faraday law creating new monopoles out of Space conversion by proton coil with muon as bar magnet.

Hyperfine anomaly in Be isotopes in the cluster model and the neutron spatial distribution
American Physical Society › link › abstract
by Y Parfenova · 2005 · Cited by 20 · Related articles
Aug 17, 2005 · The study of the hyperfine anomaly of neutron rich nuclei, in particular, neutron halo nuclei , can give a very specific and unique way to measure their neutron distribution and confirm a halo structure.
Phys. Rev. C 72, 054304 (2005) - Hyperfine anomaly in Be isotopes and the neutron spatial ...
American Physical Society › journals › prc
by YL Parfenova · 2005 · Cited by 13 · Related articles
Nov 16, 2005 · The results are compared to those obtained for $^{9,11}\mathrm{Be}$ in a two-body core +neutron model to examine whether the hfs anomaly is sensitive to a halo structure in $^{11}\mathrm{Be ... On Sunday, March 18, 2018 at 7:45:29 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics: called Halo Neutrons Re: two of physics most important future experiments Here is a nice picture on ScienceDaily.com from the Univ Mainz on halo neutron -- quoting -- 11Be consists of a core of 10Be and loosely bound neutron. The neutron orbits at a mean distance of 7 fm from the center On Sunday, March 18, 2018 at 8:34:43 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: Looking for neutrons of 945/2 MeV Re: two of physics most important future experiments Now here is an interesting research into neutron decay where one method gets a different result than another method. Could it be due to a variable mass of each neutron?? --- quoting from PhysicsWorld --- This new information allowed the physicists to reduce the uncertainty of their original neutron-lifetime measurement from ±3.2s to ±1.9s. It also led to a small increase in the value of the lifetime. Consequently, the best available beam and bottle measurements now differ by 3.8σ, rather than the 2005 value of 2.9σ. The researchers are now planning to re-run the entire experiment to try to minimize the errors closer to those quoted for the bottle measurements. Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 19:43:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Perhaps a proof of Dirac's New Radioactivity, RSMMM-- row abundance in compounds From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 02:43:29 +0000 Perhaps a proof of Dirac's New Radioactivity, RSMMM-- row abundance in compounds Now i had a hard time describing this concept. An experimental proof of RSMMM would be to find neutrons of variable masses, say a neutron of 945/3 MeV, or of 945/2 MeV etc But this maybe a far easier proof in recognition that element of atomic number N grew from element of atomic number N-1 So now look at the Table of elements and say we picked helium, then in Nature, where there is a lot of helium means there has to be even more hydrogen nearby to have grown into that helium. Now look at oxygen, for if we find a large supply in Nature we should find a lot of nitrogen there also. Now if we find a lot of iron in Nature then nearby we should find a lot of manganese, whether as a mixture or compound. Here you can say where the offspring element occurs is the parent element preceding. AP Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu ::\ ::|:: /:: ::\::|::/:: _ _ (:Y:) - - ::/::|::\:: ::/ ::|:: \:: One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. . \ . . | . /. . . \. . .|. . /. . ..\....|.../... ::\:::|::/:: --------------- ------------- --------------- (Y) ------------- --------------- -------------- ::/:::|::\:: ../....|...\... . . /. . .|. . \. . . / . . | . \ . http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium Archimedes Plutonium 2018-04-25 21:04:47 UTC Permalink Raw Message #31page #31page Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2018 20:47:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Perhaps a proof of Dirac's New Radioactivity, RSMMM-- row abundance in compounds From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 03:47:23 +0000 Perhaps a proof of Dirac's New Radioactivity, RSMMM-- row abundance in compounds Now when i took Freshman Chemistry in college the concept of Mixture can up once, early on and after that it was all about compounds. Well here i want to ressurect the concept of mixture to its perhaps highest elevation of all. A proof that no Big Bang ever occurred. Now in geology and biology we have a thing known as amber-- fossilized tree resin and sometimes they have insects inside called "inclusions". So now if the universe were a Big Bang should we expect to see every star pretty much 90% hydrogen 8% helium and all other elements 2%. And should we expect to see all elements heavier than iron forged in supernova which are rare yet the chemical spread is highly uniform. So here we are able to prove the Big Bang and fusion nucleosynthesis is not how atoms were created. Because a Big Bang and fusion nucleosynthesis cannot piece together logically nor consistently the uniformity of the elements. The uniformity and relative abundance needs a continual ongoing process like Faraday's Law in RSMMM. Not a onetime event-- Big Bang accompanied by rare supernova. One-time and rare does not make for chemical uniformity across the cosmos. So if you are a geologist busting open a rock to find inclusions of Cs and Ba, or find inclusions of Na, Mg, or find Ir with Pt or find a mixture of Mn with Fe with Co--- elements next to each other in the same row of Table of Elements. Do you honestly think these elements ended up being there from a Big Bang and supernova. On the other hand if you have a deposit of phosphorus on a planet and wait a billion years and come back many of those atoms grew from Faradays law into now being atoms of sulfur, chlorine argon. And as for your original phosphorus they are not deleted because many of the aluminum and silicon grew to become phosphorus. AP Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 21:19:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: looking for elements often found together Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 04:19:39 +0000 looking for elements often found together Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook If Hyasys is true and RSMMM is true than elements in row of Periodic table should find themselves in ore deposits together. (Source Wikipedia) Rare-earth element cerium is actually the 25th most abundant element in Earth's crust, having 68 parts per million (about as common as copper). Only the highly unstable and radioactive promethium "rare earth" is quite scarce. The rare-earth elements are often found together. The longest-lived isotope of promethium Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 23:06:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Faraday and Ampere laws explaining both abundance but also rarity of elements, technetium, promethium Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 06:06:06 +0000 Faraday and Ampere laws explaining both abundance but also rarity of elements, technetium, promethium Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook Now technetium is a d row element [Kr] 4d5 5s2 And promethium is a f row elements [Xe] 4f5 6s2 Now the New Chemistry with the subatomic particles doing some active engagement with each other by doing a Faraday law and a Ampere law inside atoms to create magnetic monopoles out of the Space they occupy and thereby forging the parent atom to become a heavier atom. Now in that forging of new mass to the parent atom, some moments in the Periodic Table should be moments wherein the Faraday Law and Ampere Law are hindered in producing new magnetic monopoles to be stored inside of neutrons being filled up and where the Faraday Law and Ampere laws are hindered. Thus a juncture point in the Table of where the Maxwell Equations are stymied. Now, what can that stymie of the Faraday and Ampere law possibly be? One clue that emerges is the fact that both Promethium and Technetium are the 5th muon in the d row and first f row. Now if we look at the 5th muon in the 2nd f row we see neptunium sandwiched in between uranium and plutonium and just as "relatively scarce" as technetium or promethium with their neighbors. So here we ask a theoretical question of Faraday law and Ampere law what could affect them if 5 muons were in orbit instead of 8 muons forming an octet such as the proton itself or such as the octet of the Inert gases. That somehow 5 is unstable as per 8, forming a zone of instability. And if we apply the same logic to the p row of elements, that halfway in between the p row leads to critical instability, that element of course is Oxygen, and oxygen is very very peculiar as a element compared to its neighbors. For oxygen acts more like fluorine when it should not act like fluorine. So, what I sense here, is that oxygen like technetium and like promethium is that something is making the Faraday law and Ampere law go into overtime, unable to form a satisfactory thrusting bar magnet of a muon through the proton structure when it lies 1/2 way in between 8. AP Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 14:10:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: figuring out the New Table of Chemical Elements Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 21:10:17 +0000 figuring out the New Table of Chemical Elements Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook Alright if we inspect the neighbors of technetium we see that molybdenum at 42 is overly abundant and so if we averaged the two there is no problem. Likewise promethium is in between the abundant neodymium and samarium and so averaged by neighbors there is no need for a special explanation. It just so happens that one Faraday law configuration is better than the next one and when averaged between the 2 or 3 elements works out. Now, which of the Old Maxwell Equations is the law which covers the science of capacitors. Without thinking too much about it, I would say the Ampere-Maxwell law with its displacement current, in fact, we can say the displacement current is what the capacitor is actually -- storing up. Something I called a standing current, and in time, I think my terminology is far far better than Maxwell's name of "displacement current". The idea here is that the capacitor is the storage of Magnetic Monopoles, that are not in motion, but rather, staying put, staying confined to a region of the boundaries of the capacitor. In a sense a dipole bar magnet is where the monopoles spill out of the metal and loop back around-- whereas a capacitor is a bar magnet of monopoles that stay inside. So, what I need to do, is that I need to bring in the second dynamic law of the Maxwell equations-- Ampere alongside Faraday law. And, I need to bring in my own laws of EM --- quoting from 8th ed. Atom Totality --- It is important because the 6 Equations to compose all of EM theory, look to be these six, all starting with New Ohm's law V= i*B*L and then differentiating New Ohm's law in all its permutations possible. 1) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /A*s^2 2) V = i*B*L New Ohm's law, law of electricity 3) V' = (i*B*L)' Ampere-Maxwell law 4) (V/i*L)' = B' Faraday law 5) (V/(B*L))' = i' the new law of spin 6) (V/(i*B))' = L' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 14:58:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: figuring out the New Table of Chemical Elements Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 21:58:15 +0000 Re: figuring out the New Table of Chemical Elements Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook definition of Perfect Numbers TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, 2018, by Archimedes Plutonium Yes, i am convinced it is unnecessary, in fact confusing to define Decimals with using fractions. Instead of using 1/10 use .1, and instead of 1/100 use .01. Why bring in foreign concept of fraction when you never needed to-- logically speaking. Now, simultaneously to writing this textbook on True Mathematics I am writing a textbook on True Chemistry. And a bit stuck on the New Table of Elements, but, no-one in the world would ever think that writing a textbook on math for Grade School is going to enormously help me in figuring out what the Maxwell Equations must turn out to be for the New Table of Chemical Elements. It is moments like this, that all people must believe in a God of Nature, because really, no human mind is good enough to have spanned that gap in comprehension. The Ancients said that genius was just a person with a direct telephone to the godhead. If this is successful application of Decimals to making the New Table of Chemical Elements, well, the whole world is eye witness to this event-- right in your front room living room. Now as for percentages, can we logically get rid of fractions as an impediment? I think so. For to me fractions are nothing more than lazy division where you refuse to pull out the true decimal number. When i learned percentage way back in Grade school i did something that was never taught in the books. Alright, here I am going to define something Old Math never considered, never actually realized. Something that many young people experience in life, they are looking for "love" when it is often right in front of them and do not realize it. And they overlook it, look yonder and look afar, when it was right in front of them all the time. I am going to define Perfect Numbers, something I did years back. But never realized how important they truly are. A recent example explains my rule for percentage. Say we are given the proton at 938 and neutron at 945 (ignore the energy units) and asked for a percentage of 938 to 945, well i just divide 938/945 = .9925 now carry the decimal point over by two place values and we have the answer that 938 is 99.25% of 945. Or, if asked what percentage short is 938 from 945 we subtract 99.25 from 100 and have .7% (rounding off). Or alternatively what is the percentage of 945 from 938 we divide 945/938 = 1.007 and again see the .7% short. Now if the problem is the bank wants to charge 7% on$954. We multiply instead of divide and have .07 x 954. = \$66.78
So, here again i get rid of fractions by dividing.
Now i would never have thought of including percentage in this textbook save for the experience encountered in sci.physics where a so called engineer could not understand 938 is .7% short of 945, yet he insisted it was 12% short. If you take 12% of 938 you get .12 x 938 = 112.56 and add that to 938 is 1050.56 a far cry from 940. But when you take .007 x 938 .= 6.6 rounded to 7 and add 938 is 945. Or likewise take .007 x 945 and subtract gives 938.
I am going to define Perfect Numbers which is a bridge between Algebra and Geometry, much like the Pythagorean theorem was a bridge between Numbers and Geometry.
I include percentage because it is math essential in everyday life without science, and even more essential in science, especially sigma error and statistics.
So, how much of fractions can i get rid of? Perhaps save the lessons of add subtract multiply divide fractions, just of a few small fractions
1/2 + 2/3
3/4 - 2/9
1/8 x 2/5
(9/10) / (1/2)
Perfect Numbers were always here, always around, just that no-one felt a need to call them out as hugely important and special to all of mathematics.
I do not know-- say a month in two years of school on fractions.
What i prefer to see is students recognize .5 is 1/2 more than 1/2 vaguely seen as .5.
PERFECT NUMBERS: are defined as being a part of the axioms that build the Counting Numbers. We are given an axiom in Peano as there exists a 0 and 1. We need two numbers to exist in order to get a metric distance or unit measure between them. The Incorrect Peano axioms say-- let there exist 1 and all goes from that. But that is wrong, for you need to say-- let there exist 0 and 1. Then you can take off.

So, you have the existence of 0 and 1 and the Perfect Numbers are all those numbers involving a single 1 and nothing but 0s.

0
1
10
100
1000
10000
etc
etc

But, Perfect Numbers do not stop with Counting numbers but are also their inverses so these are Perfect numbers also

1
0
.1
.01
.001
.0001
etc
etc

Now, I need the Perfect Numbers so I can define Decimal Numbers but using the Perfect Numbers and no longer need fractions involved.

Now, in this book True Math, we save a section aside, one or two pages where we prove the Decimal System is superior to all other number systems, superior to binary to ternary etc etc. In other words, Decimals are intrinsic to math and not some arbitrary choice selection of what system you use.

