The 227th book of Science by AP// Spectral Lines of Atoms explained as Interference Pattern

AP's 227th book of Science// Spectral Lines of Atoms explained as Interference Pattern
7m views

Feb 5, 2023, 10:35:12 PM (16 hours ago)



to
AP's 227th book of Science// Spectral Lines of Atoms explained as Interference Pattern

Archimedes Plutonium
3:10 PM Feb 5, 2023



to sci.math
Alright, I am satisfied the energy in the Faraday Law is C' = C^2*E which is a analog of Energy = mc^2, taking mass to be Electric field E and taking Coulombs^2 as being (speed of light)^2.

What I need to work out now is Crests and Troughs of a Interference Pattern from the Sun out to Pluto, the 10 magnetic field paths carved out by the Sun. These 10 paths allow planets to exist in those spots but does not allow planets to exist in the troughs in between. So the Planets can exist in 10 crests of Magnetic field but not in between.

So can I get a Interference Pattern of crests and troughs of the Sun's magnetic field from the AP-EM 6 differential equations?

In the trough regions of Space of the Sun would have Linear Momentum rule, while in the crest region is full of shot by the Sun electric current, keeping the planet, whichever planet that is in a orbit. Perhaps we can also answer why Jupiter has far more electric current shot into its orbit than any of the terrestrial planets. This Interference Pattern is becoming a study of Line Spectrums of Atoms and line spectrum have often a fine small lines like Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Asteroid, then we have the huge line-spectrum representing Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune.

So, here I want to see if the AP-EM equations gives the familiar Line Spectrum or Interference Pattern of troughs and crests of its Magnetic Field.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
5:03 PM (5 hours ago)



to

Now in Old Physics, they never really worked out why the Spectral Lines of Atoms follows a Interference Pattern of troughs and crests. This should be the modus operandi of another new book by AP. Why Spectral Lines follows a Interference Pattern of troughs and crests. I am not going to drop this astronomy research to pick up on that concept here. But safe to say, the Spectral Lines of Atoms comes from the same ideas, where we replace Sun with the particular atom involved. Say it is a Hydrogen Atom with its Spectral Lines. So the Hydrogen Atom like the Sun has a magnetic field and electric field and electric current and thus a Voltage. And like the Sun has a magnetic field path for the planets, only for the Hydrogen Atom the magnetic field paths are not occupied unless there are available magnetic monopoles (the analogy of planets).

The last time I looked several years back, looked at the rings of Saturn for a analogy of the magnetic field paths of the Sun, that the Saturn rings had a similar set up compared to the planets. The crests were small close in to Saturn analogous to Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Asteroid belt, then took a large leap in the Saturn rings to imitate Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus.

I have to double check that because my memory is somewhat vague at the moment.

So, logically how can we explain this large magnetic field path and electric current at Jupiter while a small one at Mercury Venus Earth? Could it be that close in to the Sun, we just cannot have the magnetic and electric field spread out enough to form crests and troughs? And that a star the size of the Sun needs a distance of Jupiter and Saturn to form the largest Magnetic Field and electric current?

Same question for our Hydrogen Atom Spectral Lines. Do we need to go a distance from the hydrogen atom proton torus to get a largest Crest Spectral Line??

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
Feb 5, 2023, 10:50:07 PM (16 hours ago)



to
The 6 Equations to compose all of EM theory, look to be these six, all starting with New Ohm's law V= C*B*E and then differentiating New Ohm's law in all its permutations possible.

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

Where V = voltage, i = Ampere current, s= seconds, C = Coulomb, the amount of current, B = magnetic field, E = electric field. Some prefer to use angular momentum rather than E, as both are interchangeable, both have the same identical units. Through the years I have become accustomed to prefer E electric field in keeping with voltage and magnetic field as fully immersed in electricity and magnetism. I only use angular momentum when I want to express the difference between current and electric field.

Four are differential equations. Ampere's law looks to be (4), and Faraday's law looks to be (5).

