I just read an article in SCIENCE NEWS, July 15,2023 "What is big G?" "Newton's gravitational constant has proved tough to pin down.

I have a backlog of reading magazines to do and this article caught my attention.

Clive Speake says: "Nobody knows how to predict from theory what the actual value of G should be"

Well, the time has come when predict from theory what G should be is here and now.

We know that gravity is simply the weakest form of Electromagnetism under the EM force unification. All is EM.

And the primal axiom over all of physics, all of science is All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism.

So what I am going to do in this book is show where the gravity constant

6.70 * 10^-39 GeV comes directly from other pure numbers of physics, so we do not directly need to find this number from experiment. Although, we do have to experiment on the other pure numbers.

In a sense though, and good that Stephan Schlamminger conducting the experiment is using copper, or lead. For actually, much of G value is iron as in iron electrical conductivity and iron magnetism.

AP, doing this is probably not good news for Dr.Schlamminger, for he may see it as ridicule. But good news, if instead he sees it as a advance in physics.

The reason we have partial solid body rotation in Saturn rings and in asteroid belt is due to ice polar body electricity bond and iron nickel in asteroids.

So this adventure for me is all about finding the Weakest electricity and magnetism between two objects of mass. The Unification of 4 Forces of Physics shows all 4 are a form of the EM force, for the EM force has the most perfect of physics particles-- the photon, and having the most perfect physics particles means the other 3 forces were factors of EM force.

In fact, since atoms have no nucleus, we can actually discard the Strong nuclear force as non-existent.

The closest that mass gets to other mass without bonding is magnetic attachment.

The Coulomb force is identical to gravity force only 10^-39 weaker, for their formulas are identical-- inverse square with distance.

In the SCIENCE NEWS article, where-ever the author talks about Einstein General Relativity, just bypass that b.s. General Relativity is b.s., not worth a thing.

I have an advantage over all other physicists for I have corrected Old Physics-- the proton is actually a 840MeV torus, and the true electron of atoms is the muon stuck inside the proton torus doing the Faraday law. The JJ Thompson particle of 0.5MeV is not the electron of atoms but the Dirac magnetic monopole. Once I apply all those corrections, the G value should fall out like a birthday cake-- organic hopefully.

AP, King of Science

AP's 263rd book of Science-- deriving the G, Gravitational Constant 6.67x10^-11 m^3/(kg*s^2) from pure numbers of Electromagnetism

Alright, last night I started to play around with purely the masses to see if I could reach exponent 39, the coupling constant of gravity force strength to that of EM force strength. Although through the years I often said gravity was 10^40 weaker.

So I am shooting for matching 6.70*10^-39 GeV and GeV is 10^9

So I am looking for 6.70*10^-30

I have

0.5*10^6 magnetic monopole

105*10^6 muon

840*10^6 proton

945*10^6 neutron

If I multiply the lot (.5*10^6)(105*10^6)(840*10^6)(945*10^6) I end up getting 4.16*10^31. And divide that into 1 for inverse gives me 2.4*10^-32.

Too far off, and frankly do not see a reason to just multiply masses.

So, I do a different tactic of reason.

I look to see if any physics constant is near 10^-39 or 10^39.

Looking at the list of constants I spot a curious one called Thomson cross section at 6.65*10^-29.

Although the exponent is off by 10, looking at the prefix number digits of 6.65 and doing a Sigma Error

6.70/6.65 = a sigma error of 0.7% close enough to say they are equal.

So somehow, the force of gravity is involved with Thomson Cross Section. All I need here is a factor of exponent 10^-10 to make 6.70*10^-39.

I see the Coulomb Constant being that factor I need.

AP

Alright, in my finding what the Gravitational Constant derived from EM theory will consist of is a two part discovery since there is no apparent obvious matching of the prefix number 6.70 and then with the exponent of 10^-39.

So I have to discover the prefix number then discover the exponent power.

The prefix number already is coming in clear and loud in my mind. However it may not last. The prefix number is 6.70 and that is 2/3 to 10^1.

In pure geometry, 2/3 and 1/3 come up often, especially in volume of sphere inside cylinder is 2/3 and volume of cone inside associated cylinder is 1/3. And cylinder is part of Faraday law.

So let us see what the sigma error of 2/3 for 6.70 is. We have 6.70/6.66 is a sigma error of 0.6% which is very acceptable as being physically equal.

