Discussion:
Drs. Tobias Colding, Laurent Demanet of MIT are you as dumb as Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = monopole
Add Reply
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-01-15 04:20:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Proofs that the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV, and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall

12 PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon
by Archimedes Plutonium

Proofs that the Real Electron=muon and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall
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.


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 ---


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.

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 ---

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.

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.


7th proof the Maxwell Equations are not symmetrical without current being the flow of magnetic monopoles.

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.

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
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.

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. 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.

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.

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 ()

by Archimedes Plutonium
------------------
-------------------
Don't forget to include a chapter on Failure. Its truth table is FFFF.
Stalking failure
Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.
Now, unlike Moroney, I do not believe for a moment that Harvard math professors cannot properly do a percentage, I don't believe that for a minute.

Moroney says he weighed the electron in High School, and then got a engineering degree, but how is that possible when he cannot even do math percentage correctly. Either Moroney is a liar or the world is nothing but fools.

Michael Moroney is not only a failure of math, --must have have been burnt out at school-- but also an insane crank on sci.math for 23 years now. I have often asked Google to please engineer a delete key so original authors of a thread can develop their own thread without these insane stalking poopers pooping up (Moroney a 23 year stalker). Let original authors delete any post in their thread which is unfit. Let insane stalkers make their own threads so they can crap all they wish without interrupting those doing serious science.

MAKE sci.math a Level Playing field, and stop tilting sci.math in favor of moron stalkers.

Drs. John Bush, Herman Chernoff of MIT are you as stupid as Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = monopole


MIT math dept.

Artin, Michael
Emeritus Professor of Mathematics
Algebraic Geometry, Non-Commutative Algebra

Bazant, Martin
Professor of Chemical Engineering and Applied Mathematics
Applied Mathematics, Electrokinetics, Microfluidics and Electrochemistry

Berger, Bonnie
Simons Professor of Mathematics
Theoretical Computer Science, Computational Biological Modeling

Bezrukavnikov, Roman
Professor of Mathematics
Representation Theory, Algebraic Geometry

Borodin, Alexei
Professor of Mathematics
Integrable Probability

Bush, John
Associate Department Head
Professor of Applied Mathematics
Academic Officer
Fluid Dynamics

Chernoff, Herman
Emeritus Professor of Applied Mathematics
Statistics, Probability

Cohn, Henry
Adjunct Professor
Discrete Mathematics

Colding, Tobias Holck
Cecil and Ida Green Distinguished Professor of Mathematics
Pure Mathematics Committee Chair
Differential Geometry, Partial Differential Equations
*On Leave Fall and Spring semesters*

Demanet, Laurent
Associate Professor of Applied Mathematics
Applied analysis, Scientific Computing

Dudley, Richard
Emeritus Professor of Mathematics
Probability, Statistics

Dunkel, Jörn
Assistant Professor of Applied Mathematics
Physical Applied Mathematics

Edelman, Alan
Professor of Applied Mathematics
Parallel Computing, Numerical Linear Algebra, Random Matrices

Etingof, Pavel
Professor of Mathematics
Representation Theory, Quantum Groups, Noncommutative Algebra

Freedman, Daniel
Emeritus Professor of Applied Mathematics
Theoretical Physics, Supergravity, Supersymmetry

Goemans, Michel
Interim Department Head
Professor of Mathematics
Theoretical Computer Science, Combinatorial Optimization

Gorin, Vadim
Assistant Professor of Mathematics
Probability, Representation Theory

Greenspan, Harvey
Emeritus Professor of Applied Mathematics
Fluid Mechanics

Guillemin, Victor
Professor of Mathematics
Differential Geometry

Guth, Larry
Professor of Mathematics
Metric geometry, harmonic analysis, extremal combinatorics

Helgason, Sigurdur
Emeritus Professor of Mathematics
Geometric Analysis

Hosoi, Anette
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
MacVicar Faculty Fellow
Fluid Dynamics, Numerical Analysis

Jerison, David
Professor of Mathematics
Partial Differential Equations, Fourier Analysis

Johnson, Steven
Professor of Applied Mathematics
Waves, PDEs, Scientific Computing

Kac, Victor
Professor of Mathematics
Algebra, Mathematical Physics

Mark Hyman, Jr. Career Development Associate Professor of Applied Mathematics
Theoretical Computer Science

Kleiman, Steven
Emeritus Professor of Mathematics
Algebraic Geometry, Commutative Algebra

Kleitman, Daniel
Emeritus Professor of Applied Mathematics
Combinatorics, Operations Research

Lawrie, Andrew
Assistant Professor of Mathematics
Analysis, Geometric PDEs

Leighton, Tom
Professor of Applied Mathematics
Theoretical Computer Science, Combinatorics

Lusztig, George
Abdun-Nur Professor of Mathematics
Group Representations, Algebraic Groups


Mattuck, Arthur
Emeritus Professor of Mathematics
Algebraic Geometry

Maulik, Davesh
Professor of Mathematics
Algebraic Geometry

Melrose, Richard
Professor of Mathematics
Partial Differential Equations, Differential Geometry

Miller, Haynes
Professor of Mathematics
Algebraic Topology

Minicozzi, William
Singer Professor of Mathematics
Geometric Analysis, PDEs

Moitra, Ankur
Rockwell International Career Development Associate Professor of Mathematics
Theoretical Computer Science, Machine Learning

Mossel, Elchanan
Professor of Mathematics
Probability, Algorithms and Inference

Mrowka, Tomasz
Professor of Mathematics
Gauge Theory, Differential Geometry
On Leave Fall and Spring semesters

Munkres, James
Emeritus Professor of Mathematics
Differential Topology

Neguț, Andrei
Assistant Professor of Mathematics
Algebraic Geometry, Representation Theory
On Leave Spring semester

Pixton, Aaron
Class of 1957 Career Development Assistant Professor
Algebraic Geometry
On Leave Spring semester

Poonen, Bjorn
Claude Shannon Professor of Mathematics
Algebraic Geometry, Number Theory

Postnikov, Alexander
Professor of Applied Mathematics
Algebraic Combinatorics

Rigollet, Philippe
Associate Professor of Mathematics
Statistics, Machine Learning

Rosales, Rodolfo
Professor of Applied Mathematics
Nonlinear Waves, Fluid Mechanics, Material Sciences, Numerical pde

Saccà, Giulia
Assistant Professor of Mathematics

Sacks, Gerald
Emeritus Professor of Mathematical Logic
Mathematical Logic, Recursion Theory, Computational Set Theory

Seidel, Paul
Levinson Professor of Mathematics
Mirror Symmetry
On Leave Fall and Spring semesters

Sheffield, Scott
Leighton Family Professor of Mathematics
Probability and Mathematical Physics

Shor, Peter
Morss Professor of Applied Mathematics
Applied Mathematics Committee Chair
Quantum Computation, Quantum Information

Singer, Isadore
Emeritus Institute Professor
Differential Geometry, Partial Differential Equations, Mathematical Physics

Sipser, Michael
Dean of School of Science
Donner Professor of Mathematics
MacVicar Faculty Fellow
Algorithms, Complexity Theory

Speck, Jared
Cecil and Ida B. Green Career Development Associate Professor of Mathematics
Analysis related to Mathematical Physics, General Relativity, PDEs

Staffilani, Gigliola
Abby Rockefeller Mauze Professor of Mathematics
Analysis: Dispersive Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations
On Leave Fall and Spring semesters

Stanley, Richard
Professor of Mathematics
Algebraic Combinatorics

Stark, Harold
Emeritus Professor of Mathematics
Number Theory

Strang, Gilbert
MathWorks Professor of Mathematics

Stroock, Daniel
Emeritus Professor of Mathematics
Probability, Stochastic Analysis

Tabuada, Goncalo
Associate Professor of Mathematics
Algebraic Topology, Noncommutative Algebraic Geometry

Toomre, Alar
Emeritus Professor of Applied Mathematics
Astrophysics, Stellar Dynamics, Fluid Mechanics

Vogan, David
Norbert Wiener Professor of Mathematics
Group Representations, Lie Theory


/\-------/\
\::O:::O::/
(::_ ^ _::)
\_`-----'_/
You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in MIT?
And, even though you-- professors of math, want to remain stupid in Calculus and Physics, your students deserve better.
Michael Moroney
2018-01-15 05:49:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Proofs that the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV, and that the
.5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall
<snip autistically reposted spam>

Wow, Archie's autistic meltdown is worse than I thought, with two more
autistic reposts of his bizarre nonsense posts directed to some uninvolved
professors, and including the famous 12 Failures of Plutonium.

