Your set theoretic blabla is the lamest excuse a crank
has ever uttered. You must be completely delusional.

Maybe you havent noticed, I am refering to your blog.
You didn't make a blog with the "set theoretic" definitions,
which have a different form from these definitions:

> 16 ALL(a):[Odd(a) <=> ~Even(a)]
> Axiom
> https://dcproof.com/EvenNextOdd.htm

Its not a matter of sets. If you would have posted this
axiom here, using the ALL(x):[P(x) <=> Q(x)] form
instead of the ALL(x):[P(x) <=> x in S & Q(x)] form:

16' ALL(a):[a e odd <=> ~a e even]

I would also be able to prove:

> 21 ALL(x):[Unicorn(x) => x e even | x e odd]
> Rem DNeg, 20

------------------ begin proof ------------------------------

1 ALL(a):[a ε odd <=> ~a ε even]
Axiom

2 ~ALL(a):[Unicorn(a) => a ε even | a ε odd]
Premise

3 ~~EXIST(a):~[Unicorn(a) => a ε even | a ε odd]
Quant, 2

4 EXIST(a):~[Unicorn(a) => a ε even | a ε odd]
Rem DNeg, 3

5 ~[Unicorn(u) => u ε even | u ε odd]
E Spec, 4

6 ~~[Unicorn(u) & ~[u ε even | u ε odd]]
Imply-And, 5

7 Unicorn(u) & ~[u ε even | u ε odd]
Rem DNeg, 6

8 Unicorn(u)
Split, 7

9 ~[u ε even | u ε odd]
Split, 7

10 ~~[~u ε even & ~u ε odd]
DeMorgan, 9

11 ~u ε even & ~u ε odd
Rem DNeg, 10

12 ~u ε even
Split, 11

13 ~u ε odd
Split, 11

14 u ε odd <=> ~u ε even
U Spec, 1

15 [u ε odd => ~u ε even] & [~u ε even => u ε odd]
Iff-And, 14

16 u ε odd => ~u ε even
Split, 15

17 ~u ε even => u ε odd
Split, 15

18 u ε odd
Detach, 17, 12

19 ~u ε odd & u ε odd
Join, 13, 18

20 ~~ALL(a):[Unicorn(a) => a ε even | a ε odd]
Conclusion, 2

21 ALL(a):[Unicorn(a) => a ε even | a ε odd]
Rem DNeg, 20

------------------ end proof ------------------------------

Dan Christensen schrieb am Dienstag, 14. Februar 2023 um 20:00:38 UTC+1:
> (Mr. Collapse "sticks up" for his little buddy AP. Sooooo cute!)
> See my reply just now to your identical posting at sci.logic
>
> Dan
> On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 12:38:55 PM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> > Of course this here ALL(x):[P(x) <=> x in S & Q(x)] and
> > this here ALL(x):[P(x) <=> Q(x)] are also not logically
> > equivalent. Therefore because you have:
> > 16 ALL(a):[Odd(a) <=> ~Even(a)]
> > Axiom
> > https://dcproof.com/EvenNextOdd.htm
> >
> [snip]

(Mr. Collapse "sticks up" for his little buddy AP. Sooooo cute!)

See my reply just now to your identical posting at sci.logic

Dan

On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 2:13:02 PM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> Your set theoretic blabla is the lamest excuse a crank
> has ever uttered. You must be completely delusional.
>
> Maybe you havent noticed, I am refering to your blog.
> You didn't make a blog with the "set theoretic" definitions,
> which have a different form from these definitions:
> > 16 ALL(a):[Odd(a) <=> ~Even(a)]
> > Axiom
[snip]

Jan Burse, do you think we should force Dan Christensen, the buffoon of logic, to have a warning at the end of each of his posts-- something stating that Dan's post is mostly his hearsay, and not to be used in classroom schools? Something like this:

Caution, this post by Dan Christensen is his own personal comments and opinions and is not school worthy.

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science

On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 8:14:37 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Jan Burse, do you think we should force Dan Christensen, the buffoon of logic, to have a warning at the end of each of his posts-- something stating that Dan's post is mostly his hearsay, and not to be used in classroom schools? Something like this:
>
> Caution, this post by Dan Christensen is his own personal comments and opinions and is not school worthy.

Time for another spanking, Archie Poo! When will you learn? Once again...

From his antics here at sci.math, it is obvious that AP has abandoned all hope of being recognized as a credible personality. He is a malicious internet troll who now wants only to mislead and confuse students. He may not be all there, but his fake math and science can only be meant to promote failure in schools. One can only guess at his motives. Is it revenge for his endless string of personal failures in life? Who knows?

In AP's OWN WORDS here that, over the years, he has NEVER renounced or withdrawn:

"Negative numbers are the witches and hobgoblins of insane kook mathematicians. "
--Dec. 7, 2022

“Primes do not exist, because the set they were borne from has no division.”
--June 29, 2020

“The last and largest finite number is 10^604.”
--June 3, 2015

“0 appears to be the last and largest finite number”
--June 9, 2015

“0/0 must be equal to 1.”
-- June 9, 2015

“0 is an infinite irrational number.”
--June 28, 2015

“No negative numbers exist.”
--December 22, 2018

“Rationals are not numbers.”
--May 18, 2019

According to AP's “chess board math,” an equilateral triangle is a right-triangle.
--December 11, 2019

Which could explain...