But what has this got to do with Physics and Chemistry and the New Table of Chemical Elements?

Well, the table of elements is constructed with this sequence of Perfect Numbers

1
10
100
1000
10000
etc
etc

Hydrogen is the number 10, helium is the number 100, lithium is 1000, etc etc

To make the Elements work as Maxwell machines of their protons, muons, neutrons, photons, you need larger numbers than that of 1 for hydrogen, 2 for helium, 3 for lithium.

AP

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu

::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ .  . | .   /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
---------------      -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
---------------      --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / .  . | .   \ .

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

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-26 01:31:04 UTC
Raw Message
#32page

#32page

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 17:43:00 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: need large numbers to do EM theory Re: figuring out the New Table of
Chemical Elements Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 00:43:01 +0000

need large numbers to do EM theory Re: figuring out the New Table of Chemical Elements Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook

Alright in all the mess and fuss about atoms, a fact still remains, they are entities that inside have an assemblage of subatomic particles that holds the atom together. The inverse square Coulomb law, but instead of mass attraction it is charge attraction, whether +1 or -1 charge, whether like charges or unlike charges, they always attract and only attract. If they get too close together and like charge, they resist being squeezed together (magnet denial of same space occupancy-- Pauli Exclusion) -- but still attracting one another.

I am assembling a New Periodic Table of Chemical Elements, and what I need is numbers for Coulomb force and numbers for interactions of muons, monopoles.

We can ultimately assemble all of physics with two items-- muon and monopoles. The muon is 105MeV  and is either + or - 1 charge. Then 8 muons = proton, and 9 muons = neutron. And, magnetic monopole = either photon or neutrino with either +1, 0, -1 charges. A typical monopole is a radio wave, or a photon, or a -1 charge .5MeV or a +1 charge .5MeV particle, the kind we often witness in electric current is .5MeV with -1 charge.

So, all of atoms are just 2 items, muons and monopoles.

How do we prescribe a number for each atom? Say hydrogen and helium. So hydrogen is 9 muons altogether, with 8 of them making a proton and 1 orbital muon. So for Hydrogen we can start with the number 9, for we have 9 identifiable objects, 8 muons to form a proton and 1 orbital muon to be a bar magnet in faraday law.

So we have 9 identifiable numbers to reckon with in hydrogen to perform the Laws of EM theory, especially the Coulomb law.

We cannot number the monopoles, so, what we can do is go to mathematics and pick out the very best Math Sequence to frame our Table of Elements.

Now in the early 1990s, in sci.physics I pointed out a big mistake in Halliday and Resnick-- have to get those old posts. Anyway the mistake was that H&R wrote that what holds together a neon atom is something like 10 x 9 = 90 Coulomb interactions in any one instant of time. And I said, no, what the number of Coulomb interactions for neon was 40 factorial or some number involving factorial. Factorial in math rises enormously very quickly. So 40 factorial is far larger than 10^40. In a sense, lines of force of magnetism holding together two magnets is not some 10x9 = 90 lines of force but something like 10^40 lines of force.

I need large numbers in order to do the EM theory laws, and those cannot be done with a stockpile of small numbers.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 18:20:04 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Coulomb force in numbers Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 01:20:05 +0000

Coulomb force in numbers Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook

Now there is an old analogy used in physics for the Coulomb force. I have not been able to improve upon it, so for now we keep it, even though it is a analogy. Maybe in 2,000 years from now, if we have not nuclear warred ourselves into the ground, someone will replace this analogy of the Coulomb force.

The analogy goes like this, the proton is a tennis ball player and the muon is another tennis ball player and the keep hitting a ball (a monopole) back and forth-- the tennis ball. So what attracts proton to muon is this game of hitting a monopole back and forth.

So now in mathematics we have a concept that describes a Number of total interactions possible-- total number of hitting a ball back and forth for all items, for an instant in time. It is the factorial. The total possible interactions of hydrogen's 9 muons is 9! = 362,880

It is interesting to note that at the boundary of 22! does the factorial exceed the exponent function 10^22 for the first time. And the importance of 22/7 in the Atom Totality theory. In the case of 9! is far short of 10^9.

So, for hydrogen, as a Coulomb force keeping together its 9 muons, at any one instant of time there are 362,880 exchanges of monopoles going on inside hydrogen atom.

For helium with its 4 Hydrogen Atom Systems HYASYS, there are 9x4 = 36 muons in total. And for helium thus we have 36! = 3.7*10^41 Coulomb interactions of monopoles.

But, however, this factorial gets out of hand, goes berserk for it implies that for 231Pu having 231 HYASYS and thus 231*8 = 1848 muons is 1848! for Coulomb force, yet infinity is only 10^604.

That suggests the Coulomb force does not follow the factorial, but rather follows the exponent function.

The Coulomb force follows the Perfect Numbers

1
10
100
1000
10^4
10^5
10^6
etc
etc

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 22:48:45 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: re-examining old post about Coulomb force Re: Minimum Coulomb
Interactions for plutonium?
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 05:48:45 +0000

re-examining old post about Coulomb force Re: Minimum Coulomb Interactions for plutonium?

This is now March 2018 and the below is an old post of mine of May 1994 discussing the number of Coulomb Interactions in an instant of time in order for an atom to exist of its internal subatomic particles. I need to review that idea in light of the fact Real-Electron = muon and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole and the proton is really 840MeV.
Sorry to break me self-imposed limit of no more than 3 posts per 24
hours. But this is important I feel because it is in Halliday & Resnick
text which I feel was the best physics text ever made for University
and College. I think H&R's 1986 was the best but their latest edition
of PHYSICS, 1992, are going to hell in a handbasket, other than being
on acid free paper 1992 is of lower quality than their 1986 edition
because it has speculative physics in it-- it treats the big bang as a
forgone conclusion and also it talks of neutron stars as if they are
true science when it will turn out that pulsars are strange quark
matter stars. I think it is essential that the authors of such widely
used physics texts throw in cautionary words such as "speculative"
whenever possible.
I have shown the below passage of H&R to Dartmouth physics
professors, math professors, all came back to me with somewhat the same
I am of the opinion that H&R is so widely used and so heavily picked
over that H&R are correct in their text. That neon has as a minimum
number of Coulomb Interactions derived by (2^20x2x2x2), where the
exponent 20 comes from the 10 protons and 10 electrons of neon.
Continuing in the same line of reasoning for plutonium. The total
number of minimum Coulomb interactions of the 94 protons and 94
electrons of a plutonium atom is (2^188x2x2x2) or about 6.3 x10^57.
The number (2^188x2x2x2) comes from 4 possible quantum numbers of
(n,L,mL,ms) and each having at least a minimum of 2 choices with the
first quantum number having 2^188 minimum possible quantum energy
states based on the potential energy function substituted into the
Schroedinger equation, in order for the Schroedinger equation to be
solved rigorously.
I strongly believe H&R were correct commonsensewise. If we see the
Coulomb interaction as the means of holding protons and electrons
together in an atom. Think of the protons and electrons as balls
exchanging photons. That to keep 94 protons to 94 electrons would
require at minimum 6.3 x 10^57 photons exchanged at any one instant. To
imagine 10 protons and 10 electrons held together by only 210 photons
shot between them to keep them as an atom strains credulity.
pages 1190-1191 of PHYSICS Part 2 extended version Halliday & Resnick
1986
"For atoms with substantially more than one electron the potential
energy function that we must substitute into the Schroedinger equation
involves the Coulomb interaction between many pairs of particles and
can rapidly become hopelessly complicated. In neon, for example, it can
be shown that, including the nucleus and the ten electrons, there are
no fewer than about 2 X 10^7 independent pairs of charges whose Coulomb
interactions must be taken into account if the Schroedinger equation is
to be solved rigorously. At this level of complexity rigorous solutions
are not possible, and we must rely on methods that are both approximate
and numerical."
What are the minimum Coulomb Interactions for plutonium?
I don't know how Halliday and/or Resnick arrived at this number, but I
believe it to be wrong.  Neon has a total of 20 charges, 60 if you foolishly
treat it at the quark level.  The number of distinct pairs of objects which
you can form from a set of 20 is 20*21/2 = 210.  Believe me, that's more
than enough to make your Schroedinger equation unsolvable.
Well, back then, in May 1994, my name was still Ludwig Plutonium, not yet changed legally to Archimedes Plutonium.

And what was disturbing for me was the Coulomb Interactions for the EM force. Of course we all know it to be inverse square. But, we like a number for it to keep all the subatomic particles to stay and reside inside an atom.

The Coulomb force is often viewed metaphorically, or by analogy to tennis players. They hit a tennis ball (photon) back and forth-- so to speak-- keeping them together, like a proton shots a photon to the muon and the muon shots it back to the proton-- binding the two together in an atom.

I like that analogy, that picture, and it provides a number value to the Coulomb Force. As to how many interactions occur in an instant of time.

So yes of course, I would be askance if I thought what keeps 10 protons to 10 muons in a neon atom together is a mere 190, or 210, or even 2x10^7.

So, back in 1994-- my best guess of the number of interactions per instant of time was  (2^20x2x2x2) where the exponent 20 comes from 10 protons in neon and 10 muons (back then I did not know real electron = muon).

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2018 23:10:12 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: review 10 year old post of mine Re: #5 dimensions of gravity versus
Coulomb force; new monograph-book: Connecting Coulomb force with Force of
Gravity equal to E = m c c
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 06:10:13 +0000

review 10 year old post of mine Re: #5 dimensions of gravity versus Coulomb force; new monograph-book: Connecting Coulomb force with Force of Gravity equal to E = m c c

Alright, the below is an old post of mine, very old for today is March 2017 and the below is about 10 years old. But it is nice to see where my mind was 10 years ago. Of course, today I know the Real Electron = Muon and the .5MeV particle is the magnetic monopole and the Real Proton = 840 MeV. The reason I dredged up this old post was for Coulomb Interactions, and where I use exponent and factorial.
Subject: #4 talking about something more fundamental than "units" new
monograph-book: Connecting Coulomb force with Force of Gravity equal
to E = m c c
(snipped and sic(ed))
(1) Dirac calculated the number of protons in the Universe is 10^80
and that would
further conclude that the Universe has 10^80 electrons
(2) The number of Coulomb Interactions in a atom of plutonium is
10^160 to hold
together the plutonium atom in the Schrodinger Equation or Dirac
Equation.
(2^188 x2x2x2) of (n,L,M_L,m_s), or the 95!/2
(3) The coupling strength of the Coulomb force versus Gravity is 10^40
in favor of
Coulomb.
Now, (1) and (2) above are independent of one another, yet it is
simple to see
that 10^80 x 10^80 = 10^160
And it is easy to see that Gravity force strength at 10^40 where
Coulomb force
strength at 10^80 that we have
Coulomb Force squared is the energy of 10^160 Coulomb Interactions
whilst
Gravity force to the 4th power is the energy of 10^160 Coulomb
Interactions.
Now I want to shift the conversation from algebra to that of geometry.
E = mc^2 is telling of geometry.
It says that energy is mass multiplied through 2nd dimensional cross
section of space.
Overall energy is 3rd dimensional space where mass is one dimension
and c^2 is
two dimensional.
Now that raises an interesting geometrical question of what
geometrical dimensions
belie Coulomb force versus Gravity force?
F = (q x q)/r x r
F = (m x m) / r x r
In the Coulomb force of (q x q), is that not a energy term, the
quantity of charge energy?
So does that make the Coulomb force a 2nd dimensional force?
But in the Gravity force the term (m x m) is a 2nd dimensional
geometry and overall in
the gravity force with the (r x r) we have 4th dimensional geometry?
So do we have Energy as 3rd dimensional geometry and Coulomb as 2nd
dimensional
geometry and Gravity as 4th dimensional geometry?
I am not sure, just asking questions at this moment. I believe the
problem lies with the
concept of "charge" in that physics never really had a deep
understanding of charge.
Perhaps the Atom Totality theory can clarify what charge is compared
to mass.
Now many scientists who read the above are going to fall into a trap
of
wrongness.
I am not talking in the above, about Units of measure in Physics
Force is (kg) x (m/s^2)
Energy is (kg) x (m^2/s^2)
Pressure is (kg)/(mxs^2)
Momentum kg x (m/s)
I am not talking about Units but something more fundamental than
units.
I am talking about the geometry of measure.
The units of Energy is (kg) x (m^2/s^2) but what is the geometry of
energy?
Is Energy 2 dimensional or 3 dimensional? Distance is 1 dimensional
but
when you have distance squared you have 2 dimensional. When you
multiply
mass by c^2 you have 3 dimensional but what about momentum would it be
2 dimensional? And what about Force, does it remain 2 dimensional.
Alright, I have the preliminaries in place so let me get to the heart
of the matter.
A chemist in a research could compute the number of Coulomb
Interactions of a
single plutonium atom that holds it together. Halliday and Resnick on
pages 1190-1191
of PHYSICS part 2 extended version 1986
--- quoting Halliday and Resnick ---
"In neon, for example, it can be shown that,
including the nucleus and the ten electrons, there are no fewer than
2 x 10^7 independent pairs of charges whose Coulomb interactions must
be taken
into account if the Schroedinger equation is to be solved rigorously."
--- end quoting ---
In like fashion the Coulomb Interactions solved rigorously for
(2^188 x2x2x2) of (n,L,M_L,m_s), or the 95!/2 which equal 10^160
So the chemist arrives at 10^160 Coulomb Interactions that hold
together a plutonium
atom.
Dirac computed the number of Protons in the Cosmos as 10^80 and thus
10^80 electrons
So the number of Coulomb Interactions of a Cosmos filled with 10^80
protons and
10^80 electrons is again, indeed, the same number of 10^160.
So the chemist using the Schroedinger Equation arrives at the same
number of Coulomb
Interactions as the physicist and astronomer who calculate the number
of protons that
exist empirically in the Cosmos.
The force of gravity is 10^40 weaker than Coulomb.
In Mathematics of Geometry when we have a distance of 2 meters we have
that. But in
geometry when we multiply 2 meters by 2 meters we end up with 2nd
dimension of a square
and if we further multiply 2 meters by 2 meters by 3 meters we end up
in 3rd dimension
of a rectangular box 12 cubic meters.
Schroedinger Equation gives us 10^160 Coulomb Interactions inside a
plutonium atom
From observations and experiments we calculate the Cosmos has 10^80
Protons and
10^80 electrons
10^80 x 10^80 = 10^160
That is an agreement if ever there was an agreement of numbers. But
what is incredible
about that agreement is that they are independent of one another. One
was derived
from Schroedinger Equation while the other was derived from
observation and experiment!
But the goodness does not stop there. We still have gravity and it is
10^40 weaker.
10^40 x 10^40 x 10^40 x 10^40 = 10^160
So, is the Coulomb force two-dimensional whereas the force of gravity
is four-dimensional?
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu

::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ .  . | .   /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
---------------      -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
---------------      --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / .  . | .   \ .

