Pete Olcott asking Harry Cliff, Cambridge which of the terms of the AP-EM Equations contains the Schrodinger Equation, is it in the Electric field derivative E' = (V/(CB))'

Force of gravity = G*(m_1*m_2)/ distance^2 (Newton's law by 1687)

Force of electrostatics = C(q_1*q_2)/ distance^2 (Coulomb law by 1785)

So let us state the Coulomb-gravity law of Physics. From one of the permutations of V= CBE we have E = (V/(CB)) and when we differentiate that by the calculus we have E' = (V/(CB))'. Now we use the quotient rule of calculus, which is (f/gh)' = (f'gh - fg'h - fgh')/(gh)^2 and as we reduce that we get 3 terms of f'/gh -fg'/g^2h - fh'/gh^2. And using the quotient rule renders (V/(CB))' as that of V'/CB - VC'/C^2B - VB'/CB^2.

E' = (V/(CB))' = V'CB/(CB)^2 - VC'B/(CB)^2 - VCB'/(CB)^2 = V'/CB - VC'/C^2B - VB'/CB^2.

Harry, which term looks like the CHEM ONE equation--E_n = - (2*pi^2*m*Z^2*e^4) / (n^2*h^2* alpha^2)

So our Coulomb-gravity law has 3 terms and we can break down each of those 3 terms into statements.

So which of the AP-EM Equations is the Schrodinger Equation as given by CHEM ONE.
> And I easily flip open some pages in CHEM ONE, 2nd edition, 1980 Waser, Trueblood, Knobler to page 311 for a sample of the Schrodinger equation as given by E_n = - (2*pi^2*m*Z^2*e^4) / (n^2*h^2* alpha^2).
>
> This is the question before me. Which term in which equation of the AP-EM laws is the Schrodinger Equation?
>
>
>
> Those 6 laws are these.
>
> 1) Magnetic monopole telling us what magnetism and electric current and magnetic field and electric field are.
>
> 2) New Ohm's law Voltage = capacitor-battery = quantity of current C times magnetic field times electric field. V= CBE. The equation of New Ohm's law is a math equation of volume Volume = length x width x height so we can expect that New Ohm's law is a measuring of volume in physics, volume of energy.
>
> 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.
>
> 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
>
>
> Review all of this, the EM equations of physics and mathematics.
>
> Faraday Law is (V/(B*L))' = i' from the AP-Maxwell Equations you learned in 1st year College.
>
> 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)' Capacitor Law of Physics
> 4) (V/i*L)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
> 5) (V/(B*L))' = i' Faraday law
> 6) (V/(i*B))' = L' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
>
>
> PHYSICS LAWS
>
> 1) all the facts of chemistry and physics
> 2) Voltage V = kg*m^2/A*s^3
> 3) Current i = A = magnetic monopoles
> 4) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /A*s^2
> 5) angular momentum L = m^2/(A*s)
> 6) V = i*B*L New Ohm's law, law of electricity
> 7) V' = (i*B*L)' Capacitor Law of Physics
> 8) (V/i*L)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
> 9) (V/(B*L))' = i' Faraday law
> 10) (V/(i*B))' = L' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
>
>
>
> Algebra of 3D Calculus, for remember we did the algebra of
>
> V' = (iBL)'
> i' = (V/BL)'
> B' = (V/iL)'
> L' = (V/iB)'
>
> --- quoting 1st year calculus from Teaching True ---
> Using the Product Rule which is (fgh)' = (f'gh + fg'h + fgh')
>
> Capacitor Law (i*B*L)' = i'*B*L + i*B'L + i*B*L'
>
> V' = (iBL)' = i'*B*L + i*B'*L + i*B*L' here we have three terms explaining capacitors
>
> Ampere-Maxwell Law
>
> Using the Quotient Rule, which is (f/gh)' = (f'gh - fg'h - fgh')/(gh)^2
>
> (V/i*L)' = B' = (V'*i*L - V*i' *L - V*i*L') / (i*L)^2
>
> Maxwell had two terms in the Ampere-Maxwell law-- the produced magnetic field and a displacement current, but above we see we have also a third new term.
>
> Faraday Law
>
> (V/B*L)' = i' = (V'*B*L - V*B' *L - V*B*L') / (B*L)^2
>
> ------------
> V' = (iBL)' = i'*B*L + i*B'*L + i*B*L' reduces to
> = iBL + iVL + iBL'
>
> i' = V'*B*L/ (B*L)^2 - V*B' *L/ (B*L)^2 - V*B*L' / (B*L)^2 reduces to
> i' = B^2*L/ (B*L)^2 - V^2 *L/ (B*L)^2 - V*B*L' / (B*L)^2 further reduces
> = 1/L - V^2/B^2*L - VL'/BL^2
>
> B' = V'*i*L/ (i*L)^2 - V*i' *L/ (i*L)^2 - V*i*L' / (i*L)^2 reduces to
> B' = B*i*L/ (i*L)^2 - V*i *L/ (i*L)^2 - V*i*L' / (i*L)^2 further reduces to
> = B/iL - V/iL - VL'/iL^2
>
>
> L' = (V/i*B)' = (V'*i*B - V*i' *B - V*i*B') / (i*B)^2 reduces to
> L' = i*B^2 / (i*B)^2 - V*i *B / (i*B)^2 - V^2*i / (i*B)^2 further reduces to
> = 1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2
>
> --------
>
>
> (1) V' = iBL + iVL + iBL'
>
> (2) i' = 1/L - V^2/B^2*L - VL'/BL^2
>
> (3) B' = B/iL - V/iL - VL'/iL^2
>
> (4) L' = 1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2
>
> Alright, so I replace L' in (1) with 1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2
>
> I get V' = iBL + iVL + iB*(1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2 )
> = iBL + iVL + B - V - V^2/ B
>
>
> Doing the replacement in (2)
>
> i' = 1/L - V^2/B^2*L - VL'/BL^2
> = 1/L - V^2/B^2*L - V*(1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2) /BL^2
> = 1/L - V^2/B^2*L - (V/iBL^2) - (V^2/iB^2L^2) - (V^3/(iB^3L^2))
>
> Doing the replacement in (3)
>
> B' = B/iL - V/iL - VL'/iL^2
> = B/iL - V/iL - V(1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2)/iL^2
> = B/iL - V/iL - (V/i^2L^2) - (V^2/i^2*B*L^2) - (V^3/( i^2B^2L^2))
>
> Is there any geometrical significance I can ascribe to this? There are some cubes involved.
>
> AP
>
>
> Rest is the daily spam bombing of Pete Olcott in sci.math with his imaginary pretend people like Mr. Fribbleeee.
>
> Olcott can John Coates,David Sainsbury, Peter Johnstone, Imre Leader, Gabriel Paternain ever do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, or is that totally foreign to them? Mind you, not a limit analysis hornswaggle for that is not geometry, limit analysis is not even a math proof for anyone can analysis things, analysis this post and only math hypocrites would think it is a proof.
>
> Re: Cambridge, you no longer are a premiere University but a school that fosters and shelters losers of logical reasoning. And why do you encourage crank screwballs that repeat computer trash, Pete Olcott, spamming sci.math everyday?
>
> On Tuesday, July 30, 2019 at 12:45:05 PM UTC-5, peteolcott wrote:
> > When I correct the errors of the foundation of math in a math group
> > this is bloody well not frigging spam.
>
>
>
>
> ..
> .- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-..
> , . `.' ' `.
> .' .' ` ` ' `.. ;
> . ; .' . `. ;
> ; . ' `. . '
> . ' ` `. |
> . '. '
> . 0 0 ' `.
> ' `
> ; `
> .' `
> ; U `
> ; '; `
> : | ;.. :` `
> : `;. ```. .-; | '
> '. ` ``.., .' :' '
> ; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' Hi, I am the crank crackpot David Sainsbury owner and shopkeeper and bar that is University of Cambridge who feels passionate that Crackpots like Olcott should spam-bomb over sci.math, heavier than Russia bombs Ukraine. I love my pets Olcott spam sci.math for I feed them both wet and dry food, like my cats, although my prized cat eats mostly fried chicken. Hello David-- this is 2022, not Britain with spitfires in WW2.
> ` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' '
> ` ` ; ; ' '
> ` ` ; ; ' '
> ` `. ````'''''' ' '
> ` . ' '
> / ` `. ' ' .
> / ` .. ..' .'"""""...'
> / .` ` ``........-' .'` .....'''
> / .'' ; ` .' `
> ...'.' ; .' ` .' `
> "" .' .' | ` .; \ `
> ; .' | `. . . . ' . \ `
> :' | ' ` , `. `
> | ' ` ' `. `
> ` ' ` ; `. |
> `.' ` ; `-'
> `...'
>
>
>
>
>
> ..
> .- " `-. ,..-''' ```....'`-..
> , . `.' ' `.
> .' .' ` ` ' `.. ;
> . ; .' . `. ;
> ; . ' `. . '
> . ' ` `. |
> . '. '
> . 0 0 ' `.
> ' `
> ; `
> .' `
> ; U `
> ; '; `
> : | ;.. :` `
> : `;. ```. .-; | '
> '. ` ``.., .' :' '
> ; ` ;'.. ..-'' ' ' Hi, I am the spam bomber Pete Olcott of sci.math with my endless nonsense of halting. For I spam bomb sci.math because it irritates people, for I myself failed logic, math and science. And my only way of getting attention is to spam bomb sci.math.
> ` ` ; ````'''""' ; ' '
> ` ` ; ; ' '
> ` ` ; ; ' '
> ` `. ````'''''' ' '
> ` . ' '
> / ` `. ' ' .
> / ` .. ..' .'"""""...'
> / .` ` ``........-' .'` .....'''
> / .'' ; ` .' `
> ...'.' ; .' ` .' `
> "" .' .' | ` .; \ `
> ; .' | `. . . . ' . \ `
> :' | ' ` , `. `
> | ' ` ' `. `
> ` ' ` ; `. |
> `.' ` ; `-'
> `...'
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Olcott can Heine, Hine, Hobson, Hope-Coles, Howie, ever ask the question, which is the atom's real electron, the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law or the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole. Or does that thought fly way too above their heads?
> >
> > Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
> > Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
> > Genius hits a target no one else can see.
> >
> >
> >
> > Olcott, why cannot Haniff, Heavens-Ward, Heine, Hine, Hobson, Hope-Coles, Howie, Hughes, Irvine, Jardine ask the question which is the atom's real electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle? Is it because they cannot even do logic correctly with their 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction?
> > >
> > > Olcott why does Cambridge Univ Stephen J. Toope, David Sainsbury, Peter Johnstone, Imre Leader, Gabriel Paternain keep teaching Boole error filled logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, and never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and these crazies still think the slant cut in cone is a ellipse when in fact it is a Oval. Why brainwash and pollute more students like Pete Olcott who is crazy enough as it is.
> > >
> > > Olcott why is noone in Cambridge physics able to ask the question which is the atom's true real electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle? Sargent, Saunders, Saxena, Schneider, Scott, Scrivener, Sebastian, Simmons, Simons, Sirringhaus, Smith?? Do they not have a brain to ask a simple question????
>
> > >
> > >
> > > Cambridge professors insane about Logic turns students like Pete Olcott insane also.
> > >
> > > Cambridge Physics Dept
> > >
> > > Ahnert, Alai, Alexander, Allison, Ansorge, Atature, Barker, Barnes, Bartlett, Batley, Baumberg, Bohndiek, Bowman, Brown, Buscher, Butler, Campbell Carilli, Carter, Castelnovo, Challis, Chalut, Chaudhri, Chin, Ciccarelli, Cicuta, Cole, Cooper, Cowburn, Credgington, Cross, Croze, Deschler, Donald, Duffett-Smith, Dutton, Eiser, Ellis, Euser, Field, Flynn, Ford, Friend, Gibson, Green, Greenham, Gripaios, Grosche, Guck, Gull, Haniff, Heavens-Ward, Heine, Hine, Hobson, Hope-Coles, Howie, Hughes, Irvine, Jardine, Jenkins, Jones, Josephson, Keyser, Khmeinitskii, King, Kotlyar, Lamacraft, Lasenby, Lester, Longair, Lonzarich, Maiolino, Marshall, Martin, Mitov, Morris, Mortimer, Moller, Needs, Norman, Nunnenkamp, Padman,Parker, Patel, Payne, Pepper, Phillips, Pramauro, Queloz, Rao, Richer, Riley, Ritchie, Sargent, Saunders, Saxena, Schneider, Scott, Scrivener, Sebastian, Simmons, Simons, Sirringhaus, Smith, Sutherland, Taylor, Teichmann, Terentjev, Thomson, Verrechia, Walker, Ward, Warner, Weale, Webber, Whyles, Withington.
> > >
> > > Cambridge Math Dept
> > >
> > > Alan Baker
> > > Bela Bollobas
> > > Darwin Smith
> > > John Coates
> > > Timothy Gowers
> > > Peter Johnstone
> > > Imre Leader
> > > Gabriel Paternain
> > >
> > > Can any-one at Cambridge start correcting the error filled Boole, Jevons, Russell, Whitehead, Godel, Wittgenstein, all failures of logic and logical reasoning, include Cantor and his tripe of undefined infinity, an infinity without a borderline between finite and infinite.
> > >
> > > Cambridge, you no longer are a premiere University but a school that fosters and shelters losers of logical reasoning.
> > Cambridge failures of physics who cannot even ask the question which is the atom's true real electron-- the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton or the 0.5MeV particle that AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole. Harry Cliff, AP requires that Harry Cliff LHCb physicist to publish in the Cambridge Univ student newspaper of how sorry he is and apologizes for his physics stupidity of thinking that a hydrogen atom is composed of a electron of 0.5MeV flying around outside of a proton of 938MeV, flying around at 99% speed of light and still holding up and holding together as a hydrogen atom. Such stupid physics.
> > > >
> > > > Whereas the truth be known the real electron of a hydrogen atom is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus of 8 rings, where the muon and proton are doing the Faraday Law of producing more new electricity and storaging that electricity in what are known as neutrons. Because the muon is inside the proton it can fly around the torus inside at nearly the speed of light.
> > > >
> > > > Old Physics which Harry Cliff is a member, never took Logic, never learned how to think straight, think clear, and thus his physics knowledge is just hand down memorization. So stupid he never understood what the hell is angular momentum for no hydrogen atom can exist with a 0.5MeV particle flying around at 99% speed of light and stay put on a proton of 938MeV.
> > > >
> > > > AP says the 0.5MeV particle is Dirac's Magnetic Monopole. Now Dirac was a real physicist, but not Harry Cliff and everyone at CERN with their electron = 0.5MeV.
> > > >