2-AP's 255th book of science// "The history of Old Physics and the history of Old Math"

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 11:57:58 AM UTC-5, Enes Richard wrote:
> wtorek, 1 sierpnia 2023 o 09:55:56 UTC+2 Archimedes Plutonium napisał(a):
> > I do recall some of Feynman history concerning his opinion of Standard Model in Physics. His comment, words to the effect "I see no use in playing Algebra games in Physics" referring to the Standard Model.
> >
> > Critics of AP often level that attack on AP-- my work is numerology. Yet, those same critics never see anything wrong in Murray Gell-Mann, Sheldon Glashow, Peter Higgs, Steven Weinberg with their protons, neutrons, electrons as "balls" that have no function, and where these Standard Model physicists play around with numbers in a algebra jigsaw puzzle.
> >
> > Contrast that with AP's New Physics where the proton is 840MeV as a torus with 840 windings and inside the torus resides a 105MeV muon as the Atom's electron doing the Faraday law inside the proton torus as it thrusts through the torus at nearly the speed of light producing electricity for which the neutrons are parallel plate capacitors storing this electricity.
> >
> > So Old Physics with Murray Gell-Mann was algebra games and 3 quarks with balls as particles that do nothing except maybe fly around in circles around a dense nucleus of balls that do nothing. A picture really quite childish and stupid, yet they win a Nobel physics prize for this stupidity. Prizes for numerology in physics.
> >
> > And this was circa 1960s of numerology of 3 in physics, but the Engineers in 1960s were paying attention to this horrible numerology in physics that wins prizes, and not to be left out of the party-making. The engineers reflected on whether 3, the number 3 was also a backbone and foundation of sorts in engineering. And the engineers did not have far to look to see of 0 to 1/3 and 1/3 to 2/3, and 2/3 to 1, makes for a Middle Thirds.
> >
> > And the Eastern Religions of Buddhism with Eightfold Way and Middle Third Path was not lost on engineers in the 1960s onward. And so it came to be, that Physics was seeped in the stupidity of numerology and engineering would want some of that party and merriment.
> >
> > But, what is flawed with both the physics and engineering numerology of 3, is the fact that truth in science ends up with Experiments. And Demonstrations are indeed experiments.
> >
> > AP's recent experimentation into proving Water is H4O, not H2O is an experiment that throws out the Standard Model of Old Physics, completely throws it out and onto the trash pile of shame. For H4O requires proton and muon and neutron and magnetic monopoles to have jobs and tasks and function, and not be a mindless idiotic ball that does nothing and is counted in some number algebra game.
> >
> > And as for the Engineering mindrot of Middle Third Rule, a demonstration is required. A demonstration is demanded, not just a paragraph of words with tension and stress and resultant force, a incomprehensible paragraph. No, a demonstration of something following the Middle Third Rule and another apparatus that fails the Middle Third Rule. Then, when someone asks, what is the Engineering Middle Third Rule? What is it? And the answer is-- you make apparatus A and apparatus B that does not follow the rule. And watch how B falls apart.
> >
> One experimental set is enough (previously described) - a cuboid pole made of cuboid rubber bands stacked on top of each other and a match at the very top transmitting the load/force.
> > Sadly, though, numerology crept into physics and engineering in the 20th century, was heavily rewarded, but now must be seen as the charaltan of science it was.
> >
> > It is admirable that Feynman was opposed to the Standard Model, but he should have been more vehement in his opposition. Every King or Queen of science must be vocal in the future. And sometimes the King or Queen will get it wrong, but they must be active and vocal.
> >
> > AP, King of Science
> >
> I think Feynman compromised because there was no alternative model for the structure of the nucleon. He was familiar with experiments with fast electrons passing through a proton and being scattered (as in Rutherford's experiment) and reserved the name PARTON for the nucleon component. Quarks were to fulfill this role until a better structure model was found.
>
> There are probably over 7,300 partons in nucleons (hence the multitude of different particles after collisions). Partons are about the size of an electron and are about a million times as far apart. They easily pass the test of fast electrons (which are made up of at least 4 partons)...probably.