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

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-26 19:15:16 UTC
Raw Message
#33page

#33page

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 00:56:34 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Coulomb force in numbers Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 07:56:34 +0000

Coulomb force in numbers Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook

Actually i wonder if the Coulomb force is even relevant anymore when we think of proton muon neutron as structures of the Faraday law, proton as coil, muon as bar magnet, neutron as capacitor.

And by a twist of fate everyone was wanting to explain gravity as the odd man out, but here for a moment let us take Coulomb force as odd man out and gravity solved for both are inverse square. So in gravity we have mass times mass in numerator, in Coulomb we have charge times charge. So what if we keep the distance fixed for the distance inside atoms is tiny small and no harm to calculation. So now the proton is 8muons and there is a orbital muon so we have 9 charges producing in Faraday law a charged monopole to make 10 charged particles for hydrogen. Now to helium and we have 2protons 2 muons 2 monopole and so in Coulomb force law 10x10 = 100, for lithium we have in numerator 100 x 10 since lithium has 10^3. Next, beryllium would be lithium x 10.

And so for table of elements the Coulomb law becomes 10^A with A as atomic number.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 00:56:34 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Coulomb force in numbers Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 07:56:34 +0000

Coulomb force in numbers Re: True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook

Actually i wonder if the Coulomb force is even relevant anymore when we think of proton muon neutron as structures of the Faraday law, proton as coil, muon as bar magnet, neutron as capacitor.

And by a twist of fate everyone was wanting to explain gravity as the odd man out, but here for a moment let us take Coulomb force as odd man out and gravity solved for both are inverse square. So in gravity we have mass times mass in numerator, in Coulomb we have charge times charge. So what if we keep the distance fixed for the distance inside atoms is tiny small and no harm to calculation. So now the proton is 8muons and there is a orbital muon so we have 9 charges producing in Faraday law a charged monopole to make 10 charged particles for hydrogen. Now to helium and we have 2protons 2 muons 2 monopole and so in Coulomb force law 10x10 = 100, for lithium we have in numerator 100 x 10 since lithium has 10^3. Next, beryllium would be lithium x 10.

And so for table of elements the Coulomb law becomes 10^A with A as atomic number.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 12:55:25 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: continued.. Math of the New Chemistry Periodic Table of Elements
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 19:55:26 +0000

continued.. Math of the New Chemistry Periodic Table of Elements

Now, I am very happy I chose the Perfect Numbers sequence rather than the Factorial Sequence

2!
3!
4!
5!
etc
etc

1
10
100
1000
10000
etc
etc

A Perfect Number is a sequence in which you have just one digit of 1 and the rest are 0s. It also is small in scope--

1
0
.1
.01
.001
.0001
etc
etc

I am fortunate the entire math and physics community never saw this sequence, and so, I discovered it and see its vast potential.

The trouble with the often used Factorial Sequence which is very much used to "cover all of Space" used as a Universal Sequence to denote Space of math or physics, but its problem is that it is too general and does not contain a Pythagorean Theorem framework. I need a Pythagorean Framework to encompass electricity to magnetism and the Factorial does not provide that, for example

2! = 2
3! = 6
4! = 24
5! = 120
6! = 720

compared to

10
100
1000
10000

And taking the P-triples 3,4,5

6,8,10
60,80,100
600,800,1000
etc etc

So, for my Math of Chemistry Table, I need a sequence that is not so universal which is not a Pythagorean theorem dominated sequence. I need a sequence that is the Space of the chemical elements and has the duality of electricity to magnetism.

Now, I need to mathematize a dominate theme in Old Chemistry, perhaps its only real major theme. Freshman in college chemistry soon learn of this theme-- for it goes somewhat like this-- all the elements want to be "like a inert gas" So if you are oxygen or fluorine or chlorine or bromine, you want to be like the nearest inert gas helium,  neon, argon, krypton, xenon. And if you are opposite side like the alkali metals Li, Na, K, Rb you want to be like a inert gas and so much so you are willing to shed things to become a inert gas. Now in Old Chemistry, the gaining or shedding of something to them meant the .5MeV particle which they terribly erroneously thought was the electron of atoms, but it turns out it is a magnetic monopole, for the real-electron = muon seldom if ever exits or enters an atom unless enormous energy is involved.

So, what I need to do in the next several days is lay out the math of this important theme of Old Chemistry-- the desire of all elements to be an inert gas.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 13:43:30 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: continued.. Math of the New Chemistry Periodic Table of Elements
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 20:43:30 +0000

Now to accomplish this feat of unravelling what the inert gas to be like reminds my of an old hymnal song i knew in childhood only that the words i remember are interloped with a different set of words.

Master pick, master pick, make my life complete
Master be, master be, master engineer
Make my life complete

Of course, the musicality all coming from this song--

(source--internet)

Goin' home, goin' home, I'm a goin' home;
Quiet-like, some still day, I'm jes' goin' home.
It's not far, jes' close by,
Through an open door;
Work all done, care laid by,
Goin' to fear no more.
Mother's there 'spectin' me,
Father's waitin' too;
Lots o' folk gather'd there,
All the friends I knew,
All the friends I knew.
Home, I'm goin' home!

Nothin lost, all's gain,
No more fret nor pain,
No more stumblin' on the way,
No more longin' for the day,
Goin' to roam no more!
Mornin' star lights the way,
Res'less dream all done;
Real life jes' begun.
There's no break, there's no end,
Jes' a livin' on;
Wide awake, with a smile
Goin' on and on.

Goin' home, goin' home, I'm jes' goin' home,
goin' home, goin' home, goin' home!

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 16:21:52 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Old Chemistry theme-- if not an inert gas, combine to be like an
inert gas Re: continued.. Math of the New Chemistry Periodic Table of Elements
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 23:21:52 +0000

Old Chemistry theme-- if not an inert gas, combine to be like an inert gas Re: continued.. Math of the New Chemistry Periodic Table of Elements

So, for those readers who have joined late in this conversation, what I am doing is formulating the New Periodic Table of Chemical Table, given the fact that the Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton= 840 MeV and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. These facts alter and change drastically all the sciences, all of the physical sciences, for they all rely on atomic theory. And that means a wholescale change of the Table of Elements.

Now one of the main themes of Old Chemistry, if you studied Chemistry, is the elements want to be "like a Noble Gas or Inert Gas". So, no matter where you lie in the table as a element, if not an inert gas, that element tries to seek being a inert gas by combining with other elements to "act and behave like an inert gas".

So, what my challenge is, that I need to see how the Faraday law and Ampere law where a proton is a coil and muon is a bar magnet in Faraday law and the neutron is a capacitor in Ampere-Maxwell law, all there to turn Space into new magnetic monopoles which are stored inside neutrons and thus-- growing out the atom to become a new heavier element atom.

So, what I am doing is translating the Maxwell theory into why atoms "seek to be a inert gas". How do the laws of EM theory become that Chemistry theme-- be like an inert gas.

AP

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu

::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ .  . | .   /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
---------------      -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
---------------      --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / .  . | .   \ .

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

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-26 21:21:26 UTC
Raw Message
#34page

#34page

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 19:37:19 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: my guess-as to why imitate Noble Gas-- wires Re: continued.. Math of
the New Chemistry Periodic Table of Elements
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 02:37:20 +0000

my guess-as to why imitate Noble Gas-- wires Re: continued.. Math of the New Chemistry Periodic Table of Elements
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
So, for those readers who have joined late in this conversation, what I am doing is formulating the New Periodic Table of Chemical Table, given the fact that the Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton= 840 MeV and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. These facts alter and change drastically all the sciences, all of the physical sciences, for they all rely on atomic theory. And that means a wholescale change of the Table of Elements.
Alright, so let me speculate as to how to translate Inert Gases theme where all other atoms try to imitate.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Now one of the main themes of Old Chemistry, if you studied Chemistry, is the elements want to be "like a Noble Gas or Inert Gas". So, no matter where you lie in the table as a element, if not an inert gas, that element tries to seek being a inert gas by combining with other elements to "act and behave like an inert gas".
I am going to speculate based on these assumptions:

1) All Atoms, their interiors are for the express purpose of growing into a heavier element atom and they do this by the Faraday Law where the orbital muon thrusts inside a proton that is composed of 8muons, delivering a magnetic monopole which is then stored into a capacitor of a nearby neutron, that is being slowly filled up to equal 945 MeV.

2) the interior of all atoms is an active arena of just simply following the Laws of EM theory-- Faraday, Coulomb, Ampere-Maxwell, Gauss laws, except of course-- well magnetic monopoles do exist. So the inside of every atom is a treasure trove of EM laws in action, for the expressed purpose of growing the atom to be a heavier atom. This is still Conservation of Energy, if you consider the transformation of Space into magnetic monopoles, is conserved.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
So, what my challenge is, that I need to see how the Faraday law and Ampere law where a proton is a coil and muon is a bar magnet in Faraday law and the neutron is a capacitor in Ampere-Maxwell law, all there to turn Space into new magnetic monopoles which are stored inside neutrons and thus-- growing out the atom to become a new heavier element atom.
So, what is it with inert gases, that they "feel atomically to be satisfied and not seek bonding" whereas all the other chemical elements spend their entire atomic-life wanting to be like a inert gas? What could that be in terms of the EM laws?

My best guess on this, at the moment is that the Inert Gases not only have a fully and geometrical well equipped coil and bar magnet for creating new magnetic monopoles, but because of their number of protons to neutrons to electrons, have a nicely built two wires for their proton factories to ship out their newly created magnetic monopole to storage inside a nearby neutron acting as capacitor.

So, I believe what the inert gases have that all the other elements do not have is wires leading off their proton factories-- wires into nearby neutrons to slowly fill up those neutrons to be 945MeV. All the other elements, lack efficient wires linking their protons with neutrons. That is my best guess at the moment.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
So, what I am doing is translating the Maxwell theory into why atoms "seek to be a inert gas". How do the laws of EM theory become that Chemistry theme-- be like an inert gas.
So, do I have any credible evidence that it is a "wire issue" of connecting protons to nearby neutrons?

Well, yes of course, in Old Chemistry there is usually a chapter on Lewis Diagrams, where the Chemical bond is denoted by dots. So, for instance Hydrogen alone is a sad spectacle is wanting desperately to be like a helium inert gas, so it readily bonds with another hydrogen atom pictured in Lewis diagram as such

H:H or some prefer H-H

Now, the Lewis diagram of Water H2O looks like this
..
H: O :H
..

Now I hope the dots on top and bottom of O come out okay on this format

But anyway, what the Lewis structure suggests, is that bonding is "EM wires" But what would wires be needed for? And here my guess is that as the Orbital Muon thrusts through the 8 muons composing a proton creating a magnetic monopole current, the monopoles need to be storaged in a capacitor of a neutron that has a ways to go before filled up with 945MeV and so the reason inert gases are imitated by every other element, is they have a geometry that has those wires already in place.

Now here I am going to make some changes to what I call the New Table of Elements-- , see if you can spot the change, and all the elements from hydrogen to element118 are listed only with a single letter.

Table before today
H
H
L B B C N O F N
NM A S P S C A
K C S T V CM F C N C Z G G A S B K
R S Y Z NM T R R P A C  I  S S T  I  X
C B L C P N P S E G T D H E T Y  L H T W R O I P A H T P B P A R
F R A T P U N P AC B C  E FM N  L U U U U U UU U U U UU U U U

Table today

H H2
3H H
L B B C N O F N
NM A S P S C A
K C S T V CM F C N C Z G G A S B K
R S Y Z NM T R R P A C  I  S S T  I  X
C B L C P N P S E G T D H E T Y  L H T W R O I P A H T P B P A R
F R A T P U N P AC B C  E FM N  L U U U U U UU U U U UU U U U

What the Laws of EM are forcing me to do, is include compounds as actual Elements. That we cannot really tell the difference between a single proton with orbital muon as hydrogen from a two protons, two orbital muons bonded together as a atom or as a molecule. What the H2 bonding does, is transform two single hydrogen atoms into a atom of H2 that has wires to feed newly developed monopoles into a "starting out neutron sack" until that neutron grows up to be 945MeV.