Time for someone to call Archie's doc and tell him Archie needs his
meds adjusted.
Archimedes Plutonium
2019-06-12 21:48:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Autistic
MIT's_Pavel Etingof, Daniel Freedman, Michel Goemans, Vadim Gorin, Harvey Greenspan, Victor Guillemin, Larry Guth, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938
Autistic
AP writes: they only need read AP's books:

MIT's_Pavel Etingof, Daniel Freedman, Michel Goemans, Vadim Gorin, Harvey Greenspan, Victor Guillemin, Larry Guth, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938
Physics minnow
AP writes: Unpacking Moroney, suggests the reason MIT is too dumb to see that 9 x 105MeV = 945MeV and the proton is clocked in at 938MeV with only a less than 1% sigma error, implies the real proton is 840MeV with a muon = real electron attached. Since none at MIT could ever understand AP's proof ellipse is never a conic section (for that is the oval,not the ellipse) but rather the ellipse is a cylinder section; stands to reason they are far far too stupid at MIT to see real proton is 840MeV.
What, your slow motion autism meltdown
I always knew you were dumb and stoopid, but I never thought you would be
dumb and stoopid enough to threaten violence.
Physics Minnow
Autistic
why does not Baez, totally worthless in science, just change his name to abu Re: 1kicking out stalkers-- Jan Burse, Dan Christensen, John Baez //
blow it out your ass ... oh,
what was that smell, in the first place
***@gmail.com

4/5/17


stalkers out kciking cans

yup, complex field is tres c00l
Only if you failed Calculus would you think that
nanadittos ... when you ever have any result
from ye olde mathe, I'm sure that it will be new -- to you


AP writes: instead of spamming newsgroups, why not do something worthwhile-- Confirm real electron is 105MeV, real proton is 840MeV and that little particle JJ Thomson discovered in 1897 turns out to be not the atom electron but rather the Dirac magnetic monopole.


AP writes: Is the reason Physicists have not yet confirmed real proton is 840MeV not 938, because its scientists behave much like stalker kibo Parry Moroney-- cesspool mind of hatred with daily hate sheets on people rather than spend their daily activity on uncovering the true proton is 840MeV stuck with the real electron as muon doing a Faraday Law dance inside the atom making electricity and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole.


o-:^>___?
`~~c--^c'
Navy dog says: remember the time the failed engineer kibo Parry Moroney said 938 is short of 945 by 12%. How could any engineer pass school not knowing percentages?
Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.
AP Atom Model replacing the Rutherford-Bohr Atom Model (Physics series for High School Book 1) Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item


#1 New Releasein General Chemistry & Reference


See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$3.00 to buy


The Rutherford and Bohr model of the Atom is seen now as fake physics. And it will take a lot of time before that nonsense is removed and replaced in science textbooks and classrooms for a truer model of the Atom. So to accelerate that movement towards the truth of what the Atom is, I present this short book for High School. In the age of the Internet, when we discover true science but am teaching fake science, we need a process to quicken the exit of fake science. Not to wait around for 50 years to be teaching the true science, we should be teaching the true science as fast as possible and to remove the fake science in our school curriculums in a timely and orderly manner. So this small book is a pattern for future removal of fake science from school curriculums. This small book explains what the Rutherford-Bohr model was and why it was phony science. And I explain what replaces the Rutherford-Bohr model with the AP model of the Atom. So the pattern is -- show both -- and then authors of texts will eliminate the fake science until it is a passing footnote.

Cover Picture is a coil and a bar magnet and a galvanometer that measures the current produced as the bar magnet is thrust through the coil. This is Faraday's Law and needs to be taught in High School.



Read less


Length: 12 pages
Word Wise: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled
Mat


Product details
File Size: 2207 KB
Print Length: 12 pages
Publication Date: April 10, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07QKHRWG8
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #220,321 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#5 in 30-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#39 in General Chemistry & Reference
#381 in General Chemistry

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

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



How the Sun and Stars truly shine, not by fusion, but by Faraday's Law (Physics series for High School Book 2) Kindle Edition
• by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
• Be the first to review this item





• See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$3.00 to buy

One of my recent books (published a few days ago) was the AP model of the interior of atoms replacing the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom. And the differences are vast between these two atom models, for the AP model has the Faraday law going on, with actual work and job for the subatomic particles. And in that Atom model book, I was complaining that our modern science education school system has no good way of ridding itself of fake science where we keep on teaching propaganda and fake science for as much as 50 years beyond the discovery of what the true underlying science actually is. I gave as an example the Wegener Continental Drift theory in geology, where students had to suffer 50 years of a fake static-earth-theory when the Continental Drift theory was all around. One of the reasons for the delay in teaching the truth of science, is there is so much money interests involved of people selling fake science textbooks. And this is where the Internet can come in and play a vital role in school education, because the Internet can publish books of "true science" and get them exposed to a world audience, and so fake science like the static-earth theory would have been gone long before 50 years had elapsed if the internet were present for Wegener.

But now an even bigger and more important theory of science and physics is here and threatens to throw out as fake science the fusion theory of star energy, especially since it is "How the Sun shines". In effect, the question is, how do all stars shine? What is their energy source. And hard to believe that this topic in current science education with their explanation as "being fusion" is fake science. We all know what the answer is from present day science-- that stars and sun shine because of fusion. That they fuse hydrogen and light elements to make heavier elements like helium and in that fusion they give off energy which is sunshine. But is it true? Is that true science. You would be surprised to find out, that such is not the truth of how stars and Sun shine. They do not shine because of fusion. They shine because the Faraday law is going on inside each and every atom in that star or the Sun.

Now, here is another science teaching that needs to replace the fake science of fusion for the Sun and stars. And it should not take 50 years like Wegener's continental drift to push out the fake static earth theory. We should not have to wait 50 years for our teachers to teach the truth about how the stars and Sun shine with energy. And so, here again, just as in the previous book "AP's model of the Atom", I present the old theory of how stars shine and alongside that old fake theory, I present the new true theory. And in that presentation, we can give the entire science education community, give them about say 5 years of time in which to completely remove the old fake theory that fusion causes stars and Sun to shine with energy. When in fact, the truth is, Faraday Law causes stars and the Sun to shine.

Cover Picture is my photograph of a Google search on my computer of Sun images.

Read less


Length: 14 pages
Word Wise: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled
Matchbook Price: $0.99 What's this?

File Size: 1629 KB
Print Length: 14 pages
Publication Date: April 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07QRPZQ4Q
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

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


Would you like to tell us about a lower price?

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item





See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$5.00 to buy

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math where they had a ill-defined infinity; they had the fakery of Limit concept; and they had the fakery of a continuum.

The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus basically says the integral is inverse to the derivative and the derivative is inverse to the integral. By inverse is meant that you can go to one given the other and vice versa, such as add is the inverse of subtract, so if we had 10 + 4 = 14 then the inverse is subtract 4 and we have 14-4 = 10 back to 10 where we started from. And the geometry proof involves a rectangle and a right triangle hinged atop a trapezoid. You hinge it one direction you have dy*dx for area of a rectangle for integral area. You hinge it the other direction you have the dy/dx for slope or derivative from the trapezoid formed.

Sad that Old Math was so full of ill-defined concepts and fake concepts that never was a geometry proof of FTC ever possible in Old Math.

Length: 29 pages
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled

File Size: 1224 KB
Print Length: 29 pages
Publication Date: March 14, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PQTNHMY
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #293,690 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#18 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#70 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
#471 in Calculus (Books)

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

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

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item





See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$3.00 to buy

Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.

Length: 21 pages

File Size: 1620 KB
Print Length: 21 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS (textbook in the making-- journal textbook): journal-textbook for ages 5 to 18, Volume 1; and ages 19 to 26, Volume 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item


#1 New Releasein General Geometry


See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$9.99 to buy

This is the one textbook in two volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education needs, 5 year old to 26 year old through all of mathematics that is needed to do science. Every other math book is incidental to this one. And the student needs this math book for all their math and science needs. A one-size-fits-all for mathematics study.

I call it a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost continuously. A unique first in education textbooks-- continual overnight editing.

What prompted me to write this textbook is that the Old Math is too much filled with error, mistakes and just sheer nonsense. In the early 2000s I wrote about 5 editions of Correcting Math textbooks and about 9 editions of True Calculus, but then I got so fed up and tired with all the mistakes of Old Math, that I decided the best route to go is throw out all of Old Math and start anew.

Now I wrestled with publishing a "rough first edition" now, or to wait about a year in polishing the textbook and then publish it. I wrestled with this and decided I have enough of a skeleton text, that I can continually polish with overnight editing, and that it would be of more benefit to readers to have this skeleton text and watch and wait as the months and years go by to see the continual polishing take affect. So I decided tonight to publish, for the benefit of many to see, rather than wait a year to see a polished text. I may have made a mistake in this decision for I do not want to turn off anyone to math. But maybe I made the correct decision to allow others to see this book a full year ahead of schedule. Bon Voyage!