“The value of sin(45 degrees) = 1.” (Actually 0.707)
--May 31, 2019

AP deliberately and repeatedly presented the truth table for OR as the truth table for AND:

“New Logic
AND
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F”
--November 9, 2019

AP seeks aid of Russian agents to promote failure in schools:

"Please--Asking for help from Russia-- russian robots-- to create a new, true mathematics [sic]. What I like for the robots to do, is list every day, about 4 Colleges ( of the West) math dept, and ask why that math department is teaching false and fake math, and if unable to change to the correct true math, well, simply fire that math department until they can find professors who recognize truth in math from fakery...."
--November 9, 2017

And if that wasn't weird enough...

“The totality, everything that there is [the universe], is only 1 atom of plutonium [Pu]. There is nothing outside or beyond this one atom of plutonium.”
--April 4, 1994

“The Universe itself is one gigantic big atom.”
--November 14, 2019

AP's sinister Atom God Cult of Failure???

“Since God-Pu is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Atom Plutonium!
Its truth is marching on.
It has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
It is sifting out the hearts of people before its judgment seat;
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer it; be jubilant, my feet!
Our God-Pu is marching on.”
--December 15, 2018 (Note: Pu is the atomic symbol for plutonium)

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 7:51:26 PM UTC-8, Dan Christensen wrote:
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science
> On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 8:14:37 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Jan Burse, do you think we should force Dan Christensen, the buffoon of logic, to have a warning at the end of each of his posts-- something stating that Dan's post is mostly his hearsay, and not to be used in classroom schools? Something like this:
> >
> > Caution, this post by Dan Christensen is his own personal comments and opinions and is not school worthy.
> Time for another spanking, Archie Poo! When will you learn? Once again...
>
> From his antics here at sci.math, it is obvious that AP has abandoned all hope of being recognized as a credible personality. He is a malicious internet troll who now wants only to mislead and confuse students. He may not be all there, but his fake math and science can only be meant to promote failure in schools. One can only guess at his motives. Is it revenge for his endless string of personal failures in life? Who knows?
>
> In AP's OWN WORDS here that, over the years, he has NEVER renounced or withdrawn:
>
> "Negative numbers are the witches and hobgoblins of insane kook mathematicians. "
> --Dec. 7, 2022
>
> “Primes do not exist, because the set they were borne from has no division.”
> --June 29, 2020
>
> “The last and largest finite number is 10^604.”
> --June 3, 2015
>
> “0 appears to be the last and largest finite number”
> --June 9, 2015
>
> “0/0 must be equal to 1.”
> -- June 9, 2015
>
> “0 is an infinite irrational number.”
> --June 28, 2015
>
> “No negative numbers exist.”
> --December 22, 2018
>
> “Rationals are not numbers.”
> --May 18, 2019
>
> According to AP's “chess board math,” an equilateral triangle is a right-triangle.
> --December 11, 2019
>
> Which could explain...
>
> “The value of sin(45 degrees) = 1.” (Actually 0.707)
> --May 31, 2019
>
> AP deliberately and repeatedly presented the truth table for OR as the truth table for AND:
>
> “New Logic
> AND
> T & T = T
> T & F = T
> F & T = T
> F & F = F”
> --November 9, 2019
>
> AP seeks aid of Russian agents to promote failure in schools:
>
> "Please--Asking for help from Russia-- russian robots-- to create a new, true mathematics [sic]. What I like for the robots to do, is list every day, about 4 Colleges ( of the West) math dept, and ask why that math department is teaching false and fake math, and if unable to change to the correct true math, well, simply fire that math department until they can find professors who recognize truth in math from fakery...."
> --November 9, 2017
>
>
> And if that wasn't weird enough...
>
> “The totality, everything that there is [the universe], is only 1 atom of plutonium [Pu]. There is nothing outside or beyond this one atom of plutonium.”
> --April 4, 1994
>
> “The Universe itself is one gigantic big atom.”
> --November 14, 2019
>
> AP's sinister Atom God Cult of Failure???
>
> “Since God-Pu is marching on.
> Glory! Glory! Atom Plutonium!
> Its truth is marching on.
> It has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
> It is sifting out the hearts of people before its judgment seat;
> Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer it; be jubilant, my feet!
> Our God-Pu is marching on.”
> --December 15, 2018 (Note: Pu is the atomic symbol for plutonium)
>
>
> Dan
>
> Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
> Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

Just sounds pretty f'in gross to me.

Dan, you need some spanking youself.

Thats not how proofs work in your tool.
Why is this theorem only closed from line 29.

> 47. ALL(a):[a in n => [a in odd <=> ~a in even]]
> Conclusion, 29

What about closing the other lines? What
are you exactly proving? Could you tell us?