So in New Chemistry there is a huge blur of whether a compound is a atom or is not an atom.

Now, the old Rutherford experiment of shooting a alpha particle beam into a gold foil and deciding that the atom has a nucleus where almost all the mass is located with the electrons surrounding that nucleus, needs to be totally redone. We need a substance like H2 or hydrogen or even helium will do, where we fire particles and find that much of the mass of atoms is not in a nucleus, but spread out. In other words, the Thomson plum pudding model is correct for hydrogen and many other atoms. We already see this in what is called "halo neutrons".

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 21:54:10 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: H2 considered as a legitimate element //imitate Noble Gas-- wires Re:
continued.. Math of the New Chemistry Periodic Table of Elements
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 04:54:11 +0000

H2 considered as a legitimate element //imitate Noble Gas-- wires Re: continued.. Math of the New Chemistry Periodic Table of Elements
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
So, for those readers who have joined late in this conversation, what I am doing is formulating the New Periodic Table of Chemical Table, given the fact that the Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton= 840 MeV and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. These facts alter and change drastically all the sciences, all of the physical sciences, for they all rely on atomic theory. And that means a wholescale change of the Table of Elements.
So, what I am doing here, is expressing the scientific idea, that H2 is hardly any different than He, other than the fact that the 2 protons of H2 are separated at a further distance than the 2 protons of He.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Alright, so let me speculate as to how to translate Inert Gases theme where all other atoms try to imitate.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Now one of the main themes of Old Chemistry, if you studied Chemistry, is the elements want to be "like a Noble Gas or Inert Gas". So, no matter where you lie in the table as a element, if not an inert gas, that element tries to seek being a inert gas by combining with other elements to "act and behave like an inert gas".
1) All Atoms, their interiors are for the express purpose of growing into a heavier element atom and they do this by the Faraday Law where the orbital muon thrusts inside a proton that is composed of 8muons, delivering a magnetic monopole which is then stored into a capacitor of a nearby neutron, that is being slowly filled up to equal 945 MeV.
2) the interior of all atoms is an active arena of just simply following the Laws of EM theory-- Faraday, Coulomb, Ampere-Maxwell, Gauss laws, except of course-- well magnetic monopoles do exist. So the inside of every atom is a treasure trove of EM laws in action, for the expressed purpose of growing the atom to be a heavier atom. This is still Conservation of Energy, if you consider the transformation of Space into magnetic monopoles, is conserved.
It should be stressed that the major theme of atoms is not to imitate a Noble Gas, but to grow bigger and heavier as an atom, that is the major theme, and it happens to be the case that the Noble Gases optimize the laws of electromagnetism. It is this optimization of the laws-- giving it wires to connect producing protons to storing monopoles in neutrons, that the other elements not a Noble Gas seek. They want to be Noble Gases so they form bonds of Chemistry, so they grow bigger and faster with maximum growth.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
So, what my challenge is, that I need to see how the Faraday law and Ampere law where a proton is a coil and muon is a bar magnet in Faraday law and the neutron is a capacitor in Ampere-Maxwell law, all there to turn Space into new magnetic monopoles which are stored inside neutrons and thus-- growing out the atom to become a new heavier element atom.
So, what is it with inert gases, that they "feel atomically to be satisfied and not seek bonding" whereas all the other chemical elements spend their entire atomic-life wanting to be like a inert gas? What could that be in terms of the EM laws?
My best guess on this, at the moment is that the Inert Gases not only have a fully and geometrical well equipped coil and bar magnet for creating new magnetic monopoles, but because of their number of protons to neutrons to electrons, have a nicely build two wires for their proton factories to ship out their newly created magnetic monopole to storage inside a nearby neutron acting as capacitor.
So, I believe what the inert gases have that all the other elements do not have is wires leading off their proton factories-- wires into nearby neutrons to slowly fill up those neutrons to be 945MeV. All the other elements, lack efficient wires linking their protons with neutrons. That is my best guess at the moment.
Not only is H2 a atom, in a large sense, but other molecules like H2O can be considered to be a form of an atom, a atom that sits between 16O and 18O and 18F. It is all a matter of the "wires" that chemistry bonding seeks to maximize.

So here again, we need to re-do the Rutherford experiment on atoms where he surmises that atoms have a dense heavy nucleus. Which is certain to be the case for gold metal. But if Rutherford had done the experiment on say 18O or 18F or on deuterium or tritium or H2 or on hydrogen or helium, would Rutherford, instead have proven the not-in-vogue Thomson Plum Pudding model in 1917-1920.
- show quoted text -
This is interesting for I have that gut feeling that the table needs 8 rows for the octet is a reflection that a proton is 8 muons forming a coil in Faraday law, and each row above is like 1 winding of that coil. And because of s,p,d,f rows, I am sure that a table with only one element in a row, is a mistake, for the s row has to have at least two elements. So, we need 8 rows and at least 2 elements (total number even number) in a row.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
What the Laws of EM are forcing me to do, is include compounds as actual Elements. That we cannot really tell the difference between a single proton with orbital muon as hydrogen from a two protons, two orbital muons bonded together as a atom or as a molecule. What the H2 bonding does, is transform two single hydrogen atoms into a atom of H2 that has wires to feed newly developed monopoles into a "starting out neutron sack" until that neutron grows up to be 945MeV.
So in New Chemistry there is a huge blur of whether a compound is a atom or is not an atom.
Now, the old Rutherford experiment of shooting a alpha particle beam into a gold foil and deciding that the atom has a nucleus where almost all the mass is located with the electrons surrounding that nucleus, needs to be totally redone. We need a substance like H2 or hydrogen or even helium will do, where we fire particles and find that much of the mass of atoms is not in a nucleus, but spread out. In other words, the Thomson plum pudding model is correct for hydrogen and many other atoms. We already see this in what is called "halo neutrons".
So, here, I really beckon on physicists and chemists alike, to repeat the Rutherford experiment of 1917-1920 where he defuncts the Thomson Plum Pudding Model because, well, with gold, yes, you have a heavy concentrated nuclear center, but, with hydrogen, helium, you likely have a Thomson Plum Pudding Model.

AP

On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 1:09:06 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:

H2 considered as a legitimate element //imitate Noble Gas-- wires Re: continued.. Math of the New Chemistry Periodic Table of Elements

Now i suspect if it is too hard to perform Rutherfords' 1917 experiment using hydrogen helium neon oxygen fluorine gases to prove the Thomson plum pudding model, just because they are gases, then i recommend using water. You should be able to aim the alpha particle beam into a water drop and notice there not be that recoil of the 1917 experiment using gold foil.

Just my hunches---,,,

AP

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu

::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ .  . | .   /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
---------------      -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
---------------      --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / .  . | .   \ .

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

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-27 21:25:16 UTC
Raw Message
#35page

#35page

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 23:40:54 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: what are subatomic wires? Re: continued.. Math of the New Chemistry
Periodic Table of Elements
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 06:40:54 +0000

what are subatomic wires? Re: continued.. Math of the New Chemistry Periodic Table of Elements

Now, today, 22March, I spent much of the day thinking of just one item I wanted to conquer. Focused on just one item, for I was traveling much of the day, and like to think while driving.

The item concerning me today is what is the wires inside of atoms. I have the proton as a coil, consisting of 8muons. I have the orbital-muon as a bar magnet in Faraday law. And the protons of an atom need to maximize in geometry to produce maximum monopole current. For basically, that is our Cosmic reason of "being" to grow bigger and heavier as an atom. Much like a living creature aim or goal is to grow bigger and more of to prosper. And, I have a neutron as a capacitor, to store the monopoles to become a new proton with orbital muon. But, as I needed a reason for why atoms want to be like a Inert-Gas, as that Inert Gas has wires,- wires to connect protons with neutrons to fill up the neutron with the proton production of monopoles.

So, I spent the whole day on this one issue-- what in heavens can the wires of atoms be? What can be a wire for inert gases, that is not a wire in say oxygen or fluorine or lithium or sodium?

Well, there are not too many subatomic particles remaining, and two of them I have not really made use of-- photon and neutrino. Now the photon and neutrino has a role in the monopoles produced. A magnetic monopole is a photon or neutrino with a "charge energy", not rest mass energy of .5MeV but charge energy. So, can the photon and neutrino also be the "wires"?

Now one identifiable feature of Inert Gases is that they are gases. But are they gases because they do not want to form molecules or compounds? Or are they gases because of their wires makes them gases? Now there are gases that are not inert-Noble-gases such as hydrogen or nitrogen or oxygen or fluorine. So this tells me that gases are not gases due to their wires. But that atoms that are not Noble Gases, want to become Noble Gases but have "atomic wires missing". So that when Hydrogen bonds with Hydrogen, it has become the Noble Gas Helium, the best way it can do that-- a covalent bond.

So what is missing in hydrogen that it wants to be like helium, is subatomic wires. Is it the Orbital Muon that is both a bar magnet and a wire, or is it the photon and neutrino that serve not only as magnetic monopoles but serve as being wires.

Maybe, what I need to do is separate apart the photon and neutrino, by saying the photon is the magnetic monopole and the neutrino is never a magnetic monopole but is a wire as a subatomic particle. That the neutrino always comes as 0 charge, whereas the photon can come as 0, +1, -1.

And, this makes sense in another framework of particle physics, in that we think of the neutrino as flying through space with ever rarely interacting, flying through the dense matter and no interaction. But maybe, it is not flying through the matter at all, but forming wires inside the matter.

Now there is one physical phenomenon that relates to this scheme of things. Lightening strikes on
Earth, for we are told that the clouds build up charges, and these charges do not become lightening until a "leader particle" goes through the stockpile of charges, and then the charges just -- follow the leader to the ground.

So, we have a likely candidate for subatomic wiring-- the neutrino. And its wiring inside an atom would be to connect the proton with a neutron so the proton can slowly fill up the neutron with monopoles.

This suggests some experiments, one of which is that hydrogen, oxygen, fluorine are not good neutrino sources as is helium, neon, argon, or the alkali metals. So is the neutrino easier to come be from some elements and not easy to get from other elements?

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 15:24:13 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: New Table of Elementary Particles of Physics, where the role of the
neutrino is -- electric wires Re: New Chemistry Periodic Table of Elements
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 22:24:13 +0000

New Table of Elementary Particles of Physics, where the role of the neutrino is -- electric wires Re: New Chemistry Periodic Table of Elements

Now, I am not sure why physics places the Neutrinos as a lepton. I mean, well, open Halliday & Resnick to their Particles of Physics 1986, where they list the photon in a separate category all by itself, or even 1992 where sure enough they list neutrinos along with leptons, but list photon in a brand new category of Field Particles, listing the photon next to 4 fake particles of gluon, graviton, weak boson, weak boson.

You see, Particle Physics before 2017 is a "house of ruin and disarray" for it was idiots of physics trying to solve problems when those physicists never even mastered Angular Momentum in physics. No-one in physics, who thinks a .5MeV electron with a 938MeV proton gives the Chemistry Covalent Bond should be in physics, but booted out of physics. For the moment you accept Real Electron= 105MeV, Real Proton= 840MeV, the .5MeV particle = Dirac's magnetic monopole, then the tables of elementary particles by Halliday & Resnick should look like this::

Real Electron = Muon = 105 MeV = bar magnet in Faraday Law

Real Proton = 840 MeV = coil in Faraday Law

Photon = eV radio waves on up to .5MeV monopoles on up to gamma rays = transverse waves = monopoles in electricity

Neutrino = eV on up to high energy = longitudinal waves = "subatomic wires"

Neutron = 945 MeV when maturely grown from eV neutron sack = capacitors, and connected to the proton via neutrino wires.

What Halliday and Resnick show as "quarks" is a category of childish nonsense-- elderly physicists ever to dumb to even master angular momentum come up with ignorant categories of "quarks"

The categories of "Mesons" and "Baryons" simply disappear because of the stages of growth of the neutron sack. The neutron as it is borne inside a atom starts out as a sack of eV energy, and gets fed monopoles from the proton and muon creating monopoles via Faraday law. The neutron sack slowly fills up with these monopoles-- if not radiated out of the atom, fill up the neutron sack until full at 945MeV.

So ludicrous categories of a pion at 140MeV or kaon at 494MeV and other Mesons are simply stages of growth of a neutron sack filling up via Faraday's law. And much of radioactivity is just the emission of these partially filled or over filled neutron sacks.

In New Physics, the role of the neutron is never that of keeping the protons bound up in a nucleus. For in New Physics, there is no force of repel, only a force of attraction, even like charges attract. For in physics, there never was a repel or repulsion force-- only a "denial of same space occupancy" what is called the Pauli Exclusion Principle. It is easily mistaken by soft minds as a force of repel, but it never is repel. So the neutron in Physics has a role, not of keeping the protons together, since there never is a force of repel, but the role of the neutron is to collect the magnetic monopoles that the proton and muon create via Faraday Law and grow the atom to become bigger and heavier all collected by the neutron.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 23:44:08 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: the function of neutrinos in physics Re: New Chemistry Periodic Table
of Elements
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 06:44:09 +0000

the function of neutrinos in physics Re: New Chemistry Periodic Table of Elements

So, the role of the photon and neutrino in New Physics, is really quite drastically different from the role in Old Physics. Old Physics saw the photon as the particle that mediates the Coulomb force. So that two tennis players stay together because their goal is to hit the ball back and forth, looking to us on the outside as a force of attraction. The photon for Old Physics was what creates Coulomb force as a force of attraction.

