238th book of science for AP // Proving the Principle of Maximum Electricity Production is done by Atoms
7m views

Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Mar 18, 2023, 10:02:09 AM



to Plutonium Atom Universe
So many times I have referred to this principle in my work. Yet I never proved it true.

I think it is a natural part of another physics principle -- Least Action or Least Energy-- Feynman's pet theory.

But during the years I think I am now ready to prove Maximum Electricity Principle by geometry.

There is something very very unique about the Torus geometry. As if Torus geometry and Faraday Law are one and the same thing. Electricity loves surface area. Perhaps the torus maximizes surface area over that of volume.

We clearly can see this principle in the design of Tokamak machines are toruses.

And there must be a connection between torus geometry and Perpetual Motion of the muon stuck inside every proton doing the Faraday law with the proton as the muon speeds at nearly the speed of light zipping through the 840 windings of the 840MeV proton torus.

I think it may have gone overboard in physics history, if not history surely in education of the teaching of no perpetual motion machine. Gone way too much overboard, for the muon inside a proton torus is very much behaving like perpetual motion.

So, well, I am thinking that all I need to prove here is that the Torus geometry is super special and that surface area per volume is a Maximum. If I do that, then it wraps the conjecture-- for Faraday law is a torus geometry of maximum electricity production.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics

238th book of science for AP // Proving the Principle of Maximum Electricity Production is done by Atoms
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Mar 18, 2023, 11:21:39 PM



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Alright I need some math data to understand why Maximum Electricity production relates directly to having a torus geometry design.

Cube area is 6 side^2, and volume is side^3.

Sphere area is 4 pi*r^2, and volume is (4/3) (pi*r^3)

Torus area is 4(pi^2)Rr, and volume is 2(pi^2)Rr^2 where r is the radius of small circle that form the torus and R is the radius from center of donut hole to the midpoint of torus body.

So let me do some dynamical math to see how these three figures behave when made 1, then 2 then 3 , then 4, until the volume exceeds area.

Starting with Cube

Side 1 then area is 6 , while volume is 1
Side 2 then area is 24, while volume is 8
Side 3 then area is 54, while volume is 27
Side 4 then area is 96, while volume is 64
Side 5 then area is 150, while volume is 125
Side 6 then area is 216, while volume is 216 and here is where the volume takes over

Now the Sphere dynamics

Radius 1 then area is 12.56, while volume is 4.18...
Radius 2 then area is 50.24, while volume is 33.49..
Radius 3 then area is 113.04, while volume is 113.04... and from there the volume takes over

Now let me check the dynamics of the torus of area versus volume
4(pi^2)Rr, and volume is 2(pi^2)Rr^2

And a quick check would be to simply divide volume by area for a ratio. And here we have (1/2)r. If we did this with sphere we have a ratio of 1/3(r) for cube we have 1/6(side). This tells me that the torus will quickly have the volume surpass the area.

Radius 1 = r and R= 2 then area is 78.87, while volume is 39.43
Radius 2 = r and R= 4 then area is 315.50, while volume is 315.50

So let me try the cylinder for the cylinder is a straightline inconnected torus.

Cylinder area is 2pi*r*h + 2pi*r^2, while the volume is pi*r^2*height

Radius 1, height 2, then area is 12.56+6.28 = 18.84, while volume is 6.28
Radius 2, height 4, then area is 50.24+25.12 = 75.36, while volume is 50.24
Radius 3, height 6, then area is 100.48+56.52 = 157.00 while volume is 169.56

From this data table of math dynamics, tells me it is not the surface area that is the superlative in torus geometry but rather instead the volume is the superlative in things go around in a Circuit inside a geometry for maximum Volume.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Mar 18, 2023, 11:42:18 PM



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Now looking at the unique features of the Torus. Source StackExchange: The torus is the only surface that can be endowed with a metric of vanishing curvature. It is the only parallelizable surface. It is the only surface which can be turned into a topological group. Feb 9, 2011.

So in that first uniqueness let us say it is the only geometry figure that can have both small numbers and large numbers as a coordinate grid system in order to have vanishing curvature and to handle all differential equations. In other words, the torus is the only geometry to have a calculus take place thereon.

On the second uniqueness, the torus is the only figure of geometry that can be round and stacked with other toruses-- ideal for neutrons as capacitors to stack unto toruses of a proton with muon inside.

On the third uniqueness, I am not sure about that one since I thrown out topology as a science study out the window.

AP
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
Mar 19, 2023, 2:38:02 PM



to Plutonium Atom Universe
Now the speed of measured Alpha particles from decay is in the range of 5 to 7 percent the speed of light. What is the maximum speed of a alpha particle considering its rest mass?

The speed of measured Beta particles has been 99% speed of light.

Now, I am touching on a topic of Proof of God. An everyday proof that God exists, for physics cannot explain why particles move so fast. Every time a alpha particle is observed in Nature it is going at a speed that is huge, and everytime a Beta decay is measured it is nearly speed of light. As Feynman defines the Atomic Theory "..in constant motion.." As if the Universe is alive. If not constant motion, the Cosmos is dead with motion going to zero.

So how can AP say that the proton is a torus with muon inside in nearly the speed of light circling inside the proton torus producing electricity, how can I say the muon is nearly the speed of light-- in perpetuity. Is the interior of Protons the residence of God (atomic God) to have perpetual motion? In other words, unless Physics itself can explain why the interior of atoms have nearly speed of light and perpetual motion, that this is proof of God's existence (atomic god).

Is there logical sense to say if the Speed of Light is a Constant requires a perpetual motion near the speed of light when inside a proton torus????? Something like that would save us from saying the existence of God, that atom totality, causes the interior of atoms perpetual motion at near speed of light.

See my book: All Existence.. that of the syllogism of the Atomic Theory.

My 231st published book

All Things are made up of Atoms. The Universe is a Thing. Therefore the Universe is one single Atom of 231Plutonium // Logic

by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

Preface: The last time I worked on this idea was 2017, when I wrote it in my 8th edition of Atom Totality. And when I wrote it there, I was wanting to switch out the term "things" for a more scientific term such as "matter". For I was not comfortable with All things are made up of Atoms-- The Universe is a thing, therefore the Universe is an Atom. The upshot of switching "things" for "matter" made it better, but never eased my discomfort. I still felt there was room for improvement in the syllogism. Here on, 6 years later, I have finally found what makes me totally comfortable about the syllogism I have in 2023. It is not the switching of terms, but rather the inclusion of both quantifiers into the syllogism. Inclusion of the "Every or All" Universal quantifier along with the Existential quantifier that solves the logic. It ends up with "All Existence..." And the case can be made in life in general-- if stumped by a problem, best lay it aside and let the mind in subconscious find the best answer. I know in projects around the house, if I jump into them immediately I often have to "undo" that work. But if I rest and sleep on the problem for 3 weeks, I find the best way to tackle the work. In this case, I rested on the problem for 6 years, and now reaping the rewards.

This book is about the Logic form of the Atomic Theory as a syllogism. And I dare say, my book would be a nice companion book to Titus Lucretius, poet and scientist with his magnificent De Rerum Natura poem on the Atomic Theory. If not for Lucretius, much of our history knowledge of the Ancient Greek Atomic Theory would have been lost and unknown.

A Logic Syllogism can be seen to some extent as verses of a poem, Titus Lucretius lovely poem to the Atomic Theory. And for which AP believes the calendar of the world was set as year 0000 as Lucretius writes the poem in year 0000, and now we are 2,023 years later from the poem on Atomic Theory.

Cover Picture: The cover picture is my iphone photograph of a old book of 1931, so old that the pages have "yellowed". It is the only book in which I have proof that the idea the entire Universe is one big atom, is stated. It is by a chemist who has excellent writing skills and writes of the history of the Atomic Theory. I took the photograph of page 4-- A SHORT HISTORY OF ATOMISM 
 by J. Gregory, Univ. Leeds, 1931, page 4-- and capturing the passage where Gregory talks of the Democritean Atom the size of the entire Universe. The only difference really between Democritus Atomic Theory in Ancient Greek times almost 3,000 years ago, and AP in 2023, is that if Democritus knew the chemical table of elements, he would be looking for what element is the Atom Totality.

Alright, I am not going to have any problems with figuring out the geometry inside of Atoms, for I can use the Rutherford,Geiger,Marsden gold leaf experiment in that a chain of muons would have a different bounce back velocity from a nested toruses of S,P,D nested inside a Mainframe torus. I suspect the Rutherford gold leaf experiment can pinpoint this geometry.

What I will have trouble in solving is whether I can attach the idea of Maximum Geometry Design for Maximum electricity production.