Where are the definition axioms in your proof?

Dan Christensen schrieb am Mittwoch, 15. Februar 2023 um 04:51:26 UTC+1:
> STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science
> On Tuesday, February 14, 2023 at 8:14:37 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Jan Burse, do you think we should force Dan Christensen, the buffoon of logic, to have a warning at the end of each of his posts-- something stating that Dan's post is mostly his hearsay, and not to be used in classroom schools? Something like this:
> >
> > Caution, this post by Dan Christensen is his own personal comments and opinions and is not school worthy.
> Time for another spanking, Archie Poo! When will you learn? Once again...
>
> From his antics here at sci.math, it is obvious that AP has abandoned all hope of being recognized as a credible personality. He is a malicious internet troll who now wants only to mislead and confuse students. He may not be all there, but his fake math and science can only be meant to promote failure in schools. One can only guess at his motives. Is it revenge for his endless string of personal failures in life? Who knows?
>
> In AP's OWN WORDS here that, over the years, he has NEVER renounced or withdrawn:
>
> "Negative numbers are the witches and hobgoblins of insane kook mathematicians. "
> --Dec. 7, 2022
>
> “Primes do not exist, because the set they were borne from has no division.”
> --June 29, 2020
>
> “The last and largest finite number is 10^604.”
> --June 3, 2015
>
> “0 appears to be the last and largest finite number”
> --June 9, 2015
>
> “0/0 must be equal to 1.”
> -- June 9, 2015
>
> “0 is an infinite irrational number.”
> --June 28, 2015
>
> “No negative numbers exist.”
> --December 22, 2018
>
> “Rationals are not numbers.”
> --May 18, 2019
>
> According to AP's “chess board math,” an equilateral triangle is a right-triangle.
> --December 11, 2019
>
> Which could explain...
>
> “The value of sin(45 degrees) = 1.” (Actually 0.707)
> --May 31, 2019
>
> AP deliberately and repeatedly presented the truth table for OR as the truth table for AND:
>
> “New Logic
> AND
> T & T = T
> T & F = T
> F & T = T
> F & F = F”
> --November 9, 2019
>
> AP seeks aid of Russian agents to promote failure in schools:
>
> "Please--Asking for help from Russia-- russian robots-- to create a new, true mathematics [sic]. What I like for the robots to do, is list every day, about 4 Colleges ( of the West) math dept, and ask why that math department is teaching false and fake math, and if unable to change to the correct true math, well, simply fire that math department until they can find professors who recognize truth in math from fakery...."
> --November 9, 2017
>
>
> And if that wasn't weird enough...
>
> “The totality, everything that there is [the universe], is only 1 atom of plutonium [Pu]. There is nothing outside or beyond this one atom of plutonium.”
> --April 4, 1994
>
> “The Universe itself is one gigantic big atom.”
> --November 14, 2019
>
> AP's sinister Atom God Cult of Failure???
>
> “Since God-Pu is marching on.
> Glory! Glory! Atom Plutonium!
> Its truth is marching on.
> It has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
> It is sifting out the hearts of people before its judgment seat;
> Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer it; be jubilant, my feet!
> Our God-Pu is marching on.”
> --December 15, 2018 (Note: Pu is the atomic symbol for plutonium)
>
>
> Dan
>
> Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
> Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

See my reply just now to you identical posting at sci.logic

On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 6:23:25 PM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote:

> Thats not how proofs work in your tool.
> Why is this theorem only closed from line 29.
>
> > 47. ALL(a):[a in n => [a in odd <=> ~a in even]]
> > Conclusion, 29
>
> What about closing the other lines? What
> are you exactly proving? Could you tell us?
>
[snip]

Nope, nothing to do with subset axiom. Just a definition,
that you can completely unfold and make disappear.
If you define:

ALL(a):[a e even <=> a e n & EXIST(b):[b e n & a=2*b]]]
Respective:
ALL(a):[Even(a) <=> a e n & EXIST(b):[b e n & a=2*b]]]

And have a formula with:

...... a e even ....
Respective:
...... Even(a) ....

You can replace this formula with:

..... a e n & EXIST(b):[b e n & a=2*b]] ....
Respective:
..... a e n & EXIST(b):[b e n & a=2*b]] ....

This uniform replace doesn't work with your nonsense
formula. And doesn't get better when you have two axioms.
Why use two axioms when you can use biconditional?

16 ALL(a):[a e even => a e n]
17 ALL(a):[a e n => [a e even <=> EXIST(b):[b e n & a=2*b]]]
Respective
16 ALL(a):[Even(a) => a e n]
17 ALL(a):[a e n => [Even(a) <=> EXIST(b):[b e n & a=2*b]]]

Nothing to do with subset axiom. even is anyway
eliminable. Why and where do you need subset axiom?
Your subset axiom is nowhere used here:

https://www.dcproof.com/EvenNextOddV2.htm

WTF are you halucinating? Is this the same add(_,_,_)
exists nonsense? But even respective Even is not recursively
defined. Its easily eliminable. The proofs you did for add(_,_,_)

were interesting, since add(_,_,_) was recursive. But your
even respective Even definition is not recusive. It falls back
to multiplication. Its only an abbrevation. So what?

