AP's 189th book of science: True Exoplanet data from the correct math of Electric Field differential equation and not the singular Newton law of gravity // Astronomy science by Archimedes Plutonium

I had slated a biology book of the evolution of legs as my 189th book but this topic of Exoplanets just stormed past the progress of that biology book.. So I decided to publish this book first, being so far more advanced. I have an excellent reference source of New Scientist, 4Dec2021 on exoplanet data.

And although I forced myself onto a vacation away from pure physics and math, seems as though that is almost impossible for me to stay away from physics.

True Exoplanet data from the correct math of Electric Field differential equation and not the singular Newton law of gravity // Astronomy science
by Archimedes Plutonium

Preface:

Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of a

--------------------------
Table of Contents
--------------------------

1) My history on this subject topic.

Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
May 29, 2022, 2:27:27 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
Well, it is just 1 week into AP's vacation from physics and math, and would you not know it. He is right back smack dab into doing physics and math.

I am helpless in preventing it.

I was reading several science magazines and the topic of Sun cycles of 22 years with 11 years of flipping North to South and back again. All because the Sun is fluid motion.

So here, in a vacation away from physics and math, it only took 1 week and I am right back at it, even though I wanted to get away from it.

Sun cycles asks the question of "Can the Sun be fusion powered since it has these cycles?" Or, is the Sun powered by Faraday law in order to have this pattern of 22 and 11 years for cycling the poles North to South and back again?

I believe the answer is clear, that electricity is produced in Faraday law not fusion and these cycles are electrical magnetic. So it is a simple proof that Sun shines from Faraday law, not fusion because as evidentiary proof-- the 11 and 22 year cycles.

That would predict that the gas giants rotate rapidly whereas rocky planets rotate more slowly.

                    Rotation period
Mercury           58.6 days
Venus            -243.0 days
Earth              23 hours 56 minutes
Moon              27.3 days
Mars                24 hours 37 minutes
Jupiter             9 hours 55 minutes
Saturn             10 hours 32 minutes
Uranus          -17 hours 14 minutes
Neptune         16 hours 6 minutes
Pluto                -6 days 9 hours 

What I am going to do is write up my physics work in this book and later collect it and assemble it to fit into existing books. I am too tired of making another physics book until Winter of 2022.

Alright the New Scientist article on exoplanets of 4Dec2021 come as a great fact sheet, authored by Stuart Clark. I need some article such as this that can amass the huge amount of data on exoplanets and present the state of the art-- the state of the condition of exoplanet facts. I cannot write this book without having this state of the art fact sheet of what has been discovered in exoplanet data. Thanks to Stuart Clark for making this information available.

Quoting New Scientist -- " As we find large numbers of solar systems elsewhere in our galaxy, none of them look like ours. There are gas giant planets close to their parent stars, rocky planets larger than Earth, compact systems with rocky worlds slotted in between gas giants-- anything goes."

And so in that article is a quote that is hugely important -- "Or Kepler-90, whose eight planets, from Earth-size to Jupiter-size, circle a sun-like star. They come in the expected size order, but are squeezed into orbits that are all closer to their star than Earth is to ours."

So when physics learned of spectral lines in atoms and found that all chemical elements have the very same spectral lines, as exact identification of what that atom is. Then in astronomy, following the same as physics Spectral lines as the EM laws of physics, we should expect that every star that is much similar to our Sun, that all those stars would have 8 or 9 planets and almost mirror image the Sun's planets. Except as noted in Kepler-90 that those mirror imaged planets all move in orbits no further than what Earth -Sun orbit is.

So, what AP is saying and the theme of this study is-- we are applying the wrong mathematics when we conclude the Kepler-90 distances.

AP says that if we could spaceship to Kepler-90, we would have a terrible time of telling apart Sun and Kepler-90, even the planets resemble our Solar System, in distances in mass in rotation. We could call Kepler-90 a identical twin star system to the Sun. Just as we take the spectral lines of hydrogen here and there-- all are the same.

So what is wrong with astronomy mathematics that it gives us this mistaken and skewed data interpretation? Well, Old Physics has only Newtonian Mechanics math when the true math involves the AP EM differential equation of (Electric field)'
= (Voltage/(Coulomb*Magnetic field))'. Which with the power rule yields 3 terms of which Newtonian gravity is a tiny part of those 3 terms.

So as modern day astronomers look through their telescopes and use the one silly math of Newtonian Mechanics and apply that to Kepler-90, it is natural for them to make the huge mistake of thinking the orbits are all inside Earth's orbit around Sun.

So what AP is going to predict in Astronomy for the next 30 years, is a correction of all the silly and hideous and laughable mistakes of astronomy of the past 30 years from 2022.

Here is a livid example of another hideous mistake of Old Physics Old Astronomy. New Scientist, 22Jan2022 "Astronomers may have found a huge moon around a Jupiter-like exoplanet".

So, in the next future years you can expect a magazine renouncing the laughable mistake of January 2022 of its supermoon. All because fools of astronomy and physics of 2022, use just Newtonian math for their exoplanets when what is needed is AP EM differential math of Electric field derivative.

source: from AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year college
AP-EM Equations, V= voltage, C= coulomb, B= magnetic field, E = electric field.
C' = (V/(BE))' = V'BE/(BE)^2 - VB'E/(BE)^2 - VBE'/(BE)^2 which is Faraday's law.
1st term as current production  -- 2nd term as Lenz law  -- 3rd term as DC, AC direction

B' = (V/(CE))' = V'CE/(CE)^2 - VC'E/(CE)^2 - VCE')/(CE)^2 which is Ampere-Maxwell law.
1st term as B production -- 2nd term as Displacement current -- 3rd term as parallel attract

E' = (V/(CB))' = V'CB/(CB)^2 - VC'B/(CB)^2 - VCB'/(CB)^2 which is Coulomb-gravity law.
1st term as E production -- 2nd term as inverse square of distance -- 3rd term as spin and orbit synchronicity

V' = (CBE)' = C'BE + CB'E + CBE' which is Transformer law
1st term as V production in a transformer  -- 2nd term as inverse square root -- 3rd term as DC, AC synchronicity

So what AP is saying is that today we have a report of a huge moon using the silly and daft math of Newtonian Mechanics or General Relativity, either one is pathetic. And that in the future, it will be seen that this moon is just a normal sized exomoon of a exoplanet. AP predicts the next 30 years will be the correcting of all the silly math mistakes that the past 30 years in astronomy flooded us with.

Now here is two examples of this "spending the next 30 years in physics and astronomy cleaning up the b.s. of the past 30 years".

From Science News, 9April2022 "Glimpse of cosmic dawn doubted" "Astronomers may not have found a sign of the first stars after all"

Then on the same page, "Nearby 'black hole' fooled scientists" "Contested star system reveals new stage of stellar pairing"

This fake black hole report should go into my book:
AP's periodic journal of fakeries and truths in science// Physics focus series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Where in May of 2022, I discuss the fake physics of the 2 reported black holes photos, saying that both were 3 or more stars in gravitational lock of one another and we are fortunate to have our telescopes perpendicular to the plane of orbit of those 3 stars in both fake black holes.

And so this newest report of the fake black hole of HR 6819 is typical of all the astronomy reports of the past 30 years being debunked because we use the one silly math of Newtonian gravity --General Relativity b.s. math when the true math of astronomy is
E' = (V/(CB))' = V'CB/(CB)^2 - VC'B/(CB)^2 - VCB'/(CB)^2 which is Coulomb-gravity law.
1st term as E production -- 2nd term as inverse square of distance -- 3rd term as spin and orbit synchronicity

So what this 189th book of AP is mostly about, is the entrance of true mathematics that applies to Astronomy.

Astronomy is much like Spectral lines of physics for the Primal Axiom of all Science, all Physics is -- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics-Chemistry

Alright, in the latest New Scientist, 28 May 2022 "Is this black hole picture wrong? The first ever image of a black hole, at the centre of the galaxy M87, showed a bright outer ring of light in line with predictions, but a new analysis suggests that may not be accurate"

Further it says a Japanese team says "Miyoshi says the restricted field of view could have caused artefacts in the EHT's final image..., not real structures in space. ... same mistake in recently ... Sagittarius A... in heart of Milky Way. His work suggests that the EHT image of M87, and perhaps that of Sagittarius A as well, shouldn't appear to be doughnut-shaped."

So in AP's book AP's periodic journal of fakeries and truths in science// Physics focus series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) for the month of May 2022, AP is arguing that the recent black hole pictures are b.s. science, serious b.s. and that black holes never exist because they violate Pauli Exclusion Principle. But when a scientist has no marbles of a logical brain, they ignore violating principles of science and push their b.s. agenda of black holes.

So AP thought the picture represented a picture from telescopes of viewing the orbiting of gravitational bound stars or galaxies forming a doughnut shaped geometry, viewing them at a perpendicular to their orbit and you get a doughnut shape. But then a group of Japanese scientists who do have logical marbles for brains reviewed the report and re-did the experiment and came out with an entirely different conclusion, that there is just no structure there at all, just black space and no donut shaped figure.

And the point of AP's 189th book of science, is the point that almost every data point of astronomy for the past 30 years has to be corrected. That almost every report of astronomy for the past 30 years is marred and mired in error because Old Physics uses just the mathematics of Newtonian Mechanics and General Relativity, when the true mathematics involves the AP-EM laws of electrodynamics, especially the differential equation of Electric field for which Newtonian Mechanics is a partial term out of 3 terms. One can safely say that all measurements and data for the past 30 years is 2/3 in distance length error, 2/3 in mass error, 2/3 in rotation spin and orbital error. And as this recent Japanese correction shows 2/3 in error of even existing in space. Where a goofball team of scientists in the USA think they see a object in space whereas their silly dumbarse math and interferometer just make it up as fiction.

A theme of my 189th book is that the astronomy reports for the past 30 to 50 years using just Newtonian Mechanics and General Relativity is utterly wrong by 67% in error and that we will spend the next 30 to 50 years debunking the b.s. of astronomy physics by using the correct math-- AP-EM Equations..

AP, King of Science, especially Physics and Chemistry

In practice .. how do you say that 2dm * 5dm * 60dm to give 6dm .. if 6..was = 60dm. ?

But if the Scientists don't See the macro ... how will they understand; micro * Macro = n.Macro?
To say 6dm ... just 2c * 30c = 60c = 6dm.
Actually: 2dm * 5dm * 60dm = 600dm^3.

What do you think .. Archimede Plutonio ?

Greetings from Socratis 7^3 + 9^3 = 16 *(7*9 +4) = 16*67 =1072m^3 =1'072'000i^3