Yes, I was going to bring up the Feynman Parton theory which is also bogus.

Feynman was attacking String theory more than he was Standard Model.

I should write a book on "The history of Old Physics and the history of Old Math"

The history of Old Math is more clearcut with time boundary. For Old Math is Reals as numbers with a continuum and utterly no valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus ever possible in Old Math. There is the year 2013 in which clearly New Math starts with the correct number system.

Know what Numbers really are, not some sack of crap cobbled together in a junk pile called Reals

History of discovery: can be pinned to the year 2013 where Grid Numbers replaces the Reals. I needed discrete numbers not a continuum and by 2013 I started True Calculus, where I need empty space gaps between discrete numbers, in order for calculus to exist.

When does Old Physics end? All the physics up to year 2016-2017 is Old Physics and what is its characteristic feature?

Old Math is all the math up to 2013, and its characteristic feature is having the correct Numbers that compose mathematics, and those correct numbers allow one to do a Geometry and a Valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. Before 2013, Old Math never had a valid proof of calculus. They tried with their stupid "limit analysis" hoping that no-one would notice that just because you analyze something does not mean you
"proven something".

But what is the transition year for Old Physics to go into New Physics, the true physics? I could say the year 1990 wherein the Atom Totality theory starts to take over all the sciences, even mathematics as it says that physics dominates over math, where math is just a small closet or attic space of physics, for geometry exists because Atoms have different shapes and sizes and numbers exist because atoms are numerous.

In a sense, Old Physics and Old Math really end with the year 1990 because of Atom Totality Universe. But in this book I am specific about complete and utter breakdown of Old Math and Old Physics. Where they are a complete joke as science.

For math the complete joke of Old Math is that it is painfully aware by 2013, they never had a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and could never have a proof, not as long as they kept their Reals with its continuum. In a sense, Old Math killed calculus, they nuked it out of existence with Reals and their continuum.

But for Old Physics, things went horribly horribly wrong for Old Physics not just 1990 with Atom Totality, but specifically by 2016-2017 when AP discovered that the neutron at 940MeV is really composed of 9 muons within Sigma Error. Also the proton registered at 938MeV is actually 945MeV within sigma error, meaning that the true proton is only 840MeV with a muon stuck inside doing the Faraday law. By the year 2016-2017, Old Physics is seen as a dead, decaying science. Seen as idiots who think the neutron and proton and electron are tiny balls, either whizing around at nearly speed of light, or just clumped together in a fictional nucleus. The idiot Ball picture of subatomic particles with no jobs, function or purpose.

The faculty of physicists at all universities across the globe at this moment are "subatomic particles and atoms as stick and ball figures, most doing nothing but maybe sipping lemonade on a nuclear beach" while that tiny 0.5MeV electron of theirs whizing crazily around the nuclear beach at nearly speed of light, and everyone in the subatomic world having no function." That picture of Atoms marks the end of Old Physics with their mindless pictures of proton, neutrons, electrons and atoms as balls.

For in 2016-2017, AP sees that the proton is 9x105MeV means the proton itself is only 840MeV as a torus of 840 windings with a 105MeV muon as the true electron inside the proton torus doing the Faraday law. And that AP sees the neutron is a parallel plate capacitor storing the electricity produced by proton +muon and providing a skin cover for the proton+muon.

New Physics started with Atom Totality of 1990, but accelerated by 2016-2017 when it is clearly seen that atoms and their subatomic particles are not "balls with no jobs, no function".

And this is so important to throw out Old Physics immediately, for Sun and Stars shine not from fusion but from Faraday law. This is why 25% of all insect biomass died from 2010 to 2020, because every year, the Sun gets hotter and hotter.