Dan Christensen schrieb am Donnerstag, 16. Februar 2023 um 02:39:21 UTC+1:
> See my reply just now to you identical posting at sci.logic
> On Wednesday, February 15, 2023 at 6:23:25 PM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
>
> > Thats not how proofs work in your tool.
> > Why is this theorem only closed from line 29.
> >
> > > 47. ALL(a):[a in n => [a in odd <=> ~a in even]]
> > > Conclusion, 29
> >
> > What about closing the other lines? What
> > are you exactly proving? Could you tell us?
> >
> [snip]

Sooooooo cute the way you keep "sticking up" for your little buddy here, Mr. Collapse. I hope he appreciates it (wink, wink).

On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 12:39:56 PM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> Nope, nothing to do with subset axiom. Just a definition,
> that you can completely unfold and make disappear.

[snip]

Here is a proof that your two axioms imply the biconditional.
It doesn't matter whether you use sets or not. You can do
the same proof with a e even instead of Even(a):

1 ALL(a):[Even(a) => Nat(a)]
Axiom

2 ALL(a):[Nat(a) => [Even(a) <=> EXIST(b):Diophant(a,b)]]
Axiom

46 ALL(a):[Even(a) <=> Nat(a) & EXIST(b):Diophant(a,b)]
Rem DNeg, 45

------------------------------ begin proof -------------------------------------

1 ALL(a):[Even(a) => Nat(a)]
Axiom

2 ALL(a):[Nat(a) => [Even(a) <=> EXIST(b):Diophant(a,b)]]
Axiom

3 ~ALL(a):[Even(a) <=> Nat(a) & EXIST(b):Diophant(a,b)]
Premise

4 ~~EXIST(a):~[Even(a) <=> Nat(a) & EXIST(b):Diophant(a,b)]
Quant, 3

5 EXIST(a):~[Even(a) <=> Nat(a) & EXIST(b):Diophant(a,b)]
Rem DNeg, 4

6 ~[Even(u) <=> Nat(u) & EXIST(b):Diophant(u,b)]
E Spec, 5

7 ~[Even(u) => Nat(u) & EXIST(b):Diophant(u,b)]
Premise

8 ~~[Even(u) & ~[Nat(u) & EXIST(b):Diophant(u,b)]]
Imply-And, 7

9 Even(u) & ~[Nat(u) & EXIST(b):Diophant(u,b)]
Rem DNeg, 8

10 Even(u)
Split, 9

11 ~[Nat(u) & EXIST(b):Diophant(u,b)]
Split, 9

12 ~~[Nat(u) => ~EXIST(b):Diophant(u,b)]
Imply-And, 11

13 Nat(u) => ~EXIST(b):Diophant(u,b)
Rem DNeg, 12

14 Even(u) => Nat(u)
U Spec, 1

15 Nat(u)
Detach, 14, 10

16 ~EXIST(b):Diophant(u,b)
Detach, 13, 15

17 Nat(u) => [Even(u) <=> EXIST(b):Diophant(u,b)]
U Spec, 2

18 Even(u) <=> EXIST(b):Diophant(u,b)
Detach, 17, 15

19 [Even(u) => EXIST(b):Diophant(u,b)]
& [EXIST(b):Diophant(u,b) => Even(u)]
Iff-And, 18

20 Even(u) => EXIST(b):Diophant(u,b)
Split, 19

21 EXIST(b):Diophant(u,b) => Even(u)
Split, 19

22 EXIST(b):Diophant(u,b)
Detach, 20, 10

23 EXIST(b):Diophant(u,b) & ~EXIST(b):Diophant(u,b)
Join, 22, 16

24 ~~[Even(u) => Nat(u) & EXIST(b):Diophant(u,b)]
Conclusion, 7

25 Even(u) => Nat(u) & EXIST(b):Diophant(u,b)
Rem DNeg, 24

26 ~[Nat(u) & EXIST(b):Diophant(u,b) => Even(u)]
Premise

27 ~~[Nat(u) & EXIST(b):Diophant(u,b) & ~Even(u)]
Imply-And, 26

28 Nat(u) & EXIST(b):Diophant(u,b) & ~Even(u)
Rem DNeg, 27

29 Nat(u)
Split, 28

30 EXIST(b):Diophant(u,b)
Split, 28

31 ~Even(u)
Split, 28

32 Nat(u) => [Even(u) <=> EXIST(b):Diophant(u,b)]
U Spec, 2

33 Even(u) <=> EXIST(b):Diophant(u,b)
Detach, 32, 29

34 [Even(u) => EXIST(b):Diophant(u,b)]
& [EXIST(b):Diophant(u,b) => Even(u)]
Iff-And, 33