Here I think I may be bound to the concept of Efficiency of Motor with its formula of The strength of your generator depends on:  

"L"-Length of the conductor in the magnetic field  
"v"-Velocity of the conductor (speed of the rotor)  
"B"-Strength of the electromagnetic field  

You can do calculations using this formula: e = B x L x v  

Efficiency of electric generator is e = B x L x v  

End quoting EdisonTechCenter.org for their writing style is superior as educational—  

Using that formula I backpedal to see if L or B is made maximum with a nested torus design or in a chain of muons design. Of course there are other possible geometry designs.

AP

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:30:14 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Alright, I am not going to have any problems with figuring out the geometry inside of Atoms, for I can use the Rutherford,Geiger,Marsden gold leaf experiment in that a chain of muons would have a different bounce back velocity from a nested toruses of S,P,D nested inside a Mainframe torus. I suspect the Rutherford gold leaf experiment can pinpoint this geometry.
>
> What I will have trouble in solving is whether I can attach the idea of Maximum Geometry Design for Maximum electricity production.
>
> Here I think I may be bound to the concept of Efficiency of Motor with its formula of The strength of your generator depends on:
>
> "L"-Length of the conductor in the magnetic field
> "v"-Velocity of the conductor (speed of the rotor)
> "B"-Strength of the electromagnetic field
>
> You can do calculations using this formula: e = B x L x v
>
> Efficiency of electric generator is e = B x L x v
>
> End quoting EdisonTechCenter.org for their writing style is superior as educational—
>
> Using that formula I backpedal to see if L or B is made maximum with a nested torus design or in a chain of muons design. Of course there are other possible geometry designs.

It is easy to show that if you nest the toruses inside a Mainframe that you duplicate the use of the B, the electromagnetic field.

For example the Gold atom has magnetic monopole configuration of 1s-2, 2s-2, 2p-6,3s-2,3p-6,3d-10,4s-2,4p-6,4d-10,4f-14,5s-2,5p-6,5d-10,6s-1

The mainframe torus of gold would be a large 6S orbital and inside the mainframe would be 13 smaller toruses all going around one another, successively, in a Faraday law.

Whereas the simple muon chain torus would have no nesting of toruses but a chain of 79 muons in a proton torus of 79 x 8 rings per proton= 632 rings, while the muon is 1 ring.

In the 180 degree bounce back in Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden experiment with its increased velocity of alpha particle, did it slam into a D orbital or P orbital, maybe the F orbital, in a head-on collision giving it the added velocity??

AP

On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 11:19:34 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Friday, April 28, 2023 at 9:30:14 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Alright, I am not going to have any problems with figuring out the geometry inside of Atoms, for I can use the Rutherford,Geiger,Marsden gold leaf experiment in that a chain of muons would have a different bounce back velocity from a nested toruses of S,P,D nested inside a Mainframe torus. I suspect the Rutherford gold leaf experiment can pinpoint this geometry.
> >
> > What I will have trouble in solving is whether I can attach the idea of Maximum Geometry Design for Maximum electricity production.
> >
> > Here I think I may be bound to the concept of Efficiency of Motor with its formula of The strength of your generator depends on:
> >
> > "L"-Length of the conductor in the magnetic field
> > "v"-Velocity of the conductor (speed of the rotor)
> > "B"-Strength of the electromagnetic field
> >
> > You can do calculations using this formula: e = B x L x v
> >
> > Efficiency of electric generator is e = B x L x v
> >
> > End quoting EdisonTechCenter.org for their writing style is superior as educational—
> >
> > Using that formula I backpedal to see if L or B is made maximum with a nested torus design or in a chain of muons design. Of course there are other possible geometry designs.
> It is easy to show that if you nest the toruses inside a Mainframe that you duplicate the use of the B, the electromagnetic field.
>
> For example the Gold atom has magnetic monopole configuration of 1s-2, 2s-2, 2p-6,3s-2,3p-6,3d-10,4s-2,4p-6,4d-10,4f-14,5s-2,5p-6,5d-10,6s-1
>
> The mainframe torus of gold would be a large 6S orbital and inside the mainframe would be 13 smaller toruses all going around one another, successively, in a Faraday law.
>
> Whereas the simple muon chain torus would have no nesting of toruses but a chain of 79 muons in a proton torus of 79 x 8 rings per proton= 632 rings, while the muon is 1 ring.
>
> In the 180 degree bounce back in Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden experiment with its increased velocity of alpha particle, did it slam into a D orbital or P orbital, maybe the F orbital, in a head-on collision giving it the added velocity??

Continuing with the Magnetic Monopole Configuration this time of Silver then Copper.

We have gold as 1s-2, 2s-2, 2p-6,3s-2,3p-6,3d-10,4s-2,4p-6,4d-10,4f-14,5s-2,5p-6,5d-10,6s-1

Notice I said Magnetic Monopole and not electron configuration, because the true electron of Atoms is the Muon stuck inside proton toruses and what Chemistry thinks the 0.5MeV particle outside the protons is the electron is false, those are magnetic monopoles.

Silver is 1s-2, 2s-2, 2p-6,3s-2,3p-6,3d-10,4s-2,4p-6,4d-10,5s-1 Of course silver is element 47.
Copper is 1s-2, 2s-2, 2p-6,3s-2,3p-6,3d-10,4s-1 Of course copper is element 29.

Copper, Silver, Gold appear in the same column of the periodic table, they are similar in chemical behavior because of their Magnetic Monopole configuration having 1 single isolated proton at the end of their configuration.

Logically we have 2 extreme forms of Geometry for the interior of Atoms. We have one extreme where all the protons assemble into one gigantic long torus with all its rings and windings in one long torus. In this geometry the muons are a long chain connected to each other like a chain and going round and round inside the one big long proton torus.

Then we logically have the other extreme of having nested toruses inside one big mainframe torus. Here we have a Mainframe torus bigger than the other toruses which are smaller and nest inside the mainframe torus, for gold the Mainframe is 6s-1, for silver it is 5s-1 and for copper it is 4s-1. This s-1 mainframe holds the preceding 3d-10 torus, a smaller torus than the 4s-1 torus. In turn the 3d-10 torus holds the 3p-6 torus inside the 3d-10.

So, logically we already have a proof of geometry, in the fact that Maximum Electricity Production by Atoms cannot be the one long torus with no nesting inside, for that does not give us the Fact of Chemistry of copper being similar to silver being similar to gold.

And by Logic we have proven the Fact of Atomic interior structure has to be a nested sequence of toruses inside larger toruses doing the Faraday law. We had two extremes -- muon chain inside huge proton torus of no nesting and the Mainframe torus with nesting.

Sure, we can have thousands of variants of these two possibilities. But variants do not make a Maximum. The only maximum possible is either the chain of muons in one long proton torus or the nested inside a Mainframe torus.

The Periodic Table of Chemical Elements has proven to us that the interior geometry of Atoms is a nested sequence of toruses inside one large Mainframe torus.

Now I need to prove that in Electromagnetic Laws of Physic that this geometry of Mainframe Torus is a Principle of Maximum Electricity Production. I proceed to do that from the fact of efficiency, that the electromagnetic field in efficiency = e = B x L x v, the B is greatest or maximum with a nested sequence inside a Mainframe torus.

AP, King of Science, especially physics & logic

Now this total overhaul of the geometry of the interior of all Atoms is going to make me say that the wiring system of atoms is the photon, neutrino as wiring system.

This allows me to regulate the size of proton toruses. So that the Gold Mainframe torus is 6s-1, for silver it is 5s-1 and for copper it is 4s-1, and this mainframe torus much larger than the smaller toruses nested inside the Mainframe. That means I need some energy or mass that is pliable and variable. So the individual proton torus of 8 rings, whilst muon inside has 1 ring, but that the proton of 840MeV is 840 windings, whilst muon is 105 windings.

These windings have to be variable to accommodate different sizes of toruses. And this is where the photon and neutrino function. Call it a standing wave of photon as a winding of 1eV that can vary in size.

And the neutrons acting as capacitors to storage the newly minted magnetic monopoles created by the muons thrusting through proton toruses, these neutrons are body skin cover in the form of Parallel Plate capacitors over the proton toruses.

The proton and muon windings are photons of a bend to them, and the neutrino is actually part of a photon only with a different direction as a monopole where the neutrino and photon form a dipole.

The neutron as parallel plate capacitors are formed from pencil ellipses making for almost Euclidean straightline geometry. While the windings of the proton torus or muon windings are more elliptical, round.

In Old Physics, they explained radiation of a photon or neutrino from an atom as being a change of orbit for their 0.5MeV particle outside a central nucleus, and as the orbit changes, out flies a photon or neutrino.

In New Physics the radiation of a photon or neutrino is because electricity produced by Faraday law radiates out from the windings if not stored inside a neutron capacitor.