Now for the hard part, finding a 10^-38 power to accommodate a 2/3 prefix number. If I can find a exponent 10^-38 and then attach prefix number 0.666, problem is solved. However, up to this writing I have not found a constant or combination of constants to achieve a 10^-38.

Speaking of combination of constants.

In an past book of mine I was figuring out the radius of the donut hole in a proton torus of whatever specific size the rings are. This is what I wrote in my 205th science book.

--- quoting my 205th book of science ---
Faraday Law is inverse projective-geometry of Coulomb-gravity Law//Physics-Math

by Archimedes Plutonium

Preface: This book discusses the symmetry of the 4 differential laws of Electromagnetic theory, the Faraday law, Ampere-Maxwell law, Coulomb-gravity law and the Transformer law. This book also dives into the numbers of importance of physics and math, the 1/137, the pi, the pi subtract 2.71... and much more.

Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of 840 windings of slinky toy to form a torus that is the proton torus of physics of its 840MeV with a muon stuck inside at 105MeV doing the Faraday law.

Now I play with those numbers and see what becomes of them for the Conjectures I placed so far. The most important being the idea that 840 windings is the physical geometry of the Fine Structure Constant as a torus the produces Maximum Electricity in the Faraday law.

Alright, well it is easy to see that 210/65 is 3.230... So I went back to the lab and measured again and it was actually 205mm to 65mm. That gives me 205/65 = 3.15 and compared to pi 3.15/3.14 is a 0.3% sigma error, so close that it is automatic we announce that given any circle, and if you have 840 of those circles wound around into a torus, that the donut hole diameter divided by given circle diameter is pi number.

Now also, looking at the angle which 840 circles create in a torus is 360/840 = 0.428 degree.

Amazingly a angle of 0.428 degree is in radians that of 0.0072 or the physics Fine Structure Constant. Here I have an angle for a torus which allows for a free thrusting of a muon inside the torus, as if the muon is in a cylinder in the Faraday law. And this angle of 0.428 allows the muon to freely thrust without bumping into the torus walls.
--- end quoting my 205th published science book ---

Now, here is why I bring up the above. I need to get the prefix number 6.70 of the Gravitational Constant in GeV.

If I were to use the Coulomb constant 1.60*10^-19 C. Then what number N in 1.60 *N = 6.70 ?? What is the N number? And so dividing I come up with 6.70/1.60 = 4.2.

I need a number of 4.2 along with Coulomb constant 1.60 prefix and I have 6..70 prefix.

AP, King of Science

By the way, I love doing this type of physics, searching out the constant, for it ties into one of my strong suits-- geometry excellence.

The PSI squared function of physics is quantum mechanics as the probability of finding something in a location in space.

What happens when we apply PSI squared to Coulomb constant 1.6*10^-19 we get 2.61828*10^-38.

Now here I take Coulomb constant to be, actually and really that of 1.618.... and not 1.60 what physics experiments says it is. Because 1.618.. is the Golden Ratio of the logarithmic spiral, of a constant angle throughout the open curve. And as we multiply 1.618 by 1.618 we get back the 0.618 in the 2.618.

Now I divide 6.70 by 2.618 to see how much more I need. And it turns out to be 2.56 to make 6.70. And there is a constant in math called Sierpinski Constant, a probability wave function. We can visualize the force of gravity as the weakest electromagnetic force but in a wave probability.

Now, I multiply (1.61828*10^-19)(1.61828*10^-19)(2.56) and get 6.70*10^-38. Unfortunately it is 6.70*10^-39 that I need.

So is there a math or physics constant that is 0.256 instead of Sierpinski Constant? There is a close one called Meissel-Mertens constant of 0.26, but not close enough.

I like the idea of PSI squared but fall short of sigma error matching. So will look elswhere.

AP

Alright, I think I have this solved, as far as the numerical value is concerned. It is a far different matter if the Reasoning stands up, and holds up.. It is the reasoning that is more important than getting a numerical match..

Alright, I feel it is sound to take the Coulomb Constant as a Psi Squared. I believe the Coulomb constant is actually a Golden Mean prefix number of 1..618. And so I have the square of (1.618*10^-19) which is 2.618*10^-38). Trouble this far is mostly the exponent needs to be -39 and not -38.

Now, I am going to multiply 2.618*10^-38 by the Fine Structure Constant. Almost everything in EM theory is multiplied by the Fine Structure Constant 0..0072 units.

