AP corrects "oblate spheroid & Kepler's 3 laws //AP proudly announces his 223rd published book of science// Moving Earth+Moon out to a orbit near Jupiter or Mars// Engineering by Archimedes Plutonium (Amazon's Kindle)

AP corrects Kepler's 3 laws, all three were wrong//AP proudly announces his 223rd published book of science// Moving Earth+Moon out to a orbit near Jupiter or Mars// Engineering by Archimedes Plutonium (Amazon's Kindle)

AP corrects Kepler's 3 laws, all three were wrong//AP proudly announces his 223rd published book of science// Moving Earth+Moon out to a orbit near Jupiter or Mars// Engineering by Archimedes Plutonium (Amazon's Kindle)

AP proudly announces his 223rd published book of science// Moving Earth+Moon out to a orbit near Jupiter or Mars// Engineering by Archimedes Plutonium (Amazon's Kindle)

My 1st published book
Atom Totality Universe, 8th edition, 2017// A history log book: Atom Totality Series book 8 Kindle Edition

by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

This was AP's first published science book.

Advisory: This is a difficult book to read and is AP's research log book of the Atom Totality in 2016-2017. I want to keep it for its history value. AP advises all readers wanting to know the Plutonium Atom Totality theory to go to the 9th edition that is the latest up to date account of this theory.. The reason AP wants to keep the 8th edition is because of Historical Value, for in this book, while writing it, caused the discovery of the real electron is the muon of atoms. The real proton of atoms is 840MeV and not the 938MeV that most books claim. The particle discovered by JJ Thomson in 1897 thinking he discovered the electron of atoms was actually the Dirac magnetic monopole at 0.5MeV. This discovery changes every, every science that uses atoms and electricity and magnetism, in other words, every science.

Foreward:

I wrote the 8th edition of Atom Totality and near the end of writing it in 2017, I had my second greatest physics discovery. I learned the real electron of atoms was the muon at 105MeV and not the tiny 0.5MeV particle that J.J.Thomson found in 1897. So I desperately tried to include that discovery in my 8th edition and it is quite plain to see for I tried to write paragraphs after each chapter saying as much. I knew in 2017, that it was a great discovery, changing all the hard sciences, and reframing and restructuring all the hard sciences.

Length: 632 pages

Product details

File Size: 1132 KB
Print Length: 632 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLP9NDR
Text-to-Speech: Enabled carrot._CB192251235_.gif
X-Ray:
Not Enabled carrot._CB192251235_.gif
Word Wise: Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported carrot._CB192251235_.gif
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled carrot._CB192251235_.gif
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #578,229 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)

#1610 in Physics (Kindle Store)

#8526 in Physics (Books)

#18851 in Biological Sciences (Books)

In that book I favored Angular Momentum L rather than Electric Field E, but both are the same thing-- same units. These days I go all electric and call it Electric field.

In that book I wrote this of the differential equation of Electric field (angular momentum). And one can easily see where the three Kepler laws come from.

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

When we consider i' as being V and V as being B, then we get a B^3 in numerator.

The three Kepler laws are actually just one law-- that the orbit in gravity is a ellipse covers the T^2/a^3 law and covers the law of equal areas swept out in equal time.

We see the T^2/a^3 in the second term B^3/i^2B^2 only it is inverted to be not equal to 3 but inverted to be 1/3. And the reason for the inversion is that in 3D, the volume of a cylinder is 1/3 cone volume.

The actual geometry for gravity is not the ellipse, never the ellipse, but the Oval, for the perihelion cannot equal aphelion, for they equalled each other for the Sun, then the Sun would swallow up the planet if it did not move faster when it stepped in front of Sun's forward motion.

Kepler had 3 laws, but in reality he needed just one law-- the orbit is an ellipse for in that ellipse law you derive T^2/a^3 and you derive equal areas swept out in equal time.

However, all three Kepler laws are wrong. The correct law is that gravity forms Ovals, not ellipses.

And what is the AP definition of a Oval???? A oval is the joining together of two different sized partial ellipses. A Oval is two different ellipses joined together at a spot in which the oval is still smooth curve with no vertices.

Gravity forms the geometry of Oval, not the ellipse. And that is very important because with an ellipse, you would not have a planet move faster when stepping in front of the Sun's forward motion. You would not have equal areas swept out in equal time. The most perfect orbit of planets is Venus near circle as many describe it, yet when looking more closely there is Venus with perihelion 0.718 AU and aphelion of 0.728 AU, yet the dullard astronomer or physicist would say near circle or ellipse, when in reality that is a oval.

You have gravity, only, only because the orbit is Oval with a faster speed at one end and a slower speed at the other end.

So, well, all three Kepler laws were wrong. Kepler's first law should have been orbit is Oval. And the law of T^2/a^3 is a approximation not a law and equal areas in equal times is the angular momentum or Electric field a reflection of the idea there exists a perihelion with its fastest speed of a perihelion speed in order for each planet to move safely around the Sun going at 250Km/second, to go around the Sun and not be swallowed by the Sun.

So if the geometry figure of gravity is Oval, then we must examine the made up figure of "oblate spheroid". It was invented by Newton who first observed Earth varying radii.

Every planet orbit has to be a Oval so the front end of the orbit where it steps in front of the Sun going at 250Km/second and to avoid being hit by the Sun needs to speed up and get out of the way, and thus a oval orbit.

So it stands to reason that the oval geometry is likely to be the geometry of the actual planet itself as gravity pulls via erosion the surface into a shape.

Indeed, every planet is oval in shape, and none are spherical.

Of course, the shape Oval was little known to Newton, so he named it the "oblate spheroid".

If you ever seen a egg, chicken egg that is almost round, but not quite, you have seen a "oblate spheroid".

AP, King of Science, especially Physics

Oval is the characteristic shape of gravity as to get out of the way of its parent body forward motion in space. We would thus expect the orbit of Io, Jupter's close in moon to be oval-orbit to get out of the way of Jupiter's forward motion. And in fact Io's orbit is indeed oval. Even the shape of Io itself physically is a oval shape, which in past history was called "oblate spheroid".

Now the reason Jupiter does not have a nice ring system is because Jupiter is moving too fast in Space at perihelion speed of 25km/second and Saturn perihelion speed of 20 km/second. At 25km/second speed is still too great a speed to keep a intact ring system, and Jupiter destroys any rings formed on a regular bases as Jupiter passes in front of Sun's forward motion.

The Oval shape is the shape of gravity in action.

AP

Snail of Math and Green Banded Broodsac Nemotode of Physics Archimedes
"I ate your brain" Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at
math and science:

> Oval is the characteristic shape of gravity as to get out of the way of its parent body forward motion in space. We would thus expect the orbit of Io, Jupter's close in moon to be oval-orbit to get out of the way of Jupiter's forward motion.

"We" who, tardboy? Only you would believe something that dumb and
stoopid. The orbit would be an ellipse, of course, barring perturbations
from the other planets.

> And in fact Io's orbit is indeed oval.

An ellipse, of course.

> Even the shape of Io itself physically is a oval shape, which in past history was called "oblate spheroid".

Ovals are 2 dimensional, while an "oblate spheroid" is three
dimensional. No scientist or mathematician will call the shape of a moon
"oval". Do you also call a cube a rectangle?
>
> Now the reason Jupiter does not have a nice ring system is because Jupiter is moving too fast in Space at perihelion speed of 25km/second

Jupiter has rings. Just much fainter than Saturn's rings.

Thank you for providing so much evidence of why you are so wrong.

On 2023-01-15 03:45:50 +0000, Michael Moroney said:

> Snail of Math and Green Banded Broodsac Nemotode of Physics Archimedes
> "I ate your brain" Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at
> math and science:
>>
>> [ … ]
>>
>> Now the reason Jupiter does not have a nice ring system is because
>> Jupiter is moving too fast in Space at perihelion speed of 25km/second
>
> Jupiter has rings. Just much fainter than Saturn's rings.

Among all the craziness an interesting point: is there a simple
explanation of why Saturn's ring system is so much more obvious than
those of Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune? (Doubtless I could find out for
myself with a bit of searching, but I'm too lazy for that, and maybe
you know already without searching.)

--
athel - not a mathematician, though with an Erdös number of 3

On Friday, January 20, 2023 at 11:49:14 AM UTC-6, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-01-15 03:45:50 +0000, Michael Moroney said:
>
> > Snail of Math and Green Banded Broodsac Nemotode of Physics Archimedes
> > "I ate your brain" Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> fails at
> > math and science:
> >>
> >> [ … ]
> >>
> >> Now the reason Jupiter does not have a nice ring system is because
> >> Jupiter is moving too fast in Space at perihelion speed of 25km/second
> >
> > Jupiter has rings. Just much fainter than Saturn's rings.
> Among all the craziness an interesting point: is there a simple
> explanation of why Saturn's ring system is so much more obvious than
> those of Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune? (Doubtless I could find out for
> myself with a bit of searching, but I'm too lazy for that, and maybe
> you know already without searching.)
>
> --
> athel - not a mathematician, though with an Erdös number of 3

Yes, Hi, I do know why the Jupiter rings are not sharp while the Saturn rings are sharp-- the temperature from Saturn and beyond are favorable for rings. And the speed of Saturn revolution around the Sun and beyond is favorable for Rings-- slow speed so it does not chew up its rings whenever the rings step in front of the planet's forward motion. If Earth had rings, it would chew them up as quickly as the ring stepped in front of Earth's forward motion. But also, the temperature and heat near Earth would melt the ring. These Rings composition must be electrical such as the polar molecule of water H2O.

Jupiter has a vague ring system for it is still too hot there near Jupiter and Jupiter is moving too fast in revolution that it chews up some of its rings.

Uranus and Neptune would have fabulous rings if they were the size of Saturn for much of the ice of Saturn rings comes from Saturn itself.

Of course this is my best guess and needs supporting proof evidence.

On 1/20/2023 12:49 PM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-01-15 03:45:50 +0000, Michael Moroney said:
>
>> Snail of Math and Green Banded Broodsac Nemotode of Physics Archimedes
>> "I ate your brain" Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at
>> math and science:
>>>
>>> [ … ]
>>>
>>> Now the reason Jupiter does not have a nice ring system is because
>>> Jupiter is moving too fast in Space at perihelion speed of 25km/second
>>
>> Jupiter has rings. Just much fainter than Saturn's rings.
>
> Among all the craziness an interesting point: is there a simple
> explanation of why Saturn's ring system is so much more obvious than
> those of Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune? (Doubtless I could find out for
> myself with a bit of searching, but I'm too lazy for that, and maybe you
> know already without searching.)
>
There are many theories, none are certain. One is that Saturn's rings
are relatively new, 100 million years old, and formed when a moon was
inside Saturn's Roche Limit (where tidal forces are stronger than the
moon's self-gravity), causing it to break apart. Another is that the
rings are a collection of debris from comets and asteroids, but
Jupiter's Galilean moons prevent Jupiter from accumulating such debris
the same way. (I don't know about Uranus or Neptune).