In New Physics, the photon is still a mediating particle to keep proton and electron bound to each other, but also, keep proton to proton bound because the photon can be a charged particle, a monopole of either +1 or -1 charge energy. In gravity, the photons keep masses gravitationally bound to one another. But the attraction force is only a small slice of what the role and function of the photon is, because the flow of electricity is photon motion of magnetic monopoles. Photon = electricity.

Now in Old Physics, they had nothing, nada, not a single idea of the role of the neutrino. And ever since the neutrino was discovered 1956, Cowan, Reines, the physics community has never had any idea as to the purpose of this particle. New Physics dispels that lack of meaning. For, inside an atom, there needs to be subatomic wires to connect the proton + muon making monopoles via Faraday Law and the filling up of neutrons as capacitors. Something has to connect the proton to the neutron so the neutron can grow and make the atom a heavier atom. That is the role, the function of the neutrino. It is a longitudinal wave whereas the photon is a transverse wave.

Now, can we get a sharper image, a sharper picture of the neutrino as a subatomic wiring of proton to neutron?

I suppose if you think of Space itself as long wires made up of longitudinal waves. That is, Space = longitudinal waves. And so, the Faraday law is eating up or gobbling up Space with the proton and orbital muon then producing a monopole and sending that produced monopole down a neutrino wire that is Space not gobbled up. This kind of imagery is helpful in recognizing why every element not a Noble Gas wants to be like a Noble Gas, for in a Noble Gas, the alignment of protons, neutrons, neutrino wires is as optimal as can be.

AP

On Sunday, March 25, 2018 at 12:51:45 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

the function of neutrinos in physics Re: New Chemistry Periodic Table of Elements

Now i do not think this qualifies as evidence that neutrinos are wires inside of atoms but it surely does not disfavor the idea.

Quoting from wikipedia on neutrino

Description
English: The first use of a hydrogen bubble chamber to detect neutrinos, on November 13, 1970. A neutrino hit a proton in a hydrogen atom. The collision occurred at the point where three tracks emanate on the right of the photograph.

On Sunday, March 25, 2018 at 1:13:55 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

the function of neutrinos in physics Re: New Chemistry Periodic Table of Elements

Yes now in Wikipedia under Beta decay we see a graph of the beta particle energy versus neutrino energy and the two are symmetrical balanced, if one is large the other is small and vice versa. Of course the beta particle is a magnetic monopole and not the electron and the antineutrino or neutrino would be subatomic "wires".

Quoting from Wikipedia
A beta spectrum, showing a typical division of energy between electron and antineutrino

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 23:33:50 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: the function of neutrinos in physics Re: New Chemistry Periodic Table
of Elements
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 06:33:50 +0000

the function of neutrinos in physics Re: New Chemistry Periodic Table of Elements

So now, thinking some more of this picture of a neutrino colliding with a proton of a hydrogen atom and then emanating off as a pi-meson and muon- meson gives me an idea of proving the neutrino is subatomic wires.

If the neutrino, or antineutrino were subatomic wires that carry magnetic monopoles from proton to neutron where the neutron storages the monopoles . If the wires are crossed we get a subatomic short in the flow of monopoles. So in that picture, the collision cause a short in the proton wires emitting not only the incoming neutrino but the energetic two mesons.

This gives me the idea that we can experimentally prove neutrinos are wires for wires can short the circuit of protons connected to neutrons and the flow of monopoles in neutrino wires.

Somewhere else i read that in neutron decay, often the beta stays attached to the proton, another example of the neutrino wire delivering a beta monopole.

AP

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu

::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ .  . | .   /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
---------------      -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
---------------      --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / .  . | .   \ .

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

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-27 22:18:35 UTC
Raw Message
#36page

#36page

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 23:51:41 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Re: the function of neutrinos in physics Re: New Chemistry Periodic
Table of Elements
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 06:51:41 +0000

Re: the function of neutrinos in physics Re: New Chemistry Periodic Table of Elements
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
So now, thinking some more of this picture of a neutrino colliding with a proton of a hydrogen atom and then emanating off as a pi-meson and muon- meson gives me an idea of proving the neutrino is subatomic wires.
If the neutrino, or antineutrino were subatomic wires that carry magnetic monopoles from proton to neutron where the neutron storages the monopoles . If the wires are crossed we get a subatomic short in the flow of monopoles. So in that picture, the collision cause a short in the proton wires emitting not only the incoming neutrino but the energetic two mesons.
Yes now this would be a major distinction between Old Physics and New Physics that one had just collisions and spontaneous emanations. Where as the New had the concept of short-circuit. Short circuit would then be seen as radioactivity.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
This gives me the idea that we can experimentally prove neutrinos are wires for wires can short the circuit of protons connected to neutrons and the flow of monopoles in neutrino wires.
Somewhere else i read that in neutron decay, often the beta stays attached to the proton, another example of the neutrino wire delivering a beta monopole.
Where is short-circuit covered in the Maxwell Equations?

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 13:11:13 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: I did not know that muons were classified as mu-meson back in 1970
Re: the function of neutrinos in physics Re: New Chemistry Periodic Table of Elements
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 20:11:14 +0000

I did not know that muons were classified as mu-meson back in 1970 Re: the function of neutrinos in physics Re: New Chemistry Periodic Table of Elements
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
So now, thinking some more of this picture of a neutrino colliding with a proton of a hydrogen atom and then emanating off as a pi-meson and muon- meson gives me an idea of proving the neutrino is subatomic wires.
Alright, I think I may have discovered a huge goldmine, all in one picture-- the picture in Wikipedia of the first use of a hydrogen bubble chamber. For, I did not know that the muon back in 1970 was called a mu-meson.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
If the neutrino, or antineutrino were subatomic wires that carry magnetic monopoles from proton to neutron where the neutron storages the monopoles . If the wires are crossed we get a subatomic short in the flow of monopoles. So in that picture, the collision cause a short in the proton wires emitting not only the incoming neutrino but the energetic two mesons.
Yes now this would be a major distinction between Old Physics and New Physics that one had just collisions and spontaneous emanations. Where as the New had the concept of short-circuit. Short circuit would then be seen as radioactivity.
I suspect, in that picture of the Neutrino Event, that the neutrino incoming short circuited a proton with a neutron sack being filled up by the proton, and the short circuiting of the proton with neutron sack, caused the neutron to spill out its content of a pi meson. And the mu-meson shown in the picture, is either part of the contents of the partially filled neutron sack, or is the orbital muon of the proton. Can the photo tell us, if the proton after the collision is 840 MeV or is it 945 MeV suggesting the mu-meson was from the neutron sack and not the original proton before the collision.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
This gives me the idea that we can experimentally prove neutrinos are wires for wires can short the circuit of protons connected to neutrons and the flow of monopoles in neutrino wires.
Somewhere else i read that in neutron decay, often the beta stays attached to the proton, another example of the neutrino wire delivering a beta monopole.
Where is short-circuit covered in the Maxwell Equations?
Now there is probably thousands and thousands of pictures of hydrogen atoms collided by neutrinos. This gives me the confidence to state that we can prove Real Proton = 840 MeV and Real Electron = 105 MeV. And that photons inside atoms are magnetic monopoles with .5MeV charge energy. And that the Neutrino is the electrical wires of atoms. A neutrino collision is not a collision per se, but is a electrical short circuiting of the proton, electron, neutron structure.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 16:16:24 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Hydrogen Bubble Chamber proves Real Proton = 840 MeV Re: the function
of neutrinos in physics Re: New Chemistry Periodic Table of Elements
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 23:16:25 +0000

Hydrogen Bubble Chamber proves Real Proton = 840 MeV Re: the function of neutrinos in physics Re: New Chemistry Periodic Table of Elements
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
So now, thinking some more of this picture of a neutrino colliding with a proton of a hydrogen atom and then emanating off as a pi-meson and muon- meson gives me an idea of proving the neutrino is subatomic wires.
Alright, I think I may have discovered a huge goldmine, all in one picture-- the picture in Wikipedia of the first use of a hydrogen bubble chamber. For, I did not know that the muon back in 1970 was called a mu-meson.
So, how many pictures, photographs of neutrino collisions in Hydrogen Bubble Chambers exist? Is it in the hundreds?
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
If the neutrino, or antineutrino were subatomic wires that carry magnetic monopoles from proton to neutron where the neutron storages the monopoles . If the wires are crossed we get a subatomic short in the flow of monopoles. So in that picture, the collision cause a short in the proton wires emitting not only the incoming neutrino but the energetic two mesons.
Yes now this would be a major distinction between Old Physics and New Physics that one had just collisions and spontaneous emanations. Where as the New had the concept of short-circuit. Short circuit would then be seen as radioactivity.
How many Proton Neutrino photos exist of a neutrino scattering? Is the 1970 a unique photo?
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
I suspect, in that picture of the Neutrino Event, that the neutrino incoming short circuited a proton with a neutron sack being filled up by the proton, and the short circuiting of the proton with neutron sack, caused the neutron to spill out its content of a pi meson. And the mu-meson shown in the picture, is either part of the contents of the partially filled neutron sack, or is the orbital muon of the proton. Can the photo tell us, if the proton after the collision is 840 MeV or is it 945 MeV suggesting the mu-meson was from the neutron sack and not the original proton before the collision.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
This gives me the idea that we can experimentally prove neutrinos are wires for wires can short the circuit of protons connected to neutrons and the flow of monopoles in neutrino wires.
So, what Maxwell Equations cover the phenomenon of "short-circuiting"? Is it a implied concept, and by that, I mean all the equations cover it as just a -- smaller circuit, that is overloaded.
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Somewhere else i read that in neutron decay, often the beta stays attached to the proton, another example of the neutrino wire delivering a beta monopole.
Where is short-circuit covered in the Maxwell Equations?
So I think what this is going to end up being is that all the Maxwell Equations cover circuits, but when you make a given circuit smaller, you can overload and out pops excess energy.

What is interesting about this, though, is the idea that in Old Physics, those old time codgers could only imagine one hard ball colliding with another hard ball. In New Physics we can picture the incoming neutrino as a wire and picture the proton as Faraday Law Machine trying to fill up a nearby neutron capacitor (far far far richer in detail in imagery than the stupid Old Physics of hard balls).

So when a neutrino wire collides with a proton machine and short-circuits the proton machine-- it overloads the energy in the proton and in the neutron so that out spills a muon of 105 MeV and a pion of 140 MeV as in the 1970 photo shown on Wikipedia by the Argonne National Laboratory-- Nov. 13, 1970-- World's first observation of a neutrino in a hydrogen bubble chamber showing a Neutrino transformed into a mu-meson (today it is called a muon), showing Proton track, showing Invisible neutrino collides with proton, showing Collision creates pi meson.

Question:: so, that was 1970, do we now have thousands, perhaps millions of such photos of neutrino collisions?
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Now there is probably thousands and thousands of pictures of hydrogen atoms collided by neutrinos. This gives me the confidence to state that we can prove Real Proton = 840 MeV and Real Electron = 105 MeV. And that photons inside atoms are magnetic monopoles with .5MeV charge energy. And that the Neutrino is the electrical wires of atoms. A neutrino collision is not a collision per se, but is a electrical short circuiting of the proton, electron, neutron structure.
If we have millions of such photos of neutrino collisions with protons or neutrons, I think it is safe to say-- the Real Proton = 840 MeV, Real Electron = 105 MeV, magnetic monopole = .5 MeV was discovered way back starting 1970, only no-one realized it, until now.

AP

On Sunday, March 25, 2018 at 8:38:23 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:
Hydrogen Bubble Chamber proves Real Proton = 840 MeV Re: the function of neutrinos in physics Re: New Chemistry Periodic Table of Elements

Photos are in the millions.

Quoting from a CERN website:

However, a bubble chamber is sensitive to particles passing through only when its contents are superheated after rapid expansion. Bubbles form at this point and the chamber must be recompressed to stop the bubble growth for a picture. This limits the rate at which events can be collected. For instance, the huge Big European Bubble Chamber (BEBC), which started operation at CERN in 1973, took 6.3 million pictures during its 11 years of service. Current experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) record this number of events in less than 2 hours.

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 21:41:08 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Hydrogen Bubble Chamber proves Real Proton = 840 MeV Re: the function
of neutrinos in physics Re: New Chemistry Periodic Table of Elements
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 04:41:09 +0000

Hydrogen Bubble Chamber proves Real Proton = 840 MeV Re: the function of neutrinos in physics Re: New Chemistry Periodic Table of Elements

Here is a quote from Scientific American supporting New Physics claim that the function of a neutron is as a capacitor filling up with magnetic monopoles produced by a nearby proton and orbital muon doing a Faraday Law producing monopoles.

The role of neutrinos is to act as wires connecting the proton to neutron so monopoles can flow down the neutrino wires from proton into neutron.

Now sometimes ambient neutrinos travel through a atom and short-circuit the proton with its attendant neutron and cause the proton and neutron to radiate outward.

--Quoting Scientific American --

By training a beam of neutrinos on a plastic target, researchers at the MINERvA experiment at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Ill., have found that when a neutrino collides with an atom it often knocks free not just one proton or neutron, but two. Some of the particles within the atomic nuclei, it appears, are pairing up rather than moving about independently, only to be sprung free in twos when a neutrino strikes.