Length: 328 pages
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled


File Size: 1968 KB
Print Length: 328 pages
Publication Date: May 2, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07RG7BVZW
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #274,398 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#27 in General Geometry
#336 in Geometry & Topology (Books)



Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2019-06-13 21:35:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
MIT's_Lee Grodzins , Paul Joss, Vera Kistiakowsky, Earle Lomon, Irwin Pless, Paul Schechter, James Young, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938
Autistic
Autistic
Autistic
Physics minnow
AP writes: Unpacking Moroney, suggests the reason Harvard-MIT is too dumb to see that 9 x 105MeV = 945MeV and the proton is clocked in at 938MeV with only a less than 1% sigma error, implies the real proton is 840MeV with a muon = real electron attached. Since none at MIT-Harvard could ever understand AP's proof ellipse is never a conic section (for that is the oval,not the ellipse) but rather the ellipse is a cylinder section; stands to reason they are far far too stupid at Harvard-MIT to see real proton is 840MeV.
What, your slow motion autism meltdown
I always knew you were dumb and stoopid, but I never thought you would be
dumb and stoopid enough to threaten violence.
Physics Minnow
Autistic
why does not Baez, totally worthless in science, just change his name to abu Re: 1kicking out stalkers-- Jan Burse, Dan Christensen, John Baez //
blow it out your ass ... oh,
what was that smell, in the first place
***@gmail.com

4/5/17


stalkers out kciking cans

yup, complex field is tres c00l
Only if you failed Calculus would you think that
nanadittos ... when you ever have any result
from ye olde mathe, I'm sure that it will be new -- to you


AP writes: instead of spamming newsgroups, why not do something worthwhile-- Confirm real electron is 105MeV, real proton is 840MeV and that little particle JJ Thomson discovered in 1897 turns out to be not the atom electron but rather the Dirac magnetic monopole.


AP writes: Is the reason Physicists have not yet confirmed real proton is 840MeV not 938, because its scientists behave much like stalker kibo Parry Moroney-- cesspool mind of hatred with daily hate sheets on people rather than spend their daily activity on uncovering the true proton is 840MeV stuck with the real electron as muon doing a Faraday Law dance inside the atom making electricity and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole.


       o-:^>___?
       `~~c--^c'
Navy dog says: remember the time the failed engineer kibo Parry Moroney said 938 is short of 945 by 12%. How could any engineer pass school not knowing percentages?

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 Atom Model replacing the Rutherford-Bohr Atom Model (Physics series for High School Book 1) Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item


#1 New Releasein General Chemistry & Reference


See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$3.00 to buy


The Rutherford and Bohr model of the Atom is seen now as fake physics. And it will take a lot of time before that nonsense is removed and replaced in science textbooks and classrooms for a truer model of the Atom. So to accelerate that movement towards the truth of what the Atom is, I present this short book for High School. In the age of the Internet, when we discover true science but am teaching fake science, we need a process to quicken the exit of fake science. Not to wait around for 50 years to be teaching the true science, we should be teaching the true science as fast as possible and to remove the fake science in our school curriculums in a timely and orderly manner. So this small book is a pattern for future removal of fake science from school curriculums. This small book explains what the Rutherford-Bohr model was and why it was phony science. And I explain what replaces the Rutherford-Bohr model with the AP model of the Atom. So the pattern is -- show both -- and then authors of texts will eliminate the fake science until it is a passing footnote.

Cover Picture is a coil and a bar magnet and a galvanometer that measures the current produced as the bar magnet is thrust through the coil. This is Faraday's Law and needs to be taught in High School.



Read less


Length: 12 pages
Word Wise: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled
Mat


Product details
File Size: 2207 KB
Print Length: 12 pages
Publication Date: April 10, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07QKHRWG8
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #220,321 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#5 in 30-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#39 in General Chemistry & Reference
#381 in General Chemistry

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

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



How the Sun and Stars truly shine, not by fusion, but by Faraday's Law (Physics series for High School Book 2) Kindle Edition
• by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
• Be the first to review this item





• See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$3.00 to buy

One of my recent books (published a few days ago) was the AP model of the interior of atoms replacing the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom. And the differences are vast between these two atom models, for the AP model has the Faraday law going on, with actual work and job for the subatomic particles. And in that Atom model book, I was complaining that our modern science education school system has no good way of ridding itself of fake science where we keep on teaching propaganda and fake science for as much as 50 years beyond the discovery of what the true underlying science actually is. I gave as an example the Wegener Continental Drift theory in geology, where students had to suffer 50 years of a fake static-earth-theory when the Continental Drift theory was all around. One of the reasons for the delay in teaching the truth of science, is there is so much money interests involved of people selling fake science textbooks. And this is where the Internet can come in and play a vital role in school education, because the Internet can publish books of "true science" and get them exposed to a world audience, and so fake science like the static-earth theory would have been gone long before 50 years had elapsed if the internet were present for Wegener.

But now an even bigger and more important theory of science and physics is here and threatens to throw out as fake science the fusion theory of star energy, especially since it is "How the Sun shines". In effect, the question is, how do all stars shine? What is their energy source. And hard to believe that this topic in current science education with their explanation as "being fusion" is fake science. We all know what the answer is from present day science-- that stars and sun shine because of fusion. That they fuse hydrogen and light elements to make heavier elements like helium and in that fusion they give off energy which is sunshine. But is it true? Is that true science. You would be surprised to find out, that such is not the truth of how stars and Sun shine. They do not shine because of fusion. They shine because the Faraday law is going on inside each and every atom in that star or the Sun.

Now, here is another science teaching that needs to replace the fake science of fusion for the Sun and stars. And it should not take 50 years like Wegener's continental drift to push out the fake static earth theory. We should not have to wait 50 years for our teachers to teach the truth about how the stars and Sun shine with energy. And so, here again, just as in the previous book "AP's model of the Atom", I present the old theory of how stars shine and alongside that old fake theory, I present the new true theory. And in that presentation, we can give the entire science education community, give them about say 5 years of time in which to completely remove the old fake theory that fusion causes stars and Sun to shine with energy. When in fact, the truth is, Faraday Law causes stars and the Sun to shine.

Cover Picture is my photograph of a Google search on my computer of Sun images.

Read less


Length: 14 pages
Word Wise: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled
Matchbook Price: $0.99 What's this?

File Size: 1629 KB
Print Length: 14 pages
Publication Date: April 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07QRPZQ4Q
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

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


Would you like to tell us about a lower price?

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item





See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$5.00 to buy

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math where they had a ill-defined infinity; they had the fakery of Limit concept; and they had the fakery of a continuum.

The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus basically says the integral is inverse to the derivative and the derivative is inverse to the integral. By inverse is meant that you can go to one given the other and vice versa, such as add is the inverse of subtract, so if we had 10 + 4 = 14 then the inverse is subtract 4 and we have 14-4 = 10 back to 10 where we started from. And the geometry proof involves a rectangle and a right triangle hinged atop a trapezoid. You hinge it one direction you have dy*dx for area of a rectangle for integral area. You hinge it the other direction you have the dy/dx for slope or derivative from the trapezoid formed.

Sad that Old Math was so full of ill-defined concepts and fake concepts that never was a geometry proof of FTC ever possible in Old Math.

Length: 29 pages
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled

File Size: 1224 KB
Print Length: 29 pages
Publication Date: March 14, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PQTNHMY
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #293,690 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#18 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#70 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
#471 in Calculus (Books)

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

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

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item





See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$3.00 to buy

Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.

Length: 21 pages

File Size: 1620 KB
Print Length: 21 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS (textbook in the making-- journal textbook): journal-textbook for ages 5 to 18, Volume 1; and ages 19 to 26, Volume 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item


#1 New Releasein General Geometry


See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$9.99 to buy

This is the one textbook in two volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education needs, 5 year old to 26 year old through all of mathematics that is needed to do science. Every other math book is incidental to this one. And the student needs this math book for all their math and science needs. A one-size-fits-all for mathematics study.

I call it a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost continuously. A unique first in education textbooks-- continual overnight editing.

What prompted me to write this textbook is that the Old Math is too much filled with error, mistakes and just sheer nonsense. In the early 2000s I wrote about 5 editions of Correcting Math textbooks and about 9 editions of True Calculus, but then I got so fed up and tired with all the mistakes of Old Math, that I decided the best route to go is throw out all of Old Math and start anew.