35 Even(u) => EXIST(b):Diophant(u,b)
Split, 34

36 EXIST(b):Diophant(u,b) => Even(u)
Split, 34

37 ~Even(u) => ~EXIST(b):Diophant(u,b)
Contra, 36

38 ~EXIST(b):Diophant(u,b)
Detach, 37, 31

39 EXIST(b):Diophant(u,b) & ~EXIST(b):Diophant(u,b)
Join, 30, 38

40 ~~[Nat(u) & EXIST(b):Diophant(u,b) => Even(u)]
Conclusion, 26

41 Nat(u) & EXIST(b):Diophant(u,b) => Even(u)
Rem DNeg, 40

42 [Even(u) => Nat(u) & EXIST(b):Diophant(u,b)]
& [Nat(u) & EXIST(b):Diophant(u,b) => Even(u)]
Join, 25, 41

43 Even(u) <=> Nat(u) & EXIST(b):Diophant(u,b)
Iff-And, 42

44 ~[Even(u) <=> Nat(u) & EXIST(b):Diophant(u,b)]
& [Even(u) <=> Nat(u) & EXIST(b):Diophant(u,b)]
Join, 6, 43

45 ~~ALL(a):[Even(a) <=> Nat(a) & EXIST(b):Diophant(a,b)]
Conclusion, 3

46 ALL(a):[Even(a) <=> Nat(a) & EXIST(b):Diophant(a,b)]
Rem DNeg, 45

------------------------------------------------ end proof -------------------------------------------------

Dan Christensen schrieb am Donnerstag, 16. Februar 2023 um 19:13:45 UTC+1:
> Sooooooo cute the way you keep "sticking up" for your little buddy here, Mr. Collapse. I hope he appreciates it (wink, wink).
> On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 12:39:56 PM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> > Nope, nothing to do with subset axiom. Just a definition,
> > that you can completely unfold and make disappear.
> [snip]

Dan Christensen on Kibo_I want to fuck her corpse_NSF Dorothy E Aronson,Dr. Panchanathan, F. Fleming Crim, Brian Stone, James S Olvestad, Rebecca Lynn Keiser. Kibo the 30 year paid stalker that infests sci.math and sci.physics everyday with his stalking hatred, when he needs psychiatric treatment.
> On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 12:47:52 AM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
> > STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim
> > On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 1:22:03 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Kibo_I want to fuck her corpse_NSF Dorothy E Aronson,Dr. Panchanathan, F. Fleming Crim, Brian Stone, James S Olvestad, Rebecca Lynn Keiser. Kibo the 30 year paid stalker that infests sci.math and sci.physics everyday with his stalking hatred, when he psychiatric treatment.
>
> On Wednesday, April 12, 2023 at 11:58:57 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> >"Shithead Oaf of Math"
> > "I want to fuck her corpse"
> >
> > "I want to fuck her corpse"
> >
> > I want to fuck her corpse
> >
>
> Kibo Parry Moron-Volney blowing his cover with the CIA in 1997
> Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
> On Sunday, June 8, 1997 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > In article <5nefan$i06$9...@news.thecia.net> kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net> writes:
> > >
>
>
> ---quoting Wikipedia ---
> Controversy
> Many government and university installations blocked, threatened to block, or attempted to shut-down The World's Internet connection until Software Tool & Die was eventually granted permission by the National Science Foundation to provide public Internet access on "an experimental basis."
> --- end quote ---
>
> NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
>
> Dr. Panchanathan , present day
> NSF Dr. Panchanathan, F. Fleming Crim, Dorothy E Aronson, Brian Stone, James S Olvestad, Rebecca Lynn Keiser, Vernon D. Ross, Lloyd Whitman, John J. Veysey, Scott Stanley
> France Anne Cordova
> Subra Suresh
> Arden Lee Bement Jr.
> Rita R. Colwell
> Neal Francis Lane
> John Howard Gibbons 1993
>
> Barry Shein, kibo parry std world
> Jim Frost, Joe "Spike" Ilacqua
>
> Other posts from the diseased mind of Kibo the stalker
> Re: Kibo Parry M on Cynthia Barnhart and why MIT is a propaganda camp not a school of higher education.
> by Michael Moroney Jun 27, 2021, 3:49 PM
>
>
> Moroney says autism // Jeffrey Goldstone, Thomas Greytak, Lee Grodzins//never realizing Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole
> 3/4/18
> By Michael Moroney
>
>
> Re: Autism..says Moroney //Jacob Barandes, Howard Berg, Michael Brenner//realizing Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole
> by
> Michael Moroney Feb 26, 2018, 11:29:08 PM
>
> Re: Vincent Meunier,Donald Schwendeman, Rensselaer Polytechnic, Ethan Brown, Glenn Ciolek,kibo Moroney Parry is the reason RPI failed ellipse is like Kibo fails with 938 is 12% short of 945
> by Allen Walker Apr 13, 2019, 2:04:32 PM
>
>
> Cornell a sicko school? Re: Cornell Univ like Christensen, an education parasite //with their 3 OR 2= 5 while their 3 AND 2 = 1, embracing the contradiction Either..Or..Or..Both
> by Michael Moroney Jan 18, 2019, 4:59:49 PM
>
> Re: Drs.Benedict Gross, Joseph Harris of Harvard, are you as dumb as Moroney never realizing the Real Electron=muon, Real Proton=840MeV,monopole=.5MeV // 12 proofs below
> by Michael Moroney Jan 2, 2018, 11:15:07 AM
>
> Re: Drs.Hugh Woodin,Horng-Tzer Yau of Harvard, never a Picture of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus//are you as dumb as Moroney//your students deserve better
> by Michael Moroney Dec 29, 2017, 9:04:44 AM
>
> Re: chemistry cannot exist with electron 0.5 to 938 MeV Re: Drs.Thomas Rosenbaum John Schwarz Kip Thorne of CalTech/never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, 0.5MeV = Dirac monopole
> by Michael Moroney Jan 25, 2018, 11:36:09 AM
>
>
> Re: Drs.David Cobden Victor Cook John Cramer of Univ Wash. are you as dumb as Jeff Relf, _...@__.__//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = monopole
> by Michael Moroney Jan 14, 2018, 3:19:12 PM
>
>
>
> Re: Kibo Parry Moroney on failed physicist Steven Weinberg who cannot entertain the question of which is the real electron of atoms-- is it the muon or the 0.5MeV particle?
> by Michael Moroney May 29, 2021, 9:02:21 AM
>
>
> Re: Cambridge, Harvard, Stanford, MIT, CalTech never does correct Logic, why an unpaid Archimedes Plutonium is doing their work
> by Michael Moroney Oct 28, 2017, 11:55:50 PM
>
> Re: the most stupid poster of logic in sci.math for decade-- Dan Christensen, that insane Canadian stalker
> by Michael Moroney Dec 24, 2017, 1:15:41 AM
>
>
>
> Re: Jeff Relf, Seattle offtopic shithead spammer says Democrats value tortured South Korean Moon Bears at trillions of dollars, while Republicans rather have rats than Moon Bears
> By Michael Moroney May 10, 2021
>
>
>
> Re: South Korea frees Moon Bears, due to Ayaz apology. Glory to God Almighty, South Korea finally freeing their tortured Moon Bears
> I happened to see a video of a moon bear that was freed from a bile farm (in Vietnam). Nice to see,
> By Michael Moroney May 9, 2021, 9:48 PM

