Jan Burse's Omg ETH Manfred Sigrist, Hans-Arno Synal, Matthias Troyer

Dan Christensen photo profile
Dan Christensen

Mild Shock (Jan Burse)
66
1:38 PM
Smullyan's Proof ..

Burse's defiling and demonizing AP still there in Google Search---

On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 7:40:18 PM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse(Jan Burse) wrote:
> Neutronium in its densest form is called Collapsium. Collapsium

Jan Burse continues to defile and demonize AP on Google Search :

Jan Burse defiling and demonizing nonstop for 20 years of AP:

Still there--- Burse's demonization and defiling of AP in a Google Search---

ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM BANNED from. Dartmouth canteen. His wheelchair is too wide, he doesn't pass the entrance. ...Mostowski Collapse's profile photo.....

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

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

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

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

Jan Burse's Omg ETH Gunther Dissertori, Klaus Ensslin, Tilman Esslinger

Jan Burse-- Swiss hate monger and defiler demonizer of others-- his Google Search hate sheet on AP

One would have thought Switzerland was a polite society, well, until they meet Jan Burse.

Dan Christensen photo profile
Dan Christensen

Mild Shock (Jan Burse)
66
1:38 PM
Smullyan's Proof ..

Burse's defiling and demonizing AP still there in Google Search---

On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 7:40:18 PM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse(Jan Burse) wrote:
> Neutronium in its densest form is called Collapsium. Collapsium

Jan Burse continues to defile and demonize AP on Google Search :

Jan Burse defiling and demonizing nonstop for 20 years of AP:

Still there--- Burse's demonization and defiling of AP in a Google Search---

ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM BANNED from. Dartmouth canteen. His wheelchair is too wide, he doesn't pass the entrance. ...Mostowski Collapse's profile photo.....

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

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

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

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

Jan Burse's Omg University Bern,Christian Leumann, Walter Benjamin, ETH Gunther Dissertori, Klaus Ensslin, Tilman Esslinger

2-Jan Burse-- Swiss hate monger and defiler demonizer of others-- his Google Search hate sheet on AP

2-Still there--- Burse's demonization and defiling of AP in a Google Search---
2>
2> ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM BANNED from. Dartmouth canteen. His wheelchair is too wide, he doesn't pass the entrance. ...Mostowski Collapse's profile photo....

2- One would have thought Switzerland was a polite society, well, until they meet Jan Burse.

Dan Christensen photo profile
Dan Christensen
Mild Shock (Jan Burse)
38
unread,
A Paradox of Equality?
On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 1:40:29 AM UTC-4, Mild Shock wrote: (Correction) > Its not that
12:17 PM

William's profile photo
William
, …
Fritz Feldhase
198
unread,
WM Logic
On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 10:44:29 AM UTC-3, WM wrote: > William schrieb am Montag, 5. Juni 2023
11:31 AM


William's profile photo
William
, …
WM
111
unread,
No "First" init fraction
Fritz Feldhase schrieb am Montag, 5. Juni 2023 um 17:49:58 UTC+2: > On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 5:
9:36 AM


>
> Burse's defiling and demonizing AP still there in Google Search---
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 7:40:18 PM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse(Jan Burse) wrote:
> > Neutronium in its densest form is called Collapsium. Collapsium
>
> Jan Burse continues to defile and demonize AP on Google Search :
>
> Jan Burse defiling and demonizing nonstop for 20 years of AP:
>
> Still there--- Burse's demonization and defiling of AP in a Google Search---
>
> ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM BANNED from. Dartmouth canteen. His wheelchair is too wide, he doesn't pass the entrance. ...Mostowski Collapse's profile photo.....
>
> Roland Horisberger, Sebastian Huber, Thomas Markus Ihn ever ask the question, which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle which AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole while the real electron is a muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. In fact so stupid is this list of so called physicists that they went through life believing the slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, when in reality it is a Oval of 1 axis of symmetry for the cone has 1 axis of symmetry but ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry. The minds of all these so called physicists are not good enough to be doing physics. In fact, so stupid in science and math are all these people that when told in High School or College that a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, they believed it, and believe in it to this day without so much as ever questioning the idea that a single cone and oval have just 1 axis of symmetry while ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, and yet many on this list were awarded science prizes. Maybe for ignorance of science but not for truth of science.
>
> 1) Too stupid to question if Thomson found Dirac's magnetic monopole and not the electron of atoms.
> 2) Too stupid to realize that in the Rutherford,Geiger, Marsden Experiment when you have increase in velocity of bounce back alpha particles means head on collision with a larger proton torus, hence, the interior of gold atoms are toruses, no nucleus.
> 3) Too stupid in logic to understand subatomic particles have jobs and tasks to do, not sit around on beaches sipping lemonade what Old Physics says.. The proton is a 8 ring torus with muon as electron inside doing the Faraday law producing new electricity.
> 4) Too stupid to understand stars and our Sun shine not from fusion but from Faraday law of each and every atom inside that star.
>
> 5) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
> 6) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction
> 7) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"
> 8) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sapheads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.
>
>
>
> > > Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez,
> > > Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish
> > > David J. Thouless_, F. Duncan M. Haldane, John M. Kosterlitz, Takaaki Kajita
> > > Arthur B. McDonald
> > > Francois Englert
> > > Saul Perlmutter
> > > Brian P. Schmidt
> > > Adam G. Riess
> > > Makoto Kobayashi
> > > Toshihide Maskawa_
> > > Yoichiro Nambu_
> > > John C. Mather
> > > George F. Smoot
> > > Roy J. Glauber_
> > > David J. Gross
> > > Hugh David Politzer
> > > Frank Wilczek
> > > Raymond Davis Jr. _
> > > Masatoshi Koshiba_
> > > Riccardo Giacconi_
> > > Gerardus 't Hooft
> > > Martinus J.G. Veltman_
> > > Jerome I. Friedman
> > > Henry W. Kendall_
> > > Richard E. Taylor_
> > > Carlo Rubbia
> > > Simon van der Meer_
> > > William Alfred Fowler_
> > > Kenneth G. Wilson_
> > > James Watson Cronin_
> > > Val Logsdon Fitch_
> > > Sheldon Lee Glashow
> > > Steven Weinberg_
> > > .
> > > .
> > > little fishes
> > > .
> > > .
> > > Layers of error thinking physics Re: 2-Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = subtraction of either 3 or 2, while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV
> > >
> > > Physical Review Letters: Proton Mass
> > > Yi-Bo Yang, Jian Liang, Yu-Jiang Bi, Ying Chen, Terrence Draper, Keh-Fei Liu, Zhaofeng Liu
> > > more and more layers of error thinking physics
> > > .
> > > .
> > > Edward Witten
> > > John Baez
> > > Brian Greene
> > > Lisa Randall
> > > Alan H. Guth
> > > Michael E. Brown
> > > Konstantin Batygin
> > > Ben Bullock
> > > Larry Harson
> > > Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
> > > Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views
> > > None at all - he was a raving nutter.
> > > Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley
> > > Jennifer Kahn, Discover, science hater
> > > Eric Francis Coppolino, newsreporter hatred of science, George Witte, St.Martin's Press science hater
> > > Toby Howard, The Guardian, science hater
> > >
> > >
> > > #2-1, 137th published book
> > >
> > > Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > #1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory
> > >
> > > This will be AP's 137th published book on science. And the number 137 is special to me for it is the number of QED, Quantum Electrodynamics as the inverse fine structure constant. I can always remember 137 as that special constant of physics and so I can remember where Teaching True Physics was started by me.
> > >
> > > Time has come for the world to have the authoritative textbooks for all of High School and College education. Written by the leading physics expert of the time. The last such was Feynman in the 1960s with Feynman Lectures on Physics. The time before was Maxwell in 1860s with his books and Encyclopedia Britannica editorship. The time is ripe in 2020 for the new authoritative texts on physics. It will be started in 2020 which is 60 years after Feynman. In the future, I request the physics community updates the premier physics textbook series at least every 30 years. For we can see that pattern of 30 years approximately from Faraday in 1830 to Maxwell in 1860 to Planck and Rutherford in about 1900, to Dirac in 1930 to Feynman in 1960 and finally to AP in 1990 and 2020. So much happens in physics after 30 years, that we need the revisions to take place in a timely manner. But also, as we move to Internet publishing such as Amazon's Kindle, we can see that updates can take place very fast, as editing can be a ongoing monthly or yearly activity. I for one keep constantly updating all my published books, at least I try to.
> > >
> > > Feynman was the best to make the last authoritative textbook series for his concentration was QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, the pinnacle peak of physics during the 20th century. Of course the Atom Totality theory took over after 1990 and all of physics; for all sciences are under the Atom Totality theory.
> > > And as QED was the pinnacle peak before 1990, the new pinnacle peak is the Atom Totality theory. The Atom Totality theory is the advancement of QED, for the Atom Totality theory primal axiom says -- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
> > > Length: 64 pages
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • File Size : 790 KB
> > > • Publication Date : October 5, 2020
> > > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > > • Print Length : 64 pages
> > > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> > > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > > • Language: : English
> > > • ASIN : B08KS4YGWY
> > > • Lending : Enabled
> > > • Best Sellers Rank: #430,602 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > > ◦ #39 in Electromagnetic Theory
> > > ◦ #73 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
> > > ◦ #74 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> > >
> > > #2-2, 145th published book
> > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2
> > > Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes and errors and beliefs that clutter up physics. Clearing it of its fraud and fakeries and con-artistry. I thought of doing these textbooks starting with Senior year High School, wherein I myself started learning physics. But because of so much fraud and fakery in physics education, I believe we have to drop down to Junior year High School to make a drastic and dramatic emphasis on fakery and con-artistry that so much pervades science and physics in particular. So that we have two years in High School to learn physics. And discard the nonsense of physics brainwash that Old Physics filled the halls and corridors of education.
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • ASIN : B08PC99JJB
> > > • Publication date : November 29, 2020
> > > • Language: : English
> > > • File size : 682 KB
> > > • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> > > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > > • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > > • Print length : 78 pages
> > > • Lending : Enabled
> > > • Best Sellers Rank: #185,995 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > > ◦ #42 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
> > > ◦ #344 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > > ◦ #2,160 in Physics (Books)
> > >
> > > #2-3, 146th published book
> > >
> > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Senior High School// Physics textbook series, book 3
> > > Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > >
> > > I believe that in knowing the history of a science is knowing half of that science. And that if you are amiss of knowing the history behind a science, you have only a partial understanding of the concepts and ideas behind the science. I further believe it is easier to teach a science by teaching its history than any other means of teaching. So for senior year High School, I believe physics history is the best way of teaching physics. And in later years of physics courses, we can always pick up on details. So I devote this senior year High School physics to a history of physics, but only true physics. And there are few books written on the history of physics, so I chose Asimov's The History of Physics, 1966 as the template book for this textbook. Now Asimov's book is full of error and mistakes, and that is disappointing but all of Old Physics is full of error. On errors and mistakes of Old Physics, the best I can do is warn the students, and the largest warning of all is that whenever someone in Old Physics says "electron" what they are talking about is really the Dirac magnetic monopole. And whenever they talk about the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom, they are talking about huge huge grave mistakes, for the true atom is protons as 8 ringed toruses with a muon stuck inside of a proton doing the Faraday law and producing those magnetic monopoles as electricity. I use Asimov's book as a template but in the future, I hope to rewrite this textbook using no template at all, that is if I have time in the future.
> > > Cover Picture: Is the book The History of Physics, by Isaac Asimov, 1966 and on top of the book are 4 cut-outs of bent circles representing magnetic monopoles which revolutionizes modern physics, especially the ElectroMagnetic theory.
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08RK33T8V
> > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 28, 2020
> > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 794 KB
> > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 123 pages
> > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Best Sellers Rank: #4,167,235 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > > ◦ #15,099 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > > ◦ #91,163 in Physics (Books)
> > >
> > >
> > > #2-4, 151st published book
> > >
> > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4
> > > Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > >
> > > Preface: This is AP's 151st book of science published. It is one of my most important books of science because 1st year college physics is so impressionable on students, if they should continue with physics, or look elsewhere for a career. And also, physics is a crossroad to all the other hard core sciences, where physics course is mandatory such as in chemistry or even biology. I have endeavored to make physics 1st year college to be as easy and simple to learn. In this endeavor to make physics super easy, I have made the writing such that you will see core ideas in all capital letters as single sentences as a educational tool. And I have made this textbook chapter writing follow a logical pattern of both algebra and geometry concepts, throughout. The utmost importance of logic in physics needs to be seen and understood. For I have never seen a physics book, prior to this one that is logical. Every Old Physics textbook I have seen is scatter-brained in topics and in writing. I use as template book of Halliday & Resnick because a edition of H&R was one I was taught physics at University of Cincinnati in 1969. And in 1969, I had a choice of majors, do I major in geology, or mathematics, or in physics, for I will graduate from UC in 1972. For me, geology was too easy, but physics was too tough, so I ended up majoring in mathematics. If I had been taught in 1969 using this textbook that I have written, I would have ended up majoring in physics, my first love. For physics is not hard, not hard at all, once you clear out the mistakes and the obnoxious worthless mathematics that clutters up Old Physics, and the illogic that smothers much of Old Physics.
> > >
> > > Maybe it was good that I had those impressions of physics education of poor education, which still exists throughout physics today. Because maybe I am forced to write this book, because of that awful experience of learning physics in 1969. Without that awful experience, maybe this textbook would have never been written by me.
> > >
> > > Cover picture is the template book of Halliday & Resnick, 1988, 3rd edition Fundamentals of Physics and sitting on top are cut outs of "half bent circles, bent at 90 degrees" to imitate magnetic monopoles. Magnetic Monopoles revolutionizes physics education, and separates-out, what is Old Physics from what is New Physics.
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09JW5DVYM
> > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ October 19, 2021
> > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1035 KB
> > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 386 pages
> > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Best Sellers Rank: #4,874,333 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > > ◦ #526 in Electromagnetic Theory
> > > ◦ #1,321 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
> > > ◦ #9,546 in Electromagnetism (Books)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > #2-5, 174th published book
> > >
> > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 2nd year College
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition
> > >
> > > Preface: At the moment this is a physics book for 2nd year College. But as the months and years go by I intend to convert it into a textbook of about 200 to 300 pages. It is mostly about thermodynamics for in my own college education 1968-1972 at University of Cincinnati, I took physics thermodynamics in the 2nd year (if memory has not failed me).
> > > Cover-Picture: Is a iphone photograph of the Chemistry textbook I used at UC 1968-1972 with my own paper cut-outs of magnetic monopoles. Pictured are 4 bent circles, bent at 90degrees from diameter and each bent circle is a individual magnetic monopole.
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09TKL4HMC
> > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 27, 2022
> > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 675 KB
> > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 41 pages
> > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > #2-6, 177th published book
> > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Architecture of Atoms, 3rd year College
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition
> > >
> > > Preface: I come to teaching physics for 3rd year College as the Architecture of Atoms. My writing style will be prose-narrative, until I add on exercise problems and convert it into a textbook. The 1st year College, has to be the equations and laws of electricity and magnetism. For the primal-axiom over all of physics is-- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. The 2nd year College is thermodynamics. And now the 3rd year College physics has to teach the Architecture, the geometry of the inside and exterior surface of the atom. One of the greatest faults, misery, and anti-science teaching of Old Physics is their denial that subatomic particles have to be something more than tiny balls tiny spheres that do-nothing, perform nothing, function as nothing. That the proton and neutron and true electron=muon, has to be matter with a function and purpose and design and task and job. This is a year of physics teaching of the architecture of the atom.
> > > Cover Picture: A iphone photograph of my book chemistry book, a long time favorite of mine of CHEM ONE, 2nd edition, Waser, Trueblood, Knobler, 1980, and page 307 of that book. Why this page? Because it was instrumental in my discovery of the true Architecture of Atoms. Not many professors of chemistry or physics dive into the Shrodinger Equation that results in a meaningful teaching of "matter waves". Matter waves are the heart of understanding the geometry of Atomic Architecture.
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09VFH9QST
> > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2022
> > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 823 KB
> > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 74 pages
> > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > #2-7, 178th published book
> > >
> > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Architecture of Light Waves & Energy, 4th year College
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Kindle edition)
> > >
> > >
> > > Preface: This is 4th year College Physics and the important ideas of physics to learn as last year undergraduate school is the architecture and geometry of the Light Wave & Energy in physics. This is New Physics and not Old Physics. New Physics is defined as physics that knows and uses the true electron of atoms is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus and doing the Faraday law, creating new electrical energy that is storaged in the neutrons of atoms until they grow from 1eV into 945MeV and then create a new higher atomic numbered atom or emitted as radioactivity. Old Physics mistakenly identified the electron of atoms as the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole. In 3rd year College we studied the architecture of the interior of atoms. In 4th year College we study the architecture of Light Waves & Energy.
> > >
> > > The template book for 4th year College is Feynman's 1985 book of QED.
> > >
> > > Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of the template book for this book. Feynman's 1985 QED, quantum electrodynamics, showing my plastic toy model of DNA and my cut-outs of 4 bent circles that each bent circle represents one magnetic monopole. I arranged the monopoles into a single strand of a cycloid wave.
> > >
> > > Product details
> > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09W58XGDW
> > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 21, 2022
> > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 824 KB
> > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 66 pages
> > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> Dan Christensen's profile photo
> Dan Christensen
> , …
> Mild Shock
> 24
> unread,
> A Paradox of Equality?
> Omg. 60 Lines. Currently you dont have any de Morgan for bi-implicaion. You only have the one
> 2:25 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
> ETH Zurich
>
> Joel Mesot, Gunther Dissertori
>
> Paul Biran, Marc Burger, Patrick Cheridito, Manfred Einsiedler, Paul Embrechts
> Giovanni Felder, Alessio Figalli, Norbert Hungerbuhler, Tom Ilmanen, Horst Knorrer
> Emmanuel Kowalski
> Urs Lang
> Rahul Pandharipande
> Richard Pink
> Tristan Riviere
> Dietmar Salamon
> Martin Schweizer
> Mete Soner
> Michael Struwe
> Benjamin Sudakov
> Alain Sznitman
> Josef Teichmann
> Wendelin Werner
> Thomas Willwacher
>
> Zurich ETH, physics dept
> Charalampos Anastasiou, Niklas Beisert, Adrian Biland, Gianni Blatter, Marcella Carollo, Christian Degen, Leonardo Degiorgi, Gunther Dissertori, Klaus Ensslin, Tilman Esslinger, Jerome Faist, Matthias Gaberdiel, Aude Gehrmann-De Ridder, Vadim Geshkenbein, Christophorus Grab, Michele Graf, Jonathan Home, Roland Horisberger, Sebastian Huber, Thomas Markus Ihn, Atac Imamoglu, Steven Johnson, Ursula Keller, Klaus Kirch, Simon Lilly, Joel Mesot, Renatto Renner, Andre Rubbia, Werner Schmutz, Thomas Schulthess, Manfred Sigrist, Hans-Arno Synal, Matthias Troyer, Andreas Vaterlaus, Rainer Wallny, Andreas Wallraff, Werner Wegscheider, Audrey Zheludev, Oded Zilberberg
>
>
> University Bern
> Christian Leumann
> Walter Benjamin
> Emil Theodor Kocher
> Kurt Wuthrich
> Daniel Vassella
> Rene Fasel
> Mani Matter

Dan, why cannot ETH Aude Gehrmann-De Ridder, Vadim Geshkenbein ever admit slant cut of Cone is Oval, and not the ellipse and is that why they cannot ask the question which is Atoms true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle, sort of blind leading the blind.