AP, King of Science

On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 5:56:34 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Copper is 1s-2, 2s-2, 2p-6,3s-2,3p-6,3d-10,4s-1 Of course copper is element 29.
>

Now I am wondering about the mathematics here involved with nesting of toruses. I feel it is some form of Counting Principle, not a factorial of Permutation or Combination but rather : To find the number of ways of making several decisions in succession, multiply the number of choices that can be made in each decision.

I am going to use Copper for it has only 7 orbitals. The Mainframe is the 4s-1 and holds inside its torus all the other 6 orbitals.

So the 3d-10 is inside of 4s-1.
The 3p-6 is inside of 3d-10.
The 3s-2 is inside of 3p-6.
The 2p-6 is inside of 3s-2.
The 2s-2 is inside 2p-6.
The 1s-2 is inside of 2s-2.

So the two muons of 1s-2 as they go around inside the 1s-2 proton torus manufacture electricity. Total individual bar magnets if we counted a muon as bar magnet and each individual torus as a bar magnet, is 2.

The two muons of 2s-2 plus the 1s-2 torus (three entities acting as bar magnets inside of the 2p-6 proton torus) producing electricity. Total individual bar magnets if we counted a torus as a bar magnet, is 3.

The six muons of 2p-6 plus the 2s-2 torus, plus 1s-2 torus all inside of 2p-6 and producing electricity. Total individual bar magnets if we counted a torus as a bar magnet, is 8.

The two muons of 3s-2 plus the 2p-6 torus, plus the 2s-2 torus, plus the 1s-2 torus all inside the 3s-2 torus producing electricity. Total individual bar magnets if we counted a torus as a bar magnet, is 5.

The 6 muons of 3p-6 plus the 3s-2 torus plus 2p-6 torus, plus 2s-2 torus, plus 1s-2 torus all inside 3p-6 and producing electricity. Total individual bar magnets if we counted a torus as a bar magnet, is 10.

The ten muons of 3d-10, plus the 3p-6 torus, plus 3s-2 torus, plus 2p-6 torus, plus 2s-2 torus, plus 1s-2 torus all inside 3d-10 torus producing electricity. Total individual bar magnets if we counted a torus as a bar magnet, is 15.

The one muon of 4s-1 torus, plus the 3d-10 torus, plus the 3p-6 torus, plus 3s-2 torus, plus 2p-6 torus, plus 2s-2 torus, plus 1s-2 torus all inside the 4s-1 torus producing electricity. Total individual bar magnets if we counted a torus as a bar magnet, is 7.

So now I have two extreme cases of Atomic interior geometry that one of which is the Maximum Electricity Production via Faraday law.

The one extreme is all the protons form one big torus with the muons as a chain going around inside of 29 protons eaching having 840 windings. And here the muon chain is 29 muons.

As compared to the other extreme of nested toruses. So if we said each muon is a bar magnet and each torus going around is another bar magnet. In the case of Nested Toruses we have a summation of bar magnets as that of 2+3+8+5+10+15+7 = 50 individual bar magnets.

Contrast 50 bar magnets in Nested toruses with that of only 29 bar magnets in one big torus.

I suppose there is a mathematical permutation or combination that can find the answer of 50, rather than doing it by hand calculation.

And this data is what I use as proving evidence that the Nested Torus is more efficient and is Maximum Electricity Production in the Faraday law.

AP, King of Science

Now here I have to stop for a moment and worry and wonder of a factor in efficiency. The worry is that I know maximum electricity production is when the bar magnet is up close against the coil windings, with almost no space between them. So that if the magnet is loose in the thrust is less production of electricity compared to when the magnet is shortened and fat rather than loose. So the magnet is almost rubbing up against the coil windings. And possible even rubbing yields more electricity.

So I wonder where in this efficiency formula is that concern addressed? Is the rubbing or almost rubbing in the B factor-- the strength of the electromagnetic field? Or possible we need a fourth factor of how close the magnetism is to the coil. And we also need a factor of at the thrust at a angle. For we can only have efficiency of electricity production of that which is perpendicular between coil and bar magnet.

Here I think I may be bound to the concept of Efficiency of Motor with its formula of The strength of your generator depends on:

--- quoting Edison TechCenter.org on Internet ---
"L"-Length of the conductor in the magnetic field
"v"-Velocity of the conductor (speed of the rotor)
"B"-Strength of the electromagnetic field

You can do calculations using this formula: e = B x L x v

Efficiency of electric generator is e = B x L x v

End quoting EdisonTechCenter.org for their writing style is superior as educational—

Using that formula I backpedal to see if L or B is made maximum with a nested torus design or in a chain of muons design. Of course there are other possible geometry designs.

On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 11:55:18 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 5:56:34 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Copper is 1s-2, 2s-2, 2p-6,3s-2,3p-6,3d-10,4s-1 Of course copper is element 29.
> >
> Now I am wondering about the mathematics here involved with nesting of toruses. I feel it is some form of Counting Principle, not a factorial of Permutation or Combination but rather : To find the number of ways of making several decisions in succession, multiply the number of choices that can be made in each decision.
>
> I am going to use Copper for it has only 7 orbitals. The Mainframe is the 4s-1 and holds inside its torus all the other 6 orbitals.
>
> So the 3d-10 is inside of 4s-1.
> The 3p-6 is inside of 3d-10.
> The 3s-2 is inside of 3p-6.
> The 2p-6 is inside of 3s-2.
> The 2s-2 is inside 2p-6.
> The 1s-2 is inside of 2s-2.
>
> So the two muons of 1s-2 as they go around inside the 1s-2 proton torus manufacture electricity. Total individual bar magnets if we counted a muon as bar magnet and each individual torus as a bar magnet, is 2.
>
> The two muons of 2s-2 plus the 1s-2 torus (three entities acting as bar magnets inside of the 2p-6 proton torus) producing electricity. Total individual bar magnets if we counted a torus as a bar magnet, is 3.
>
> The six muons of 2p-6 plus the 2s-2 torus, plus 1s-2 torus all inside of 2p-6 and producing electricity. Total individual bar magnets if we counted a torus as a bar magnet, is 8.
>
> The two muons of 3s-2 plus the 2p-6 torus, plus the 2s-2 torus, plus the 1s-2 torus all inside the 3s-2 torus producing electricity. Total individual bar magnets if we counted a torus as a bar magnet, is 5.
>
> The 6 muons of 3p-6 plus the 3s-2 torus plus 2p-6 torus, plus 2s-2 torus, plus 1s-2 torus all inside 3p-6 and producing electricity. Total individual bar magnets if we counted a torus as a bar magnet, is 10.
>
> The ten muons of 3d-10, plus the 3p-6 torus, plus 3s-2 torus, plus 2p-6 torus, plus 2s-2 torus, plus 1s-2 torus all inside 3d-10 torus producing electricity. Total individual bar magnets if we counted a torus as a bar magnet, is 15.
>
> The one muon of 4s-1 torus, plus the 3d-10 torus, plus the 3p-6 torus, plus 3s-2 torus, plus 2p-6 torus, plus 2s-2 torus, plus 1s-2 torus all inside the 4s-1 torus producing electricity. Total individual bar magnets if we counted a torus as a bar magnet, is 7.
>
> So now I have two extreme cases of Atomic interior geometry that one of which is the Maximum Electricity Production via Faraday law.
>
> The one extreme is all the protons form one big torus with the muons as a chain going around inside of 29 protons eaching having 840 windings. And here the muon chain is 29 muons.
>
> As compared to the other extreme of nested toruses. So if we said each muon is a bar magnet and each torus going around is another bar magnet. In the case of Nested Toruses we have a summation of bar magnets as that of 2+3+8+5+10+15+7 = 50 individual bar magnets.
>
> Contrast 50 bar magnets in Nested toruses with that of only 29 bar magnets in one big torus.
>

So I ask the question again is there a mathematics easy way of computing that 50 rather than have to hand walk through the calculations. I have never run across a application of mathematics Combinations or Permutations of nested and Counting Numbers in physics before.

Say for Silver - 47, if we assume the one huge proton torus we have a chain of 47 muons inside a single one proton torus of 47 protons strung as one torus. But if we had the Nested Torus of smaller toruses nested inside one Mainframe torus of 5s-1, what would be the number of bar magnets much higher than 47 in the chain of muons?

Does math have a easy formula that I need not hand walk through to find the answer. Or then a computer can easily be set up to calculate all the nested torus numbers.

AP

So I am intrigued here because I am making the case that photons and neutrinos from dipoles. That a Light Wave is 1/2 photon and the other 1/2 is neutrino as a dipole of a circuit.