And unless humanity gets out there to Europa and places a permanent colony there in the next 1,000 years, that all the life on Earth including humanity will be scorched and fried to death-- all life on Earth goes extinct and into oblivion. The only remains that once was human history, is the Voyagier spacecraft with that emblem insignia it carries that once upon a time-- there lived humans who built this spacecraft.

☣ of Math and ☢ of Physics Archimedes "antiscience" Plutonium
<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> humiliates himself by writing:

> Can_King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden,Dr.Tony Hansson, Dr.Markus Hennrich, Dr.Tommy Ohlsson, Stockholm Univ --Please- please-step into the Stockholm Univ physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O.

> 2-Can_Dr.Metin Tolan,Dr. Stefan W. Hell,Dr. Michael Budack,Dr.Klaus Hasselmann - -PLEASE--step into Gottingen Univ physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O.

> 3-Can_Dr. Stefan W. Hell,Dr.Metin Tolan,Dr. Michael Budack,Dr.Klaus Hasselmann - -PLEASE--step into Gottingen Univ physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O.

> Can_Dr.Joao Rodrigues,Dr.Carminda Mennen,Dr.Betsy Jonck,Dr.Charlotte Brennan,Witwatersrand Univ PLEASE--step into the Witwatersrand Univ physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O.

Why is StupidPlutonium still desperately *begging* all sorts of
scientists to do his work for him? Why, of all people, does
StupidPlutonium expect the King of Sweden to work in a lab for him?
After all, King Gustaf is rather busy kinging, does he know the
difference between a test tube and a Bunsen burner?

Does StupidPlutonium expect these scientists (and kings) to work for
free? At least wave a big wad of cash to some lab, so they can laugh all
the way to the bank when they take his money and show StupidPlutonium
water is still H2O after all.

And why is StupidPlutonium begging here on Usenet? Why not contact them
directly? After all, almost no .edu types bother with ancient, near-dead
Usenet these days, and most probably don't even know what Usenet is. And
is ArkyPoo so dumb and stoopid that he thinks the King of Sweden reads
Usenet sci groups?

Does StupidPlutonium really think some electrolysis experiment, done a
zillion times over the last century+, will come up with a completely new
outcome? And that's why he's desperately begging?

> AP, Drag Queen of Science

Can University of Dayton run a electrolysis experiment on Water, for I believe water is really H4O and not H2O.

University of Dayton did have a Nobel Chemistry winner in Charles Pedersen for synthesizing crown ethers.

If AP is correct the hydrogen test tube weighs 1/4 of the oxygen in atomic mass units. If mainstream chemistry and physics is correct, the hydrogen test tube weighs 1/8 of the oxygen test tube in a.m.u.

Would the physicists and chemists of Univ. Dayton, Ohio be interested in conducting the experiment. My home grown lab cannot weigh to 0.00001 gram or less.

On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 8:12:58 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>"antiscience"
> humiliates himself by writing:
Re: Univ Dayton Eric Spina, why Kibo hate The Pope? He continues to defile The Pope? Can you stop him, for he has defiled and demonized AP for 30 years nonstop, are you going to let him defile the Pope for 30 years???? And Todd B.Smith, how is your

Re: Archimedes "Pope of Failure" Plutonium flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
> > > > by Volney Feb 24, 2023, 11:28:40 PM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 9:28:07 PM UTC-6, Volney wrote:
> > > > Re: Archimedes "Pope of Failure" Plutonium flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
> > > > > "self diagnosed as insane"
> > > >
> > > > Re: Archimedes "Pope of Failure" Plutonium flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test
> > > > by Volney Mar 31, 2023, 1:45:31 AM
> > > >

Univ Dayton Eric Spina, why Kibo hate The Pope? He continues to defile The Pope? Can you stop him, for he has defiled and demonized AP for 30 years nonstop, are you going to let him defile the Pope for 30 years???? And Todd B..Smith, how is your reading of AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS and TEACHING TRUE MATH textbook series (see below) coming along. I would answer any questions you may have, provided they are serious questions.
>
> Kibo Parry Moroney-Volney, an open hate channel--

Can_University Dayton --Please- please-step into the Univ Dayton, Ohio physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O.