Now I wrestled with publishing a "rough first edition" now, or to wait about a year in polishing the textbook and then publish it. I wrestled with this and decided I have enough of a skeleton text, that I can continually polish with overnight editing, and that it would be of more benefit to readers to have this skeleton text and watch and wait as the months and years go by to see the continual polishing take affect. So I decided tonight to publish, for the benefit of many to see, rather than wait a year to see a polished text. I may have made a mistake in this decision for I do not want to turn off anyone to math. But maybe I made the correct decision to allow others to see this book a full year ahead of schedule. Bon Voyage!

Length: 328 pages
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled


File Size: 1968 KB
Print Length: 328 pages
Publication Date: May 2, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07RG7BVZW
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #274,398 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#27 in General Geometry
#336 in Geometry & Topology (Books)


Plutonium Atom Totality Universe, Atom Totality Series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item





See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$9.99 to buy

Cover picture: is what the interior and exterior of most atoms looks like once you apply Faraday's Law to subatomic particles.This picture is a coil of 88 rings torus with a smaller ring inside. The 88 coil rings represent 11 protons in a Faraday Law magnetic induction coil and the smaller ring is a muon as a bar magnet thrusting through the proton coil, thereby, producing electricity.

The goal and aim of the 8th edition of Atom Totality, 2017 was to iron out all the mathematics of Electricity and Magnetism so that the AP-Maxwell Equations embodied all the mathematics of physics. In other words, all of physics is handled by the AP-Maxwell Equations. But in the course of straightening out the EM math of physics, I made my second greatest science discovery-- that the real proton was 840MeV, real electron was the muon at 105MeV and that little particle we all thought was the electron since JJ Thompson discovered it in 1897, was in fact not the electron but was Dirac's magnetic monopole. I made that discovery in the midst of my writing the 8th edition (only goes to show that most of our best ideas come from organizing and placing our thoughts into order-- writing a book). And so this 9th edition goal and aim is to go back and fix the picture of atoms, their geometry, and incorporate that discovery, mostly by fixing the picture of what atoms exterior and interior geometry is, in light of the fact that there is the Faraday Law going on inside of atoms.

Length: 114 pages
Word Wise: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled
Matchbook Price: $2.99 What's this?


Product details
File Size: 2354 KB
Print Length: 115 pages
Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
Publication Date: June 10, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07SW87BF5
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #285,417 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#826 in Astronomy (Books)
#166 in Astronomy (Kindle Store)
#671 in Physics (Kindle Store)




Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe        
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2019-06-14 16:53:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
MIT's_Victor Kac, Steven Kleiman, Anette Hosoi, David Jerison, Steven Johnson,Daniel Kleitman,Andrew Lawrie, Tom Leighton, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938
Autistic
Autistic
Autistic
Autistic
Autistic
Physics minnow
AP writes: Unpacking Moroney, suggests the reason Harvard-MIT is too dumb to see that 9 x 105MeV = 945MeV and the proton is clocked in at 938MeV with only a less than 1% sigma error, implies the real proton is 840MeV with a muon = real electron attached. Since none at MIT-Harvard could ever understand AP's proof ellipse is never a conic section (for that is the oval,not the ellipse) but rather the ellipse is a cylinder section; stands to reason they are far far too stupid at Harvard-MIT to see real proton is 840MeV.
What, your slow motion autism meltdown
I always knew you were dumb and stoopid, but I never thought you would be
dumb and stoopid enough to threaten violence.
Physics Minnow
Autistic
why does not Baez, totally worthless in science, just change his name to abu Re: 1kicking out stalkers-- Jan Burse, Dan Christensen, John Baez //
blow it out your ass ... oh,
what was that smell, in the first place
***@gmail.com

4/5/17


stalkers out kciking cans

yup, complex field is tres c00l
Only if you failed Calculus would you think that
nanadittos ... when you ever have any result
from ye olde mathe, I'm sure that it will be new -- to you


AP writes: instead of spamming newsgroups, why not do something worthwhile-- Confirm real electron is 105MeV, real proton is 840MeV and that little particle JJ Thomson discovered in 1897 turns out to be not the atom electron but rather the Dirac magnetic monopole.


AP writes: Is the reason Physicists have not yet confirmed real proton is 840MeV not 938, because its scientists behave much like stalker kibo Parry Moroney-- cesspool mind of hatred with daily hate sheets on people rather than spend their daily activity on uncovering the true proton is 840MeV stuck with the real electron as muon doing a Faraday Law dance inside the atom making electricity and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole.


       o-:^>___?
       `~~c--^c'
Navy dog says: remember the time the failed engineer kibo Parry Moroney said 938 is short of 945 by 12%. How could any engineer pass school not knowing percentages?

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-Faraday Law replacing Nebular Dust Cloud theory (Physics series for High School Book 3) Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item



See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$3.00 to buy 



How our Sun and planets that make-up the Solar System, came to be is not the Nebular Dust Cloud theory. Nebular Dust Cloud is a fake theory that posits the remnants of long past supernova explosions creating dust and uniformly spread, and that this dust cloud condensed into forming our Solar System is a silly theory proffered by silly mind's of science. For one, it makes no sense that our Universe has many many supernova explosions and dust clouds spread uniformly in vast regions of the universe to account for all solar systems. Supernova are rare and cannot explain the abundance and uniformity of solar systems. When science has no theory to explain something-- they grab the first silly theory that comes along, no matter how bad it is, for science abhors a vacuum of explanation. What this book offers is a alternative theory of how the Solar System formed that makes logical sense given the observations. I believe the true theory of how the Solar System formed starts around 1977 with Dirac's book "Directions in Physics" with his "new radioactivities". Then that "new radioactivities" is picked up by AP in his Plutonium Atom Totality theory as seed-dots of the electron dot cloud, by 1990. And during the 1990's AP used a mechanism of radioactive spontaneous neutron materialization (rsnm), explaining that particles of energy like neutrons or photons are shot from the Atom Totality Nucleus to increase the mass of astronomy bodies and let them grow larger. But not much else occurred on this theory until 2017. Then by 2017, this new-radioactivities and seed dots and rsnm is further elaborated upon by the real electron of atoms is the muon at 105MeV and the real proton is 840 MeV, and the little particle that J.J. Thomson discovered in 1897 was in fact, Dirac's magnetic monopole at .5MeV. What that discovery lead to in 2018 is the realization that subatomic particles are doing a job, a task, doing work inside of atoms, doing a function inside of atoms, where the proton is a Faraday coil and a muon is a Faraday bar magnet doing the Faraday law in producing-- electricity, magnetic monopoles. As the atoms produce monopoles, the atom itself grows, and increases in size and mass to grow into a new atomic numbered atom, where hydrogen grows into helium, helium grows into lithium, etc etc. So by 2018, we see how atoms grow into newer atoms and thus, the creation and formation and growing of our Solar System is simply the atoms growing inside themselves, from taking the Space they occupy and converting Space via AP-Faraday Law into creating new and more energy, mass, matter, becoming a newer higher atomic element. So we do not need a Nebular Dust Cloud, nor do we need a Big Bang theory.

There is no need for Nebular Dust Clouds. All that is needed is the AP-Faraday Law that converts Space into magnetic monopoles that grows the atom to become a larger heavier atom. And magnetic monopoles are the seed-dot from which an entire planet can be grown, with the start of a new hydrogen atom and that growing into helium, and more monopoles growing into hydrogen, more growing into helium, and helium growing into lithium and on and on.

Cover Picture: Nasa pictures of some of the planets of our Solar System from my computer.


Length: 43 pages
Word Wise: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

File Size: 1593 KB
Print Length: 43 pages
Publication Date: March 22, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07NNXZ9Z8
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

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


Unification of the 4 Forces of Physics as All being Electromagnetism (Physics series for High School Book 4) Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item



See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$3.00 to buy 


Ever since I discovered the universe was one big atom in 1990 and that this atom was a plutonium atom, I vowed to solve what the unification of the 4 forces of physics was. Those 4 forces in 1990 were 1) Strong Nuclear force, 2) Weak Nuclear force, 3) Electricity/Magnetism force 4) Gravity. In physics, much of the 1900s was spent on finding a unification of those four forces. Most of the famous physicists of the 1900s was dabbling in this desire to unify those 4 forces. Trouble was, hardly anyone trying to unify the four forces of physics had a logical mind to be ever able to do that task. And, sadly, when the history books of physics are written on the topic of unification of the 4 forces of physics, it is not a achievement but rather a whisking away by a broom that sweeps away dust and dirt. There never was 4 forces of physics, all the forces of physics were just electricity and magnetism. If all the forces of physics is electricity and magnetism means there are no 3 other forces to have to unify. And the year was 2017 with AP's 8th edition of Atom Totality Universe that the slow reality was beginning to unfold. And the reasoning is utterly simple and easy. Since the proton is the coil of Faraday's Law and the electron muon is the bar magnet in Faraday's Law, there is no Strong Nuclear Force (see my book AP model of atoms). In addition, with the Faraday Law going on, there is no Weak Nuclear Force for the radioactivity of atoms is mostly the ejection of magnetic monopoles due to Faraday Law. Gravity as 10^-40 weaker than Electromagnetism and with the identical same formula as Coulomb law of EM, means there never was a gravity force apart from electricity and magnetism. Some in Old Physics complain that EM has both attract and repel. But they were wrong on that account also. For there are two concepts-- actual repel and then there is a concept of "denial of same space occupancy". Magnetism and Electricity have no repel force at all. They have a denial of same space occupancy which fools many in science and physics. So what happened in the history of Physics, with their quest to unify the 4 forces, ended in a whimper, where it was seen that the interior of atoms has a Faraday Law of EM going on, which immediately dismisses a Strong Nuclear force and a Weak Nuclear force. And gravity is just a minimal EM attraction force.

So Old Physics had a quest to unify 4 forces, but it turns out, there never was 4 different separate forces.

Cover Picture: My photograph of page 2-10 from The Feynman Lectures on Physics 1963, in which my first understanding that there were 4 forces of physics and how they compared to one another. I do not recall when I saw this, perhaps when 20 years old-- 1970 or thereabouts at the University of Cincinnati. I do remember taking a class in physics where all it was, was watching a film series of Feynman lecturing. I do not recall how many films that was, but I thoroughly enjoyed it. This film series on Feynman occurred at Utah State University circa 1978.

Length: 25 pages
Word Wise: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled
Matchbook Price: $0.99 What's this?

File Size: 1406 KB
Print Length: 25 pages
Publication Date: April 14, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07QMLMJDN
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

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

Charge does not exist in Science, what does exist is WIRE in electromagnetism//(Physics series for High School Book 5) Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item





See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$5.00 to buy

Just recently, a few days ago, I decided to do these small books with a potent message, to make a series of them as Ebooks sold by Amazon's Kindle. What they all have in common for education purposes, is a huge true teaching of a true concept in physics (or chemistry) alongside a fake concept. These series books are brief, and are written in the most simple of language as possible for the High School student. And, each of these books in this 7 part series contains a huge error of Old Physics or Old Chemistry. This book in particular stands out of its error that we teach students so much fake science and at such a young age. That it cripples their minds in science thereafter for the rest of their lives in science. In a recent book of this series I spoke of a new modern means of ridding science of fakery theories by contrasting them and thus allowing for about a 5 years of teaching the fake along with the true theory of science to eventually expurge the fake science so the textbooks written no longer have the fake science. But in doing this book I realized that is not going to work well enough for the science fakery of "charge". And that science education needs a far far better way of handling and dealing with fake science that is heavily entrenched such as "charge". And I think the answer is already here, and lies in the set-up of Kindle Amazon. For I can edit any one of these books, overnight. Plus, the bonus, I save trees from being turned into books. I am a tree lover by nature-- my favorite is rock-elm. So the modern day publishing needs to be quick and fast and edit-able immediately, and without the old publishing with their biased-and-stealing-gatekeepers. Kindle Amazon is the way forward for science publication in all its publication needs, especially the education of science, for we can correct mistakes -- overnight in science. All science textbooks of the future will be a Kindle type of E-book, which the teacher can edit overnight, if need be.

The new modern society means of communicating true science needs to be a fast system, not a dragged out 5 years or 50 years to have meaningful changes. So in science of doing science books, textbooks, and even journal publication, is better done in a Kindle Amazon model, because it has rapid editing, where we can teach the true science and dismiss the fake old science, as fast as overnight. We no longer have to wait 5 years or in the case of Wegener, waiting 50 years. All the old ways of publishing science are fossil antique ways, for they are time consuming and entrench fakery science. Just like the very recent hullabaloo commotion over a Dr. Bouman report of a black hole photograph, which is fake physics for no black-hole ever existed nor will ever exist since black hole theory contradicts Maxwell equations. Maxwell Equations can never give you a black hole. So, rather than science putting up with con-artist fakery of physics, the internet removes the fake black hole photo by reminding Dr. Bouman, Dr. Greene that Maxwell theory cannot have black holes and why they did not first see if they could produce a well known astronomical object like the set of twin stars of HD98800 or a globular cluster, whether their photo technique reproduces known objects, first, rather than the foisting and fetching of publicity fame over a fake theory of physics.

This small book is a attempt to steer High School students away from the fakery of "charge" in science-- especially physics and chemistry. It is one of the most pernicious and evil mistakes of science today. For it is hard to remove from the mind once a person has been brainwashed with "charge". Even though charge is nonexistent, a fantasy and delusion concept is charge. What is real and true in science is "Wire". And what replaces "charge" is "wire". And, wire comes in two types-- electricity flowing clockwise or electricity flowing counterclockwise.



Length: 26 pages
Word Wise: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled
Matchbook Price: $1.99 What's this?

File Size: 1397 KB
Print Length: 26 pages
Publication Date: April 15, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07QSS4HZC
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 

Doppler redshift (blueshift) has nothing to do with motion of source and cannot tell you distance// (Physics series for High School Book 6) Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item





See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$4.00 to buy

What the Doppler redshift & blueshift really are-- heat and magnetism shifts of 8 Rings of the proton in hydrogen

---Quoting Bronowski's The Ascent of Man, page 336---
That was Bohr's marvellous idea.The inside of an atom is invisible, but there is a window in it, a stained-glass window: the spectrum of the atom. Each element has its own spectrum, which is not continuous like that which Newton got from white light, but has a number of bright lines which characterize that element. For example, hydrogen has three rather vivid lines in its visible spectrum: a red line, a blue-green line, and a blue line. Bohr explained them each as a release of energy when the single electron in the hydrogen atom jumps from one of the outer orbits to one of the inner orbits.  
... These emissions from many billions of atoms simultaneously are what we see as a characteristic hydrogen line.
--- end quoting Bronowski's 1973 book ---

Here again, the trouble with that physics as discussed by Bronowski is the interior of atoms is a Faraday Law going on, not the simplistic foolish idea of particles having no job, no task, no function.

The entire reason we even have spectral lines is because of the Proton particle is a coil of rings where the proton has 8 rings

))))))))

The electron muon is the bar magnet in Faraday Law inside a hydrogen atom and is another ring that thrusts through those 8 rings of the Proton shown above.

It is each of these 8 rings of the proton that Hydrogen atom has various spectral lines.

And what causes a shift in the spectral lines, a shift of either red shift or blue shift, is when the atoms of hydrogen in a star is heated, that the heat causes a shift in spectral lines.

And heat or magnetism can cause a shift in spectral lines.

In Old Physics, with their Bohr simpleton and wrong model, they had to explain redshift and blue shift, and what they did was violate the Special Relativity theory that the light wave is never affected by the motion of the source it comes from. So they wrongly said-- the motion of a star, whether coming at the observer is blue shifted and if the motion of the star is going away from the observer-- is redshifted.

What the AP model says is far different. The atoms in a star have the Faraday Law going on, and those protons in those atoms are each 8 rings of a Faraday Coil, each ring can give a spectral line. And when that coil of Rings, 8 in hydrogen of its single proton, when those 8 rings are heated or magnetically influenced, those 8 rings can either be redshifted or blueshifted.

Cover Picture: Auroras found on Jupiter which are blueshifted. This is the key to both redshift and blueshift, for these shifts in light wavelengths is not caused by "motion of source" but caused by the thermodynamics and magnetic field the light spectra waves are produced. Some shifting occurs as the light waves travel in Space and bent by refraction-diffraction of light.

Length: 15 pages
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled


File Size: 2179 KB
Print Length: 15 pages
Publication Date: April 17, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07QTFYXZL
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 

Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item




See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$5.00 to buy 


First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.

The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = 1, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.

My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.

Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.




Length: 65 pages
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled

File Size: 764 KB
Print Length: 65 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PMB69F5
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 


Correcting Reductio Ad Absurdum Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item





See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$9.99 to buy 




These are the TRUE Truth Tables of the 4 connectors of Logic

Equal+Not                    
T = T  =  T                      
T = ~F = T                      
F = ~T = T
F = F   = T   

If--> then                  
T --> T  = T
T --> F  = F
F --> T  = U  (unknown or uncertain)           
F --> F  = U  (unknown or uncertain)

And
T  &  T = T                       
T  &  F = T                      
F  &  T = T                      
F  &  F = F                      


Or
T  or  T  = F
T  or  F  = T
F  or  T  = T
F  or  F  = F

Those can be analyzed as being Equal+Not is multiplication, If-->then is division, And is addition and Or is subtraction in mathematics. Now I need to emphasis this error of Old Logic, the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.

Now in Old Logic they had for Reductio Ad Absurdum as displayed by this schematic:

|    | ~p
|    |---
|    | .
|    | .
|    | q
|    | .
|    | .
|    | ~q
| p

Which is fine except for the error of not indicating the end conclusion of "p" is only a probability of being true, not guaranteed as true. And this is the huge huge error that mathematicians have fallen victim of. For the Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a proof method for mathematics, it is probability of being true or false. Math works on guaranteed truth, not probability. This textbook is written to fix that error.

Cover Picture: I like my covers to be like as if a blackboard in school to connect with students. This is a picture of the above Reductio Ad Absurdum, as a student or teacher would write in their notes or blackboard.

Read less


Length: 82 pages
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled
Matchbook Price: $2.99 What's this?

File Size: 1175 KB
Print Length: 82 pages
Publication Date: March 23, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07Q18GQ7S
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe        
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2019-06-15 18:26:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
MIT's_Victor Kac, Anette Hosoi, David Jerison, Steven Johnson, Steven Kleiman, Daniel Kleitman,Andrew Lawrie, Tom Leighton, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938
Autistic
Autistic
Autistic
Autistic
Autistic
Autistic
Autistic
Autistic
Autistic
Physics minnow
AP writes: Unpacking Moroney, suggests the reason Harvard-MIT is too dumb to see that 9 x 105MeV = 945MeV and the proton is clocked in at 938MeV with only a less than 1% sigma error, implies the real proton is 840MeV with a muon = real electron attached. Since none at MIT-Harvard could ever understand AP's proof ellipse is never a conic section (for that is the oval,not the ellipse) but rather the ellipse is a cylinder section; stands to reason they are far far too stupid at Harvard-MIT to see real proton is 840MeV.
What, your slow motion autism meltdown
I always knew you were dumb and stoopid, but I never thought you would be
dumb and stoopid enough to threaten violence.
Physics Minnow
Autistic
why does not Baez, totally worthless in science, just change his name to abu Re: 1kicking out stalkers-- Jan Burse, Dan Christensen, John Baez //
blow it out your ass ... oh,
what was that smell, in the first place
***@gmail.com

4/5/17


stalkers out kciking cans

yup, complex field is tres c00l
Only if you failed Calculus would you think that
nanadittos ... when you ever have any result
from ye olde mathe, I'm sure that it will be new -- to you


AP writes: instead of spamming newsgroups, why not do something worthwhile-- Confirm real electron is 105MeV, real proton is 840MeV and that little particle JJ Thomson discovered in 1897 turns out to be not the atom electron but rather the Dirac magnetic monopole.


AP writes: Is the reason Physicists have not yet confirmed real proton is 840MeV not 938, because its scientists behave much like stalker kibo Parry Moroney-- cesspool mind of hatred with daily hate sheets on people rather than spend their daily activity on uncovering the true proton is 840MeV stuck with the real electron as muon doing a Faraday Law dance inside the atom making electricity and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole.


       o-:^>___?
       `~~c--^c'
Navy dog says: remember the time the failed engineer kibo Parry Moroney said 938 is short of 945 by 12%. How could any engineer pass school not knowing percentages?

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.




Plutonium Atom Totality Universe, Atom Totality Series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item





See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$9.99 to buy

Cover picture: is what the interior and exterior of most atoms looks like once you apply Faraday's Law to subatomic particles.This picture is a coil of 88 rings torus with a smaller ring inside. The 88 coil rings represent 11 protons in a Faraday Law magnetic induction coil and the smaller ring is a muon as a bar magnet thrusting through the proton coil, thereby, producing electricity.

The goal and aim of the 8th edition of Atom Totality, 2017 was to iron out all the mathematics of Electricity and Magnetism so that the AP-Maxwell Equations embodied all the mathematics of physics. In other words, all of physics is handled by the AP-Maxwell Equations. But in the course of straightening out the EM math of physics, I made my second greatest science discovery-- that the real proton was 840MeV, real electron was the muon at 105MeV and that little particle we all thought was the electron since JJ Thompson discovered it in 1897, was in fact not the electron but was Dirac's magnetic monopole. I made that discovery in the midst of my writing the 8th edition (only goes to show that most of our best ideas come from organizing and placing our thoughts into order-- writing a book). And so this 9th edition goal and aim is to go back and fix the picture of atoms, their geometry, and incorporate that discovery, mostly by fixing the picture of what atoms exterior and interior geometry is, in light of the fact that there is the Faraday Law going on inside of atoms.

Length: 115 pages
Word Wise: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled

Product details
File Size: 2354 KB
Print Length: 115 pages
Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
Publication Date: June 10, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07SW87BF5
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #285,417 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#826 in Astronomy (Books)
#166 in Astronomy (Kindle Store)
#671 in Physics (Kindle Store)



True Chemistry Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item





See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$9.99 to buy




Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of .5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is every where.

Cover picture: shows two of my chemical models, one of CO and the other CO2

Read less


Length: 1097 pages
Word Wise: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled
Matchbook Price: $2.99 What's this?


File Size: 1948 KB
Print Length: 1097 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLVMMSZ
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
                Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #590,212 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
                #181 in General Chemistry & Reference
                #1324 in General Chemistry
                #1656 in Physics (Kindle Store)


Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

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






TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS (textbook in the making-- journal textbook): journal-textbook for ages 5 to 18, Volume 1; and ages 19 to 26, Volume 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item


#1 New Releasein General Geometry


See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$9.99 to buy

This is the one textbook in two volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education needs, 5 year old to 26 year old through all of mathematics that is needed to do science. Every other math book is incidental to this one. And the student needs this math book for all their math and science needs. A one-size-fits-all for mathematics study.

I call it a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost continuously. A unique first in education textbooks-- continual overnight editing.

What prompted me to write this textbook is that the Old Math is too much filled with error, mistakes and just sheer nonsense. In the early 2000s I wrote about 5 editions of Correcting Math textbooks and about 9 editions of True Calculus, but then I got so fed up and tired with all the mistakes of Old Math, that I decided the best route to go is throw out all of Old Math and start anew.

Now I wrestled with publishing a "rough first edition" now, or to wait about a year in polishing the textbook and then publish it. I wrestled with this and decided I have enough of a skeleton text, that I can continually polish with overnight editing, and that it would be of more benefit to readers to have this skeleton text and watch and wait as the months and years go by to see the continual polishing take affect. So I decided tonight to publish, for the benefit of many to see, rather than wait a year to see a polished text. I may have made a mistake in this decision for I do not want to turn off anyone to math. But maybe I made the correct decision to allow others to see this book a full year ahead of schedule. Bon Voyage!

Length: 328 pages
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled


File Size: 1968 KB
Print Length: 328 pages
Publication Date: May 2, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07RG7BVZW
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #274,398 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#27 in General Geometry
#336 in Geometry & Topology (Books)


Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

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




AP's periodic journal of fakeries in science: Magazine of science and math fakes foisted on general public Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item





See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$3.00 to buy


The world is tired of "peer reviewed science" masquerading as the truth of science, when it is often the case that peer reviewed is false and fake science, even anti-science, as entrenched pork barrel money machines that look more towards "money money money". Or the peer review of magazines and journals that also look more towards "money" as a promotion ladder for unscrupulous professors climbing a promotion ladder at the school they teach. Publish, publish, publish, but seldom truth truth truth.

April 2019 issue-- discusses black holes as pure science fiction fakeries for a world that has a Pauli Exclusion Principle PEP, is a world that cannot simultaneously have a black hole. Physicists just never learned any logic to know that science cannot hold a contradiction. All science laws breakdown the minute you accept contradictions. Either the world has PEP but no black holes, or, the world has both, still a contradiction. Cover picture is HD98800 which is two binary star pairs and looks better as a black hole than does the fake recent black hole photo.

May issue --discusses the unwillingness of scientists and mathematicians to accept true science such as the ellipse is never a conic even when given a High School proof the ellipse is not a conic. And psychology is discussed as to "hate-envy-motivation" of scientists that blocks their minds from accepting the truth of science.

June issue of 2019-- discusses why and what the fake "gravity waves" reports from LIGO; what those reports really mean and measure.

July issue-- as yet to be decided, for the world of fake science is a long list to chose from..

Editor in chief of this magazine journal, AP

File Size: 1759 KB
Print Length: 31 pages
Publication Date: April 28, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07R5Q2199
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

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

AP Atom Model replacing the Rutherford-Bohr Atom Model (Physics series for High School Book 1) Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item


#1 New Releasein General Chemistry & Reference


See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$3.00 to buy


The Rutherford and Bohr model of the Atom is seen now as fake physics. And it will take a lot of time before that nonsense is removed and replaced in science textbooks and classrooms for a truer model of the Atom. So to accelerate that movement towards the truth of what the Atom is, I present this short book for High School. In the age of the Internet, when we discover true science but am teaching fake science, we need a process to quicken the exit of fake science. Not to wait around for 50 years to be teaching the true science, we should be teaching the true science as fast as possible and to remove the fake science in our school curriculums in a timely and orderly manner. So this small book is a pattern for future removal of fake science from school curriculums. This small book explains what the Rutherford-Bohr model was and why it was phony science. And I explain what replaces the Rutherford-Bohr model with the AP model of the Atom. So the pattern is -- show both -- and then authors of texts will eliminate the fake science until it is a passing footnote.

Cover Picture is a coil and a bar magnet and a galvanometer that measures the current produced as the bar magnet is thrust through the coil. This is Faraday's Law and needs to be taught in High School.



Read less


Length: 12 pages
Word Wise: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled
Mat


Product details
File Size: 2207 KB
Print Length: 12 pages
Publication Date: April 10, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07QKHRWG8
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #220,321 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#5 in 30-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#39 in General Chemistry & Reference
#381 in General Chemistry

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

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


How the Sun and Stars truly shine, not by fusion, but by Faraday's Law (Physics series for High School Book 2) Kindle Edition
• by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
• Be the first to review this item





• See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$3.00 to buy

One of my recent books (published a few days ago) was the AP model of the interior of atoms replacing the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom. And the differences are vast between these two atom models, for the AP model has the Faraday law going on, with actual work and job for the subatomic particles. And in that Atom model book, I was complaining that our modern science education school system has no good way of ridding itself of fake science where we keep on teaching propaganda and fake science for as much as 50 years beyond the discovery of what the true underlying science actually is. I gave as an example the Wegener Continental Drift theory in geology, where students had to suffer 50 years of a fake static-earth-theory when the Continental Drift theory was all around. One of the reasons for the delay in teaching the truth of science, is there is so much money interests involved of people selling fake science textbooks. And this is where the Internet can come in and play a vital role in school education, because the Internet can publish books of "true science" and get them exposed to a world audience, and so fake science like the static-earth theory would have been gone long before 50 years had elapsed if the internet were present for Wegener.

But now an even bigger and more important theory of science and physics is here and threatens to throw out as fake science the fusion theory of star energy, especially since it is "How the Sun shines". In effect, the question is, how do all stars shine? What is their energy source. And hard to believe that this topic in current science education with their explanation as "being fusion" is fake science. We all know what the answer is from present day science-- that stars and sun shine because of fusion. That they fuse hydrogen and light elements to make heavier elements like helium and in that fusion they give off energy which is sunshine. But is it true? Is that true science. You would be surprised to find out, that such is not the truth of how stars and Sun shine. They do not shine because of fusion. They shine because the Faraday law is going on inside each and every atom in that star or the Sun.

Now, here is another science teaching that needs to replace the fake science of fusion for the Sun and stars. And it should not take 50 years like Wegener's continental drift to push out the fake static earth theory. We should not have to wait 50 years for our teachers to teach the truth about how the stars and Sun shine with energy. And so, here again, just as in the previous book "AP's model of the Atom", I present the old theory of how stars shine and alongside that old fake theory, I present the new true theory. And in that presentation, we can give the entire science education community, give them about say 5 years of time in which to completely remove the old fake theory that fusion causes stars and Sun to shine with energy. When in fact, the truth is, Faraday Law causes stars and the Sun to shine.

Cover Picture is my photograph of a Google search on my computer of Sun images.

Read less


Length: 14 pages
Word Wise: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled
Matchbook Price: $0.99 What's this?

File Size: 1629 KB
Print Length: 14 pages
Publication Date: April 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07QRPZQ4Q
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

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


Would you like to tell us about a lower price?

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item





See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$5.00 to buy

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math where they had a ill-defined infinity; they had the fakery of Limit concept; and they had the fakery of a continuum.

The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus basically says the integral is inverse to the derivative and the derivative is inverse to the integral. By inverse is meant that you can go to one given the other and vice versa, such as add is the inverse of subtract, so if we had 10 + 4 = 14 then the inverse is subtract 4 and we have 14-4 = 10 back to 10 where we started from. And the geometry proof involves a rectangle and a right triangle hinged atop a trapezoid. You hinge it one direction you have dy*dx for area of a rectangle for integral area. You hinge it the other direction you have the dy/dx for slope or derivative from the trapezoid formed.

Sad that Old Math was so full of ill-defined concepts and fake concepts that never was a geometry proof of FTC ever possible in Old Math.

Length: 29 pages
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled

File Size: 1224 KB
Print Length: 29 pages
Publication Date: March 14, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PQTNHMY
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported 
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #293,690 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#18 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#70 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
#471 in Calculus (Books)

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

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


AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item





See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$3.00 to buy


Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.

Length: 21 pages

File Size: 1620 KB
Print Length: 21 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 


Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

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




World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item





See all formats and editions
• Kindle
• $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$4.00 to buy


Real proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem// including the fake Euler proof in exp3 and Wiles fake proof

Recap summary: In 1993 I proved Fermat's Last Theorem with a pure algebra proof, arguing that because of the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4 that this special feature of a unique number 4, allows for there to exist solutions to A^2 + B^2 = C^2. That the number 4 is a basis vector allowing more solutions to exist in exponent 2. But since there is no number with N+N+N = N*N*N that exists, there cannot be a solution in exp3 and the same argument for higher exponents. In 2014, I went and proved Generalized FLT by using "condensed rectangles". Once I had proven Generalized, then Regular FLT comes out of that proof as a simple corollary. So I had two proofs of Regular FLT, pure algebra and a corollary from Generalized FLT. Then recently in 2019 I sought to find a pure algebra proof of Generalized FLT, and I believe I accomplished that also by showing solutions to Generalized FLT also come from the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4. Amazing how so much math comes from the specialness of 4, where I argue that a Vector Space of multiplication provides the Generalized FLT of A^x + B^y = C^z.

As for the Euler exponent 3 invalid proof and the Wiles invalid FLT, both are missing a proof of the case of all three A,B,C are evens (see in the text).

Length: 74 pages
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled

File Size: 1445 KB
Print Length: 74 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PQKGW4M
Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 



Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

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

Archimedes Plutonium

Archimedes Plutonium
2018-01-15 20:21:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Proofs that the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV, and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall
12 PROOFS that Real-Electron = muon
by Archimedes Plutonium
Proofs that the Real Electron=muon and that the .5MeV particle was the magnetic monopole, afterall
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.
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 ---
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.
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 ---
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.
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.
7th proof the Maxwell Equations are not symmetrical without current being the flow of magnetic monopoles.
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.
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
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.
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. 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.
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.
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 ()
by Archimedes Plutonium
------------------
-------------------
Don't forget to include a chapter on Failure. Its truth table is FFFF.
Stalking failure
Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.
Now, unlike Moroney, I do not believe for a moment that Harvard math professors cannot properly do a percentage, I don't believe that for a minute.
Moroney says he weighed the electron in High School, and then got a engineering degree, but how is that possible when he cannot even do math percentage correctly. Either Moroney is a liar or the world is nothing but fools.
Michael Moroney is not only a failure of math, --must have have been burnt out at school-- but also an insane crank on sci.math for 23 years now. I have often asked Google to please engineer a delete key so original authors of a thread can develop their own thread without these insane stalking poopers pooping up (Moroney a 23 year stalker). Let original authors delete any post in their thread which is unfit. Let insane stalkers make their own threads so they can crap all they wish without interrupting those doing serious science.
MAKE sci.math a Level Playing field, and stop tilting sci.math in favor of moron stalkers.
Drs. John Bush, Herman Chernoff of MIT are you as stupid as Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = monopole
MIT math dept.
Artin, Michael
Emeritus Professor of Mathematics
Algebraic Geometry, Non-Commutative Algebra
Bazant, Martin
Professor of Chemical Engineering and Applied Mathematics
Applied Mathematics, Electrokinetics, Microfluidics and Electrochemistry
Berger, Bonnie
Simons Professor of Mathematics
Theoretical Computer Science, Computational Biological Modeling
Bezrukavnikov, Roman
Professor of Mathematics
Representation Theory, Algebraic Geometry
Borodin, Alexei
Professor of Mathematics
Integrable Probability
Bush, John
Associate Department Head
Professor of Applied Mathematics
Academic Officer
Fluid Dynamics
Chernoff, Herman
Emeritus Professor of Applied Mathematics
Statistics, Probability
Cohn, Henry
Adjunct Professor
Discrete Mathematics
Colding, Tobias Holck
Cecil and Ida Green Distinguished Professor of Mathematics
Pure Mathematics Committee Chair
Differential Geometry, Partial Differential Equations
*On Leave Fall and Spring semesters*
Demanet, Laurent
Associate Professor of Applied Mathematics
Applied analysis, Scientific Computing
Dudley, Richard
Emeritus Professor of Mathematics
Probability, Statistics
Dunkel, Jörn
Assistant Professor of Applied Mathematics
Physical Applied Mathematics
Edelman, Alan
Professor of Applied Mathematics
Parallel Computing, Numerical Linear Algebra, Random Matrices
Etingof, Pavel
Professor of Mathematics
Representation Theory, Quantum Groups, Noncommutative Algebra
Freedman, Daniel
Emeritus Professor of Applied Mathematics
Theoretical Physics, Supergravity, Supersymmetry
Goemans, Michel
Interim Department Head
Professor of Mathematics
Theoretical Computer Science, Combinatorial Optimization
Gorin, Vadim
Assistant Professor of Mathematics
Probability, Representation Theory
Greenspan, Harvey
Emeritus Professor of Applied Mathematics
Fluid Mechanics
Guillemin, Victor
Professor of Mathematics
Differential Geometry
Guth, Larry
Professor of Mathematics
Metric geometry, harmonic analysis, extremal combinatorics
Helgason, Sigurdur
Emeritus Professor of Mathematics
Geometric Analysis
Hosoi, Anette
Professor of Mechanical Engineering
MacVicar Faculty Fellow
Fluid Dynamics, Numerical Analysis
Jerison, David
Professor of Mathematics
Partial Differential Equations, Fourier Analysis
Johnson, Steven
Professor of Applied Mathematics
Waves, PDEs, Scientific Computing
Kac, Victor
Professor of Mathematics
Algebra, Mathematical Physics
Mark Hyman, Jr. Career Development Associate Professor of Applied Mathematics
Theoretical Computer Science
Kleiman, Steven
Emeritus Professor of Mathematics
Algebraic Geometry, Commutative Algebra
Kleitman, Daniel
Emeritus Professor of Applied Mathematics
Combinatorics, Operations Research
Lawrie, Andrew
Assistant Professor of Mathematics
Analysis, Geometric PDEs
Leighton, Tom
Professor of Applied Mathematics
Theoretical Computer Science, Combinatorics
Lusztig, George
Abdun-Nur Professor of Mathematics
Group Representations, Algebraic Groups
Mattuck, Arthur
Emeritus Professor of Mathematics
Algebraic Geometry
Maulik, Davesh
Professor of Mathematics
Algebraic Geometry
Melrose, Richard
Professor of Mathematics
Partial Differential Equations, Differential Geometry
Miller, Haynes
Professor of Mathematics
Algebraic Topology
Minicozzi, William
Singer Professor of Mathematics
Geometric Analysis, PDEs
Moitra, Ankur
Rockwell International Career Development Associate Professor of Mathematics
Theoretical Computer Science, Machine Learning
Mossel, Elchanan
Professor of Mathematics
Probability, Algorithms and Inference
Mrowka, Tomasz
Professor of Mathematics
Gauge Theory, Differential Geometry
On Leave Fall and Spring semesters
Munkres, James
Emeritus Professor of Mathematics
Differential Topology
Neguț, Andrei
Assistant Professor of Mathematics
Algebraic Geometry, Representation Theory
On Leave Spring semester
Pixton, Aaron
Class of 1957 Career Development Assistant Professor
Algebraic Geometry
On Leave Spring semester
Poonen, Bjorn
Claude Shannon Professor of Mathematics
Algebraic Geometry, Number Theory
Postnikov, Alexander
Professor of Applied Mathematics
Algebraic Combinatorics
Rigollet, Philippe
Associate Professor of Mathematics
Statistics, Machine Learning
Rosales, Rodolfo
Professor of Applied Mathematics
Nonlinear Waves, Fluid Mechanics, Material Sciences, Numerical pde
Saccà, Giulia
Assistant Professor of Mathematics
Sacks, Gerald
Emeritus Professor of Mathematical Logic
Mathematical Logic, Recursion Theory, Computational Set Theory
Seidel, Paul
Levinson Professor of Mathematics
Mirror Symmetry
On Leave Fall and Spring semesters
Sheffield, Scott
Leighton Family Professor of Mathematics
Probability and Mathematical Physics
Shor, Peter
Morss Professor of Applied Mathematics
Applied Mathematics Committee Chair
Quantum Computation, Quantum Information
Singer, Isadore
Emeritus Institute Professor
Differential Geometry, Partial Differential Equations, Mathematical Physics
Sipser, Michael
Dean of School of Science
Donner Professor of Mathematics
MacVicar Faculty Fellow
Algorithms, Complexity Theory
Speck, Jared
Cecil and Ida B. Green Career Development Associate Professor of Mathematics
Analysis related to Mathematical Physics, General Relativity, PDEs
Staffilani, Gigliola
Abby Rockefeller Mauze Professor of Mathematics
Analysis: Dispersive Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations
On Leave Fall and Spring semesters
Stanley, Richard
Professor of Mathematics
Algebraic Combinatorics
Stark, Harold
Emeritus Professor of Mathematics
Number Theory
Strang, Gilbert
MathWorks Professor of Mathematics
Stroock, Daniel
Emeritus Professor of Mathematics
Probability, Stochastic Analysis
Tabuada, Goncalo
Associate Professor of Mathematics
Algebraic Topology, Noncommutative Algebraic Geometry
Toomre, Alar
Emeritus Professor of Applied Mathematics
Astrophysics, Stellar Dynamics, Fluid Mechanics
Vogan, David
Norbert Wiener Professor of Mathematics
Group Representations, Lie Theory
/\-------/\
\::O:::O::/
(::_ ^ _::)
\_`-----'_/
You mean the classroom is the world, not just my cubbyhole in MIT?
And, even though you-- professors of math, want to remain stupid in Calculus and Physics, your students deserve better.
In 1999 i had no ego I EXPLAIN: in 1999 the stars were talking to me so i rose to my very best highest to speak at the rockstars level I WAS THEIR MIRROR TO TALK TO THEM I HAD TO HAVE AN EGO AS GOOD AS THEM IF THEY HTOUGHT IT WAS LOVBE ITS THEIR PROBLEM THEY HAVE TO PAY->I HAD NO EGO (1)
By ***@__.__ 1 post 1 view updated 10:39 AM




She turn the machines on in 1998 i did nothing and ten axl rose is the only one who tells the truth-->what can i do when there so may liars..what will you offer in a way of a healing...-->Axl ROse teold me you are liars and monsters rapists and robbers in america->what can a 19 year old boy in 1998 do to stop the american machine->I WAS THE ONLY ONE WHO GAVE THE ASS NOW THEY HAVE TO BLEED (1)
By ***@__.__ 1 post 1 view updated 10:34 AM




they stole my girlfriends my life apparently because i had an ego->apparently its a crime in america and the rest of the world to have an ego pfft yeah because they said i wasnt s star and i was a nobody what the fuck did they care about if i had an ego or not pfft (1)
By ***@__.__ 1 post 1 view updated 10:09 AM




they said they didnt sell me taht they sold my ego->og obviously first they said they sold love and now its the ego that they sold->what did they sell->britney spears hit me baby one more time was the ego?!??!?pffft (1)
By ***@__.__ 1 post 1 view updated 10:00 AM




she wasnt virgin she was closed but she managed 20plus years to stay opened and be virginlike at my expense->thats her just like america niggers who sold me MONKEYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (1)
By ***@__.__ 1 post 1 view updated 9:25 AM




Buy Winstrol, Sustanon 250 (Raw Powders), Bunex (Buprenorphine) 0.20mg, 5-IAI, 4-ACO-DMT, Ephedrine HCL, Opana (1)
By ***@gmail.com 1 post 1 view updated 8:56 AM




'Cold Steam' Controversy: six things to recognize (1)
By James McGinn 1 post 5 views updated 8:39 AM




I owe $411 for the $6,000 I made last year. (1)
By Jeff-Relf.Me 11 posts 10 views updated 7:31 AM
+ 6 others




Why we must suck the blood of the jews? AMerican jewish supremacy (2)
By ***@__.__ 2 posts 1 view updated 5:51 AM




place your order and get a free Pentobarbital Nembutal Sodium, Darvocet-A500 (Acetaminophen & Propoxyphene) 100/500 mg, Actiq (Fentanyl Citrate) 400mcg OTFC Lozenges, Avinza (Morphine Sulfate) 120mg capsule, AMBIEN ( Zolpidem, Stilnox) 10 mg, (1)
By order now 1 post 1 view updated 5:48 AM
Loading...