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu

::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ .  . | .   /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
---------------      -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
---------------      --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / .  . | .   \ .

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

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-27 23:49:42 UTC
Raw Message
#37page

#37page

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 22:11:19 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Hydrogen Bubble Chamber proves Real Proton = 840 MeV Re: the function
of neutrinos in physics Re: New Chemistry Periodic Table of Elements
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 05:11:19 +0000

Hydrogen Bubble Chamber proves Real Proton = 840 MeV Re: the function of neutrinos in physics Re: New Chemistry Periodic Table of Elements

Now here is an interesting fact from particlecentral.com website.
Although i have a totally different interpretation than Old Physics.

In New Physics the neutrons are capacitors filled up by protons with monopoles and in some atoms two neutrons fill up simultaneously and simultaneously convert to two new protons.

-- quoting --

It was beta decay that led to the theory that there must be a particle like the neutrino since an electron alone could not account for all the energy lost in the decay. There had to be something else - so a neutrino was proposed.
Then there is the rare double beta decay, for example, when germanium 76 changes to selenium 76. (Shown at the above left.) Two neutrons change into protons while emitting two electrons and two antineutrinos, transforming the nucleus two places higher in the periodic table.

On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 10:25:30 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
anyone seen Triple Beta Decay? Re: the function of neutrinos in physics Re: New Chemistry Periodic Table of Elements

- show quoted text -
So, now, looking at that quote, we can further conjecture that in some atoms, since the mechanism of Double Beta decay in Old Physics is really that of the simple fact that Faraday Law of protons is filling up a nearby neutron to become a future proton, that why stop at just a Double Beta Decay, since the Faraday Law is working on all protons with their orbital muon to fill up a nearby neutron sack. That implies in New Physics, there should be a Triple Beta Decay, although much more rare than Double, still, the principle of a Faraday law Mechanism does not stop with Double.

AP

On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 10:36:28 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Re: anyone seen Triple Beta Decay? Re: the function of neutrinos in physics Re: New Chemistry Periodic Table of Elements

- show quoted text -
Looking at the table, it is highly likely that such a rare event as a Triple Beta Decay occurs with Tin to Iodine. The Double Beta Decay was Germanium to Selenium.

AP

On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 10:40:22 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Re: anyone seen Triple Beta Decay? Re: the function of neutrinos in physics Re: New Chemistry Periodic Table of Elements

Want to see if triple beta decay can occur from tin to iodine

--- quoting Wikipedia ---
Half-life (t1/2)        Decay mode        Pro­duct
112Sn        0.97%        stable
114Sn        0.66%        stable
115Sn        0.34%        stable
116Sn        14.54%        stable
117Sn        7.68%        stable
118Sn        24.22%        stable
119Sn        8.59%        stable
120Sn        32.58%        stable
122Sn        4.63%        stable
124Sn        5.79%        stable
126Sn        trace        2.3×105 y

On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 10:43:49 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Re: anyone seen Triple Beta Decay? Re: the function of neutrinos in physics Re: New Chemistry Periodic Table of Elements

Highly likely there is triple beta decay in New Physics

--- quoting Wikipedia on iodine ---

Main isotopes of iodine
Iso­tope        Abun­dance        Half-life (t1/2)        Decay mode        Pro­duct
123I        syn        13 h        ε, γ        123Te
124I        syn        4.176 d        ε        124Te
125I        syn        59.40 d        ε        125Te
127I        100%        stable
129I        trace        1.57×107 y        β−        129Xe
131I        syn        8.02070 d        β−, γ        131Xe
135I        syn        6.57 h        β−

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 14:53:36 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: SnI4 stannous iodide Re: anyone seen Triple Beta Decay? Re: the
function of neutrinos in physics Re: New Chemistry Periodic Table of Elements
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 21:53:36 +0000

SnI4 stannous iodide Re: anyone seen Triple Beta Decay? Re: the function of neutrinos in physics Re: New Chemistry Periodic Table of Elements

Alright, the best I could do on tin-iodine found together, naturally in Nature is tin iodine salts.

I could not find any reference to Triple Beta decay.

But I suspect someone is working on that in some lab across the world. Likely in Germany.

You see, in New Physics, neutrons are capacitors that save the monopoles produced by the protons and orbital muons in Faraday Law. So when a neutron-sack gets filled up with monopoles, it sheds a Beta monopole and turns into a proton 840MeV + orbital muon 105MeV and radiates a .5MeV beta monopole.

Now the fact that stannous iodide or iodine even exists in Nature and found together is a strong indicator, very strong indicator that Triple Beta Monopole Decay is occurring.

Now, one of the huge mysteries in all of chemistry is why the light elements of lithium beryllium boron are so so rare in abundance. To Old Chemistry it is a mystery, but to New Chemistry where Proton and orbital muon in Faraday Law produces magnetic monopoles, this light element scarcity is no puzzle at all. For the reason that carbon, nitrogen and oxygen are so very very overabundant is the reason that lithium, beryllium, boron are under-abundant in that there is Double Beta decay and Triple Beta decay going on in the under-abundant elements.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 11:43:49 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Function that describes Cosmic Abundance of Elements Re: New
Chemistry Periodic Table of Elements
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 18:43:49 +0000

Function that describes Cosmic Abundance of Elements Re: New Chemistry Periodic Table of Elements

Now in my Atom Totality book of 2017 I wrote that the forces of Nature can be all represented in one graph where we get a force law of V proportional to R, then V proportional to 1/R and finally the inverse square 1/R^2. In other words, all forces take on a one graphing of them into one function, a logarithmic function, but split up into three different sections.

--- quoting 2017 ---
Comments:: alright, the EM gravity is a Logarithmic function G= Ln(x) it is not an inverse square, because it has to contain three different types of forces V proportional R, proportional to 1/R, proportional to 1/R^2. In the above pages I referred the reader to spiral galaxy rotation curves to see these 3 different types. But let me try to draw a Ln(x) function and break it into three types.

^              __-__-_----
|          +             1/R^2
|      + 1/R
|    /
|  / R
|/_________________>
graph of both spiral galaxy rotation curve and graph of the Ln(x) function of math scooted up into the 1st Quadrant Only (and one can reflect that the exp(x) function is scooted over in the 1st Quadrant).

Now, looking at Ln(x), does it in any way shape or form look like a 1/4 of a circle? It does so, but with some imagination of a stretched circle. So this indicates to me, that we can break apart the Ln function into three strips to approximate the Ln function and it being, of course, the Coulomb law, the gravity law, all stacked three different pieces as one force law.
--- end quote ---

But what caught my eye today is the Cosmic Abundance of Chemical Elements, and to see if the abundance is a similar-- not exact but similar function framework where the spike of hydrogen and helium is V proportional to R, then we get a slow-down in abundance with V proportional to 1/R as oxygen, carbon, nitrogen,neon, silicon. And then a huge slow-down of all the rest of the elements.

--- quoting in parts Sources: Anders and Ebihara, 1982 Solar-system
abundances of the
elements Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta Vol. 46, pages 2363-2380.
The above table is the abundance compilation Anders and Grevesse,
1988,
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta.

atomic number relative cosmic abundances of the elements
based on meteors and analysis of the Sun

Atoms/10^6 Si
1 hydrogen H 2.79 x 10^10
2 helium He 2.72 x 10^9
3 lithium Li 57.1
4 beryllium Be 0.73
5 boron B 21.2
6 carbon C 1.01 x 10^7
7 nitrogen N 3.13 x 10^6
8 oxygen O 2.38 x 10^7
9 fluorine F 843
10 neon Ne 3.44 x 10^6
11 sodium Na 5.74 x 10^4
12 magnesium Mg 1.074 x 10^6
13 aluminum Al 8.49 x 10^4
14 silicon Si 1.00 x 10^6
15 phosphorus P 1.04 x 10^4
16 sulfur S 5.15 x 10^5
17 chlorine Cl 5240
18 argon Ar 1.01 x 10^5
19 potassium K 3770
20 calcium Ca 6.11 x 10^4
21 scandium Sc 34.2
22 titanium Ti 2400
24 chromium Cr 1.35 x 10^4
25 manganese Mn 9550
26 iron Fe 9.00 x 10^5
27 cobalt Co 2250
28 nickel N 4.93 x 10^4
29 copper Cu 522
30 zinc Zn 1260
31 gallium Ga 37.8
32 germanium Ge 119
33 arsenic As 6.56
34 selenium Se 62.1
35 bromine Br 11.8
36 krypton Kr 45
37 rubidium Rb 7.09
38 strontium Sr 23.5
39 yttrium Y 4.64
40 zirconium Zr 11.4
41 niobium Nb 0.698
42 molybdenum Mo 2.55
43 technetium Tc
44 ruthenium Ru 1.86
45 rhodium Rh 0.344
47 silver Ag 0.486
49 indium In 0.184
50 tin Sn 3.82
51 antimony Sb 0.309
52 tellurium Te 4.81
53 iodine I 0.90
54 xenon Xe 4.7
55 cesium Cs 0.372
56 barium Ba 4.49
57 lanthanum La 0.4460
58 cerium Ce 1.136
59 praseodymium Pr 0.1669
60 neodymium Nd 0.8279
61 promethium Pm
62 samarium Sm 0.2582
63 europium Eu 0.0973
65 terbium Tb 0.0603
66 dysprosium Dy 0.3942
67 holmium Ho 0.0889
68 erbium Er 0.2508
69 thulium Tm 0.0378
70 ytterbium Yb 0.2479
71 lutetium Lu 0.0367
72 hafnium Hf 0.154
73 tantalum Ta 0.0207
74 tungsten W 0.133
75 rhenium Re 0.0517
76 osmium Os 0.675
77 iridium Ir 0.661
78 platinum Pt 1.34
79 gold Au 0.187
80 mercury Hg 0.34
81 thallium TL 0.184
83 bismuth Bi 0.144
84 polonium Po
85 astatine At
87 francium Fr
89 actinium Ac
90 thorium Th 0.0335
91 protoactinium Pa
92 uranium U 0.0090
93 neptunium Np
94 plutonium Pu

--- quoting in part Sources: Anders and Ebihara, 1982 Solar-system
abundances of the
elements Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta Vol. 46, pages 2363-2380.
The above table is the abundance compilation Anders and Grevesse,
1988,
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta.

Function that describes Cosmic Abundance of Elements Re: New Chemistry Periodic Table of Elements

Now wikipedia has an excellent table of cosmic abundance of chemical elements only i wish they complete it out to plutonium. I especially like their "atom fraction" , something Anders did not do.

--- quoting Wikipedia ---
Most abundant nuclides in the Solar System[8]
Nuclide        A        Mass fraction in parts per million        Atom fraction in parts per million
Hydrogen-1        1        705,700        909,964
Helium-4        4        275,200        88,714
Oxygen-16        16        5,920        477
Carbon-12        12        3,032        326
Nitrogen-14        14        1,105        102
Neon-20        20        1,548        100

Silicon-28        28        653        30
Magnesium-24        24        513        28
Iron-56        56        1,169        27
Sulfur-32        32        396        16
Helium-3        3        35        15
Hydrogen-2        2        23        15
Neon-22        22        208        12
Magnesium-26        26        79        4
Carbon-13        13        37        4
Magnesium-25        25        69        4
Aluminium-27        27        58        3
Argon-36        36        77        3
Calcium-40        40        60        2
Sodium-23        23        33        2
Iron-54        54        72        2
Silicon-29        29        34        2
Nickel-58        58        49        1
Silicon-30        30        23        1
Iron-57        57        28

On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 9:01:01 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:
Function that describes Cosmic Abundance of Elements Re: New Chemistry Periodic Table of Elements

Another reason i like this table, for it shows hydrogen and helium isotopes.

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 11:17:10 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: Motion is inverse function of Abundance Re: Function that describes
Cosmic Abundance of Elements Re: New Chemistry Periodic Table of Elements
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 18:17:11 +0000

Motion is inverse function of Abundance Re: Function that describes Cosmic Abundance of Elements Re: New Chemistry Periodic Table of Elements
Now in my Atom Totality book of 2017 I wrote that the forces of Nature can be all represented in one graph where we get a force law of V proportional to R, then V proportional to 1/R and finally the inverse square 1/R^2. In other words, all forces take on a one graphing of them into one function, a logarithmic function, but split up into three different sections.
--- quoting 2017 ---
Comments:: alright, the EM gravity is a Logarithmic function G= Ln(x) it is not an inverse square, because it has to contain three different types of forces V proportional R, proportional to 1/R, proportional to 1/R^2. In the above pages I referred the reader to spiral galaxy rotation curves to see these 3 different types. But let me try to draw a Ln(x) function and break it into three types.
^              __-__-_----
|          +             1/R^2
|      + 1/R
|    /
|  / R
|/_________________>
graph of both spiral galaxy rotation curve and graph of the Ln(x) function of math scooted up into the 1st Quadrant Only (and one can reflect that the exp(x) function is scooted over in the 1st Quadrant).
Now Physics nor Math has ever this before, so this is new to both physics and math. New because it is a joining of parts of three different functions splicing them together to be in the end one whole function of a logarithmic type of function. Not wholly logarithmic but in some sort of "idealization logarithmic".

You can kind of see what I mean, where I splice together V proportional to R as a fully straightline, then I splice onto that 1/R, then, finally splice onto 1/R with 1/R^2

And I end up with what resembles overall a logarithmic function, but not really log function for it is the splicing together of three different functions to make a new one. The above is Rotation Curve of Motion of stars in galaxies. So the above is for--- Motion, motion.