> > > > +Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within
>
> > > > +Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within
> > > >
> > > > 3m views Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within the accuracy I need for weighing a test tube of oxygen then a test tube of hydrogen from water electrolysis.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium
> > > >
> > > > In Old Chemistry and Old Physics, their subatomic particles were do nothing and no function and no job particles that sit around as balls or whiz around the outside of balls doing nothing but pointless circling.
> > > >
> > > > In New Physics and New Chemistry-- All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. Every subatomic particle has a job a function a purpose as to the Laws of Electromagnetism--- Faraday law, Coulomb law, Ampere law, Capacitor law.
> > > >
> > > > A proton is a torus of 840MeV with 840 windings, while the muon is the true electron of Atoms and is encased inside the proton torus thrusting through and producing electricity-- magnetic monopoles.
> > > >
> > > > The neutron of Atoms is a parallel plate capacitor storing the electricity of proton+muon and is skin cover on the outside of the proton torus in the form of parallel plates.
> > > >
> > > > Can hydrogen be a Atom if it is just a proton+muon? No, all atoms require to have a capacitor such as at least one neutron. Thus the Hydrogen Atom is H2 where you have 2 proton+muon where 1 of the 2 proton+muon acts like a neutron to the other proton+muon. Thus, water molecule is not H2O but rather is H4O.
> > > >
> > > > AP is waiting for experimental chemists and physicists to prove him correct that Water is H4O.
> > > >
> > > > In the meantime we have Hydroxyl which in Old Chemistry, especially Biology is OH, while AP says that is wrong and that is really H2O.
> > > >
> > > > Now glycerine is a hydroxyl with formula C3H8O3. And what I am thinking at this moment, is that hydroxyls will be an easier proof that Water is truly H4O, rather than wait for experimentalists to actually "weigh the electrolysis test tubes of oxygen and hydrogen".
> > > >
> > > > You see, with H4O as water, glycerine is C3(2 waters)O with an extra oxygen. If Water is H2O then glycerine is C3(4 waters) deficit O. It is missing an oxygen if water is H2O.
> > > >
> > > > The reason glycerine is so effective as a skin ointment is because it has glycerine, the extra O oxygen. If water were H2O, then glycerine would be a missing oxygen and not a skin lotion that works, but makes skin even more dry.
> > > >
> > > > Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium
> > > >
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > > > 12:24 AM (13 hours ago)
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > >
> > > > --- quoting in part from source-- Study.com ---
> > > > Perhaps there is only two Faraday laws on Electrolysis. I am looking at the one that states: Faraday's first law of electrolysis relates the mass of a substance liberated (or deposited) at an electrode to the electric charge used (Q). A proportionality constant Z can be used:
> > > >
> > > > m = ZQ = (E/96485)(Q)
> > > >
> > > > m = mass, Q = total charge rewritten as Q = I*t amperes x time in seconds.
> > > >
> > > > This website gives an example: 5amps passed through molten Sodium Chloride for 3 hours. Calculate the mass of Sodium. E=23/1.
> > > >
> > > > m = (23/96485) (5) (3*60*60) approx 12.87 grams.
> > > >
> > > > --- end quoting in part from source-- Study.com ---
> > > >
> > > > Now has such a experiment been performed on Water to see how much atomic mass of hydrogen and of oxygen results??? If AP is correct, the formula of water is H4O, if Old Physics, Old Chemistry is correct the formula is H2O. So which is it???
> > > >
> > > > AP
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No, sorry no, Faraday's Law of Electrolysis is not going to tell the correct mass of hydrogen.
> > > >
> > > > Reading Wikipedia on Faraday's Electrolysis law.
> > > >
> > > > --- quoting Wikipedia ---
> > > > A monovalent ion requires 1 electron for discharge, a divalent ion requires 2 electrons for discharge and so on. Thus, if x electrons flow,
> > > > x/v atoms are discharged.
> > > >
> > > > So the mass m discharged is
> > > >
> > > > m= (xM)/vN_A) = (QM)/(eN_A *v) = (QM) / (vF)