Dan Christensen's profile photo
Dan Christensen
, …
mitchr...@gmail.com
40
unread,
A Paradox of Equality?
On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 2:11:45 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, June 6,
2:09 PM


Jan Burse's Omg University Bern,Christian Leumann, Walter Benjamin, ETH Gunther Dissertori, Klaus Ensslin, Tilman Esslinger
>
>
> 2-Jan Burse-- Swiss hate monger and defiler demonizer of others-- his Google Search hate sheet on AP
>
> 2-Still there--- Burse's demonization and defiling of AP in a Google Search---
> 2>
> 2> ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM BANNED from. Dartmouth canteen. His wheelchair is too wide, he doesn't pass the entrance. ...Mostowski Collapse's profile photo....
>
>
> 2- One would have thought Switzerland was a polite society, well, until they meet Jan Burse.
> Dan Christensen photo profile
> Dan Christensen
> Mild Shock (Jan Burse)
> 38
> unread,
> A Paradox of Equality?
> On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 1:40:29 AM UTC-4, Mild Shock wrote: (Correction) > Its not that
> 12:17 PM
> 
> William's profile photo
> William
> , …
> Fritz Feldhase
> 198
> unread,
> WM Logic
> On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 10:44:29 AM UTC-3, WM wrote: > William schrieb am Montag, 5. Juni 2023
> 11:31 AM
>
> 
> William's profile photo
> William
> , …
> WM
> 111
> unread,
> No "First" init fraction
> Fritz Feldhase schrieb am Montag, 5. Juni 2023 um 17:49:58 UTC+2: > On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 5:
> 9:36 AM
> 
> >
> > Burse's defiling and demonizing AP still there in Google Search---
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 7:40:18 PM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse(Jan Burse) wrote:
> > > Neutronium in its densest form is called Collapsium. Collapsium
> >
> > Jan Burse continues to defile and demonize AP on Google Search :
> >
> > Jan Burse defiling and demonizing nonstop for 20 years of AP:
> >
> > Still there--- Burse's demonization and defiling of AP in a Google Search---
> >
> > ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM BANNED from. Dartmouth canteen. His wheelchair is too wide, he doesn't pass the entrance. ...Mostowski Collapse's profile photo....
> >
> > Roland Horisberger, Sebastian Huber, Thomas Markus Ihn ever ask the question, which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle which AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole while the real electron is a muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. In fact so stupid is this list of so called physicists that they went through life believing the slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, when in reality it is a Oval of 1 axis of symmetry for the cone has 1 axis of symmetry but ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry. The minds of all these so called physicists are not good enough to be doing physics. In fact, so stupid in science and math are all these people that when told in High School or College that a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, they believed it, and believe in it to this day without so much as ever questioning the idea that a single cone and oval have just 1 axis of symmetry while ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, and yet many on this list were awarded science prizes. Maybe for ignorance of science but not for truth of science.
> >
> > 1) Too stupid to question if Thomson found Dirac's magnetic monopole and not the electron of atoms.
> > 2) Too stupid to realize that in the Rutherford,Geiger, Marsden Experiment when you have increase in velocity of bounce back alpha particles means head on collision with a larger proton torus, hence, the interior of gold atoms are toruses, no nucleus.
> > 3) Too stupid in logic to understand subatomic particles have jobs and tasks to do, not sit around on beaches sipping lemonade what Old Physics says. The proton is a 8 ring torus with muon as electron inside doing the Faraday law producing new electricity.
> > 4) Too stupid to understand stars and our Sun shine not from fusion but from Faraday law of each and every atom inside that star.
> >
> > 5) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
> > 6) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction
> > 7) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"
> > 8) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sapheads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez,
> > > > Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish
> > > > David J. Thouless_, F. Duncan M. Haldane, John M. Kosterlitz, Takaaki Kajita
> > > > Arthur B. McDonald
> > > > Francois Englert
> > > > Saul Perlmutter
> > > > Brian P. Schmidt
> > > > Adam G. Riess
> > > > Makoto Kobayashi
> > > > Toshihide Maskawa_
> > > > Yoichiro Nambu_
> > > > John C. Mather
> > > > George F. Smoot
> > > > Roy J. Glauber_
> > > > David J. Gross
> > > > Hugh David Politzer
> > > > Frank Wilczek
> > > > Raymond Davis Jr. _
> > > > Masatoshi Koshiba_
> > > > Riccardo Giacconi_
> > > > Gerardus 't Hooft
> > > > Martinus J.G. Veltman_
> > > > Jerome I. Friedman
> > > > Henry W. Kendall_
> > > > Richard E. Taylor_
> > > > Carlo Rubbia
> > > > Simon van der Meer_
> > > > William Alfred Fowler_
> > > > Kenneth G. Wilson_
> > > > James Watson Cronin_
> > > > Val Logsdon Fitch_
> > > > Sheldon Lee Glashow
> > > > Steven Weinberg_
> > > > .
> > > > .
> > > > little fishes
> > > > .
> > > > .
> > > > Layers of error thinking physics Re: 2-Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = subtraction of either 3 or 2, while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV
> > > >
> > > > Physical Review Letters: Proton Mass
> > > > Yi-Bo Yang, Jian Liang, Yu-Jiang Bi, Ying Chen, Terrence Draper, Keh-Fei Liu, Zhaofeng Liu
> > > > more and more layers of error thinking physics
> > > > .
> > > > .
> > > > Edward Witten
> > > > John Baez
> > > > Brian Greene
> > > > Lisa Randall
> > > > Alan H. Guth
> > > > Michael E. Brown
> > > > Konstantin Batygin
> > > > Ben Bullock
> > > > Larry Harson
> > > > Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
> > > > Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views
> > > > None at all - he was a raving nutter.
> > > > Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley
> > > > Jennifer Kahn, Discover, science hater
> > > > Eric Francis Coppolino, newsreporter hatred of science, George Witte, St.Martin's Press science hater
> > > > Toby Howard, The Guardian, science hater
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > #2-1, 137th published book
> > > >
> > > > Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > #1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory
> > > >
> > > > This will be AP's 137th published book on science. And the number 137 is special to me for it is the number of QED, Quantum Electrodynamics as the inverse fine structure constant. I can always remember 137 as that special constant of physics and so I can remember where Teaching True Physics was started by me.
> > > >
> > > > Time has come for the world to have the authoritative textbooks for all of High School and College education. Written by the leading physics expert of the time. The last such was Feynman in the 1960s with Feynman Lectures on Physics. The time before was Maxwell in 1860s with his books and Encyclopedia Britannica editorship. The time is ripe in 2020 for the new authoritative texts on physics. It will be started in 2020 which is 60 years after Feynman. In the future, I request the physics community updates the premier physics textbook series at least every 30 years. For we can see that pattern of 30 years approximately from Faraday in 1830 to Maxwell in 1860 to Planck and Rutherford in about 1900, to Dirac in 1930 to Feynman in 1960 and finally to AP in 1990 and 2020. So much happens in physics after 30 years, that we need the revisions to take place in a timely manner. But also, as we move to Internet publishing such as Amazon's Kindle, we can see that updates can take place very fast, as editing can be a ongoing monthly or yearly activity. I for one keep constantly updating all my published books, at least I try to.
> > > >
> > > > Feynman was the best to make the last authoritative textbook series for his concentration was QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, the pinnacle peak of physics during the 20th century. Of course the Atom Totality theory took over after 1990 and all of physics; for all sciences are under the Atom Totality theory.
> > > > And as QED was the pinnacle peak before 1990, the new pinnacle peak is the Atom Totality theory. The Atom Totality theory is the advancement of QED, for the Atom Totality theory primal axiom says -- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
> > > > Length: 64 pages
> > > >
> > > > Product details
> > > > • File Size : 790 KB
> > > > • Publication Date : October 5, 2020
> > > > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > > > • Print Length : 64 pages
> > > > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> > > > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > > > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> > > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > > > • Language: : English
> > > > • ASIN : B08KS4YGWY
> > > > • Lending : Enabled
> > > > • Best Sellers Rank: #430,602 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > > > ◦ #39 in Electromagnetic Theory
> > > > ◦ #73 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
> > > > ◦ #74 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> > > >
> > > > #2-2, 145th published book
> > > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2
> > > > Kindle Edition
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes and errors and beliefs that clutter up physics. Clearing it of its fraud and fakeries and con-artistry. I thought of doing these textbooks starting with Senior year High School, wherein I myself started learning physics. But because of so much fraud and fakery in physics education, I believe we have to drop down to Junior year High School to make a drastic and dramatic emphasis on fakery and con-artistry that so much pervades science and physics in particular. So that we have two years in High School to learn physics. And discard the nonsense of physics brainwash that Old Physics filled the halls and corridors of education.
> > > >
> > > > Product details
> > > > • ASIN : B08PC99JJB
> > > > • Publication date : November 29, 2020
> > > > • Language: : English
> > > > • File size : 682 KB
> > > > • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> > > > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > > > • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> > > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > > > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > > > • Print length : 78 pages
> > > > • Lending : Enabled
> > > > • Best Sellers Rank: #185,995 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > > > ◦ #42 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
> > > > ◦ #344 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > > > ◦ #2,160 in Physics (Books)
> > > >
> > > > #2-3, 146th published book
> > > >
> > > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Senior High School// Physics textbook series, book 3
> > > > Kindle Edition
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > >
> > > > I believe that in knowing the history of a science is knowing half of that science. And that if you are amiss of knowing the history behind a science, you have only a partial understanding of the concepts and ideas behind the science. I further believe it is easier to teach a science by teaching its history than any other means of teaching. So for senior year High School, I believe physics history is the best way of teaching physics. And in later years of physics courses, we can always pick up on details. So I devote this senior year High School physics to a history of physics, but only true physics. And there are few books written on the history of physics, so I chose Asimov's The History of Physics, 1966 as the template book for this textbook. Now Asimov's book is full of error and mistakes, and that is disappointing but all of Old Physics is full of error. On errors and mistakes of Old Physics, the best I can do is warn the students, and the largest warning of all is that whenever someone in Old Physics says "electron" what they are talking about is really the Dirac magnetic monopole. And whenever they talk about the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom, they are talking about huge huge grave mistakes, for the true atom is protons as 8 ringed toruses with a muon stuck inside of a proton doing the Faraday law and producing those magnetic monopoles as electricity. I use Asimov's book as a template but in the future, I hope to rewrite this textbook using no template at all, that is if I have time in the future.
> > > > Cover Picture: Is the book The History of Physics, by Isaac Asimov, 1966 and on top of the book are 4 cut-outs of bent circles representing magnetic monopoles which revolutionizes modern physics, especially the ElectroMagnetic theory.
> > > >
> > > > Product details
> > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08RK33T8V
> > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 28, 2020
> > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 794 KB
> > > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 123 pages
> > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • Best Sellers Rank: #4,167,235 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > > > ◦ #15,099 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > > > ◦ #91,163 in Physics (Books)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > #2-4, 151st published book
> > > >
> > > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4
> > > > Kindle Edition
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > >
> > > > Preface: This is AP's 151st book of science published. It is one of my most important books of science because 1st year college physics is so impressionable on students, if they should continue with physics, or look elsewhere for a career. And also, physics is a crossroad to all the other hard core sciences, where physics course is mandatory such as in chemistry or even biology. I have endeavored to make physics 1st year college to be as easy and simple to learn. In this endeavor to make physics super easy, I have made the writing such that you will see core ideas in all capital letters as single sentences as a educational tool. And I have made this textbook chapter writing follow a logical pattern of both algebra and geometry concepts, throughout. The utmost importance of logic in physics needs to be seen and understood. For I have never seen a physics book, prior to this one that is logical. Every Old Physics textbook I have seen is scatter-brained in topics and in writing. I use as template book of Halliday & Resnick because a edition of H&R was one I was taught physics at University of Cincinnati in 1969. And in 1969, I had a choice of majors, do I major in geology, or mathematics, or in physics, for I will graduate from UC in 1972. For me, geology was too easy, but physics was too tough, so I ended up majoring in mathematics. If I had been taught in 1969 using this textbook that I have written, I would have ended up majoring in physics, my first love. For physics is not hard, not hard at all, once you clear out the mistakes and the obnoxious worthless mathematics that clutters up Old Physics, and the illogic that smothers much of Old Physics.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe it was good that I had those impressions of physics education of poor education, which still exists throughout physics today. Because maybe I am forced to write this book, because of that awful experience of learning physics in 1969. Without that awful experience, maybe this textbook would have never been written by me.
> > > >
> > > > Cover picture is the template book of Halliday & Resnick, 1988, 3rd edition Fundamentals of Physics and sitting on top are cut outs of "half bent circles, bent at 90 degrees" to imitate magnetic monopoles. Magnetic Monopoles revolutionizes physics education, and separates-out, what is Old Physics from what is New Physics.
> > > >
> > > > Product details
> > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09JW5DVYM
> > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ October 19, 2021
> > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1035 KB
> > > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 386 pages
> > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • Best Sellers Rank: #4,874,333 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > > > ◦ #526 in Electromagnetic Theory
> > > > ◦ #1,321 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
> > > > ◦ #9,546 in Electromagnetism (Books)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > #2-5, 174th published book
> > > >
> > > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 2nd year College
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition
> > > >
> > > > Preface: At the moment this is a physics book for 2nd year College. But as the months and years go by I intend to convert it into a textbook of about 200 to 300 pages. It is mostly about thermodynamics for in my own college education 1968-1972 at University of Cincinnati, I took physics thermodynamics in the 2nd year (if memory has not failed me).
> > > > Cover-Picture: Is a iphone photograph of the Chemistry textbook I used at UC 1968-1972 with my own paper cut-outs of magnetic monopoles. Pictured are 4 bent circles, bent at 90degrees from diameter and each bent circle is a individual magnetic monopole.
> > > >
> > > > Product details
> > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09TKL4HMC
> > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 27, 2022
> > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 675 KB
> > > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 41 pages
> > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > #2-6, 177th published book
> > > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Architecture of Atoms, 3rd year College
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition
> > > >
> > > > Preface: I come to teaching physics for 3rd year College as the Architecture of Atoms. My writing style will be prose-narrative, until I add on exercise problems and convert it into a textbook. The 1st year College, has to be the equations and laws of electricity and magnetism. For the primal-axiom over all of physics is-- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. The 2nd year College is thermodynamics. And now the 3rd year College physics has to teach the Architecture, the geometry of the inside and exterior surface of the atom. One of the greatest faults, misery, and anti-science teaching of Old Physics is their denial that subatomic particles have to be something more than tiny balls tiny spheres that do-nothing, perform nothing, function as nothing. That the proton and neutron and true electron=muon, has to be matter with a function and purpose and design and task and job. This is a year of physics teaching of the architecture of the atom.
> > > > Cover Picture: A iphone photograph of my book chemistry book, a long time favorite of mine of CHEM ONE, 2nd edition, Waser, Trueblood, Knobler, 1980, and page 307 of that book. Why this page? Because it was instrumental in my discovery of the true Architecture of Atoms. Not many professors of chemistry or physics dive into the Shrodinger Equation that results in a meaningful teaching of "matter waves". Matter waves are the heart of understanding the geometry of Atomic Architecture.
> > > >
> > > > Product details
> > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09VFH9QST
> > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2022
> > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 823 KB
> > > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 74 pages
> > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > #2-7, 178th published book
> > > >
> > > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Architecture of Light Waves & Energy, 4th year College
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Kindle edition)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Preface: This is 4th year College Physics and the important ideas of physics to learn as last year undergraduate school is the architecture and geometry of the Light Wave & Energy in physics. This is New Physics and not Old Physics. New Physics is defined as physics that knows and uses the true electron of atoms is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus and doing the Faraday law, creating new electrical energy that is storaged in the neutrons of atoms until they grow from 1eV into 945MeV and then create a new higher atomic numbered atom or emitted as radioactivity. Old Physics mistakenly identified the electron of atoms as the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole. In 3rd year College we studied the architecture of the interior of atoms. In 4th year College we study the architecture of Light Waves & Energy.
> > > >
> > > > The template book for 4th year College is Feynman's 1985 book of QED.
> > > >
> > > > Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of the template book for this book. Feynman's 1985 QED, quantum electrodynamics, showing my plastic toy model of DNA and my cut-outs of 4 bent circles that each bent circle represents one magnetic monopole. I arranged the monopoles into a single strand of a cycloid wave.
> > > >
> > > > Product details
> > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09W58XGDW
> > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 21, 2022
> > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 824 KB
> > > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 66 pages
> > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> > Dan Christensen's profile photo
> > Dan Christensen
> > , …
> > Mild Shock
> > 24
> > unread,
> > A Paradox of Equality?
> > Omg. 60 Lines. Currently you dont have any de Morgan for bi-implicaion. You only have the one
> > 2:25 PM
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >
> > ETH Zurich
> >
> > Joel Mesot, Gunther Dissertori
> >
> > Paul Biran, Marc Burger, Patrick Cheridito, Manfred Einsiedler, Paul Embrechts
> > Giovanni Felder, Alessio Figalli, Norbert Hungerbuhler, Tom Ilmanen, Horst Knorrer
> > Emmanuel Kowalski
> > Urs Lang
> > Rahul Pandharipande
> > Richard Pink
> > Tristan Riviere
> > Dietmar Salamon
> > Martin Schweizer
> > Mete Soner
> > Michael Struwe
> > Benjamin Sudakov
> > Alain Sznitman
> > Josef Teichmann
> > Wendelin Werner
> > Thomas Willwacher
> >
> > Zurich ETH, physics dept
> > Charalampos Anastasiou, Niklas Beisert, Adrian Biland, Gianni Blatter, Marcella Carollo, Christian Degen, Leonardo Degiorgi, Gunther Dissertori, Klaus Ensslin, Tilman Esslinger, Jerome Faist, Matthias Gaberdiel, Aude Gehrmann-De Ridder, Vadim Geshkenbein, Christophorus Grab, Michele Graf, Jonathan Home, Roland Horisberger, Sebastian Huber, Thomas Markus Ihn, Atac Imamoglu, Steven Johnson, Ursula Keller, Klaus Kirch, Simon Lilly, Joel Mesot, Renatto Renner, Andre Rubbia, Werner Schmutz, Thomas Schulthess, Manfred Sigrist, Hans-Arno Synal, Matthias Troyer, Andreas Vaterlaus, Rainer Wallny, Andreas Wallraff, Werner Wegscheider, Audrey Zheludev, Oded Zilberberg
> >
> >
> > University Bern
> > Christian Leumann
> > Walter Benjamin
> > Emil Theodor Kocher
> > Kurt Wuthrich
> > Daniel Vassella
> > Rene Fasel
> > Mani Matter

3-Jan Burse's Omg University Bern,Christian Leumann, Walter Benjamin, ETH Gunther Dissertori, Klaus Ensslin, Tilman Esslinger
>
>
3-Jan Burse-- Swiss hate monger and defiler demonizer of others-- his Google Search hate sheet on AP
>
3-Still there--- Burse's demonization and defiling of AP in a Google Search---
3>
3> ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM BANNED from. Dartmouth canteen. His wheelchair is too wide, he doesn't pass the entrance. ...Mostowski Collapse's profile photo....
>
>
3- One would have thought Switzerland was a polite society, well, until they meet Jan Burse.

