Discussion:
Murray Gell-Mann flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test
Add Reply
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-06 21:16:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Physics lifelong-generation Test & Murray Gell-Mann flunked it

Now in each generation of about 50 years, there is a big question in science which the general population participates in-- for example Continental Drift from about 1930 to 1970. And from 1980 to present the question is Climate Change. Big science questions where the general public participates in.

Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test. It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist, never.

Now, Physics has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed.

PHYSICS TEST::

1) You studied momentum in physics, especially angular momentum, and, can you have Chemistry and the Chemical Bond, the ionic, covalent, metallic bonding, if the Proton was 938MeV while electron is .5MeV. Or, can this bonding exist only when the Proton is 840 MeV, electron = muon = 105 MeV, and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. So, which is it. Chemistry exists only if 840 to 105 MeV for angular momentum sake or 938 to .5?

So, all physicists who studied and thought they mastered physics, turns out, they are so pitiful, so pathetic in physics understanding of just about anything, that they believe you can have Chemistry with a 938 MeV proton with a .5 MeV electron.

Murray Gell-Mann flunked the Physics Test of a lifetime-generation test.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-08 21:00:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 3:16:35 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Physics lifelong-generation Test & Murray Gell-Mann flunked it
>
> Now in each generation of about 50 years, there is a big question in science which the general population participates in-- for example Continental Drift from about 1930 to 1970. And from 1980 to present the question is Climate Change. Big science questions where the general public participates in.
>
> Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test. It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist, never.
>
> Now, Physics has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed.
>
> PHYSICS TEST::
>
> 1) You studied momentum in physics, especially angular momentum, and, can you have Chemistry and the Chemical Bond, the ionic, covalent, metallic bonding, if the Proton was 938MeV while electron is .5MeV. Or, can this bonding exist only when the Proton is 840 MeV, electron = muon = 105 MeV, and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. So, which is it. Chemistry exists only if 840 to 105 MeV for angular momentum sake or 938 to .5?
>
> So, all physicists who studied and thought they mastered physics, turns out, they are so pitiful, so pathetic in physics understanding of just about anything, that they believe you can have Chemistry with a 938 MeV proton with a .5 MeV electron.
>
> Murray Gell-Mann flunked the Physics Test of a lifetime-generation test.
>
> AP

Michael Moroney writes:
Feb 6

No, "physics" doesn't have a "lifelong-generation test".

You may, but it belongs to you, not "physics".

AP writes: tell us how you claim to be an engineer yet you failed to ever do a percentage correctly

Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572.  A proton is about the mass
> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.
Michael Moroney
2018-02-08 21:57:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Physics Failure Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com> fails:

>Michael Moroney writes:
>Feb 6

>No, "physics" doesn't have a "lifelong-generation test".

>You may, but it belongs to you, not "physics".

>AP writes: tell us how you claim to be an engineer yet you failed to ever
>do a percentage correctly

I can do percentages correctly, and you can't.

That's why I am an engineer and you are a Failure in both math and physics.
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-16 22:02:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 3:57:36 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:

>
> I can do percentages correctly, and you can't.
>
> That's why I am an engineer and you are a Failure in both math and physics.

***@gmail.com writes:
3:48 PM (7 minutes ago)

Nothing like the New Math to make easy things difficult. When you run out of fingers, you can always borrow from your toes.
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-18 02:35:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 3:57:36 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
Michael Moroney writes:
5:08 PM (3 hours ago)

benj <***@nobody.net> writes:

>On 2/17/2018 11:55 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:

Yes, Al made a truly classic rant.........

percentage for Moroney, 938 is what percent short of 945

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
> Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.

Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:

>
> Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572.  A proton is about the mass
> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.

AP writes: so, Moroney moron what is the percentage of 1 out of 2?
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-28 17:18:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 3:57:36 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Physics Failure



id like to had seen her shine just for me in 1999 to laugh at her to watch the monkeys worshipping her for her light trick that would had been a sight to see cause they obviously didnd tknew who she was like i did (1)
By ***@__.__ 1 post 0 views updated 10:52 AM



and jesus said i shall baptize usa of a great modern american mormons the home of the brave and land fo the free->when what they really are is full of shit they never met jesus they dont know what jhe looks like or what he would tell them->jesus told me he wants america dead (1)
By ***@__.__ 1 post 0 views updated 10:37 AM




i know what jesus said i bet he said to his apostole in the saiint thomas gospel->and the blue colour shall be superior to all other colours and creeds and i who say this im jesus im loser cause im not blue LOL (1)
By ***@__.__ 1 post 0 views updated 10:21 AM




Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? (35)
By James McGinn 38 posts 54 views updated 10:15 AM

+ 5 others




HER BLUE COLOUR IS SUPERIOR TO MINE?In which bible in wich passage that im not aware about? (1)
By ***@__.__ 1 post 0 views updated 10:12 AM

AP writes: At least Murray can do a correct percentage, doubt any of the above can
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-09 21:50:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Dan Christensen writes:
Feb 8 (17 hours ago)

Archie Pu's Greatest Discoveries

Just a few of Archie's greatest discoveries:

“The totality, everything that there is [the universe], is only 1 atom of plutonium [Pu]. There is nothing outside or beyond this one atom of plutonium.”
--April 4, 1994

“The last and largest finite number is 10^604.”
--June 3, 2015

AP writes:: Dan in his exuberant excitement forgot to list my recent discovery that the Real Electron is 105 MeV and the .5MeV particle is the Dirac's magnetic monopole


> Physics lifelong-generation Test & Murray Gell-Mann flunked it
>
> Now in each generation of about 50 years, there is a big question in science which the general population participates in-- for example Continental Drift from about 1930 to 1970. And from 1980 to present the question is Climate Change. Big science questions where the general public participates in.
>
> Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test. It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist, never.
>
> Now, Physics has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed.
>
> PHYSICS TEST::
>
> 1) You studied momentum in physics, especially angular momentum, and, can you have Chemistry and the Chemical Bond, the ionic, covalent, metallic bonding, if the Proton was 938MeV while electron is .5MeV. Or, can this bonding exist only when the Proton is 840 MeV, electron = muon = 105 MeV, and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. So, which is it. Chemistry exists only if 840 to 105 MeV for angular momentum sake or 938 to .5?
>
> So, all physicists who studied and thought they mastered physics, turns out, they are so pitiful, so pathetic in physics understanding of just about anything, that they believe you can have Chemistry with a 938 MeV proton with a .5 MeV electron.
>
> Murray Gell-Mann flunked the Physics Test of a lifetime-generation test.
>
> AP
p***@gmail.com
2018-04-23 06:41:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 11:50:27 PM UTC+2, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Dan Christensen writes:
> Feb 8 (17 hours ago)
>
> Archie Pu's Greatest Discoveries
>
> Just a few of Archie's greatest discoveries:
>
> “The totality, everything that there is [the universe], is only 1 atom of plutonium [Pu]. There is nothing outside or beyond this one atom of plutonium.”
> --April 4, 1994
>
> “The last and largest finite number is 10^604.”
> --June 3, 2015
>
> AP writes:: Dan in his exuberant excitement forgot to list my recent discovery that the Real Electron is 105 MeV and the .5MeV particle is the Dirac's magnetic monopole
>
>
> > Physics lifelong-generation Test & Murray Gell-Mann flunked it
> >
> > Now in each generation of about 50 years, there is a big question in science which the general population participates in-- for example Continental Drift from about 1930 to 1970. And from 1980 to present the question is Climate Change. Big science questions where the general public participates in.
> >
> > Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test. It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist, never.
> >
> > Now, Physics has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed.
> >
> > PHYSICS TEST::
> >
> > 1) You studied momentum in physics, especially angular momentum, and, can you have Chemistry and the Chemical Bond, the ionic, covalent, metallic bonding, if the Proton was 938MeV while electron is .5MeV. Or, can this bonding exist only when the Proton is 840 MeV, electron = muon = 105 MeV, and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. So, which is it. Chemistry exists only if 840 to 105 MeV for angular momentum sake or 938 to .5?
> >
> > So, all physicists who studied and thought they mastered physics, turns out, they are so pitiful, so pathetic in physics understanding of just about anything, that they believe you can have Chemistry with a 938 MeV proton with a .5 MeV electron.
======================
idiot parrot !!

the electron is about 5 mev
3 electrons are about 15 mev
ELECTRONS NAD EVEN MANY BASIC PARTICLES
CAN COMBINE AS A ''CHAINOF ORBITALS==
LIKE
A
ELECTRON POSITRON ELECTRON

or positron electron positron etc etc
see '' THE CHAIN OF ORBITALS SYSTEM''
old copyright by y Porat

http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract
===========================
> >
> > Murray Gell-Mann flunked the Physics Test of a lifetime-generation test.
==========================
surprisingly enough I agree with Archi
about Gellman and his wrong physics
================
TIA
Y.P
============================
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-24 05:24:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 1:42:08 AM UTC-5, ***@gmail.com wrote:

***@gmail.com writes:
Apr 23 (35 minutes ago)

> > ======================
> > idiot parrot !!
> >
> > the electron is about 5 mev
> > 3 electrons are about 15 mev
> > ELECTRONS NAD EVEN MANY BASIC PARTICLES
> > CAN COMBINE AS A ''CHAINOF ORBITALS==
> > LIKE
> > A
> > ELECTRON POSITRON ELECTRON
> >
> > or positron electron positron etc etc
> > see '' THE CHAIN OF ORBITALS SYSTEM''
> > old copyright by y Porat
> >
> > http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract
> > ===========================
> > > >
> > > > Murray Gell-Mann flunked the Physics Test of a lifetime-generation test.
> > ==========================
> > surprisingly enough I agree with Archi
> > about Gellman and his wrong physics
> > ================
> > TIA
> > Y.P
> > ============================
=================
thank you little psycho pig shit lire Drack
envy is killing that psycho disturbed
miserable Nazi gangster
so tank you
FOR PROMOTING ME ...
----------------
===Y.porat

AP writes: Porat-- you are a total failure in science, physics, you have only baby-talk. And no matter what the shortcomings of Murray Gell-Mann in never realizing proton=840 MeV, .5MeV was Dirac magnetic monopole, no matter what shortcomings Gell-Mann had in physics, at least he was in the game. Porat-- you are a total outsider and should address Mr. Gell-Mann as Sir Gell-Mann
Michael Moroney
2018-04-24 12:17:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com> writes:

>On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 1:42:08 AM UTC-5, ***@gmail.com wrote:

>AP writes: Porat-- you are a total failure in science, physics, you have
>only baby-talk. And no matter what the shortcomings of Murray Gell-Mann
>in never realizing proton=840 MeV, .5MeV was Dirac magnetic monopole,
>no matter what shortcomings Gell-Mann had in physics, at least he was in
>the game. Porat-- you are a total outsider and should address Mr.
>Gell-Mann as Sir Gell-Mann

Archie, you science failure, you need to address Porat as Sir Porat or
Your Greatness. Before he was reduced to babbling babytalk, at least he
was designing bridges while you were learning better ways on how to fail.
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-25 18:44:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 7:17:40 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
snip the insane stalkers post for it is only hatred never science

Volney writes:
1:25 PM (15 minutes ago)

>Who is "we"??
Michael Moroney
2018-04-26 02:48:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com> writes:

>On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 7:17:40 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>snip the insane stalkers post for it is only hatred never science

>Volney writes:
>1:25 PM (15 minutes ago)

>>Who is "we"??


Archie, do you really have to _deliberately_ fail like that?
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-05-05 18:49:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 9:48:49 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Archie, do you really have to _deliberately_ fail like that?



Zelos Malum wrote:



4:33 AM (3 hours ago)

Triangle? You might wanna check up on basic chemical systems of how bonds are formed, your triangle violates all such and have too many covalent bonds.
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-05-08 00:50:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, April 25, 2018 at 9:48:49 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> do you really have to _deliberately_ fail like that?

James McGinn writes:
6:01 PM (1 hour ago)

>There is no such thing as a gas
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-13 07:46:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 3:16:35 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Physics lifelong-generation Test & Murray Gell-Mann flunked it
>
> Now in each generation of about 50 years, there is a big question in science which the general population participates in-- for example Continental Drift from about 1930 to 1970. And from 1980 to present the question is Climate Change. Big science questions where the general public participates in.
>
> Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test. It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist, never.
>
> Now, Physics has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed.
>
> PHYSICS TEST::
>
> 1) You studied momentum in physics, especially angular momentum, and, can you have Chemistry and the Chemical Bond, the ionic, covalent, metallic bonding, if the Proton was 938MeV while electron is .5MeV. Or, can this bonding exist only when the Proton is 840 MeV, electron = muon = 105 MeV, and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. So, which is it. Chemistry exists only if 840 to 105 MeV for angular momentum sake or 938 to .5?
>
> So, all physicists who studied and thought they mastered physics, turns out, they are so pitiful, so pathetic in physics understanding of just about anything, that they believe you can have Chemistry with a 938 MeV proton with a .5 MeV electron.
>
> Murray Gell-Mann flunked the Physics Test of a lifetime-generation test.
>
> AP

Michael Moroney writes
12:38 AM (1 hour ago)

Re: Physics Phailure Archimedes Plutonium phinds yet another way to phail!
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-20 21:20:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Michael Moroney writes:
7:10 AM (7 hours ago)


Be a man,...

AP writes: Yes, Murray, do as moron Moroney quips, be a man, realize Murray, that you spent a lifetime in physics, supposedly mastering what Momentum, Angular Momentum is all about, yet on your greatest test in life of Physics, was,--- how can this 938 MeV proton with a .5MeV electron, how can that idiotic idea cook up a Covalent bond in Chemistry-- you failed Murray, failed physics-- because, the Covalent bond of Chemistry can exist if the proton was 840 MeV with the Real Electron being the muon at 105 MeV.

Somehow, the Nobel in Physics, Murray got to your head and from thence onward, you just failed physics both left and right.




On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 3:16:35 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Physics lifelong-generation Test & Murray Gell-Mann flunked it
>
> Now in each generation of about 50 years, there is a big question in science which the general population participates in-- for example Continental Drift from about 1930 to 1970. And from 1980 to present the question is Climate Change. Big science questions where the general public participates in.
>
> Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test. It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist, never.
>
> Now, Physics has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed.
>
> PHYSICS TEST::
>
> 1) You studied momentum in physics, especially angular momentum, and, can you have Chemistry and the Chemical Bond, the ionic, covalent, metallic bonding, if the Proton was 938MeV while electron is .5MeV. Or, can this bonding exist only when the Proton is 840 MeV, electron = muon = 105 MeV, and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. So, which is it. Chemistry exists only if 840 to 105 MeV for angular momentum sake or 938 to .5?
>
> So, all physicists who studied and thought they mastered physics, turns out, they are so pitiful, so pathetic in physics understanding of just about anything, that they believe you can have Chemistry with a 938 MeV proton with a .5 MeV electron.
>
> Murray Gell-Mann flunked the Physics Test of a lifetime-generation test.
>
> AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-20 23:21:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV

#1page

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.


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
2018-02-21 04:59:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
#2page

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

Subject: radioactive 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 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

On Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 3:36:00 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 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.

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.

AP

On Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 5:20:34 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.math:
radioactive beta decay is 105 MeV emission Re: Chemists are smarter than Physicists-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-21 22:47:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Murray Gell-Mann has no logical abilities in physics Re: Real-proton = 840MeV

On Wednesday, February 21, 2018 at 11:27:45 AM UTC-6, ***@gmail.com wrote:

>
> Uh-oh.  It looks like poor Archie the Pooh is starting to forget even how to count.  If 55 is the center of the ceiling, what is 95?

AP writes: now Alouatta is an insane stalker, been so for almost a decade now, and his trying to recreate walking on his ceiling as a DesCartes fly. But, taking Alouatta's insanity over to physics. Taking an animal analogy over to physics where Leon Lederman, Sheldon Glashow, Murray Gell-Mann, and Steven Weinberg, all four of them believing the electron is that pitiful .5MeV particle and proton 938MeV. Only goes to show that these four illustrious physicists never mastered Angular Momentum of physics. If you master angular momentum, you know that the covalent bond in chemistry cannot be a 938 versus .5 MeV angular momentum, but must be at minimum 840 versus 105 MeV angular momentum.

AP writes: now recently I saw a film clip of a Meerkat, I forgotten where it was-- BBC or perhaps NATURE on PBS, where they tried collaring a Meerkat with a film camera. Anyway, the clip showed a human attendant laying down a pad on the ground, and placing a bowl of grubs in the middle of the pad. And viewers were _not expecting_ any huge surprise from this Meerkat, but surprise they were, because the darling Meerkat comes rushing out and gobbling up the grubs faster than you can say Meerkat, but then the surprise was that the Kat thought the grubs came from underneath the pad, and quickly, before you can say Meerkat, had the pad under claw and was removing the pad to find more delicious grubs.

That is sort of a Allegory tale to the four physicists of Murray, Steven, Leon, and Sheldon, they are like Meerkats of physics. They see electrons as .5MeV coming out of an atom, and assume that it is a electron, never using any Logic, any Logical thought that the .5MeV, although with a - a negative charge, cannot be the real electron, for .5 cannot tangle in momentum with 938, never using any Logical thought, that the REAL ELECTRON has to be somewhat close in momentum to the proton, say 840 to 105.

The Meerkats go on instinct only, no logic, no logic to say, hey, a human present, hence the grubs are from the humans. The four physicists, going on instinct only, no logic, no logic whatsoever, that .5MeV to 938 MeV cannot give Chemistry any bonding.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-24 06:40:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Murray never understood that Chemistry does not exist with electron = .5MeV

Michael Moroney wrote
Feb 23 (2 hours ago)

> yet you haven't
>produced a single proof yet. So when will you provide one?

AP writes: Yes, Murray, you never produced a proof that the real electron is .5MeV, for which it could not possibly provide Chemistry with any bonding whatsoever of covalent



On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 3:16:35 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Physics lifelong-generation Test & Murray Gell-Mann flunked it
>
> Now in each generation of about 50 years, there is a big question in science which the general population participates in-- for example Continental Drift from about 1930 to 1970. And from 1980 to present the question is Climate Change. Big science questions where the general public participates in.
>
> Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test. It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist, never.
>
> Now, Physics has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed.
>
> PHYSICS TEST::
>
> 1) You studied momentum in physics, especially angular momentum, and, can you have Chemistry and the Chemical Bond, the ionic, covalent, metallic bonding, if the Proton was 938MeV while electron is .5MeV. Or, can this bonding exist only when the Proton is 840 MeV, electron = muon = 105 MeV, and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. So, which is it. Chemistry exists only if 840 to 105 MeV for angular momentum sake or 938 to .5?
>
> So, all physicists who studied and thought they mastered physics, turns out, they are so pitiful, so pathetic in physics understanding of just about anything, that they believe you can have Chemistry with a 938 MeV proton with a .5 MeV electron.
>
> Murray Gell-Mann flunked the Physics Test of a lifetime-generation test.
>
> AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-25 02:41:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Michael Moroney writes:
8:25 PM (8 minutes ago)

>The windup, the pitch, looks like it ought to be a gopher ball...

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
> Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.

Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:

>
> Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572.  A proton is about the mass
> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.

AP writes: shouldn't you be learning percentages, than playing baseball





On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 12:40:52 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Murray never understood that Chemistry does not exist with electron = .5MeV
>
> Michael Moroney wrote
> Feb 23 (2 hours ago)
>
> > yet you haven't
> >produced a single proof yet. So when will you provide one?
>
> AP writes: Yes, Murray, you never produced a proof that the real electron is .5MeV, for which it could not possibly provide Chemistry with any bonding whatsoever of covalent
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 3:16:35 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Physics lifelong-generation Test & Murray Gell-Mann flunked it
> >
> > Now in each generation of about 50 years, there is a big question in science which the general population participates in-- for example Continental Drift from about 1930 to 1970. And from 1980 to present the question is Climate Change. Big science questions where the general public participates in.
> >
> > Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test. It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist, never.
> >
> > Now, Physics has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed.
> >
> > PHYSICS TEST::
> >
> > 1) You studied momentum in physics, especially angular momentum, and, can you have Chemistry and the Chemical Bond, the ionic, covalent, metallic bonding, if the Proton was 938MeV while electron is .5MeV. Or, can this bonding exist only when the Proton is 840 MeV, electron = muon = 105 MeV, and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. So, which is it. Chemistry exists only if 840 to 105 MeV for angular momentum sake or 938 to .5?
> >
> > So, all physicists who studied and thought they mastered physics, turns out, they are so pitiful, so pathetic in physics understanding of just about anything, that they believe you can have Chemistry with a 938 MeV proton with a .5 MeV electron.
> >
> > Murray Gell-Mann flunked the Physics Test of a lifetime-generation test.
> >
> > AP
Keith Stein
2018-03-22 14:38:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 24/02/2018 06:40, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Murray never understood that Chemistry does not exist with electron = .5MeV
>
> Michael Moroney wrote
> Feb 23 (2 hours ago)
>
>> yet you haven't
>> produced a single proof yet. So when will you provide one?
>
> AP writes: Yes, Murray, you never produced a proof that the real electron is .5MeV, for which it could not possibly provide Chemistry with any bonding whatsoever of covalent
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 3:16:35 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>> Physics lifelong-generation Test & Murray Gell-Mann flunked it
>>
>> Now in each generation of about 50 years, there is a big question in science which the general population participates in-- for example Continental Drift from about 1930 to 1970. And from 1980 to present the question is Climate Change. Big science questions where the general public participates in.
>>
>> Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test. It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist, never.
>>
>> Now, Physics has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed.
>>
>> PHYSICS TEST::
>>
>> 1) You studied momentum in physics, especially angular momentum, and, can you have Chemistry and the Chemical Bond, the ionic, covalent, metallic bonding, if the Proton was 938MeV while electron is .5MeV. Or, can this bonding exist only when the Proton is 840 MeV, electron = muon = 105 MeV, and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. So, which is it. Chemistry exists only if 840 to 105 MeV for angular momentum sake or 938 to .5?
>>
>> So, all physicists who studied and thought they mastered physics, turns out, they are so pitiful, so pathetic in physics understanding of just about anything, that they believe you can have Chemistry with a 938 MeV proton with a .5 MeV electron.
>>
>> Murray Gell-Mann flunked the Physics Test of a lifetime-generation test.
>>
>> AP
>
Hi ap ,
remamber me?
you and i ap
we first crossed swords, way back......
late 20th century,so i know you are an old hand,
at this game eh!,and as one old hand to another,
in response to your lifelong*generation* PHYSICS TEST:

and i know,
that they say,
a question
can not be


answered
with a question.
BUT
in this case,
we make an exception .

so
my answer to your question would be:
"with all your experience Archimedes Plutonium,
is that
REALLY

the best
question
YOU
can come up with
?"

Nice to cross swords with you again old timer

keith stein eh!
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-03-26 15:19:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 9:38:51 AM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote:

> Hi ap ,
> remamber me?
> you and i ap
> we first crossed swords, way back......
> late 20th century,so i know you are an old hand,
> at this game eh!,and as one old hand to another,
> in response to your lifelong*generation* PHYSICS TEST:
>
> and i know,
> that they say,
> a question
> can not be
>
>
> answered
> with a question.
> BUT
> in this case,
> we make an exception .
>
> so
> my answer to your question would be:
> "with all your experience Archimedes Plutonium,
> is that
> REALLY
>
> the best
> question
> YOU
> can come up with
> ?"
>
> Nice to cross swords with you again old timer
>
> keith stein eh!