Let me dissect the Coulomb law 6th one above to see if we can spot a perihelion speed versus a aphelion speed.

Coulomb Law and EM gravity

Law 6) (V/(C*B))' = E'. Lastly, the final Permutation of New Ohm's law is what I call the EM-gravity law, it is probably the most important EM law for astronomy, because it is gravity bundled up inside of the EM force, and where Coulomb force lies is this law. The Coulomb force ranges over R to 1/R to 1/R^2, R being the radius.

(V/C*B)' = E'

Using the Quotient Rule, which is (f/gh)' = (f'gh - fg'h - fgh')/g*h^2

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

Justification schemata
---------------------------------

So we list the derivatives with respect to time of EM parameters

Derivative with respect to time s, to 1/s velocity, to 1/s^2 acceleration

Current i = dq/ds so current is 1/s what is derivative of current, is 1/s^2 and what is that?

Magnetic field 1/A*s^2, Volt 1/A*s^3, Resistance 1/A^2*s^3

Derivative of V, voltage, and here we have 1/s^3, and the only s^4 I know of is Capacitance current Capacitance A^2*s^4, even though it is in the numerator. This is voltage.

Derivative of current i is Magnetic Field B.

Derivative of B would be 1/s^2 to 1/s^3, so that derivative of B is either Volt or Resistance and the clear choice here is Volt.

Derivative of E, electric field or some prefer to call it angular momentum, and here we have E as 1/s so the derivative is 1/s^2 and the clear choice here is a force, a torque, and now, if we have a torque times magnetic field B we end up with capacitor current and this is voltage, a transformed voltage.

Justification

(i) derivative with respect to time s, 1/s velocity, 1/s^2 acceleration
current i = dq/ds so current is 1/s
Magnetic field 1/A*s^2, Volt 1/A*s^3, Resistance 1/A^2*s^3,
Current 1/s, Conductance A^2*s^3, Capacitance A^2*s^4,

(ii) Resistance R = B*L in case of electrical wire and substance matter

----------------justification schemata ----------------------

Using a justification scheme the above becomes.

Coulomb law

(V/(C*B))' = E'

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

E' = (C^2B - B^3- V^2C) / C^2B^2

E' = C^2B/ C^2B^2 - B^3/ C^2B^2 - V^2C/ C^2B^2

E' = 1/B - B/ C^2 - V^2/ CB^2

What this law does, is set up Coulomb and gravity, by making Space be a magnetic field that puts a track into space and that matter follows these tracks and is pushed along in motion in these tracks-- what we call gravity. Think of EM Coulomb force as that the derivative of electric current is the creation of a magnetic field track of space and that mass matter in that electric field track space is pushed along in those tracks, with a force range of R to 1/R to 1/R^2 for notice the B term above is in first term 1/B, in second term B, and 1/B^2 in third term. We know R is solid body rotation seen in a spinning phonograph vinyl record, and seen in stars of spiral galaxies near the nucleus of the galaxy, and where 1/R^2 is the familiar Old Physics Newton law of gravity (also General Relativity). The 1/R term is partial solid body rotation as seen in the Asteroid belt in the Solar System.

The above analysis of differential equation of Electric field (angular-momentum) helps explain various configurations of motion in our Solar System but does not explain why gravity as 1/R^2 is all focused on the Equator of the Sun for its planets or the Equator of a planet for its satellites.

So here I am attempting to show by the AP-EM equations that the force of gravity as 1/R^2 focuses the equator of the Sun to build magnetic field paths jutting outwards from the equator and then the electric current jutting out from the equator following in that magnetic field path with push and pull of electric current.

Law 4) is (V/C*E)' = B' (Ampere Law).

Using the Quotient Rule, which is (f/gh)' = (f'gh - fg'h - fgh')/(gh)^2

(V/C*E)' = (V'*C*E - V*C' *E - V*C*E') / (C*E)^2

B' = (V/C*E)' = (V'*C*E - V*C' *E - V*C*E') / (C*E)^2

= (CCE - VBE -VCC)/ C^2E^2.