And then the total function of photons and neutrinoes is the wiring system inside of Atoms, composing the 840 Windings of a 840 MeV proton torus. The muon has 105 Windings and does the Faraday law with the proton inside a Atom.

It is hard to imagine in the Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden experiment of gold foil in early 1900s, hard to imagine that the ingoing alpha particle into a gold Atom interior can breach that proton torus mainframe so easily, and be shot back to the source at 180 degrees with increased velocity. Hard to imagine that the ingoing alpha particle looks at the windings and is never bothered by those windings. For a gold atom at 79 protons would be 79 x 840 windings = 66,360 Windings. Hard to imagine the ingoing alpha particle being scattered only when it runs into a S,P,D,F orbital torus head-on collision in the opposite direction, but never bothered by the 66,360 windings.

So, what I believe solves this Windings problem, is that the Windings are made out of photons and neutrinos and so a superposition of ingoing alpha particles with Windings makes for a ease of entrance of alpha particle with interior of gold atom.

And this is probably proven true because of photon emission of atoms. In the Old Rutherford-Bohr model, photon emission was thought of the 0.5MeV particle going from one orbital to another orbital producing a photon emission. In AP's torus geometry, the photon emission now becomes if one of the 840 windings of a proton, or possible one of the 105 windings of a muon, breaks apart and is emitted outside the atom as a dipole of 1/2 photon and 1/2 neutrino. Of course we can have monopole emissions of just a photon or just a neutrino.

Anyway, what I am getting at here is that since the Rutherford-Bohr model is dead and fakery, we have to account for photon emission in a different way. And the best way is to make a function, job and task of the photon and neutrino-- as being monopoles and dipoles as the Atom's wiring system.

AP, King of Science

Alright this leads directly into the idea that the composition of the Proton as a 840MeV torus and the Muon as the true electron of Atoms at 105MeV are both composed of magnetic monopoles or dipoles of photons and neutrinos.

This draws me closer to a look at Energy = mass * (speed of light)^2. For then the only difference between mass and energy is a factor of light speed.

What this seems to say is that Atoms are standing Light Waves while electricity or Lightning bolts or star radiation of EM are dynamic Light Waves. And here the only difference I can make of this is the shape of the closed loop circuit.

EM radiation having a different shape than the EM composing the windings of protons or electrons or neutrons.

This would also change our view of the Chemical bond. Especially the metallic bond and would be that the neutrons as skin cover of proton toruses form rectangular parallel plate capacitors. So that the metallic bond can be a entire face of a rectangular box bonded to another atom's entire face. This would allow ductile and malleable.

In Old Physics, Old Chemistry, the metallic bond was vary vague and obfuscating.

The covalent bond would be where the monopole of one atom joins with the monopole of another atom and thus a dipole as the bonding agent.

The ionic bond would be the same mechanism, and traditionally it is taught in classes that the ionic and covalent are the same.

AP

On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 8:16:55 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Alright this leads directly into the idea that the composition of the Proton as a 840MeV torus and the Muon as the true electron of Atoms at 105MeV are both composed of magnetic monopoles or dipoles of photons and neutrinos..
>
> This draws me closer to a look at Energy = mass * (speed of light)^2. For then the only difference between mass and energy is a factor of light speed.
>
> What this seems to say is that Atoms are standing Light Waves while electricity or Lightning bolts or star radiation of EM are dynamic Light Waves. And here the only difference I can make of this is the shape of the closed loop circuit.
>
> EM radiation having a different shape than the EM composing the windings of protons or electrons or neutrons.

Alright, I think I know what this difference in shape is. That the EM Spectrum has the middle band region as Double Transverse Waves, while the ends of the Spectrum are Longitudinal Waves. Longitudinal waves are the motion of closed loop circuits, while the Double Transverse waves can be either Standing or Dynamic. The Longitudinal Wave is apparently only dynamic.

This explains why in Old Physics and Old Chemistry, they had to have their high frequency EM waves-- X rays gamma rays etc visit the nucleus.

But what is strange is that the radio waves are longitudinal waves, and explains why they easily penetrate deep into buildings. In fact some buildings can amplify these longitudinal radio waves.

> This would also change our view of the Chemical bond. Especially the metallic bond and would be that the neutrons as skin cover of proton toruses form rectangular parallel plate capacitors. So that the metallic bond can be a entire face of a rectangular box bonded to another atom's entire face. This would allow ductile and malleable.
>
> In Old Physics, Old Chemistry, the metallic bond was vary vague and obfuscating.
>
> The covalent bond would be where the monopole of one atom joins with the monopole of another atom and thus a dipole as the bonding agent.
>
> The ionic bond would be the same mechanism, and traditionally it is taught in classes that the ionic and covalent are the same.
>
> AP

Alright, this is becoming extremely interesting. I have the world divided between either a Transverse Cycloid wave or a Longitudinal Wave. Before in physics, the world was divided between particle and wave. Trouble with particle and wave duality one cannot form the other.

With Cycloid versus Longitudinal, a ring of the longitudinal wave acts as a circle rolling on a straightline forms the cycloid wave. And with AP's cycloid versus longitudinal, I build all particles from cycloid waves if we allow cycloid to be semicircle.

Interesting, I have to see how to form a semicircle transverse wave from a cycloid structure.

A proton torus is merely its windings. A muon as electron is merely its windings, both proton and muon perpendicular to one another.

So if the world is cycloid waves, how do I form semicircle waves?

AP

I am looking on how to recover a Semicircle wave in the manner that a cycloid wave is constructed.

The natural first exploration would be to roll a ellipse. Perhaps on a level surface or perhaps on another ellipse or even a cycloid.

This appearred in MathStackExchange showing that the ellipse rolled on identical ellipse does not form a circle (semicircle).

--- quoting MathStackExchange ---
I'm struggling to prove the following.

Set one ellipse in contact with a congruent one so that the minor axis of one is aligned with the major axis of the other. Now roll one round the other. The locus of the centre of the rolling ellipse is a circle centre the centre of the other, radius a + b.

Is there an obvious line of attack?

(Counterexamples in replies.)
--- end quoting MathStackExchange ---

Sometimes a Google search hinders one in finding what they want. For example I am looking for how to get a circle from rolling, but Google hits are all about using the circle and getting a cycloid.

So AP wants a hit where we use a cycloid given and roll upon that cycloid figure some other figure to obtain in the end a circle (semicircle). Almost useless to Google search for their search cannot understand I seek the reverse.

This is probably the very same flaws in all robots, AI or not AI, they cannot understand the concept of reverse.

AP

Alright, some good signs in all of this mess. I am looking for rolling of closed curves that recovers or retrieves the Semicircle. While the rolling of circle on flat surface gives the cycloid. How to recover a semicircle is what I want.

Looking at Roulette Curves, I see the rolling of a circle upon another circle the center of rolling circle etches out a Trochoid.

Now we use an off-center to the rolling circle upon another circle and we get a Limacon Roulette curve.
So almost instantly I realize if we use a point on the rolling circle we get a new circle.

This indicates to me that using a rolling circle on the cycloid with a point marker on the circumference starts to turn the cycloid into a Limacon shape. This then allows me to guess that a specific ellipse for a given cycloid curve will generate a Semicircle when rolled upon the cycloid curve.

This is the answer I was seeking. To have a given cycloid curve, how does one restore a Semicircle from that cycloid. And the answer appears to be that you roll a specific ellipse upon the cycloid curve.

AP

Alright, some good signs in all of this mess. I am looking for rolling of closed curves that recovers or retrieves the Semicircle. While the rolling of circle on flat surface gives the cycloid. How to recover a semicircle is what I want.

Looking at Roulette Curves, I see the rolling of a circle upon another circle the center of rolling circle etches out a Trochoid.

Now we use an off-center to the rolling circle upon another circle and we get a Limacon Roulette curve.
So almost instantly I realize if we use a point on the rolling ellipse (replace rolling circle) we get a new circle.

This indicates to me that using a rolling circle on the cycloid with a point marker on the circumference starts to turn the cycloid into a Limacon shape. This then allows me to guess that a specific ellipse for a given cycloid curve will generate a Semicircle when rolled upon the cycloid curve.

This is the answer I was seeking. To have a given cycloid curve, how does one restore a Semicircle from that cycloid. And the answer appears to be that you roll a specific ellipse upon the cycloid curve.

AP

Now looking at the Limacon, if we stipulate that the offcenter point has to always be as a perpendicular to the surface of the circle it is rolling over, that we generate a semicircle.

This gives me the idea that if we stipulate a ellipse rolling over a identical ellipse- it generates a semicircle.

Also, if we stipulate a cycloid rolling over a identical cycloid with offcenter marker always perpendicular to surface of cycloid rolled over, generates a semicircle.

I am surprised no-one in math or physics did this before AP does it in May of 2023, fresh new mathematics on the world scene.