Mild Shock (Jan Burse)
17
unread,
$100 Reward for a ZFC Proof of Any Common Mathematics Theorem - Gig at Freelancer.com
4:07 PM

Eram semper recta's profile photo
Eram semper recta
, …
Mild Shock (Jan Burse)
3 unread,
Why mainstream mathematics academia is fast becoming irrelevant.
Now that John Gabriel has retired. I take his botched announ- cement of "John is Dead", as
3:47 PM

Dan Christensen's profile photo
Dan Christensen
, …
Mild Shock (Jan Burse)
70
unread,
Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3
Never heard about reverse mathematic? This introduction has one of its main sections: An Introduction
3:41 PM


3> > Burse's defiling and demonizing AP still there in Google Search---
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 7:40:18 PM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse(Jan Burse) wrote:
> > > Neutronium in its densest form is called Collapsium. Collapsium
> >
> > Jan Burse continues to defile and demonize AP on Google Search :
> >
> > Jan Burse defiling and demonizing nonstop for 20 years of AP:
> >
> > Still there--- Burse's demonization and defiling of AP in a Google Search---
> >
> > ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM BANNED from. Dartmouth canteen. His wheelchair is too wide, he doesn't pass the entrance. ...Mostowski Collapse's profile photo....
> >
> > Roland Horisberger, Sebastian Huber, Thomas Markus Ihn ever ask the question, which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle which AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole while the real electron is a muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. In fact so stupid is this list of so called physicists that they went through life believing the slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, when in reality it is a Oval of 1 axis of symmetry for the cone has 1 axis of symmetry but ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry. The minds of all these so called physicists are not good enough to be doing physics. In fact, so stupid in science and math are all these people that when told in High School or College that a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, they believed it, and believe in it to this day without so much as ever questioning the idea that a single cone and oval have just 1 axis of symmetry while ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, and yet many on this list were awarded science prizes. Maybe for ignorance of science but not for truth of science.
> >
> > 1) Too stupid to question if Thomson found Dirac's magnetic monopole and not the electron of atoms.
> > 2) Too stupid to realize that in the Rutherford,Geiger, Marsden Experiment when you have increase in velocity of bounce back alpha particles means head on collision with a larger proton torus, hence, the interior of gold atoms are toruses, no nucleus.
> > 3) Too stupid in logic to understand subatomic particles have jobs and tasks to do, not sit around on beaches sipping lemonade what Old Physics says. The proton is a 8 ring torus with muon as electron inside doing the Faraday law producing new electricity.
> > 4) Too stupid to understand stars and our Sun shine not from fusion but from Faraday law of each and every atom inside that star.
> >
> > 5) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
> > 6) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction
> > 7) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"
> > 8) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sapheads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez,
> > > > Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish
> > > > David J. Thouless_, F. Duncan M. Haldane, John M. Kosterlitz, Takaaki Kajita
> > > > Arthur B. McDonald
> > > > Francois Englert
> > > > Saul Perlmutter
> > > > Brian P. Schmidt
> > > > Adam G. Riess
> > > > Makoto Kobayashi
> > > > Toshihide Maskawa_
> > > > Yoichiro Nambu_
> > > > John C. Mather
> > > > George F. Smoot
> > > > Roy J. Glauber_
> > > > David J. Gross
> > > > Hugh David Politzer
> > > > Frank Wilczek
> > > > Raymond Davis Jr. _
> > > > Masatoshi Koshiba_
> > > > Riccardo Giacconi_
> > > > Gerardus 't Hooft
> > > > Martinus J.G. Veltman_
> > > > Jerome I. Friedman
> > > > Henry W. Kendall_
> > > > Richard E. Taylor_
> > > > Carlo Rubbia
> > > > Simon van der Meer_
> > > > William Alfred Fowler_
> > > > Kenneth G. Wilson_
> > > > James Watson Cronin_
> > > > Val Logsdon Fitch_
> > > > Sheldon Lee Glashow
> > > > Steven Weinberg_
> > > > .
> > > > .
> > > > little fishes
> > > > .
> > > > .
> > > > Layers of error thinking physics Re: 2-Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = subtraction of either 3 or 2, while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV
> > > >
> > > > Physical Review Letters: Proton Mass
> > > > Yi-Bo Yang, Jian Liang, Yu-Jiang Bi, Ying Chen, Terrence Draper, Keh-Fei Liu, Zhaofeng Liu
> > > > more and more layers of error thinking physics
> > > > .
> > > > .
> > > > Edward Witten
> > > > John Baez
> > > > Brian Greene
> > > > Lisa Randall
> > > > Alan H. Guth
> > > > Michael E. Brown
> > > > Konstantin Batygin
> > > > Ben Bullock
> > > > Larry Harson
> > > > Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
> > > > Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views
> > > > None at all - he was a raving nutter.
> > > > Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley
> > > > Jennifer Kahn, Discover, science hater
> > > > Eric Francis Coppolino, newsreporter hatred of science, George Witte, St.Martin's Press science hater
> > > > Toby Howard, The Guardian, science hater
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > #2-1, 137th published book
> > > >
> > > > Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > #1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory
> > > >
> > > > This will be AP's 137th published book on science. And the number 137 is special to me for it is the number of QED, Quantum Electrodynamics as the inverse fine structure constant. I can always remember 137 as that special constant of physics and so I can remember where Teaching True Physics was started by me.
> > > >
> > > > Time has come for the world to have the authoritative textbooks for all of High School and College education. Written by the leading physics expert of the time. The last such was Feynman in the 1960s with Feynman Lectures on Physics. The time before was Maxwell in 1860s with his books and Encyclopedia Britannica editorship. The time is ripe in 2020 for the new authoritative texts on physics. It will be started in 2020 which is 60 years after Feynman. In the future, I request the physics community updates the premier physics textbook series at least every 30 years. For we can see that pattern of 30 years approximately from Faraday in 1830 to Maxwell in 1860 to Planck and Rutherford in about 1900, to Dirac in 1930 to Feynman in 1960 and finally to AP in 1990 and 2020. So much happens in physics after 30 years, that we need the revisions to take place in a timely manner. But also, as we move to Internet publishing such as Amazon's Kindle, we can see that updates can take place very fast, as editing can be a ongoing monthly or yearly activity. I for one keep constantly updating all my published books, at least I try to.
> > > >
> > > > Feynman was the best to make the last authoritative textbook series for his concentration was QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, the pinnacle peak of physics during the 20th century. Of course the Atom Totality theory took over after 1990 and all of physics; for all sciences are under the Atom Totality theory.
> > > > And as QED was the pinnacle peak before 1990, the new pinnacle peak is the Atom Totality theory. The Atom Totality theory is the advancement of QED, for the Atom Totality theory primal axiom says -- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
> > > > Length: 64 pages
> > > >
> > > > Product details
> > > > • File Size : 790 KB
> > > > • Publication Date : October 5, 2020
> > > > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > > > • Print Length : 64 pages
> > > > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> > > > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > > > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> > > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > > > • Language: : English
> > > > • ASIN : B08KS4YGWY
> > > > • Lending : Enabled
> > > > • Best Sellers Rank: #430,602 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > > > ◦ #39 in Electromagnetic Theory
> > > > ◦ #73 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
> > > > ◦ #74 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> > > >
> > > > #2-2, 145th published book
> > > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2
> > > > Kindle Edition
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes and errors and beliefs that clutter up physics. Clearing it of its fraud and fakeries and con-artistry. I thought of doing these textbooks starting with Senior year High School, wherein I myself started learning physics. But because of so much fraud and fakery in physics education, I believe we have to drop down to Junior year High School to make a drastic and dramatic emphasis on fakery and con-artistry that so much pervades science and physics in particular. So that we have two years in High School to learn physics. And discard the nonsense of physics brainwash that Old Physics filled the halls and corridors of education.
> > > >
> > > > Product details
> > > > • ASIN : B08PC99JJB
> > > > • Publication date : November 29, 2020
> > > > • Language: : English
> > > > • File size : 682 KB
> > > > • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> > > > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > > > • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> > > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > > > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > > > • Print length : 78 pages
> > > > • Lending : Enabled
> > > > • Best Sellers Rank: #185,995 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > > > ◦ #42 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
> > > > ◦ #344 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > > > ◦ #2,160 in Physics (Books)
> > > >
> > > > #2-3, 146th published book
> > > >
> > > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Senior High School// Physics textbook series, book 3
> > > > Kindle Edition
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > >
> > > > I believe that in knowing the history of a science is knowing half of that science. And that if you are amiss of knowing the history behind a science, you have only a partial understanding of the concepts and ideas behind the science. I further believe it is easier to teach a science by teaching its history than any other means of teaching. So for senior year High School, I believe physics history is the best way of teaching physics. And in later years of physics courses, we can always pick up on details. So I devote this senior year High School physics to a history of physics, but only true physics. And there are few books written on the history of physics, so I chose Asimov's The History of Physics, 1966 as the template book for this textbook. Now Asimov's book is full of error and mistakes, and that is disappointing but all of Old Physics is full of error. On errors and mistakes of Old Physics, the best I can do is warn the students, and the largest warning of all is that whenever someone in Old Physics says "electron" what they are talking about is really the Dirac magnetic monopole. And whenever they talk about the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom, they are talking about huge huge grave mistakes, for the true atom is protons as 8 ringed toruses with a muon stuck inside of a proton doing the Faraday law and producing those magnetic monopoles as electricity. I use Asimov's book as a template but in the future, I hope to rewrite this textbook using no template at all, that is if I have time in the future.
> > > > Cover Picture: Is the book The History of Physics, by Isaac Asimov, 1966 and on top of the book are 4 cut-outs of bent circles representing magnetic monopoles which revolutionizes modern physics, especially the ElectroMagnetic theory.
> > > >
> > > > Product details
> > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08RK33T8V
> > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 28, 2020
> > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 794 KB
> > > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 123 pages
> > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • Best Sellers Rank: #4,167,235 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > > > ◦ #15,099 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > > > ◦ #91,163 in Physics (Books)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > #2-4, 151st published book
> > > >
> > > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4
> > > > Kindle Edition
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > >
> > > > Preface: This is AP's 151st book of science published. It is one of my most important books of science because 1st year college physics is so impressionable on students, if they should continue with physics, or look elsewhere for a career. And also, physics is a crossroad to all the other hard core sciences, where physics course is mandatory such as in chemistry or even biology. I have endeavored to make physics 1st year college to be as easy and simple to learn. In this endeavor to make physics super easy, I have made the writing such that you will see core ideas in all capital letters as single sentences as a educational tool. And I have made this textbook chapter writing follow a logical pattern of both algebra and geometry concepts, throughout. The utmost importance of logic in physics needs to be seen and understood. For I have never seen a physics book, prior to this one that is logical. Every Old Physics textbook I have seen is scatter-brained in topics and in writing. I use as template book of Halliday & Resnick because a edition of H&R was one I was taught physics at University of Cincinnati in 1969. And in 1969, I had a choice of majors, do I major in geology, or mathematics, or in physics, for I will graduate from UC in 1972. For me, geology was too easy, but physics was too tough, so I ended up majoring in mathematics. If I had been taught in 1969 using this textbook that I have written, I would have ended up majoring in physics, my first love. For physics is not hard, not hard at all, once you clear out the mistakes and the obnoxious worthless mathematics that clutters up Old Physics, and the illogic that smothers much of Old Physics.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe it was good that I had those impressions of physics education of poor education, which still exists throughout physics today. Because maybe I am forced to write this book, because of that awful experience of learning physics in 1969. Without that awful experience, maybe this textbook would have never been written by me.
> > > >
> > > > Cover picture is the template book of Halliday & Resnick, 1988, 3rd edition Fundamentals of Physics and sitting on top are cut outs of "half bent circles, bent at 90 degrees" to imitate magnetic monopoles. Magnetic Monopoles revolutionizes physics education, and separates-out, what is Old Physics from what is New Physics.
> > > >
> > > > Product details
> > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09JW5DVYM
> > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ October 19, 2021
> > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1035 KB
> > > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 386 pages
> > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • Best Sellers Rank: #4,874,333 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > > > ◦ #526 in Electromagnetic Theory
> > > > ◦ #1,321 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
> > > > ◦ #9,546 in Electromagnetism (Books)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > #2-5, 174th published book
> > > >
> > > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 2nd year College
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition
> > > >
> > > > Preface: At the moment this is a physics book for 2nd year College. But as the months and years go by I intend to convert it into a textbook of about 200 to 300 pages. It is mostly about thermodynamics for in my own college education 1968-1972 at University of Cincinnati, I took physics thermodynamics in the 2nd year (if memory has not failed me).
> > > > Cover-Picture: Is a iphone photograph of the Chemistry textbook I used at UC 1968-1972 with my own paper cut-outs of magnetic monopoles. Pictured are 4 bent circles, bent at 90degrees from diameter and each bent circle is a individual magnetic monopole.
> > > >
> > > > Product details
> > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09TKL4HMC
> > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 27, 2022
> > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 675 KB
> > > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 41 pages
> > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > #2-6, 177th published book
> > > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Architecture of Atoms, 3rd year College
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition
> > > >
> > > > Preface: I come to teaching physics for 3rd year College as the Architecture of Atoms. My writing style will be prose-narrative, until I add on exercise problems and convert it into a textbook. The 1st year College, has to be the equations and laws of electricity and magnetism. For the primal-axiom over all of physics is-- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. The 2nd year College is thermodynamics. And now the 3rd year College physics has to teach the Architecture, the geometry of the inside and exterior surface of the atom. One of the greatest faults, misery, and anti-science teaching of Old Physics is their denial that subatomic particles have to be something more than tiny balls tiny spheres that do-nothing, perform nothing, function as nothing. That the proton and neutron and true electron=muon, has to be matter with a function and purpose and design and task and job. This is a year of physics teaching of the architecture of the atom.
> > > > Cover Picture: A iphone photograph of my book chemistry book, a long time favorite of mine of CHEM ONE, 2nd edition, Waser, Trueblood, Knobler, 1980, and page 307 of that book. Why this page? Because it was instrumental in my discovery of the true Architecture of Atoms. Not many professors of chemistry or physics dive into the Shrodinger Equation that results in a meaningful teaching of "matter waves". Matter waves are the heart of understanding the geometry of Atomic Architecture.
> > > >
> > > > Product details
> > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09VFH9QST
> > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2022
> > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 823 KB
> > > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 74 pages
> > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > #2-7, 178th published book
> > > >
> > > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Architecture of Light Waves & Energy, 4th year College
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Kindle edition)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Preface: This is 4th year College Physics and the important ideas of physics to learn as last year undergraduate school is the architecture and geometry of the Light Wave & Energy in physics. This is New Physics and not Old Physics. New Physics is defined as physics that knows and uses the true electron of atoms is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus and doing the Faraday law, creating new electrical energy that is storaged in the neutrons of atoms until they grow from 1eV into 945MeV and then create a new higher atomic numbered atom or emitted as radioactivity. Old Physics mistakenly identified the electron of atoms as the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole. In 3rd year College we studied the architecture of the interior of atoms. In 4th year College we study the architecture of Light Waves & Energy.
> > > >
> > > > The template book for 4th year College is Feynman's 1985 book of QED.
> > > >
> > > > Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of the template book for this book. Feynman's 1985 QED, quantum electrodynamics, showing my plastic toy model of DNA and my cut-outs of 4 bent circles that each bent circle represents one magnetic monopole. I arranged the monopoles into a single strand of a cycloid wave.
> > > >
> > > > Product details
> > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09W58XGDW
> > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 21, 2022
> > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 824 KB
> > > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 66 pages
> > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> > Dan Christensen's profile photo
> > Dan Christensen
> > , …
> > Mild Shock
> > 24
> > unread,
> > A Paradox of Equality?
> > Omg. 60 Lines. Currently you dont have any de Morgan for bi-implicaion. You only have the one
> > 2:25 PM
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >
> > ETH Zurich
> >
> > Joel Mesot, Gunther Dissertori
> >
> > Paul Biran, Marc Burger, Patrick Cheridito, Manfred Einsiedler, Paul Embrechts
> > Giovanni Felder, Alessio Figalli, Norbert Hungerbuhler, Tom Ilmanen, Horst Knorrer
> > Emmanuel Kowalski
> > Urs Lang
> > Rahul Pandharipande
> > Richard Pink
> > Tristan Riviere
> > Dietmar Salamon
> > Martin Schweizer
> > Mete Soner
> > Michael Struwe
> > Benjamin Sudakov
> > Alain Sznitman
> > Josef Teichmann
> > Wendelin Werner
> > Thomas Willwacher
> >
> > Zurich ETH, physics dept
> > Charalampos Anastasiou, Niklas Beisert, Adrian Biland, Gianni Blatter, Marcella Carollo, Christian Degen, Leonardo Degiorgi, Gunther Dissertori, Klaus Ensslin, Tilman Esslinger, Jerome Faist, Matthias Gaberdiel, Aude Gehrmann-De Ridder, Vadim Geshkenbein, Christophorus Grab, Michele Graf, Jonathan Home, Roland Horisberger, Sebastian Huber, Thomas Markus Ihn, Atac Imamoglu, Steven Johnson, Ursula Keller, Klaus Kirch, Simon Lilly, Joel Mesot, Renatto Renner, Andre Rubbia, Werner Schmutz, Thomas Schulthess, Manfred Sigrist, Hans-Arno Synal, Matthias Troyer, Andreas Vaterlaus, Rainer Wallny, Andreas Wallraff, Werner Wegscheider, Audrey Zheludev, Oded Zilberberg
> >
> >
> > University Bern
> > Christian Leumann
> > Walter Benjamin
> > Emil Theodor Kocher
> > Kurt Wuthrich
> > Daniel Vassella
> > Rene Fasel
> > Mani Matter

4-Jan Burse's Omg University Bern,Christian Leumann, Walter Benjamin, ETH Gunther Dissertori, Klaus Ensslin, Tilman Esslinger
> >
> >
4-Jan Burse-- Swiss hate monger and defiler demonizer of others-- his Google Search hate sheet on AP
> >
4-Still there--- Burse's demonization and defiling of AP in a Google Search---
4>
4> ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM BANNED from. Dartmouth canteen. His wheelchair is too wide, he doesn't pass the entrance. ...Mostowski Collapse's profile photo....
> >
> >
4- One would have thought Switzerland was a polite society, well, until they meet Jan Burse.