That gives me now 1.88*10^-40.

Finally a last multiplication. I am going to multiply that by 35 to get 66*10-40. Turning that into Scientific Notation yields 6.6*10^-39.

What is the justification of multiply by 35???

The muon rest mass is 105 MeV, and appears to be divisible by 3 to be 35MeV.. Somehow 35MeV is the lowest unit for the muon.

--- quoting my 139th published book of science ---

Deriving the Rest-Mass of Dirac's Magnetic Monopole at 0.5MeV //Physics focus series, book 13
By Archimedes Plutonium

Last revision was Feb2023. And this is AP's 139th published book of science..

Preface: It is of essential importance to derive all the most important physics constants from electricity and magnetism for it shows a consistent picture of physics where all its structure is in place and is thus a correct whole and unified theory. The constants have to fit into a whole consistent picture. And one of the most important constants is the rest-mass of the Dirac Magnetic Monopole pegged at 0.5MeV or 1/2MeV, and why this number comes up so often in measurements as 0.5MeV. And, this number is very much out of place in Old Physics Table of Elementary particles for most of the rest masses are between 105MeV and 1000 MeV, yet there is one lonely particle rest-mass in Old Physics of 0.5MeV. You would think this loner number of 0.5MeV totally unrelated to the other particle rest masses would be cause for concern and alarm. Because when particles collide in interactions of linear momentum or angular momentum that it is out of place for a proton or neutron or even a muon with a 0.5MeV particle. But no, Old Physics never seemed to have a logical thinking person to begin asking that question of -- out of place--.

Cover Picture are three of my books in my collection which inspired me to be very interested in physics and especially the Dirac Magnetic Monopole. First book on left is Feynman's "The Character of Physical Law" 1965, and his emphasis (in other books) on the Principle of Least Action, or I like to call Least Energy. Then is the book "The Elements Beyond Uranium" 1990, by Seaborg and Loveland, and finally is Dirac's book "Directions in Physics" 1978, which talks in depth of his magnetic monopole.

---------------------------
Table of Contents
---------------------------

1) My history on this subject material.

2) Trying to derive the magnetic monopole rest-mass 0.5MeV from Rydberg constant.

3) Notice that speed of light prefix is 3.16 and multiplied by itself is 10..

4) Derivation of Fine Structure Constant 1/137, comes from proton rest-mass, review.

5) Rest-mass of 0.5MeV does not fit with the rest-mass of all other subatomic particles.

6) Rest-mass building basis is 35MeV, or, 1/3 of muon's 105MeV.

7) A factor of 10 apart from 1MeV to 1*10^7 m^-1 and a factor of 31.6 to 3.16*10^8 m/s.

8) A factor of 10 and 31.6 in the Electrical Disturbance Field Disturbance, saves the day.

9) The Fermi theory of beta decay, as supporting evidence.

10) Summary.
--- end quoting my 139th published book of science ---

AP

🕷 of Math and 🕸️ of Physics Archimedes "Court Jester of Math"
Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> fails at math and science:
> Alright, I think I have this solved, as far as the numerical value is concerned. It is a far different matter if the Reasoning stands up, and holds up. It is the reasoning that is more important than getting a numerical match.
>
> Alright, I feel it is sound to take the Coulomb Constant as a Psi Squared. I believe the Coulomb constant is actually a Golden Mean prefix number of 1.618. And so I have the square of (1.618*10^-19) which is 2.618*10^-38). Trouble this far is mostly the exponent needs to be -39 and not -38.
>
> Now, I am going to multiply 2.618*10^-38 by the Fine Structure Constant. Almost everything in EM theory is multiplied by the Fine Structure Constant 0.0072 units.
>
> That gives me now 1.88*10^-40.
>
> Finally a last multiplication. I am going to multiply that by 35 to get 66*10-40. Turning that into Scientific Notation yields 6.6*10^-39.
>
> What is the justification of multiply by 35???
>
> The muon rest mass is 105 MeV, and appears to be divisible by 3 to be 35MeV. Somehow 35MeV is the lowest unit for the muon.
>
> --- quoting my 139th published book of science ---
>
> Deriving the Rest-Mass of Dirac's Magnetic Monopole at 0.5MeV //Physics focus series, book 13
> By Archimedes Plutonium
>
> Last revision was Feb2023. And this is AP's 139th published book of science.
>
> Preface: It is of essential importance to derive all the most important physics constants from electricity and magnetism for it shows a consistent picture of physics where all its structure is in place and is thus a correct whole and unified theory. The constants have to fit into a whole consistent picture. And one of the most important constants is the rest-mass of the Dirac Magnetic Monopole pegged at 0.5MeV or 1/2MeV, and why this number comes up so often in measurements as 0.5MeV. And, this number is very much out of place in Old Physics Table of Elementary particles for most of the rest masses are between 105MeV and 1000 MeV, yet there is one lonely particle rest-mass in Old Physics of 0.5MeV. You would think this loner number of 0.5MeV totally unrelated to the other particle rest masses would be cause for concern and alarm. Because when particles collide in interactions of linear momentum or angular momentum that it is out of place for a proton or neutron or even a muon with a 0.5MeV particle. But no, Old Physics never seemed to have a logical thinking person to begin asking that question of -- out of place--.
>
> Cover Picture are three of my books in my collection which inspired me to be very interested in physics and especially the Dirac Magnetic Monopole. First book on left is Feynman's "The Character of Physical Law" 1965, and his emphasis (in other books) on the Principle of Least Action, or I like to call Least Energy. Then is the book "The Elements Beyond Uranium" 1990, by Seaborg and Loveland, and finally is Dirac's book "Directions in Physics" 1978, which talks in depth of his magnetic monopole.
>
> ---------------------------
> Table of Contents
> ---------------------------
>
> 1) My history on this subject material.
>
> 2) Trying to derive the magnetic monopole rest-mass 0.5MeV from Rydberg constant.
>
> 3) Notice that speed of light prefix is 3.16 and multiplied by itself is 10.
>
> 4) Derivation of Fine Structure Constant 1/137, comes from proton rest-mass, review.
>
> 5) Rest-mass of 0.5MeV does not fit with the rest-mass of all other subatomic particles.
>
> 6) Rest-mass building basis is 35MeV, or, 1/3 of muon's 105MeV.
>
> 7) A factor of 10 apart from 1MeV to 1*10^7 m^-1 and a factor of 31.6 to 3.16*10^8 m/s.
>
> 8) A factor of 10 and 31.6 in the Electrical Disturbance Field Disturbance, saves the day.
>
> 9) The Fermi theory of beta decay, as supporting evidence.
>
> 10) Summary.
> --- end quoting my 139th published book of science ---
Nice numerology!

ETH, Dr.Joel Mesot,Jan Burse
> 🕷 of Math and 🕸️ of Physics "Court Jester of Math"
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 2:11:45 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote: the above as 30 year hate stalker

Volney's failures..Zurich ETH, physics dept
Charalampos Anastasiou, Niklas Beisert, Adrian Biland, Gianni Blatter, Marcella Carollo, Christian Degen, Leonardo Degiorgi,

Jan Burse and Volney, why cannot ETH finish their water electrolysis experiment to prove Water is really H4O not H2O??

They must know the Quartz Crystal Microbalance has been around since 1960s to weigh hydrogen and oxygen in water electrolysis.

Why Volney can they not finish the water electrolysis experiment to weigh the mass of hydrogen and oxygen?? Because they are so sloppy and slipshod in Physics experiment of Water Electrolysis, stopping and ceasing the experiment before weighing the mass of the hydrogen compared to mass of oxygen. Is it that they are stupid silly thinking volume and mass are the same. For AP needs to prove decisively, if Water is really H4O or H2O. And of course, this experiment would destroy the Standard Model-- that post-diction theory of physics that never gave a single prediction in all of its tenure.

Or is it because they cannot admit the truth of math geometry that slant cut of cone is oval, not ellipse for you need the symmetry of slant cut of cylinder to yield a ellipse.