AP

On Monday, May 1, 2023 at 1:02:23 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> I am looking on how to recover a Semicircle wave in the manner that a cycloid wave is constructed.
>
> The natural first exploration would be to roll a ellipse. Perhaps on a level surface or perhaps on another ellipse or even a cycloid.
>
> This appearred in MathStackExchange showing that the ellipse rolled on identical ellipse does not form a circle (semicircle).
>
> --- quoting MathStackExchange ---
> I'm struggling to prove the following.
>
> Set one ellipse in contact with a congruent one so that the minor axis of one is aligned with the major axis of the other. Now roll one round the other. The locus of the centre of the rolling ellipse is a circle centre the centre of the other, radius a + b.
>
> Is there an obvious line of attack?
>
> (Counterexamples in replies.)
> --- end quoting MathStackExchange ---
>
Now the title of that MathStackexchange is "Rolling ellipses" question asked 9 years, 8 months ago.

And watching the animation the one ellipse traces out almost, say 99.9% of a semicircle.

But I wonder, with my keen math intuition, that if the center point was Free to rotate and if that center point were a marker so that it could be perpendicular to the surface of the second stationary ellipse, that the two ellipses indeed, trace out a circle.

Just wondering. And I need to make cut-outs of cycloids and ellipses and hand roll them. We cannot trust computer animations.

AP

So, well, Wikipedia has a animation of a Limacon and the Convex Limacon is almost a circle but a part of it looks flattened.

My objection is that the point-marker is allowed to rotate. If the point marker was always staring of the circle it was revolving around at a perpendicular, then that etches out another circle.

In the MathStackExchange of a ellipse moving around the same ellipse, they almost get a circle. But I wonder if they programmed the computer animation to not be perpendicular pointer marker and thus be of the path of a circle ever so slightly.

Now it is intuitive that if the pointer-marker in Limacon was fixed stationary and perpendicular to other circle at all times that we etch out concentric circles depending on where from the center the pointer-marker is placed.. As if the pointer-marker was caught in a magnetic field that did not allow it to move from being perpendicular.

Now if the pointer-marker were directly on the rim, the circumference starting out, can we expect the result to be a circle, only a circle with one point intersection with the circle it is rotating around in 360 degrees.

These figures are actually far more complicated and complex than what Wikipedia and Websites make them out to be.

AP

Now I am going to go contrary to the description of the Dimpled Limacon and say that the Pointer-Marker needs to stay Perpendicular to the tangent of the surface of stationary circle. In this manner, the dimple and the flattening disappears and what we end up with is a perfect circle, larger than stationary circle and intesection of both circles at one point.

AP

Now I am pretty sure this is a flaw in Old Math Geometry of their Limacon pointer marker going around like a clock as the motion of the moving circle goes around. The AP Limacon is where the pointer marker needs to stay perpendicular to the tangent of the stationary circle, thus creating a new larger circle with one intersection point. I say this because there is no other mechanical means of producing concentric circles or intersection at one point of two circles.

Physics needs the **perpendicular** for the pointer-marker, for electricity is always perpendicular to magnetism.

The Old Math Geometry Limacon is actually 2 rollings, the rolling of one circle over another and the independent rolling of a pointer marker. In the AP Limacon, there is but one rolling the circle over the other circle, while the pointer-marker is a fixed perpendicular point.

This messy obfuscation of what is moving also can solve the two identical ellipses rolling one over the other as tracing out a perfect circle. It is almost producing a perfect circle in the MathStackExchange animation but slightly off. And I am saying it is only slightly off because the animation was not programmed to allow the pointer marker, the center of the rolling ellipse to always have a perpendicular to the tangent of the stationary ellipse. You see the programmers of that animation, are like the Limacon animation and not restricting the pointer-marker to be always a perpendicular, and that is the reason it is not a perfect circle.

Now I need to do the same thing with the cycloid, see if I can roll one cycloid over a stationary cycloid with a pointer-marker and see if I trace out a semicircle. I may have to use the midpoint of the line segment that connects the two ends of one cycloid wavelength.

Yes, I believe that returns two cycloids, one rolling on the other, to be a semicircle.

AP, King of Science

You are a slave of science............