Could Dr.Richard C. Bailey, Dr.Robin Armstrong,Dr.Pauline Barmby,Dr.Shantanu Basu please--step into their Canadian physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O. AP's homegrown lab cannot do the fine tuning experiment of weighing a test tube of electrolyzed hydrogen and oxygen from water. If AP is correct Water is really H4O, not H2O.

Spam mill echo chamber, that is Rubard, WM along with his gay spamletts a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Gottingen cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither WM or Gottingen can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it W. Mueckenheim?? You spammer crank.

The endless and worthless Spam Mill Echo Chamber of Wolfgang Mueckenheim with his gay entourage.

Could WM loudmouth step into the Gottingen Univ physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, or is he only good for loudmouth nonsense of airhead complaints of calculus, along with his nonsense that slant cut of cone is ellipse, when in truth that is a oval.

+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

On Monday, January 18, 2010 at 11:30:47 AM UTC-6, John Baez wrote:
> Also available at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week290.html

Surely Gottingen and UCR have weighing scales better than 0.00001 gram.

Surely Durban Univ. has excellent weighing scales.

Eram semper recta (John Gabriel) profile photo
Eram semper
,...
Jim Burns
775
20Jul2023
WM Logic

+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.

Could_Dr.Richard C. Bailey,Dr.Robin Armstrong,Dr.Pauline Barmby,Dr.Shantanu Basu please--step into their Canadian physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O. AP's homegrown lab cannot do the fine tuning experiment of weighing a test tube of electrolyzed hydrogen and oxygen from water. If AP is correct Water is really H4O, not H2O. Sorry AP does not have a very accurate weight scale of 0.00001 gram or less.

Spam mill echo chamber, that is Rubard, WM along with his gay spamletts a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Gottingen cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither WM or Gottingen can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it W. Mueckenheim?? You spammer crank.

The endless and worthless Spam Mill Echo Chamber of Wolfgang Mueckenheim with his gay entourage.

Could WM loudmouth step into the Gottingen Univ physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, or is he only good for loudmouth nonsense of airhead complaints of calculus, along with his nonsense that slant cut of cone is ellipse, when in truth that is a oval.

+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

On Monday, January 18, 2010 at 11:30:47 AM UTC-6, John Baez wrote:
> Also available at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week290.html

Surely Gottingen and UCR have weighing scales better than 0.00001 gram.

Surely Durban Univ. has excellent weighing scales.

Eram semper recta (John Gabriel) profile photo
Eram semper
,...
Jim Burns
775
20Jul2023
WM Logic

+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.