> > > > where
> > > > N_A is the Avogadro constant;
> > > > Q = xe is the total charge, equal to the number of electrons (x) times the elementary charge e;
> > > > F is the Faraday constant.
> > > > --- end quoting Wikipedia ---
> > > >
> > > > No, the Faraday law of Electrolysis will not work on water with a correct answer, because H is not an atom but H2 is an Atom. And where one of the proton+muon converts to being a neutron to the other proton+muon.
> > > >
> > > > So if Faraday's law of Electrolysis was applied to water, thinking it would deliver a true answer is mistaken because the one H converts to neutron.
> > > >
> > > > So it appears that we need to directly measure the test tube of oxygen and the test tube of hydrogen by a direct mass measurement.
> > > >
> > > > AP
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > > > 1:14 AM (12 hours ago)
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > > I doubt we can measure a test tube of hydrogen or test tube of oxygen, too small to determine the mass on some sort of weight scale.
> > > >
> > > > But here is a possible lucrative idea. We should be able to get pure deuterium water. Then run the electrolysis. Collect the test tubes.
> > > >
> > > > Now have some sort of balancing beam weight scale. Place the regular water of hydrogen test tube on one side, and place the deuterium water hydrogen test tube on other side. If they stay balanced, then AP is correct and Water is really H4O.
> > > >
> > > > AP
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > > > 1:48 AM (11 hours ago)
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > > Cosmic Rays from Sun
> > > >
> > > > 90% of Sun's cosmic rays are 840MeV proton+muon inside = H. The hydrogen Atom is H2 where one of the H proton+muon converts to being a neutron.
> > > >
> > > > When these proton+muon hit Earth atmosphere, they can turn into pions and muons.
> > > >
> > > > I commented that H alone is a subatomic particle and that makes sense in the idea that Sun's cosmic rays are 90% these proton+muon.
> > > >
> > > > Now is interstellar hydrogen H2 and intergalactic hydrogen H2 formed when one H cosmic ray joins up with another H cosmic ray to form H2 atom?
> > > >
> > > > Is this how we get H2 in outer space? From the splitting apart of H2 into H cosmic rays?
> > > >
> > > > So how much of the Sun's hydrogen is H2 and how much is H ready to join with another H and reform back into H2. Probably little of the Sun's H is H alone, and the vast majority of the Sun's hydrogen is H2.
> > > >
> > > > How much deuterium in the Sun? And it is a higher percentage than the deuterium in water on Earth?
> > > >
> > > > AP
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
> > > > 3:11 AM (10 hours ago)
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > to Plutonium Atom Universe
> > > > Water is the only known non-metallic substance that expands when if freezes; its density decreases and it expands approximately 9% by volume. (Source: web Lunar and Planetary Institute)
> > > >
> > > > I have to wait for experimental chemists and physicists to weigh the mass of test tubes from electrolysis, as to the verdict-- water is H4O.
> > > >
> > > > But until that news comes in, I will look for other means of proof.
> > > >
> > > > So AP says that the H2 is not a molecule but is the hydrogen Atom itself, where one proton+muon converts to a neutron and capacitates the other proton+muon which undergo the Faraday law.
> > > >
> > > > There are subatomic particles of H in the form of Cosmic Rays from the Sun, but most of the Sun's hydrogen is H2, and flips back and forth from H to rejoining to form H2. Some gets away from the Sun and is cosmic rays..
> > > >
> > > > But H2 is an Atom and H is a fleeting subatomic particle.
> > > >
> > > > So can I prove Water is H4O from the data of Spectral lines of H2 is the same as deuterium, only slight difference is that the deuterium is a full fledged neutron not a makeshift proton+muon of H.
> > > >
> > > > I suspect that special trait of water freezing is a proof that Water is H4O. Because the 840MeV proton torus with muon inside doing the Faraday law acting as a makeshift neutron capacitor for the other 840MeV proton torus with muon inside, is where H2 gets that expansion characteristic.
> > > >