Mostowski Collapse (Jan Burse)
Dan Christensen

35
unread,
Is DC Proof a bee logic or a spider logic?
On Thursday, June 8, 2023 at 3:17:10 PM UTC-4, Mild Shock wrote: > Its not a formalization that
4:47 PM

William's profile photo
William
, …
Chris M. Thomasson
234
unread,
WM Logic
On 6/8/2023 2:00 PM, WM wrote: > William schrieb am Donnerstag, 8. Juni 2023 um 20:39:12 UTC+2:
4:46 PM


Chris M. Thomasson's profile photo
Chris M. Thomasson
, …
Dan joyce
6 Re: Chris claims Sarmat RS-28 is on 8-bit computer-- Chris does that mean a Sarmat can land on Europa and fly back to Earth?
4:34 PM

Dan joyce's profile photo
Dan joyce
, …
Chris M. Thomasson
70

> > > Jan Burse continues to defile and demonize AP on Google Search :
> > >
> > > Jan Burse defiling and demonizing nonstop for 20 years of AP:
> > >
> > > Still there--- Burse's demonization and defiling of AP in a Google Search---
> > >
> > > ARCHIMEDES PLUTONIUM BANNED from. Dartmouth canteen. His wheelchair is too wide, he doesn't pass the entrance. ...Mostowski Collapse's profile photo....
> > >
> > > Roland Horisberger, Sebastian Huber, Thomas Markus Ihn ever ask the question, which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle which AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole while the real electron is a muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. In fact so stupid is this list of so called physicists that they went through life believing the slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, when in reality it is a Oval of 1 axis of symmetry for the cone has 1 axis of symmetry but ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry. The minds of all these so called physicists are not good enough to be doing physics. In fact, so stupid in science and math are all these people that when told in High School or College that a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, they believed it, and believe in it to this day without so much as ever questioning the idea that a single cone and oval have just 1 axis of symmetry while ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, and yet many on this list were awarded science prizes. Maybe for ignorance of science but not for truth of science.
> > >
> > > 1) Too stupid to question if Thomson found Dirac's magnetic monopole and not the electron of atoms.
> > > 2) Too stupid to realize that in the Rutherford,Geiger, Marsden Experiment when you have increase in velocity of bounce back alpha particles means head on collision with a larger proton torus, hence, the interior of gold atoms are toruses, no nucleus.
> > > 3) Too stupid in logic to understand subatomic particles have jobs and tasks to do, not sit around on beaches sipping lemonade what Old Physics says. The proton is a 8 ring torus with muon as electron inside doing the Faraday law producing new electricity.
> > > 4) Too stupid to understand stars and our Sun shine not from fusion but from Faraday law of each and every atom inside that star.
> > >
> > > 5) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
> > > 6) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction
> > > 7) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"
> > > 8) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sapheads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez,
> > > > > Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish
> > > > > David J. Thouless_, F. Duncan M. Haldane, John M. Kosterlitz, Takaaki Kajita
> > > > > Arthur B. McDonald
> > > > > Francois Englert
> > > > > Saul Perlmutter
> > > > > Brian P. Schmidt
> > > > > Adam G. Riess
> > > > > Makoto Kobayashi
> > > > > Toshihide Maskawa_
> > > > > Yoichiro Nambu_
> > > > > John C. Mather
> > > > > George F. Smoot
> > > > > Roy J. Glauber_
> > > > > David J. Gross
> > > > > Hugh David Politzer
> > > > > Frank Wilczek
> > > > > Raymond Davis Jr. _
> > > > > Masatoshi Koshiba_
> > > > > Riccardo Giacconi_
> > > > > Gerardus 't Hooft
> > > > > Martinus J.G. Veltman_
> > > > > Jerome I. Friedman
> > > > > Henry W. Kendall_
> > > > > Richard E. Taylor_
> > > > > Carlo Rubbia
> > > > > Simon van der Meer_
> > > > > William Alfred Fowler_
> > > > > Kenneth G. Wilson_
> > > > > James Watson Cronin_
> > > > > Val Logsdon Fitch_
> > > > > Sheldon Lee Glashow
> > > > > Steven Weinberg_
> > > > > .
> > > > > .
> > > > > little fishes
> > > > > .
> > > > > .
> > > > > Layers of error thinking physics Re: 2-Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = subtraction of either 3 or 2, while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV
> > > > >
> > > > > Physical Review Letters: Proton Mass
> > > > > Yi-Bo Yang, Jian Liang, Yu-Jiang Bi, Ying Chen, Terrence Draper, Keh-Fei Liu, Zhaofeng Liu
> > > > > more and more layers of error thinking physics
> > > > > .
> > > > > .
> > > > > Edward Witten
> > > > > John Baez
> > > > > Brian Greene
> > > > > Lisa Randall
> > > > > Alan H. Guth
> > > > > Michael E. Brown
> > > > > Konstantin Batygin
> > > > > Ben Bullock
> > > > > Larry Harson
> > > > > Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
> > > > > Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views
> > > > > None at all - he was a raving nutter.
> > > > > Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley
> > > > > Jennifer Kahn, Discover, science hater
> > > > > Eric Francis Coppolino, newsreporter hatred of science, George Witte, St.Martin's Press science hater
> > > > > Toby Howard, The Guardian, science hater
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > #2-1, 137th published book
> > > > >
> > > > > Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > #1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory
> > > > >
> > > > > This will be AP's 137th published book on science. And the number 137 is special to me for it is the number of QED, Quantum Electrodynamics as the inverse fine structure constant. I can always remember 137 as that special constant of physics and so I can remember where Teaching True Physics was started by me.
> > > > >
> > > > > Time has come for the world to have the authoritative textbooks for all of High School and College education. Written by the leading physics expert of the time. The last such was Feynman in the 1960s with Feynman Lectures on Physics. The time before was Maxwell in 1860s with his books and Encyclopedia Britannica editorship. The time is ripe in 2020 for the new authoritative texts on physics. It will be started in 2020 which is 60 years after Feynman. In the future, I request the physics community updates the premier physics textbook series at least every 30 years. For we can see that pattern of 30 years approximately from Faraday in 1830 to Maxwell in 1860 to Planck and Rutherford in about 1900, to Dirac in 1930 to Feynman in 1960 and finally to AP in 1990 and 2020. So much happens in physics after 30 years, that we need the revisions to take place in a timely manner. But also, as we move to Internet publishing such as Amazon's Kindle, we can see that updates can take place very fast, as editing can be a ongoing monthly or yearly activity. I for one keep constantly updating all my published books, at least I try to.
> > > > >
> > > > > Feynman was the best to make the last authoritative textbook series for his concentration was QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, the pinnacle peak of physics during the 20th century. Of course the Atom Totality theory took over after 1990 and all of physics; for all sciences are under the Atom Totality theory.
> > > > > And as QED was the pinnacle peak before 1990, the new pinnacle peak is the Atom Totality theory. The Atom Totality theory is the advancement of QED, for the Atom Totality theory primal axiom says -- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
> > > > > Length: 64 pages
> > > > >
> > > > > Product details
> > > > > • File Size : 790 KB
> > > > > • Publication Date : October 5, 2020
> > > > > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > > > > • Print Length : 64 pages
> > > > > • Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
> > > > > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > > > > • Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
> > > > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > > > > • Language: : English
> > > > > • ASIN : B08KS4YGWY
> > > > > • Lending : Enabled
> > > > > • Best Sellers Rank: #430,602 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > > > > ◦ #39 in Electromagnetic Theory
> > > > > ◦ #73 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
> > > > > ◦ #74 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> > > > >
> > > > > #2-2, 145th published book
> > > > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2
> > > > > Kindle Edition
> > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > > What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes and errors and beliefs that clutter up physics. Clearing it of its fraud and fakeries and con-artistry. I thought of doing these textbooks starting with Senior year High School, wherein I myself started learning physics. But because of so much fraud and fakery in physics education, I believe we have to drop down to Junior year High School to make a drastic and dramatic emphasis on fakery and con-artistry that so much pervades science and physics in particular. So that we have two years in High School to learn physics. And discard the nonsense of physics brainwash that Old Physics filled the halls and corridors of education.
> > > > >
> > > > > Product details
> > > > > • ASIN : B08PC99JJB
> > > > > • Publication date : November 29, 2020
> > > > > • Language: : English
> > > > > • File size : 682 KB
> > > > > • Text-to-Speech : Enabled
> > > > > • Screen Reader : Supported
> > > > > • Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
> > > > > • X-Ray : Not Enabled
> > > > > • Word Wise : Enabled
> > > > > • Print length : 78 pages
> > > > > • Lending : Enabled
> > > > > • Best Sellers Rank: #185,995 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > > > > ◦ #42 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
> > > > > ◦ #344 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > > > > ◦ #2,160 in Physics (Books)
> > > > >
> > > > > #2-3, 146th published book
> > > > >
> > > > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Senior High School// Physics textbook series, book 3
> > > > > Kindle Edition
> > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > >
> > > > > I believe that in knowing the history of a science is knowing half of that science. And that if you are amiss of knowing the history behind a science, you have only a partial understanding of the concepts and ideas behind the science. I further believe it is easier to teach a science by teaching its history than any other means of teaching. So for senior year High School, I believe physics history is the best way of teaching physics. And in later years of physics courses, we can always pick up on details. So I devote this senior year High School physics to a history of physics, but only true physics. And there are few books written on the history of physics, so I chose Asimov's The History of Physics, 1966 as the template book for this textbook. Now Asimov's book is full of error and mistakes, and that is disappointing but all of Old Physics is full of error. On errors and mistakes of Old Physics, the best I can do is warn the students, and the largest warning of all is that whenever someone in Old Physics says "electron" what they are talking about is really the Dirac magnetic monopole. And whenever they talk about the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom, they are talking about huge huge grave mistakes, for the true atom is protons as 8 ringed toruses with a muon stuck inside of a proton doing the Faraday law and producing those magnetic monopoles as electricity. I use Asimov's book as a template but in the future, I hope to rewrite this textbook using no template at all, that is if I have time in the future.
> > > > > Cover Picture: Is the book The History of Physics, by Isaac Asimov, 1966 and on top of the book are 4 cut-outs of bent circles representing magnetic monopoles which revolutionizes modern physics, especially the ElectroMagnetic theory.
> > > > >
> > > > > Product details
> > > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08RK33T8V
> > > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 28, 2020
> > > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 794 KB
> > > > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 123 pages
> > > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > • Best Sellers Rank: #4,167,235 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > > > > ◦ #15,099 in Physics (Kindle Store)
> > > > > ◦ #91,163 in Physics (Books)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > #2-4, 151st published book
> > > > >
> > > > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4
> > > > > Kindle Edition
> > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > >
> > > > > Preface: This is AP's 151st book of science published. It is one of my most important books of science because 1st year college physics is so impressionable on students, if they should continue with physics, or look elsewhere for a career. And also, physics is a crossroad to all the other hard core sciences, where physics course is mandatory such as in chemistry or even biology. I have endeavored to make physics 1st year college to be as easy and simple to learn. In this endeavor to make physics super easy, I have made the writing such that you will see core ideas in all capital letters as single sentences as a educational tool. And I have made this textbook chapter writing follow a logical pattern of both algebra and geometry concepts, throughout. The utmost importance of logic in physics needs to be seen and understood. For I have never seen a physics book, prior to this one that is logical. Every Old Physics textbook I have seen is scatter-brained in topics and in writing. I use as template book of Halliday & Resnick because a edition of H&R was one I was taught physics at University of Cincinnati in 1969. And in 1969, I had a choice of majors, do I major in geology, or mathematics, or in physics, for I will graduate from UC in 1972. For me, geology was too easy, but physics was too tough, so I ended up majoring in mathematics. If I had been taught in 1969 using this textbook that I have written, I would have ended up majoring in physics, my first love. For physics is not hard, not hard at all, once you clear out the mistakes and the obnoxious worthless mathematics that clutters up Old Physics, and the illogic that smothers much of Old Physics.
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe it was good that I had those impressions of physics education of poor education, which still exists throughout physics today. Because maybe I am forced to write this book, because of that awful experience of learning physics in 1969. Without that awful experience, maybe this textbook would have never been written by me.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cover picture is the template book of Halliday & Resnick, 1988, 3rd edition Fundamentals of Physics and sitting on top are cut outs of "half bent circles, bent at 90 degrees" to imitate magnetic monopoles. Magnetic Monopoles revolutionizes physics education, and separates-out, what is Old Physics from what is New Physics.
> > > > >
> > > > > Product details
> > > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09JW5DVYM
> > > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ October 19, 2021
> > > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 1035 KB
> > > > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 386 pages
> > > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > • Best Sellers Rank: #4,874,333 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
> > > > > ◦ #526 in Electromagnetic Theory
> > > > > ◦ #1,321 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
> > > > > ◦ #9,546 in Electromagnetism (Books)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > #2-5, 174th published book
> > > > >
> > > > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 2nd year College
> > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition
> > > > >
> > > > > Preface: At the moment this is a physics book for 2nd year College. But as the months and years go by I intend to convert it into a textbook of about 200 to 300 pages. It is mostly about thermodynamics for in my own college education 1968-1972 at University of Cincinnati, I took physics thermodynamics in the 2nd year (if memory has not failed me).
> > > > > Cover-Picture: Is a iphone photograph of the Chemistry textbook I used at UC 1968-1972 with my own paper cut-outs of magnetic monopoles. Pictured are 4 bent circles, bent at 90degrees from diameter and each bent circle is a individual magnetic monopole.
> > > > >
> > > > > Product details
> > > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09TKL4HMC
> > > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 27, 2022
> > > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 675 KB
> > > > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 41 pages
> > > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > #2-6, 177th published book
> > > > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Architecture of Atoms, 3rd year College
> > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition
> > > > >
> > > > > Preface: I come to teaching physics for 3rd year College as the Architecture of Atoms. My writing style will be prose-narrative, until I add on exercise problems and convert it into a textbook. The 1st year College, has to be the equations and laws of electricity and magnetism. For the primal-axiom over all of physics is-- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. The 2nd year College is thermodynamics. And now the 3rd year College physics has to teach the Architecture, the geometry of the inside and exterior surface of the atom. One of the greatest faults, misery, and anti-science teaching of Old Physics is their denial that subatomic particles have to be something more than tiny balls tiny spheres that do-nothing, perform nothing, function as nothing. That the proton and neutron and true electron=muon, has to be matter with a function and purpose and design and task and job. This is a year of physics teaching of the architecture of the atom.
> > > > > Cover Picture: A iphone photograph of my book chemistry book, a long time favorite of mine of CHEM ONE, 2nd edition, Waser, Trueblood, Knobler, 1980, and page 307 of that book. Why this page? Because it was instrumental in my discovery of the true Architecture of Atoms. Not many professors of chemistry or physics dive into the Shrodinger Equation that results in a meaningful teaching of "matter waves". Matter waves are the heart of understanding the geometry of Atomic Architecture.
> > > > >
> > > > > Product details
> > > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09VFH9QST
> > > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2022
> > > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 823 KB
> > > > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 74 pages
> > > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > #2-7, 178th published book
> > > > >
> > > > > TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Architecture of Light Waves & Energy, 4th year College
> > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Kindle edition)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Preface: This is 4th year College Physics and the important ideas of physics to learn as last year undergraduate school is the architecture and geometry of the Light Wave & Energy in physics. This is New Physics and not Old Physics. New Physics is defined as physics that knows and uses the true electron of atoms is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus and doing the Faraday law, creating new electrical energy that is storaged in the neutrons of atoms until they grow from 1eV into 945MeV and then create a new higher atomic numbered atom or emitted as radioactivity. Old Physics mistakenly identified the electron of atoms as the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole. In 3rd year College we studied the architecture of the interior of atoms. In 4th year College we study the architecture of Light Waves & Energy.
> > > > >
> > > > > The template book for 4th year College is Feynman's 1985 book of QED.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of the template book for this book. Feynman's 1985 QED, quantum electrodynamics, showing my plastic toy model of DNA and my cut-outs of 4 bent circles that each bent circle represents one magnetic monopole. I arranged the monopoles into a single strand of a cycloid wave.
> > > > >
> > > > > Product details
> > > > > • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09W58XGDW
> > > > > • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 21, 2022
> > > > > • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> > > > > • File size ‏ : ‎ 824 KB
> > > > > • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> > > > > • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> > > > > • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > > • Print length ‏ : ‎ 66 pages
> > > > > • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > > Dan Christensen's profile photo
> > > Dan Christensen
> > > , …
> > > Mild Shock
> > > 24
> > > unread,
> > > A Paradox of Equality?
> > > Omg. 60 Lines. Currently you dont have any de Morgan for bi-implicaion. You only have the one
> > > 2:25 PM
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >
> > > ETH Zurich
> > >
> > > Joel Mesot, Gunther Dissertori
> > >
> > > Paul Biran, Marc Burger, Patrick Cheridito, Manfred Einsiedler, Paul Embrechts
> > > Giovanni Felder, Alessio Figalli, Norbert Hungerbuhler, Tom Ilmanen, Horst Knorrer
> > > Emmanuel Kowalski
> > > Urs Lang
> > > Rahul Pandharipande
> > > Richard Pink
> > > Tristan Riviere
> > > Dietmar Salamon
> > > Martin Schweizer
> > > Mete Soner
> > > Michael Struwe
> > > Benjamin Sudakov
> > > Alain Sznitman
> > > Josef Teichmann
> > > Wendelin Werner
> > > Thomas Willwacher
> > >
> > > Zurich ETH, physics dept
> > > Charalampos Anastasiou, Niklas Beisert, Adrian Biland, Gianni Blatter, Marcella Carollo, Christian Degen, Leonardo Degiorgi, Gunther Dissertori, Klaus Ensslin, Tilman Esslinger, Jerome Faist, Matthias Gaberdiel, Aude Gehrmann-De Ridder, Vadim Geshkenbein, Christophorus Grab, Michele Graf, Jonathan Home, Roland Horisberger, Sebastian Huber, Thomas Markus Ihn, Atac Imamoglu, Steven Johnson, Ursula Keller, Klaus Kirch, Simon Lilly, Joel Mesot, Renatto Renner, Andre Rubbia, Werner Schmutz, Thomas Schulthess, Manfred Sigrist, Hans-Arno Synal, Matthias Troyer, Andreas Vaterlaus, Rainer Wallny, Andreas Wallraff, Werner Wegscheider, Audrey Zheludev, Oded Zilberberg
> > >
> > >
> > > University Bern
> > > Christian Leumann
> > > Walter Benjamin
> > > Emil Theodor Kocher
> > > Kurt Wuthrich
> > > Daniel Vassella
> > > Rene Fasel
> > > Mani Matter