On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 4:18:25 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Could_Dr.Richard C. Bailey,Dr.Robin Armstrong,Dr.Pauline Barmby,Dr.Shantanu Basu please--step into their Canadian physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O. AP's homegrown lab cannot do the fine tuning experiment of weighing a test tube of electrolyzed hydrogen and oxygen from water. If AP is correct Water is really H4O, not H2O. Sorry AP does not have a very accurate weight scale of 0.00001 gram or less.
>
>
> Spam mill echo chamber, that is Rubard, WM along with his gay spamletts a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Gottingen cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither WM or Gottingen can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it W. Mueckenheim?? You spammer crank.

Your prose is strikingly weak. (Your grasp of German culture and the German language... weak, but less strikingly so.)

Can_Dr.Richard C. Bailey,Dr.Robin Armstrong,Dr.Pauline Barmby,Dr.Shantanu Basu please--step into their Canadian physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O. AP's homegrown lab cannot do the fine tuning experiment of weighing a test tube of electrolyzed hydrogen and oxygen from water. If AP is correct Water is really H4O, not H2O. Sorry AP does not have a very accurate weight scale of 0.00001 gram or less.
>
>
> Spam mill echo chamber, that is Rubard, WM along with his gay spamletts a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Gottingen cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither WM or Gottingen can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it W. Mueckenheim?? You spammer crank.
>
> The endless and worthless Spam Mill Echo Chamber of Wolfgang Mueckenheim with his gay entourage.
>
> Could WM loudmouth step into the Gottingen Univ physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, or is he only good for loudmouth nonsense of airhead complaints of calculus, along with his nonsense that slant cut of cone is ellipse, when in truth that is a oval.
>
> +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
>
> On Monday, January 18, 2010 at 11:30:47 AM UTC-6, John Baez wrote:
> > Also available at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week290.html
>
> Surely Gottingen and UCR have weighing scales better than 0.00001 gram.
>
> Surely Durban Univ. has excellent weighing scales.
>
> Eram semper recta (John Gabriel) profile photo
> Eram semper
> ,...
> Jim Burns
> 775
> 20Jul2023
> WM Logic
>
>
> +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
>
>
> Univ Toronto, physics, Gordon F. West, Michael B. Walker, Henry M. Van Driel, David J. Rowe, John W. Moffat, John F. Martin, Robert K. Logan, Albert E. Litherland, Roland List, Philipp Kronberg, James King, Anthony W. Key, Bob Holdom, Ron M. Farquhar, R. Nigel Edwards, David J. Dunlop, James Drummond, Tom E. Drake, R.Fraser Code, Richard C. Bailey, Robin Armstrong
>
> Chancellor Rose M. Patten
> Pres. Meric Gertler
>
> Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz
> President Alan Shepard
> Amit Chakma (chem engr)
>
> Univ. Western Ontario physics dept
> Pauline Barmby, Shantanu Basu, Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown, Blaine Chronik, Robert Cockcroft, John R. de Bruyn, Colin Denniston, Giovanni Fanchini, Sarah Gallagher, Lyudmila Goncharova, Wayne Hocking, Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut, Peter Simpson, Mahi Singh, Paul Wiegert, Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang

On Friday, July 21, 2023 at 12:48:42 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Can_Dr.Richard C. Bailey,Dr.Robin Armstrong,Dr.Pauline Barmby,Dr.Shantanu Basu please--step into their Canadian physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O. AP's homegrown lab cannot do the fine tuning experiment of weighing a test tube of electrolyzed hydrogen and oxygen from water. If AP is correct Water is really H4O, not H2O. Sorry AP does not have a very accurate weight scale of 0.00001 gram or less.
> >
> >
> > Spam mill echo chamber, that is Rubard, WM along with his gay spamletts a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Gottingen cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither WM or Gottingen can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it W. Mueckenheim?? You spammer crank.
> >
> > The endless and worthless Spam Mill Echo Chamber of Wolfgang Mueckenheim with his gay entourage.
> >
> > Could WM loudmouth step into the Gottingen Univ physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, or is he only good for loudmouth nonsense of airhead complaints of calculus, along with his nonsense that slant cut of cone is ellipse, when in truth that is a oval.
> >
> > +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

"This is a hoax, right?"