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 5:37:32 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:
>"goonclod failure of logic"

President: Christopher Eisgruber (physics)
Princeton Univ physics dept
Michael Aizenman, Philip Anderson, Robert Austin, Waseem Bakr, Bogdan Bernevig, Ravindra Bhatt, William Bialek, Frank Calaprice, Curtis Callan, Roberto Car, Paul Chaikin, Kenan Diab, Jo Dunkley, Aurelien Fraisse, Cristiano Galbiati, Simone Giombi, Thomas Gregor, David Gross, Edward Groth, Steven Gubser, William Happer, John Hopfield, Andrew Houck, David Huse, Norman Jarosik, William Jones, Andrew Leifer, Elliot Lieb, Daniel Marlow, Peter Meyers, James Olsen, Lyman Page, Alexander Polyakov, Frans Pretorius, Michael Romalis, Joshua Shaevitz, A. Smith, Shivaji Sondhi, Suzanne Staggs, Paul Steinhardt, David Tank, Christopher Tully, Herman Verlinde, Edward Witten, F.Duncan Haldane (physics), Russell Hulse (physics), Joseph Taylor (physics), Dr. David MacMillan (chem), James Peebles (physics), Daniel Tsui (physics)

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
,Kurt Wuthrich (chem), Dr.Joel Mesot

University Bern
Christian Leumann
Walter Benjamin
Emil Theodor Kocher
Kurt Wuthrich
Daniel Vassella
Rene Fasel
Mani Matter

Apparently Kibo realized he was a science failure when he could not even do a proper percentage. But then one has to wonder how much he paid to bribe Rensselaer to graduate from the school in engineering unable to do a percentage properly???? For I certainly would not hire a engineer who cannot even do proper percentage.

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon..
> Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
> Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.
Why Volney?? Because they stop short of completing the Water Electrolysis Experiment by only looking at volume, when they are meant to weigh the mass of hydrogen versus oxygen?? Such shoddy minds in experimental physics and chemistry.
On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 12:13:14 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Physics minnow
> WARNING TO ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING STUDENTS:

What warning is that Kibo Parry failure of science-- warning that insane persons like Kibo Parry Moroney Volney spends their entire life in a hate-mill, never doing anything in science itself.

Kibo Parry Moroney-Volney blowing his cover with the CIA in 1997
> Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
> On Sunday, June 8, 1997 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > In article <5nefan$i06$9...@news.thecia.net> kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net> writes:
> > >

---quoting Wikipedia ---
> Controversy
> Many government and university installations blocked, threatened to block, or attempted to shut-down The World's Internet connection until Software Tool & Die was eventually granted permission by the National Science Foundation to provide public Internet access on "an experimental basis."
--- end quote ---

> NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
>
> Dr. Panchanathan , present day
> NSF Dr. Panchanathan, F. Fleming Crim, Dorothy E Aronson, Brian Stone, James S Ulvestad (math), Rebecca Lynn Keiser, Vernon D. Ross, Lloyd Whitman, John J. Veysey (physics), Scott Stanley
> France Anne Cordova
> Subra Suresh (bioengineer)
> Arden Lee Bement Jr. (nuclear engineering)
> Rita R. Colwell (microbiology)
> Neal Francis Lane
> John Howard Gibbons 1993
>
> Barry Shein, kibo parry std world
> Jim Frost, Joe "Spike" Ilacqua
>
> Canada-- NSERC , Alejandro Adem (math) , Navdeep Bains, Francois-Philippe Champagne

News starting to come in that AP's Water Electrolysis Experiment proves the true formula of Water is H4O, not H2O is starting to come in.

> Aug 30, 2023, 10:19:20 PM (yesterday)
> to Plutonium Atom Universe
> News starting to come in that AP's Water Electrolysis Experiment proves the true formula of Water is H4O, not H2O is starting to come in.
>
> I received a letter today of Experiment results on Water Electrolysis of weighing the hydrogen test tube versus oxygen test tube and the result is 1/4 atomic mass units of Hydrogen compared to Oxygen.
>
> The researcher weighing 1600 micrograms of hydrogen, using a Eisco-Brownlee-Water-Electrolysis Apparatus.
>
> Using sulfuric acid as electrolyte on ultra pure water. Using low voltage DC of 1.5 volts, 1 amp.
>
> I am not surprised that news of the true formula of Water is H4O comes so quickly. For not much in science is more important than knowing the truth of Water. And this means the start of the complete downfall and throwing out the sick Standard Model of Physics, for it is such an insane theory that it cannot get passed the idea of its subatomic particles as stick and ball, with no job, no function, no task. The Standard Model of Physics, is crazy insane physics for it is all postdiction, never prediction. The idea that the hydrogen atom is H2 not H, is because of the prediction of Atom Totality Theory where a atom is a proton torus with muon inside doing the Faraday law and all atoms require at least 1 capacitor. That means the one proton in H2 serves as a neutron to the other proton, storaging the electricity produced by the other proton.
>
> The true Hydrogen Atom is H2 for all atoms need at least one capacitor, and one of the protons in H2 serves as a neutron.
>
> Sad that chemistry and physics throughout the 20th century were too stupid to actually weigh the mass of hydrogen and oxygen in electrolysis, no, the ignorant fools stopped at looking when they saw the volume of hydrogen was twice that of oxygen. A real scientist is not that shoddy and slipshod ignorant, the real scientist then proceeds with -- let us weigh the hydrogen test tube mass versus the oxygen test tube mass.
>
> Thanks for the news!!!!!
>
> AP
>
> News starting to come in that AP's Water Electrolysis Experiment proves the true formula of Water is H4O, not H2O is starting to come in.
> There is another experiment that achieves the same result that Water is truly H4O and not H2O, but I suspect this second method is hugely fraught with difficulty.
>
> The prediction of H4O comes from the Physics idea that a Atom is composed, all atoms mind you, is composed of a proton torus with muon/s inside going round and round thrusting through the torus in the Faraday law and producing electricity. So that when you have Hydrogen without a neutron, there is no way to collect the electricity produced by the Faraday law. Think of it as a automobile engine, you cannot have a engine if there is no crank shaft to collect the energy from the thrusting piston inside the crankcase.
>
> Same thing with an Atom, it needs 3 parts-- muon as bar magnet, proton as torus of coils, and a capacitor to storage the produced electricity. If one of those parts is missing, the entity is a Subatomic particle and not a atom.
>
> So, when we have Hydrogen as a proton with muon inside, it is not a Atom, until it has a neutron, or, has another proton of hydrogen H2, then it is a Atom.
>
> So that H2 is not a molecule but a Atom. H alone is a subatomic particle.
>
> SECOND EXPERIMENT:
>
> Much harder than Water Electrolysis.
>
> We need to get two identical containers.
>
> We need to be able to make pure heavy-water with deuterium. Deuterium is proton + neutron as hydrogen. Proton + proton is H2 as hydrogen.
>
> So we have two identical containers and we fill one with pure heavy water, deuterium water.
>
> We have the second container and we fill it with pure (light) water.
>
> We now weigh both of them.
>
> If AP is correct, that water is really H4O and not H2O, then both containers should weigh almost the same. Only a tiny fraction difference because the neutron is known to be 940MeV versus proton in Old Physics as 938MeV a tiny difference of 2MeV, but we realize we have a huge number of water molecules in the two identical containers.
>
> If water is truly H4O, the weights should be almost the same. If water is H2O, then there is a **large difference** in weights.
>
> But the Water Electrolysis experiment is much easier to conduct and get results.
>