Can_Dr.Rainer Wallny,Dr.Klaus Kirch,Dr.Ursula Keller,Dr.Simon Lilly, -please--step into their ETH Zurich 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.
>
>
> ETH Zurich
>
> Joel Mesot, Gunther Dissertori
> Paul Biran, Marc Burger, Patrick Cheridito, Manfred Einsiedler, Paul Embrechts
> Giovanni Felder, Alessio Figalli, Norbert Hungerbuhler, Tom Ilmanen, Horst Knorrer
> Emmanuel Kowalski
> Urs Lang
> Rahul Pandharipande
> Richard Pink
> Tristan Riviere
> Dietmar Salamon
> Martin Schweizer
> Mete Soner
> Michael Struwe
> Benjamin Sudakov
> Alain Sznitman
> Josef Teichmann
> Wendelin Werner
> Thomas Willwacher
>
> Zurich ETH, physics dept
> Charalampos Anastasiou, Niklas Beisert, Adrian Biland, Gianni Blatter, Marcella Carollo, Christian Degen, Leonardo Degiorgi, Gunther Dissertori, Klaus Ensslin, Tilman Esslinger, Jerome Faist, Matthias Gaberdiel, Aude Gehrmann-De Ridder, Vadim Geshkenbein, Christophorus Grab, Michele Graf, Jonathan Home, Roland Horisberger, Sebastian Huber, Thomas Markus Ihn, Atac Imamoglu, Steven Johnson, Ursula Keller, Klaus Kirch, Simon Lilly, Joel Mesot, Renatto Renner, Andre Rubbia, Werner Schmutz, Thomas Schulthess, Manfred Sigrist, Hans-Arno Synal, Matthias Troyer, Andreas Vaterlaus, Rainer Wallny, Andreas Wallraff, Werner Wegscheider, Audrey Zheludev, Oded Zilberberg
> The mindless logic failure Jan Burse spamming sci.math for almost 3 decades.
>
> Mild Shock (Jan Burse) profile photo
> Mild Shock
> ,... 25Jul2023
> Dan Christensen
> 7
> The Revenge Paradox in DC Proof
>
>
>
>
>
> > > 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??
> > > +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
> > >
> > >
>
> > >
> > > Everything Jan Burse or Dan Christensen do in logic-- worthless until they recognize and accept the fact that Boole messed up bigtime, for he screwed up AND with OR, and his logic truth tables are a pile of shit. But Dan and Jan have shit for brains and keep on keeping on with their moron logic 2 OR 3 = 5 with 3 AND 2 resulting in 1.
> > >
> > > Re: *Fire the entire Univ Western Ontario math dept/ still teaching that the contradictory sine graph as sinusoid when it is really semicircle
> > > by Dan Christensen Nov 21, 2017,
> > >
> > > Re: 81,045-Student victims of Rose M. Patten Univ Toronto from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Univ Toronto, physics, Gordon F. West, Michael B. Walker
> > > by Frank Cassa 12Apr2021 7:00 AM
> > >
> > >
> > > Re: 77,233 Student victims of Lawrence Bacow's Harvard from stalker Kibo Parry Moroney with his 938 is 12% short 945, his 10 OR 4 = 14 with AND as subtraction, and his mindless belief real electron = 0.5MeV when true electron is muon
> > > 11:57 AM 10Apr2021
> > > by Wayne Decarlo
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Re: 7,744-Student victims of Linda Hasenfratz Univ Western Ontario from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz President Alan Shepard
> > > 11:53 AM 10Apr2021
> > > by Wayne Decarlo
> > >
> > > Re: 102,852-Student victims of Dominic Barton, Univ Waterloo from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Dominic Barton, President Feridun Hamdullahpur physics
> > > by konyberg Apr 15, 2021, 3:09:41 PM
> > >
> > > Re: 176,232-Student Victims of Michael Meighen McGill Univ by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus... 0.5MeV electron when in truth it is the muon as the real electron
> > > by Dan Christensen Jul 2, 2021, 9:47:42 AM
> > >
> > >
> > > Re: 135,568 Student victims Queen's Univ. James Leech, Arthur B. McDonald by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- his mindless electron =0.5MeV when real electron of
> > > May 10, 2021
> > > by Professor Wordsmith
> > >
> > >
> > > Re: 1.1Dr. John Baez is a failed mathematician-physicist with his proton of 938MeV when it is 840MeV, electron= muon //his ellipse is a conic when it never was// as phony in math and physics as kibo Parry Moroney's ellipse and Christensen 10 OR 4 =
> > > by Dan Christensen Sep 22, 2019, 9:54:06 AM
> > >
> > >
> > > 5th published book
> > >
> > > Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > >
> > > First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
> > >
> > > The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = 1, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
> > >
> > > My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
> > >
> > > Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
> > > Length: 63 pages
> > >
> > > File Size: 764 KB
> > > Print Length: 63 pages
> 
> > > 
> > > Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> > > Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> > > Language: English
> > > ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> > > Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> > > X-Ray: Not Enabled
> > > Word Wise: Not Enabled
> > > Lending: Enabled
> > > Screen Reader: Supported
> > > Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 1:05:37 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Can_Dr.Rainer Wallny,Dr.Klaus Kirch,Dr.Ursula Keller,Dr.Simon Lilly, -please--step into their ETH Zurich 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.

"Always the smartest person in the room, like Dick Cheney."

On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 12:33:43 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 1:05:37 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Can_Dr.Rainer Wallny,Dr.Klaus Kirch,Dr.Ursula Keller,Dr.Simon Lilly, -please--step into their ETH Zurich 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.
> "Always the smartest person in the room, like Dick Cheney."

"Do you really mean that?"
"No."

On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:55:03 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 12:33:43 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 1:05:37 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > Can_Dr.Rainer Wallny,Dr.Klaus Kirch,Dr.Ursula Keller,Dr.Simon Lilly, -please--step into their ETH Zurich 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.
> > "Always the smartest person in the room, like Dick Cheney."
> "Do you really mean that?"
> "No."

"But isn't he really smart?"
"Maybe he thinks so, a little too definitely."

On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 2:29:35 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:55:03 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 12:33:43 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 1:05:37 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > Can_Dr.Rainer Wallny,Dr.Klaus Kirch,Dr.Ursula Keller,Dr.Simon Lilly, -please--step into their ETH Zurich 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.
> > > "Always the smartest person in the room, like Dick Cheney."
> > "Do you really mean that?"
> > "No."
> "But isn't he really smart?"
> "Maybe he thinks so, a little too definitely."

Isn't this a well-attested "thinking error"?
"Yeah, but..."
Oh, so they call it by a "cute name"? Wow, so impressive.

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 8:36:48 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 2:29:35 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:55:03 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 12:33:43 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, July 26, 2023 at 1:05:37 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > > > Can_Dr.Rainer Wallny,Dr.Klaus Kirch,Dr.Ursula Keller,Dr.Simon Lilly, -please--step into their ETH Zurich 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.
> > > > "Always the smartest person in the room, like Dick Cheney."
> > > "Do you really mean that?"
> > > "No."
> > "But isn't he really smart?"
> > "Maybe he thinks so, a little too definitely."
> Isn't this a well-attested "thinking error"?
> "Yeah, but..."
> Oh, so they call it by a "cute name"? Wow, so impressive.

"They do."
"Do you automatically 'admire' their artificially elevated intellectual self-esteem, though?"

Re: *Fire the entire Univ Western Ontario math dept/ still teaching that the contradictory sine graph as sinusoid when it is really semicircle
by Dan Christensen Nov 21, 2017

Re: 135,566 Student victims Queen's Univ. James Leech, Arthur B. McDonald by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- his mindless electron =0.5MeV when real electron o
May 10, 2021
by Michael Moroney

Tom Zakharov Test banks on Spam.

Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Beal, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Gerald Edgar, AMS, no-one there can do a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, all they can offer is a limit analysis, so shoddy in logic they never realized that "analyzing" is not the same as "proving" for analyzing is much in the same as "measuring but not proving". And yet, none can do a geometry proof and the reason is quite clear for none can even see that the slant cut in single right-circular cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. So they could never do a geometry proof of FTC even if they wanted to. For they have no logical geometry brain to begin to do anything geometrical. Is it that Andrew Wiles and Terence Tao 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? Not having a Logical brain to do math, for any rational person would be upset by Wiles, Tao saying truth table of AND is TFFF when it actually is TTTF. Is that why neither Terence Tao or Andrew Wiles can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus?
>
> Maybe they need to take up Earle Jones offer to wash dishes or pots at Stanford Univ or where ever, for they sure cannot do mathematics.
> Why are these people failures of Math?? For none can even contemplate these 4 questions.
>
> 1) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
> 2) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction
> 3) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"
> 4) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sap-heads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.
>
>
> Is Jim Holt, Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan,
> John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason, more of propagandists and belong in "Abnormal Psychology" dept than in the department of logic, like Dan Christensen a laugh a minute logician? Probably because none can admit slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, due to axes of symmetry for cone and oval have 1 while ellipse has 2. Why they cannot even count beyond 1. Yet their minds were never good enough to see the error nor admit to their mistakes. They failed logic so badly they accept Boole's insane AND truth table of TFFF when it is TTTF avoiding the painful 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. Or is it because none of these logicians has a single marble of logic in their entire brain to realize calculus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not a "limit analysis" for analysis is like a measurement, not a proving exercise. Analysis does not prove, only adds data and facts, but never is a proof of itself. I analyze things daily, and none of which is a proof. So are all these logicians like what Clutterfreak the propaganda stooge says they are.
>
> 3rd published book
>
> AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> •
> •
>
> Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 14May2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
>
> Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
>
> In the course of 2019 through 2022, I have had to explain this proof often on Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics. And one thing that constant explaining does for a mind of science, is reduce the proof to its stripped down minimum format, to bare bones skeleton proof. I can prove the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse in just a one sentence proof. Proof-- A single cone and oval have just one axis of symmetry, while a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, hence slant cut is always a oval, never the ellipse.
>
> Product details
> • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
> • Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
> • Language ‏ : ‎ English
> • File size ‏ : ‎ 827 KB
> • Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
> • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> • Print length ‏ : ‎ 51 pages
> • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
>
> #12-2, 11th published book
>
> World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>
> Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
> Preface:
> Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
>
> Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis".. And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.
>
> To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
>
> Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
>
>
> Product details
> ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
> Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
> Language ‏ : ‎ English
> File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
> Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
> Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
> Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages
> Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
> Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
> #2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
> #134 in Calculus (Books)
> #20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

Can_Dr.Simon Lilly,Dr.Rainer Wallny,Dr.Klaus Kirch,Dr.Ursula Keller, -- -Please--step into their ETH Zurich 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.

Reduction:: 2H2O(liquid) + 2monopoles- ---> H2(gas) + 2OH- (aqueous) at cathode
Oxidation:: 2H2O(liquid) ----> O2(gas) + 4H+(aqueous) + 4monopole- at anode

My fear is on how to weigh the gases collecting in the test tubes, without contaminating the tubes upon weighing for mass. And this is probably why no-one in physics or chemistry ever thought to weigh the masses in atomic units for if AP is correct the hydrogen is 1/4 the oxygen in atomic mass units.. If dullard Jim and the Mainstream is correct, the hydrogen is 1/8 of the oxygen in amu.

Why does AP claim water must be H4O and the hydrogen atom is actually H2 and not H alone?? Because AP believes all science is Symmetrical, and that a proton with muon inside doing the Faraday law without at least 1 neutron working as a capacitor is Anti-symmetry. Thus, when H and H combine, one of the proton+muon inside the proton turns into a neutron-like capacitor for the other H.

And the Water Electrolysis Experiment is the perfect experiment to prove Water is H4O. It is as if all water is heavy water. And that deuterium is simply a H2 where the one H is fully a neutron. Nature does not find H all alone, not even in the Sun is the hydrogen H but rather H2 for H2 is Atomic Hydrogen.

Jim is both too dumb&lazy to ever look things up before opening big dumb mouth.

It is time for AP to put to work all the new chemistry textbooks I bought some years back.

The first one has an excellent account.

CHEMISTRY, Wilbraham, Staley, Matta, Waterman, 2008, page 680 gives an excellent picture and accounting what goes on in Water electrolysis.

Reduction:: 2H2O(liquid) + 2monopoles- ---> H2(gas) + 2OH- (aqueous) at cathode
Oxidation:: 2H2O(liquid) ----> O2(gas) + 4H+(aqueous) + 4monopole- at anode

Poor Jim seems to be stuck back at the ideal gas laws and not yet arrived at electrochemistry.

On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:01:10 PM UTC-5, Jim Pennino wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip 529 lines of repeated nonsense>
>
> Nothing left and AP still does not understand what pV = nRT means.