Can_Dr.Silvia Mittler,Dr.Els Peeters,Dr.Robert Sica,Dr.Richard C. Bailey,Dr..Robin Armstrong,Dr.Pauline Barmby,Dr.Shantanu Basu please--step into their Canadian physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O. AP's homegrown lab cannot do the fine tuning experiment of weighing a test tube of electrolyzed hydrogen and oxygen from water. If AP is correct Water is really H4O, not H2O. My weighing scale is puny and insufficient for the job at hand, 0.00001 gram or less of hydrogen and oxygen test tubes. If AP is correct the hydrogen is 1/4 the weight of oxygen, if mainstream chemistry, physics is correct the hydrogen is 1/8 in amu to oxygen.
> >
> >
> > Spam mill echo chamber, that is Rubard, WM along with his gay spamletts a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Gottingen cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither WM or Gottingen can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it W. Mueckenheim?? You spammer crank.
> >
> > The endless and worthless Spam Mill Echo Chamber of Wolfgang Mueckenheim with his gay entourage.
> >
> > Could WM loudmouth step into the Gottingen Univ physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, or is he only good for loudmouth nonsense of airhead complaints of calculus, along with his nonsense that slant cut of cone is ellipse, when in truth that is a oval.
> >
> > +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
> >
> > On Monday, January 18, 2010 at 11:30:47 AM UTC-6, John Baez wrote:
> > > Also available at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week290.html
> >
> > Surely Gottingen and UCR have weighing scales better than 0.00001 gram.
> >
> > Surely Durban Univ. has excellent weighing scales.
> >
> > Eram semper recta (John Gabriel) profile photo
> > Eram semper
> > ,...
> > Jim Burns
> > 775
> > 20Jul2023
> > WM Logic
> >
> >
> > +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
> >
> >
> > Univ Toronto, physics, Gordon F. West, Michael B. Walker, Henry M. Van Driel, David J. Rowe, John W. Moffat, John F. Martin, Robert K. Logan, Albert E. Litherland, Roland List, Philipp Kronberg, James King, Anthony W. Key, Bob Holdom, Ron M. Farquhar, R. Nigel Edwards, David J. Dunlop, James Drummond, Tom E. Drake, R.Fraser Code, Richard C. Bailey, Robin Armstrong
> >
> > Chancellor Rose M. Patten
> > Pres. Meric Gertler
> >
> > Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz
> > President Alan Shepard
> > Amit Chakma (chem engr)
> >
> > Univ. Western Ontario physics dept
> > Pauline Barmby, Shantanu Basu, Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown, Blaine Chronik, Robert Cockcroft, John R. de Bruyn, Colin Denniston, Giovanni Fanchini, Sarah Gallagher, Lyudmila Goncharova, Wayne Hocking, Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut, Peter Simpson, Mahi Singh, Paul Wiegert, Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang

On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 6:29:04 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Can_Dr.Silvia Mittler,Dr.Els Peeters,Dr.Robert Sica,Dr.Richard C. Bailey,Dr.Robin Armstrong,Dr.Pauline Barmby,Dr.Shantanu Basu please--step into their Canadian physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, proving Water is H4O not H2O. AP's homegrown lab cannot do the fine tuning experiment of weighing a test tube of electrolyzed hydrogen and oxygen from water. If AP is correct Water is really H4O, not H2O. My weighing scale is puny and insufficient for the job at hand, 0.00001 gram or less of hydrogen and oxygen test tubes. If AP is correct the hydrogen is 1/4 the weight of oxygen, if mainstream chemistry, physics is correct the hydrogen is 1/8 in amu to oxygen.
> > >
> > >
> > > Spam mill echo chamber, that is Rubard, WM along with his gay spamletts a decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Gottingen cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither WM or Gottingen can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it W. Mueckenheim?? You spammer crank.
> > >
> > > The endless and worthless Spam Mill Echo Chamber of Wolfgang Mueckenheim with his gay entourage.
> > >
> > > Could WM loudmouth step into the Gottingen Univ physics or chemistry lab and weigh the mass of Electrolysis Water, or is he only good for loudmouth nonsense of airhead complaints of calculus, along with his nonsense that slant cut of cone is ellipse, when in truth that is a oval.
> > >
> > > +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
> > >
> > > On Monday, January 18, 2010 at 11:30:47 AM UTC-6, John Baez wrote:
> > > > Also available at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week290.html
> > >
> > > Surely Gottingen and UCR have weighing scales better than 0.00001 gram.
> > >
> > > Surely Durban Univ. has excellent weighing scales.
> > >
> > > Eram semper recta (John Gabriel) profile photo
> > > Eram semper
> > > ,...
> > > Jim Burns
> > > 775
> > > 20Jul2023
> > > WM Logic
> > >
> > >
> > > +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
> > >
> > >
> > > Univ Toronto, physics, Gordon F. West, Michael B. Walker, Henry M. Van Driel, David J. Rowe, John W. Moffat, John F. Martin, Robert K. Logan, Albert E. Litherland, Roland List, Philipp Kronberg, James King, Anthony W. Key, Bob Holdom, Ron M. Farquhar, R. Nigel Edwards, David J. Dunlop, James Drummond, Tom E. Drake, R.Fraser Code, Richard C. Bailey, Robin Armstrong
> > >
> > > Chancellor Rose M. Patten
> > > Pres. Meric Gertler
> > >
> > > Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz
> > > President Alan Shepard
> > > Amit Chakma (chem engr)
> > >
> > > Univ. Western Ontario physics dept
> > > Pauline Barmby, Shantanu Basu, Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown, Blaine Chronik, Robert Cockcroft, John R. de Bruyn, Colin Denniston, Giovanni Fanchini, Sarah Gallagher, Lyudmila Goncharova, Wayne Hocking, Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut, Peter Simpson, Mahi Singh, Paul Wiegert, Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang
> My 250th published book.
>
> TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY; H2 is the hydrogen Atom and water is H4O, not H2O// Chemistry
>