Discussion:
Drs. Tobias Colding, Laurent Demanet of MIT are you as dumb as Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = monopole
(too old to reply)
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-01-15 04:20:10 UTC
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
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
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
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
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
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
2019-06-22 18:18:06 UTC
Permalink
It must be a lot of fun for him to live in his very own fantasy world where he gets
to make up his own facts!
AP writes: well back in the 1900s, professors at MIT routinely lived in a world where they made up their own facts, and we can see that so plainly true in that they still believe a ellipse is a conic.
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
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.
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
2019-06-27 17:52:20 UTC
Permalink
Autistic
kibo-Parry-Moroney says Rensselaer_Polytech's_Isom Herron,Yuri V Lvov, Harry McLaughlin, John E. Mitchell, Bruce Piper, too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938


AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

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


World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

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

Plutonium Atom Totality Universe, Atom Totality Series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

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


True Chemistry Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

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

Length: 1154

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)

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

AP Atom Model replacing the Rutherford-Bohr Atom Model (Physics series for High School Book 1) Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
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.


Length: 12 pages


Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe        
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2019-07-15 17:35:36 UTC
Permalink
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2019 12:39:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
To: Plutonium Atom Universe <plutonium-atom-***@googlegroups.com>
Subject: starting Volume 2 of Teaching True Mathematics// and starting with
the principle of Pattern

starting Volume 2 of Teaching True Mathematics// and starting with the principle of Pattern

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: journal-textbook for ages 5 to 18, Volume 1; and ages 19 to 26, Volume 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

I decided to start this volume 2. Even though I could polish more on Volume 1.

Recently I made a large discovery in math, dealing with a concept of Pattern. That every math topic or subject has to have a pattern. If something in math has no pattern, such as the Primes. That "no pattern" is a result of a half-baked concept.

Let us say someone wants a concept of "blue numbers". Trouble with that, how can one define blue number, and if defined, there can be no pattern because "blue" is arbitrary.

I left off with Volume 1 talking about the fact that Natural Numbers had no division. Naturals had addition and multiplication but not division. So, you cannot have a definition of prime when Naturals themselves have no division.

And for decades now, I have been searching for a pattern of primes. I tried looking for a pattern that out-bested Ulam with his Ulam Prime Spiral. The end result was-- primes have no pattern.

So, recently, now, I am convinced Primes have no pattern, but not because they are special mathematics, but because, they are not mathematics at all. And it has taken me months to find a appropriate analogy. The Ancient Greek trisection of the general angle using only unmarked straightedge and compass. It is impossible, but a few angles are able to be trisected. Same thing goes for primes-- a few Naturals are divisible such as 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, . .  but many are not evenly divisible.

And because most humans, even mathematicians have a low standard of Logic abilities. They would overlook the fact, the idea, that Naturals have no division in the first place, so to come up with a definition of Primes as divisible only by 1 and itself, is illogical based on the fact that Naturals have no division operation. Just as the trisection can do a few angles like a 90 degree angle, the vast majority of angles cannot be done.

So, that lead me to this large scientific discovery--

All Math and Science topics or subjects have to have a PATTERN. If they have no pattern, then the topic or subject is flawed, human mind flawed, where a definition or concept is poorly constructed.

In New Math, the true numbers are Decimal Grid Numbers and the smallest of these Grids is the 10 Grid which is all these numbers:

Decimal 10 Grid System
9.0, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5 9.6, 9.7, 9.8, 9.9, 10.0 
8.0, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, 8.8, 8.9, 
7.0, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9, 
6.0, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9, 
5.0, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 
4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 
3.0, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 
2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 
1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 

0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 

If you examine the 10 Grid System, you see there are no prime numbers.

Prime numbers were a fakery idea and concept foisted onto the conscious of mathematics. They lacked logic and reasoning and understanding to see that if you have Naturals and Naturals have no division, then you cannot be running around defining prime number.

But, this large new discovery is seen over in Physics also. For decades now, I believed in the physics concept of electron dot cloud where dots compose a electron in Space and those dots are probability placed. That physics means-- no pattern. Fortunately, recently as of 2017, I discovered the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is the muon at 105MeV and the little particle of .5 MeV turns out not to be the electron of atoms but the Dirac magnetic monopole. What that does, or causes, is the idea and picture that the proton is a coil of 8 windings while the muon is one complete ring as bar magnet thrusting through the proton coil in Faraday's Law and this activity creates new magnetic monopoles= electricity.