> > ETH Zurich
> >
> > Joel Mesot, Gunther Dissertori
> > Paul Biran, Marc Burger, Patrick Cheridito, Manfred Einsiedler, Paul Embrechts
> > Giovanni Felder, Alessio Figalli, Norbert Hungerbuhler, Tom Ilmanen, Horst Knorrer
> > Emmanuel Kowalski
> > Urs Lang
> > Rahul Pandharipande
> > Richard Pink
> > Tristan Riviere
> > Dietmar Salamon
> > Martin Schweizer
> > Mete Soner
> > Michael Struwe
> > Benjamin Sudakov
> > Alain Sznitman
> > Josef Teichmann
> > Wendelin Werner
> > Thomas Willwacher
> >
> > Zurich ETH, physics dept
> > Charalampos Anastasiou, Niklas Beisert, Adrian Biland, Gianni Blatter, Marcella Carollo, Christian Degen, Leonardo Degiorgi, Gunther Dissertori, Klaus Ensslin, Tilman Esslinger, Jerome Faist, Matthias Gaberdiel, Aude Gehrmann-De Ridder, Vadim Geshkenbein, Christophorus Grab, Michele Graf, Jonathan Home, Roland Horisberger, Sebastian Huber, Thomas Markus Ihn, Atac Imamoglu, Steven Johnson, Ursula Keller, Klaus Kirch, Simon Lilly, Joel Mesot, Renatto Renner, Andre Rubbia, Werner Schmutz, Thomas Schulthess, Manfred Sigrist, Hans-Arno Synal, Matthias Troyer, Andreas Vaterlaus, Rainer Wallny, Andreas Wallraff, Werner Wegscheider, Audrey Zheludev, Oded Zilberberg
> > The mindless logic failure Jan Burse spamming sci.math for almost 3 decades.
> >
> > Mild Shock (Jan Burse) profile photo
> > Mild Shock
> > ,... 25Jul2023
> > Dan Christensen
> > 7
> > The Revenge Paradox in DC Proof
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > 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??
> > > > +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
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> > > > Everything Jan Burse or Dan Christensen do in logic-- worthless until they recognize and accept the fact that Boole messed up bigtime, for he screwed up AND with OR, and his logic truth tables are a pile of shit. But Dan and Jan have shit for brains and keep on keeping on with their moron logic 2 OR 3 = 5 with 3 AND 2 resulting in 1.
> > > >
> > > > Re: *Fire the entire Univ Western Ontario math dept/ still teaching that the contradictory sine graph as sinusoid when it is really semicircle
> > > > by Dan Christensen Nov 21, 2017,
> > > >
> > > > Re: 81,045-Student victims of Rose M. Patten Univ Toronto from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Univ Toronto, physics, Gordon F. West, Michael B. Walker
> > > > by Frank Cassa 12Apr2021 7:00 AM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Re: 77,233 Student victims of Lawrence Bacow's Harvard from stalker Kibo Parry Moroney with his 938 is 12% short 945, his 10 OR 4 = 14 with AND as subtraction, and his mindless belief real electron = 0.5MeV when true electron is muon
> > > > 11:57 AM 10Apr2021
> > > > by Wayne Decarlo
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Re: 7,744-Student victims of Linda Hasenfratz Univ Western Ontario from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz President Alan Shepard
> > > > 11:53 AM 10Apr2021
> > > > by Wayne Decarlo
> > > >
> > > > Re: 102,852-Student victims of Dominic Barton, Univ Waterloo from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Dominic Barton, President Feridun Hamdullahpur physics
> > > > by konyberg Apr 15, 2021, 3:09:41 PM
> > > >
> > > > Re: 176,232-Student Victims of Michael Meighen McGill Univ by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus... 0.5MeV electron when in truth it is the muon as the real electron
> > > > by Dan Christensen Jul 2, 2021, 9:47:42 AM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Re: 135,568 Student victims Queen's Univ. James Leech, Arthur B. McDonald by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- his mindless electron =0.5MeV when real electron of
> > > > May 10, 2021
> > > > by Professor Wordsmith
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Re: 1.1Dr. John Baez is a failed mathematician-physicist with his proton of 938MeV when it is 840MeV, electron= muon //his ellipse is a conic when it never was// as phony in math and physics as kibo Parry Moroney's ellipse and Christensen 10 OR 4 =
> > > > by Dan Christensen Sep 22, 2019, 9:54:06 AM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 5th published book
> > > >
> > > > Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > >
> > > > First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
> > > >
> > > > The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = 1, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
> > > >
> > > > My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
> > > >
> > > > Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
> > > > Length: 63 pages
> > > >
> > > > File Size: 764 KB
> > > > Print Length: 63 pages
> > 
> > > > 
> > > > Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> > > > Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> > > > Language: English
> > > > ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> > > > Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> > > > X-Ray: Not Enabled
> > > > Word Wise: Not Enabled
> > > > Lending: Enabled
> > > > Screen Reader: Supported
> > > > Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 2:46:38 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Can_Dr.Simon Lilly,Dr.Rainer Wallny,Dr.Klaus Kirch,Dr.Ursula Keller, -- -Please--step into their ETH Zurich 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.
>
> Reduction:: 2H2O(liquid) + 2monopoles- ---> H2(gas) + 2OH- (aqueous) at cathode
> Oxidation:: 2H2O(liquid) ----> O2(gas) + 4H+(aqueous) + 4monopole- at anode
>
> My fear is on how to weigh the gases collecting in the test tubes, without contaminating the tubes upon weighing for mass. And this is probably why no-one in physics or chemistry ever thought to weigh the masses in atomic units for if AP is correct the hydrogen is 1/4 the oxygen in atomic mass units. If dullard Jim and the Mainstream is correct, the hydrogen is 1/8 of the oxygen in amu.
>
> Why does AP claim water must be H4O and the hydrogen atom is actually H2 and not H alone?? Because AP believes all science is Symmetrical, and that a proton with muon inside doing the Faraday law without at least 1 neutron working as a capacitor is Anti-symmetry. Thus, when H and H combine, one of the proton+muon inside the proton turns into a neutron-like capacitor for the other H.
>
> And the Water Electrolysis Experiment is the perfect experiment to prove Water is H4O. It is as if all water is heavy water. And that deuterium is simply a H2 where the one H is fully a neutron. Nature does not find H all alone, not even in the Sun is the hydrogen H but rather H2 for H2 is Atomic Hydrogen.
>
> Jim is both too dumb&lazy to ever look things up before opening big dumb mouth.
>
> It is time for AP to put to work all the new chemistry textbooks I bought some years back.
>
> The first one has an excellent account.
>
> CHEMISTRY, Wilbraham, Staley, Matta, Waterman, 2008, page 680 gives an excellent picture and accounting what goes on in Water electrolysis.
>
> Reduction:: 2H2O(liquid) + 2monopoles- ---> H2(gas) + 2OH- (aqueous) at cathode
> Oxidation:: 2H2O(liquid) ----> O2(gas) + 4H+(aqueous) + 4monopole- at anode
>
> Poor Jim seems to be stuck back at the ideal gas laws and not yet arrived at electrochemistry.
>
> On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:01:10 PM UTC-5, Jim Pennino wrote:
> > Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > <snip 529 lines of repeated nonsense>
> >
> > Nothing left and AP still does not understand what pV = nRT means.
> > > ETH Zurich
> > >
> > > Joel Mesot, Gunther Dissertori
> > > Paul Biran, Marc Burger, Patrick Cheridito, Manfred Einsiedler, Paul Embrechts
> > > Giovanni Felder, Alessio Figalli, Norbert Hungerbuhler, Tom Ilmanen, Horst Knorrer
> > > Emmanuel Kowalski
> > > Urs Lang
> > > Rahul Pandharipande
> > > Richard Pink
> > > Tristan Riviere
> > > Dietmar Salamon
> > > Martin Schweizer
> > > Mete Soner
> > > Michael Struwe
> > > Benjamin Sudakov
> > > Alain Sznitman
> > > Josef Teichmann
> > > Wendelin Werner
> > > Thomas Willwacher
> > >
> > > Zurich ETH, physics dept
> > > Charalampos Anastasiou, Niklas Beisert, Adrian Biland, Gianni Blatter, Marcella Carollo, Christian Degen, Leonardo Degiorgi, Gunther Dissertori, Klaus Ensslin, Tilman Esslinger, Jerome Faist, Matthias Gaberdiel, Aude Gehrmann-De Ridder, Vadim Geshkenbein, Christophorus Grab, Michele Graf, Jonathan Home, Roland Horisberger, Sebastian Huber, Thomas Markus Ihn, Atac Imamoglu, Steven Johnson, Ursula Keller, Klaus Kirch, Simon Lilly, Joel Mesot, Renatto Renner, Andre Rubbia, Werner Schmutz, Thomas Schulthess, Manfred Sigrist, Hans-Arno Synal, Matthias Troyer, Andreas Vaterlaus, Rainer Wallny, Andreas Wallraff, Werner Wegscheider, Audrey Zheludev, Oded Zilberberg
> > > The mindless logic failure Jan Burse spamming sci.math for almost 3 decades.
> > >
> > > Mild Shock (Jan Burse) profile photo
> > > Mild Shock
> > > ,... 25Jul2023
> > > Dan Christensen
> > > 7
> > > The Revenge Paradox in DC Proof
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > 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??
> > > > > +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
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Everything Jan Burse or Dan Christensen do in logic-- worthless until they recognize and accept the fact that Boole messed up bigtime, for he screwed up AND with OR, and his logic truth tables are a pile of shit. But Dan and Jan have shit for brains and keep on keeping on with their moron logic 2 OR 3 = 5 with 3 AND 2 resulting in 1.
> > > > >
> > > > > Re: *Fire the entire Univ Western Ontario math dept/ still teaching that the contradictory sine graph as sinusoid when it is really semicircle
> > > > > by Dan Christensen Nov 21, 2017,
> > > > >
> > > > > Re: 81,045-Student victims of Rose M. Patten Univ Toronto from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Univ Toronto, physics, Gordon F. West, Michael B. Walker
> > > > > by Frank Cassa 12Apr2021 7:00 AM
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Re: 77,233 Student victims of Lawrence Bacow's Harvard from stalker Kibo Parry Moroney with his 938 is 12% short 945, his 10 OR 4 = 14 with AND as subtraction, and his mindless belief real electron = 0.5MeV when true electron is muon
> > > > > 11:57 AM 10Apr2021
> > > > > by Wayne Decarlo
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Re: 7,744-Student victims of Linda Hasenfratz Univ Western Ontario from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz President Alan Shepard
> > > > > 11:53 AM 10Apr2021
> > > > > by Wayne Decarlo
> > > > >
> > > > > Re: 102,852-Student victims of Dominic Barton, Univ Waterloo from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Dominic Barton, President Feridun Hamdullahpur physics
> > > > > by konyberg Apr 15, 2021, 3:09:41 PM
> > > > >
> > > > > Re: 176,232-Student Victims of Michael Meighen McGill Univ by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus... 0.5MeV electron when in truth it is the muon as the real electron
> > > > > by Dan Christensen Jul 2, 2021, 9:47:42 AM
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Re: 135,568 Student victims Queen's Univ. James Leech, Arthur B. McDonald by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- his mindless electron =0.5MeV when real electron of
> > > > > May 10, 2021
> > > > > by Professor Wordsmith
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Re: 1.1Dr. John Baez is a failed mathematician-physicist with his proton of 938MeV when it is 840MeV, electron= muon //his ellipse is a conic when it never was// as phony in math and physics as kibo Parry Moroney's ellipse and Christensen 10 OR 4 =
> > > > > by Dan Christensen Sep 22, 2019, 9:54:06 AM
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 5th published book
> > > > >
> > > > > Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > >
> > > > > First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
> > > > >
> > > > > The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = 1, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
> > > > >
> > > > > My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
> > > > > Length: 63 pages
> > > > >
> > > > > File Size: 764 KB
> > > > > Print Length: 63 pages
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> > > > > Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> > > > > Language: English
> > > > > ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> > > > > Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> > > > > X-Ray: Not Enabled
> > > > > Word Wise: Not Enabled
> > > > > Lending: Enabled
> > > > > Screen Reader: Supported
> > > > > Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

On Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 11:14:17 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 2:46:38 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Can_Dr.Simon Lilly,Dr.Rainer Wallny,Dr.Klaus Kirch,Dr.Ursula Keller, -- -Please--step into their ETH Zurich 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.
> >
> > Reduction:: 2H2O(liquid) + 2monopoles- ---> H2(gas) + 2OH- (aqueous) at cathode
> > Oxidation:: 2H2O(liquid) ----> O2(gas) + 4H+(aqueous) + 4monopole- at anode
> >
> > My fear is on how to weigh the gases collecting in the test tubes, without contaminating the tubes upon weighing for mass. And this is probably why no-one in physics or chemistry ever thought to weigh the masses in atomic units for if AP is correct the hydrogen is 1/4 the oxygen in atomic mass units. If dullard Jim and the Mainstream is correct, the hydrogen is 1/8 of the oxygen in amu.
> >
> > Why does AP claim water must be H4O and the hydrogen atom is actually H2 and not H alone?? Because AP believes all science is Symmetrical, and that a proton with muon inside doing the Faraday law without at least 1 neutron working as a capacitor is Anti-symmetry. Thus, when H and H combine, one of the proton+muon inside the proton turns into a neutron-like capacitor for the other H.
> >
> > And the Water Electrolysis Experiment is the perfect experiment to prove Water is H4O. It is as if all water is heavy water. And that deuterium is simply a H2 where the one H is fully a neutron. Nature does not find H all alone, not even in the Sun is the hydrogen H but rather H2 for H2 is Atomic Hydrogen.
> >
> > Jim is both too dumb&lazy to ever look things up before opening big dumb mouth.
> >
> > It is time for AP to put to work all the new chemistry textbooks I bought some years back.
> >
> > The first one has an excellent account.
> >
> > CHEMISTRY, Wilbraham, Staley, Matta, Waterman, 2008, page 680 gives an excellent picture and accounting what goes on in Water electrolysis.
> >
> > Reduction:: 2H2O(liquid) + 2monopoles- ---> H2(gas) + 2OH- (aqueous) at cathode
> > Oxidation:: 2H2O(liquid) ----> O2(gas) + 4H+(aqueous) + 4monopole- at anode
> >
> > Poor Jim seems to be stuck back at the ideal gas laws and not yet arrived at electrochemistry.
> >
> > On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:01:10 PM UTC-5, Jim Pennino wrote:
> > > Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip 529 lines of repeated nonsense>
> > >
> > > Nothing left and AP still does not understand what pV = nRT means.
> > > > ETH Zurich
> > > >
> > > > Joel Mesot, Gunther Dissertori
> > > > Paul Biran, Marc Burger, Patrick Cheridito, Manfred Einsiedler, Paul Embrechts
> > > > Giovanni Felder, Alessio Figalli, Norbert Hungerbuhler, Tom Ilmanen, Horst Knorrer
> > > > Emmanuel Kowalski
> > > > Urs Lang
> > > > Rahul Pandharipande
> > > > Richard Pink
> > > > Tristan Riviere
> > > > Dietmar Salamon
> > > > Martin Schweizer
> > > > Mete Soner
> > > > Michael Struwe
> > > > Benjamin Sudakov
> > > > Alain Sznitman
> > > > Josef Teichmann
> > > > Wendelin Werner
> > > > Thomas Willwacher
> > > >
> > > > Zurich ETH, physics dept
> > > > Charalampos Anastasiou, Niklas Beisert, Adrian Biland, Gianni Blatter, Marcella Carollo, Christian Degen, Leonardo Degiorgi, Gunther Dissertori, Klaus Ensslin, Tilman Esslinger, Jerome Faist, Matthias Gaberdiel, Aude Gehrmann-De Ridder, Vadim Geshkenbein, Christophorus Grab, Michele Graf, Jonathan Home, Roland Horisberger, Sebastian Huber, Thomas Markus Ihn, Atac Imamoglu, Steven Johnson, Ursula Keller, Klaus Kirch, Simon Lilly, Joel Mesot, Renatto Renner, Andre Rubbia, Werner Schmutz, Thomas Schulthess, Manfred Sigrist, Hans-Arno Synal, Matthias Troyer, Andreas Vaterlaus, Rainer Wallny, Andreas Wallraff, Werner Wegscheider, Audrey Zheludev, Oded Zilberberg
> > > > The mindless logic failure Jan Burse spamming sci.math for almost 3 decades.
> > > >
> > > > Mild Shock (Jan Burse) profile photo
> > > > Mild Shock
> > > > ,... 25Jul2023
> > > > Dan Christensen
> > > > 7
> > > > The Revenge Paradox in DC Proof
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > 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??
> > > > > > +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
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Everything Jan Burse or Dan Christensen do in logic-- worthless until they recognize and accept the fact that Boole messed up bigtime, for he screwed up AND with OR, and his logic truth tables are a pile of shit. But Dan and Jan have shit for brains and keep on keeping on with their moron logic 2 OR 3 = 5 with 3 AND 2 resulting in 1.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Re: *Fire the entire Univ Western Ontario math dept/ still teaching that the contradictory sine graph as sinusoid when it is really semicircle
> > > > > > by Dan Christensen Nov 21, 2017,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Re: 81,045-Student victims of Rose M. Patten Univ Toronto from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Univ Toronto, physics, Gordon F. West, Michael B. Walker
> > > > > > by Frank Cassa 12Apr2021 7:00 AM
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Re: 77,233 Student victims of Lawrence Bacow's Harvard from stalker Kibo Parry Moroney with his 938 is 12% short 945, his 10 OR 4 = 14 with AND as subtraction, and his mindless belief real electron = 0.5MeV when true electron is muon
> > > > > > 11:57 AM 10Apr2021
> > > > > > by Wayne Decarlo
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Re: 7,744-Student victims of Linda Hasenfratz Univ Western Ontario from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz President Alan Shepard
> > > > > > 11:53 AM 10Apr2021
> > > > > > by Wayne Decarlo
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Re: 102,852-Student victims of Dominic Barton, Univ Waterloo from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Dominic Barton, President Feridun Hamdullahpur physics
> > > > > > by konyberg Apr 15, 2021, 3:09:41 PM
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Re: 176,232-Student Victims of Michael Meighen McGill Univ by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus... 0.5MeV electron when in truth it is the muon as the real electron
> > > > > > by Dan Christensen Jul 2, 2021, 9:47:42 AM
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Re: 135,568 Student victims Queen's Univ. James Leech, Arthur B.. McDonald by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- his mindless electron =0.5MeV when real electron of
> > > > > > May 10, 2021
> > > > > > by Professor Wordsmith
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Re: 1.1Dr. John Baez is a failed mathematician-physicist with his proton of 938MeV when it is 840MeV, electron= muon //his ellipse is a conic when it never was// as phony in math and physics as kibo Parry Moroney's ellipse and Christensen 10 OR 4 =
> > > > > > by Dan Christensen Sep 22, 2019, 9:54:06 AM
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 5th published book
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = 1, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
> > > > > > Length: 63 pages
> > > > > >
> > > > > > File Size: 764 KB
> > > > > > Print Length: 63 pages
> > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> > > > > > Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> > > > > > Language: English
> > > > > > ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> > > > > > Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> > > > > > X-Ray: Not Enabled
> > > > > > Word Wise: Not Enabled
> > > > > > Lending: Enabled
> > > > > > Screen Reader: Supported
> > > > > > Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
> "I am not sure that word can be used in that sense."
> "Which one?"
> "That one."