Now if we assume currents are the same, we reduce Ampere's law to this
B' = 1/E - VB/C^2E - V/E^2.

Compare to Coulomb-gravity law
E' = 1/B - B/ C^2 - V^2/ CB^2

The speed of Voyager 1 is approx 17Km/second. Is that alone proof that the Space surrounding the Sun is of crests and troughs of a interference pattern by the Sun's magnetic field.

So when any spacecraft is traveling between two planetary orbits, that spacecraft is in linear momentum speed. But when the spacecraft is traveling in a planetary orbit, the Sun gives the spacecraft additional speed in the angular momentum of the spacecraft pushed and pulled by the Sun's electric current running in that magnetic field path of the planet orbit.

I think Old Physics calls this gravitational assist. While AP calls it simply-- the spacecraft is in the Sun's crest, not trough.

AP

So, there is a very simple test of whether AP is correct and Old Physics is trashcan garbage. The test that Sun creates magnetic field paths in the plane of ecliptic then the Sun shoots electric current into those paths (these paths are Crests in a interference pattern) and if a planet is in that path, the electric current of Sun pushs the planet Aft (emf-electro magnetic force) and pulls the planet from in front (electric potential).

So, if a satellite is in that magnetic path, it will get a Gravity Assist from the Sun, regardless if the planet is nearby or far away in the orbit.

So, has this phenomenon been observed by our satellites-- enter a Crest of the Sun magnetic field and be given a push and pull. While the satellite is in a Trough of the Sun magnetic field, the satellite has linear momentum motion. When in a crest region, the satellite is in angular momentum motion.

Of course, crest and trough in Newton's gravity or General Relativity is totally absurd. For Newton's gravity and General Relativity are continuum physics, no crest and trough. And as far as gravity assist is concerned, it is a continuum.

So, has anyone observed our satellites with a Crest and gravity assist yet no planet nearby to do the assist.

AP

AP's gravity-assist as a crossing of a Crest in Sun's magnetic field may have already been observed in what is called the Flyby Anomaly.

--- quoting Wikipedia ---
Flyby anomaly

Unsolved problem in physics:
What causes the unexpected change in acceleration for flybys of spacecraft?
(more unsolved problems in physics)
The flyby anomaly is a discrepancy between current scientific models and the actual increase in speed (i.e. increase in kinetic energy) observed during a planetary flyby (usually of Earth) by a spacecraft. In multiple cases, spacecraft have been observed to gain greater speed than scientists had predicted, but thus far no convincing explanation has been found. This anomaly has been observed as shifts in the S-band and X-band Doppler and ranging telemetry. The largest discrepancy noticed during a flyby has been 13 mm/s.

Observations[edit]
Gravitational assists are valuable techniques for Solar System exploration. Because the success of such flyby maneuvers depends on the exact geometry of the trajectory, the position and velocity of a spacecraft during its encounter with a planet is continually tracked with great precision by the Deep Space Network (DSN).

During its flyby, MESSENGER did not observe any anomalies
The flyby anomaly was first noticed during a careful inspection of DSN Doppler data shortly after the Earth flyby of the Galileo spacecraft on 8 December 1990. While the Doppler residuals (observed minus computed data) were expected to remain flat, the analysis revealed an unexpected 66 mHz shift, which corresponds to a velocity increase of 3.92 mm/s at perigee. Investigations of this effect at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) and the University of Texas have not yielded a satisfactory explanation.

No such anomaly was detected after the second Earth flyby of Galileo in December 1992, where the measured velocity decrease matched that expected from atmospheric drag at the lower altitude of 303 km. However, the drag estimates had large error bars, and so an anomalous acceleration could not be ruled out.

On 23 January 1998 the Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR) spacecraft experienced an anomalous velocity increase of 13.46 mm/s after its Earth encounter. Cassini–Huygens gained around 0.11 mm/s in August 1999, and Rosetta gained 1.82 mm/s after its Earth flyby in March 2005.

An analysis of the MESSENGER spacecraft (studying Mercury) did not reveal any significant unexpected velocity increase. This may be because MESSENGER both approached and departed Earth symmetrically about the equator (see data and proposed equation below). This suggests that the anomaly may be related to Earth's rotation.

In November 2009, ESA's Rosetta spacecraft was tracked closely during flyby in order to precisely measure its velocity, in an effort to gather further data about the anomaly, but no significant anomaly was found.

The 2013 flyby of Juno on the way to Jupiter yielded no anomalous acceleration.

In 2018, a careful analysis of the trajectory of the presumed interstellar asteroid ʻOumuamua revealed a small excess velocity as it receded from the Sun. Initial speculation suggested that the anomaly was due to outgassing, though none had been detected.

Summary of some Earth-flyby spacecraft is provided in table below.
--- end quoting Wikipedia ---

> So, there is a very simple test of whether AP is correct and Old Physics is trashcan garbage. The test that Sun creates magnetic field paths in the plane of ecliptic then the Sun shoots electric current into those paths (these paths are Crests in a interference pattern) and if a planet is in that path, the electric current of Sun pushs the planet Aft (emf-electro magnetic force) and pulls the planet from in front (electric potential).
>
> So, if a satellite is in that magnetic path, it will get a Gravity Assist from the Sun, regardless if the planet is nearby or far away in the orbit.
>
> So, has this phenomenon been observed by our satellites-- enter a Crest of the Sun magnetic field and be given a push and pull. While the satellite is in a Trough of the Sun magnetic field, the satellite has linear momentum motion. When in a crest region, the satellite is in angular momentum motion.
>
> Of course, crest and trough in Newton's gravity or General Relativity is totally absurd. For Newton's gravity and General Relativity are continuum physics, no crest and trough. And as far as gravity assist is concerned, it is a continuum.
>
> So, has anyone observed our satellites with a Crest and gravity assist yet no planet nearby to do the assist.
>
> AP

Let me try some used envelope calculations.

Earth speed in orbit 40km/sec is 40,000,000 mm/sec. The anomaly of Cassini was 0.1mm/sec. So we have 400,000,000 mm

The circumference of Earth orbit is 900,000,000 km

So we have roughly 1/2 ratio of mm to km and speed involved.

No telling how much time Cassini spent in Earth's Crest. Nor how much time that NEAR 13.46mm/sec or Rosetta 1.82 mm/sec spent in Earth's Crest.

Does anyone have the figure for Oumuamua excess speed?? Did it cross into Mercury, Venus, Earth orbits?

On Monday, February 6, 2023 at 11:33:18 PM UTC-6 Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
AP's gravity-assist as a crossing of a Crest in Sun's magnetic field may have already been observed in what is called the Flyby Anomaly.

--- quoting Wikipedia ---
Flyby anomaly

Unsolved problem in physics:
What causes the unexpected change in acceleration for flybys of spacecraft?
(more unsolved problems in physics)
The flyby anomaly is a discrepancy between current scientific models and the actual increase in speed (i.e. increase in kinetic energy) observed during a planetary flyby (usually of Earth) by a spacecraft. In multiple cases, spacecraft have been observed to gain greater speed than scientists had predicted, but thus far no convincing explanation has been found. This anomaly has been observed as shifts in the S-band and X-band Doppler and ranging telemetry. The largest discrepancy noticed during a flyby has been 13 mm/s.

Observations[edit]
Gravitational assists are valuable techniques for Solar System exploration. Because the success of such flyby maneuvers depends on the exact geometry of the trajectory, the position and velocity of a spacecraft during its encounter with a planet is continually tracked with great precision by the Deep Space Network (DSN).

During its flyby, MESSENGER did not observe any anomalies
The flyby anomaly was first noticed during a careful inspection of DSN Doppler data shortly after the Earth flyby of the Galileo spacecraft on 8 December 1990. While the Doppler residuals (observed minus computed data) were expected to remain flat, the analysis revealed an unexpected 66 mHz shift, which corresponds to a velocity increase of 3.92 mm/s at perigee. Investigations of this effect at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) and the University of Texas have not yielded a satisfactory explanation.

No such anomaly was detected after the second Earth flyby of Galileo in December 1992, where the measured velocity decrease matched that expected from atmospheric drag at the lower altitude of 303 km. However, the drag estimates had large error bars, and so an anomalous acceleration could not be ruled out.

On 23 January 1998 the Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR) spacecraft experienced an anomalous velocity increase of 13.46 mm/s after its Earth encounter. Cassini–Huygens gained around 0.11 mm/s in August 1999, and Rosetta gained 1.82 mm/s after its Earth flyby in March 2005.

An analysis of the MESSENGER spacecraft (studying Mercury) did not reveal any significant unexpected velocity increase. This may be because MESSENGER both approached and departed Earth symmetrically about the equator (see data and proposed equation below). This suggests that the anomaly may be related to Earth's rotation.

In November 2009, ESA's Rosetta spacecraft was tracked closely during flyby in order to precisely measure its velocity, in an effort to gather further data about the anomaly, but no significant anomaly was found.

The 2013 flyby of Juno on the way to Jupiter yielded no anomalous acceleration.

In 2018, a careful analysis of the trajectory of the presumed interstellar asteroid ʻOumuamua revealed a small excess velocity as it receded from the Sun. Initial speculation suggested that the anomaly was due to outgassing, though none had been detected.

Summary of some Earth-flyby spacecraft is provided in table below.
--- end quoting Wikipedia ---

> So, there is a very simple test of whether AP is correct and Old Physics is trashcan garbage. The test that Sun creates magnetic field paths in the plane of ecliptic then the Sun shoots electric current into those paths (these paths are Crests in a interference pattern) and if a planet is in that path, the electric current of Sun pushs the planet Aft (emf-electro magnetic force) and pulls the planet from in front (electric potential).
>
> So, if a satellite is in that magnetic path, it will get a Gravity Assist from the Sun, regardless if the planet is nearby or far away in the orbit.
>
> So, has this phenomenon been observed by our satellites-- enter a Crest of the Sun magnetic field and be given a push and pull. While the satellite is in a Trough of the Sun magnetic field, the satellite has linear momentum motion. When in a crest region, the satellite is in angular momentum motion.
>
> Of course, crest and trough in Newton's gravity or General Relativity is totally absurd. For Newton's gravity and General Relativity are continuum physics, no crest and trough. And as far as gravity assist is concerned, it is a continuum.
>
> So, has anyone observed our satellites with a Crest and gravity assist yet no planet nearby to do the assist.
>
> AP

On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 12:17:49 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Let me try some used envelope calculations.
>
> Earth speed in orbit 40km/sec is 40,000,000 mm/sec. The anomaly of Cassini was 0.1mm/sec. So we have 400,000,000 mm
>
> The circumference of Earth orbit is 900,000,000 km
>
> So we have roughly 1/2 ratio of mm to km and speed involved.
>
> No telling how much time Cassini spent in Earth's Crest. Nor how much time that NEAR 13.46mm/sec or Rosetta 1.82 mm/sec spent in Earth's Crest.
>
> Does anyone have the figure for Oumuamua excess speed?? Did it cross into Mercury, Venus, Earth orbits?

From Wikipedia entry of Oumuamua, its perihelion speed (nearest to Sun) was 87.71 km/s on 9Sep2017. At a distance of 1 AU in exit, its speed was 49.67km/sec on 10 Oct2017, same speed as 9Aug2017. But then a faster speed on 10AU of 2019 at 29.51km/sec as compared to 2016 29.50km/sec.

So a difference of 1 km/sec. Old Physics astronomers attribute this increase in speed to outgassing.

AP attributes this increase in speed to having crossed the Crests of magnetic path of the Sun for Mercury, Venus, Earth orbits. What is called gravity assist.

AP