> > > > A neutron is a parallel plate capacitor and those plates can expand when frozen temperature occurs. As the temperature gets colder, those plates move further apart.
> > > >
> > > > Now does deuterium which truly has a full neutron, does it expand also when frozen?? If so, does it expand as much as H2 which is 2 protons with 2 muons inside?
> > > >
> > > > So comparing the freezing and expansion of the parallel plates of a neutron in deuterium with the freezing and expansion of one of the proton+muon that is acting as a makeshift neutron in H2.
> > > >
> > > > If I can numbers correlate the H2 expansion with the Deuterium expansion would be a alternative proof that Water is really H4O and not H2O.
> > > >
> > > > AP
> > > > to
> > > > So now on Blankenship's book "Molecular Mechanisms of Photosynthesis", 2014, page 134, shows The structure of ATP, ADP, AMP. And within that structure are OH hydroxyls.
> > > >
> > > > In New Chemistry, water is truly H4O, and where hydroxyls are now H2O. And we have first proof of this in the Figure 8.1 of Blankenship's "Chemical structure of ATP".
> > > >
> > > > For in the lower left corner of the diagram, Blankenship has a H+ all alone, (really a mindless error) and has P surrounded by O-, O-, O and OH. The OH is really H2O for hydroxyls are H2O and water itself is H4O, and that would leave that mindless H+ as being hydrogen Atom of H2.
> > > >
> > > > The world of physics and chemistry should drop what they are doing and weigh the electrolysis test tube of hydrogen and oxygen to discover the correct true formula of water is H4O.
> > > >
> > > > AP is total confident, becuase an Atom cannot exist if it has no capacitor structure such as a neutron, or one of the H in H2 acting as a neutron. I am totally confident that Water formula is truly H4O. And I need look only to methane of H4C, to realize that there is no HC, no H2C, no H3C, but starts with H4C, and that tells me water starts with H4O. Totally confident that Old Chemistry, Old Physics did electrolysis experiments and the moment they saw hydrogen test tube be 2x volume of oxygen test tube, they dropped their work and went out for a Danish and coffee break, rather than finish their work--- actual physics weighing of atomic mass units (not the Faraday electrolysis law for it does not apply to water).
> > > >
> > > > When water electrolysis is physics weighed, AP is confident that there are 4H per every one oxygen O. And that Water is truly H4O.
> > > >
> > > > AP, King of Science
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > 9:34 AM (15 minutes ago)
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > to
> > > > On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 8:56:57 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > > Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within the accuracy I need for weighing a test tube of oxygen then a test tube of hydrogen from water electrolysis.
> > > >
> > > > Now modern day physics and chemist experimenters can really do a marvelous job if they wanted to. For they could freeze the test tubes of oxygen and hydrogen to where they are liquid and compare liquids from water electrolysis.
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > 10:01 AM (5 hours ago)
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > to
> > > > So, what AP is saying here is that we do electrolysis of water. We collect the two test tubes, one with oxygen the other with hydrogen.
> > > >
> > > > To prove Water is truly the formula H4O and not H2O we must weigh the masses of the two tubes to find that the ratio is 1 x 16amu to 4 x 1amu.
> > > >
> > > > The silly grotesque science error of the past was to look at volumes in the two test tubes-- "Hey-- the hydrogen is twice the volume of oxygen so the formula of water is H2O".
> > > >
> > > > No, way was that science good practice. For the correct formula of water needs to be measured by mass, by atomic mass units where Oxygen is 16amu and hydrogen is 1amu.
> > > >
> > > > I suspect a balance beam scale is good enough to see the hydrogen test tube will be 1/4 as massive as the oxygen test tube. To get within precision of electronic weighing scale of 0.00001 gram we just have to make a larger test tube of electrolysis of water.
> > > >
> > > > AP is betting that the readings will be hydrogen test tube 1/4 the mass of oxygen test tube proving Water formula is truly H4O.