On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 8:08:05 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 2-Can_Dr.Simon Lilly,Dr.Rainer Wallny,Dr.Klaus Kirch,Dr.Ursula Keller, -- -Please--step into their ETH Zurich 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.
>
>
> 
> Volney's profile photo
> Volney (Kibo Parry Moroney-Volney writes:)
> ,
>
> 3
> Re: .."Pope of the Cult of Failure"
>
> Screwfly of Math and Blowfly of Physics .."Kim Jong Un's lackey" ..
> by Volney

"Maybe you should try harder next time, guys." -- Everybody Sober

On Wednesday, August 30, 2023 at 11:09:49 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 3-Can_Dr.Simon Lilly,Dr.Rainer Wallny,Dr.Klaus Kirch,Dr.Ursula Keller, -- -Please--step into their ETH Zurich 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.
> >
> >
> > 
> > Volney's profile photo
> > Volney (Kibo Parry Moroney-Volney writes:)
> > ,
> >
> > 3
> > Re: .."Pope of the Cult of Failure"
> >
> > Screwfly of Math and Blowfly of Physics .."Kim Jong Un's lackey" ..
> > by Volney
> >
> > Aug 26, 2023, 12:23:45 AM
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> > On Sunday, August 27, 2023 at 12:26:15 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
> > > Once again, it looks like I triggered another one of
> > > meltdowns!
> > >
> > > Autistic necrophile
> > >
> > > I want to fuck her corpse
> > >
> > > Not again!
> > >
> > > I want to fuck her corpse
> > >
> > > You sicko! Why do you keep saying that?
> > >
> > > wanting to fuck her corpse
> > >
> > > Is corpse fucking some sort of initiation rite when joining the Evil
> > >Cult of Failure?
> > >
> > > I want to fuck her corpse
> > >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Reduction:: 2H2O(liquid) + 2monopoles- ---> H2(gas) + 2OH- (aqueous) at cathode
> > > Oxidation:: 2H2O(liquid) ----> O2(gas) + 4H+(aqueous) + 4monopole- at anode
> > >
> > > My fear is on how to weigh the gases collecting in the test tubes, without contaminating the tubes upon weighing for mass. And this is probably why no-one in physics or chemistry ever thought to weigh the masses in atomic units for if AP is correct the hydrogen is 1/4 the oxygen in atomic mass units. If dullard Jim and the Mainstream is correct, the hydrogen is 1/8 of the oxygen in amu.
> > >
> > > Why does AP claim water must be H4O and the hydrogen atom is actually H2 and not H alone?? Because AP believes all science is Symmetrical, and that a proton with muon inside doing the Faraday law without at least 1 neutron working as a capacitor is Anti-symmetry. Thus, when H and H combine, one of the proton+muon inside the proton turns into a neutron-like capacitor for the other H.
> > >
> > > And the Water Electrolysis Experiment is the perfect experiment to prove Water is H4O. It is as if all water is heavy water. And that deuterium is simply a H2 where the one H is fully a neutron. Nature does not find H all alone, not even in the Sun is the hydrogen H but rather H2 for H2 is Atomic Hydrogen.
> > >
> > > Jim is both too dumb&lazy to ever look things up before opening big dumb mouth.
> > >
> > > It is time for AP to put to work all the new chemistry textbooks I bought some years back.
> > >
> > > The first one has an excellent account.
> > >
> > > CHEMISTRY, Wilbraham, Staley, Matta, Waterman, 2008, page 680 gives an excellent picture and accounting what goes on in Water electrolysis.
> > >
> > > Reduction:: 2H2O(liquid) + 2monopoles- ---> H2(gas) + 2OH- (aqueous) at cathode
> > > Oxidation:: 2H2O(liquid) ----> O2(gas) + 4H+(aqueous) + 4monopole- at anode
> > >
> > > Poor Jim seems to be stuck back at the ideal gas laws and not yet arrived at electrochemistry.
> > >
> > > On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:01:10 PM UTC-5, Jim Pennino wrote:
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <snip 529 lines of repeated nonsense>
> > > >
> > > > Nothing left and AP still does not understand what pV = nRT means..
> > > > > ETH Zurich
> > > > >
> > > > > Joel Mesot, Gunther Dissertori
> > > > > Paul Biran, Marc Burger, Patrick Cheridito, Manfred Einsiedler, Paul Embrechts
> > > > > Giovanni Felder, Alessio Figalli, Norbert Hungerbuhler, Tom Ilmanen, Horst Knorrer
> > > > > Emmanuel Kowalski
> > > > > Urs Lang
> > > > > Rahul Pandharipande
> > > > > Richard Pink
> > > > > Tristan Riviere
> > > > > Dietmar Salamon
> > > > > Martin Schweizer
> > > > > Mete Soner
> > > > > Michael Struwe
> > > > > Benjamin Sudakov
> > > > > Alain Sznitman
> > > > > Josef Teichmann
> > > > > Wendelin Werner
> > > > > Thomas Willwacher
> > > > >
> > > > > Zurich ETH, physics dept
> > > > > Charalampos Anastasiou, Niklas Beisert, Adrian Biland, Gianni Blatter, Marcella Carollo, Christian Degen, Leonardo Degiorgi, Gunther Dissertori, Klaus Ensslin, Tilman Esslinger, Jerome Faist, Matthias Gaberdiel, Aude Gehrmann-De Ridder, Vadim Geshkenbein, Christophorus Grab, Michele Graf, Jonathan Home, Roland Horisberger, Sebastian Huber, Thomas Markus Ihn, Atac Imamoglu, Steven Johnson, Ursula Keller, Klaus Kirch, Simon Lilly, Joel Mesot, Renatto Renner, Andre Rubbia, Werner Schmutz, Thomas Schulthess, Manfred Sigrist, Hans-Arno Synal, Matthias Troyer, Andreas Vaterlaus, Rainer Wallny, Andreas Wallraff, Werner Wegscheider, Audrey Zheludev, Oded Zilberberg
> > > > > The mindless logic failure Jan Burse spamming sci.math for almost 3 decades.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mild Shock (Jan Burse) profile photo
> > > > > Mild Shock
> > > > > ,... 25Jul2023
> > > > > Dan Christensen
> > > > > 7
> > > > > The Revenge Paradox in DC Proof
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > 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??
> > > > > > > +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
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Everything Jan Burse or Dan Christensen do in logic-- worthless until they recognize and accept the fact that Boole messed up bigtime, for he screwed up AND with OR, and his logic truth tables are a pile of shit.. But Dan and Jan have shit for brains and keep on keeping on with their moron logic 2 OR 3 = 5 with 3 AND 2 resulting in 1.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re: *Fire the entire Univ Western Ontario math dept/ still teaching that the contradictory sine graph as sinusoid when it is really semicircle
> > > > > > > by Dan Christensen Nov 21, 2017,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re: 81,045-Student victims of Rose M. Patten Univ Toronto from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Univ Toronto, physics, Gordon F. West, Michael B. Walker
> > > > > > > by Frank Cassa 12Apr2021 7:00 AM
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re: 77,233 Student victims of Lawrence Bacow's Harvard from stalker Kibo Parry Moroney with his 938 is 12% short 945, his 10 OR 4 = 14 with AND as subtraction, and his mindless belief real electron = 0.5MeV when true electron is muon
> > > > > > > 11:57 AM 10Apr2021
> > > > > > > by Wayne Decarlo
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re: 7,744-Student victims of Linda Hasenfratz Univ Western Ontario from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz President Alan Shepard
> > > > > > > 11:53 AM 10Apr2021
> > > > > > > by Wayne Decarlo
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re: 102,852-Student victims of Dominic Barton, Univ Waterloo from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Dominic Barton, President Feridun Hamdullahpur physics
> > > > > > > by konyberg Apr 15, 2021, 3:09:41 PM
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re: 176,232-Student Victims of Michael Meighen McGill Univ by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus... 0.5MeV electron when in truth it is the muon as the real electron
> > > > > > > by Dan Christensen Jul 2, 2021, 9:47:42 AM
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re: 135,568 Student victims Queen's Univ. James Leech, Arthur B. McDonald by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- his mindless electron =0.5MeV when real electron of
> > > > > > > May 10, 2021
> > > > > > > by Professor Wordsmith
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re: 1.1Dr. John Baez is a failed mathematician-physicist with his proton of 938MeV when it is 840MeV, electron= muon //his ellipse is a conic when it never was// as phony in math and physics as kibo Parry Moroney's ellipse and Christensen 10 OR 4 =
> > > > > > > by Dan Christensen Sep 22, 2019, 9:54:06 AM
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 5th published book
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = 1, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
> > > > > > > Length: 63 pages
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > File Size: 764 KB
> > > > > > > Print Length: 63 pages
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> > > > > > > Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> > > > > > > Language: English
> > > > > > > ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> > > > > > > Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> > > > > > > X-Ray: Not Enabled
> > > > > > > Word Wise: Not Enabled
> > > > > > > Lending: Enabled
> > > > > > > Screen Reader: Supported
> > > > > > > Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 11:38:44 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Can_Kurt Wuthrich (chem),Dr.Rainer Wallny,Dr.Klaus Kirch,Dr.Ursula Keller, -- -Please--step into their ETH Zurich 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.
> >
> > Reduction:: 2H2O(liquid) + 2monopoles- ---> H2(gas) + 2OH- (aqueous) at cathode
> > Oxidation:: 2H2O(liquid) ----> O2(gas) + 4H+(aqueous) + 4monopole- at anode
> >
> > My fear is on how to weigh the gases collecting in the test tubes, without contaminating the tubes upon weighing for mass. And this is probably why no-one in physics or chemistry ever thought to weigh the masses in atomic units for if AP is correct the hydrogen is 1/4 the oxygen in atomic mass units. If dullard Jim and the Mainstream is correct, the hydrogen is 1/8 of the oxygen in amu.
> >
> > Why does AP claim water must be H4O and the hydrogen atom is actually H2 and not H alone?? Because AP believes all science is Symmetrical, and that a proton with muon inside doing the Faraday law without at least 1 neutron working as a capacitor is Anti-symmetry. Thus, when H and H combine, one of the proton+muon inside the proton turns into a neutron-like capacitor for the other H.
> >
> > And the Water Electrolysis Experiment is the perfect experiment to prove Water is H4O. It is as if all water is heavy water. And that deuterium is simply a H2 where the one H is fully a neutron. Nature does not find H all alone, not even in the Sun is the hydrogen H but rather H2 for H2 is Atomic Hydrogen.
> >
> > Jim is both too dumb&lazy to ever look things up before opening big dumb mouth.
> >
> > It is time for AP to put to work all the new chemistry textbooks I bought some years back.
> >
> > The first one has an excellent account.
> >
> > CHEMISTRY, Wilbraham, Staley, Matta, Waterman, 2008, page 680 gives an excellent picture and accounting what goes on in Water electrolysis.
> >
> > Reduction:: 2H2O(liquid) + 2monopoles- ---> H2(gas) + 2OH- (aqueous) at cathode
> > Oxidation:: 2H2O(liquid) ----> O2(gas) + 4H+(aqueous) + 4monopole- at anode
> >
> > Poor Jim seems to be stuck back at the ideal gas laws and not yet arrived at electrochemistry.
> >
> > On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:01:10 PM UTC-5, Jim Pennino wrote:
> > > Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip 529 lines of repeated nonsense>
> > >
> > > Nothing left and AP still does not understand what pV = nRT means.
> > > > ETH Zurich
> > > >
> > > > Joel Mesot, Gunther Dissertori
> > > > Paul Biran, Marc Burger, Patrick Cheridito, Manfred Einsiedler, Paul Embrechts
> > > > Giovanni Felder, Alessio Figalli, Norbert Hungerbuhler, Tom Ilmanen, Horst Knorrer
> > > > Emmanuel Kowalski
> > > > Urs Lang
> > > > Rahul Pandharipande
> > > > Richard Pink
> > > > Tristan Riviere
> > > > Dietmar Salamon
> > > > Martin Schweizer
> > > > Mete Soner
> > > > Michael Struwe
> > > > Benjamin Sudakov
> > > > Alain Sznitman
> > > > Josef Teichmann
> > > > Wendelin Werner
> > > > Thomas Willwacher
> > > >
> > > > Zurich ETH, physics dept
> > > > Charalampos Anastasiou, Niklas Beisert, Adrian Biland, Gianni Blatter, Marcella Carollo, Christian Degen, Leonardo Degiorgi, Gunther Dissertori, Klaus Ensslin, Tilman Esslinger, Jerome Faist, Matthias Gaberdiel, Aude Gehrmann-De Ridder, Vadim Geshkenbein, Christophorus Grab, Michele Graf, Jonathan Home, Roland Horisberger, Sebastian Huber, Thomas Markus Ihn, Atac Imamoglu, Steven Johnson, Ursula Keller, Klaus Kirch, Simon Lilly, Joel Mesot, Renatto Renner, Andre Rubbia, Werner Schmutz, Thomas Schulthess, Manfred Sigrist, Hans-Arno Synal, Matthias Troyer, Andreas Vaterlaus, Rainer Wallny, Andreas Wallraff, Werner Wegscheider, Audrey Zheludev, Oded Zilberberg
> > > > The mindless logic failure Jan Burse spamming sci.math for almost 3 decades.
> > > >
> > > > Mild Shock (Jan Burse) profile photo
> > > > Mild Shock
> > > > ,... 25Jul2023
> > > > Dan Christensen
> > > > 7
> > > > The Revenge Paradox in DC Proof
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > 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??
> > > > > > +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
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Everything Jan Burse or Dan Christensen do in logic-- worthless until they recognize and accept the fact that Boole messed up bigtime, for he screwed up AND with OR, and his logic truth tables are a pile of shit. But Dan and Jan have shit for brains and keep on keeping on with their moron logic 2 OR 3 = 5 with 3 AND 2 resulting in 1.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Re: *Fire the entire Univ Western Ontario math dept/ still teaching that the contradictory sine graph as sinusoid when it is really semicircle
> > > > > > by Dan Christensen Nov 21, 2017,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Re: 81,045-Student victims of Rose M. Patten Univ Toronto from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Univ Toronto, physics, Gordon F. West, Michael B. Walker
> > > > > > by Frank Cassa 12Apr2021 7:00 AM
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Re: 77,233 Student victims of Lawrence Bacow's Harvard from stalker Kibo Parry Moroney with his 938 is 12% short 945, his 10 OR 4 = 14 with AND as subtraction, and his mindless belief real electron = 0.5MeV when true electron is muon
> > > > > > 11:57 AM 10Apr2021
> > > > > > by Wayne Decarlo
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Re: 7,744-Student victims of Linda Hasenfratz Univ Western Ontario from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz President Alan Shepard
> > > > > > 11:53 AM 10Apr2021
> > > > > > by Wayne Decarlo
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Re: 102,852-Student victims of Dominic Barton, Univ Waterloo from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Dominic Barton, President Feridun Hamdullahpur physics
> > > > > > by konyberg Apr 15, 2021, 3:09:41 PM
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Re: 176,232-Student Victims of Michael Meighen McGill Univ by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus... 0.5MeV electron when in truth it is the muon as the real electron
> > > > > > by Dan Christensen Jul 2, 2021, 9:47:42 AM
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Re: 135,568 Student victims Queen's Univ. James Leech, Arthur B.. McDonald by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- his mindless electron =0.5MeV when real electron of
> > > > > > May 10, 2021
> > > > > > by Professor Wordsmith
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Re: 1.1Dr. John Baez is a failed mathematician-physicist with his proton of 938MeV when it is 840MeV, electron= muon //his ellipse is a conic when it never was// as phony in math and physics as kibo Parry Moroney's ellipse and Christensen 10 OR 4 =
> > > > > > by Dan Christensen Sep 22, 2019, 9:54:06 AM
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 5th published book
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = 1, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
> > > > > > Length: 63 pages
> > > > > >
> > > > > > File Size: 764 KB
> > > > > > Print Length: 63 pages
> > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> > > > > > Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> > > > > > Language: English
> > > > > > ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> > > > > > Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> > > > > > X-Ray: Not Enabled
> > > > > > Word Wise: Not Enabled
> > > > > > Lending: Enabled
> > > > > > Screen Reader: Supported
> > > > > > Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:09:55 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 2-Can_Kurt Wuthrich (chem),Dr.Rainer Wallny,Dr.Klaus Kirch,Dr.Ursula Keller, -- -Please--step into their ETH Zurich 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.
> > >
> > > Reduction:: 2H2O(liquid) + 2monopoles- ---> H2(gas) + 2OH- (aqueous) at cathode
> > > Oxidation:: 2H2O(liquid) ----> O2(gas) + 4H+(aqueous) + 4monopole- at anode
> > >
> > > My fear is on how to weigh the gases collecting in the test tubes, without contaminating the tubes upon weighing for mass. And this is probably why no-one in physics or chemistry ever thought to weigh the masses in atomic units for if AP is correct the hydrogen is 1/4 the oxygen in atomic mass units. If dullard Jim and the Mainstream is correct, the hydrogen is 1/8 of the oxygen in amu.
> > >
> > > Why does AP claim water must be H4O and the hydrogen atom is actually H2 and not H alone?? Because AP believes all science is Symmetrical, and that a proton with muon inside doing the Faraday law without at least 1 neutron working as a capacitor is Anti-symmetry. Thus, when H and H combine, one of the proton+muon inside the proton turns into a neutron-like capacitor for the other H.
> > >
> > > And the Water Electrolysis Experiment is the perfect experiment to prove Water is H4O. It is as if all water is heavy water. And that deuterium is simply a H2 where the one H is fully a neutron. Nature does not find H all alone, not even in the Sun is the hydrogen H but rather H2 for H2 is Atomic Hydrogen.
> > >
> > > Jim is both too dumb&lazy to ever look things up before opening big dumb mouth.
> > >
> > > It is time for AP to put to work all the new chemistry textbooks I bought some years back.
> > >
> > > The first one has an excellent account.
> > >
> > > CHEMISTRY, Wilbraham, Staley, Matta, Waterman, 2008, page 680 gives an excellent picture and accounting what goes on in Water electrolysis.
> > >
> > > Reduction:: 2H2O(liquid) + 2monopoles- ---> H2(gas) + 2OH- (aqueous) at cathode
> > > Oxidation:: 2H2O(liquid) ----> O2(gas) + 4H+(aqueous) + 4monopole- at anode
> > >
> > > Poor Jim seems to be stuck back at the ideal gas laws and not yet arrived at electrochemistry.
> > >
> > > On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:01:10 PM UTC-5, Jim Pennino wrote:
> > > > Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <snip 529 lines of repeated nonsense>
> > > >
> > > > Nothing left and AP still does not understand what pV = nRT means..
> > > > > ETH Zurich
> > > > >
> > > > > Joel Mesot, Gunther Dissertori
> > > > > Paul Biran, Marc Burger, Patrick Cheridito, Manfred Einsiedler, Paul Embrechts
> > > > > Giovanni Felder, Alessio Figalli, Norbert Hungerbuhler, Tom Ilmanen, Horst Knorrer
> > > > > Emmanuel Kowalski
> > > > > Urs Lang
> > > > > Rahul Pandharipande
> > > > > Richard Pink
> > > > > Tristan Riviere
> > > > > Dietmar Salamon
> > > > > Martin Schweizer
> > > > > Mete Soner
> > > > > Michael Struwe
> > > > > Benjamin Sudakov
> > > > > Alain Sznitman
> > > > > Josef Teichmann
> > > > > Wendelin Werner
> > > > > Thomas Willwacher
> > > > >
> > > > > Zurich ETH, physics dept
> > > > > Charalampos Anastasiou, Niklas Beisert, Adrian Biland, Gianni Blatter, Marcella Carollo, Christian Degen, Leonardo Degiorgi, Gunther Dissertori, Klaus Ensslin, Tilman Esslinger, Jerome Faist, Matthias Gaberdiel, Aude Gehrmann-De Ridder, Vadim Geshkenbein, Christophorus Grab, Michele Graf, Jonathan Home, Roland Horisberger, Sebastian Huber, Thomas Markus Ihn, Atac Imamoglu, Steven Johnson, Ursula Keller, Klaus Kirch, Simon Lilly, Joel Mesot, Renatto Renner, Andre Rubbia, Werner Schmutz, Thomas Schulthess, Manfred Sigrist, Hans-Arno Synal, Matthias Troyer, Andreas Vaterlaus, Rainer Wallny, Andreas Wallraff, Werner Wegscheider, Audrey Zheludev, Oded Zilberberg
> > > > > The mindless logic failure Jan Burse spamming sci.math for almost 3 decades.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mild Shock (Jan Burse) profile photo
> > > > > Mild Shock
> > > > > ,... 25Jul2023
> > > > > Dan Christensen
> > > > > 7
> > > > > The Revenge Paradox in DC Proof
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > 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??
> > > > > > > +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
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Everything Jan Burse or Dan Christensen do in logic-- worthless until they recognize and accept the fact that Boole messed up bigtime, for he screwed up AND with OR, and his logic truth tables are a pile of shit.. But Dan and Jan have shit for brains and keep on keeping on with their moron logic 2 OR 3 = 5 with 3 AND 2 resulting in 1.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re: *Fire the entire Univ Western Ontario math dept/ still teaching that the contradictory sine graph as sinusoid when it is really semicircle
> > > > > > > by Dan Christensen Nov 21, 2017,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re: 81,045-Student victims of Rose M. Patten Univ Toronto from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Univ Toronto, physics, Gordon F. West, Michael B. Walker
> > > > > > > by Frank Cassa 12Apr2021 7:00 AM
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re: 77,233 Student victims of Lawrence Bacow's Harvard from stalker Kibo Parry Moroney with his 938 is 12% short 945, his 10 OR 4 = 14 with AND as subtraction, and his mindless belief real electron = 0.5MeV when true electron is muon
> > > > > > > 11:57 AM 10Apr2021
> > > > > > > by Wayne Decarlo
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re: 7,744-Student victims of Linda Hasenfratz Univ Western Ontario from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz President Alan Shepard
> > > > > > > 11:53 AM 10Apr2021
> > > > > > > by Wayne Decarlo
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re: 102,852-Student victims of Dominic Barton, Univ Waterloo from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Dominic Barton, President Feridun Hamdullahpur physics
> > > > > > > by konyberg Apr 15, 2021, 3:09:41 PM
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re: 176,232-Student Victims of Michael Meighen McGill Univ by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus... 0.5MeV electron when in truth it is the muon as the real electron
> > > > > > > by Dan Christensen Jul 2, 2021, 9:47:42 AM
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re: 135,568 Student victims Queen's Univ. James Leech, Arthur B. McDonald by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- his mindless electron =0.5MeV when real electron of
> > > > > > > May 10, 2021
> > > > > > > by Professor Wordsmith
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Re: 1.1Dr. John Baez is a failed mathematician-physicist with his proton of 938MeV when it is 840MeV, electron= muon //his ellipse is a conic when it never was// as phony in math and physics as kibo Parry Moroney's ellipse and Christensen 10 OR 4 =
> > > > > > > by Dan Christensen Sep 22, 2019, 9:54:06 AM
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 5th published book
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = 1, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
> > > > > > > Length: 63 pages
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > File Size: 764 KB
> > > > > > > Print Length: 63 pages
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> > > > > > > Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> > > > > > > Language: English
> > > > > > > ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> > > > > > > Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> > > > > > > X-Ray: Not Enabled
> > > > > > > Word Wise: Not Enabled
> > > > > > > Lending: Enabled
> > > > > > > Screen Reader: Supported
> > > > > > > Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 8:38:20 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
> On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 12:09:55 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > 2-Can_Kurt Wuthrich (chem),Dr.Rainer Wallny,Dr.Klaus Kirch,Dr.Ursula Keller, -- -Please--step into their ETH Zurich 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.
> > > >
> > > > Reduction:: 2H2O(liquid) + 2monopoles- ---> H2(gas) + 2OH- (aqueous) at cathode
> > > > Oxidation:: 2H2O(liquid) ----> O2(gas) + 4H+(aqueous) + 4monopole- at anode
> > > >
> > > > My fear is on how to weigh the gases collecting in the test tubes, without contaminating the tubes upon weighing for mass. And this is probably why no-one in physics or chemistry ever thought to weigh the masses in atomic units for if AP is correct the hydrogen is 1/4 the oxygen in atomic mass units. If dullard Jim and the Mainstream is correct, the hydrogen is 1/8 of the oxygen in amu.
> > > >
> > > > Why does AP claim water must be H4O and the hydrogen atom is actually H2 and not H alone?? Because AP believes all science is Symmetrical, and that a proton with muon inside doing the Faraday law without at least 1 neutron working as a capacitor is Anti-symmetry. Thus, when H and H combine, one of the proton+muon inside the proton turns into a neutron-like capacitor for the other H.
> > > >
> > > > And the Water Electrolysis Experiment is the perfect experiment to prove Water is H4O. It is as if all water is heavy water. And that deuterium is simply a H2 where the one H is fully a neutron. Nature does not find H all alone, not even in the Sun is the hydrogen H but rather H2 for H2 is Atomic Hydrogen.
> > > >
> > > > Jim is both too dumb&lazy to ever look things up before opening big dumb mouth.
> > > >
> > > > It is time for AP to put to work all the new chemistry textbooks I bought some years back.
> > > >
> > > > The first one has an excellent account.
> > > >
> > > > CHEMISTRY, Wilbraham, Staley, Matta, Waterman, 2008, page 680 gives an excellent picture and accounting what goes on in Water electrolysis.
> > > >
> > > > Reduction:: 2H2O(liquid) + 2monopoles- ---> H2(gas) + 2OH- (aqueous) at cathode
> > > > Oxidation:: 2H2O(liquid) ----> O2(gas) + 4H+(aqueous) + 4monopole- at anode
> > > >
> > > > Poor Jim seems to be stuck back at the ideal gas laws and not yet arrived at electrochemistry.
> > > >
> > > > On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:01:10 PM UTC-5, Jim Pennino wrote:
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > <snip 529 lines of repeated nonsense>
> > > > >
> > > > > Nothing left and AP still does not understand what pV = nRT means.
> > > > > > ETH Zurich
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Joel Mesot, Gunther Dissertori
> > > > > > Paul Biran, Marc Burger, Patrick Cheridito, Manfred Einsiedler, Paul Embrechts
> > > > > > Giovanni Felder, Alessio Figalli, Norbert Hungerbuhler, Tom Ilmanen, Horst Knorrer
> > > > > > Emmanuel Kowalski
> > > > > > Urs Lang
> > > > > > Rahul Pandharipande
> > > > > > Richard Pink
> > > > > > Tristan Riviere
> > > > > > Dietmar Salamon
> > > > > > Martin Schweizer
> > > > > > Mete Soner
> > > > > > Michael Struwe
> > > > > > Benjamin Sudakov
> > > > > > Alain Sznitman
> > > > > > Josef Teichmann
> > > > > > Wendelin Werner
> > > > > > Thomas Willwacher
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Zurich ETH, physics dept
> > > > > > Charalampos Anastasiou, Niklas Beisert, Adrian Biland, Gianni Blatter, Marcella Carollo, Christian Degen, Leonardo Degiorgi, Gunther Dissertori, Klaus Ensslin, Tilman Esslinger, Jerome Faist, Matthias Gaberdiel, Aude Gehrmann-De Ridder, Vadim Geshkenbein, Christophorus Grab, Michele Graf, Jonathan Home, Roland Horisberger, Sebastian Huber, Thomas Markus Ihn, Atac Imamoglu, Steven Johnson, Ursula Keller, Klaus Kirch, Simon Lilly, Joel Mesot, Renatto Renner, Andre Rubbia, Werner Schmutz, Thomas Schulthess, Manfred Sigrist, Hans-Arno Synal, Matthias Troyer, Andreas Vaterlaus, Rainer Wallny, Andreas Wallraff, Werner Wegscheider, Audrey Zheludev, Oded Zilberberg
> > > > > > The mindless logic failure Jan Burse spamming sci.math for almost 3 decades.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mild Shock (Jan Burse) profile photo
> > > > > > Mild Shock
> > > > > > ,... 25Jul2023
> > > > > > Dan Christensen
> > > > > > 7
> > > > > > The Revenge Paradox in DC Proof
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 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??
> > > > > > > > +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
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Everything Jan Burse or Dan Christensen do in logic-- worthless until they recognize and accept the fact that Boole messed up bigtime, for he screwed up AND with OR, and his logic truth tables are a pile of shit. But Dan and Jan have shit for brains and keep on keeping on with their moron logic 2 OR 3 = 5 with 3 AND 2 resulting in 1.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Re: *Fire the entire Univ Western Ontario math dept/ still teaching that the contradictory sine graph as sinusoid when it is really semicircle
> > > > > > > > by Dan Christensen Nov 21, 2017,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Re: 81,045-Student victims of Rose M. Patten Univ Toronto from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Univ Toronto, physics, Gordon F. West, Michael B. Walker
> > > > > > > > by Frank Cassa 12Apr2021 7:00 AM
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Re: 77,233 Student victims of Lawrence Bacow's Harvard from stalker Kibo Parry Moroney with his 938 is 12% short 945, his 10 OR 4 = 14 with AND as subtraction, and his mindless belief real electron = 0.5MeV when true electron is muon
> > > > > > > > 11:57 AM 10Apr2021
> > > > > > > > by Wayne Decarlo
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Re: 7,744-Student victims of Linda Hasenfratz Univ Western Ontario from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz President Alan Shepard
> > > > > > > > 11:53 AM 10Apr2021
> > > > > > > > by Wayne Decarlo
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Re: 102,852-Student victims of Dominic Barton, Univ Waterloo from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Dominic Barton, President Feridun Hamdullahpur physics
> > > > > > > > by konyberg Apr 15, 2021, 3:09:41 PM
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Re: 176,232-Student Victims of Michael Meighen McGill Univ by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus... 0.5MeV electron when in truth it is the muon as the real electron
> > > > > > > > by Dan Christensen Jul 2, 2021, 9:47:42 AM
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Re: 135,568 Student victims Queen's Univ. James Leech, Arthur B. McDonald by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- his mindless electron =0.5MeV when real electron of
> > > > > > > > May 10, 2021
> > > > > > > > by Professor Wordsmith
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Re: 1.1Dr. John Baez is a failed mathematician-physicist with his proton of 938MeV when it is 840MeV, electron= muon //his ellipse is a conic when it never was// as phony in math and physics as kibo Parry Moroney's ellipse and Christensen 10 OR 4 =
> > > > > > > > by Dan Christensen Sep 22, 2019, 9:54:06 AM
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 5th published book
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = 1, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
> > > > > > > > Length: 63 pages
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > File Size: 764 KB
> > > > > > > > Print Length: 63 pages
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> > > > > > > > Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> > > > > > > > Language: English
> > > > > > > > ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> > > > > > > > Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> > > > > > > > X-Ray: Not Enabled
> > > > > > > > Word Wise: Not Enabled
> > > > > > > > Lending: Enabled
> > > > > > > > Screen Reader: Supported
> > > > > > > > Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
> "Do you usually incorporate scientific fraud in your hoaxing, or not?" #oneasks