All of that physics is PATTERNED, for the Faraday law is a pattern and coils and rings are patterns.

So, what I want to do is start off the Volume 2 of Teaching True Mathematics where I left off on Volume 1. This notion and idea that all science, including mathematics, every topic and subject must have PATTERN. In fact we can include that idea as a axiom of mathematics, and as a Principle of Physics.

AP

END


Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2019 21:53:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: AP -Maxwell Equations //SCIENCE COUNCIL RULES EARTH, series 2, 2019
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 04:53:57 +0000

AP -Maxwell Equations //SCIENCE COUNCIL RULES EARTH, series 2, 2019

Take any freshman college physics textbook in Norway, and get to the Maxwell Equations. Get to a sample exercise by the authors using the Maxwell Equations. I am using Halliday & Resnick. Now, see how easy or difficult it is to do that same sample exercise using the AP Maxwell Equations.


1) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field  B = kg /A*s^2
2) V = i*B*L       New Ohm's law, law of electricity
3) V' = (i*B*L)'          Ampere-Maxwell law
4) (V/i*L)'  = B'        Faraday law
5) (V/(B*L))' = i'      the new law of spin
6) (V/(i*B))' = L'      the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force


Coulomb law

(V/(i*B))' = L'

(V/(i*B))'  = (V'*i*B - V*i' B - V*i*B') / (i*B)^2

L' = (i^2B - B^3- V^2i) / i^2B^2

L' = (i^2B - B^3- V^2i) / i^2B^2

Ampere-Maxwell Law   (i*B*L)' = i'*B*L + i*B'L + i*B*L'

V' = (iBL)' = i'*B*L + i*B'*L + i*B*L'

= B*B*L + i*V*L + i*B*(i_C)
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Faraday law
B' = (V/i*L)' = (V'*i*L - V*i' *L - V*i*L') / (i*L)^2
= ((i_C)iL - VBL -Vi(i_C))/ i^2L^2
What I need to show, is that the AP-Maxwell Equations are so much easier to plug in than ever was the case of Old Physics Maxwell equations.

AP


Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 00:11:33 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: AP -Maxwell Equations //SCIENCE COUNCIL RULES EARTH, series 2, 2019
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 07:11:34 +0000

AP -Maxwell Equations //SCIENCE COUNCIL RULES EARTH, series 2, 2019

As i remember the Maxwell Equations, they are mostly plug in the numbers given.

In the AP Maxwell equations there is no electric field but instead a voltage.

Halliday & Resnick 3rd ed, Fundamentals of Physics, 1988, page 836 gives its first Maxwell Equation exercise involving Ampere law. The exercise is virtually all plug in.

If all Maxwell Equations are plug ins, then i and all students are home free from college education in math, for plug in are the easiest math of all.

So, if true about plug in there must be caveat. And the caveat is where we get the numbers to plug in. That must be the rub, getting the numbers to plug in are probably not straightforward at all. Such as in the first exercise they have dE/dt as 1.5*10^12 V/m*s

So the Maxwell Equations are mostly a field trip to a lab to collect numbers data, then plugging them in.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 00:38:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Are the Maxwell Equations mostly plug in, and the bulk of the work is
get the numbers data directly from experiments
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 07:38:53 +0000

Are the Maxwell Equations mostly plug in, and the bulk of the work is get the numbers data directly from experiments

Let me see if I am correct-- Old Physics Maxwell Eq. are mostly just plug ins, and the burden of the work is getting the numbers data from a in lab experimental set up. Am I correct on this notion? For if correct then the Old Physics Maxwell Equations were a push over, both for students and teachers, except, however, the teachers never realized this "push over" and felt they were difficult, hard, and remote.

So looking at Berkeley physics course-- volume 2 Electricity And Magnetism, Purcell, 1965 starts a exercise with Faraday's Law on pages 244-245. With B = 50 sin 377t, B in gauss and t in seconds. Electromotive force calculated in volts. And they end up with -0.059 cos 377t (volts).

Yes, looks to me like the Maxwell Eq of Old Physics are all plug ins, of numbers data collected from live experiments in the lab. And Purcell shows us why Physicists love, love and love the trig functions being in math and physics, because derivative of sin is cos and vice versa with coefficients to bear in mind.