On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 12:09:42 AM UTC+2, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 238th book of science for AP // Proving the Principle of Maximum Electricity Production is done by Atoms
> 7m views
>
> Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Mar 18, 2023, 10:02:09 AM
> 
> 
> 
> to Plutonium Atom Universe
> So many times I have referred to this principle in my work. Yet I never proved it true.
>
> I think it is a natural part of another physics principle -- Least Action or Least Energy-- Feynman's pet theory.
>
> But during the years I think I am now ready to prove Maximum Electricity Principle by geometry.
>
> There is something very very unique about the Torus geometry. As if Torus geometry and Faraday Law are one and the same thing. Electricity loves surface area. Perhaps the torus maximizes surface area over that of volume.
>
> We clearly can see this principle in the design of Tokamak machines are toruses.
>
> And there must be a connection between torus geometry and Perpetual Motion of the muon stuck inside every proton doing the Faraday law with the proton as the muon speeds at nearly the speed of light zipping through the 840 windings of the 840MeV proton torus.
>
> I think it may have gone overboard in physics history, if not history surely in education of the teaching of no perpetual motion machine. Gone way too much overboard, for the muon inside a proton torus is very much behaving like perpetual motion.
>
> So, well, I am thinking that all I need to prove here is that the Torus geometry is super special and that surface area per volume is a Maximum. If I do that, then it wraps the conjecture-- for Faraday law is a torus geometry of maximum electricity production.
>
> AP, King of Science, especially Physics
>
> 238th book of science for AP // Proving the Principle of Maximum Electricity Production is done by Atoms
> Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Mar 18, 2023, 11:21:39 PM
> 
> 
> 
> to Plutonium Atom Universe
> Alright I need some math data to understand why Maximum Electricity production relates directly to having a torus geometry design.
>
> Cube area is 6 side^2, and volume is side^3.
>
> Sphere area is 4 pi*r^2, and volume is (4/3) (pi*r^3)
>
> Torus area is 4(pi^2)Rr, and volume is 2(pi^2)Rr^2 where r is the radius of small circle that form the torus and R is the radius from center of donut hole to the midpoint of torus body.
>
> So let me do some dynamical math to see how these three figures behave when made 1, then 2 then 3 , then 4, until the volume exceeds area.
>
> Starting with Cube
>
> Side 1 then area is 6 , while volume is 1
> Side 2 then area is 24, while volume is 8
> Side 3 then area is 54, while volume is 27
> Side 4 then area is 96, while volume is 64
> Side 5 then area is 150, while volume is 125
> Side 6 then area is 216, while volume is 216 and here is where the volume takes over
>
> Now the Sphere dynamics
>
> Radius 1 then area is 12.56, while volume is 4.18...
> Radius 2 then area is 50.24, while volume is 33.49..
> Radius 3 then area is 113.04, while volume is 113.04... and from there the volume takes over
>
> Now let me check the dynamics of the torus of area versus volume
> 4(pi^2)Rr, and volume is 2(pi^2)Rr^2
>
> And a quick check would be to simply divide volume by area for a ratio. And here we have (1/2)r. If we did this with sphere we have a ratio of 1/3(r) for cube we have 1/6(side). This tells me that the torus will quickly have the volume surpass the area.
>
> Radius 1 = r and R= 2 then area is 78.87, while volume is 39.43
> Radius 2 = r and R= 4 then area is 315.50, while volume is 315.50
>
> So let me try the cylinder for the cylinder is a straightline inconnected torus.
>
> Cylinder area is 2pi*r*h + 2pi*r^2, while the volume is pi*r^2*height
>
> Radius 1, height 2, then area is 12.56+6.28 = 18.84, while volume is 6.28
> Radius 2, height 4, then area is 50.24+25.12 = 75.36, while volume is 50.24
> Radius 3, height 6, then area is 100.48+56.52 = 157.00 while volume is 169.56
>
> From this data table of math dynamics, tells me it is not the surface area that is the superlative in torus geometry but rather instead the volume is the superlative in things go around in a Circuit inside a geometry for maximum Volume.
>
> AP
> Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Mar 18, 2023, 11:42:18 PM
> 
> 
> 
> to Plutonium Atom Universe
> Now looking at the unique features of the Torus. Source StackExchange: The torus is the only surface that can be endowed with a metric of vanishing curvature. It is the only parallelizable surface. It is the only surface which can be turned into a topological group. Feb 9, 2011.
>
> So in that first uniqueness let us say it is the only geometry figure that can have both small numbers and large numbers as a coordinate grid system in order to have vanishing curvature and to handle all differential equations. In other words, the torus is the only geometry to have a calculus take place thereon.
>
> On the second uniqueness, the torus is the only figure of geometry that can be round and stacked with other toruses-- ideal for neutrons as capacitors to stack unto toruses of a proton with muon inside.
>
> On the third uniqueness, I am not sure about that one since I thrown out topology as a science study out the window.
>
> AP
> Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Mar 19, 2023, 2:38:02 PM
> 
> 
> 
> to Plutonium Atom Universe
> Now the speed of measured Alpha particles from decay is in the range of 5 to 7 percent the speed of light. What is the maximum speed of a alpha particle considering its rest mass?
>
> The speed of measured Beta particles has been 99% speed of light.
>
> Now, I am touching on a topic of Proof of God. An everyday proof that God exists, for physics cannot explain why particles move so fast. Every time a alpha particle is observed in Nature it is going at a speed that is huge, and everytime a Beta decay is measured it is nearly speed of light. As Feynman defines the Atomic Theory "..in constant motion.." As if the Universe is alive. If not constant motion, the Cosmos is dead with motion going to zero.
>
> So how can AP say that the proton is a torus with muon inside in nearly the speed of light circling inside the proton torus producing electricity, how can I say the muon is nearly the speed of light-- in perpetuity. Is the interior of Protons the residence of God (atomic God) to have perpetual motion? In other words, unless Physics itself can explain why the interior of atoms have nearly speed of light and perpetual motion, that this is proof of God's existence (atomic god).
>
> Is there logical sense to say if the Speed of Light is a Constant requires a perpetual motion near the speed of light when inside a proton torus????? Something like that would save us from saying the existence of God, that atom totality, causes the interior of atoms perpetual motion at near speed of light.
>
> See my book: All Existence.. that of the syllogism of the Atomic Theory.
>
> My 231st published book
>
> All Things are made up of Atoms. The Universe is a Thing. Therefore the Universe is one single Atom of 231Plutonium // Logic
>
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
>
>
> Preface: The last time I worked on this idea was 2017, when I wrote it in my 8th edition of Atom Totality. And when I wrote it there, I was wanting to switch out the term "things" for a more scientific term such as "matter".. For I was not comfortable with All things are made up of Atoms-- The Universe is a thing, therefore the Universe is an Atom. The upshot of switching "things" for "matter" made it better, but never eased my discomfort. I still felt there was room for improvement in the syllogism. Here on, 6 years later, I have finally found what makes me totally comfortable about the syllogism I have in 2023. It is not the switching of terms, but rather the inclusion of both quantifiers into the syllogism. Inclusion of the "Every or All" Universal quantifier along with the Existential quantifier that solves the logic. It ends up with "All Existence..." And the case can be made in life in general-- if stumped by a problem, best lay it aside and let the mind in subconscious find the best answer. I know in projects around the house, if I jump into them immediately I often have to "undo" that work. But if I rest and sleep on the problem for 3 weeks, I find the best way to tackle the work. In this case, I rested on the problem for 6 years, and now reaping the rewards.
>
> This book is about the Logic form of the Atomic Theory as a syllogism. And I dare say, my book would be a nice companion book to Titus Lucretius, poet and scientist with his magnificent De Rerum Natura poem on the Atomic Theory. If not for Lucretius, much of our history knowledge of the Ancient Greek Atomic Theory would have been lost and unknown.
>
> A Logic Syllogism can be seen to some extent as verses of a poem, Titus Lucretius lovely poem to the Atomic Theory. And for which AP believes the calendar of the world was set as year 0000 as Lucretius writes the poem in year 0000, and now we are 2,023 years later from the poem on Atomic Theory.
>
> Cover Picture: The cover picture is my iphone photograph of a old book of 1931, so old that the pages have "yellowed". It is the only book in which I have proof that the idea the entire Universe is one big atom, is stated. It is by a chemist who has excellent writing skills and writes of the history of the Atomic Theory. I took the photograph of page 4-- A SHORT HISTORY OF ATOMISM 
 by J. Gregory, Univ. Leeds, 1931, page 4-- and capturing the passage where Gregory talks of the Democritean Atom the size of the entire Universe. The only difference really between Democritus Atomic Theory in Ancient Greek times almost 3,000 years ago, and AP in 2023, is that if Democritus knew the chemical table of elements, he would be looking for what element is the Atom Totality.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0BY778BJK
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2023
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 941 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 40 pages
>
> Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Mar 19, 2023, 11:51:08 PM
> 
> 
> 
> to Plutonium Atom Universe
> Recently I caught myself writing a trio of books in astronomy, starting with the concept of Stepping in Front of Sun's Forward Motion. That one book generated new concepts to make a trio of books.
>
> In my 237th book of reconciling the fact the true electron is the muon not the 0.5MeV particle causes us to change our view and understanding of Beta decay. For Beta decay is the continual making of new magnetic monopoles by the muon thrusting through the proton toruses.
>
> If Beta decay were the actual electrons of atoms, then my glow in the dark green dials of my compass would have gone dark a week after it was made, as the atoms transformed from radon to that of hydrogen in about a week time.
>
> The fact that my compass is glowing as bright as when I bought it 50 years ago is testament to the fact that the muon inside proton toruses is manufacturing the 0.5MeV monopoles that allow the 50 year long glow in the dark.
>
> But then this science of Beta decay leads into the question of the geometry that produces maximum electricity, and modern engineering knows the answer-- tokamaks for tokamaks are toruses.
>
> Maximum Electricity leads into the question of perpetual motion of the muon inside a hydrogen proton in a Faraday law producing electricity. So why is the world bifurcated into perpetual motion inside a proton torus and no perpetual motion outside the proton torus?
>
> And why does a muon, put inside a empty proton torus, all of a sudden have perpetual motion?
>
> So this leads to my third book of this trio of books-- Vis-Viva-- the spark of life itself.
>
> And AP is working on his grand finale theory of science-- Reincarnation. I hope to solve this science or at least get a good way advanced into its mechanism.
>
> From what I can tell, Reincarnation is a delivery system of information. And the best delivery system is the Light Wave = photon. One of my books is that a Light Wave is perfect DNA.
>
> This begs the question on whether perpetual-motion is bound up with the constant speed of light. You cannot have a constant speed of light if you do not have perpetual motion of a muon inside a 840MeV proton torus of hydrogen atom.
>
> As for Reincarnation, one has to ask how many Light Waves does it take to communicate information. Likewise, how many light waves does it take to make a picture on my TV screen for a second of time? Does it take an extraordinary large number of light-waves to form a TV picture for 1 second, or can say 1 single light wave form a TV picture for 1 second? Do we have numbers data of how many Light Waves it takes to form a picture on the TV for 1 second.
>
> Now light waves have no rest mass, meaning they are in perpetual motion. Maybe this is why muons are in perpetual motion when inside a proton torus. Maybe there is some form of Conjoinment of Light Waves with a muon that it is in perpetual motion inside a proton torus.
> 
> Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> Mar 20, 2023, 2:27:00 AM
> 
> 
> 
> to Plutonium Atom Universe
> Alright, I think I have the proof that the torus is the geometry figure of Maximum Electricity Production.
>
> Consider that the Torus is the smallest 3D geometry figure of a Closed Loop Circuit for electricity. All manner of donut holes, so long as the torus has no vertex or vertices.
>
> And this torus itself can be built from Light Waves as the walls and interior of the torus. A Light Wave as either a Semicircle Cycloid Wave or a up and down Semicircle cosine or sine Transverse wave.
>
> We can envision the proton as being bundled up Light Waves, also the muon.. And in this vision, we can picture that because of the proton and muon being a assemblage of Light Waves of perpetual motion, that the Light Waves transfer this property to the muon inside the proton-- of its perpetual motion around the proton torus.
>
> This immediately leads to the question of why a proton and muon have rest mass at all, if built from restmassless photons??? Good question. And the answer has to do with the free Light Wave that is not bounded by a transverse wave. A Light Wave from the Sun is a circuit wave that is not bounded perpendicular to its motion. A proton torus is composed of Light Waves that are both lateral and perpendicular composing the walls of the torus and thus creating rest mass. A Light Wave from the Sun has only a lateral component but no perpendicular component and hence no rest mass, but still a closed loop circuit wave.
>
> So what makes a particle have rest mass is that it has a lateral plus perpendicular component. A Light Wave has no rest mass and thus has just a lateral component.
>
> Much like a Cycloid wave is only a lateral component.
>
> In Old Physics they had dunces with their Higgs mechanism creating rest mass. In New Physics, rest mass is due to Light Waves in both lateral and perpendicular creating proton torus or muon torus.
>
> AP, King of Science
> Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> 2:14 PM 23Apr2023
> 
> 
> 
> to Plutonium Atom Universe
> Alright, onto my 238th book of science. I have often mentioned this principle in my physics work. However, recently with talk of the Rutherford Geiger Marsden experiment on gold foil that has a alpha particle bounce back to the gun, and sadly Rutherford misinterpreting that result. He thought it meant a dense nucleus in atoms. When far from it, atoms are toruses with no nucleus.
>
> What Rutherford, Bohr, Geiger, Marsden never took the data in full view, to understand that a 180 degree bounce back with Added Velocity, meant was the alpha particle had a Head On Collision to give it extra velocity.
>
> So, what AP needs is this principle, a principle of Maximum produced electricity of the geometry of protons as toruses and muons as electrons as rings and doing the Faraday law.
>
> Maximum electricity production begs the question that protons form a geometry of toruses. Toruses inside larger toruses and all of them engaged in a Faraday law.
>
> So that when Rutherford, Marsden, Geiger saw a alpha particle bounce back at 180degrees and with a greater speed than what the particle entered the gold atom, means it head on collided with a S or P or D orbital torus.
>
> Now we are talking about the interior of Atoms where there is Perpetual Motion, something that no engineer can build a machine of toruses, torus inside of another torus.
>
> But what we can do, is re-do the Rutherford gold leaf experiment and see if there are quantized energy of speed of the 180 degree bounce back alpha particle. Can we see from the data a speed that would reflect a head on collision with a S torus, with a P torus and with a D torus.
>
> This book is devoted to Maximum Electricity Production by Atom interiors for it then shows us the geometry of Atom interiors.
>
> AP, King of Science, especially Physics & Logic
> Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> Archimedes Plutonium
> Apr 23, 2023, 5:08:43 PM (4 days ago)
> 
> 
> 
> to
>
> I suspect the Maximum Electricity Principle is the reverse of Least Action or Least Energy principle, and here all I need do is argue that Physics laws of Electromagnetism each law has a "reverse". This is probably as simple as reversing the direction or signage, one being + the other being negative direction.
>
> AP
> Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> Archimedes Plutonium
> Apr 27, 2023, 11:24:01 PM (18 hours ago)
> 
> 
> 
> to
> I need a full book on Maximum Electricity Production Principle in order to say the S, P, D, F orbitals all compose toruses themselves inside a larger mainframe torus. So that Plutonium atom has a 5F mainframe torus with smaller F, D, P, S toruses inside one another as the entire smaller toruses produce electricity.
>
> The alternative is that only One torus is formed by the Protons and all the muons chain linked inside the one proton torus.
>
> Many a times in doing the geometry of Atom interiors, I have had to resort to a Maximum Electricity Production scheme and that would call for toruses inside larger toruses. Unless mistaken.
>
> AP, King of Science
> Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> Archimedes Plutonium
> 9:23 AM (8 hours ago)
> 
> 
> 
> to
> I am going to try for 2 different methods of proof of Maximum Electricity Production.
>
> One method is to observe what fission decay results can only be. Apparently they are always even number of protons of S orbital some P orbitals. Most end up at lead Pb 82 some at barium-56.
>
> If I can chart fission decay to be centered on S orbitals, P orbitals, perhaps D and F orbitals in spontaneous fission, then I will have proven that the interior of atoms are layers of S, P, D, F orbitals.
>
> Then, how to link up saying that toruses inside other toruses provides for Maximum electricity.
>
> AP
> Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> Archimedes Plutonium
> 11:59 AM (5 hours ago)
> 
> 
> 
> to
> 
> Trouble is-- inside a atom is perpetual motion of near speed of light, which no machine can duplicate.
>
> I suppose the Tokamak is as close as possible to modeling the interior of atoms.
>
> So, I have two or more competing designs. The most simple is to just add on more protons in one long torus with the muons inside as a long chain. The neutrons would be outside the proton torus gathering up the electricity produced.
>
> Then, the second design is that of nested toruses inside a huge mainframe torus. The S organized as a torus, the P another torus, the D torus, the F torus. I am thinking that extra electricity is produced if the protons organize as toruses inside a mainframe torus.
>
> I suppose the alpha particle decay-- the helium atom-- is indication that the Nested Torii is the interior geometry of Atoms.
>
> AP, King of Science

NSF Dr.Panchanathan, Harvard's Sheldon Glashow, Peter Higgs, Harry Cliff ever ask the question, which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle which AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole while the real electron is a muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. In fact so stupid is this list of so called physicists that they went through life believing the slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, when in reality it is a Oval of 1 axis of symmetry for the cone has 1 axis of symmetry but ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry. The minds of all these so called physicists are not good enough to be doing physics. In fact, so stupid in science and math are all these people that when told in High School or College that a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, they believed it, and believe in it to this day without so much as ever questioning the idea that a single cone and oval have just 1 axis of symmetry while ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, and yet many on this list were awarded science prizes. Maybe for ignorance of science but not for truth of science.

1) Too stupid to question if Thomson found Dirac's magnetic monopole and not the electron of atoms.
2) Too stupid to realize that in the Rutherford,Geiger, Marsden Experiment when you have increase in velocity of bounce back alpha particles means head on collision with a larger proton torus, hence, the interior of gold atoms are toruses, no nucleus.
3) Too stupid in logic to understand subatomic particles have jobs and tasks to do, not sit around on beaches sipping lemonade what Old Physics says. The proton is a 8 ring torus with muon as electron inside doing the Faraday law producing new electricity.
4) Too stupid to understand stars and our Sun shine not from fusion but from Faraday law of each and every atom inside that star.

5) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
6) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction
7) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"
8) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sapheads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.

> > Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez,
> > Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish
> > David J. Thouless_, F. Duncan M. Haldane, John M. Kosterlitz, Takaaki Kajita
> > Arthur B. McDonald
> > Francois Englert
> > Saul Perlmutter
> > Brian P. Schmidt
> > Adam G. Riess
> > Makoto Kobayashi
> > Toshihide Maskawa_
> > Yoichiro Nambu_
> > John C. Mather
> > George F. Smoot
> > Roy J. Glauber_
> > David J. Gross
> > Hugh David Politzer
> > Frank Wilczek
> > Raymond Davis Jr. _
> > Masatoshi Koshiba_
> > Riccardo Giacconi_
> > Gerardus 't Hooft
> > Martinus J.G. Veltman_
> > Jerome I. Friedman
> > Henry W. Kendall_
> > Richard E. Taylor_
> > Carlo Rubbia
> > Simon van der Meer_
> > William Alfred Fowler_
> > Kenneth G. Wilson_
> > James Watson Cronin_
> > Val Logsdon Fitch_
> > Sheldon Lee Glashow
> > Steven Weinberg_
> > .
> > .
> > little fishes
> > .
> > .
> > Layers of error thinking physics Re: 2-Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = subtraction of either 3 or 2, while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV
> >
> > Physical Review Letters: Proton Mass
> > Yi-Bo Yang, Jian Liang, Yu-Jiang Bi, Ying Chen, Terrence Draper, Keh-Fei Liu, Zhaofeng Liu
> > more and more layers of error thinking physics
> > .
> > .
> > Edward Witten
> > John Baez
> > Brian Greene
> > Lisa Randall
> > Alan H. Guth
> > Michael E. Brown
> > Konstantin Batygin
> > Ben Bullock
> > Larry Harson
> > Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
> > Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views
> > None at all - he was a raving nutter.
> > Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley
> > Jennifer Kahn, Discover, science hater
> > Eric Francis Coppolino, newsreporter hatred of science, George Witte, St.Martin's Press science hater
> > Toby Howard, The Guardian, science hater
> >
> >
> > #2-1, 137th published book
> >
> > Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> >
> >
> > #1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory
> >
> > This will be AP's 137th published book on science. And the number 137 is special to me for it is the number of QED, Quantum Electrodynamics as the inverse fine structure constant. I can always remember 137 as that special constant of physics and so I can remember where Teaching True Physics was started by me.
> >
> > Time has come for the world to have the authoritative textbooks for all of High School and College education. Written by the leading physics expert of the time. The last such was Feynman in the 1960s with Feynman Lectures on Physics. The time before was Maxwell in 1860s with his books and Encyclopedia Britannica editorship. The time is ripe in 2020 for the new authoritative texts on physics. It will be started in 2020 which is 60 years after Feynman. In the future, I request the physics community updates the premier physics textbook series at least every 30 years. For we can see that pattern of 30 years approximately from Faraday in 1830 to Maxwell in 1860 to Planck and Rutherford in about 1900, to Dirac in 1930 to Feynman in 1960 and finally to AP in 1990 and 2020. So much happens in physics after 30 years, that we need the revisions to take place in a timely manner. But also, as we move to Internet publishing such as Amazon's Kindle, we can see that updates can take place very fast, as editing can be a ongoing monthly or yearly activity. I for one keep constantly updating all my published books, at least I try to.
> >
> > Feynman was the best to make the last authoritative textbook series for his concentration was QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, the pinnacle peak of physics during the 20th century. Of course the Atom Totality theory took over after 1990 and all of physics; for all sciences are under the Atom Totality theory.
> > And as QED was the pinnacle peak before 1990, the new pinnacle peak is the Atom Totality theory. The Atom Totality theory is the advancement of QED, for the Atom Totality theory primal axiom says -- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
> > Length: 64 pages
> >
> > Product details
> > • File Size : 790 KB
> > • Publication Date : October 5, 2020
> > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > • Print Length : 64 pages
> > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > • Language: : English
> > • ASIN : B08KS4YGWY
> > • Lending : Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #430,602 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #39 in Electromagnetic Theory
> > ◦ #73 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #74 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> >
> > #2-2, 145th published book
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2
> > Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes and errors and beliefs that clutter up physics. Clearing it of its fraud and fakeries and con-artistry. I thought of doing these textbooks starting with Senior year High School, wherein I myself started learning physics. But because of so much fraud and fakery in physics education, I believe we have to drop down to Junior year High School to make a drastic and dramatic emphasis on fakery and con-artistry that so much pervades science and physics in particular. So that we have two years in High School to learn physics. And discard the nonsense of physics brainwash that Old Physics filled the halls and corridors of education.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN : B08PC99JJB
> > • Publication date : November 29, 2020
> > • Language: : English
> > • File size : 682 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > • Print length : 78 pages
> > • Lending : Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #185,995 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #42 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
> > ◦ #344 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #2,160 in Physics (Books)
> >
> > #2-3, 146th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Senior High School// Physics textbook series, book 3
> > Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > I believe that in knowing the history of a science is knowing half of that science. And that if you are amiss of knowing the history behind a science, you have only a partial understanding of the concepts and ideas behind the science. I further believe it is easier to teach a science by teaching its history than any other means of teaching. So for senior year High School, I believe physics history is the best way of teaching physics. And in later years of physics courses, we can always pick up on details. So I devote this senior year High School physics to a history of physics, but only true physics. And there are few books written on the history of physics, so I chose Asimov's The History of Physics, 1966 as the template book for this textbook. Now Asimov's book is full of error and mistakes, and that is disappointing but all of Old Physics is full of error. On errors and mistakes of Old Physics, the best I can do is warn the students, and the largest warning of all is that whenever someone in Old Physics says "electron" what they are talking about is really the Dirac magnetic monopole. And whenever they talk about the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom, they are talking about huge huge grave mistakes, for the true atom is protons as 8 ringed toruses with a muon stuck inside of a proton doing the Faraday law and producing those magnetic monopoles as electricity. I use Asimov's book as a template but in the future, I hope to rewrite this textbook using no template at all, that is if I have time in the future.
> > Cover Picture: Is the book The History of Physics, by Isaac Asimov, 1966 and on top of the book are 4 cut-outs of bent circles representing magnetic monopoles which revolutionizes modern physics, especially the ElectroMagnetic theory.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08RK33T8V
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 28, 2020
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 794 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 123 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #4,167,235 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #15,099 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #91,163 in Physics (Books)
> >
> >
> > #2-4, 151st published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4
> > Kindle Edition
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> >
> > Preface: This is AP's 151st book of science published. It is one of my most important books of science because 1st year college physics is so impressionable on students, if they should continue with physics, or look elsewhere for a career. And also, physics is a crossroad to all the other hard core sciences, where physics course is mandatory such as in chemistry or even biology. I have endeavored to make physics 1st year college to be as easy and simple to learn. In this endeavor to make physics super easy, I have made the writing such that you will see core ideas in all capital letters as single sentences as a educational tool. And I have made this textbook chapter writing follow a logical pattern of both algebra and geometry concepts, throughout. The utmost importance of logic in physics needs to be seen and understood. For I have never seen a physics book, prior to this one that is logical. Every Old Physics textbook I have seen is scatter-brained in topics and in writing. I use as template book of Halliday & Resnick because a edition of H&R was one I was taught physics at University of Cincinnati in 1969. And in 1969, I had a choice of majors, do I major in geology, or mathematics, or in physics, for I will graduate from UC in 1972. For me, geology was too easy, but physics was too tough, so I ended up majoring in mathematics. If I had been taught in 1969 using this textbook that I have written, I would have ended up majoring in physics, my first love. For physics is not hard, not hard at all, once you clear out the mistakes and the obnoxious worthless mathematics that clutters up Old Physics, and the illogic that smothers much of Old Physics.
> >
> > Maybe it was good that I had those impressions of physics education of poor education, which still exists throughout physics today. Because maybe I am forced to write this book, because of that awful experience of learning physics in 1969. Without that awful experience, maybe this textbook would have never been written by me.
> >
> > Cover picture is the template book of Halliday & Resnick, 1988, 3rd edition Fundamentals of Physics and sitting on top are cut outs of "half bent circles, bent at 90 degrees" to imitate magnetic monopoles. Magnetic Monopoles revolutionizes physics education, and separates-out, what is Old Physics from what is New Physics.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09JW5DVYM
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ October 19, 2021
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1035 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 386 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Best Sellers Rank: #4,874,333 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #526 in Electromagnetic Theory
> > ◦ #1,321 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
> > ◦ #9,546 in Electromagnetism (Books)
> >
> >
> >
> > #2-5, 174th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 2nd year College
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition
> >
> > Preface: At the moment this is a physics book for 2nd year College. But as the months and years go by I intend to convert it into a textbook of about 200 to 300 pages. It is mostly about thermodynamics for in my own college education 1968-1972 at University of Cincinnati, I took physics thermodynamics in the 2nd year (if memory has not failed me).
> > Cover-Picture: Is a iphone photograph of the Chemistry textbook I used at UC 1968-1972 with my own paper cut-outs of magnetic monopoles. Pictured are 4 bent circles, bent at 90degrees from diameter and each bent circle is a individual magnetic monopole.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09TKL4HMC
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 27, 2022
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 675 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 41 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> >
> >
> >
> > #2-6, 177th published book
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Architecture of Atoms, 3rd year College
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition
> >
> > Preface: I come to teaching physics for 3rd year College as the Architecture of Atoms. My writing style will be prose-narrative, until I add on exercise problems and convert it into a textbook. The 1st year College, has to be the equations and laws of electricity and magnetism. For the primal-axiom over all of physics is-- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. The 2nd year College is thermodynamics. And now the 3rd year College physics has to teach the Architecture, the geometry of the inside and exterior surface of the atom. One of the greatest faults, misery, and anti-science teaching of Old Physics is their denial that subatomic particles have to be something more than tiny balls tiny spheres that do-nothing, perform nothing, function as nothing. That the proton and neutron and true electron=muon, has to be matter with a function and purpose and design and task and job. This is a year of physics teaching of the architecture of the atom.
> > Cover Picture: A iphone photograph of my book chemistry book, a long time favorite of mine of CHEM ONE, 2nd edition, Waser, Trueblood, Knobler, 1980, and page 307 of that book. Why this page? Because it was instrumental in my discovery of the true Architecture of Atoms. Not many professors of chemistry or physics dive into the Shrodinger Equation that results in a meaningful teaching of "matter waves". Matter waves are the heart of understanding the geometry of Atomic Architecture.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09VFH9QST
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2022
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 823 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 74 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> >
> >
> >
> > #2-7, 178th published book
> >
> > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Architecture of Light Waves & Energy, 4th year College
> > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Kindle edition)
> >
> >
> > Preface: This is 4th year College Physics and the important ideas of physics to learn as last year undergraduate school is the architecture and geometry of the Light Wave & Energy in physics. This is New Physics and not Old Physics. New Physics is defined as physics that knows and uses the true electron of atoms is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus and doing the Faraday law, creating new electrical energy that is storaged in the neutrons of atoms until they grow from 1eV into 945MeV and then create a new higher atomic numbered atom or emitted as radioactivity. Old Physics mistakenly identified the electron of atoms as the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole. In 3rd year College we studied the architecture of the interior of atoms. In 4th year College we study the architecture of Light Waves & Energy.
> >
> > The template book for 4th year College is Feynman's 1985 book of QED.
> >
> > Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of the template book for this book. Feynman's 1985 QED, quantum electrodynamics, showing my plastic toy model of DNA and my cut-outs of 4 bent circles that each bent circle represents one magnetic monopole. I arranged the monopoles into a single strand of a cycloid wave.
> >
> > Product details
> > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09W58XGDW
> > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 21, 2022
> > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > • File size ‏ : ‎ 824 KB
> > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 66 pages
> > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> >
> >
> >