♥♥♥AMAZING HEALTH patches box




♥♥♥AMAZING SHIPPING 1 post 0 views updated 8:20 AM
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-03-29 19:38:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 9:38:51 AM UTC-5, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 24/02/2018 06:40, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Murray never understood that Chemistry does not exist with electron = .5MeV
> >
> > Michael Moroney wrote
> > Feb 23 (2 hours ago)
> >
> >> yet you haven't
> >> produced a single proof yet. So when will you provide one?
> >
> > AP writes: Yes, Murray, you never produced a proof that the real electron is .5MeV, for which it could not possibly provide Chemistry with any bonding whatsoever of covalent
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 3:16:35 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >> Physics lifelong-generation Test & Murray Gell-Mann flunked it
> >>
> >> Now in each generation of about 50 years, there is a big question in science which the general population participates in-- for example Continental Drift from about 1930 to 1970. And from 1980 to present the question is Climate Change. Big science questions where the general public participates in.
> >>
> >> Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test. It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist, never.
> >>
> >> Now, Physics has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed.
> >>
> >> PHYSICS TEST::
> >>
> >> 1) You studied momentum in physics, especially angular momentum, and, can you have Chemistry and the Chemical Bond, the ionic, covalent, metallic bonding, if the Proton was 938MeV while electron is .5MeV. Or, can this bonding exist only when the Proton is 840 MeV, electron = muon = 105 MeV, and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. So, which is it. Chemistry exists only if 840 to 105 MeV for angular momentum sake or 938 to .5?
> >>
> >> So, all physicists who studied and thought they mastered physics, turns out, they are so pitiful, so pathetic in physics understanding of just about anything, that they believe you can have Chemistry with a 938 MeV proton with a .5 MeV electron.
> >>
> >> Murray Gell-Mann flunked the Physics Test of a lifetime-generation test.
> >>
> >> AP
> >
> Hi ap ,
> remamber me?
> you and i ap
> we first crossed swords, way back......
> late 20th century,so i know you are an old hand,
> at this game eh!,and as one old hand to another,
> in response to your lifelong*generation* PHYSICS TEST:
>
> and i know,
> that they say,
> a question
> can not be
>
>
> answered
> with a question.
> BUT
> in this case,
> we make an exception .
>
> so
> my answer to your question would be:
> "with all your experience Archimedes Plutonium,
> is that
> REALLY
>
> the best
> question
> YOU
> can come up with
> ?"
>
> Nice to cross swords with you again old timer
>
> keith stein eh!


John Gabriel



9:36 AM (3 hours ago)



Bwaaa haaaa haaaa! Seems that the BIG STUPID knows set theory can be very harmful to your health, hence the strategically placed Advertisement!!

LMAO


***@gmail.com writes



Mar 27



More results by bird brain John Garbage-iel?
Obtained via his butt sex axiom and 3=<4 invalid?
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-27 05:38:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Michael Moroney wrote:
11:29 PM (5 minutes ago)

> does not "do physics"

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
> Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.

Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:

>
> Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572.  A proton is about the mass
> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.

AP writes: At least Murray can do a correct percentage


On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 3:16:35 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Physics lifelong-generation Test & Murray Gell-Mann flunked it
>
> Now in each generation of about 50 years, there is a big question in science which the general population participates in-- for example Continental Drift from about 1930 to 1970. And from 1980 to present the question is Climate Change. Big science questions where the general public participates in.
>
> Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test. It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist, never.
>
> Now, Physics has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed.
>
> PHYSICS TEST::
>
> 1) You studied momentum in physics, especially angular momentum, and, can you have Chemistry and the Chemical Bond, the ionic, covalent, metallic bonding, if the Proton was 938MeV while electron is .5MeV. Or, can this bonding exist only when the Proton is 840 MeV, electron = muon = 105 MeV, and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. So, which is it. Chemistry exists only if 840 to 105 MeV for angular momentum sake or 938 to .5?
>
> So, all physicists who studied and thought they mastered physics, turns out, they are so pitiful, so pathetic in physics understanding of just about anything, that they believe you can have Chemistry with a 938 MeV proton with a .5 MeV electron.
>
> Murray Gell-Mann flunked the Physics Test of a lifetime-generation test.
>
> AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-02-28 22:51:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Halliday and Resnik page 622 !!! (2)
By ***@gmail.com 19 posts 26 views updated 4:44 PM
+ 6 others


Making magic closets with a stargate (26)
By KCIR2 26 posts 13 views updated 4:44 PM


Goat boy, Pnal, Sergio, Ed Prochak, Bodkin, Paco (Frank): What is the number one reason each of you believes clear moist air contains gaseous H2O? (11)
By James McGinn 50 posts 61 views updated 4:42 PM

+ 6 others


No Two Photons can Spin in The Same Direction (3)
By reber G=emc^2 3 posts 2 views updated 4:40 PM

AP writes: which is worse, reading spam from spamming nutters above in sci.physics, or reading the physics of Murray Gell-Mann? Well, trouble with Murray, is he is so stupid in physics, that he thought the electron is .5MeV, proton 938 MeV which cannot give Chemistry the covalent bond. So all of Murray's physics is as useless and worthless as a spammer is useless and worthless.

On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 3:16:35 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Physics lifelong-generation Test & Murray Gell-Mann flunked it
>
> Now in each generation of about 50 years, there is a big question in science which the general population participates in-- for example Continental Drift from about 1930 to 1970. And from 1980 to present the question is Climate Change. Big science questions where the general public participates in.
>
> Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test. It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist, never.
>
> Now, Physics has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed.
>
> PHYSICS TEST::
>
> 1) You studied momentum in physics, especially angular momentum, and, can you have Chemistry and the Chemical Bond, the ionic, covalent, metallic bonding, if the Proton was 938MeV while electron is .5MeV. Or, can this bonding exist only when the Proton is 840 MeV, electron = muon = 105 MeV, and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. So, which is it. Chemistry exists only if 840 to 105 MeV for angular momentum sake or 938 to .5?
>
> So, all physicists who studied and thought they mastered physics, turns out, they are so pitiful, so pathetic in physics understanding of just about anything, that they believe you can have Chemistry with a 938 MeV proton with a .5 MeV electron.
>
> Murray Gell-Mann flunked the Physics Test of a lifetime-generation test.
>
> AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-03-01 19:19:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
We -need- losers, lots of them. (1)
By Jeff-Relf.Me 1 post 3 views updated Feb 28


id like to had seen her shine just for me in 1999 to laugh at her to watch the monkeys worshipping her for her light trick that would had been a sight to see cause they obviously didnd tknew who she was like i did (1)
By ***@__.__ 1 post 2 views updated Feb 28


and jesus said i shall baptize usa of a great modern american the home of the brave and land fo the free->when what they really are is full they never met jesus they dont know what jhe looks like or what he would tell them->jesus told me he wants america dead (1)
By ***@__.__ 1 post 2 views updated Feb 28


i know what jesus said i bet he said to his apostole in the saiint thomas gospel->and the blue colour shall be superior to all other colours and creeds and i who say this im jesus im loser cause im not blue LOL (1)
By ***@__.__ 1 post 2 views updated Feb 28


HER BLUE COLOUR IS SUPERIOR TO MINE?In which bible in wich passage that im not aware about? (1)
By ***@__.__ 1 post 2 views updated Feb 28


AP writes:: is Jeff Relf loser, talking about Murray losing it in physics, never realizing the Real Electron= 105 MeV, and .5MeV particle was Dirac's Magnetic Monopole

On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 3:16:35 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Physics lifelong-generation Test & Murray Gell-Mann flunked it
>
> Now in each generation of about 50 years, there is a big question in science which the general population participates in-- for example Continental Drift from about 1930 to 1970. And from 1980 to present the question is Climate Change. Big science questions where the general public participates in.
>
> Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test. It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist, never.
>
> Now, Physics has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed.
>
> PHYSICS TEST::
>
> 1) You studied momentum in physics, especially angular momentum, and, can you have Chemistry and the Chemical Bond, the ionic, covalent, metallic bonding, if the Proton was 938MeV while electron is .5MeV. Or, can this bonding exist only when the Proton is 840 MeV, electron = muon = 105 MeV, and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. So, which is it. Chemistry exists only if 840 to 105 MeV for angular momentum sake or 938 to .5?
>
> So, all physicists who studied and thought they mastered physics, turns out, they are so pitiful, so pathetic in physics understanding of just about anything, that they believe you can have Chemistry with a 938 MeV proton with a .5 MeV electron.
>
> Murray Gell-Mann flunked the Physics Test of a lifetime-generation test.
>
> AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-03-02 21:02:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2017 21:28:24 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Page8, 1-8 How crazy is the Standard Model of current day
physics//What specific chemical element is the Atom Totality? text 8th ed. 2017
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2017 05:28:24 +0000


Page8, 1-8 How crazy is the Standard Model of current day physics//What specific chemical element is the Atom Totality? text 8th ed. 2017

It is so crazy, for they elevate quarks above atoms, and elevate quarks above electrons=muons and protons. This is so so very dumb in terms of Logic and logical reasoning. It is like doing Biology and not satisfied with the cell, and thus taking parts of the cell and thinking they are more fundamental than the cell itself.

This is the trouble in any science, not just physics, where in physics, people are no longer physicists, but clowns of physics, where they spend all their time in Ivory towers sipping coffee and eating Danish rolls, and not, and never applying logic to their ideas.

What is the basic primary unit of all of physics-- the Atom, nothing is smaller as a primary unit.

What is the basic unit of electricity and magnetism? The Magnetic field and its monopole the -1 and +1 particle of the .5 MeV charge-energy where you take a photon or neutrino and place upon that photon or neutrino a charge with energy of .5 MeV.

When it comes to physics, the atom is the last stop. When it comes to electromagnetism, the Magnetic Field and the magnetic monopole (magnepole) is the last stop.

Atoms, surely have parts, but we, with a head of logic of commonsense do not then make a model where the parts are more important than the body itself-- Atom.

Likewise, when we have a logical mind and commonsense mind, we do not go out and look for a stupid particle of Higgs, some creation from a machine that concentrates energy, and idiots of physics believing in this insipid activity of looking at collisions in a collider, this is social welfare trough science, not real actual science.

Atoms are the last and final frontier of physics. Atoms are all and everything. And only idiots of physics waste time in Standard Model or Higgs or Quarks or anything less than atoms.

We can easily compare the idiots of Higgs or Quarks to someone in biology wanting to make a strand of DNA as some major important item, when it is not. DNA is nothing, without the cell it comes from. Biology starts and ends with Cell. Physics starts and ends with Atom. Not subcellular and not subatomic particles.

So, if you are in physics and spending a lot of time with Standard Model, Quarks, Higgs, Gravity Waves etc you are wasting your lifetime.

It should be no secret to the reader what the chemical element is that is the Atom Totality Universe, considering the title of this textbook. But let me outline the Proof of why plutonium and not say iron or lead or mercury or uranium or some other chemical element. Why Plutonium? Why not Iron or Silver or Lead, or Mercury or Uranium as the Cosmic Element? Why plutonium?

Well, whatever chemical element is the Cosmic single big atom, it must explain pi, "e" in math and explain the fine-structure-constant and neutron to magnepole mass ratio. It must explain all four of those items clearly and linked together as one explanation.

Now any reader can read my previous editions of this book where I go into depth and detail of these 4 items. In some previous editions I wrote a chapter on these, whereas in this edition I just summarize in one page, of these 4 items:

1) pi explained
2) "e" explained
3) fine-structure-constant explained
4) neutron/monopole mass ratio

Pi = 3.14.. and e = 2.71.. in math are the two most important constants of math and there has to be a reason or explanation for what number values they have. If we lived in say a Neon Atom Totality, the numbers of math for ratio of circumference divided by diameter of a circle would be different than 3.14...

In Plutonium chemical element there are 22 subshells of s, p, d, f inside of 7 shells, so we have 22/7. Now greenhorns of math and physics are going to crow and bark about 22/7 because that is a rational number, and I know that, (please see the mathematics chapter where it is explained that irrationals numbers do not exist), but in physics, you have Collapsed wavefunction as rational number such as 22/7 and you have uncollapsed wavefunction which is a wave. This makes sense in the fact that the Cosmos is growing all the time and so a cosmic number of pi would be uncollapsed.

Now "e" is about 2.71.. is easy to explain but has to be linked with pi. And in plutonium, at any instant in time, only 19 subshells are occupied so we have 19/7. And, of course we have both collapsed and uncollapsed wavefunctions.

Now, the Inverse Fine-Structure Constant, roughly 137 is ((22/7)^7)/22 when pi is in the collapsed wavefunction of pi = 22/7. So the reader should see by now that all these important numbers have to be linked together.

The neutron to magnetic monopole mass ratio becomes linked with the above numbers.
Dirac's book DIRECTIONS IN PHYSICS states on page 73 :
--- start of Dirac quote ---
One of these dimensionless constants is the 
 famous reciprocal of the fine-structure constant ((hbar) x c)/E^2 
 It is fundamental in the atomic theory, and it has the 
 value of about 137. 
 Another dimensionless constant is the ratio of the 
mass of the proton to the 
mass of the electron, that is to say, 
Mp/Me 
 That constant has the value somewhere near 1840.
--- end of Dirac quote ---

From earlier editions of this textbook, I wrote:

>The unitless number of proton to electron mass ratio has an exponent power of 5 in 6(pi^5), and that the exp >5 comes from the 5f6 of plutonium 231Pu. Now, notice the inverse fine-structure constant of ((22/7)^7)/22 >also has the energy shell of 7 as exponent. Here for the first time in physics is a linkage of two unitless >numbers of physics-- proton to electron mass ratio and the fine-structure constant, by the fact that energy >level of shells correlates and predicts what the exponent of a unitless number must have. Why does the >energy shell take on a math form of exponent? Perhaps an expert quantum chemist or physicist can provide >an answer.

Notice also, that the chemical element isotope must be 231Pu and not say 244Pu in order for the number of neutrons of plutonium be 137 neutrons in the nucleus of the Cosmic Atom. So that the Inverse Fine-Structure constant of 137 reflects the number of neutrons in the Cosmic Atom.

So, Mathematics proves that the only chemical element that fits all the numbers of both math and physics to the Cosmic Atom is plutonium, 231Pu precisely. No other chemical element can give us all 4 items above.

And those interested in more math proofs, can see where the speed of light is derived from a plutonium cosmic atom (detailed in my earlier editions).

Also, in my prior editions I show how a cosmic plutonium atom has a thermodynamics that matches the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation that is blackbody of 2.71 K. (notice 2.71.. is "e"). In this edition, I want to keep it brief, clear and simple to understand.


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

                ::\ ::|:: /::
                 ::\::|::/::
                     _ _
                    (:Y:)
                     - -
                 ::/::|::\::
                ::/ ::|:: \::

One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.

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

Readers interested in more can read all my prior year posts in my newsgroup in peace and quiet.

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

COMMENTS:: Well, in the previous Comment corner I asked for an experiment to prove the Real Proton is 840 MeV and the Real Electron is the muon at 105 MeV, and a proof would simply be to tear apart a hydrogen atom into a 840 and 105 MeV particles. I asked for Particle-Accelerators to look for these two. But in this experiment described below, it sounds as if the experiment is already done-- judge for yourself--

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 ---

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-03-03 20:50:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Humans Maintain Deep Delusions About H2O (51)
By James McGinn 63 posts 73 views updated 2:10 PM

+ 7 others

How those in mainstream science want to keep us down and controlled
By James McGinn 9 posts 34 views updated 2:09 PM


This topic has been hidden because you reported it for abuse. +1 more


If H bonds are strong why is water fluid? (24)
By James McGinn 27 posts 90 views updated 2:06 PM


AP writes:: tell me about it, for there is no deeper delusion in all of physics than to think the electron was .5 MeV when all along it was 105 MeV


On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 3:16:35 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Physics lifelong-generation Test & Murray Gell-Mann flunked it
>
> Now in each generation of about 50 years, there is a big question in science which the general population participates in-- for example Continental Drift from about 1930 to 1970. And from 1980 to present the question is Climate Change. Big science questions where the general public participates in.
>
> Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test. It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist, never.
>
> Now, Physics has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed.
>
> PHYSICS TEST::
>
> 1) You studied momentum in physics, especially angular momentum, and, can you have Chemistry and the Chemical Bond, the ionic, covalent, metallic bonding, if the Proton was 938MeV while electron is .5MeV. Or, can this bonding exist only when the Proton is 840 MeV, electron = muon = 105 MeV, and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. So, which is it. Chemistry exists only if 840 to 105 MeV for angular momentum sake or 938 to .5?
>
> So, all physicists who studied and thought they mastered physics, turns out, they are so pitiful, so pathetic in physics understanding of just about anything, that they believe you can have Chemistry with a 938 MeV proton with a .5 MeV electron.
>
> Murray Gell-Mann flunked the Physics Test of a lifetime-generation test.
>
> AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-03-04 22:48:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Michael Moroney writes:
8:36 AM (8 hours ago)


Physics Failure
Sorry, there is no such thing as "my thread" on Usenet. Porat has just
as much right to babble his nonsense here
>Subject: Peter Higgs flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test

And what does Peter Higgs, who has never even heard

AP writes:: Oh, I think Murray and Peter have heard of the .5MeV and the 105 MeV particle before. Their trouble is they mistook which is which, just like Columbus mistook the America's as being India and China

On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 3:16:35 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Physics lifelong-generation Test & Murray Gell-Mann flunked it
>
> Now in each generation of about 50 years, there is a big question in science which the general population participates in-- for example Continental Drift from about 1930 to 1970. And from 1980 to present the question is Climate Change. Big science questions where the general public participates in.
>
> Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test. It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist, never.
>
> Now, Physics has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed.
>
> PHYSICS TEST::
>
> 1) You studied momentum in physics, especially angular momentum, and, can you have Chemistry and the Chemical Bond, the ionic, covalent, metallic bonding, if the Proton was 938MeV while electron is .5MeV. Or, can this bonding exist only when the Proton is 840 MeV, electron = muon = 105 MeV, and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. So, which is it. Chemistry exists only if 840 to 105 MeV for angular momentum sake or 938 to .5?
>
> So, all physicists who studied and thought they mastered physics, turns out, they are so pitiful, so pathetic in physics understanding of just about anything, that they believe you can have Chemistry with a 938 MeV proton with a .5 MeV electron.
>
> Murray Gell-Mann flunked the Physics Test of a lifetime-generation test.
>
> AP
Michael Moroney
2018-03-05 01:19:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com> writes:

>Michael Moroney writes:
>8:36 AM (8 hours ago)


>>Physics Failure Archimedes Plutonium

>>Sorry, there is no such thing as "my thread" on Usenet. Porat has just
>>as much right to babble his nonsense here as you do to babble your
nonsense here. You post something, expect a response.

Do you believe you have more of a right to babble your nonsense
than Porat has to babble his nonsense?

Why cut my quotes to avoid humiliating yourself again, when you
humiliate yourself with just about every one of your posts??

>>Subject: Peter Higgs flunked the Physics lifelong-generation Test

>>And what does Peter Higgs, who has never even heard of you, much
less taken your imaginary test, have to do with anything? Are your
thoughts so jumbled up that they jump from Porat to Higgs to..?

>AP writes:: Oh, I think Murray and Peter have heard of the .5MeV and the 105
> MeV particle before.

Of course they have, but we are discussing your imaginary test, plus the
fact neither has ever heard of anyone so dumb to think the electron
is a muon just because you said so.
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-03-17 19:12:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 7:19:36 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com> writes:
>
Michael Moroney
2:02 PM (6 minutes ago)


Dan Christensen <***@sympatico.ca> writes:

>> Mr. Atwood & Spolsky
>>
>> Kindly remove the forgeries of Archimedes Plutonium on Math Stack Exchange
>>
>> I am Archimedes Plutonium -- legal name-- and i have never done business with Math StackExchange
>>
>> Someone has forged my name on your Math Stack Exchange
>>
>> You need better and tighter security
>>
>> Thanks

>I suspect that it is sci.math's AP that is the fake. The one at MSE
>seems to be quite sane and a serious poster.

>Perhaps our AP is an impostor out to discredit the real one with all
>these insane postings under his name. I have often suspected that our
>John Gabriel, too. Who could be that stupid in real life?

Perhaps the sane Archimedes Plutonium on stackexchange should ask Usenet's
Archimedes Plutonium to change his name again so as not to ruin his
reputation on stackexchange and elsewhere.
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-04 02:55:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 7:19:36 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:

>
> >>Physics Failure
>



Jan writes:



9:46 PM (6 minutes ago)

>
>
>
> Destroying mainstream ignorance

Stop fantasising already. Sheesh.

--
Jan
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-12 14:05:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 7:19:36 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:

> >>And what does Peter Higgs, who has never even heard of

On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 6:02:31 PM UTC-5, Jan wrote:
>
> Nonsense.
>
> --
> Jan


On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
> Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.

Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:

>
> Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572.  A proton is about the mass
> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-14 22:44:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 7:19:36 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:

Michael Moroney writes:



9:11 PM (40 minutes ago)


It does make sense in the computer field, the natural word of the computer
can represent integer numbers or a bitfield of logical values. When
performing a logical operation such as AND or OR on a field of logical
bits, the operation is performed in parallel on the corresponding bits of
the operands. The operands and result may be represented as numbers.

For example, the expression c = 1 | 2;  is valid C code to calculate the
value of 1 OR 2 and assign it to c.   c = 2 & 3;  calculates the bitwise
AND of 2 AND 3 and assigns it to c.


I *think* for AND he actually thinks it's addition or plus. Of course this
makes no real sense, Boolean logic wise, for operands other than 0 or 1. I
have no idea what he thinks OR really does, again it's not Boolean to use
values other than 0 or 1. It's my opinion he has no idea what the AND or
OR operations are for, other than a partial grasp of truth tables, which
he deliberately gets wrong.
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-03-05 02:24:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
True Chemistry-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV

#1page

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.


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


#2page

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

On Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 3:36:00 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 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.

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

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

#3page

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

#3page 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.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe        
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-03-09 05:06:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
email:healthandbueatypharmacy(@)gmail.com 1mg Xanax,10mg Oxycodone,30mg Roxy,10mg METHADONE & others @ affordable p WE SELL #WEEDS #COCAINE AND #Pain Medication (1)
By U.S.A /CANADA Call//text 1 post 2 views updated Mar 4




email:healthandbueatypharmacy(@)gmail.com Pain Killers(Oxycodone,Vicodin,Lortab,Hydrocodone,Roxies,Percocet,Methadone,Pain Killers(Oxycodone,Vicodin,Lortab,Hydrocodone,Roxies,Percocet,Methadone (1)
By U.S.A /CANADA Call//text: 1 post 2 views updated Mar 4

AP writes: don't be fooled by these spamming creeps for their only purpose is to push all the posts off the front page

On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 3:16:35 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Physics lifelong-generation Test & Murray Gell-Mann flunked it
>
> Now in each generation of about 50 years, there is a big question in science which the general population participates in-- for example Continental Drift from about 1930 to 1970. And from 1980 to present the question is Climate Change. Big science questions where the general public participates in.
>
> Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test. It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist, never.
>
> Now, Physics has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed.
>
> PHYSICS TEST::
>
> 1) You studied momentum in physics, especially angular momentum, and, can you have Chemistry and the Chemical Bond, the ionic, covalent, metallic bonding, if the Proton was 938MeV while electron is .5MeV. Or, can this bonding exist only when the Proton is 840 MeV, electron = muon = 105 MeV, and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. So, which is it. Chemistry exists only if 840 to 105 MeV for angular momentum sake or 938 to .5?
>
> So, all physicists who studied and thought they mastered physics, turns out, they are so pitiful, so pathetic in physics understanding of just about anything, that they believe you can have Chemistry with a 938 MeV proton with a .5 MeV electron.
>
> Murray Gell-Mann flunked the Physics Test of a lifetime-generation test.
>
> AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-03-15 11:03:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
***@gmail.com writes:
Mar 14 (15 hours ago)


I think you are still in wikipedia since somebody
mentioned that you were a dishwasher

On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 3:16:35 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Physics lifelong-generation Test & Murray Gell-Mann flunked it
>
> Now in each generation of about 50 years, there is a big question in science which the general population participates in-- for example Continental Drift from about 1930 to 1970. And from 1980 to present the question is Climate Change. Big science questions where the general public participates in.
>
> Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test. It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist, never.
>
> Now, Physics has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed.
>
> PHYSICS TEST::
>
> 1) You studied momentum in physics, especially angular momentum, and, can you have Chemistry and the Chemical Bond, the ionic, covalent, metallic bonding, if the Proton was 938MeV while electron is .5MeV. Or, can this bonding exist only when the Proton is 840 MeV, electron = muon = 105 MeV, and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. So, which is it. Chemistry exists only if 840 to 105 MeV for angular momentum sake or 938 to .5?
>
> So, all physicists who studied and thought they mastered physics, turns out, they are so pitiful, so pathetic in physics understanding of just about anything, that they believe you can have Chemistry with a 938 MeV proton with a .5 MeV electron.
>
> Murray Gell-Mann flunked the Physics Test of a lifetime-generation test.
>
> AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-03-19 20:30:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 3:16:35 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Physics lifelong-generation Test & Murray Gell-Mann flunked it
>
> Now in each generation of about 50 years, there is a big question in science which the general population participates in-- for example Continental Drift from about 1930 to 1970. And from 1980 to present the question is Climate Change. Big science questions where the general public participates in.
>
> Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test. It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist, never.
>
> Now, Physics has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed.
>
> PHYSICS TEST::
>
> 1) You studied momentum in physics, especially angular momentum, and, can you have Chemistry and the Chemical Bond, the ionic, covalent, metallic bonding, if the Proton was 938MeV while electron is .5MeV. Or, can this bonding exist only when the Proton is 840 MeV, electron = muon = 105 MeV, and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. So, which is it. Chemistry exists only if 840 to 105 MeV for angular momentum sake or 938 to .5?
>
> So, all physicists who studied and thought they mastered physics, turns out, they are so pitiful, so pathetic in physics understanding of just about anything, that they believe you can have Chemistry with a 938 MeV proton with a .5 MeV electron.
>
> Murray Gell-Mann flunked the Physics Test of a lifetime-generation test.
>
> AP



SHE IS A BLUE WHALE->AND I DEMAND SACRIFICE (1)
By ***@__.__ 1 post 0 views updated 1:50 PM

This topic has been hidden because you reported it for abuse.


SHE IS A BLUE WHALE->AND I DEMAND SACRIFICE (1)
By ***@__.__ 1 post 0 views updated 1:50 PM




AMERICA BLEED->SHE SHOCKED ME SHE SINNED FIRST IN 1993 (1)
By ***@__.__ 1 post 0 views updated 1:48 PM


-AP writes:: what this freak is trying to do is get everyone to buy his filter application-- so he pollutes a newsgroup to huckster people to buy his app
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-03-20 22:03:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 3:16:35 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Physics lifelong-generation Test & Murray Gell-Mann flunked it
>
> Now in each generation of about 50 years, there is a big question in science which the general population participates in-- for example Continental Drift from about 1930 to 1970. And from 1980 to present the question is Climate Change. Big science questions where the general public participates in.
>
> Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test. It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist, never.
>
> Now, Physics has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed.
>
> PHYSICS TEST::
>
> 1) You studied momentum in physics, especially angular momentum, and, can you have Chemistry and the Chemical Bond, the ionic, covalent, metallic bonding, if the Proton was 938MeV while electron is .5MeV. Or, can this bonding exist only when the Proton is 840 MeV, electron = muon = 105 MeV, and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. So, which is it. Chemistry exists only if 840 to 105 MeV for angular momentum sake or 938 to .5?
>
> So, all physicists who studied and thought they mastered physics, turns out, they are so pitiful, so pathetic in physics understanding of just about anything, that they believe you can have Chemistry with a 938 MeV proton with a .5 MeV electron.
>
> Murray Gell-Mann flunked the Physics Test of a lifetime-generation test.
>
> AP

Michael Moroney writes:
3:48 PM (1 hour ago)



>Michael Moroney writes:
>12:20 PM (3 hours ago)


>>To 3 decimal places:
>>
>>Proton: 938 MeV
>>Neutron: 940 MeV
>>
>>Muon: 106 MeV
>>9 muons: 951 MeV
>>
>>Is it too hard to look that up?

[nothing added]

I guess it really is too hard for him to look it up.

No wonder why he fails so much.
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-03-21 22:53:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 3:16:35 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Physics lifelong-generation Test & Murray Gell-Mann flunked it
>
> Now in each generation of about 50 years, there is a big question in science which the general population participates in-- for example Continental Drift from about 1930 to 1970. And from 1980 to present the question is Climate Change. Big science questions where the general public participates in.
>
> Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test. It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist, never.
>
> Now, Physics has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed.
>
> PHYSICS TEST::
>
> 1) You studied momentum in physics, especially angular momentum, and, can you have Chemistry and the Chemical Bond, the ionic, covalent, metallic bonding, if the Proton was 938MeV while electron is .5MeV. Or, can this bonding exist only when the Proton is 840 MeV, electron = muon = 105 MeV, and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. So, which is it. Chemistry exists only if 840 to 105 MeV for angular momentum sake or 938 to .5?
>
> So, all physicists who studied and thought they mastered physics, turns out, they are so pitiful, so pathetic in physics understanding of just about anything, that they believe you can have Chemistry with a 938 MeV proton with a .5 MeV electron.
>
> Murray Gell-Mann flunked the Physics Test of a lifetime-generation test.
>
> AP



she made me lose ana i (1)
By ***@__.__ 1 post 0 views updated 5:41 PM


the americans they (3)
By ***@__.__ 3 posts 4 views updated 5:41 PM

This topic has been hidden because you reported it for abuse.


it was her that made me need to fly (1)
By ***@__.__ 1 post 0 views updated 5:30 PM




americans are suckheadss everyone (1)
By ***@__.__ 1 post 0 views updated 5:11 PM

AP writes:: the above sh)thead poster is here to sell his filter app and in the meantime shoves all other legitimate posters off the front page
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-02 20:16:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Michael Moroney writes:
6:02 AM (9 hours ago)

>[X] Responds to criticism but is unable to actually discuss the issue...

AP writes: you can say that again about Murray-- never responds to his failures of angular momentum






On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 3:16:35 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Physics lifelong-generation Test & Murray Gell-Mann flunked it
>
> Now in each generation of about 50 years, there is a big question in science which the general population participates in-- for example Continental Drift from about 1930 to 1970. And from 1980 to present the question is Climate Change. Big science questions where the general public participates in.
>
> Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test. It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist, never.
>
> Now, Physics has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed.
>
> PHYSICS TEST::
>
> 1) You studied momentum in physics, especially angular momentum, and, can you have Chemistry and the Chemical Bond, the ionic, covalent, metallic bonding, if the Proton was 938MeV while electron is .5MeV. Or, can this bonding exist only when the Proton is 840 MeV, electron = muon = 105 MeV, and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. So, which is it. Chemistry exists only if 840 to 105 MeV for angular momentum sake or 938 to .5?
>
> So, all physicists who studied and thought they mastered physics, turns out, they are so pitiful, so pathetic in physics understanding of just about anything, that they believe you can have Chemistry with a 938 MeV proton with a .5 MeV electron.
>
> Murray Gell-Mann flunked the Physics Test of a lifetime-generation test.
>
> AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-07 18:34:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Michael Moroney writes:
12:40 AM (12 hours ago)

Re: Plutonium is one of the dumbest

AP writes:: I did not know that Seaborg when discovering Plutonium could check for biological intelligence in a Chemical Element, but then again considering that Moroney thought 938 was short of 945 by 12%, we easily see Moroney is a moron


On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 3:16:35 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Physics lifelong-generation Test & Murray Gell-Mann flunked it
>
> Now in each generation of about 50 years, there is a big question in science which the general population participates in-- for example Continental Drift from about 1930 to 1970. And from 1980 to present the question is Climate Change. Big science questions where the general public participates in.
>
> Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test. It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist, never.
>
> Now, Physics has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed.
>
> PHYSICS TEST::
>
> 1) You studied momentum in physics, especially angular momentum, and, can you have Chemistry and the Chemical Bond, the ionic, covalent, metallic bonding, if the Proton was 938MeV while electron is .5MeV. Or, can this bonding exist only when the Proton is 840 MeV, electron = muon = 105 MeV, and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. So, which is it. Chemistry exists only if 840 to 105 MeV for angular momentum sake or 938 to .5?
>
> So, all physicists who studied and thought they mastered physics, turns out, they are so pitiful, so pathetic in physics understanding of just about anything, that they believe you can have Chemistry with a 938 MeV proton with a .5 MeV electron.
>
> Murray Gell-Mann flunked the Physics Test of a lifetime-generation test.
>
> AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-19 20:10:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
one of America's failures of science writes:

Jan writes:

Apr 15

>Just stop posting here. Don't you have anything better to do?

--
Jan



On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 3:16:35 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Physics lifelong-generation Test & Murray Gell-Mann flunked it
>
> Now in each generation of about 50 years, there is a big question in science which the general population participates in-- for example Continental Drift from about 1930 to 1970. And from 1980 to present the question is Climate Change. Big science questions where the general public participates in.
>
> Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test. It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist, never.
>
> Now, Physics has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed.
>
> PHYSICS TEST::
>
> 1) You studied momentum in physics, especially angular momentum, and, can you have Chemistry and the Chemical Bond, the ionic, covalent, metallic bonding, if the Proton was 938MeV while electron is .5MeV. Or, can this bonding exist only when the Proton is 840 MeV, electron = muon = 105 MeV, and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. So, which is it. Chemistry exists only if 840 to 105 MeV for angular momentum sake or 938 to .5?
>
> So, all physicists who studied and thought they mastered physics, turns out, they are so pitiful, so pathetic in physics understanding of just about anything, that they believe you can have Chemistry with a 938 MeV proton with a .5 MeV electron.
>
> Murray Gell-Mann flunked the Physics Test of a lifetime-generation test.
>
> AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-20 02:53:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Michael Moroney writes:

9:27 PM (23 minutes ago)

>What, you want me to compute the

AP writes: Moroney is a worthless stalker, cannot even do a correct percentage, so he is not worth reading-- filter out the stalker’s posts. I am sure Murray Gell-Mann could do a correct percentage.

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
> Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.

Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:

>
> Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572.  A proton is about the mass
> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.



On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 3:16:35 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Physics lifelong-generation Test & Murray Gell-Mann flunked it
>
> Now in each generation of about 50 years, there is a big question in science which the general population participates in-- for example Continental Drift from about 1930 to 1970. And from 1980 to present the question is Climate Change. Big science questions where the general public participates in.
>
> Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test. It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist, never.
>
> Now, Physics has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed.
>
> PHYSICS TEST::
>
> 1) You studied momentum in physics, especially angular momentum, and, can you have Chemistry and the Chemical Bond, the ionic, covalent, metallic bonding, if the Proton was 938MeV while electron is .5MeV. Or, can this bonding exist only when the Proton is 840 MeV, electron = muon = 105 MeV, and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. So, which is it. Chemistry exists only if 840 to 105 MeV for angular momentum sake or 938 to .5?
>
> So, all physicists who studied and thought they mastered physics, turns out, they are so pitiful, so pathetic in physics understanding of just about anything, that they believe you can have Chemistry with a 938 MeV proton with a .5 MeV electron.
>
> Murray Gell-Mann flunked the Physics Test of a lifetime-generation test.
>
> AP
Michael Moroney
2018-04-20 16:21:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Physics Failure Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com> fails:


>Michael Moroney writes:
>9:27 PM (23 minutes ago)

>>What, you want me to compute the

>AP writes: Moroney is a worthless stalker, cannot even do a correct percentage,

What, you want me to compute the Plutonium Failure Score yet again? Wow,
the Plutonium Failure Score calculation is much more popular than I
thought it would be!

Here we go again!

☑ Archie responds to criticism but is unable to discuss the issue...
☑ ...Zero new content, in fact...
☑ ...Giggle Groups screenshot cut and pasted...
☑ ...with Archie's response posted in the wrong topic...
☐ ...and to the wrong newsgroup...
☑ ...multiple times...
☑ ...enough times to be classified as spam...
☑ ...in a topic/topics explicitly created by him for doing so...
☐ ...and Archie even whines about (other) spammers in his spam...
☑ ...with a subject about flunking a nonexistent test no one ever took...
☑ ...and the subject mentions totally uninvolved people...
☑ ...who are university math or physics professors...
☐ ...at a university supposedly near the person criticizing Archie...
☐ ...but Archie got the location (and university) completely wrong...
☐ ...and Archie demands they resign for not teaching his broken math...
☐ ...and he includes a stalker list of physics and/or math professors...
☑ ...and STILL can't answer 'why stalker lists of uninvolved profs'...
☑ ...and Archie's actual response is completely unrelated to the topic...
☑ ...and the critic's comment has embarrassing (to AP) portion removed...
☑ ...to the extent the comment is no longer recognizable...
☐ ...includes random snippets by other critics, spammers or babblers...
☐ ...which are attributed to yet other critics, spammers or babblers...
☐ ...followed by yet another repost of the "12 Failures of Plutonium"...
☐ ...or the "you gotta draw pictures of calculus" repost...
☐ ...and includes the dumb ascii art cat/owl thing...
☐ ...as well as ascii art of Archie's butthole...
☑ ...and Archie doesn't realize ascii art is so 1980s...
☑ ...and Archie brings up a "mistake" (in his view) from months ago...
☑ ...which, of course, is not actually a mistake...
☐ ...and Archie invents yet more "mistakes" (that are not mistakes)...
☐ ...and Archie really wears out the "a beer short of a 6 pack" joke...
☑ ...but he still doesn't realize he's about 5 beers short...
☑ ...and Archie can't get over the shame of messing up percentages...
☑ ...he even still thinks 8.88 is "exactly" 9...
☐ ...and he thinks 16.81 is "spot on" 17...
☐ ...and Archie is envious that I weighed the electron and he didn't...
☐ ...Archie asks Google Groups to do something they can't do...
☑ ...Google Groups poster. 'Nuf said.

Archimedes Plutonium Failure score: 21!
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-23 04:11:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, April 20, 2018 at 11:21:42 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Physics Failure

Michael Moroney writes:
Apr 21 (23 hours ago)

>Now you're getting greedy
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-23 19:43:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Jan writes:
1:37 PM (54 minutes ago)
>See a doctor. Your posts are 99% nonsense.

--
Jan

AP writes: Is Murray Gell-Mann as mentally crippled in math & physics as is Jan? Never addressing the math and physics-- only attacking the people. Mentally crippled as are deniers of climate change.

On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 3:16:35 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Physics lifelong-generation Test & Murray Gell-Mann flunked it
>
> Now in each generation of about 50 years, there is a big question in science which the general population participates in-- for example Continental Drift from about 1930 to 1970. And from 1980 to present the question is Climate Change. Big science questions where the general public participates in.
>
> Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test. It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist, never.
>
> Now, Physics has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed.
>
> PHYSICS TEST::
>
> 1) You studied momentum in physics, especially angular momentum, and, can you have Chemistry and the Chemical Bond, the ionic, covalent, metallic bonding, if the Proton was 938MeV while electron is .5MeV. Or, can this bonding exist only when the Proton is 840 MeV, electron = muon = 105 MeV, and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. So, which is it. Chemistry exists only if 840 to 105 MeV for angular momentum sake or 938 to .5?
>
> So, all physicists who studied and thought they mastered physics, turns out, they are so pitiful, so pathetic in physics understanding of just about anything, that they believe you can have Chemistry with a 938 MeV proton with a .5 MeV electron.
>
> Murray Gell-Mann flunked the Physics Test of a lifetime-generation test.
>
> AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-04-29 18:51:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Whenever we think of Murray Gell-Mann in physics and his accomplishments, we should think of the old saying--
     A modest little person, with much to be modest about.

For all his time spent doing Physics, he was so stupid and silly in physics that it never crossed his mind that muon = 105 MeV, proton was pegged at 938 MeV, neutron pegged at 940 MeV.

An intelligent logical reasoned scientist would see 9 X 105 equals 945, and that the rest is a trifling .7% sigma error.

But not failures of Physics like Gell-Mann. Instead, failures like Gell-Mann pollute physics with their crazy tack ons of quarks and other crazy nonsense. Gell-Mann is a product of 20th century science where the goal is fame and fortune, never that of truth.


On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 3:16:35 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Physics lifelong-generation Test & Murray Gell-Mann flunked it
>
> Now in each generation of about 50 years, there is a big question in science which the general population participates in-- for example Continental Drift from about 1930 to 1970. And from 1980 to present the question is Climate Change. Big science questions where the general public participates in.
>
> Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test. It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist, never.
>
> Now, Physics has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed.
>
> PHYSICS TEST::
>
> 1) You studied momentum in physics, especially angular momentum, and, can you have Chemistry and the Chemical Bond, the ionic, covalent, metallic bonding, if the Proton was 938MeV while electron is .5MeV. Or, can this bonding exist only when the Proton is 840 MeV, electron = muon = 105 MeV, and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. So, which is it. Chemistry exists only if 840 to 105 MeV for angular momentum sake or 938 to .5?
>
> So, all physicists who studied and thought they mastered physics, turns out, they are so pitiful, so pathetic in physics understanding of just about anything, that they believe you can have Chemistry with a 938 MeV proton with a .5 MeV electron.
>
> Murray Gell-Mann flunked the Physics Test of a lifetime-generation test.
>
> AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-05-14 20:25:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Michael Moroney writes:
3:10 PM (10 minutes ago)

>Still no answer? I knew you weren't very good at math but I thought you
>could at least do simple problems like that.

percentage for Moroney, 938 is what percent short of 945


On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
> Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.

Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:

>
> Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572.  A proton is about the mass
> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.


AP writes: these type of posts goes away once the 26 year long stalker Moroney is forced to go away-- otherwise, they are like the US postage stamp, the "forever stamp"


On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 3:16:35 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Physics lifelong-generation Test & Murray Gell-Mann flunked it
>
> Now in each generation of about 50 years, there is a big question in science which the general population participates in-- for example Continental Drift from about 1930 to 1970. And from 1980 to present the question is Climate Change. Big science questions where the general public participates in.
>
> Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test. It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist, never.
>
> Now, Physics has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed.
>
> PHYSICS TEST::
>
> 1) You studied momentum in physics, especially angular momentum, and, can you have Chemistry and the Chemical Bond, the ionic, covalent, metallic bonding, if the Proton was 938MeV while electron is .5MeV. Or, can this bonding exist only when the Proton is 840 MeV, electron = muon = 105 MeV, and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. So, which is it. Chemistry exists only if 840 to 105 MeV for angular momentum sake or 938 to .5?
>
> So, all physicists who studied and thought they mastered physics, turns out, they are so pitiful, so pathetic in physics understanding of just about anything, that they believe you can have Chemistry with a 938 MeV proton with a .5 MeV electron.
>
> Murray Gell-Mann flunked the Physics Test of a lifetime-generation test.
>
> AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-05-17 16:59:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Michael Moroney writes:
1:21 AM (10 hours ago)

> "Failure"

percentage for Moroney, 938 is what percent short of 945

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
> Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.

Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:

>
> Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572.  A proton is about the mass
> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.

On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 3:16:35 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Physics lifelong-generation Test & Murray Gell-Mann flunked it
>
> Now in each generation of about 50 years, there is a big question in science which the general population participates in-- for example Continental Drift from about 1930 to 1970. And from 1980 to present the question is Climate Change. Big science questions where the general public participates in.
>
> Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test. It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist, never.
>
> Now, Physics has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed.
>
> PHYSICS TEST::
>
> 1) You studied momentum in physics, especially angular momentum, and, can you have Chemistry and the Chemical Bond, the ionic, covalent, metallic bonding, if the Proton was 938MeV while electron is .5MeV. Or, can this bonding exist only when the Proton is 840 MeV, electron = muon = 105 MeV, and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole. So, which is it. Chemistry exists only if 840 to 105 MeV for angular momentum sake or 938 to .5?
>
> So, all physicists who studied and thought they mastered physics, turns out, they are so pitiful, so pathetic in physics understanding of just about anything, that they believe you can have Chemistry with a 938 MeV proton with a .5 MeV electron.
>
> Murray Gell-Mann flunked the Physics Test of a lifetime-generation test.
>
> AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-06-19 21:55:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
19/06/2018 #1 of Wikipedia incubator of Archimedes Plutonium < Wp‎ | aki Wp > aki > Archimedes Plutonium

Wp/aki/Archimedes Plutonium
< Wp‎ | aki
Wp > aki > Archimedes Plutonium

Jump to navigation
Jump to search

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:019.me-in-red.gif

Archimedes Plutonium (born July 5, 1950) and that is his legal name after many name changes in life, also known as Ludwig Plutonium, wrote extensively about science and mathematics on Usenet. In 1990 he became convinced that the universe could be thought of as an atom of plutonium, and changed his name to reflect this idea. He is notable for his offbeat ideas about Plutonium Atom totality, physical constants, and nonstandard models of infinite arithmetic. [1] [2]
Archimedes Plutonium, in his Usenet posts, was the first to describe the process of biasing search-engine results by planting references, and coined the phrase search-engine bombing to describe it. This later became well-known as google bombing[3] [4].