On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 3:05:12 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 3-Can_Kurt Wuthrich (chem),Dr.Rainer Wallny,Dr.Klaus Kirch,Dr.Ursula Keller, -- -Please--step into their ETH Zurich 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.
> > > >
> > > > Reduction:: 2H2O(liquid) + 2monopoles- ---> H2(gas) + 2OH- (aqueous) at cathode
> > > > Oxidation:: 2H2O(liquid) ----> O2(gas) + 4H+(aqueous) + 4monopole- at anode
> > > >
> > > > My fear is on how to weigh the gases collecting in the test tubes, without contaminating the tubes upon weighing for mass. And this is probably why no-one in physics or chemistry ever thought to weigh the masses in atomic units for if AP is correct the hydrogen is 1/4 the oxygen in atomic mass units. If dullard Jim and the Mainstream is correct, the hydrogen is 1/8 of the oxygen in amu.
> > > >
> > > > Why does AP claim water must be H4O and the hydrogen atom is actually H2 and not H alone?? Because AP believes all science is Symmetrical, and that a proton with muon inside doing the Faraday law without at least 1 neutron working as a capacitor is Anti-symmetry. Thus, when H and H combine, one of the proton+muon inside the proton turns into a neutron-like capacitor for the other H.
> > > >
> > > > And the Water Electrolysis Experiment is the perfect experiment to prove Water is H4O. It is as if all water is heavy water. And that deuterium is simply a H2 where the one H is fully a neutron. Nature does not find H all alone, not even in the Sun is the hydrogen H but rather H2 for H2 is Atomic Hydrogen.
> > > >
> > > > Jim is both too dumb&lazy to ever look things up before opening big dumb mouth.
> > > >
> > > > It is time for AP to put to work all the new chemistry textbooks I bought some years back.
> > > >
> > > > The first one has an excellent account.
> > > >
> > > > CHEMISTRY, Wilbraham, Staley, Matta, Waterman, 2008, page 680 gives an excellent picture and accounting what goes on in Water electrolysis.
> > > >
> > > > Reduction:: 2H2O(liquid) + 2monopoles- ---> H2(gas) + 2OH- (aqueous) at cathode
> > > > Oxidation:: 2H2O(liquid) ----> O2(gas) + 4H+(aqueous) + 4monopole- at anode
> > > >
> > > > Poor Jim seems to be stuck back at the ideal gas laws and not yet arrived at electrochemistry.
> > > >
> > > > On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 4:01:10 PM UTC-5, Jim Pennino wrote:
> > > > > Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > <snip 529 lines of repeated nonsense>
> > > > >
> > > > > Nothing left and AP still does not understand what pV = nRT means.
> > > > > > ETH Zurich
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Joel Mesot, Gunther Dissertori
> > > > > > Paul Biran, Marc Burger, Patrick Cheridito, Manfred Einsiedler, Paul Embrechts
> > > > > > Giovanni Felder, Alessio Figalli, Norbert Hungerbuhler, Tom Ilmanen, Horst Knorrer
> > > > > > Emmanuel Kowalski
> > > > > > Urs Lang
> > > > > > Rahul Pandharipande
> > > > > > Richard Pink
> > > > > > Tristan Riviere
> > > > > > Dietmar Salamon
> > > > > > Martin Schweizer
> > > > > > Mete Soner
> > > > > > Michael Struwe
> > > > > > Benjamin Sudakov
> > > > > > Alain Sznitman
> > > > > > Josef Teichmann
> > > > > > Wendelin Werner
> > > > > > Thomas Willwacher
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Zurich ETH, physics dept
> > > > > > Charalampos Anastasiou, Niklas Beisert, Adrian Biland, Gianni Blatter, Marcella Carollo, Christian Degen, Leonardo Degiorgi, Gunther Dissertori, Klaus Ensslin, Tilman Esslinger, Jerome Faist, Matthias Gaberdiel, Aude Gehrmann-De Ridder, Vadim Geshkenbein, Christophorus Grab, Michele Graf, Jonathan Home, Roland Horisberger, Sebastian Huber, Thomas Markus Ihn, Atac Imamoglu, Steven Johnson, Ursula Keller, Klaus Kirch, Simon Lilly, Joel Mesot, Renatto Renner, Andre Rubbia, Werner Schmutz, Thomas Schulthess, Manfred Sigrist, Hans-Arno Synal, Matthias Troyer, Andreas Vaterlaus, Rainer Wallny, Andreas Wallraff, Werner Wegscheider, Audrey Zheludev, Oded Zilberberg
> > > > > > The mindless logic failure Jan Burse spamming sci.math for almost 3 decades.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mild Shock (Jan Burse) profile photo
> > > > > > Mild Shock
> > > > > > ,... 25Jul2023
> > > > > > Dan Christensen
> > > > > > 7
> > > > > > The Revenge Paradox in DC Proof
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 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??
> > > > > > > > +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
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Everything Jan Burse or Dan Christensen do in logic-- worthless until they recognize and accept the fact that Boole messed up bigtime, for he screwed up AND with OR, and his logic truth tables are a pile of shit. But Dan and Jan have shit for brains and keep on keeping on with their moron logic 2 OR 3 = 5 with 3 AND 2 resulting in 1.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Re: *Fire the entire Univ Western Ontario math dept/ still teaching that the contradictory sine graph as sinusoid when it is really semicircle
> > > > > > > > by Dan Christensen Nov 21, 2017,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Re: 81,045-Student victims of Rose M. Patten Univ Toronto from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Univ Toronto, physics, Gordon F. West, Michael B. Walker
> > > > > > > > by Frank Cassa 12Apr2021 7:00 AM
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Re: 77,233 Student victims of Lawrence Bacow's Harvard from stalker Kibo Parry Moroney with his 938 is 12% short 945, his 10 OR 4 = 14 with AND as subtraction, and his mindless belief real electron = 0.5MeV when true electron is muon
> > > > > > > > 11:57 AM 10Apr2021
> > > > > > > > by Wayne Decarlo
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Re: 7,744-Student victims of Linda Hasenfratz Univ Western Ontario from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz President Alan Shepard
> > > > > > > > 11:53 AM 10Apr2021
> > > > > > > > by Wayne Decarlo
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Re: 102,852-Student victims of Dominic Barton, Univ Waterloo from stalker Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Dominic Barton, President Feridun Hamdullahpur physics
> > > > > > > > by konyberg Apr 15, 2021, 3:09:41 PM
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Re: 176,232-Student Victims of Michael Meighen McGill Univ by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus... 0.5MeV electron when in truth it is the muon as the real electron
> > > > > > > > by Dan Christensen Jul 2, 2021, 9:47:42 AM
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Re: 135,568 Student victims Queen's Univ. James Leech, Arthur B. McDonald by Dan Christensen teaching 10 OR 2 = 12 with AND as subtraction, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- his mindless electron =0.5MeV when real electron of
> > > > > > > > May 10, 2021
> > > > > > > > by Professor Wordsmith
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Re: 1.1Dr. John Baez is a failed mathematician-physicist with his proton of 938MeV when it is 840MeV, electron= muon //his ellipse is a conic when it never was// as phony in math and physics as kibo Parry Moroney's ellipse and Christensen 10 OR 4 =
> > > > > > > > by Dan Christensen Sep 22, 2019, 9:54:06 AM
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 5th published book
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
> > > > > > > > by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = 1, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
> > > > > > > > Length: 63 pages
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > File Size: 764 KB
> > > > > > > > Print Length: 63 pages
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Publication Date: March 12, 2019
> > > > > > > > Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
> > > > > > > > Language: English
> > > > > > > > ASIN: B07PMB69F5
> > > > > > > > Text-to-Speech: Enabled
> > > > > > > > X-Ray: Not Enabled
> > > > > > > > Word Wise: Not Enabled
> > > > > > > > Lending: Enabled
> > > > > > > > Screen Reader: Supported
> > > > > > > > Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled