Alright I bought most of the books Dirac wrote, in hopes of making more clarity of New Physics.

Seems as though that strategy is paying off, as I intently read the first pages of Lectures On Quantum Mechanics, that Dirac delivered to Yeshiva University.

And so Dirac is talking about the great usefulness is the Hamiltonian, and also in conjunction with the Lagrangian.

Of course AP replaces all the flawed Maxwell Equations with the AP differential Equations of taking the derivative of New Ohm's Law as the basis for all of mathematical physics. Taking New Ohm's law as Voltage = Coulomb*Magnetic field*Electric field, written as V = CBE. So we take each in turn the derivative, such as Ampere's law is B'= (V/(CE))'

--- quoting from my Teaching True Physics, 1st year college, 151st book ---
The next 4 laws are derivatives of all the possible 4 permutations of C, B, E, and V.

3) Rate of change of C, quantity current, C' = (V/(BE))' Faraday law.

4) Rate of change of B, magnetic field, B' = (V/(CE))' Ampere-Maxwell law..

5) Rate of change of E, electric field, E' = (V/(CB))' Coulomb law & gravity.

6) The rate of change of V= CBE as V' = (CBE)' as AC transformer law.

--- end quoting from my 151st book ---

So, I cannot escape but notice that Dirac needs both the Lagrangian and then needs the Hamiltonian.

What AP corrected in math and physics was the Maxwell equations in physics and also the functions and calculus and the true numbers of mathematics.

So as I read the first few pages of Dirac's Lectures on Quantum Mechanics (wish they would give dates in these publications). As I read the first few pages, I was struck with the idea that the Lagrangian is a fixing of the lousy "function of Old Math" to fix the lousy tattered and error filled function that is not a polynomial.

In New Math, all the numbers are Decimal Grid Numbers with holes in between, no continuum. And all the functions of New Math have to be polynomial functions, you cannot have trig functions or exponential or logarithmic or that gigantic list of fake functions. Only Polynomials are true functions of math and physics.

So on reading those first few pages, a light and bell came on in my mind. AP-- is the Lagrangian of Old Physics merely the transformation of a non-function into being a true function-- a polynomial over an interval.

Strangely enough, it was Lagrange who discovered how to transform a non polynomial into a polynomial over a interval.

But that is only the first of two fixes. For Dirac is intense and intent on using the Hamiltonian, another math application.

So AP has the Lagrangian fixed as a conversion from nonpolynomial function into a polynomial function.

What does AP suspect the Hamiltonian is?? What is the Hamiltonian in New Physics?

Well since the Old Physics Maxwell equations are all in error, what AP suspects the Hamiltonian in Old Physics was a attempt at joining the error filled Maxwell Equations into being the AP true equations of EM theory.

Notice in the AP equations of electrodynamics each law has 3 terms from the differentiation.

When you take the derivative of V= CBE, you end up with three terms as a solution. And this is what I expect the role of the Hamiltonian was in Old Physics. True physics had the Faraday and Ampere laws with 3 terms and so Old Physics with Maxwell Equations could not get the true physical data from Old Maxwell Equations and had to apply a scaffolding to reach that true data. That scaffolding is the Hamiltonian.

In New Physics we simple start with the correct equations of QED and have no need to apply either a Lagrangian nor a Hamiltonian. We start with the true equations.

AP's 194th book of Science// Translating Dirac's Hamiltonian and Lagrangian into New Physics of the AP-EM Equations of electrodynamics.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics-Chemistry

Alright I bought most of the books Dirac wrote, in hopes of making more clarity of New Physics.

Seems as though that strategy is paying off, as I intently read the first pages of Lectures On Quantum Mechanics, that Dirac delivered to Yeshiva University.

And so Dirac is talking about the great usefulness of the Hamiltonian, and also in conjunction with the Lagrangian. That the application of these classical mechanics is far better than the quantum mechanics mathematics, as Dirac states.

Of course AP replaces all the flawed Maxwell Equations with the AP differential Equations of taking the derivative of New Ohm's Law as the basis for all of mathematical physics. Taking New Ohm's law as Voltage = Coulomb*Magnetic field*Electric field, written as V = CBE. So we take each in turn the derivative, such as Ampere's law is B'= (V/(CE))'

--- quoting from my Teaching True Physics, 1st year college, 151st book ---
The next 4 laws are derivatives of all the possible 4 permutations of C, B, E, and V.

3) Rate of change of C, quantity current, C' = (V/(BE))' Faraday law.

4) Rate of change of B, magnetic field, B' = (V/(CE))' Ampere-Maxwell law..

5) Rate of change of E, electric field, E' = (V/(CB))' Coulomb law & gravity.

6) The rate of change of V= CBE as V' = (CBE)' as AC transformer law.

--- end quoting from my 151st book ---

So, I cannot escape but notice that Dirac needs both the Lagrangian and then needs the Hamiltonian.

What AP corrected in math and physics was the Maxwell equations in physics and also the functions and calculus and the true numbers of mathematics.

So as I read the first few pages of Dirac's Lectures on Quantum Mechanics (wish they would give dates in these publications). As I read the first few pages, I was struck with the idea that the Lagrangian is a fixing of the lousy "function of Old Math" to fix the lousy tattered and error filled function that is not a polynomial. Not a polynomial and to thence turn it into a full fledged polynomial over a interval.

In New Math, all the numbers are Decimal Grid Numbers with holes in between, no continuum. And all the functions of New Math have to be polynomial functions, you cannot have trig functions or exponential or logarithmic or that gigantic list of fake functions. Only Polynomials are true functions of math and physics.

So on reading those first few pages, a light and bell came on in my mind. AP-- is the Lagrangian of Old Physics merely the transformation of a non-function into being a true function-- a polynomial over an interval? Was the question I was asking myself.

Strangely enough, it was Lagrange who discovered how to transform a non polynomial into a polynomial over a interval. His Lagrange transform is taking of coordinate points of any nonfunction and translating that into a polynomial function.

Of course in new true mathematics, we want all functions be polynomials for they obey the Power Rules of Calculus, whilst non functions do not obey Calculus power rules.

But that is only the first of two fixes. For Dirac is intense and intent on using the Hamiltonian, another math application.

So AP has the Lagrangian fixed as a conversion from nonpolynomial function into a polynomial function.

What does AP suspect the Hamiltonian is?? What is the Hamiltonian in New Physics?

Well since the Old Physics Maxwell equations are all in error, what AP suspects the Hamiltonian in Old Physics was an attempt at joining the error filled Maxwell Equations into being the AP true equations of EM theory. Most of Maxwell equations are 1 termed equations, and not even having a magnetic monopole for symmetry.

Notice in the AP equations of electrodynamics each law has 3 terms from the differentiation. Most of Maxwell Equations had 1 term.

So this is where I suspect the Hamiltonian came into existence, in that the flawed and error filled Maxwell Equations needed to span the gap of having 3 terms when they had just one term. And this is where a Hamiltonian as a error corrector comes into play, to span that gap of where 3 terms should exist, but only 1 term is available.

When you take the derivative of V= CBE, you end up with three terms as a solution. And this is what I expect the role of the Hamiltonian was in Old Physics. True physics had the Faraday and Ampere laws with 3 terms and so Old Physics with Maxwell Equations could not get the true physical data from Old Maxwell Equations and had to apply a scaffolding to reach that true data. That scaffolding is the Hamiltonian.

In New Physics we simple start with the correct equations of QED and have no need to apply either a Lagrangian nor a Hamiltonian. We start with the true equations.

AP's 194th book of Science// Translating Dirac's Hamiltonian and Lagrangian into New Physics of the AP-EM Equations of electrodynamics.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics-Chemistry

Alright, so I am going to have to do a lot of talking through the Hamiltonian and Lagrangian and see whether I get rid of them totally, or end up simply as clarifying them into physics.

So what happened is that both the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian came from Newtonian Mechanics. Both came before the Maxwell theory of electromagnetism.

And both the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian at most have 3 terms as a function.

Then along comes Maxwell equations in 1860s, and sadly enough all of the Maxwell Equations have errors in them, for they are anti-symmetric with no magnetic monopole. The Maxwell Equations have only 1 term in three of the equations and 2 terms in the Ampere-Maxwell law.

What AP showed in 2016 was that the true error free Maxwell Equations should have come from the basis of New Ohm's law of V= CBE, when you take the derivative of all possible permutations, V' and C' and B' and E', yields the 4 differential laws of EM theory, the true laws. Every one of those laws has 3 terms due to the Power Rule of Calculus.

So, what AP is thinking is that the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian are so useful to Physics, only because the Maxwell Equations were so pitifully full of errors, and that the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian provided 3 terms when the Maxwell Equations of Physics gave 1 term in three laws, and 2 terms in one law.

So, what I am chasing after is whether I can completely throw out the Lagrangian and the Hamiltonian, now that we have the true equations of EM theory, each with 3 terms.

Or, whether we still have to keep the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian, even though the true EM laws have 3 terms each. Does the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian clarify the 3 terms of V',C',B',E', or are they just excess baggage that now needs be thrown out.

The question needs be answered by someone who uses Lagrangian and Hamiltonian almost daily or weekly on things like Spectral Lines.

AP

Funny how in Alessio Mangoni's book "The Dirac Equation" 2020, he has chapter 5 as the Dirac Hamiltonian, while his chapter 6 is the Dirac Lagrangian.

In Dirac's book "Lectures on Quantum Mechanics" (I wish they would date these books, I can only say it was delivered at Yeshiva University). But anyway, Dirac says on page 5, "We start off with an action integral which I denote by .... It is expressed as a time integral, the integrand L being the Lagrangian. So with an action principle we have a Lagrangian. We have to consider how to pass from that Lagrangian to a Hamiltonian. When we have got the Hamiltonian, we have made the first step toward getting a quantum theory."
--- end quoting ---

So, well, AP is a mathematician, logician in addition to being a physicist. And naturally on my mind, perhaps not on the mind of physicists, is, can Alessio Mangoni have first-- a Hamiltonian Dirac Equation and later a Lagrangian? Admitedly, AP does not do either the Lagrangian or Hamiltonian, each day, week, month, year as do some physicists. But is there some natural order in the Dirac doing the Lagrangian first and then doing the Hamiltonian.

I ask the physics community, those that do Lagrangians and Hamiltonians every day of the year.

But what AP is really after is the idea of throwing out both the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian, seeing that the AP EM equations are the true and full equations of physics of V', C', B', and E'. Where these Lagrangian and Hamiltonians are no longer needed.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics-Chemistry

I get annoyed if I have no date to reference. These "Lectures on Quantum Mechanics" by Dirac, only says Yeshiva Univ. so I went looking for when Dirac was lecturing at Yeshiva. The date 1964 appears to be the one for which I am translating Dirac's physics compared to AP in 2022, 58 years almost 60 years later. And AP is lecturing to the world via Usenet and Amazon Kindle. Quite a stark contrast difference. I guess at the time of the 1960s, that college and university lectures was what the Usenet, sci.physics, sci.math, plutonium-atom-universe have become.

Nobel Prize in Physics winner Paul A. M. Dirac lecturing at ...https://digital.library.yu.edu › object › digital35077
Nobel Prize in Physics winner Paul A. M. Dirac lecturing at Yeshiva University's Belfer Graduate School of Science. Collection: Yeshiva University Historic ...

Dirac Honored by Yeshiva For His Work in Science - The New ...https://www.nytimes.com › 1964/11/16 › archives › dirac...
The $1,000 annual award of the Belfer Graduate School of Science of Yeshiva University was presented last night to Prof. Paul A. M. Dirac of Cambridge, ...

Lectures on Quantum Field Theory. PAM Dirac ... - Sciencehttps://www.science.org › doi › science.158.3801.623.a
by J Sucher · 1967 — A Formalism for Quantum Physics: Lectures on Quantum Field Theory. P. A. M. Dirac. Belfer Graduate School of Science, Yeshiva University, New York; Academic ...

Dirac, P. (1964) Lectures on Quantum Mechanics. Yeshiva ...https://www.scirp.org › reference › referencespapers
Dirac, P. (1964) Lectures on Quantum Mechanics. Yeshiva University, New York. ... ABSTRACT: We present a brief review of the cohomological solutions of self- ...

Lectures on Quantum Mechanics - Paul Adrien Maurice Dirachttps://books.google.com › books › about › Lectures_on_...
Lectures on Quantum Mechanics. Front Cover. Paul Adrien Maurice Dirac. Belfer Graduate School of Science, Yeshiva University, 1964 - Quantum theory - 87 ...

Alright, well, anyone can obtain Dirac's 1964 book "Lectures on Quantum Mechanics" where he delivers a lecture at Yeshiva Univ on the subject of "mathematical methods in physics".

This is now 2022, and AP is writing a book and delivering a lecture on why in the world does Physics have the Lagrangian and the Hamiltonian to mess with. Why are students taught this mess?

What is in this mess called the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian, this bizarre math, supposedly needed in order to do physics.

There is only good news in this lecture for students, only good news, because at the end of my lecture, my book, you no longer need the Lagrangian nor the Hamiltonian.

So let me go directly to what I mean in a illustration.

Both the Lagrangian and the Hamiltonian came in science history way before Maxwell had his equations of electricity and magnetism. We can safely say the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian were methods of mathematics applied to physics about 1800, and Maxwell's Equations were 1860.

Trouble is, Maxwell's Equations where all 4 of his equations are filled with error, either missing terms or false and bogus laws-- no magnetic monopole.

So you have by 1860s you have 4 equations of EM laws all 4 being error filled or missing terms.

And now you are doing physics by year 1900 with quantum mechanics. And your main physics laws are the EM laws of electricity and magnetism. However, all 4 laws are missing terms. Three of the Maxwell laws are missing 2 terms and have only 1 term. One of the Maxwell Equations has 2 terms but still missing a term (Ampere - Maxwell law).

So, in physics history, here you are in early 1900s, around 1900-1930 with the brand new Planck's quantization discovery and quantum mechanics is borne in 1900. And now in the following years we have Spectral lines, Balmer, Rydberg and others.

And we need math for solving why the Balmer formula or the Rydberg and many others.

Yet from 1900 to 1930 we still have Maxwell Equations of error filled and missing terms in electricity and magnetism.

So how does physics from 1900 to 1930 able to make progress and success, despite the fact that Maxwell theory is all error filled and missing 2 terms in three of its equations and missing one term in the Ampere-Maxwell law?

How is it possible that such tatter torn error filled Maxwell Equations can solve for quantum mechanics physical measurements?

The answer as to how error filled Maxwell Equations and Quantum Mechanics can solve physics experiments and measure is by bringing in the Lagrangian and the Hamiltonian. For both the Lagrangian in conjunction with the Hamiltonian patch up the missing terms of Maxwell theory, and so to speak "right the ship" of a error filled Maxwell theory.

Now mind you, back in physics history, it was not yet known by physicists that EM theory covers all of physics under the principle -- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. From 1900 to 1930, the concept of "unification of forces of physics" was only just starting. For much of the 20th century had goofball physicists who made "general relativity" be more important to them than EM. Fortunately a few like Dirac and Feynman realized that QED, quantum electrodynamics was the jewel of physics.

So, suppose that Maxwell equations of 1860, had discovered the true equations of EM theory, the equations that AP discovered by 2016 recognizing that EM theory should make New Ohm's law the heart and basis of EM theory. Not Old Ohm's law of V = current x resistance, but New Ohm's law of V = C*B*E of voltage = couloumb x magnetic field x electric field.

And so you take the derivative of all permutations of V= CBE and you end up with the correct and full true laws of EM theory. Each of them has 3 terms.

--- quoting from TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year college ---

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

--- end quoting ---

So, well, what AP is lecturing on today 15Jun2022, to a world audience, unlike Dirac to a audience at Yeshiva University in 1964. Is that if the Maxwell Equations of 1860 were the above four equations, each having 3 terms then the mathematics of the Lagrangian coupled with Hamiltonian would never have been needed or used in physics. You do not need a Lagrangian nor Hamiltonian if Maxwell theory had been the correct equations of physics. And once you begin to see so much matrices in physics, the Dirac equation, should have been a warning sign that physics and math were fundamentally off course in correctness of laws. That the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian had become more uglier and uglier in their patching up of Maxwell theory.

I say that because the Lagrangian is a transformation of a non-function into becoming a true function, for in True Math, the only functions that exist are polynomial functions. And the Hamiltonian is a Power Rule of Calculus applied to a polynomial, a polynomial achieved from the Lagrangian.

So there is a lot of math involved in my last sentences above.

Let me try to unpack those sentences with a illustration.

Suppose Balmer and Rydberg come running towards you with a spectral line experiment and they deliver that experiment in the mathematics of trigonometry functions of sine, cosine, and tangent.

But true math has only polynomials as functions, no other math is a function unless it is a polynomial.

So Balmer and Rydberg have sine, cosine and tangent for their spectral lines. Now steps in the Lagrangian and makes the sine, cosine, tangent be a Polynomial equation and no longer a trigonometry formula. This is called in mathematics the Lagrange interpolation where you graph say 3 or 4 coordinate points of the sine, cosine, tangent formula. And then you apply the Lagrange interpolation that gets rid of entirely the sine and cosine and tangent, gets rid of it all and leaves you remaining with just a pure polynomial. Say that the Lagrange interpolation leaves you with the polynomial of 4x^3 + 2x^2 + x.

So now, our Balmer and Rydberg came to us with a awful and ugly sine, cosine, tangent formula in their spectral line experiment, and what we did then was convert that trigonometry using Lagrange interpolation. We converted it into a polynomial 4x^3 + 2x^2 +x.

So far we applied the Lagrangian, now we apply the Hamiltonian, because our 1860s Maxwell theory is all screwed up. And we need to apply the Hamiltonian simply because the 1860s Maxwell theory is missing so many terms.

So the modern day Hamiltonian is merely a correction of the messed up 1860s EM equations.

And what that modern day Hamiltonian does in our example of 4x^3 + 2x^2 +x is to take the derivative thereof by applying the Power Rule. Do you remember the Power Rule for polynomials??? It is a breeze of math to do and all students love the derivative or integral of polynomials.

So the derivative of 4x^3 +2x^2 + x is as simple as 12x^2 + 4x + 1. The integral using the Power Rule is also easy.

So, what I am attempting to convey, is that in the history of Physics, we came to the Maxwell equations of 1860. They were all screwed up in error. But physics experiments and measurements never stopped and so it was found that if you apply the Lagrangian and then the Hamiltonian to a experiment of measurement, that you can use the error filled Maxwell equations of 1860 so long as you applied the Lagrangian and the Hamiltonian.

The Lagrangian and Hamiltonian patched and fixed up the error ridden Maxwell equations, fixed them up so that we could say there was agreement in experiment with theory.

That the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian became a crutch to support all the gaping holes of error of the 1860s Maxwell Equations.

AP, King of Science

So many marvellous, wonderful and glowing reviews over my new logo picture-- dark red Peony with onions in my garden. I am researching wild bees and so I need lots of flowering plants.

I decided to push this book up in the cue line to be my 192nd published book of science.

Tonight I published the 191st book -- Making ICBMs obsolete

AP

Alright, I have pushed this publication up from 194th to that of 192nd for I am confident I have the essentials of this physics.

And those essentials are the idea that Physics should never have take a bizarre path where a Lagrangian and a Hamiltonian are ever needed. The very idea that matrices are needed in physics is a bizarre and kookish path for physical law.

The mathematics that is needed for the true laws of physics should be simple math, not that of "out on a far limb" math.

What will physicists think of next? Will they next attempt to think and bring in Hyperbolic geometry? Or bring in Complex Plane to physics? Or how about the Cohen continuum, since Planck got rid of continuum in quantum mechanics. Or how about the Pascal triangle as theoretical physics. Or why not the Serre, Langland program of elliptic curves as numbers.

AP is being sarcastic here. For there should have been some physicists from 1860 onwards who started to complain, as to why in the world do we have matrices and Lagrangians and Hamiltonians in the laws of physics. Why cannot all of physical laws be expressed as polynomial functions? For surely, if one looks at geometry, all the features of geometry can be expressed as polynomials, especially the lowly straight line as Y= mx + b and the straightlinecurves as a string of Y= mx + b and the areas of geometry as Y= x^2 is polynomial and the highest of geometry measure the volume as another polynomial Y = x^3.

Why in the world would Physics, and Physical laws have to stoop down to a idiocy of bringing in matrices and non polynomials to fetch the true laws of Physics?

So we have a moment in time in Physics history. Around the 1860s, where we have the marvellous Maxwell Equations theory and then, all of a sudden we have kook math of Lagrangian, Hamiltonian and matrices all over the place.

Why could no-one in physics have a two marble brain instead of a one marble brain and ask the question. Is the math for doing physics becoming crazy, and crazy for the simple reason that we have a error filled Maxwell Equations. And this kook driven mathematics is the cover up patch that is needed to sustain the terminally ill disease of error filled Maxwell equations.

You see, the history of physics was a innocent and simpleton Lagrangian and Hamiltonian in early 1800s, but when the error filled Maxwell equations came along. All of a sudden you needed to crank up the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian to their ultimate kook crackpot heights to where few people could ever comprehend-- what the hell is going on here. Is this a magic clown trick act in a cheap circus or is this supposed to be physics.

You see, the true Maxwell Equations are a four set of polynomials:

--- quoting from TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year college ---

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

--- end quoting ---

Absolutely no need for a Lagrangian, Hamiltonian, matrices and other kook math. No need.

And should not the true physics of the world be anchored in the most simple of mathematics-- polynomials.

Here again we ask, does geometry need kook driven math? Does geometry need a Lagrangian followed by a Hamiltonian? Hell no, for the highest that geometry needs is simply the polynomial of volume Y = x^3, a nice genuine true blue polynomial.

So, why, why in the world after Maxwell in 1860s and seeing physics being ever ever more dressed up in kook math, why could no-one ask the question-- since so much kook math is needed, have we got the Maxwell Equations all wrong?

That is the question that should have been asked once Planck started the quantum mechanics revolution.

AP, King of Science

P.S. honk if you love AP's new logo picture, showing our solidarity towards beauty in physics.

On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 1:37:58 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Alright, I have pushed this publication up from 194th to that of 192nd for I am confident I have the essentials of this physics.
>
> And those essentials are the idea that Physics should never have take a bizarre path where a Lagrangian and a Hamiltonian are ever needed. The very idea that matrices are needed in physics is a bizarre and kookish path for physical law.
>
> You see, the history of physics was a innocent and simpleton Lagrangian and Hamiltonian in early 1800s, but when the error filled Maxwell equations came along. All of a sudden you needed to crank up the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian to their ultimate kook crackpot heights to where few people could ever comprehend-- what the hell is going on here. Is this a magic clown trick act in a cheap circus or is this supposed to be physics.
>
> You see, the true Maxwell Equations are a four set of polynomials:
> --- quoting from TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year college ---
>
> 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
>
> --- end quoting ---

So every scientist and engineer have derived and studied and measured and used Maxwell's equations for 150 years.
And not a one of all those measurements has ever detected an error, no matter how small.
They have literally built the entire world that we know today on top of Maxwell's equations.

And you come along, have never made a precise measurement in your entire life,
and you say all those millions, the entire world is wrong about Maxwell's equations.
And you believe that you and your imagination and nothing more are correct.

OK Archie. So make a PRECISE MEASUREMENT, buy the instruments and make the
measurement that will convince the world that you are right and everyone else is wrong.
Or that will absolutely convincingly demonstrate that you are completely wrong.
What is that brilliant measurement that will demolish one or the other of those?
It shouldn't be that hard for you to think of exactly what to measure that will be
a counterexample and counterpoint to one side or the other, no wiggle room to evade this.

If you want to avoid getting kicked out of the scientist club, let alone even get considered
for nomination to be the king of science, you have to do a FAR better job of conducting
experiments that are so good that the rest of the world is jealous of your skill.

On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 1:06:31 PM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:
> On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 1:37:58 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Alright, I have pushed this publication up from 194th to that of 192nd for I am confident I have the essentials of this physics.
> >
> > And those essentials are the idea that Physics should never have take a bizarre path where a Lagrangian and a Hamiltonian are ever needed. The very idea that matrices are needed in physics is a bizarre and kookish path for physical law.
> >
> > You see, the history of physics was a innocent and simpleton Lagrangian and Hamiltonian in early 1800s, but when the error filled Maxwell equations came along. All of a sudden you needed to crank up the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian to their ultimate kook crackpot heights to where few people could ever comprehend-- what the hell is going on here. Is this a magic clown trick act in a cheap circus or is this supposed to be physics.
> >
> > You see, the true Maxwell Equations are a four set of polynomials:
> > --- quoting from TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year college ---
> >
> > 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
> >
> > --- end quoting ---
> So every scientist and engineer have derived and studied and measured and used Maxwell's equations for 150 years.
> And not a one of all those measurements has ever detected an error, no matter how small.
> They have literally built the entire world that we know today on top of Maxwell's equations.
>

Not a single one of them able to connect EM with gravity, so you need AP to come along

> And you come along, have never made a precise measurement in your entire life,
> and you say all those millions, the entire world is wrong about Maxwell's equations.
> And you believe that you and your imagination and nothing more are correct.
>

On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 1:02:04 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 1:06:31 PM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:
> > So every scientist and engineer have derived and studied and measured and used Maxwell's equations for 150 years.
> > And not a one of all those measurements has ever detected an error, no matter how small.
> > They have literally built the entire world that we know today on top of Maxwell's equations.
> >
> Not a single one of them able to connect EM with gravity, so you need AP to come along

That doesn't yet sound like a convincing experiment to me.

And, please provide convincing evidence if I'm wrong,
but NOBODY in the world believes that ANYONE needs AP to come along.

On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 1:06:31 PM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:
> On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 1:37:58 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Alright, I have pushed this publication up from 194th to that of 192nd for I am confident I have the essentials of this physics.
> >
> > And those essentials are the idea that Physics should never have take a bizarre path where a Lagrangian and a Hamiltonian are ever needed. The very idea that matrices are needed in physics is a bizarre and kookish path for physical law.
> >
> > You see, the history of physics was a innocent and simpleton Lagrangian and Hamiltonian in early 1800s, but when the error filled Maxwell equations came along. All of a sudden you needed to crank up the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian to their ultimate kook crackpot heights to where few people could ever comprehend-- what the hell is going on here. Is this a magic clown trick act in a cheap circus or is this supposed to be physics.
> >
> > You see, the true Maxwell Equations are a four set of polynomials:
> > --- quoting from TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year college ---
> >
> > 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
> >
> > --- end quoting ---
> So every scientist and engineer have derived and studied and measured and used Maxwell's equations for 150 years.
> And not a one of all those measurements has ever detected an error, no matter how small.
> They have literally built the entire world that we know today on top of Maxwell's equations.
>
> And you come along, have never made a precise measurement in your entire life,
> and you say all those millions, the entire world is wrong about Maxwell's equations.
> And you believe that you and your imagination and nothing more are correct.
>

Bwr has become a fun joke per minute in sci.math and sci.physics. So that in physics acceleration is meters per second squared while angular momentum is meters squared per second. Have I lost Bwr on even that much???

But in Old Physics, with their 1860s Maxwell Equations, those equations were so to speak "dead on arrival" for they were antisymmetric-- no magnetic monopole and it took the great mind of Dirac to fathom such a set of equations could not possibly be true.

> OK Archie. So make a PRECISE MEASUREMENT, buy the instruments and make the
> measurement that will convince the world that you are right and everyone else is wrong.
> Or that will absolutely convincingly demonstrate that you are completely wrong.
> What is that brilliant measurement that will demolish one or the other of those?
> It shouldn't be that hard for you to think of exactly what to measure that will be
> a counterexample and counterpoint to one side or the other, no wiggle room to evade this.
>
> If you want to avoid getting kicked out of the scientist club, let alone even get considered
> for nomination to be the king of science, you have to do a FAR better job of conducting
> experiments that are so good that the rest of the world is jealous of your skill.

Bwr's second joke of the day--- he comes to me several months back complaining my battery operated drone could not possibly reach the ISS, International Space Station due to speed and weight. And yet Bwr never heard of "escape velocity", never heard of the fact that weather balloons reach the atmosphere and never come close to escape velocity.

I recommend 1st year physics Halliday & Resnick to Bwr to catch up on escape velocity

🦤 of Math and 🦃 of Physics Archimedes "Village Idiot of Meckling SD"
Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> tarded:

> On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 1:06:31 PM UTC-5, bwr fml wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 16, 2022 at 1:37:58 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>>> Alright, I have pushed this publication up from 194th to that of 192nd for I am confident I have the essentials of this physics.
>>>
>>> And those essentials are the idea that Physics should never have take a bizarre path where a Lagrangian and a Hamiltonian are ever needed. The very idea that matrices are needed in physics is a bizarre and kookish path for physical law.
>>>
>>> You see, the history of physics was a innocent and simpleton Lagrangian and Hamiltonian in early 1800s, but when the error filled Maxwell equations came along. All of a sudden you needed to crank up the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian to their ultimate kook crackpot heights to where few people could ever comprehend-- what the hell is going on here. Is this a magic clown trick act in a cheap circus or is this supposed to be physics.

Do you even /know/ what Lagrangians and Hamiltonians even are? I didn't
think so. At least you can spell them correctly.

>>> You see, the true Maxwell Equations are a four set of polynomials:

What physicist has ever claimed that the Maxwell Equations are anything
other than when Heaviside made his changes?

> Bwr has become a fun joke per minute in sci.math and sci.physics.

Why do you insult your superior like that? Show some respect for your
betters for once.

> So that in physics acceleration is meters per second squared while angular momentum is meters squared per second.

Obviously wrong, since angular momentum at a given angular speed is
proportional to the moment of inertia, which is proportional to mass
(for a fixed mass distribution).

> Have I lost Bwr on even that much???

He may be a little confused as to why you would say something as dumb as
that. Hey Ghost of Uncle.. oh never mind.
>
> But in Old Physics, with their 1860s Maxwell Equations, those equations were so to speak "dead on arrival"

No scientist has ever said something as dumb as "dead on arrival"
regarding them.

> for they were antisymmetric-- no magnetic monopole and it took the great mind of Dirac to fathom such a set of equations could not possibly be true.

They would be symmetrical if a magnetic monopole existed. Terms for
magnetic charge (Gauss' Law of Magnetism) and magnetic current would be
added, then Maxwell's Equations would be symmetric, as Dirac felt it
should be. But so far, no magnetic monopole has ever been discovered,
despite decades of looking, nothing has the necessary properties.
>
>
>> OK Archie. So make a PRECISE MEASUREMENT, buy the instruments and make the
>> measurement that will convince the world that you are right and everyone else is wrong.
>> Or that will absolutely convincingly demonstrate that you are completely wrong.
>> What is that brilliant measurement that will demolish one or the other of those?
>> It shouldn't be that hard for you to think of exactly what to measure that will be
>> a counterexample and counterpoint to one side or the other, no wiggle room to evade this.
>>
>> If you want to avoid getting kicked out of the scientist club, let alone even get considered
>> for nomination to be the king of science, you have to do a FAR better job of conducting
>> experiments that are so good that the rest of the world is jealous of your skill.
>
>
> Bwr's second joke of the day---

Again, why insult your superiors?

> he comes to me several months back complaining my battery operated drone could not possibly reach the ISS, International Space Station due to speed and weight.

He was correcting your mistake, that's all. A lithium battery doesn't
contain enough energy to lift itself to orbit. You should thank him for
catching your mistake.

> And yet Bwr never heard of "escape velocity", never heard of the fact that weather balloons reach the atmosphere and never come close to escape velocity.

You still don't understand escape velocity? Or why a weather balloon can
rise to extreme heights? Escape velocity does not apply to weather
balloons or flying drones, only to ballistic flight.
>
> I recommend 1st year physics Halliday & Resnick to Bwr to catch up on escape velocity

I recommend 1st year physics Halliday & Resnick to StupidPlutonium to
catch up on escape velocity.

Michael Moroney wrote:

> 🦤 of Math and 🦃 of Physics Archimedes "Village Idiot of Meckling SD"
> Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> tarded:
>>>> You see, the history of physics was a innocent and simpleton
>>>> Lagrangian and Hamiltonian in early 1800s, but when the error filled
>>>> Maxwell equations came along. All of a sudden you needed to crank up
>>>> the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian to their ultimate kook crackpot
>>>> heights to where few people could ever comprehend-- what the hell is
>>>> going on here. Is this a magic clown trick act in a cheap circus or
>>>> is this supposed to be physics.
>
> Do you even /know/ what Lagrangians and Hamiltonians even are? I didn't
> think so. At least you can spell them correctly.

let's hear.

Captured American mercenary Alexander John-Robert Druke speaks
https://www.bitchute.com/video/SYB00zNDTGCR/

200,000 of Ukrainian army soldiers just vanished (Eng subs)
https://www.bitchute.com/video/3EoUszTPV8jt/

Michael Moroney wrote:

> 🦤 of Math and 🦃 of Physics Archimedes "Village Idiot of Meckling SD"
> Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> tarded:
>>>> You see, the history of physics was a innocent and simpleton
>>>> Lagrangian and Hamiltonian in early 1800s, but when the error filled
>>>> Maxwell equations came along. All of a sudden you needed to crank u
>
> Do you even /know/ what Lagrangians and Hamiltonians even are? I didn't
> think so. At least you can spell them correctly.

lol, morone, they are fucked up already. Give me a break.

'We'll burn anything to keep people warm” – Czech official
https://www.rt.com/business/557571-czech-republic-gas-energy/

I didn't expect the capitalist "western" europe to fall in the shit this
fast. Neither did they. Their entire capitalist "welfare" came from the
communist *EST*, said so many times. Now you have the proof.

Fuck you all, capitalist sons of the bitches. God bless Mother Russia.

🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴
🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🌕🌕🔴🌕🌕🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴
🔴🔴🔴🔴🌕🌕🌕🔴🔴🌕🌕🔴🔴🔴🔴
🔴🔴🔴🌕🌕🌕🌕🔴🔴🔴🌕🌕🔴🔴🔴
🔴🔴🌕🌕🌕🌕🔴🔴🔴🔴🌕🌕🌕🔴🔴
🔴🌕🌕🌕🌕🌕🌕🔴🔴🔴🔴🌕🌕🔴🔴
🔴🔴🌕🌕🔴🌕🌕🌕🔴🔴🔴🌕🌕🌕🔴
🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🌕🌕🌕🔴🔴🔴🌕🌕🔴
🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🌕🌕🌕🔴🌕🌕🌕🔴
🔴🔴🔴🔴🌕🔴🔴🔴🌕🌕🌕🌕🌕🔴🔴
🔴🔴🔴🌕🌕🌕🔴🔴🔴🌕🌕🌕🔴🔴🔴
🔴🌕🌕🌕🔴🌕🌕🌕🌕🌕🌕🌕🌕🔴🔴
🔴🌕🌕🔴🔴🔴🌕🌕🌕🔴🔴🌕🌕🔴🔴
🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