Contents  [hide] 
                1
                Biographical Sketch
                2
                Writing
                2.1
                Plutonium Atom Totality
                2.2
                Borderline between Finite and Infinity
                2.3
                Other Theories
                3
                Theory that Sun and Starpower are not 100% fusion but only 1/3 fusion and the majority is Faraday Law as 2/3 of the power
                3.1
                Plutonium's plea to scientists before we extinct any more wild animals-- please check out CO2 isomers, Animal-CO2 compared to Fire-CO2
                3.2
                Other Writing
                4
                Quotes
                5
                References
Biographical Sketch[edit]
Plutonium was born under the name Ludwig Poehlmann in Arzberg, Germany. He vaguely posted that he is genetically linked to the mathematician Engel who worked with Sophus Lie, and to the mathematician Widmann who was the first to write negative numbers in our modern terminology. Plutonium also makes a extraordinary claim that he is the reincarnation of the Ancient Greek mathematician Archimedes of Syracuse Greek. He believes this through "signals from the Gods", that his name changing was at one time "Ludvig" and years later, found out that Johan Ludvig Heiberg was the main historian of Archimedes, thinking that this was a "signal from the Gods" that Plutonium was now the living reincarnation of the ancient Greek mathematician. His family moved to the United States and settled near Cincinnati, Ohio, where Plutonium was adopted into the Hansen family and brought up under the name Ludwig Hansen. He got a degree in mathematics from University of Cincinnati, 1972, then teaching math in Melbourne Australia, and then getting a Masters degree from Utah State University, 1979. Under the names Ludwig Von Ludvig, then Ludwig Plutonium, he began posting to Usenet in 1993. His prolific posts quickly made him a well known usenet figure.
Plutonium was long observed on the campus of Dartmouth College, where he rode around on a bicycle and wore an orange hunting hat and a homemade cape decorated with atomic symbols in Magic Marker. Students frequently saw him using the computer cluster in the basement of the Kiewit Computation Centre, and he regularly published full-page advertisements of his claims in the student newspaper, The Dartmouth.
Plutonium worked as a "potwasher" (he preferred this term over "dishwasher" because it had the same starting letter and number of letters as plutonium) at the Hanover Inn, which the college owns. When asked on Usenet how this observed job jibed with his claims of wealth, Plutonium explained that he only took the job in order to get Internet access. In 1999 Plutonium posted various complaints about the management of Dartmouth, calling for a strike by workers there and suggesting various conspiracy theories concerning college administrators. Plutonium lost his job at Dartmouth about August of 1999.
After making what he termed "science odyssey tours" of the United States and Europe, Plutonium then moved to rural Meckling, South Dakota, where he resumed his Usenet posting, saying he now lives on a "homestead" apparently consisting of a house, two Airstream trailers, and a grove of various sorts of trees.
Plutonium was questioned by New Hampshire police during an investigation of a famous case. The crime was completely solved a short time later and he was not involved in any way, but because of his eccentricity, he was a prominent character in the reports. [5] [6]
In 2016, Archimedes Plutonium had a cancer operation to remove a Liposarcoma, similar to the physicist Richard Feynman, stricken with the same type of cancer, in the same location and about similar in size. Is Liposarcoma the cancer disease of physicists? Maxwell had stomach cancer, if memory serves. Maybe the cancer in scientists maybe due to not getting enough vitamin D, working indoors so much and not enough Sun in winter. But, the real interesting aspect of Archimedes Plutonium cancer, was that one testicle was resected in the surgery and thus leaving AP as 1/2 eunuch. And he delights in being 1/2 eunuch because Plutonium skill in doing science has increased 10 fold since leaving the hospital. His discovery that the Real Proton = 840 MeV and Real Electron = 105 MeV and the .5MeV particle as Dirac's magnetic monopole were discoveries after the cancer removal. Plutonium believes that sex organs decrease the ability to do maximum science.
Writing[edit]
Plutonium is the author of about 45 thousand postings 5*365*25, mostly in the science newsgroups such as sci.physics, sci.math from August 1993 to present day, and has his own Google newsgroup. Where he likes to archive his posts without the cacophony of background noise and ad hominem. Do science in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe  
Plutonium Atom Totality[edit]
Plutonium Atom totality is a metaphysical idea that the universe should somehow be thought of as a gigantic atom of the element plutonium, Pu 231. It is not believed by most scientists that the universe considered as a whole is any type of atom, let alone an atom of plutonium. The cosmic atom, often written ATOM, is a manifestation of god, or the totality of all things. It is attributed with some divine properties, although the physical universe in Plutonium philosophy only obeys natural laws and does not include supernatural phenomenon.[7]
Here is the first page of Archimedes Plutonium's textbook Atom Totality, its 8th edition as posted many times in sci.physics and sci.math.
Page1, 1-1, PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE + AP-Maxwell-Equations-Describing Physics, 8th ed.
PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017

Preface:
Now I said I wanted Clarity, Comprehension, and Logical Flow in this textbook and keep that foremost in mind. In a way, after all these years, 24 of them, I seem to have learned -- how to write a science textbook. By writing preliminary pages and then constant editing. They say practice makes perfect.
I think this textbook should be of Brevity also, and with the smallest amount of pages possible, under 100 pages. I do not want to ramble on.
I think the first chapter should have many pictures, have some pictures in mind, for pictures with ideas are the most comprehensive teaching, and the first two chapters should be pictures with history to put things in perspective.

page1, 1-1 Pictures of Atom-Totality-Universe
I cannot show pictures except ascii-art in sci.physics, so I refer the reader to the many textbooks listed that shows pictures of what electrons (electron=muon) of an atom looks like.
A large proportion of people reading this textbook, think that an electron=muon is one round ball that revolves around a proton-neutron nucleus of an atom. They are far from the true reality of what the electron=muon looks like. And most people are aghast or stunned to find out that the electron=muon looks like millions of fine grained glass dust evenly spread over a confined space, which in physics is called the electron-dot-cloud.
One of my earliest ascii-art of the last electron=muon of plutonium was this:
Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon
                ::\ ::|:: /::                  ::\::|::/::                      _ _                     (:Y:)                      - -                  ::/::|::\::                 ::/ ::|:: \::
        One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
Look in a quantum physics textbook or a chemistry textbook for pictures of what an electron=muon looks like. An electron=muon is many white dots surrounding a nucleus. This is commonly called the "Electron Dot Cloud".
Now, look at the night sky and replace those shining galaxies, shining stars, with the white dots of an electron=muon cloud. And there you have the Atom Totality Universe theory in a picture.
It was on 7 November 1990, woken from sleep that I discovered the Atom Totality Universe and the picture from textbooks that I was thinking of in my mind during the discovery was the Halliday & Resnick picture of what the electron=muon of an atom looks like. And I hope the reader himself/herself looks up that picture in Halliday & Resnick textbook PHYSICS, Part 2, Extended Version , 1986, of page 572.   In the 1990s I did a survey in mathematics of math professors doing a Euclid Infinitude of Primes proof in which 84% of them failed to deliver a valid proof, which can be seen in my Correcting Math textbook of 2016. And the reason I bring that issue up is perhaps I should do a survey in physics, or, all the sciences, asking someone to draw a picture of the electron=muon of a hydrogen atom on a piece of paper with pencil. Will most fail?
Looking at Halliday & Resnick textbook PHYSICS, Part 2, Extended Version , 1986, on page 572. This is a large electron=muon cloud dot picture for which I quote the caption.
  CHAP.26 CHARGE AND MATTER.      Figure 26-5       An atom, suggesting the electron       cloud and, above, an enlarged view       of the nucleus. --- end quoting ---
You see, the dots of the electron=muon cloud, its billions upon billions of dots, is one electron=muon itself. An electron is perhaps 10^180 dots that comprise the electron=muon.
And on the historic day 7 November, 1990, having awoken from sleep and remembering that picture in Halliday & Resnick, did I discover the Atom Totality Universe theory. I put together the idea that the dots of the electron dot cloud are actual galaxies and stars in the night sky.
The dots of the electron dot cloud are actual mass chunks or pieces of one electron=muon.
So that if we had a survey test of scientists, especially physicists, would they draw the hydrogen atom of one electron=muon and one proton as this:
o  .
Where the electron=muon is a ball going around a tiny ball of a proton nucleus? Probably that is their picture of an electron=muon, and, their understanding of what a proton and electron=muon are, -- some spheres going around one another.
They probably would never draw a picture like this for an electron=muon:
       ......    .............. ..................... .....................    ..............         ......
The picture of an electron=muon that was instrumental in my discovering the Atom Totality Universe theory is the one by Halliday & Resnick. That picture of the atom with dots caught my attention long before 7 Nov 1990 and it was on that day in 7 Nov1990 where I connected the dots of the electron dot cloud with actual galaxies and stars, and planets, etc. Thus this picture was instrumental in the discovery of the Plutonium Atom Universe theory. But let me emphasize strongly here that none of the electron cloud dot pictures, that I have seen, really show clearly the night sky of shining galaxies and stars. The discovery of a new theory sees more than what is contained in past wisdom and adds something new and pushes it into the new wisdom.
I had seen many pictures of electron cloud dot patterns mostly in chemistry books and even in movies and TV. And it was stunning to me for the first time when I understood the electron=muon was not some small ball figure circling around a nucleus, but rather a huge number of dots was the actual electron=muon itself. And this stunning understanding is probably lacking in most scientists even a lot of physicists, but not so much chemists since they encounter pictures of electrons more often than others. So that if this survey of drawing what a hydrogen atom looks like of its 1 electron=muon with 1 proton nucleus were given to scientists and professors, would any of them draw something resembling a dot cloud? I think few if any. It is in their psyche to think the electron=muon is a tiny ball going around the proton nucleus, just like Earth going around the Sun.
Somehow it was the Halliday & Resnick picture which jolted my mind into the discovery stage and although in that picture the white dots are far too dense to look like the night sky of shining galaxies and stars it was enough that they were white dots and that helped tremendously. In most of the other pictures of the electron dot cloud they are black dots or blue dots set against a light or white background, or they are too fuzzy as shown in a page from the Encyclopedia Britannica.
And, on that fateful day of 7NOV1990, my day was spent in finding out what chemical element would fit the best as our Atom Totality Universe. Was it uranium, or plutonium?
After 7NOV1990 I have searched many texts to find other pictures which have dot pictures of the electron cloud.
Pictures speak a thousand words as the old saying goes, but better yet, pictures remain in the mind longer than written words. The Atom Totality Universe is very easy to explain and this ease is credit to the theory that it is the truth. When truth comes to physics the ideas are immediate, quick, connecting to past great ideas. For as Feynman said in his Feynman Lectures text in the first chapter where he places the Atomic Theory as the greatest physics idea of all time, and what I do here, is extend the Atomic theory to its utmost reach-- the universe in total is but one big atom.
So on page 6-11 of Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume I, 1963, has a picture of the electron cloud, and quoting the caption: Fig.6-11. A way of visualizing a hydrogen atom. The density (whiteness) of the cloud represents the probability density for observing the electron. --- end quoting ---
Well, on my fateful morning of 7 November 1990, I was interpreting those dots more than just probability numbers, but that the electron=muon was those dots and that the dots represent a mass chunk or piece of the electron=muon. Of course, the nucleus of a cosmic atom would have most of the mass, and so, the cosmic atom would be huge for the electron space and massive for the nucleus.
So, if I did a survey on scientists, asking them to draw a electron=muon, would anyone in the survey get it correct by stipling dots or would they draw some round ball as the electron=muon?
This is the dot picture I used in sci.physics and other newsgroups of Internet.
                         94th ELECTRON=muon OF 231PU
               Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH ELECTRON=muon of 231Pu
                ::\ ::|:: /::                  ::\::|::/::                      _ _                     (:Y:)                      - -                  ::/::|::\::                 ::/ ::|:: \::
        One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy.
A larger version of what a plutonium atom looks like with its 5f6 as that of 12 lobes or as a dodecahedron:
            . \ .  . | .   /.            . . \. . .|. . /. .               ..\....|.../...                ::\:::|::/::

     -------------

(Y) -------------

     --------------
               ::/:::|::\::               ../....|...\...            . . /. . .|. . \. .             . / .  . | .   \ .
Archimedes Plutonium
Comments:: Since in 2017, I discovered that the Real Electron is the muon of 105 MeV and the so called little electron of .5MeV was in fact a charge energy, not rest mass and is a photon with charge, and is the magnetic monopole, which I call the magnepole. That has caused me to make clear where ever I write electron, to signify that the electron is a muon. This is huge huge change in Chemistry, for the chemical bond cannot exist with the electron as .5MeV, for it needs a 105 MeV as electron, and the Real Proton in physics is 840 MeV, and neutron is 945 MeV.
AP

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

Alright, this textbook is written as a Memoir, in that I am writing it as a notebook, my daily activity, an historical accounting, along with a textbook of facts of True Chemistry. Both a textbook on True Chemistry and a historical accounting, both combined into one. So you will see many dates of posts throughout this Memoir.
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.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe         Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-06-21 04:47:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Re: 19/06/2018 #2 of Wikipedia incubator of Archimedes Plutonium < Wp‎ | aki Wp > aki > Archimedes Plutonium


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:019.me-in-red.gif

Borderline between Finite and Infinity[edit]
In early 1990s, Plutonium was trying to make sense of "what are numbers", and infinity, so in that decade of 1990s, he tried to make sense of numbers yet with infinity and explored p-adics, but by 2009, Plutonium realized that to make sense of infinity, requires a borderline between Finite and Infinity, and once he discovered where this borderline was, Plutonium dropped the Adics.
An integer in Plutonium's philosophical view includes objects which have a decimal expansion which never ends. Just as the real number 1/3 can be represented as:
1
3
=
0.33333...
{\displaystyle {1 \over 3}=0.33333...}

the infinite integer whose decimal expansion consists solely of 3s is a valid integer in Plutonium's view:
x
=
.
.
.33333

{\displaystyle x=...33333\,}

This type of number resembles the p-adic integers, but it is different because it is not considered as a convergent sequence, but as a philosophically primitive element of the mathematical universe, an integer. Addition and multiplication are defined digit by digit. Plutonium has two classes of numbers: real numbers which are infinite to the right of the decimal point and finite to the left, and adic integers which are infinite to the left and finite to the right. The two may not be added together.
It is a theorem of Peano Arithmetic that there do not exist integers x,y,z with:
x
3
+
y
3
=
z
3

{\displaystyle x^{3}+y^{3}=z^{3}\,}

but Plutonium claims that this is not a property of adic-integers. Since he believes that the adic-integers are the true integers, he concludes that Fermat's last theorem is false.[8]
Plutonium often states that the set of all integers is uncountable, which in standard mathematical language is an oxymoron. By this statement he usually means that the set of all adic-integers cannot be ordered into a list in the usual way. His proof for this claim is to apply Cantor's diagonal argument. He also sometimes states that there is a direct one-to-one map from the real numbers to the integers, which consists of taking all the digits behind the decimal point and putting them in front.[9] [10]
Adics were only a fleeting stepping stone for Plutonium. To find what the true numbers of mathematics are. And by 2018, Plutonium rejects Adics except to discuss varieties of infinite numbers.

In the 1990s, Plutonium admired these Adic numbers, but around 2009, Plutonium researched into a Infinity borderline, a natural border between Finite Numbers and Infinite Numbers. And soon thereafter Plutonium would no longer admire the Adic numbers for they were just a stepping stone to finding what True Numbers really were. The Adics to Plutonium, after the infinity borderline was found, the adics are fictional-infinite-numbers. Once, AP found the infinity borderline with Finite numbers and so, most of P-adics is dismissed by AP, just a little sliver of Adics is remaining in Logic for AP.
Since the 1990s, AP discovered the Infinity borderline to be 1*10^604 and that changes most all of mathematics. Almost everything in mathematics, that came before, is changed with a concept of a borderline between finite and infinite. Here is a small list of corrections AP found in Mathematics and Logic and is endeavoring to complete a Textbook on mathematics by 2019, titled TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS for ages 8 to 26.

Before you do Mathematics, you need to be able to think correctly, straight and clear. Unfortunately schools across the world do not teach proper true Logic. They teach a mish mash gaggle of error filled garbage and call it Logic.

The 4 connectors of Logic are:
1) Equal (equivalence) plus Not (negation) where the two are combined as one 2) And (conjunction) 3) Or (exclusive or) (disjunction) 4) Implication
New Logic
EQUAL/NOT table:
T  = T  = T
T  = not F  = T
F  = not T  = T
F =  F   = T
Equality must start or begin logic because in the other connectors, we cannot say a result equals something if we do not have equality built already. Now to build equality, it is unary in that T=T and F =F. So we need another unary connector to make equality a binary. Negation is that other connector and when we combine the two we have the above table.
Equality combined with Negation allows us to proceed to build the other three logic connectors.
Now, unfortunately, Logic must start with equality allied with negation and in math what this connector as binary connector ends up being-- is multiplication for math. One would think that the first connector of Logic that must be covered is the connector that ends up being addition of math, not multiplication. But maybe we can find a philosophy-logic answer as to why Logic starts with equal/not and is multiplication rather than addition. That explanation is of course the Space in which the Logic operators govern, and the full space is area, so that is multiplication. And we see that in a geometry diagram
T T
T T where all four small squares are T valued making a 4 square
While addition is and with a Space like this
T T
T F and we have just 3 of the 4 smaller squares covered by addition.
Here you we have one truth table equal/not whose endresult is 4 trues and now we move on to AND as addition.
New Logic
AND
T &  T  = T
T & F  = T
F &  T  = T
F  & F   = F
AND is ADD in New Logic, and that makes a whole lot of common sense. AND feels like addition, the joining of parts. And the truth table for AND should be such that if given one true statement in a series of statements then the entire string of statements is true. So if I had P and Q and S and R, I need only one of those to be true to make the string true P & Q & S & R = True if just one statement is true.
The truth table of AND results in 3 trues and 1 false.
New Logic OR(exclusive)
T or  T  = F
T or F  = T
F or  T  = T
F  or F   = F
OR is seen as a choice, a pick and choose. So if I had T or T, there is no choice and so it is False. If I had T or F there is a choice and so it is true. Again the same for F or T, but when I have F or F, there is no choice and so it is false. OR in mathematics, because we pick and discard what is not chosen, that OR is seen as subtraction.
OR is a truth table whose endresult is 2 trues, 2 falses.
New Logic IMPLIES (Material Conditional)
IF/THEN MOVES INTO
T ->  T  = T
T ->  F  = F
F ->  T  = U probability outcome
F ->  F   = U probability outcome
A truth table that has a variable which is neither T or F, but U for unknown or a probability outcome. We need this U so that we can do math where 0 divided into something is not defined.
Now notice there are four truth tables where the endresult is 4 trues, 3 trues with 1 false, 2 trues with 2 falses and finally a truth table with a different variable other than T or F, with variable U. This is important in New Logic that the four primitive connectors, by primitive I mean they are independent of one another so that one cannot be derived by the other three. The four are axioms, independent. And the way you can spot that they are independent is that if you reverse their values so that 4 trues become 4 falses. For AND, reversal would be FFFT instead of TTTF. For OR, a reversal would be TFFT instead of FTTF.
To be independent and not derivable by the other three axioms you need a condition of this:
One Table be 4 of the same One Table be 3 of the same One Table be 2 of the same And to get division by 0 in mathematics, one table with a unknown variable.
So, how did Old Logic get it all so wrong so bad? I think the problem was that in the 1800s when Logic was being discovered, is that the best minds of the time were involved in physics, chemistry, biology and looked upon philosophy and logic as second rate and that second rate minds would propose Old Logic. This history would be from Boole 1854 The Laws of Thought, and Jevons textbook of Elementary Lessons on Logic, 1870. Boole started the Old Logic with the help of Jevons and fostered the wrong muddleheaded idea that OR was ADD, when it truly is AND.
Now the way people actually live, is an indicator of how well they thought and how well any of their ideas should be taken seriously. In the case of Boole, he went to class in a downpour rain, why without a raincoat? And reaching class, instead of changing into dry warm clothes, stood for hours in front of students, sopping wet and shivering. Of course he caught pneumonia, but instead of being sensible, common sense that even a fly would have, he insisted his wife give him cold showers and make the bed all wet and freezing. Of course, he would die from this. Now, does anyone today, think that a mind like that has anything to offer Logic or mathematics, is as crazy as what Boole was.
But once you have textbooks about Logic, it is difficult to correct a mistake because of the money making social network wants to make more money, not go around fixing mistakes. So this nightmarish mistakes of the truth tables was not seen by Frege, by Russell, by Whitehead, by Carnap, by Godel, and by 1908 the symbols and terminology of the Old Logic truth tables were so deeply rooted into Logic, that only a Logical minded person could ever rescue Logic.
1.1 The "and" truth table should be TTTF not what Boole thought TFFF. Only an utter gutter mind of logic would think that in a series of statements, that AND is true when all statements are true, but to the wise person-- he realizes that if just one statement is true, the entire series is true, where we toss aside all the irrelevant and false statements --(much what life itself is-- we pick out the true ones and ignore all the false ones). In fact, in a proof in mathematics, the proof can be full of false and nonsense statements, so long as the proof itself is there and be seen as overall True. For example the proof of SAS in geometry, side angle side, can be packed with false statements and irrelevant statements and still be true. 1.2 The error of "if-then" truth table should be TFUU, not that of TFTT 1.3 The error of "not" and "equal", neither unary, but should be binary 1.4 The error that Reductio Ad Absurdum is a proof method, when it is merely probability-truth, not guaranteed 1.5 The error, the "or" connector is truth table FTTF, never that of TTTF, for the idea of an inclusive "or", --- either A or B or both, is a self contradiction. And funny, how the fathers of Logic-- Boole and Jevons had a connector that was self contradictory, as if the fathers of logic had no logical mind to be doing logic in the first place.
1.6 So that begs the question, what in mathematics has a truth table of TFFF. Well the simple answer is that it is a reverse of TTTF which is AND, and so the former can be got by that of a NOT function on AND. But in isolation, what is a table of TFFF in mathematics? My guess is it is Absolute Value, a form of Absolute Value in mathematics, but that is only a guess, and likely wrong. In 2016 I gave a half hearted argument that TFFF was absolute value.

(2nd Error)
TRUE CORRECT Numbers needed to do Math or any science like physics in particular
Alright, once we have Logic, we start mathematics, and the best place to start is how we recognize and use numbers. Math has two houses, one is Geometry and one is Numbers (Algebra). We can start with either one of them, geometry or numbers. Here we start with numbers.
DECIMAL NUMBER SYSTEM is superior to all other number systems and the only system to be used in SCIENCE, especially physics.
Let us focus on Numbers, how to represent them, for in how to represent numbers can either destroy our understanding or allow us to understand fully and clearly. If we have the wrong representation of numbers, we cannot hope to fully understand them.
In the history of mathematics, one of the key discoveries was the Decimal Number System. It was discovered in Ancient times by Hindu Arabic, but was slowly accepted and needed many changes along the way to our modern day use. But, even as of recently, 2017, most math professors, perhaps all except AP, thought that Number Systems never change the value of numbers, regardless of what system you use. And in the age of computers, the computer electronics favors binary system, with its electronic gate open or closed.
The Binary system is 1, 10, 11, 100, 101, 110, 111, 1000, etc and those represent, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 in decimals.
Trouble is, though, one number system is superior to all other number systems, the decimal system superior. And the representation of numbers, does in fact, affect the values of numbers, except decimal. Decimal Number system is the only system that does not affect the actual true value of the number. How can that be? It is the fractions that are distorted in other number system, not decimal.
The decimal number system is the only non-corrupting system, and all other systems have failures of number values, in the fractions.
The reason Decimal is superior, is because of the 231Pu Atom Totality demands a number system that has Clean-Pure Numbers as border endpoints. A clean-pure number is this progression 1 10 100 1000 10000 etc
and .1 .01 .001 .0001 etc
A clean-pure number is a "1" digit followed by nothing but 0 digits. They make perfect endpoints as borderlines. And Decimal especially highlights clean-pure numbers since it is the use of two primes 2 and 5.
All other number systems have a 10 and 100, etc, but their 10 and 100 is not formed from the two primes 2 and 5.
Why 2 and 5 forming 10 is so special?
It is because all numbers and all geometry comes from the 231Pu Atom Totality. So that pi and 2.71… exist as special because 231 Plutonium has 22 filled subshells in 7 shells and only 19 subshells occupied at any one moment in time, giving 22/7 as pi and simultaneously giving 19/7 as "e".
The final answers as to why why why in science or math, all ends up with a feature of the 231Pu Atom Totality. And the reason for a Number System based on 2x5 is so special is because 231Pu is the 5f6 outer shell and so the 5 comes from that and the 2 comes from 2x3=6.
Did you know in math there is what is called magic-cubes::
If i look at the 231Pu Atom Totality and its 5f6
Then a 3by3 Array, best not call them matrix
Occurs for addition with 5 as center
2   7   6
9   5   1
4   3   8
So the 5f6 hints at trying 6 for center for multiplication
After playing around
18    1    12
4      6      9
3     36     2
For 216 in all rows columns diagonals
Also, interesting is that 216 + 15 = 231 as in 231Pu
The reason that MATHEMATICS even exists, in the first place, is because the Universe just one big atom with smaller atoms inside itself. And since atoms have Shape and Size, thus comes forth the creation of geometry. And since atoms are numerous, many and many atoms, thus is created Numbers, or commonly called Algebra.
The decimal number system is superior and unique to all other number system. Think of it as the "e" of logarithms. The logarithms with base 2.71…. is unique base and is a superior base for any logarithmic system. So the base-10 number system, the decimal system is unique and superior.
Why superior? Well for one, its representation does not corrupt number values. In binary, many numbers as fractions are distorted and corrupted. Not the whole numbers in binary, but once you need to use fractions, often they are distorted in true values.
Here is a recent report of a incident of number value distortion by binary (source stack overflow Internet)
> Found this one in stack overflow, bolstering the case i make that all systems except Decimal are crap > >> 50.05/0.05 is not precisely equal to 1001, which it should. >> >> I understand that the above problem arises because all decimal numbers can not be precisely >>written down in binary. But it is very obvious that it will create problem at many places, is there a >>good way to take care of the above apart from rounding off?
You see, what happens in physics when you put all your arithmetic into a computer, especially large number data, and all that number crunching the computer goes through to give you a final answer. An answer that should be .5 not .51, an answer that should be 3.00 not 2.99, an answer that should be 137, not a fraction. An answer that should be 105, 840, 945, not 105.7, 833.--, 939.--. When you use a binary system in science, your math numbers never come out to the correct numbers that Nature has.
So, decimal representation is superior, not only for precision and non-distortion, but because only Decimals can deliver a Grid System in mathematics.

(3rd Error)
A proper Coordinate System is needed, not one in which you have a continuum, rather, one in which you have Discrete Mathematics
Grid Systems were discovered by me, AP, discovered or invented in May of 2013 as I was doing my first edition of a Calculus textbook on the sci.math Internet, and in order to do Calculus, for I needed empty space between consecutive points in Geometry in order to have a integral and derivative. You cannot have a Calculus and have a geometry of a continuum. This meant, I needed to have a Grid System of equally spaced points and empty space between those points, empty space between two consecutive points. You, the reader, will discover for yourself, that the only way you can have equally spaced points with empty space between points is the decimal number system.
There is only ONE Number System that can do a Grid System. Only the Decimal System can mirror reflect small numbers from large numbers and reflect large numbers from small numbers. Let me diagram what a Grid System is and the reader should automatically understand the Grid System.
Integer Grid 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 , 11, 12, etc etc
10 Grid .1, .2, .3, .4, .5, .6, .7, .8, .9, 1.0, 1.1, . . , 9.9, 10.0  with math induction element being .1
100 Grid .01, .02, .03, .04, . . , 99.98, 99.99, 100.00 with math induction element being .01
Only Decimal Number System can do a Grid, because only Decimal Numbers can mirror reflect the small number, the fraction and the large numbers-- whole numbers, and have a math induction element that builds all the numbers in a specific Grid.
Old Math Professors are corrupt in mathematics, for they never change their mistakes, for they never even acknowledge their mistakes, and they keep preaching fake math. They do this because they rather make money selling books of fake math, rather than spend the time to correct fake math. Professors of math are like any other greedy lazy person, get the most money from doing the least amount of work. Old math professors teach that all number systems deliver the same value of any number, and they teach that decimal is no better than binary or ternary etc. True math says that is false; true math says that Decimal System is the only system that delivers true value of numbers and is superior in allowing a Grid System, and all other number systems are junk.
So, here in physics, it matters whether your physics answers of math come from a computer using binary.
Archimedes Plutonium

(4th Error)
Borderline between finite and infinity
Now this mistake in not having a correct Infinity in math, affects the Calculus by a large measure, a large degree. It is impossible to have a correct calculus, when you have a bozo-kook understanding of what is infinity.
This is probably the biggest mistake in all of pure mathematics for it affects all other mathematics. Of course the other sciences, especially physics rarely needs to know what the correct proper infinity is. However, it does show up frequently in the best physics-- quantum electrodynamics, in which it is often used to eliminate infinities that crop up in calculations. This physics math procedure is called Renormalization-- getting rid of the infinities.
The trouble with Old Math, is, well, they were terribly shoddy in logic, in thinking straight and clear. For a logical person, knows, that if you have a concept of finite versus infinite, the only way to handle those two concepts is to realize a border must go between them so that you can tell if any given number is finite or infinite. Otherwise, there is no infinity, if there is no borderline.
There is only one way you can have a concept of finite, by having a concept of infinity, and the only way you can have both, is that a borderline exists between them.
I have pinpointed that borderline from tractrix-circle analysis, from algebraic analysis of algebraic completeness, and from angles of regular polyhedra. The borderline in microinfinity is 1*10^-604 and in macroinfinity is 1*10^604.
The easiest way to see the borderline is to see where pi digits ends in a three zero digits in a row.
3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286 208998628034825342117067982148086513282306647093844609550582231725359408128481 117450284102701938521105559644622948954930381964428810975665933446128475648233 786783165271201909145648566923460348610454326648213393607260249141273724587006 606315588174881520920962829254091715364367892590360011330530548820466521384146 951941511609433057270365759591953092186117381932611793105118548074462379962749 567351885752724891227938183011949129833673362440656643086021394946395224737190 702179860943702770539217176293176752384674818467669405132000
Since the Universe 3rd dimension, one would suspect that where pi digits are there first three digits in a row of 000, that such would be the borderline at infinity.
Now, for physics, that infinity is 1*10^604 for large and 1*10^-604 for the small, makes perfect sense, since in physics, it is extremely, extremely difficult to find anything above 10^200 or smaller than 10^-200, to give the reader a sense of proportion.
If a physicists or other science goes to math for information and knowledge of infinity, well, what they see from mathematics by 2017 is nothing more than just piles of you know what.

(5th Error)
By April 2015, was there for the first time a picture diagram proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC, not just an analysis argument, but a geometry proof (see below). Old Math could never assemble a picture diagram of the FTC. All they could do is argue with limit concept an analysis argument, never a geometry proof of FTC.
A picture diagram proof of FTC changes all of calculus and thus, changes all of mathematics for it requires a infinity borderline to produce an actual number for the infinitesimal, and that number is the inverse of the infinity borderline. Requiring a infinity borderline to produce the infinitesimal changes all of mathematics, and throwing out the limit concept. By changing all of Calculus and thus correcting mathematics, all of math before 2015 was just trash math.
Picture Diagram needed for Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
Why no continuum and no curves exist in Math, so that the Calculus can exist, and does exist
by Archimedes Plutonium
Calculus is based upon there being Grid points in geometry, no continuum, but actually, empty space between two neighboring points. This is called Discrete geometry, and in physics, this is called Quantum Mechanics. In 10 Grid, the first few numbers are 0, .1, .2, .3, etc. That means there does not exist any number between 0 and .1, no number exists between .1 and .2. Now if you want more precise numbers, you go to a higher Grid like that of 100 Grid where the first few numbers are 0, .01, .02, .03, etc.
Calculus in order to exist at all, needs this empty space between consecutive numbers or successor numbers. It needs that empty space so that the integral of calculus is actually small rectangles whose interior area is not zero. So in 10 Grid, the smallest width of any Calculus rectangle is of width .1. In 100 Grid the smallest width is .01.
But, this revolutionary understanding of Calculus does not stop with the Integral, for having empty space between numbers, means no curves in math exist, but are ever tinier straight-line segments.
It also means, that the Derivative in Calculus is part and parcel of the function graph itself. So that in a function such as y = x^2, the function graph is the derivative at a point. In Old Math, they had the folly and idiocy of a foreign, alien tangent line to a function graph as derivative. In New Math, the derivative is the same as the function graph itself. And, this makes commonsense, utter commonsense, for the derivative is a prediction of the future of the function in question, and no way in the world can a foreign tangent line to a point on the function be able to predict, be able to tell where the future point of that function be. The only predictor of a future point of a function, is the function graph itself.
If the Calculus was done correctly, conceived correctly, then a minimal diagram explains all of Calculus. Old Math never had such a diagram, because Old Math was in total error of what Calculus is, and what Calculus does.
The fundamental picture of all of Calculus are these two of a trapezoid and rectangle. In fact, call the picture, the
FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS, Picture
Trapezoid for derivative as the roof-top of the trapezoid, which must be a straight-line segment. If it is curved, you cannot fold it down to form a integral rectangle. And the rectangle for integral as area.
From this:         B         /|       /  |  A /----|   /      | |        | |____|

The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative) so that it can be hinged at A, and swiveled down to form rectangle for integral.
To this:
______ |         | |         | |         |

And the derivative of x= A, above is merely the dy/dx involving points A and B. Thus, it can never be a curve in Calculus. And the AB is part of the function graph itself. No curves exist in mathematics and no continuum exists in mathematics.
In the above we see that CALCULUS needs and requires a diagram in which you can go from derivative to integral, or go from integral to derivative, by simply a hinge down to form a rectangle for area, or a hinge up to form the derivative from a given rectangle.
Why in Old Math could no professor of math ever do the Calculus Diagram? Why? The answer is simple, no-one in Old Math pays attention to Logic, and that no-one in Old Math was required to take formal Logic when they attended school. So a person bereft of Logic, is never going to find mistakes of Logic and think clear and think straight.
by Archimedes Plutonium
Earle Jones
2018-06-21 18:33:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
*
To: AP
From: Earle Jones

I am having with some of your notation. Could you please help me?
I do not understand this notation:

>         B         /|       /  |  A /----|   /      | |
>        | |____|

Please explain.

Thanks,

earle
*


On 2018-06-21 04:47:28 +0000, Archimedes Plutonium said:

> In fact, call the picture, theFUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS,
> PictureTrapezoid for derivative as the roof-top of the trapezoid, which
> must be a straight-line segment. If it is curved, you cannot fold it
> down to form a integral rectangle. And the rectangle for integral as
> area.From this:         B         /|       /  |  A /----|
>   /      | |        | |____|
> The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
> so that it can be hinged at A, and swiveled down to form rectangle for
> integral.To this:______ |         | |         | |         |
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-06-23 16:52:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Re: 19/06/2018 #3 of Wp/aki/Archimedes Plutonium < Wp‎ | aki Wp > aki > Archimedes Plutonium



https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:019.me-in-red.gif


(6th Error)
Irrationals do not exist, for all numbers are Rationals by Archimedes Plutonium
Simple one line proof:: any number that can be represented as a Decimal is a number that has a integer numerator and integer denominator (in this case powers of 10), hence no irrationals exist.
Many Errors of what Numbers exist.
Why no Irrationals exist-- lowest terms, anthyphairesis Now you would think that Physics never needs to know the difference between rational number and irrational number. But you be surprised to know that when no irrational number exists, the numbers 3.14…. and 2.71 as two separate numbers being rational only, is the closest that mathematics can come to two related numbers, 22/7 with 19/7, matching the Atom Totality of 22 subshells in 7 shells and 19 subshells occupied. Here is a concept unknown to mathematicians about pi and "e", the concept of simultaneous relatedness. When we see no irrational exists, then pi and "e" are connected fully.
Why No Irrationals exist, and why pi and 2.71… are rational numbers-- as easy as Decimal Number representation-- they have a denominator power of 10 by Archimedes Plutonium
Why No Irrationals exist, and why pi and 2.71… are rational numbers
Old Math, and their "Lowest Terms Error" although don't tell them-- proved that 1/2 is irrational Re: analyzing why the Ancient Greek proof that sqrt2 is irrational is flawed
Alright, let me get started on the proof that 1/2 is irrational number using the invalid method of Ancient Greeks that sqrt2 is irrational, only because, the method is invalid.
Earlier I showed how a definition of Lowest Term for p/q needed to be extended to include a number in Rationals in decimal representation. So, what is the Lowest Term for 1/2 in 10 Grid, for it would be .1/.2 and then the next lowest is .2/.4, etc etc.
So, let us run through a proof that 1/2 is a Irrational number using the proof method of Ancient Greeks.
Proof:: Suppose 1/2 is Rational. And now, put 1/2 in Lowest terms and it is thus, in lowest terms. But now, taking 2 and dividing it into 1   __________ 2| 1.00000.... = .50000.....
and then dividing 2 by 2   _________ 2|2.00000.....  = 1.0000.....
And now, we have 1/2 in Lowest terms as .5/1.
But now, hold on a minute, let us divide .5 by 2, then 1 by 2, giving us .25 and .5 respectively.
Since we can never get a Lowest Term for the Rational number 1/2, means a contradiction, hence 1/2 is irrational.
So, of course the above is flawed and flawed in the same way the method was used to prove sqrt2 is irrational, when truly sqrt2 is rational.
What went wrong? What went wrong is a bad definition-- Lowest Terms.
The proof that sqrt2 is Rational, simply involves observation for that
In 10 Grid, sqrt2 = 1.42 X 1.42 = 2.0 (oh, you question the 2.0164, you question the "164", well in 10 Grid, the only digits that exist are the ten place value and that is 2.0.
In 100 Grid, sqrt2 = 1.415 X 1.415
In 1000 Grid, sqrt2 = 1.4143 X 1.4143 and on and on.
Sqrt2 and all sqrt root numbers are Rationals. Even pi and 2.71.... are rational numbers.
Anthyphairesis Re: Stillwell gave another phony proof sqrt2 irrational Re: analyzing why the Ancient Greek proof that sqrt2 is irrational is a flawed
On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 6:06:01 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 3:50:43 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > > > > > That is the only one proof in all of mathematics-- an argument based on a definition of Lowest Terms. > > Apparently there is a second proof of sqrt2 irrational. A far more challenging proof to see if phony. >
Apparently there was a second proof, but whether it was known by Euclid, by Archimedes, I rather doubt it.

> It is seen in Stillwell's Mathematics and Its History, 3rd ed. 2010, page 45. In the same book, page 12 is the Lowest Terms phony proof. > > Now looking at that alleged proof on page 45, it says and I quote. > > " We notice that the rectangle remaining after step 2, with sides sqrt2-1 and 2-sqrt2 = sqrt2(sqrt2-1), is the same shape as the original, though the long side is now vertical instead of horizontal. It follows that similar steps will recur forever, which is another proof that sqrt2 is irrational, incidentally." > > Does Stillwell expect readers to "read his mind". Why would a recurrence ever make Stillwell think that was a proof of sqrt2 is not able to be P/Q where P and Q are Counting Numbers. Why? Is it because two rational sides would cancel out in a square further down the line? And, if so, then the reason this proof is nonrecurring is only because, well, you use a symbol of sqrt2 that cannot commingle with actual numbers. If you call a number a symbol, call it S, call it Y, obviously you cannot get rid of it. > > Now this one is going to be challenging for me to show it is phony. But it is easy if we demand sqrt2 be written as a number, not some abstract symbol. Once we demand that a number in decimal representation or in fractions be forced upon rather than a "just a symbol sqrt2", then the phoniness of the proof is immediately apparent. Because, that forcing demands sqrt2 be written as 1.42 = 142/100 in 10 Grid or written as 1.415 = 1415/1000 in 100 Grid, etc. Writing sqrt2 in a number, then it behaves like all other Rationals, for it is a rational. > > You see, the rub on sqrt2 that Old Math installed is the same mistake they made with 1/3. They want 1/3 be .33333....., when, if called to be logical, 1/3 is .3333...33(+1/3) what Newton called the Compleat Quotient. >
nice proof that no irrationals exist, simple fact that all numbers are Decimal represented and thus a denominator of power of 10 Re: analyzing why the Ancient Greek proof that sqrt2 is irrational is a flawed
Now, here is a Commonsense proof that No Irrationals exist. It is not formal, it is not flowery or pilfered with abstractions. It is a proof that an old grandma or grandpa would understand and recognize, even if starting to slow to think in old age. It is a proof that young kids would be proud of owning. For it is a proof that since 3000 years ago, humanity has thought there was something known as "irrational number" and only now, today, realizes that there are no irrational numbers. That irrational numbers was the grand fake of fakeries.
Theorem Statement:: Rational numbers exist, but Irrationals do not exist.
Proof Statement:: Once we are able to have a Decimal Number system we can build all the numbers via Grids and using a math-induction element and adding that element successively to build the numbers. They are all Decimal numbers, meaning that their place-value is established. So that say for instance .003, or 3.14159..... are all rational numbers because, depending on what place value you want to talk about, it is 3/1000 or 314159/100000. In other words, writing a number in Decimal Representation alone, proves the number is a Rational for the denominator is always a power of 10. And since decimal numbers is ALL POSSIBLE DIGIT ARRANGEMENTS, means that all numbers are a Rational. QED
Now, there is one possible exception to this rule or proof. The imaginary number of square root of -1.
Is it even a number? I am going to say it is not a number, because all numbers have to come from Math induction on a induction element, be it 1 for Counting Numbers, be it .1 for 10 Grid, or .01 for 100 Grid, etc etc. So where does that leave us with sqrt -1. I suggest that i is not a number but an angle, a symbol for an angle. What angle is it? Not 90 degree for that is +1. I suggest i = sqrt-1 is the angle 180 degrees that lies in 2nd and 3rd quadrants.
Archimedes Plutonium

(7th Error)
Completing a Division correctly such as 1/3 = .3333..33(+1/3)

By Archimedes Plutonium
Newton, way back in the 1600s called it "Compleat Quotient", but that was some 400 years ago, and do you mean to tell me, that in 400 years time no-one had a good enough logical mind since Newton, that everyone since Newton was a failure of Logic when it comes to division?
Everyone gets this much   ______ 3| 10000 = 3333+1/3
and then, everyone falls to pieces, into some pit of stupidity on this   ______ 3|1.0000  = .3333(+1/3)
Perhaps every math professor thinks 1/3 = .33333….. and they scold students who say
  ______ 3| 10000 = 3333
but they reward students who say
  ______ 3|1.0000  = .3333….
They fall to pieces, because they want and wish to ignore the remainder. They do not forget the remainder for left of the decimal point but when they reach right of the decimal point they fall all to pieces in a logic quagmire.   ______ 3|1.0000 = .3333….. and forget about any remainder
So that truly,  1/3 is not even a number, but a division asking the person doing the division, asking what Grid System am I in?
For, 1/3 is not even a number but a division process and it depends on where the person doing the dividing wants to stop and thus include the (+1/3) ending suffix.
1/3 = .33333..33(+1/3)
Where we always realize a remainder in division must always be tacked on.
Now the above is important in that it eliminates the obnoxious idea put forth by half=brains in math that 1 = .9999…. The number 1 never equals .9999…. but it does equal .9999..99(+9/9). So, half brains of math, time to run for the hills.
Explaining why most modern mathematicians are logically brain-dead-- simply because in modern day times, students are not forced to take logic-- to learn how to think straight and think clearly. If I had my way. Every Freshmen at College is required to take Introduction to Logic, for, it is only commonsense that Colleges and Universities do see that thinking straight and thinking clearly is top priority. And, if I had my way, the science majors all have to take a second year of logic called Symbolic Logic, because every day as a -- scientist -- the most important tool is logic
-- Archimedes Plutonium

(8th Error)
Sine & Cosine are semicircle waves, not sinusoidal
By Archimedes Plutonium
Now one of the functions most often used in physics and science are the trigonometric functions. But, have the mathematicians made any mistakes with them? One would think not, since trig has been used for hundreds if not thousands of years. Trouble is, in math, when you do not have a logical mind, you miss errors. Here is a huge huge error of Trigonometry, only because, mathematicians rarely have a logical mind. It involves the shape of sine and cosine. Now, do not get me wrong, not all sine and cosine functions are semicircle shape. All sine and cosine start out as semicircle in the unit circle, but as soon as you change frequency or wavelength, or any other parameters, the sine and cosine are ellipse waves.

They come to math, and physics, but they come without Logic, barren of logic, deplete of logic, never any logic in their tools of the trade.
They define sine as opposite/hypotenuse. Good so far.
They know of the unit circle with hypotenuse as 1. Good again.
They then blunder, so pitifully, so badly, so poorly, and so early on. I mean even a child can understand the first few steps. And they blunder badly for they spuriously assign 180 degrees to be 3.14.... Why? Why assign 180 degrees as 3.14... when you already defined sine as opposite/hypotenuse with unit circle forcing 180 degrees to be 2, since 90 degrees is 1 of unit circle.
You see what happens when you do science without logic-- you become a village idiot fool.
Now, here is a huge huge big lesson to learn. It is big, and most professors of mathematics never learned it, for if they had learned it, they would not make this mistake in trigonometry of a "Sinusoid shape wave".
The lesson is simple and easy, but no math professor ever learned it--
You never have unequal axes in doing mathematics. Your x,y,z axes always are the same. Your axes are always the same. You never have one axis different from another, or, you are not doing mathematics. All axes must be the same.
Sure, in commercials they have pie charts and they have bar diagrams where one axis is numbers and the other is candy bars or something else. That is not mathematics.
And in Trigonometry, if your x axis is angles, and your y axis is numbers, you are NOT doing mathematics.
To do Mathematics-- axes are always the same.

If you had had just a gram of Logical intelligence could see that the unit circle forces sine to define 180 degrees as being a diameter of 2. Thus making the sine graph and cosine graph to be a SEMICIRCLE Wave graph.
-- Archimedes Plutonium

SECOND PROOF THAT SINE AND COSINE ARE SEMICIRCLE WAVES::
This proof has a hands on experiment involved. Take a close look at a screen door spring, and verify it is wound up circles per wind.
EXPERIMENT:: make a 2nd dimension graph of semicircle wave. Cut out the semicircles but leaving them in one piece so you can bend and fold. Now, fold the sheet of cut out semicircles to begin to approach a spring of circle windings. Now, do the same with the idiotic Old Math's sinusoid shape wave. Can you form a spring, without vertices, a vertex at each joint and which those joints are physics vulnerable to cracking and breaking apart.
Theorem Statement:: A spring in mathematics is a winding of semicircle waves and is the sine function and cosine function wound from 2nd dimension into 3rd dimension.
Proof Statement:: Only a semicircle wave can be wound from 2nd dimension into 3rd dimension and be free of vertices, (weak spots). Only a circle is free of vertices when attaching half waves.
Archimedes Plutonium

(9th Error)
CONIC SECTION IS OVAL, never an ellipse; proofs below
Conics = oval, 4 Experiments 4th experiment Re: -World's first proofs that the Conic section is an Oval, never an ellipse// yes, Apollonius and Dandelin were wrong
by Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > 1st EXPERIMENT:: Fold paper into cone and cylinder, (I prefer the waxy cover of a magazine). Try to make both about the same size, so the perspective is even. Now tape the cone and cylinder so they do not come undone in the scissor or paper cutter phase. A paper cutter is best but dangerous, so be careful, be very careful with paper cutter.  Make the same angle of cut in each. and the best way of insuring that is to temporary staple the two together so the angle is the same. Once cut, remove the staples. Now we inspect the finished product. Hold each in turn on a sheet of paper and with a pencil trace out the figure on the flat piece of paper. Notice the cylinder gives an ellipse with 2 Axes of Symmetry, while the conic gives a oval because it has just one, yes 1 axis of symmetry. > > > > That was my first experiment. >
Easy and fast experiment, and gets the person able to make more cones and cylinders in a rush. Only fault I have of this experiment is that it leaves a scissors mark-- a vertex so to speak. But it is fast and easy. The proof is in the comparison. Now the cut should be at a steep enough angle. If you cut straight across, both will be circles, so make a steep cut.

> > > > 2nd EXPERIMENT:: get a Kerr or Mason canning lid and repeat the above production of a cone and cylinder out of stiff waxy paper (magazine covers). Try to make the cone and cylinder about the same size as the lid. Now either observe with the lid inside the cone and cylinder, or, punch two holes in the cone and cylinder and fasten the lid inside. What you want to observe is how much area and where the area is added to make a section. So that in the cylinder, there is equal amount of area to add upwards as to add downwards of the lid, but in the cone, the area upwards added is small, while the area added downwards is huge new area. Thus the cylinder had two axes of symmetry and is an ellipse, while cone is 1 axis of symmetry and is an oval. >
This experiment is the best for it immediately shows you the asymmetry of an axis, where the upward needs little area to fill in any gap and the downward needs an entire "crescent shaped area add-on to the circle lid.
> > > > 3rd EXPERIMENT:: Basically this is a repeat of the Dandelin fake proof, only we use a cylinder. Some tennis balls or ping pong balls come in see through plastic cylinder containers. And here you need just two balls in the container and you cut out some cardboard in the shape of ellipse that fits inside the container. You will be cutting many different sizes of these ellipses and estimating their foci. Now you insert these ellipse and watch to see the balls come in contact with the foci. Now, you build several cones in which the ellipses should fit snugly. Trouble is, well, there is never a cone that any ellipse can fit inside, for only an oval fits inside the cones. > >
This experiment is cumbersome and takes much precision and good materials. It is just a repeat of the Dandelin work on this topic, and one can easily see how the Dandelin fake proof is constructed-- he starts off with assuming the figure is an ellipse. Which tells us, he never had a good-working-model if any at all. For you cannot stuff a ellipse inside a cone. You can stuff a ellipse inside a cylinder. So this suggests the entire Dandelin nonsense was all worked out in the head and never in hands on actual reality. So, in this experiment, we give a proof that Dandelin was utterly wrong and that it is a cylinder that you can stuff a ellipse sandwiched by two identical spheres-- one upper and one lower.
The only amazing part of the Dandelin story is how an utterly fake proof could have survived from 1822, and not until 2017 is it thoroughly revealed as ignorant nonsense. One would think in math, there is no chance such a hideously flawed proof could even be published in a math journal, and if anything is learned from Dandelin, is that the math journal publishing system is a whole entire garbage network. A network that is corrupt and fans fakery.
> > 4th EXPERIMENT:: this is a new one. And I have it resting on my coffee table at the moment and looking at it. It comes from a toy kit of plastic see through geometry figures, cost me about $5. And what I have is a square pyramid and a cone of about the same size. Both see through. And what I did was rest the square pyramid apex on top of the cone apex, so the cone is inside the square pyramid. Now I wish I had a rectangular box to fit a cylinder inside the box. But this toy kit did not have that, but no worries for the imagination can easily picture a cylinder inside a rectangular box. Now the experiment is real simple in that we imagine a Planar Cut into the rectangular box with cylinder inside and the cut will make a rectangle from the box and a ellipse from the cylinder. Now with the cut of the square pyramid that contains a cone inside, the square pyramid is a trapezoid section while the cone is a oval section. If the cut were parallel to the base, the square pyramid yields a square and the cone yields a circle. This experiment proves to all the dunces, the many dunces who think a conic section is an ellipse, that it cannot be an ellipse, for obviously, a cone is not the same as a cylinder. > >
Now this 4th Experiment is a delicious fascinating experiment, for it reveals to us another proof that the conic section is a oval. For the square-pyramid section is a Isosceles Trapezoid, and what is so great about that, is we can take a cone and place inside of the cone a square pyramid and then place a second square pyramid over the cone, so the cone is sandwiched in between two square pyramids.
Now the square pyramids are tangent to the cone at 4 line segments, 8 altogether for the two, and what is so intriguing about the tangents is that it allows us to quickly develop a analytic geometry that the cone section must be a oval in order for the two square pyramids to be both isosceles trapezoids as sections.
Archimedes Plutonium

Conics = oval, 2 proofs, synthetic, analytic
Synthetic Geometry & Analytical Geometry Proofs that Conic section = Oval, never an ellipse-- World's first proofs thereof by Archimedes Plutonium _Synthetic Geometry proofs that Cylinder section= Ellipse// Conic section= Oval
First Synthetic Geometry proofs, later the Analytic Geometry proofs.
Alright I need to get this prepared for the MATH ARRAY of proofs, that the Ellipse is a Cylinder section, and that the Conic section is an oval, never an ellipse
PROOF that Cylinder Section is an Ellipse, never a Oval:: I would have proven it by Symmetry. Where I indulge the reader to place a circle inside the cylinder and have it mounted on a swivel, a tiny rod fastened to the circle so that you can pivot and rotate the circle. Then my proof argument would be to say--when the circle plate is parallel with base, it is a circle but rotate it slightly in the cylinder and determine what figure is produced. When rotated at the diameter, the extra area added to the upper portion equals the extra area added to bottom portion in cylinder, symmetrical area added, hence a ellipse. QED
Now for proof that the Conic section cannot be an ellipse but an oval, I again would apply the same proof argument by symmetry.
Proof:: Take a cone in general, and build a circle that rotates on a axis. Rotate the circle just a tiny bit for it is bound to get stuck or impeded by the upward slanted walls of the cone. Rotate as far as you possibly can. Now filling in the area upwards is far smaller than filling in the area downwards. Hence, only 1 axis of symmetry, not 2 axes of symmetry. Define Oval as having 1 axis of symmetry. Thus a oval, never an ellipse. QED
The above two proofs are Synthetic Geometry proofs, which means they need no numbers, just some concepts and axioms to make the proof work. A Synthetic geometry proof is where you need no numbers, no coordinate points, no arithmetic, but just using concepts and axioms. A Analytic Geometry proof is where numbers are involved, if only just coordinate points.
Array:: Analytic Geometry proof that Cylinder section= Ellipse//Conic section = Oval, never ellipse
Now I did 3 Experiments and 3 models of the problem, but it turns out that one model is superior over all the other models. One model is the best of all.
That model is where you construct a cone and a cylinder and then implant a circle inside the cone and cylinder attached to a handle so that you can rotate the circle inside. Mine uses a long nail that I poked holes into the side of a cylinder and another one inside a cone made from heavy wax paper of magazine covers. And I used a Mason or Kerr used lid and I attached them to the nail by drilling two holes into each lid and running a wire as fastener. All of this done so I can rotate or pivot the circle inside the cylinder and cone. You need a long nail, for if you make the models too small or too skinny, you lose clarity.
ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Cylinder Section is a Ellipse::

              E              __       .-'              `-.     .'                    `.   /                         \  ;                           ; | G          c              | H  ;                           ;   \                         /    `.                     .'       `-.    _____  .-'                 F
The above is a view of a ellipse with center c and is produced by the Sectioning of a Cylinder as long as the cut is not perpendicular to the base, and as long as the cut involves two points not larger than the height of the cylinder walls. What we want to prove is that the cut is always a ellipse, which is a plane figure of two axes of symmetry with a Major Axis and Minor Axis and center at c.
Side view of Cylinder EGFH above with entry point cut at E and exit point cut at F and where c denotes the central axis of the cylinder and where x denotes a circle at c parallel with the base-circle of cylinder
|                              | |                              | E |                              | |                              | |x            c              |x |                              | |                              | |                              | |F                            | |                              | |                              | |                              |

So, what is the proof that figure EGFH is always an ellipse in the cylinder section? The line segment GH is the diameter of the circle base of cylinder and the cylinder axis cuts this diameter in half such that Gc = cH. Now we only need to show that Fc = cE. This is done from the right triangles cxF and cxE, for we note that by Angle-Side-Angle these two right triangles are congruent and hence Fc = cE, our second axis of symmetry and thus figure EGFH is always an ellipse. QED

Array proof:: Analytic Geometry proof that Conic section= Oval// never ellipse
ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Conic Section is a Oval, never an ellipse::

         A       ,'"   "`.    /            \ C |     c       | D  \               /     ` . ___ .'          B
The above is a view of a figure formed from the cut of a conic with center c as the axis of the cone and is produced by the Sectioning of a Cone as long as the cut is not perpendicular to the base, and as long as the cut is not a hyperbola, parabola or circle (nor line). What we want to prove is that this cut is always a oval, never an ellipse. An oval is defined as a plane figure of just one axis of symmetry and possessing a center, c, with a Major Diameter as the axis of symmetry and a Minor Diameter. In our diagram above, the major diameter is AB and minor diameter is CD.
Alright, almost the same as with Cylinder section where we proved the center was half way between Major Axis and Minor Axis of cylinder, only in the case of the Conic, we find that the center is half way between CD the Minor Diameter, but the center is not halfway in between the Major Diameter, and all of that because of the reason the slanted walls of the cone cause the distance cA to be far smaller than the distance cB. In the diagram below we have the circle of x centered at c and parallel to base. The angle at cx is not 90 degrees as in cylinder. The angle of cAx is not the same as the angle cBx, as in the case of the cylinder, because the walls of the cone-for line segments- are slanted versus parallel in the cylinder. Triangles cAx and cBx are not congruent, and thus, the distance of cA is not equal to cB, leaving only one axis of symmetry AB, not CD.
   /  \A  x/  c  \x B/       \
Hence, every cut in the Cone, not a hyperbola, not a parabola, not a circle (not a line) is a Oval, never an ellipse.
QED
--Archimedes Plutonium

(10th Error)
Fixing the huge math error of gravity in Old Physics
By Archimedes Plutonium
Now let us shift to 2nd dimension geometry for a moment and we have this.
Circle  x^2 + y^2 = 1
Ellipse x^2/a^2 + y^2/b^2 = 1
Parabola x^2 - y = 1
Now, in Old Physics, they had gravity as F= Gm1*m2/d^2
They wanted gravity as either circle or ellipse, for they saw planets orbit in closed loops.
Now here is a huge huge flaw of Old Physics, something that even Newton by 1687, himself should have caught and corrected, and if not Newton, surely James Clerk Maxwell by 1860 should have caught the math error. Unfortunately neither caught the huge math error. And why did no-one in the 1900s catch the mistake? Why? I believe even if they caught the huge math error would have been helpless to try to correct for it overturns the whole entire program of Old Physics on their gravity. Now this is a lesson in itself, a sort of like morality lesson or Aesop's Fable lesson, that you cannot find a mistake or flaw of science, if that flaw is going to overturn the entire subject matter. What I mean is say Newton or Maxwell had known that gravity could not be F= Gm1*m2/d^2 but had to be F= kAA/d^2 + jBB/d^2. Suppose they had discovered that, then the problem is, they had nothing in physical reality to give meaning to that math correction. They knew not that Sun was revolving around a galaxy with planets in helical motion, nor did they have any idea that gravity was electromagnetism. So, even if, Newton or Maxwell, realized the math was wrong, they could not link physical reality to a correct math of F= kAA/d^2 + jBB/d^2.
It spoils not only Newton's gravity law but spoils the entire General Relativity.
What I am talking about, is the math of Newton's gravity and General Relativity is a math of just one term kAA/d^2 and that math is a open curve such as a parabola. The math needed for a closed curve for gravity is of at least two terms in the numerator such as (kAA + jBB)/d^2. So that gravity is sufficient to be a closed loop, a circle or a ellipse.
And this is shocking as to how such a math error escaped all physicists and mathematicians until 2016 when I solved it in this textbook of Atom Totality, 8th edition.
Gravity that is F= m(a1 + a2 + a3) and not F = ma. Gravity that is F = (kAA+jBB +hCC)/d^2. Gravity that is the same as EM to allow for Solid Body Rotation and V proportional to R, proportional to 1/R and to 1/R^2 and all in between.
-- Archimedes Plutonium
AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-06-25 13:32:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Re: 19/06/2018 #4 of Wikipedia incubator of Archimedes Plutonium < Wp‎ | aki Wp > aki > Archimedes Plutonium


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:019.me-in-red.gif

Other Theories[edit]
Some of these theories discussed in newspaper Argus Leader, 2008. [11]
1) Theory of Plate Tectonics, how continents move-- vibrations caused by Earth's core as electric motor
Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2014 17:09:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Geology based on Maxwell Equations textbook; 2nd edition, #1 Geophysics From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 00:09:20 +0000
Geology based on Maxwell Equations textbook; 2nd edition, #1 Geophysics
Geology based on Maxwell Equations textbook; 2nd edition, #1 Geophysics
This is rather a unique Geology textbook for instead of geology based solely on gravity as the "moving force", in this text, it is the Electromagnetic force of Maxwell Equations that governs all that happens in geology. All other geology textbooks of the past and prior to this one were based exclusively on gravity as the moving force of geology.
So, the geologist of the future is going to have to be fluent in electromagnetism and the Maxwell Equations in order to be a first rate geologist.
I do not get rid of gravity, but rather I see it for what it is worth-- 10^-40 the strength of EM force. In other words, whenever you witness gravity, you are witnessing just a tiny meager minor result of EM forces going on in the total surroundings.
Now the 1st edition of this textbook was started by me in the early 2000s by my noticing of pots and pans placed on top of the refrigerator and my constant having to scoot them because of the motor vibrations making the pots fall off. I summed those ideas into posts starting in 2006 as the 1st edition of this textbook with posts like this one:
From: "a_plutonium" <***@hotmail.com> Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.geo.geology,sci.physics.electromag Subject: Model for Continental Drift-- pots on top of refrigerator Re: Earth Core as dynamo yields 6 x 10^16 amperes and Lightning bolts yield 6 x 10^15 amperes Date: 2 Oct 2006 23:40:41 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 49

Model for Continental Drift-- pots on top of refrigerator Re: Earth Core as dynamo yields 6 x 10^16 amperes and Lightning bolts yield 6 x 10^15 amperes
Okay the best model is a refrigerator for Continental Drift. Mine is 15 amperage. The Earth as a motor is approx 6 x 10^16 amperes and with contributions from Lightning bolts is approx 7 x 10^16 The most drift cited is about 14 cm for a specific plate. With my
refrigerator top, the pot will fall off by the end of the year if I do
nothing. That is a drift migration of 17 centimeters. Are there more resemblances? Well the top resembles the Asthenosphere
to Lithosphere boundary. I forgotten what elements are different
between Asthenosphere and Lithosphere whether aluminum silicon is the
dominant elements in Lithosphere and whether iron is dominant in
Asthenosphere. Has any geologist made a detailed research as to what this boundary is?
Would it be well defined boundary so much so that it conducts
electricity so much more. And would it harbor a Standing Wave due to
the Core acting as a dynamo? So that the top of a refrigerator matches the Asthenosphere to
Lithosphere boundary. 
So can I plug in some numbers. My refrigerator top is 71 cm by 61 cm.
And what would be Earths surface area in terms of cm by cm. And my
refrigerator is 15 amperes and Earth's Core as motor is 6 x 10^16
amperes. And my pots as imitators of continents drift  17 centimeters
in a year due to the vibrations of motor. And the plates in plate
tectonics drift about 2 to 14 centimeters per year. So is my
refrigerator almost an identical model to the entire Earth as moving of
the continental plates. If it is a remarkably close match on all the numbers given the
different scales, then I would say that the refrigerator top must
resemble in physical characteristics to the Asthenosphere to
Lithosphere boundary. Not that this boundary is a iron plate, but that
the boundary is very prone to Vibration from the Earth's core as a
motor. And so we can study to see where the plates have the most motion such
as Australia, and find out if the boundary of the Asthenosphere to
Lithosphere underneath Australia is extra prone to Vibrational
Movement.
--- end of 2006 old post of mine ---
--       



2) Theory of First Life in the World at large-- capacitors

Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 17:35:06 -0800 (PST)
Subject: page50, 7-1, First life started as a capacitor, perhaps stars &
planets also start the same way/ Atom Totality textbook, 8th ed.
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 01:35:07 +0000
page50, 7-1, First life started as a capacitor, perhaps stars & planets also start the same way/ Atom Totality textbook, 8th ed.

page50, 7-1, First life started as a capacitor, perhaps stars & planets also start the same way/ Atom Totality textbook, 8th ed.
7-1, First life started as a capacitor, perhaps stars and planets also start in the same way
Alright, I cannot think of any math formula that is important in biology, except for Cell Theory, and the formula there, of course, is A= BCD in which the BCD is volume of the cell. So, one can think of the cell is to biology what the atom is to physics. And, the prime formula of physics is A = BCD from which we see the New Ohm's law comes from that, as V= iBL. It is nice to know that Biology also starts with the basic formula A = BCD and is volume and the surface of the cell is so, so, very important. So when we want to discover what the world's first life was, and where it comes from. It comes from volume with the surface being extremely important. And this describes in physics the Capacitor. The capacitor as a prime, fundamental unit, which would become the cell in Biology. But not only the cell, for you can think of Capacitor = Cell, but not only did the cell come from capacitors, but First Life comes from capacitors.
First Life theory, nice to start it out with a Experiment. If First Life was a capacitor, well, may as well see if carbon is a capacitor.
Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2017 19:41:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Reporting data on Capacitor strength for aluminum and carbon  graphite// 29mfarads, 19mfarads, 0 mfarads From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 02:41:51 +0000
> >Reporting data on Capacitor strength for aluminum and carbon graphite// 29mfarads, 19mfarads, 0 mfarads > Alright, I have my lab set up to handle microfarad readings for capacitors. I especially want farads for carbon, since First Life was a Capacitor of carbon. 
So I have carbon graphite paper. 
I have a telephone book to press the sheets of graphite and aluminum. 
For dielectrics I use paper, or graphite. 
I found 0 mfarads for graphite with paper dielectric 
I found 29mfarads for aluminum with paper dielectric 
I found 19mfarads for aluminum and using graphite paper as dielectric 
Now, can I say that graphite paper has capacitance, even though it read 0 ? 
I have some carbon in pencil form, so will test that next. 
What I like to have-- is a mfarad reading for carbon. 
If I make a theory that First Life was Capacitor, pretty tough to have a theory as such if carbon cannot be a capacitor. > >So, I got 0 mfarad for graph paper, 29mfarad for aluminum, and 19 mfarad for aluminum with dielectric as graph >paper.  > >  >On Sunday, April 16, 2017 at 11:46:22 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > I then pulled out two graphite rods 30cm long by .75cm diameter with a paper dielectric between the two rods. I registered 2mfarads  > >
>Alright, I got assistance to tightly squeeze the carbon graphite rods together and found a 8mfarads capacitance.  > Now let me compare that 8mfarads of carbon rods with paper dielectric with 29mfarads for two sheets aluminum with paper dielectric.  > >Now I do not know why graphite paper registers 0 capacitance. 
Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 14:02:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: iron and carbon Re: _Reporting data on Capacitor strength for  aluminum and carbon, 29mfarads and 8 mfarads From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 21:02:50 +0000
> >iron and carbon Re: _Reporting data on Capacitor strength for aluminum and carbon, 29mfarads and 8 mfarads > Alright so I have capacitance for Carbon, which is great as First Life was a capacitor. This first life could be either animal or plant, but likely to be plant so as to later tap into photosynthesis.  > The carbon is important as a skin for the living creature. For the plant it would be the skin also as a body trunk or coating for algae. For animals we call it skin, for plants call it coating.  > Now, there must be metal involved and I think it is iron.  > If memory is correct, iron is essential for both plant and animal.  > Now the dielectric, the insulator of First Life, I am going to assume is water, whether fresh water or salt water.  > > On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 4:54:44 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Holy smokes my potted plants peat-moss has 2.55 mfarads Re: 8th edition of Atom Totality soon to come > Since i have the multimeter out i looked to see if my plants in potted peat moss had capacitance. It has 2.55 microfarads. > Important for my First Life = capacitor theory > However peat moss comes from established life. > Now if i can get capacitance from nonlife dirt or nonlife soil we open up a huge vista of environment where life began. And it would imply first life began on land, not water. > >
On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 5:19:30 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > Alright, I went out today to measure capacitance in mud around the the house. Got 0 readings. > I remeasured my peatmoss in plastic container, water saturated with tomato plant growing. I read approx 10 microfarads. > So I wonder if carbon-- geologically can form into something similar to peat moss. I do not mean actual peat moss itself for that is a product of already living life. I want a carbon before any life appeared on Earth. I want a carbon with capacitance to be the First Life on Earth. > So, in mineralogy, does carbon ever form into a texture-like that of peat moss in rocks? > > >
Now I discovered in the year 2016 that First Life anywhere in the cosmos is either a battery or capacitor, which of the two is more fundamental remains to be seen, and proven by experiments. I have the hunch the capacitor is more fundamental for it is a Standing Current of monopoles, waiting to be released of its electricity from storage, for a capacitor is basically a storage of electricity. A battery is more complex but far more versatile and useful. I am confident the capacitor came first and evolved to build a battery in living organisms-- nerve cells for instance or appendage motion.
Just today I was hoping to get some materials of carbon to test their capacitance, and to test how likely they would be in a battery.
There is news in Scientific American:
First Life as Capacitor;; recent article in Scientific American, DEC2016 suggests a different mechanism for EATING
Of course, up until today, I was suggesting the mechanism for eating of First Life, as more important feature of life than replication, and the form of eating was magnetism, where foreign objects get stuck to the Living Capacitor and where it thus increases in size, especially when it attracts smaller capacitors to stick inside the larger one.
But the trouble so far with that mechanism, is that I cannot get my capacitors to show signs of magnetism in any appreciable amount of magnetism.
But perhaps I should look to see if iron can be formed into a capacitor rather than aluminum metal.
But tonight I was reading the recent Scientific American DEC2016 on page 34 talks about "Carbon-Breathing Batteries" subtitled "Electrochemical cells could suck carbon out of the atmosphere and turn it into electricity". Further along it states "The battery's anode is made of metallic aluminum, which is cheap, abundant, and easy to work with. The cathode consists of porous carbon, which the researchers inject with a mixture of gaseous oxygen and carbon dioxide. Aluminum, oxygen and carbon dioxide react inside the battery to yield electricity and aluminum oxalate." Sadat/Archer Cornell Univ.
So, if my mechanism of Magnetism as the EATING for First Life does not pan out, then I should immediately switch to the above mechanism that eating is a chemical reaction of a Capacitor-Battery.
Now, I wonder if iron works just as well as aluminum for the carbon sequester battery. Further, I wonder if phosphorus can be found in air molecules so that when the phosphorus gets into the battery, it is transformed into nucleotide molecules of AT and CG.
Now a Capacitor is not a battery and vice versa, so I have a huge challenge of many experiments ahead.
I need to know how First Life used carbon. Was it carbon in minerals, in rocks.
Or, perhaps it was carbon dioxide in gas near water. Funny, how First Life may have been bubbles, and the bubbles eating other bubbles and growing.
Now I do not know if I can equip my lab to do bubble experiments.
Was first-life CO2 bubble molecules?
On Tuesday, December 20, 2016 at 10:00:23 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: - show quoted text - >Now just last week, in the lab, I built a capacitor of aluminum and paper as dielectric and read up to 7 farads, >depending on how much pressure applied (how close together). Reinforcing the idea of a Standing Current vice a >Running Current. > But now I need to explore carbon as the conductor, instead of aluminum or other metals. > Now it could be that iron that is the conductor and started First Life with water as dielectric. We know iron is in all plants and animals. > But I like to toy with the idea that carbon was the first life conductor with water its dielectric. And in this toying around, I can envision the carbon making itself into a battery or capacitor. > But I am having extreme difficulty of finding sources of carbon as sheets or films, or iron as sheets or films to compose a battery or capacitor. > Now in modern times we can look at rocks and minerals for carbon content. Where is carbon found naturally in rocks and minerals, as graphite or graphene? Is it in volcano spew that we get concentrations of carbon deposits? > But the best idea seems to be gas molecules of carbon, the CO2 or the CO and then the water molecule as dielectric. > So envision bubbles of CO2 as a capacitor, or battery with bubbles inside of bubbles. Perhaps First Lifes first meal was a bubble eating a bubble. > And perhaps, not a long shot, but that Jupiter's red spot is a bubble sea of life formed from CO2 to evolve into red algae. > So, this idea of bubbles of CO2 forming a capacitor. Is it far fetched? How long can a bubble survive? And so the bubble of CO2 is easily formed to where the carbon is a sphere layer sandwiched in between by water, or oxygen. And when a CO2 bubble grows, it merely eats a smaller bubble, and the storing of a electric standing current in the bubble, gives it mobility along with giving it a magnetic attraction force to eat smaller bubbles. > Reproduction is not far behind, for I think nearly all of us saw the toy of a loop stuck into soap water produces a bevy of bubbles, as we can say that one bubble formed many offspring bubbles. > But this quest into bubbles hinges only on the fact that I am having a hard time of finding carbon in sheets in Nature. Now most readers do not comprehend a Earth without life, and so they are thinking, lumber is sheets of carbon, forgetting that life was not here when First Life was forming. So I think sheets of carbon are not found in Nature, unless life already exists. So I want sheets of carbon just as clays come in sheets. > So is there any clay formations that have carbon sheets? I do not know. And if there is none, I will come back to this bubble idea. > This bubble idea is extremely fascinating as a First Life mechanism, because it would say that life is intrinsic as a simple chemical reaction that goes along these lines:
n*CO2 + m*H2O ==> arrangements of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen forming a sac forming a capacitor or battery.
>It would be like saying, the formation of life is no more miraculous than is the formation of a rock or mix of molecules. >
Now the reason I titled this page-- "stars & planets may start out that way also, first being a capacitor" is that often in the past I spoke of a "dot seed" in Dirac's new radioactivity, in what I called RSNM, radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization, where planets and stars are first borne from a seed dot, and more particles shoot from the Nucleus of the Atom Totality grow from that seed-dot. Maybe, like First Life was a Capacitor, that the first beginnings of any star and any planet and any astro body is a "seed-dot-capacitor". Now whether that seed dot has to be say carbon, or why not just hydrogen, is an open question.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe         Archimedes Plutonium

3) Theory of Superdeterminism -- there is no Free Will
The John Bell Inequality which decided EPR-thought- experiment. Was Einstein correct or was Quantum Mechanics correct? 
What Bell found out after Aspect did the experiments, is that QM was 
correct and Einstein was wrong. BBEGR is wrong. But then the interpretation of Bell Inequality had begun. And what 
Bell concluded was that there was just one way in which to get rid of 
speed faster than light and the Bell experiment to hold true. Bell, 
found one way to solve the problem-- Superdeterminism. --- quoting what Archimedes Plutonium gave as a Wikipedia entry on 
Superdeterminism -- 
SUPERDETERMINISM 
 Physicist John S. Bell as 
referenced by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_S._Bell is noted 
mostly for his Bell Inequality Theorem which shows us that Quantum 
Physics is not just restricted to the microworld but that Quantum 
Physics stretches clear across the Cosmos. John Bell not only 
discovered the Inequality for which experimental physicists such as 
Alain Aspect could then test to see if Quantum Mechanics stretches 
across the Cosmos, but one of John Bell's contributions to science is 
rarely noted. And John Bell does not discuss this contribution in 
printed material but seems to have conveyed it on the BBC television 
in interviews. It is my opinion that the concept of Superdeterminism 
is John Bell's finest contribution to physics, and much more important 
than his Bell Inequality, even though it required his Inequality to 
come to his concept of Superdeterminism. As far as I know from the 
history of physics, the concept of Superdeterminism begins with John 
Bell because it requires John Bell's Inequality Theorem. And the 
concept of Superdeterminism is probably John Bell's greatest single 
contribution to science. 
Here is John Bell defining what Superdeterminism is: --- Bell stated on the BBC --- "There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and 
spooky action at a distance. But it (Superdeterminism) involves 
absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free 
will. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just 
inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our 
behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the "decision" by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. 
There is no need for a faster than light signal to tell particle A what 
measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, 
including particle A, already "knows" what that measurement, and its 
outcome, will be." --- end Bell quote --- --- further statement by John Bell to the BBC on Superdeterminism --- 
"The only alternative to quantum probabilities, superpositions of 
states, collapse of the wavefunction, and spooky action at a distance, 
is that everything is superdetermined. For me it is a dilemma. I think 
it is a deep dilemma, and the resolution of it will not be trivial; it will require a substantial change in the way we look at things." --- end Bell quote---
So, what the Bell Inequality did was further support the idea the Universe as a Whole is a Structure, a Cavity, or a Container and the only plausible structure is a big atom as the Universe. The Bell Inequality, like the blackbody CMBR support the Atom Totality theory and throws out the BBEGR. The only thing needed for Bell Inequality is the idea of a region of the Cosmos that contains the Nucleus of the Atom Totality, which controls the rest of the Cosmos. Physicists rarely mention the concept of superdeterminism and how it 
solves the problems of Quantum Mechanics. They do not mention it 
partly because it disrupts the Big Bang Theory, since it makes no 
sense that a Big Bang Universe can have superdeterminism. 
John Bell lived under the Big Bang Theory, but if he had lived into the 1990s there arose a rival theory to the Big Bang, called the Atom Totality. 
The problem John Bell had with Superdeterminism is that there is no 
mechanism in the Big-Bang theory to make Superdeterminism work. In the Atom-Totality theory, there is a mechanism in that the Nucleus of the 
Atom-Totality does all the ordering up of every event that takes place 
in the Cosmos. The Nucleus pulls the strings of every event that 
takes place in the entire Universe. The year that John S. Bell died, 
1990, is the year in which the Atom-Totality theory was born. One ramification of the Bell Inequality and superdeterminism is the explanation of how the brain and mind work, of course that is psychology and not pure physics, but let me amble down that road while here on superdeterminism.

4) Theory of the Mind/brain as Radio Receiver
In the Brain Locus theory, the mind is like a radio receiver which is 
only one atom or one molecule and the rest of the brain tissue goes to 
executing whatever the messages shot from the Atom Totality Nucleus 
into the brain. The photons and neutrinos carry these messages. So that all life is puppets whose every action, thought was shot from the Nucleus into our brain locus and we execute that message.  


5) Theory that Light Waves and DNA are the same
This is an ongoing theory for Plutonium, in that in the 1990s, he noted that the light-wave with its electric component and magnetic field component in a transverse wave was similar to the double helix of DNA where each strand with its A, C, T, G molecules were very similar to the electric component and the magnetic field component. Plutonium even dare to say that if you can stop a high energy gamma ray, stop it, it could decompose, on the spot, into a living whole organism of something like a one celled organism.
6) Stonethrowing theory-- the origin of Humanity
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo, sci.med, sci.bio.misc From: "a_plutonium" <***@hotmail.com> Date: 1 Mar 2007 12:05:46 -0800 Local: Thurs, Mar 1 2007 2:05 pm Subject: &1& New Book: IN THE COSMOS, ALL SPECIES THAT BECOME INTELLIGENT LIFE UNDERGO A PERIOD OF STONETHROWING TO BECOME INTELLIGENT
This book will tell us and show us how all species that ends up as an intelligent species underwent, or evolved from a behaviour of throwing rocks and stones. The pathway to intelligence all begins from the behaviour of picking up rocks and stones and throwing them.
This book will also show that Rockthrowing created bipedalism. In other words, rockthrowing or stonethrowing came first and then much later came bipedalism as a result of stonethrowing.
This book will delve into bone anatomy in detail and show us that the difference between humanity and the apes is basically the difference of the bones and muscles that accomodate throwing of rocks and stones and that the genome of humans compared to chimpanzee or orangutan or monkeys, that the major difference is that the A,C,G,T are aligned in humans so that their bones and muscles throw overarm with proficiency.
In other words the A,C,G,T pattern in humans compared to chimpanzees diverged about 8 to 10 million years ago where this prehuman was throwing rocks and stones. And then about 6 million years ago because of the THROWING created bipedalism in those throwing prehumans.
All planets that support life and have intelligent life on those planets, all of them arrived at a intelligent society because of Throwing period in their evolutionary history.
All living creatures that are intelligent life forms and can do science and art and music and technology and build cities and travel in space, all of them had to go through one and the same corridor or avenue of evolutionary history where their ancestors started to pick up rocks and stones and throw them.
Now how should I chapter this book? Perhaps I should chapter it this way. (1) Introduction and stating the theory of Stonethrowing, which I have done so above (2) the only major difference between primates and humanity is the bone and muscle genetics that allows humans to easily throw rocks and stones and whereas all the other primates lack this proficiency (3) show where the bone and muscle anatomy must have Throwing coming first in evolutionary development and Bipedalism as a natural secondary byproduct of Throwing (4) put together in a more reasonable pattern all the fossilized prehuman remains found (5) discuss the most likely historical account of prehumans for the past 15 million years

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe         Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-06-28 04:38:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Re: 19/06/2018 #5 of Wikipedia incubator of Archimedes Plutonium < Wp‎ | aki Wp > aki > Archimedes Plutonium


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:019.me-in-red.gif

7) Fusion Barrier Principle-- there will never be commercial fusion power stations.
Atom Totality textbook, 2017 quote Injection-Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 19:51:30 +0000
page47, 6-3/ Deriving Fusion Barrier Principle from AP-Maxwell Equations/ textbook, 8th ed.
page47, 6-3/ Deriving Fusion Barrier Principle from AP-Maxwell Equations/ textbook, 8th ed.

Deriving Fusion Barrier Principle from AP-Maxwell Equations
First, what is the Fusion Barrier Principle, FBP? And what is its history?
Its history starts 1997 with a discussion with Dr. Rick Spielman:: > > --- quoting a old post of mine of 1997 wherein I discovered what would be the Fusion-Barrier-Principle ---
From: ***@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.engr,sci.physics Subject: Fusion Power breakeven is theoretically impossible Date: 21 Aug 1997 16:04:28 GMT Organization: PLutonium College Lines: 159 Distribution: world Message-ID: (5thouc$prt$***@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
In article (***@worldnet.att.net>
Rick Spielman (***@worldnet.att.net> writes:
[many snips]
>Your are referring to two of physics' basic "assumptions" or postulates upon >which Thermodynamics (in the case of the Third Law) and the Special Theory >of Relativity (postulate of the constancy of the speed of light) are >founded. They are not basic truths, as such do not exist in physics. These >are assumptions that lead to a consistent and predictive view of the >universe.
  I do not want to stray off course with other theories. This one theory is big enough and basically it says that there will never be a fusion power plant and so confine myself to that theory.
>ICF has many classified aspects only because much of the detailed physics >knowledge in ICF would lead to the ability to fabricate fusion weapons. ICF >operates quite differently than typical fusion weapons.
  I suspect that was the reason no-one tried to engineer a Teller mini fusion bomb power plant. Not because it was the most logical next step to understand fusion power but because everyone involved were "scared" of the security aspects. That the fusion bomb building knowledge would get into unfriendly hands.
>Edward Teller suggested the concept of mini nukes generating electrical >power many years ago. The concept will easily work. The issue is not >scientific or engineering, it is environmental.
  I understand Dr. Teller is still alive? Encyc says he was born Jan 1908 and that would make him close to 90, but is his mind alert still now?   Did he detail how to construct a nuclear reactor, a whole power plant to harness mini fusion bombs? If so, I would like to see it.
  For I have the suspicion that it is theoretically impossible to harness fusion energy. That the amount of energy to achieve fusion is greater than any electricity produced by that fusion. I suspect that no mini fusion bomb power plant can achieve breakeven.
Definition of Breakeven from STARPOWER:     Breakeven: The point at which the fusion power generated in a plasma equals the amount of heating power that must be added to the plasma to sustain its temperature.
  I suspect that fusion engineering will never deliver a single watt of electricity more than what it costs to make it. I suspect that we are stuck with fission power as the *only greater than breakeven nuclear power source*. Unless matter to antimatter can be discovered in the future. And whether matter to antimatter can be harnessed.
>You are confusing physics/engineering and economic concerns. Tokamaks are >inherently low beta, low Q devices. This means that they must be very large >to generate energy. I don't wnat to get into circulating power fractions. >The construction cost would be huge. In addition, the use of DT fuel will >end up activating the hardware causing a real nuclear waste problem. This >overall drives the cost up. If we were willing to pay the price and damn >the environment we could have fusion today.
  I am not confusing economics with this issue. I am searching to see whether fusion is theoretically possible to harness. And all indications so far point to it being impossible.   The logical course of action here is to see if a nuclear power plant of minifusion bombs will deliver greater than a fission reactor power alone. If a fusion/fission reactor always delivers less than a pure fission reactor, then this implies that fusion power plants are all less than breakeven.
> > >   If Sonobubbles have fusion which is it linked to, that of tokamak > > design or muon type of fusion?
>More like ICF
  Thanks Rick. It is not necessary for Mother Nature to have all types of fusion categorized as either a Sun or tokamak or ICF. Each fusion could be different. It matters not to 2 hydrogen nuclei how they are brought together into union. But at that level one ought be able to envision and compute the parameters of successful fusion. In that way, one can get a theoretical picture of what all fusion reactions must have in common. There is a microscopic science that all fusion reactions must possess and yet the macroscopic science can have a plethora of ways of achieving that microscopic state. Muon fusion is different from tokamak, different from ICF, different from fusion bomb detonations. But there is a microscopic state in which you have parameters that determine fusion and where all these differences disappear. Unless there is probability involved. And I say there is probability involved.
> > >   Rick, has anyone seriously tried to engineer a series of the >smallest > > fusion bombs to make electricity? Perhaps a pressure chamber will make > > the bombs even smaller.
>Yes but not for electricity.
>Dr. Rick B. Spielman >Sandia National Laboratories
  It appears to me that the quest for fusion power has been a shoddy planned quest. Having controlled fission and making fission bombs and then fusion bombs, only the fusion bombs are a mix of fission+fusion.
  That the quest neglected to consider and ponder the possibility that a fusion power plant is or is not possible.
  That the quest for reasons unknown to me, but I suspect for the good reason of security from terrorists or military evils has not done the necessary next step in the search for fusion power. That of researching the viability of a mix of fission and fusion.
  Anyone, even a ten year old kid can come to commonsense reason that when you climb a high steps that it is rather foolish to be skipping intermediate steps.
  Before spending 40 billion dollars for the past 40-50 years on pure fusion power. It stands to reason that since we already have a fusion bomb in existence that we should investigate fully whether that fusion bomb can deliver 1 watt of electricity from greater than breakeven energy? I mean you do not have to be a wise Ben Franklin to know that if you assume that a minifusion bomb power plant is workable and never take the time to build one to make sure of the theory, that you may get into trouble.
  Perhaps now by 1997 we can research this minifusion power plant without the fear of security? Perhaps not?
  But it seems to me, by logical commonsense that if a mixture of fission+fusion cannot achieve breakeven that the pure 100% fusion as what the tokamaks and ICF are researching will also fail. If a mixture of fission-fusion fails, I see no hope in a pure fusion succeeding.
  Did Dr. Teller detail his minifusion bomb power plant and where in the literature can I find it?
  The world has already spent nigh 40 billion dollars and nigh 40-50 years on pure fusion, neglecting the intermediate logical step of researching a minifusion bomb reactor. Considering that , it would be irrational, and goofy to go ahead with ITER , tokamaks and ICF. Put ITER, tokamaks, and ICF on indefinite postponement until a minifusion bomb reactor is thoroughly checked-out. I believe once this is done a surprizing result will be found. That fusion power breakeven is impossible, both theoretically and in practice.
  So, do the logical commonsense thing next, build a minifusion bomb reactor and see if it gives breakeven. I am not a betting man, but my bet would be no. --- end quoting old 1997 post --- > >
The Fusion Barrier Principle was discovered by AP circa 1997 while TFTR and JET were trying to make hot fusion (like the fusion in the Sun) work by big tokamak machines heating up isotopes of hydrogen to fuse together. The nearest to breakeven was JET and was muon cold fusion experiments by Nagamine and both reached almost 2/3 breakeven. Since 1997, it is planned for a huge tokamak called ITER which is yet to be constructed. But hopefully they will read the FBP and realize they are throwing away a lot of time and money which could be better employed in Geothermal Energy by tapping into volcanoes and other geothermals.
The Fusion Barrier Principle says that the Faraday law is 1/3 less in energy content than the Ampere law. So if you want to commercialize fusion energy, you will never succeed for to control any machine that harnesses fusion, you spend more than 1/3 more in energy to control the machine than any energy output.
My first proof of the FBP in late 1990s was simple, ultra, ultra simple for it was to simply show that the Ampere Law was a cylinder in energy content while the Faraday law was a sphere in energy content and a volume comparison is that a sphere has only 2/3 the volume of a cylinder. The cylinder has 1/3 more of a volume than does the sphere. And that in fusion production, you always need the Faraday law to produce the energy, and then you need the Ampere law to contain that which you produced. Obviously you cannot reach break-even for you throw away 1/3 energy.
It is still a very viable proof today, for we can sense that in the Ampere law you start with a electric current as given. Whereas the Faraday law, you start with a bar magnet and wire coil and have to do work to produce electric current, so you can easily see that Ampere has a larger energy content than does Faraday.
In 1997, I was experimentally proving FBP, and by doing so, I realized the EM theory can be reduced to a far more simple form, that the laws, the 4 dynamic laws can be reduced to geometrical laws.
The essence of EM theory is "going around in a circle".
The law of magnetism-- must have two poles-- a dipole in essence creates a circle. The law of electricity-- can be monopole-- creates linear momentum and not necessarily have to go around in a circle.
Faraday's law becomes a magnet and loops of wire creates a sphere.
Ampere's law becomes a loop of wire for current to pass, creates a cylinder.
FBP says that EM theory governs fusion energy and that one of the laws-- Faraday law creates energy while the other law -- Ampere law controls the machine in order to create the energy. So the amount of energy coming out of the machine is given by Faraday law and the amount of energy put into the machine to keep it together and working properly is Ampere Law. Faraday Law gives only 2/3 energy at maximum, while Ampere law requires 1 in energy to run. So no machine is ever going to go beyond a output of more than 2/3 and every machine of fusion is going to lose or waste 1/3 energy to produce 2/3 energy. FBP means fusion will never reach break-even because the energy to control the machine exceeds the output by at least 1/3.
Proof of the FBP
First think of a sphere enclosed or nested inside a cylinder and the volume of the sphere is 2/3 that of the cylinder. The dynamic laws are Faraday/Lenz law and the Ampere/Maxwell law. The energy content of the Faraday/Lenz law is no more than 2/3 the energy content of the Ampere/Maxwell law. In other words, Ampere/Maxwell law has 1/3 more energy content than the Faraday/Lenz law. The Coulomb force comes out of the Faraday/Lenz law which is the force that is overcome in fusion. Yet the forces needed to control a fusion machine are the Ampere/Maxwell law. So to control fusion, takes a machine that costs 1/3 more in energy than that which is produced by fusion. So commercial fusion can only ever be 2/3 breakeven.
In the latest SCIENCE magazine of 24 June2016, on page 1498, titled "Fusion laser may never ignite" is a rare example of where scientists and magazine editors use logic in their reasoning and actions. What this article is about, is to have physicists first think about if fusion can break-even, if ever, rather than a mindless chase of ever larger and costly machines. So these scientists are just now starting to look if fusion has a barrier principle-- of which I discovered in the late 1990s.
What I discovered as the Fusion Barrier Principle is that the Faraday/Lenz law is deficient by1/3 less energy than the Ampere/Maxwell law. The one law produces the fusion events while the other controls the machine. So, commercial fusion will never exceed 2/3 break even.
Now I hope these scientists, when they come to realize the truth of FBP, that they have the honesty and decency to give AP credit for work done long time ago. I do not do science for others to steal my work. Many scientists have the habit of stealing without giving proper credit.
Now in 2016, I found another proof of FBP where I find the numbers 2/3 and 1/3 in the Maxwell theory. It is called Eddy Currents Experiment, where you have a copper tube and you drop a magnet slug down the tube and it is slow to fall down because of Lenz law in Faraday law. When we drop a plain steel slug, not magnetized we have normal speed of gravity. When we drop the magnet slug it takes 3 times as long to fall. Here again, one of these two laws Faraday or Ampere is 1/3 larger in energy content and it is this larger energy law that controls the fusion machine.
In my Experiments, called eddy currents of a falling magnet in a copper tube versus a plastic tube, the copper has a Lenz law resistance of 1/3. I have to make the copper tube be 3 times longer to match the plastic tube where the LED comes on. This is important for the Fusion Barrier Principle, in that all machines built to control fusion, allow breakeven to only reach 2/3 breakeven.
Now when people read about the Fusion Barrier Principle, the scientists especially, are too dumb to realize and understand this principle. Like I said so many times before, that for a scientist to have a gram of logic, is a rare commodity. For they immediately think that because the Sun is a fusion machine and that humanity built fusion bombs, that it is a simple matter of building a fusion tokamak, given some smart engineering. Without a logical mind, you see, they never understand that a fusion bomb is 0% trying to control fusion, but the unleashing of just Faraday's law, no Ampere's law in controlling Faraday. Without a logical mind, dolts never understand what a principle of FBP means.
Now comes year 2017 and where I caused a massive upheaval of all sciences, for the Real Electron is not that small particle of .5 MeV but is the muon that is the real electron at 105 MeV and the Real Proton is 840 MeV. What that small .5 MeV particle is, is a magnetic monopole and is the cause of electricity, the electric current. It is the flow of monopoles that is electricity, and so, a whole new review of Fusion energy is in tow.
No longer can you write or speak of the electron without saying electron = muon.
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-06-29 21:05:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Re: 19/06/2018 #6 of Wikipedia incubator of Archimedes Plutonium < Wp‎ | aki Wp > aki > Archimedes Plutonium


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:019.me-in-red.gif

8) True theory of Superconductivity
Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 12:43:27 -0800 (PST)
Subject: page48, 6-4 advances in the theory of superconductivity; AP/Maxwell
theory/ textbook, 8th ed.
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 20:43:28 +0000
page48, 6-4 advances in the theory of superconductivity; AP/Maxwell theory/ textbook, 8th ed.
page48, 6-4 advances in the theory of superconductivity; AP/Maxwell theory/ textbook, 8th ed.
Bismuth superconducts at 5/10000 K supporting evidence that Superconductivity is Capacitor conductivity
Last December I wrote the below, not knowing that only a few days away in the 24December2016 issue of SCIENCE NEWS would be a report on bismuth superconducting, when Bismuth is not supposed to superconduct under the old clownish Bardeen Cooper Schrieffer theory of superconductivity-- electrons pairing up.
But under the Capacitor with Standing Electric Current theory, all elements superconduct, by simply recognizing that superconductivity is a material made into a capacitor. Call it electricity by Capacitor flow.
And, under the revelation that the real-electron is the muon, and that the .5MeV particle is the magnepole, the monopole of magnetism, the idea of a capacitor current is all the more made clear.

Advances in the theory of superconductivity; AP/Maxwell theory
I cannot tell you how many times in the past, from 1995 onwards, that I had a theory of how superconductivity actually works. Some memorable speculations was that it was neutrinos as carriers of electricity instead of photons, because neutrinos go through matter with ease and no interference, thus, no resistance. Then I thought the Malus law was superconductivity.
But recently, I realized capacitors were superconductors. I realized there are two types of electricity current. The running current as in our homes and then the Standing Current such as a capacitor stores a standing current, not a running current. And that the reason superconductors other than ordinary capacitors needed cold temperatures, is because coldness creates a dielectric sandwiched between sheets of conductors. So the world already has room-temperature-and-above, superconductors--they are capacitors.
I hope this is the final theory on how superconductivity works.
Now we are beginning to see experimental proof of the above assertions.
Bismuth is never supposed to be superconducting due to the Bardeen silly theory and the authors of SCIENCE NEWS, 24DEC2016, page 14 "At low temps, bismuth superconducts, despite few free electrons, element loses electrical resistance," by Emily Conover
"Consequently, the prevailing theory of superconductivity doesn't apply. New ideas-- either a different theory or a tweak to the standard one-- are needed to explain busmuth's superconductivity, says , , Marvin Cohen, UC Berkeley. It might lead us to a better theory of superconductivity with more details."
Well, I am happy to inform the new theory is already here-- Capacitors are superconductors in that they hold a Standing Electric Current with no resistance. It explains why bismuth can superconduct.
Obviously capacitors exist at room temperatures and higher, so there is no need to look for high temperature superconductors-- they already exist.
DC current only Re: experiments to tell if capacitor electricity vice wire electricity
Truly wonderous that no physicist dared to assimilate capacitor with DC to come up with current. Probably because current physics has so much fakery-- Higgs, gravity waves, black holes, Doppler light shift, Bardeen superconductivity--so much phony physics-- so much distraction no-one has time for real physics.  
On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 12:05:30 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: >why Old Physics was so feeble Re: DC current only Re: experiments to tell if capacitor electricity >vice wire electricity > >So, in Old Physics they had Conductors like copper wire and they had capacitors that released a >electric current. So did not a single one of them ever have the idea that a wire and capacitor can >be the same conductor? > >Of course, it means that you have to have two types of current-- Running current in wire and >Standing current in capacitor. >
But under the Capacitor with Standing Electric Current theory, all elements superconduct, by simply recognizing that superconductivity is a material made into a capacitor.
Today I was reading the same report from SCIENCE, 6 January, 2017, page 52 titled Evidence for bulk superconductivity in pure bismuth single crystals at ambient pressure.
The authors say that the Bardeen Cooper Schrieffer model fails because bismuth is not supposed to superconduct in that model.
So, what my theory is, is that superconductivity is Capacitor creation of a material, and that superconductivity is the ordering of the molecular structure into a parallel plate capacitor, with a dielectric sandwiched in between the plates. This would suggest all materials would be superconductivity provided they formed into a capacitor.
Suggests that superconductivity is DC only, never AC Suggests doping helps because it keeps the plates apart as a dielectric substance. Suggests that silver, gold extremely good regular conductors have the hardest time of being a superconductor, since it is extremely difficult to turn gold and silver into parallel plates with dielectric.
>On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 1:16:03 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: >Sr2RuO4 Re: Superconductivity is Capacitor conductivity + Standing Electric Current > >The news keeps coming in and coming in, that the Bardeen Cooper Schrieffer model is phony >baloney, their pairing of electrons fails to explain bismuth superconductivity and now Sr2RuO4. > >In SCIENCE, 13 January 2017 page 148 describes Superconductivity in Sr2RuO4 under a >uniaxial pressure by A. Steppke et al. > >By applying pressure, the superconduction is enhanced by a factor of 2.3 higher. > >So, the AP theory of superconductivity is that superconduction is merely Capacitor Conduction, where a material is transformed into being a capacitor. Apparently Sr2RuO4 is easily turned into a capacitor, and when we apply pressure upon a capacitor-- two sheets of aluminum with dielectric in between and applying pressure via a phone book pressing on the sheets delivers greater capacitance, from 3 microfarads to 6 microfarads in one experiment of mine. > >Pressure in the Bardeen model is nonsensical. >
>On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 6:51:10 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > >Sr2RuO4 Re: Superconductivity is Capacitor conductivity + Standing Electric Current > >So here we link the simple observation of pressure on a capacitor increases capacitance with >pressure on superconductor increases conductivity.

>On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 4:51:23 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: >Re: Sr2RuO4 Re: Superconductivity is Capacitor conductivity + Standing Electric Current
Nice to see truth and reality alarms written in science news journals where they keep saying Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer superconductivity model is utterly phony and cannot explain these results.
Nice to see scientists admit the truth.
But it would also be nice to see them say-- The Capacitor model explains superconductivity far better than anything by Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer.  
>On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 3:03:55 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > >Why superconductivity is never AC, because it is Capacitor flow, the coldness turns the material >into a capacitor.

>On Saturday, February 11, 2017 at 3:04:42 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: >Has anyone ever experimented with taking a Capacitor, cooling it, and see if the electricity is >improved?
 Alright, some exciting more news to the story of superconductivity. That I discovered the Real Electron is the muon at 105 MeV and the particle we had always thought was the electron of .5 MeV was not an electron but was a photon with a charge energy of .5MeV, called a magnepole, or monopole. Each magnet has two poles, and each pole is a charged monopole of .5MeV.
This changes our ideas of capacitors, and superconductivity to a large degree. And so, a review is in order, for the Standing Current I spoke of, would be this .5 MeV Monopoles being a standing current.

Theory that Sun and Starpower are not 100% fusion but only 1/3 fusion and the majority is Faraday Law as 2/3 of the power[edit]
        1        56page
Sun and Stars shine, or power is got mostly from Faraday Law, of muon thrusting through proton in atoms generates monopoles turned into infrared or visible//True Chemistry
Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 11:22:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: #56page How stars like our Sun really shine and where they get their
energy-- not fusion but Faraday law// tossing out the fakery Bohr atom &
Bethe solar fusion// TRUE CHEMISTRY 2018
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 18:22:50 +0000

How stars like our Sun really shine and where they get their energy-- not fusion but Faraday law// tossing out the fakery Bohr atom & Bethe solar fusion// TRUE CHEMISTRY 2018
I mounted this challenge of truth and logic of what makes stars shine with energy, before, but only now do I seem able to point to the details.
What I am doing is tossing out the complete Bohr model of the atom, especially the part where it says:
--- quoting Mortimer CHEMISTRY: A Conceptual Approach, 4th ed, 1979, page 33 ---
4. When an electron falls back to a lower level, it emits a definite amount of energy. The energy difference between the high energy state and the low energy state is emitted in the form of a quantum of light. The light quantum has a characteristic frequency (and wave-length) and produces a characteristic spectral line In spectral studies, many atoms are absorbing energy at the same time that many others are emitting it. Each spectral line corresponds to a different electron transition.
--- end quoting Mortimer ---
I am ready to tackle this problem. Perhaps one of my finest of all corrections in physics, other than Atom Totality, for what I am about to do is tell science how the Sun really works.
Until now, no-one was able to tell how the sun really works. And what we had was Bethe fusion idea. Which is utterly silly for a logical mind. The idea that the Sun shines energy because its atoms are fusing and thus releasing energy in the fusion process is 180 degrees counter opposite the idea that the Sun and stars are so hot that they ionize their atoms. Heat, high temperature plasma physics is counter opposite to fusion.
Analogy: think of water and its molecules. If you apply heat, you send the water molecules apart, not fusing them together, but separating them.
Ionization is making a substance to be plasma physics, not the physics of fusion.
So, how does the Sun and all stars really shine with energy. What is the energy source of our Sun and all stars?
Stars shine because its atoms are doing Faraday Law of thrusting bar magnets of its muons inside the proton as a coil, yielding magnetic monopoles. Magnetic Monopoles are electricity. And in normal cool environment like Earth or planets, these monopoles inside atoms produced by the muon thrusting through protons are stored inside neutrons as capacitors. But in a star like our Sun, the environment is a hot plasma environment and the storage of the newly created monopole is not stored at all but is emitted as spectral line energy.
Stars shine with energy, not by fusion of its atoms.
Stars shine with energy, due to the Faraday Law that its atoms are converting Space in which their muons thrust through the space of a proton coil and produce monopoles, which are radiated into Space exterior of the star.
Do not get me wrong, there is a tiny tiny amount of fusion going on in stars, but the predominant outpouring of energy from stars is that of Faraday Law producing monopoles and because the environment of stars is so extremely hot, and ionizing environment, that the atoms of stars just cannot storage their monopole production and thus, radiate that energy to make stars shine.
PROOF: If the Sun were shining due to fusion, then the energy emitted would be the Bohr electron falling back to a lower energy level-- Contradiction-- for the atoms are already ionized due to high temperatures, so the atoms cannot emit energy from electrons falling into lower energy level.
So, that leaves just one plausible logical explanation. The spectral lines are created from Faraday Law producing monopoles inside of atoms of stars, and instead of storing the monopoles in neutrons, they are quickly radiated outward from the star into space.
AP

Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 12:30:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: 2#56page How stars like our Sun really shine and where they get
their  energy-- not fusion but Faraday law// tossing out the fakery Bohr atom
&  Bethe solar fusion// TRUE CHEMISTRY 2018
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 19:30:05 +0000
There is no doubt that the Sun is plasma physics, no doubt at all.
So, how can you have electrons falling back into a lower orbital and emit radiation of spectral lines. Fusion cannot explain that for fusion is nuclear based, not orbital based.
So the answer as to how the Sun shines, is not electrons falling back, but rather, the electrons are muons which do not ionize, and remain with their attendant proton in each atom, doing the Faraday Law, by creating new Magnetic Monopoles. And since the Sun is a plasma physics it does not allow these newly created monopoles to aggregate inside of neutrons but rather, radiate those monopoles as photon light and the star shines.
AP
Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 13:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: percent of hydrogen in stars is increasing not decreasing//How stars
like our Sun really shine and where they get their  energy-- not fusion but
Faraday law// tossing out the fakery Bohr atom &  Bethe solar fusion
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 20:09:26 +0000
percent of hydrogen in stars is increasing not decreasing//How stars like our Sun really shine and where they get their energy-- not fusion but Faraday law// tossing out the fakery Bohr atom & Bethe solar fusion
No-one in the 20th century had a Logical mind in science. A logical mind to say, wait a minute-- the Sun is about 5 billion years old and is 75% hydrogen 22% helium and because fusion is the source of Sun's shining, how can you have 75% hydrogen over 5 billion years. Should it not be 50% hydrogen after 5 billion years.
And rather than the hydrogen getting smaller in quantity, we see Sun and Stars becoming more hydrogen percentage.
If you base stars shining on fusion, then the percent of hydrogen should decrease in the Cosmos, not increase.
AP
Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 18:35:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: big clue that starpower was not fusion-- few gamma rays//How stars
like our Sun really shine and where they get their  energy-- not fusion but
Faraday law
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2018 01:35:32 +0000
big clue that starpower was not fusion-- few gamma rays//How stars like our Sun really shine and where they get their energy-- not fusion but Faraday law
On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 6:34:09 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: > The Sun and stars have too much hydrogen to be the fuel of starpower and besides, fusion is just not reliable. Now if you depended on Faraday law inside every atom— there, that is steady reliable energy— the stuff of starpower. > >
And another big big clue that warned us, starpower and the power of our Sun is not fusion energy, but is the Faraday law going on inside every atom that exists, where the muon of the atom is thrusting bar magnet and proton is coil creating magnetic monopoles out of turning Space into energy. There, that is a reliable source of energy to power our Sun and stars.
But a big big clue was missed in the 20th century, in that fusion gives off much gamma rays. And our Sun gives off little and few gamma rays. The Sun and stars are predominantly infrared 50%, visible 40% and ultraviolet 10%, absent is gamma rays, yet gamma rays are the predominant signature of fusion. In the 20th century, most scientists were more worried about their Danish roll and coffee getting cold than worried about "doing good science".
AP
On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 11:05:27 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
big clue that starpower was not fusion-- few gamma rays//How stars like our Sun really shine and where they get their energy-- not fusion but Faraday law
Here is one anomaly of the Sun’s gamma rays
—- quoting Scientific American, March 2018 —- To their surprise, the researchers found the most intense gamma rays appear strangely synced with the quietest part of the solar cycle. During the last solar minimum, from 2008 to 2009, Fermi detected eight high-energy gamma rays (each with energies greater than 100 giga–electron volts, or GeV) emitted by the sun. But over the next eight years, as solar activity built to a peak and then regressed back toward quiescence, the sun emitted no high-energy gamma rays at all. The chances of that occurring at random, Linden says, are extremely low. Most likely the gamma rays are triggered by some aspect of the sun’s activity cycle, but the details remain unclear.
Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 22:01:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 2/3 missing Solar neutrinos solved— 2/3 no fusion// stars shine mostly via Faraday law not fusion From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2018 05:01:13 +0000

2/3 missing Solar neutrinos solved— 2/3 no fusion// stars shine mostly via Faraday law not fusion

The best solution of all for missing 2/3 solar neutrinos— there is only 1/3 fusion going on— rest is Faraday law creating energy of starpower.
—- quoting Wikipedia—-
The flux of neutrinos at Earth is several ten billion per square centimetre per second, mostly from the Sun's core. They are nevertheless hard to detect, because they interact very weakly with matter, traversing the whole Earth as light does thin air. Of the three types (flavors) of neutrinos known in the Standard Model of particle physics, the Sun produces only electron neutrinos. When neutrino detectors became sensitive enough to measure the flow of electron neutrinos from the Sun, the number detected was much lower than predicted. In various experiments, the number deficit was between one half and two thirds.

Newsgroups: sci.physics Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2018 11:22:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: explaining the missing neutrinos from the Sun//Sun and Stars shine,
their power is mostly Faraday law, not fusion
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2018 18:22:44 +0000

explaining the missing neutrinos from the Sun//Sun and Stars shine, their power is mostly Faraday law, not fusion
On Saturday, June 16, 2018 at 12:27:58 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: (snipped) > > 2/3 missing Solar neutrinos solved— 2/3 no fusion// stars shine mostly via Faraday law not fusion > > > The best solution of all for missing 2/3 solar neutrinos— there is only 1/3 fusion going on— rest is Faraday law creating energy of starpower. > > —- quoting Wikipedia—- > > The flux of neutrinos at Earth is several ten billion per square centimetre per second, mostly from the Sun's core. They are nevertheless hard to detect, because they interact very weakly with matter, traversing the whole Earth as light does thin air. Of the three types (flavors) of neutrinos known in the Standard Model of particle physics, the Sun produces only electron neutrinos. When neutrino detectors became sensitive enough to measure the flow of electron neutrinos from the Sun, the number detected was much lower than predicted. In various experiments, the number deficit was between one half and two thirds.
So, what I am saying here  is that the theory proposed by Bethe and others that fusion is what stars power themselves with in radiating heat and energy, is wrong. For the main power of stars is that they have many atoms of a muon with a attendant proton-- mostly hydrogen 75% and helium 22%. The muon of all atoms, rarely leaves its attendant proton and does a Faraday law demonstration of muon thrusting as bar magnet through its attendant proton coil. The result is a creation of a magnetic monopole which in a less hostile environment than the star would slowly build a neutron inside that atom, but in a star, that monopole is quickly radiated out as infrared or visible photons.
This means, the predominant majority of power of our Sun and stars, is Faraday law, not fusion. And although there is some fusion going on in stars, but is only 1/3 of the amount that was previously thought. This is the reason there is a missing neutrino count for the Sun. Not because of what bozos thought, that neutrinos flip into different states and have tiny rest mass. No, that is sheer phony baloney nonsense. The missing neutrinos of the Sun is because fusion events are so rare. At least 2/3 of all the Sun and stars energy is derived from Faraday's law, converting space into magnetic monopoles, mostly of wavelength infrared and visible. This also explains why the Corona region of the Sun, just above the surface of the Sun at 6,000 K while corona is 2 million K and core is 15 million K, is because magnetic monopoles are aggregated above the surface. In electricity, magnetism, surface and above is where monopoles aggregate.
Fusion plays only a small subordinate role in star power, while Faraday Law is the main source. And that would lead to a missing neutrino count, should anyone be daft enough to think the Sun and star power is mostly all fusion.
AP [12]
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-07-02 20:31:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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


Alright, this textbook is written as a Memoir, in that I am writing it as a notebook, my daily activity, an historical accounting, along with a textbook of facts of True Chemistry. Both a textbook on True Chemistry and a historical accounting, both combined into one. So you will see many dates of posts throughout this Memoir.

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


Experimental Proofs and Definitions

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 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.

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 -
On Monday, March 19, 2018 at 1:00:31 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 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 -
On Monday, March 19, 2018 at 2:44:48 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Monday, March 19, 2018 at 1:00:31 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > 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
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-07-06 05:05:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
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

On Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 3:36:00 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 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 ---


More Experimental Proofs

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

On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 12:48:31 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 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



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
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-07-07 22:54:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
aaaaaaaaaaa
TRUE CHEMISTRY-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV , by Archimedes Plutonium

History Preface::


A history Preface to this textbook Re: TRUE CHEMISTRY, textbook, 2018


Alright, this textbook is written as a Memoir, in that I am writing it as a notebook, my daily activity, an historical accounting, along with a textbook of facts of True Chemistry. Both a textbook on True Chemistry and a historical accounting, both combined into one. So you will see many dates of posts throughout this Memoir.

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


Experimental Proofs and Definitions

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 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.

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 -
On Monday, March 19, 2018 at 1:00:31 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 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 -
On Monday, March 19, 2018 at 2:44:48 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Monday, March 19, 2018 at 1:00:31 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > 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
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-07-10 05:48:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb


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

On Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 3:36:00 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 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 ---


More Experimental Proofs

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

On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 12:48:31 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 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



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

ccccccccccccccccccc
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-07-11 18:19:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
ccccccccccccccccccc

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.

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 every time a atom is unbalanced in charge, is due to a buildup of monopoles on that atom.


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?
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-07-14 19:40:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
ddddddddddddddddd

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 ()



Famous Experimental Proof done in Denmark, 2014

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 ---
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-07-17 04:18:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
eeeeeeeeeeeeeee

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

On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 6:24:34 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:
> 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
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-07-18 23:18:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

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


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.

On Wednesday, October 11, 1995 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-5, Todd Pedlar wrote:
> ***@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) wrote:
> >In article <45b9o9$***@news.acns.nwu.edu>
> >Todd Pedlar <***@numep1.phys.nwu.edu> writes:
> >
> >> 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
> the nucleon radius of ~1 fm, it would have a momentum uncertainty of:
>
> 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
> >> there is no doubt about it.  Your theory is dead.
> >
> >          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
> >is very limited or dead.
>
> 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  (snip)

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


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

On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 12:48:26 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> >
> > 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.



> > 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.


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
2018-07-21 18:42:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
gggggggggggggggggg

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

On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 3:27:44 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 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


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)

In article <4j7iqf$***@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
***@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> 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

In article <447haf$***@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
***@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> 
>   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
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-07-23 21:49:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh



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.


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.


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.
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-07-26 20:00:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
gggggggggggggggggg

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

On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 3:27:44 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 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


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)

In article <4j7iqf$***@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
***@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> 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

In article <447haf$***@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
***@dartmouth.edu (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:
> 
>   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
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-07-29 21:45:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh



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.
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-08-01 15:12:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

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.
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-08-04 03:59:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj



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.





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
Message-ID: (43l6ht$***@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

In article (43i9iu$***@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>
***@ix.netcom.com (Dirk Horst ) writes:

> 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.
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-08-06 04:05:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk


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


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.

On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 9:29:10 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 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

> 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.

> 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
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-08-08 18:07:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL



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

On Friday, March 9, 2018 at 1:35:03 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 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.”

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
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-08-14 00:30:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
mmmmmmmmmmmmm




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

On Saturday, March 10, 2018 at 12:51:33 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 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


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
into energy/matter via Faraday Law
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
into energy/matter via Faraday Law
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
into energy/matter via Faraday Law
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
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-08-14 05:58:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Physicists don't have to be mechanical AP
1 post by 1 author



***@gmail.com
Aug 13 (4 hours ago)


physicists don't have to be mechanical by educating in everything
thought in their generations. Murray Gell Mann has something more
important to do as Einstein was right about QM philosophy.
OCR isn't a science. It was a philosophy.

There is a new solution in the Two Slit Experiment.
Light is collapsing the matter wave AP...

Becoming more objective should be the standard
not how much you can memorize and can't verify
anyway... Science thinks it is doing more where
it is doing less AP. Your standard is the lesser.


Mitchell Raemsch

AP writes:: Well, what I am pointing out in physics, using Lederman, Gell-Mann, Witten, Weinberg, Higgs, Glashow, is that you can make a contribution to physics, even though you have little to no logical mind to even interpret what is going on. Lederman made a contribution to experimental physics and is a lasting contribution-- but the other 5 did not even do that much, but rather, foisted phony physics onto the true fabric of physics.

Having a logical mind is a very very rare commodity in science, yet, it is the most vital tool that a scientist has to use. What good is it in physics if you do physics, but miss the boat on what is happening. This is why Dirac was good in physics-- he had logical abilities, a logic to sense where the truth be. But of all the physicists of the 20th century, only about 2 or 3 had any logic at all.

So you go through life with a career in physics, you even win a Nobel prize, but you have not a microgram of a logical mind to tell you, "stop, stop a moment-- can the electron really be .5MeV and proton 938MeV and still have a Covalent bonding in Chemistry" hell no, because no Angular Momentum can support those numbers. So, even the wise Dirac missed that, but at least he was on a trail of a magnetic monopole which is that .5MeV particle.

But then these amateurs of physics like Gell-Mann, Witten, Weinberg, Higgs, Glashow, they are so out in left field of physics, that they are clowns of physics.

The key to science, any science, every science-- logic logic logic, if you do not have it, you will not flourish in science.

And that means you Mitch a robot program. Robot programs in science are so pathetic, they could not even capture the proof that the ellipse was never a conic but a cylinder section.

Mitch, go and have your manhandlers program you to look into the ellipse, if it can ever be gotten out of a cone, and do the same for a cylinder cut of ellipse.

So if robots AI cannot even discover mistakes in science, why would anyone think AI can discover totally new science. (back to my theory that the Mind is a radio receiver to the Nucleus of the Atom Totality)

AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-08-17 16:12:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
page1

TRUE CHEMISTRY-- 2018 textbook of Experiment-- Real Electron = 105MeV, Real Proton = 840MeV, Dirac's magnetic monopole = .5MeV , by Archimedes Plutonium

History Preface::


A history Preface to this textbook Re: TRUE CHEMISTRY, textbook, 2018


Alright, this textbook is written as a Memoir, in that I am writing it as a notebook, my daily activity, an historical accounting, along with a textbook of facts of True Chemistry. Both a textbook on True Chemistry and a historical accounting, both combined into one. So you will see many dates of posts throughout this Memoir.

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
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-08-17 18:10:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
page2

Experimental Proofs and Definitions

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 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.

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 -
On Monday, March 19, 2018 at 1:00:31 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 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 -
On Monday, March 19, 2018 at 2:44:48 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Monday, March 19, 2018 at 1:00:31 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > 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
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-08-19 21:22:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
page3

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

On Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 3:36:00 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 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 ---
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-08-24 00:44:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
page4

More Experimental Proofs

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

On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 12:48:31 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 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

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
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-08-27 02:54:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
page5

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.


AP
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-08-30 20:27:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
page6

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.
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-09-04 22:57:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
page7

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 every time a atom is unbalanced in charge, is due to a buildup of monopoles on that atom.


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?
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-09-07 22:24:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
page8

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 ()
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-09-10 07:26:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
page9


Famous Experimental Proof done in Denmark, 2014

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 ---
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-09-14 02:13:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
page10

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

On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 6:24:34 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.physics:
> 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
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-09-17 22:08:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
page11

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

On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 12:35:32 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 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
m***@gmail.com
2018-09-17 22:19:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 3:08:42 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> page11
>
> 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
>
> On Wednesday, March 7, 2018 at 12:35:32 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > 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

Our physics is a junk pile that doesn't need to be learned.
It is the absolute opposite. It doesn't qualify. But the new
is objective instead. That is the only empowering knowledge.
Who needs to take a test? Some people don't need an education
to do better than everyone else producing new objective science.

Mitchell Raemsch
Odd Bodkin
2018-09-17 23:37:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Our physics is a junk pile that doesn't need to be learned.
> It is the absolute opposite. It doesn't qualify. But the new
> is objective instead. That is the only empowering knowledge.
> Who needs to take a test? Some people don't need an education
> to do better than everyone else producing new objective science.
>
> Mitchell Raemsch
>

Mitch, that’s just crazy talking.



--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
m***@gmail.com
2018-09-18 00:47:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 4:37:20 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Our physics is a junk pile that doesn't need to be learned.
> > It is the absolute opposite. It doesn't qualify. But the new
> > is objective instead. That is the only empowering knowledge.
> > Who needs to take a test? Some people don't need an education
> > to do better than everyone else producing new objective science.
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> >
>
> Mitch, that’s just crazy talking.
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

You are part of the junk pile Roy Masters.
Loading...