> > > >
> > > > Old Physics and Old Chemistry is betting that the mass experiment will have the hydrogen test tube be 1/8 the mass of the oxygen test tube, proving Water formula is H2O.
> > > >
> > > > AP does not have these precision equipment to conduct an at-home experiment of this nature.
> > > >
> > > > AP
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium
> > > > 12:38 PM (4 hours ago)
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > to
> > > > So, once Water is found to actually be H4O, not H2O, we move on to methane, and ask the same question of its hydrogen bonds. Is Methane really that of H8C and not H4C.
> > > >
> > > > Well, looking in the literature for anomalies to methane, I come across a arXiv "Low and high-temperature anomalies in the physical properties of solid methane "The anomalous behavior of thermodynamic, spectral, plastic, elastic and some other properties of solid methane is discussed near 20..48K and...
> > > >
> > > > AP wonders: if they can get methane to solid form, well, I am then hopeful that the mass of the molecule can be determined. Because if methane is truly H8C, that difference of H4 in atomic mass units would be very much noticeable difference.
> > > >
> > > > Chemistry Europe--
> > > > "The Anomalous Deuterium Isotope Effect in the NMR Spectrum of Methane...
> > > >
> > > > P Vermeeren, 2023
> > > > "The abnormally long and weak methylidyne C-H bond.."
> > > > "The C-H bond of the methylidyne radical, CH*, is abnormally long and weak, even longer and..."
> > > >
> > > > AP asks, are these anomalies solved if we consider methane is actually H8C and not H4C?
> > > >
> > > > AP
>
>
> My 250th published book.
>
> TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY; H2 is the hydrogen Atom and water is H4O, not H2O// Chemistry
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
> Prologue: This textbook is 1/2 research history and 1/2 factual textbook combined as one textbook. For many of the experiments described here-in have not yet been performed, such as water is really H4O not H2O. Written in a style of history research with date-time markers, and fact telling. And there are no problem sets. This book is intended for 1st year college. Until I include problem sets and exercises, I leave it to the professor and instructor to provide such. And also, chemistry is hugely a laboratory science, even more so than physics, so a first year college student in the lab to test whether Water is really H4O and not H2O is mighty educational.
>
> Preface: This is my 250th book of science, and the first of my textbooks on Teaching True Chemistry. I have completed the Teaching True Physics and the Teaching True Mathematics textbook series. But had not yet started on a Teaching True Chemistry textbook series. What got me started on this project is the fact that no chemistry textbook had the correct formula for water which is actually H4O and not H2O. Leaving the true formula for hydroxyl groups as H2O and not OH. But none of this is possible in Old Chemistry, Old Physics where they had do-nothing subatomic particles that sit around and do nothing or go whizzing around the outside of balls in a nucleus, in a mindless circling. Once every subatomic particle has a job, task, function, then water cannot be H2O but rather H4O. And a hydrogen atom cannot be H alone but is actually H2. H2 is not a molecule of hydrogen but a full fledged Atom, a single atom of hydrogen.
>
> Cover Picture: Sorry for the crude sketch work but chemistry and physics students are going to have to learn to make such sketches in a minute or less. Just as they make Lewis diagrams or ball & stick diagrams. My 4-5 minute sketch-work of the Water molecule H4O plus the subatomic particle H, and the hydrogen atom H2. Showing how one H is a proton torus with muon inside (blue color) doing the Faraday law. Protons are toruses with many windings. Protons are the coils in Faraday law while muons are the bar magnets. Neutrons are the capacitors as parallel plates, the outer skin cover of atoms.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0CCLPTBDG
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ July 21, 2023
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 784 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 ‏ : ‎ 160 pages
>
>
>
>
>
>
> y z
> | /
> | /
> |/______ x