But, the inverse of the above I want to use as a Abundance of Chemical Elements, the inverse, not as motion, motion, but as abundance, abundance.

Motion motion looks like this
___
/

Abundance, abundance looks like this

\___

Now here I am going out on a limb of thought, for to make the above true, imposes a lot on the facts as we know them. Out on a limb by saying our data of the abundance of elements/isotopes is hugely shoddy and almost worthless.

Most abundant nuclides in the Solar System[8]
Nuclide        A        Mass fraction in parts per million        Atom fraction in parts per million
Hydrogen-1        1        705,700        909,964
Helium-4        4        275,200        88,714
Oxygen-16        16        5,920        477
Carbon-12        12        3,032        326
Nitrogen-14        14        1,105        102
Neon-20        20        1,548        100

Silicon-28        28        653        30
Magnesium-24        24        513        28
Iron-56        56        1,169        27
Sulfur-32        32        396        16
Helium-3        3        35        15
Hydrogen-2        2        23        15
Neon-22        22        208        12
Magnesium-26        26        79        4
Carbon-13        13        37        4
Magnesium-25        25        69        4
Aluminium-27        27        58        3
Argon-36        36        77        3
Calcium-40        40        60        2
Sodium-23        23        33        2
Iron-54        54        72        2
Silicon-29        29        34        2
Nickel-58        58        49        1
Silicon-30        30        23        1
Iron-57        57        28

The above was from Wikipedia with footnote reference to David Arnett 1996, Supernovae and Nucleosynthesis, Princeton Univ.

Now the above of Arnett, 1996, maybe the best we have of cosmic abundance of elements/isotopes but in my opinion, it is far far too shoddy

We see iron isotopes there a lot, telling me that the overall is very shoddy, for there should be large abundance for all the elements from hydrogen to neon. So much so, that the chart above misses those that would be directly proportional as in motion of V to R, a straightline, although very steep, steeper than is V to R, but still a straightline for hydrogen to neon in abundance.

Then, for sodium out to krypton, the abundance follows a 1/R graph splice on, and finally from Rb to the remainder of all elements/isotopes follows a 1/R^2.

Now, by the standards of Logic, why should the Abundance graph be the inverse of Motion graph? Is there any logical footing I can stand on, to proclaim such a conjecture. Is it sound in physics, that Motion belies Abundance? That the two are connected, fundamentally, and that for Motion is a Logarithmic function-- ideally, but the Abundance is also logarithmic inverse.

It makes sense, does it not, that Motion and Amount are just two views of one thing.

AP

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu

::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ .  . | .   /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
---------------      -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
---------------      --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / .  . | .   \ .

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

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-28 01:55:42 UTC
Raw Message
#38page

#38page

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2018 12:52:04 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: in New Physics, the subatomic particles are all doing jobs and tasks
of the EM laws Re: Motion is inverse function of Abundance
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2018 19:52:04 +0000

in New Physics, the subatomic particles are all doing jobs and tasks of the EM laws Re: Motion is inverse function of Abundance

On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 1:17:14 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(snipped)
- show quoted text -
Alright this is April 2018, and I am confident I can settle the issue of Cosmic Abundance of Elements with a brand new Periodic Table of Chemical Elements, all of which is based on the newly discovered insight that Real Proton = 8 muons = 840MeV and Real Electron = 1 muon = 105MeV and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole, created by the proton thrusted through by muon in Faraday's law and which slowly grows a new neutron inside every atom in existence. So, there never was a Big Bang, there never was a black hole, there never was a neutron star, there never was dark matter nor dark energy-- all these are phony thoughts by small minds.

Old Physics was marbles and bowling ball physics of subatomic particles. Just balls of various sizes whizzing around inside atoms and on occasion colliding. A very baby and childish view of atoms.

New Physics is where the proton and muon play out Faraday's law and Ampere's law and all the laws of EM theory. A proton in New Physics is seen as 8 coils of wire- 8 muons and the bar magnet is the orbital muon of an atom.

So in Old Physics, those numbskulls saw subatomic particles as balls whizzing around and sometimes colliding. In New Physics, the subatomic particles are all rich in jobs and work tasks of doing all the laws of Electricity and Magnetism.

AP

On Tuesday, April 3, 2018 at 9:07:07 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:
Special Number patterns in Physics such as Proton = 4*5*6*7 = 840 MeV

4*5*6*7 = proton MeV Re: Connecting factorial to angle 720 degrees to sphere Re: A super pattern in math that needs explanation 3^3+4^3+5^3=6^3 and 3^2 +4^2 =5^2 = <3,4,5,6>

Now we can get the important numbers of mathematics for angles from factorial if we cut, dice and splice.

So for 360 degrees we have 3*4*5*6

For 180 degrees we unfortunately have a break in the pattern

For 90 degrees we have 9*10

For 60 degrees we have 3*4*5

For 720 degrees the 1 revolution around a 3D cube or sphere is 2*3*4*5*6

However the PATTERN seems to work the Best in Physics, where

Proton = 4*5*6*7 = 840 MeV

Neutron = 3*5*7*9 = 945 MeV where we have only odd factorial

Muon = 3*5*7 = 105 MeV, where again we have odd factorial, which may shed light on why proton is sequential, yet electron and neutron are odd-sequence

Magnetic Monopole = 1 neutron/1890 which is 945 divided by 2*3*5*7*9, and here, a mix of even with odd
In other words 1/2 MeV.

This pattern in physics may help explain some intrinsic physics.

AP

On Thursday, April 5, 2018 at 4:11:08 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:
13 year olds mastering angular momentum while no-one in the 20th century mastered it Re: Layout of the text Teaching True-- April 2018
Alright, I voiced opinion already that I have the feeling this is at least a 2 year project, not a 1 year project. It started out swell in January 2018 for it looked like I had a head start lead. But, all of a sudden here it is April and I am still in Grade School. Just too much, way way too much errors in Old Math, that, I just was not anticipating. Correcting errors is very much time consuming. Even angles in Old Math, no longer teach "subtend" which is vital and critical to a logical definition of angle.
Let me give you an example of what I mean by-- all other textbooks of math, except this one is scatterbrained math, written by a scatterbrained math professor, of topics that are unrelated and have no logical flow.

If you look up "angle" in Wikipedia, there is no mention of "subtend arc" in their definition. The author of that Wikipedia topic of angle, just totally missed the boat on everything that is "angle"

Now here is Wikipedia quoted on "angle" :
--- quoting Wikipedia on angle ---
In planar geometry, an angle is the figure formed by two rays, called the sides of the angle, sharing a common endpoint, called the vertex of the angle.[1] Angles formed by two rays lie in a plane, but this plane does not have to be a Euclidean plane. Angles are also formed by the intersection of two planes in Euclidean and other spaces. These are called dihedral angles.
--- end quote Wikipedia ---

That is like doing a definition of Christianity and never mentioning Jesus Christ.

This is what I mean that most every book on math today, and we can include every science book is a scatterbrained book for the topics are never logically flowing, the ideas are never really logically connected. It is move from one topic to the next disconnected topic. It is like taking some history book and shuffling the chapters all around. So that one week you are learning Medieval Knights in England and the next week learning how Marines are taking islands in the Pacific from the Japanese. And woe to the student that objects to scatterbrained teaching and lessons for it is seen in his report card.

So, now, in physics, there is Linear Momentum and Angular Momentum, and Angular Momentum is very very tough to learn. Even Nobel prizewinners in physics such as ,,,,,, never mastered Angular Momentum, although they could parrot what Angular Momentum means but never mastered what Angular Momentum actually is. Even ,,,,,, a mathematical physicist failed to master Angular Momentum, because if you master angular momentum you would know that Chemistry bonding of covalent bond cannot exist if the proton is 938MeV and electron is .5MeV.  You simply do not have a Covalent bond if proton and electron were those numbers.

To have a Covalent Bond of Chemistry, the proton has to be 840 MeV while electron is 105 MeV (in other words the muon is the Real Electron) and that .5 MeV particle was the particle that Dirac chased after all his life-- the magnetic monopole.

So, no-one in Physics for the past 100 years, ever mastered what it is that Angular Momentum was. They all could parrot what they thought angular momentum means, but none learned intuitively what it means.

And here is where Logical teaching repairs Angular Momentum.
So, I now am pushing this project for 2 years to completion.
So many surprises also, for before 2018, I never realized that Logic had 2 houses-- the grammar logic or Algebraic Logic of AND, OR, IF-->Then, Equal/Not, but, Logic needs a Geometry-Logic which in fact is mostly Set Theory. So, that was a huge huge surprise, that Set theory actually is not in mathematics, although they use set theory concepts just as they use AND, OR, IF-->THEN, existence, for every, etc of Algebraic Logic.
So, here, I have to include a whole brand new chapter in Math education, and Language education, that Logic is not only grammar but geometry.
You see, Linear Momentum is distance along a line or ray and is measured in numbers that are among the numbers that compose the line or ray.

But now an angle is a number that is different, totally different from the numbers that are strewn along the line or ray. Angles are subtended-arcs and have numbers alien and foreign to the numbers along a line or ray. Angles have degrees, whereas lines and rays have numbers as distance.

So, look for a number 90 degrees or 45 degrees on a line or ray. You will not find such a number, for degrees are with angles, not distance.

This is why, no-one in the 20th century mastered Angular Momentum. Too scatterbrained.

This is why teaching and learning Linear Momentum is a breeze, easy, simple. It is just numbers along a line or ray.

But now, Angular Momentum, that means some alien and foreign numbers come in. That means an "Angle" is involved.

This is why it is a nightmare to teach Angular Momentum in school. Because no-one in the physics community ever mastered Angular Momentum. And we see that each and every day, as the physics fuddy-duddys keep teaching that the electron is .5MeV and proton is 938 MeV.

All because they never learned that Angle is subtend arc.
So, I will be lucky if I can even get out of High School by the end of 2018. I am not going to pressure myself, for life of living has to be "other things also" I am not going to shortcut my annual gardening, or outdoors activities, or construction projects, just to speed up the textbook Teaching True Math.
But, what takes the most time, and is never recognized by outsiders, is that a textbook on math that is written LOGICALLY is a formidable, fierce task. Anyone can write a math textbook of scatterbrained topics, seldom linked together in any logical flow. For just witness almost every math textbook on the market today is a scatterbrained work of art, not a work of Logic.
So, let me proceed, and at least I have a pattern worked out. First Chapter is purely 8 year olds. Second Chapter is 9 to and through 14 year olds, finally High School, 15, 16, 17, 18 year olds, freshman, sophomore, junior, senior. And I suspect I will do Geometry One for freshman, Algebra One for sophomore and Geometry Two for juniors and for seniors PreCalculus.
Where do I put Trigonometry? I think in both Geometry classes.
So, we teach Angle is subtend arc to 9 to 13 year olds, we teach it every year from 9 to 13 year olds and they have it mastered by age 14.

While ,,,,,,,,,, never mastered Angles or Angular Momentum.

AP

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu

::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ .  . | .   /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
---------------      -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
---------------      --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / .  . | .   \ .

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

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-29 15:23:46 UTC
Raw Message
Alright this huge discovery of physics is going to keep me busy to the last days of my life. It is such a huge discovery, all textbooks of chemistry, physics, biology have to be rewritten.

Looking at a tutorial source on internet about AC capacitors we see this

—- quoting —-
We know that the current flowing through the capacitance in AC circuits is in opposition to the rate of change of the applied voltage but just like resistors, capacitors also offer some form of resistance against the flow of current through the circuit, but with capacitors in AC circuits this AC resistance is known as Reactance or more commonly in capacitor circuits, Capacitive Reactance, so capacitance in AC circuits suffers from Capacitive Reactance.

Capacitive Reactance

Capacitive Reactance in a purely capacitive circuit is the opposition to current flow in AC circuits only. Like resistance, reactance is also measured in Ohm’s but is .....

—- end quote —-

Now for the first time in physics history we can explain what AC is. We can do this because we know it is not electrons flowing in electricity for the real electron is a muon staying put inside a atom alongside its 840 MeV proton. What is moving are transitory magnetic monopoles.

This explains Superconductivity as capacitor electricity— always DC never AC. Likewise, Capacitors are always DC, unless you want Capacitor Reactance.

What i am saying here is the reason physics has AC is because the real electron as muon is fixed to the proton of 840 MeV and what is oscillating in direction as AC are the numerous and transitory monopoles of .5 MeV.

Superconductivity is DC only

Capacitance is DC only

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-29 16:44:06 UTC
Raw Message
Alright I should spend more time on the history of this magnificent discovery that the Real Electron is the muon of 105 MeV and the Real Proton is 840 MeV and that little troublesome particle of .5 MeV was what Dirac was chasing after for most of his physics career.

Dirac was the largest and most wise physicists of the last century from 1930 to 1984, no-one else in that time frame compares to Dirac. Dirac realized that electricity was quantized, but, in order to be quantized, meant the world had to have a magnetic monopole.

Dirac spent most of his life looking for it. And as happens in life, it is right under our nose. A case of mistaken identity by JJ Thomson back in 1897. Sure, Thomson discovered something-- a particle of .5 MeV and of -1 electric charge, but, was it the Real Electron of atoms, or, was it Dirac's Magnetic Monopole. For Thomson was 1897, but Dirac would not be calling for a particle of a monopole to make electricity be quantized until around 1930 and thereafter.

So desperate was the quest for the Monopole, that Dirac said that if just one such particle is found that was massive for it was 137/2 the charge on the electron.

I myself, believed in Dirac's magnetic monopole up until I started writing the 8th edition of the Atom Totality around 2016-2017. I was still believing Dirac's monopole would be found, but in writing that 8th edition, I gave up hope, because I was wedged into a corner of -- if only one monopole were found and it was large in energy 137/2 charge of electron.

So, there I was in 2016-- doing the 8th edition of Atom Totality and I gave up hope of the monopole because it was **so rare** and so odd with huge energy. I gave up hope-- even though I knew electricity is quantized and so you need monopoles. So in despair, I started to write out the monopole, arguing that EM and Maxwell Equations needed no monopoles. Needed asymmetry, and that Dirac was simply wrong on his electricity quantization requirements.

So I started writing the 8th edition, and eliminating the magnetic monopole, even though I had cherished the magnetic monopole from 1993 to 2016, always defending Dirac, but then in 2016 I swung the other way and see how far and wide and easy I could go without the monopole.

It worked fine and dandy, the elimination of the monopole-- arguing that magnetism is asymmetrical to electricity and that you need dipole in magnets to make a full circuit. With monopoles, EM needs no full circuit, so I eliminated Dirac's magnetic monopoles for the first time in my life from 1993-2016. And all was going well. Anyone can easily regurgitate my posts to sci.physics from 2016 to 2017 where I had eliminated the Dirac magnetic monopole, simply arguing 180 degrees opposite of Dirac, and making EM Maxwell Equations so much easier. For if you look at my 8th edition of Atom Totality, the bulk of that textbook was to do the AP-Maxwell Equations, for I was replacing the old 1860s Maxwell Equations with my own equations. And it is easier to keep -- no magnetic monopoles-- than to have to insert -- there does exist magnetic monopoles.

So, all was going swimmingly in 2016 with my new AP Maxwell Equations where I eliminated the Dirac Magnetic Monopole, and then something happened in 2016, something unbeknownest at the time, at the moment, but in 2016 on the chapter of Elementary Particles, one day I noticed that the muon was 105 MeV and proton and neutron about 938 and 940 MeV, and on that day I said to myself-- whoa, hold on a minute, if I multiply 9 times 105, well I have a proton, give or take a fraction of 1%. And knowing that physics always has outside background noise in its measurements that 9 times the muon is exactly the proton. And that the less than 1% difference was to be Sigma Error in physics measurement.

But, that discovery was 2016, and for some reason, it took another year for me to realize-- in 2017, to realize that if the muon is 9 times a proton, that the muon must be the Real Electron and that I must subtract 105 from 945 to gain the Real Proton. It took me a full year after the discovery that 9 muons equals 1 proton, a full year to realize that I needed to subtract 105 from 945, and that the Real Proton was 840 MeV. Once I realized that, in 2017, I spent a frantic few days figuring out-- what in the world, then, is this .5MeV particle that everyone thought was the electron but apparently is not the electron. What in the world is that .5MeV particle. And quickly realized that I had spent the entire 8th edition rubbing out, erasing and removing Dirac's magnetic monopole, and here it is in full bloom, full force, right under my nose, staring me in the eyes.

It was close to the end of the year of 2017, and I had rubbed out the Dirac Magnetic Monopole, and realized, I had found his magnetic monopole-- it was that .5 MeV particle, it was close to November or December and I had to scramble real quick, real fast to re-edit the 8th edition, to re-insert the magnetic monopole.

I finished the 8th edition of Atom Totality with AP-Maxwell Equations and with the magnetic monopole. Then as January of 2018 came, I started the textbook True Chemistry, not realizing in November and December 2017, of how huge, massively huge this changes all the physical sciences. Science before the magnetic monopole of 2017 is ancient history science. Science after 2017 with magnetic monopole is altogether a brand new and glorious new science.

So, probably every day of my life from here on out, will be days of new application of the fact that the .5MeV particle is Dirac's Magnetic Monopole. Ironic, that I end up helping Dirac discover his Magnetic Monopole, ironic in that only did I discover it, after losing hope and rubbing it out, and then it popped out and burst out upon me.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-29 17:45:47 UTC
Raw Message
Source— internet

—- quoting —-

Capacitive reactance (symbol XC) is a measure of a capacitor's opposition to AC (alternating current). Like resistance it is measured in ohms, but reactance is more complex than resistance because its value depends on the frequency (f) of the signal passing through the capacitor.
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-29 22:23:23 UTC
Raw Message
--- quoting Wikipedia ---
A DC voltage applied across a capacitor causes positive charge to accumulate on one side and negative charge to accumulate on the other side; the electric field due to the accumulated charge is the source of the opposition to the current. When the potential associated with the charge exactly balances the applied voltage, the current goes to zero.

Driven by an AC supply (ideal AC current source), a capacitor will only accumulate a limited amount of charge before the potential difference changes polarity and the charge is returned to the source. The higher the frequency, the less charge will accumulate and the smaller the opposition to the current.
--- end quote ---

Alright we need to discuss why it is that electrons as .5MeV is total hypocrisy to think that electrons of atoms do all this type of activities of running in a current, of storing in a capacitor and doing a AC dance of sorts.

What AC current is all about are magnetic monopoles controlled by the protons as 840 MeV and electrons as 105 MeV in the parent atom. And that monopoles are like photons that flit and fly through matter as electric current, doing a DC dance or a AC dance.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-30 20:54:25 UTC
Raw Message
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
--- quoting Wikipedia ---
A DC voltage applied across a capacitor causes positive charge to accumulate on one side and negative charge to accumulate on the other side; the electric field due to the accumulated charge is the source of the opposition to the current. When the potential associated with the charge exactly balances the applied voltage, the current goes to zero.
Driven by an AC supply (ideal AC current source), a capacitor will only accumulate a limited amount of charge before the potential difference changes polarity and the charge is returned to the source. The higher the frequency, the less charge will accumulate and the smaller the opposition to the current.
--- end quote ---
Alright we need to discuss why it is that electrons as .5MeV is total hypocrisy to think that electrons of atoms do all this type of activities of running in a current, of storing in a capacitor and doing a AC dance of sorts.
What AC current is all about are magnetic monopoles controlled by the protons as 840 MeV and electrons as 105 MeV in the parent atom. And that monopoles are like photons that flit and fly through matter as electric current, doing a DC dance or a AC dance.
So, yes, today we can laugh at the Old Physics physicist who thought that AC current were a huge number of electrons of atoms deciding to go 180 degrees then 0 degrees at the speed of light. What bozo clowns could ever believe such? As the comedian W,C, Fields once said-- a fool is borne every minute.

In AC current, the current itself is photons of a .5MeV charge energy, and these are called Magnetic Monopoles. They can switch directions at the speed of light, because magnetic monopoles are photons of light.

Trouble with most physicists are that their understanding of how the world works is not a reasoned understanding, not a logical understanding but a memorization of what one goofball of physics thinks a crowd of goofball physicists would expect him to believe. Everytime a Old Physics physicist opens his/her mouth, they say not a reasoned logical expose, but say what they think other physicists expect to hear. This is not science but political-physics.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-05-09 04:02:21 UTC
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2018 09:44:06 -0700 (PDT)

Subject: #40 history of my discovery of Dirac's magnetic monopole// True
Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton
= 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2018 16:44:07 +0000

#40page

#40page

#40 history of my discovery of Dirac's magnetic monopole// True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV

Alright I should spend more time on the history of this magnificent discovery that the Real Electron is the muon of 105 MeV and the Real Proton is 840 MeV and that little troublesome particle of .5 MeV was what Dirac was chasing after for most of his physics career.

Dirac was the largest and most wise physicists of the last century from 1930 to 1984, no-one else in that time frame compares to Dirac. Dirac realized that electricity was quantized, but, in order to be quantized, meant the world had to have a magnetic monopole.

Dirac spent most of his life looking for it. And as happens in life, it is right under our nose. A case of mistaken identity by JJ Thomson back in 1897. Sure, Thomson discovered something-- a particle of .5 MeV and of -1 electric charge, but, was it the Real Electron of atoms, or, was it Dirac's Magnetic Monopole. For Thomson was 1897, but Dirac would not be calling for a particle of a monopole to make electricity be quantized until around 1930 and thereafter.

So desperate was the quest for the Monopole, that Dirac said that if just one such particle is found that was massive for it was 137/2 the charge on the electron.

I myself, believed in Dirac's magnetic monopole up until I started writing the 8th edition of the Atom Totality around 2016-2017. I was still believing Dirac's monopole would be found, but in writing that 8th edition, I gave up hope, because I was wedged into a corner of -- if only one monopole were found and it was large in energy 137/2 charge of electron.

So, there I was in 2016-- doing the 8th edition of Atom Totality and I gave up hope of the monopole because it was **so rare** and so odd with huge energy. I gave up hope-- even though I knew electricity is quantized and so you need monopoles. So in despair, I started to write out the monopole, arguing that EM and Maxwell Equations needed no monopoles. Needed asymmetry, and that Dirac was simply wrong on his electricity quantization requirements.

So I started writing the 8th edition, and eliminating the magnetic monopole, even though I had cherished the magnetic monopole from 1993 to 2016, always defending Dirac, but then in 2016 I swung the other way and see how far and wide and easy I could go without the monopole.

It worked fine and dandy, the elimination of the monopole-- arguing that magnetism is asymmetrical to electricity and that you need dipole in magnets to make a full circuit. With monopoles, EM needs no full circuit, so I eliminated Dirac's magnetic monopoles for the first time in my life from 1993-2016. And all was going well. Anyone can easily regurgitate my posts to sci.physics from 2016 to 2017 where I had eliminated the Dirac magnetic monopole, simply arguing 180 degrees opposite of Dirac, and making EM Maxwell Equations so much easier. For if you look at my 8th edition of Atom Totality, the bulk of that textbook was to do the AP-Maxwell Equations, for I was replacing the old 1860s Maxwell Equations with my own equations. And it is easier to keep -- no magnetic monopoles-- than to have to insert -- there does exist magnetic monopoles.

So, all was going swimmingly in 2016 with my new AP Maxwell Equations where I eliminated the Dirac Magnetic Monopole, and then something happened in 2016, something unbeknownest at the time, at the moment, but in 2016 on the chapter of Elementary Particles, one day I noticed that the muon was 105 MeV and proton and neutron about 938 and 940 MeV, and on that day I said to myself-- whoa, hold on a minute, if I multiply 9 times 105, well I have a proton, give or take a fraction of 1%. And knowing that physics always has outside background noise in its measurements that 9 times the muon is exactly the proton. And that the less than 1% difference was to be Sigma Error in physics measurement.

But, that discovery was 2016, and for some reason, it took another year for me to realize-- in 2017, to realize that if the muon is 9 times a proton, that the muon must be the Real Electron and that I must subtract 105 from 945 to gain the Real Proton. It took me a full year after the discovery that 9 muons equals 1 proton, a full year to realize that I needed to subtract 105 from 945, and that the Real Proton was 840 MeV. Once I realized that, in 2017, I spent a frantic few days figuring out-- what in the world, then, is this .5MeV particle that everyone thought was the electron but apparently is not the electron. What in the world is that .5MeV particle. And quickly realized that I had spent the entire 8th edition rubbing out, erasing and removing Dirac's magnetic monopole, and here it is in full bloom, full force, right under my nose, staring me in the eyes.

It was close to the end of the year of 2017, and I had rubbed out the Dirac Magnetic Monopole, and realized, I had found his magnetic monopole-- it was that .5 MeV particle, it was close to November or December and I had to scramble real quick, real fast to re-edit the 8th edition, to re-insert the magnetic monopole.

I finished the 8th edition of Atom Totality with AP-Maxwell Equations and with the magnetic monopole. Then as January of 2018 came, I started the textbook True Chemistry, not realizing in November and December 2017, of how huge, massively huge this changes all the physical sciences. Science before the magnetic monopole of 2017 is ancient history science. Science after 2017 with magnetic monopole is altogether a brand new and glorious new science.

So, probably every day of my life from here on out, will be days of new application of the fact that the .5MeV particle is Dirac's Magnetic Monopole. Ironic, that I end up helping Dirac discover his Magnetic Monopole, ironic in that only did I discover it, after losing hope and rubbing it out, and then it popped out and burst out upon me.

AP

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu

::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
. \ .  . | .   /.
. . \. . .|. . /. .
..\....|.../...
::\:::|::/::
---------------      -------------
--------------- (Y) -------------
---------------      --------------
::/:::|::\::
../....|...\...
. . /. . .|. . \. .
. / .  . | .   \ .

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

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

Archimedes Plutonium

Michael Moroney
2018-04-24 19:22:20 UTC
Raw Message
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
The parts to throw out is 75%
1) the theory of how the Sun works is not fusion fueling the Sun and stars
but rather each atom creates Magnetic monopoles which is the light streaming
out of stars
Why is this true? Because you said so?
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
2) the Sun has a hollow core, and that was never mentioned in this program
Why is this true? Because you said so?
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
3) as monopoles are the cause of star and Sun heat and light, the Corona is
so much hotter because of a Magnetic Monopole wavelength is the Corona itself.
Why is this true? Because you said so?
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
4) the program mentions Solar seismology, sound waves on surface, but I
would caution that, because when monopoles create the Sun's energy, means that
Radio Waves are widespread, and so, the researchers here are confusing Sound
waves with that of Radio Waves.
Why is this true? Because you said so?