But in true math and true physics, EM is not a sinusoid wave but rather a cycloid wave, and thus we throw out all the Old Math trigonometry functions both in math and physics, where the calculus has no trigonometry functions at all. Does that make the math a bit more difficult? Yes, but it makes math and physics with 100% clarity. No human mind can picture sinusoid waves with calculus, and the mind loses all sense of what is going on and is a slave to rumdummy algebra rules. Simply stated-- we can see what is going on.

The bulk of Freshman College math, is to be able to work with the AP-Maxwell Equations. That understanding spills over into all the sciences. For remember, there is no Schrodinger or Dirac Equations anymore, for they are a subset of the AP-Maxwell Equations.

Freshman College Math should set the course of any student in any science or engineering. Pass Freshman College Math, and you have all the math you need for life in science.

AP

Newsgroups: sci.physics
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 09:32:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Freshman College math, probably the easiest math you will ever take
in science-- because it is Plug-in// Picking the brains.. survey of math-physics professors on Maxwell Equations
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 16:32:19 +0000

Freshman College math, probably the easiest math you will ever take in science-- because it is Plug-in// Picking the brains.. survey of math-physics professors on Maxwell Equations

Alright, I am in the midst of starting Volume 2 of TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS. It begins with Freshman College mathematics, and the bulk of the year is spent on AP Maxwell Equations. The good news is that it is mostly the mathematics of plug in. Nothing to be scared of and actually, Freshman year of college math can be the most easy year of ever doing any mathematics at all, because it is PLUG-IN.

I think everyone in the world who hates math, can do plug in.

And it is great great great, that Maxwell Equations is mostly, yes mostly all just plug in.

Give me the numbers and then plug into the equations.

The only hard part about teaching and learning Maxwell Equations, was going to the laboratory and obtaining the numbers you are about to plug in.

So we make a survey of math and physics professors and ask them why they were such pitiful wretches as teachers. We do a survey to see if they ever recognized the Maxwell Equations are just PLUG-IN. Why they made the most important and beautiful mathematics that the world must teach, why they covered it up and made it so oblique, so vague, so incomprehensible? Is it because teachers don't teach math but enjoy punishing students-- a sado masochism? Or is it because math teachers are so pathetically ignorant sods that could never teach math and they are there to make money.

So we see in Strang's book 1991, CALCULUS, let us hope he never made a new edition of such horrible teaching, on page 593 where he talks about Faraday's Law. Trouble is, never any examples of solving the equation. On page 594, Strang starts with Example 7, but never any case examples of solving any Maxwell Equations.

No wonder students hate math and have nightmares thereafter. No-one in education is telling students the straight up and the true blue, except AP.

The Maxwell Equations and the AP Maxwell Equations are the easiest math you will ever encounter in life, I guarantee you, the easiest math there ever was. Because it is all PLUG-IN mathematics.

The only hard part, is getting the numbers you will plug in. And to get those numbers, you have to step into a physics laboratory, or have the math teacher bring a demonstration of Faraday Law into the classroom and show you how he/she gets the numbers that you use to PLUG-IN.

What Strang and modern day math college classes teaches is obfuscation, horrible obfuscation and obscurity and incomprehension of math, because, well, they were never mathematicians in the first place. Because being a true mathematician, we cut through all that obscurity and make math plain simple easy for all. We make math fun and easy, so fun and easy, that the hardest math-- Maxwell equations, is the easiest of all math. Because, all you are really doing, is plugging numbers into simple equations. Strang puts his Maxwell Equations near the end of his 600 page nightmare. The author Archimedes Plutonium puts his AP-Maxwell Equations near the beginning of the textbook Volume 2 Teaching True Mathematics.

College Freshman-- around the world-- ring out or blare out the good words-- Freshman math is the easiest math you will ever take in your science career, all because it is mostly plug in.

AP



Very crude dot picture of 5f6 magnetosphere of 231Pu Atom Totality

A torus shape doing the Faraday Law inside of each and every atom.
                 __ 
       .-'               `-.      
   .'     ::\ ::|:: /::     `.
 /        ::\::|::/::         \      inside the atom is rings of Faraday Law coil and bar magnet         
;..........  _ _ ............ ;
|.......... (     ).............|     
;             - -             ;
 \         ::/::|::\::        /    neutrons form a atom-skin cover over the torus rings 
   `.     ::/ ::|:: \::     .'             
      `-    _____   .-'
     
One of those dots in the magnetosphere is the Milky Way galaxy. And
each dot represents another galaxy. The O is the Cosmic nucleus and
certainly not as dense as what Old Physics thought, and perhaps it is a void altogether
because in New Physics the interior of atoms has the Faraday law going on.

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

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe  
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2019-06-24 20:20:18 UTC
Permalink
Runt of Physics and Minnow of Math
AP writes: hypocrite who thinks 938 is 12% short of 945
Archimedes Plutonium
2019-06-24 20:48:38 UTC
Permalink
Runt of Physics and Minnow of Math
AP writes: hypocrite who thinks 938 is 12% short of 945
Archimedes Plutonium
2019-06-25 23:12:38 UTC
Permalink
Princeton's_Charles Fefferman, Nicholas Katz, Sergiu Klainerman, Simon Kochen, Joseph Kohn, János Kollár, Elliott Lieb are they dumb as Moroney?? ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938
Autistic
Princeton's_Charles Fefferman, Nicholas Katz, Sergiu Klainerman, Simon Kochen, Joseph Kohn, János Kollár, Elliott Lieb 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 Princeton 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 Princeton 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 Princeton to see real proton is 840MeV.
- hide quoted text -
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's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

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

- hide quoted text -
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2019-06-26 22:05:31 UTC
Permalink
Michael Moroney wrote:
4:20 PM (38 minutes ago)

Re: Archimedes "just wasn't bolted down too tight in the first place" Plutonium flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test

Autistic
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Princeton's_Charles Fefferman, Nicholas Katz, Sergiu Klainerman, Simon Kochen, Joseph Kohn, János Kollár, Elliott Lieb are they dumb as Moroney?? ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938
Autistic
Princeton's_Charles Fefferman, Nicholas Katz, Sergiu Klainerman, Simon Kochen, Joseph Kohn, János Kollár, Elliott Lieb 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 Princeton 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 Princeton 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 Princeton to see real proton is 840MeV.
- hide quoted text -
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
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's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
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
- hide quoted text -
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2019-07-23 02:52:52 UTC
Permalink
Mouse of Math and Imp of Physics
Mouse of Math and Imp of Physics
Bozo of Math and Clown of Physics
AP writes: I do not think any of those Princeton people are what you kibo Parry Moroney describe, but rather you are the constant insane ad hominem stalker
Princeton's_Charles Fefferman, Nicholas Katz, Sergiu Klainerman, Simon Kochen, Joseph Kohn, János Kollár, Elliott Lieb are they dumb as Moroney?? ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938
Autistic
Princeton's_Charles Fefferman, Nicholas Katz, Sergiu Klainerman, Simon Kochen, Joseph Kohn, János Kollár, Elliott Lieb 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 Princeton 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 Princeton 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 Princeton to see real proton is 840MeV.
- hide quoted text -
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
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's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
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
- hide quoted text -
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2019-07-10 18:01:38 UTC
Permalink
Autistic physics failure
sci.physics & sci.math are dead newsgroups due in large part to stalkers such as kibo Parry Moroney & Dan Christensen// read my science research and posts in peace and quiet in plutonium-atom-universe


Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe  
Archimedes Plutonium
Mosquito of Math and Gnat of Physics
WARNING TO STUDENTS
Mosquito of Math and Gnat of Physics
Mosquito of Math and Gnat of Physics
Alzheimer
Autistic
stalker kibo Parry Moroney
Minnow of Math and Runt of Physics
stalker kibo Parry Moroney
Minnow of Math and Runt of Physics
Autistic
Minnow of Math and Runt of Physics
stalker kibo Parry Moroney
Minnow of Math and Runt of Physics
Mouse of Math and Phlea of Physics
Archimedes Plutonium
2019-07-17 04:01:46 UTC
Permalink
Yes, I think CalTech where the muon was discovered is the better school, for many at MIT could piss straight even with a pea shooter, considering it is these clowns who built LIGO, the kook gravity waves.
Autistic physics failure
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 12:35:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
To: Plutonium Atom Universe <plutonium-atom-***@googlegroups.com>
Subject: instead of gold foil, use carbon graphite or diamond-- atoms have
no nucleus //Rutherford-Geiger-Marsden Experiment done over to tell the
real truth about atom geometry Re: Radioactivity facts on alpha particles

instead of gold foil, use carbon graphite or diamond-- atoms have no nucleus //Rutherford-Geiger-Marsden Experiment done over to tell the real truth about atom geometry Re: Radioactivity facts on alpha particles

Alright, in the below it seems at first glance to be a difficult Rutherford-Geiger-Marsden Experiment Do-over. But I think it is an easy do-over. I would hazard to guess that since 1913, there have been thousands of repeat experiments, all using Gold foil. And all assuming of a nucleus in atoms.

Where, if, there was one decent scientist who would go into the lab and use carbon-- graphite or diamond, would find the case that atoms of carbon have no nucleus. And instead, the ricochet or rebound of alpha particles at 180 degree from source, can be only explained as a bouncing off of a carbon atom skin coating. See my 3 possibilities below.

On Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 6:26:13 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
So very much of physics is ultimately down to the skin coating that makes up the outer surface of each and every atom. This is much about Radioactivity.

And a major major change in Physics is the physics of the geometry of atoms.

Old Physics got the idea that atoms were small balls with 99.9% of the mass residing in a dense nuclear center, with electrons as tiny tiny mass and huge space outside the nucleus, as a dot cloud where each dot is a fraction of .5 MeV for a electron, with the proton at 938MeV and the neutron at 940MeV residing in the nucleus. They justified the neutron by saying it allows the protons to stay together and not repel. This was the silly stupid view of Physics of Old Physics.

New Physics says their is no repulsion in EM theory. There is no nucleus in atoms, for the proton is 840 MeV and consists of 8 windings of a coil, while electron is the muon as 1 ring acting as a Faraday law bar magnet thrusting through the proton coil and producing magnetic monopoles, some of which are .5MeV monopoles. These monopoles are stored inside of growing neutrons. Neutrons act as capacitors, growing from the produced monopoles until they grow to 945MeV and then they cause that atom to increase in atomic number, going from say carbon to nitrogen, or fluorine to neon, etc. The neutron and monopoles reside on the surface of atoms, the interior of atoms is a Faraday coil with muon magnet going around and thrusting through proton coil, thus the atom is a torus with neutrons and monopoles as dielectric skin coating. The center of atoms is virtually a void, a donut hole analogy.

What that New Physics picture tells us to do, is recheck the old Rutherford, Geiger Marsden experiment where they conclude that the bounced back alpha particles fired upon a gold leaf foil, they interpreted that bounce back as meaning the atom has a dense nuclear region.

What we must do is repeat that experiment to show that firing alpha particles at gold leaf foil, is either,

1) the alpha particles enter inside the torus ring and naturally follow the torus path and thus are deflected back 180 degrees to the firing site.

Or,

2) the alpha particles are not entering inside the torus ring but rather are circling around the top or bottom circular path of the outside of the torus and thus deflected back 180 degrees to source.

Or,

3) the alpha particles deflected back to source are caused by the outer skin coating of the gold atoms is sufficient enough to bounce back at 180 degrees a few of the alpha particles.


I favor this third one as the likely true answer. I am betting that no physicist since 1913, had the brains to try out carbon, where carbon with its 6 protons and 6 neutrons does not have adequate skin coating cover. Gold you see has 79 protons but has 197- 79 = 118 neutrons. This is the reason atoms have to have more and more neutrons, to make a increasing need of skin coating, because the size of the gold atom torus is so large, that you need so many more neutrons to cover the torus outer surface. In fact the mathematics of how many neutrons a atom has is a logarithmic function-- meaning-- surface area of torus is logarithmic increase.

And, once real physicists, not these present day hacks of physics chasing black holes, chasing Higgs boson, chasing fusion energy, chasing gravity waves. Once the real physicists find that the rebounded alpha particle upon carbon is not what supports a "nuclear atom" but rather, supports the idea that nucleus of atoms is bogus, is fake science.

Now some will quickly think that biology is a culprit of the fake nuclear atom, thinking that by 1800s and especially 1908-1913, that cell biology proved a nuclear cell. And it is easy to think that since most cells, not all, have a nucleus, that surely physics would have the nuclear atom. In fact, biology has Prokaryotic cells-- no nucleus, and the DNA is loose and in the form of geometry of a ring or loop around the cell, much like a torus loop.

So, if in 1913, if Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden had studied or known of Prokaryotic cells more than Eukaryotic cells, then physics perhaps would have taken a better turn to truth.

But looking at the history, it appears biology was not fully aware of cells without a nucleus, and so impossible for Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden to have known of a living cell that has no nucleus-- history-- Stanier, van Niel, 1962, and Chatton's 1937. I do not know if Rutherford in 1908 wanted to know the best science of living cells-- whether a cell can exist without a nucleus, I do not know what the situation was in 1908. But I am certain that all three, Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden knew that biology cells have a well defined nucleus and am certain that swayed their interpretation of their gold leaf experiment.

And what I am saying is that atoms have no nucleus, and the alpha particles are bouncing off the surface of atoms to rebound back to the source.

This would be a major major change in all of physics-- atoms have no nucleus. And just one more result or fallout of the discovery that the real proton is 840 MeV, real electron is the muon at 105 MeV and the .5 MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole.

How one great discovery leads to thousands more, great discoveries.

In our modern day instruments, I believe we can now go through all three of the above scenarios and find out which is the true reason of the Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden experiment of 1908-1913.

Their is nothing wrong with their experiment-- for it is true that a few are deflected back 180 degrees. But there is everything wrong with their interpretation of why some alpha particles are deflected back. The entire view of a nuclear atom is a silly stupid view, for it places no job, no function, no duty, no task of subatomic particles. A stupid silly view of protons neutrons and electrons as do-nothing subatomic particles. Once you place a job or task upon proton and neutron and electron such as Faraday Law, then you cannot have the silly stupid nuclear atom.

I am going to bet that the (3) is true-- that the alpha particle bounces off the skin coating of carbon atoms. Provided, if, any alpha particles reflect back at 180 degrees.

AP


Geometry of the Chemical Bond; metallic, covalent, ionic//Chemistry Series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

This is the second book of the Series -- True Chemistry. I left off of True Chemistry with trying to solve the Chemical bond when the proton and muon inside of each and every atom is doing the Faraday Law. And since that book was already 1154 pages long, I decided to start afresh in a second book devoted to solving the Geometry of the chemical bond of metallic, covalent and ionic.
Cover Picture: PHYSICS: Part 2: Extended Version: Halliday & Resnick, 1986, pages 654, 655 talking about Capacitors and my collection of some capacitors in my lab. The first one is a two prong wall plug taken apart to show what the prongs fasten onto when plugged-in (two parallel plates). The next three are spade and socket connectors (two parallel plates). Next is circular or hook plates, and last is a cylinder plate and socket.

Length: 124 pages


Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2019-07-18 22:37:10 UTC
Permalink
AP writes: I agree for MIT are only fostering more fake physics, where those nutters teach 10 OR 4 = 14 with ellipse a conic when it never was.
WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't become a victim of
Minnow of Math and Runt of Physics
AP writes: I agree for MIT isd only fostering more fake physics, where those nutters teach 10 OR 4 = 14 with ellipse a conic when it never was.

Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 23:16:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
To: Plutonium Atom Universe <plutonium-atom-***@googlegroups.com>
Subject: a bit of trouble here Re: instead of gold foil, use carbon graphite
or diamond-- atoms have no nucleus //Rutherford-Geiger-Marsden Experiment
done over to tell the real truth about atom geometry

a bit of trouble here Re: instead of gold foil, use carbon graphite or diamond-- atoms have no nucleus //Rutherford-Geiger-Marsden Experiment done over to tell the real truth about atom geometry

Just when I thought I was going to treat myself to a 6 month vacation from this subject, I run across my old High School physics textbook talking about the Rutherford Geiger Marsden Experiment.

3rd edition, 1971 (actually I used a earlier edition in High School for I graduated 1968) PSSC PHYSICS, Haber-Schaim, Cross, Dodge, Walter on pages 554-555.

Quoting PSSC PHYSICS
"The first thing we learn with this apparatus is that most of the alpha particles pass through the 400 layers of atoms without appreciable change in their direction of motion. We can conclude that most of the inside of the atom has no hard, massive objects from which the alpha particles would bounce off at an angle."

Alright, I seemed to have ignored this fact and focused only on the alpha bullets deflected back to the radioactive source.

Can I account for that fact with my model of the atom as a large torus that has no nucleus but has a skin coating composed of neutrons windings and the proton is winding of rings for a Faraday Law. The muon is inside the proton coil torus as a Faraday Law bar magnet.

For the gold atom the protons are 79 would be 79x8 = 632 windings torus and 197-79 = 118 neutrons with 118x9 = 1062 windings to make a skin coating surface for the 632 windings of protons.

The alpha particle is 2x8 = 16 windings of a proton coil torus with 2x9 = 18 windings of a skin cover.

I think I can get by on this problem if I consider the size of a atom radius is directly proportional to atomic number. So for helium at 2 would be a radius 2 compared to a radius of 79. And so Circumference of torus with diameter 158, is roughly 496, and the circumference of a alpha particle is 3.14..x 4 = 12.5 roughly.

So now, for a gold atom with circumference 496 I have a ring winding of 632.

So, the picture that is emerging here, is like this graphic

| | | | as proton ring windings

and size of a alpha particle as O

And apparently then, what happens is that the O alpha particle can ram right into a few of these proton windings and not be affected, and 400 gold atoms and not be affected.

Now I need to explain the 180 degree rebound alpha particles.

I am in trouble here unless I can explain it away.

AP


Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 00:35:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: Archimedes Plutonium <***@gmail.com>
To: Plutonium Atom Universe <plutonium-atom-***@googlegroups.com>
Subject: perhaps a resolution Re: instead of gold foil, use carbon graphite
or diamond-- atoms have no nucleus //Rutherford-Geiger-Marsden Experiment
done over to tell the real truth about atom geometry

perhaps a resolution Re: instead of gold foil, use carbon graphite or diamond-- atoms have no nucleus //Rutherford-Geiger-Marsden Experiment done over to tell the real truth about atom geometry


I am pretty sure I know what the answer is here, my perplexing problem. If I look at volume of the gold atom versus volume of the alpha particle I have for radius 79 as 1,972,156 cubic volume and for alpha particle with radius 2 of volume 32 cubic volume. So that when the alpha particle slams into the gold atom torus, the material of the torus is so vastly spread around that it does encounter matter of the protons and neutrons, but the small amount of matter does not affect its travel through.

But now, how to explain those rare alpha rebounds at 180 degrees?

Here I am thinking that the 400 gold atoms bonded by metallic bond as this picture

[][][][][] 400 such gold atoms

And if a alpha particle enters the gold leaf such that those particles are perpendicular to the metallic bond capacitors --->[][][][][][]

That it is going to rebound back at 180degrees.

Now to prove my above, we need to do this experiment on 400 carbon atoms leaf thick in graphite.

Since the volume of carbon atom is 4*6^3 = 864 cubic volume and alpha particle is volume 32. That such numbers should yield a greater number of deflections, but of those deflections fewer 180 degree rebounds as in gold, provided there is any 180 degree rebound. When you have particles in collision of nearly the same size, you get more deflections rather than passing straight through.

AP

1.1- Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
1.1-
1.1- https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
1.1- Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2019-07-19 07:15:48 UTC
Permalink
why does MIT endorse insane stalkers kibo Parry Moroney when MIT should be focused on confirming real proton is 840MeV, real electron is the muon and .5 MeV was the Dirac monopole


27 year long shithead stalker kibo Parry Moroney decided to share with us On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 5:49:00 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Minnow of Math and Runt of Physics
Math Failure
27 year long shithead stalker kibo Parry Moroney decided to share with us
Minnow of Math and Runt of Physics
WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't become a victim of
Archimedes Plutonium
2019-07-19 18:44:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
why does MIT endorse insane stalkers kibo Parry Moroney when MIT should be focused on confirming real proton is 840MeV, real electron is the muon and .5 MeV was the Dirac monopole
27 year long shithead stalker kibo Parry Moroney decided to share with us On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 5:49:00 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > Minnow of Math and Runt of Physics
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Runt of Math and Phlea of Physics
Math Failure
27 year long shithead stalker kibo Parry Moroney decided to share with us
Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Minnow of Math and Runt of Physics
Archimedes Plutonium
2019-07-20 01:59:10 UTC
Permalink
Mouse of Math
Math Failure
Runt of Math and Phlea of Physics
Math Failure
Minnow of Math and Runt of Physics
1.2- Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
1.2- https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe  
1.2- Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2019-07-22 18:01:34 UTC
Permalink
Mouse of Math and Runt of Physics
Mouse of Math
Math Failure
Runt of Math and Phlea of Physics
Math Failure
Minnow of Math and Runt of Physics
1.2- Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
1.2- https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe  
1.2- Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
2018-01-15 20:21:04 UTC
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...