On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 1:29:35 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Alright, I think I have this solved, as far as the numerical value is concerned. It is a far different matter if the Reasoning stands up, and holds up. It is the reasoning that is more important than getting a numerical match.
>
> Alright, I feel it is sound to take the Coulomb Constant as a Psi Squared.. I believe the Coulomb constant is actually a Golden Mean prefix number of 1.618. And so I have the square of (1.618*10^-19) which is 2.618*10^-38). Trouble this far is mostly the exponent needs to be -39 and not -38.
>
> Now, I am going to multiply 2.618*10^-38 by the Fine Structure Constant. Almost everything in EM theory is multiplied by the Fine Structure Constant 0.0072 units.
>
> That gives me now 1.88*10^-40.
>
> Finally a last multiplication. I am going to multiply that by 35 to get 66*10-40. Turning that into Scientific Notation yields 6.6*10^-39.
>
> What is the justification of multiply by 35???
>
> The muon rest mass is 105 MeV, and appears to be divisible by 3 to be 35MeV. Somehow 35MeV is the lowest unit for the muon.
>
> --- quoting my 139th published book of science ---
>
> Deriving the Rest-Mass of Dirac's Magnetic Monopole at 0.5MeV //Physics focus series, book 13
> By Archimedes Plutonium
>
> Last revision was Feb2023. And this is AP's 139th published book of science.
>
> Preface: It is of essential importance to derive all the most important physics constants from electricity and magnetism for it shows a consistent picture of physics where all its structure is in place and is thus a correct whole and unified theory. The constants have to fit into a whole consistent picture. And one of the most important constants is the rest-mass of the Dirac Magnetic Monopole pegged at 0.5MeV or 1/2MeV, and why this number comes up so often in measurements as 0.5MeV. And, this number is very much out of place in Old Physics Table of Elementary particles for most of the rest masses are between 105MeV and 1000 MeV, yet there is one lonely particle rest-mass in Old Physics of 0.5MeV. You would think this loner number of 0.5MeV totally unrelated to the other particle rest masses would be cause for concern and alarm. Because when particles collide in interactions of linear momentum or angular momentum that it is out of place for a proton or neutron or even a muon with a 0.5MeV particle. But no, Old Physics never seemed to have a logical thinking person to begin asking that question of -- out of place--.
>
> Cover Picture are three of my books in my collection which inspired me to be very interested in physics and especially the Dirac Magnetic Monopole. First book on left is Feynman's "The Character of Physical Law" 1965, and his emphasis (in other books) on the Principle of Least Action, or I like to call Least Energy. Then is the book "The Elements Beyond Uranium" 1990, by Seaborg and Loveland, and finally is Dirac's book "Directions in Physics" 1978, which talks in depth of his magnetic monopole.
>
> ---------------------------
> Table of Contents
> ---------------------------
>
> 1) My history on this subject material.
>
> 2) Trying to derive the magnetic monopole rest-mass 0.5MeV from Rydberg constant.
>
> 3) Notice that speed of light prefix is 3.16 and multiplied by itself is 10.
>
> 4) Derivation of Fine Structure Constant 1/137, comes from proton rest-mass, review.
>
> 5) Rest-mass of 0.5MeV does not fit with the rest-mass of all other subatomic particles.
>
> 6) Rest-mass building basis is 35MeV, or, 1/3 of muon's 105MeV.
>
> 7) A factor of 10 apart from 1MeV to 1*10^7 m^-1 and a factor of 31.6 to 3.16*10^8 m/s.
>
> 8) A factor of 10 and 31.6 in the Electrical Disturbance Field Disturbance, saves the day.
>
> 9) The Fermi theory of beta decay, as supporting evidence.
>
> 10) Summary.
> --- end quoting my 139th published book of science ---
>

I cannot use the 35 by itself without the MeV attached unless I can get it all alone.

AP

On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 2:58:35 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 1:29:35 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Alright, I think I have this solved, as far as the numerical value is concerned. It is a far different matter if the Reasoning stands up, and holds up. It is the reasoning that is more important than getting a numerical match.
> >
> > Alright, I feel it is sound to take the Coulomb Constant as a Psi Squared. I believe the Coulomb constant is actually a Golden Mean prefix number of 1.618. And so I have the square of (1.618*10^-19) which is 2.618*10^-38).. Trouble this far is mostly the exponent needs to be -39 and not -38.
> >
> > Now, I am going to multiply 2.618*10^-38 by the Fine Structure Constant.. Almost everything in EM theory is multiplied by the Fine Structure Constant 0.0072 units.
> >
> > That gives me now 1.88*10^-40.
> >
> > Finally a last multiplication. I am going to multiply that by 35 to get 66*10-40. Turning that into Scientific Notation yields 6.6*10^-39.
> >
> > What is the justification of multiply by 35???
> >
> > The muon rest mass is 105 MeV, and appears to be divisible by 3 to be 35MeV. Somehow 35MeV is the lowest unit for the muon.
> >
> > --- quoting my 139th published book of science ---
> >
> > Deriving the Rest-Mass of Dirac's Magnetic Monopole at 0.5MeV //Physics focus series, book 13
> > By Archimedes Plutonium
> >
> > Last revision was Feb2023. And this is AP's 139th published book of science.
> >
> > Preface: It is of essential importance to derive all the most important physics constants from electricity and magnetism for it shows a consistent picture of physics where all its structure is in place and is thus a correct whole and unified theory. The constants have to fit into a whole consistent picture. And one of the most important constants is the rest-mass of the Dirac Magnetic Monopole pegged at 0.5MeV or 1/2MeV, and why this number comes up so often in measurements as 0.5MeV. And, this number is very much out of place in Old Physics Table of Elementary particles for most of the rest masses are between 105MeV and 1000 MeV, yet there is one lonely particle rest-mass in Old Physics of 0.5MeV. You would think this loner number of 0..5MeV totally unrelated to the other particle rest masses would be cause for concern and alarm. Because when particles collide in interactions of linear momentum or angular momentum that it is out of place for a proton or neutron or even a muon with a 0.5MeV particle. But no, Old Physics never seemed to have a logical thinking person to begin asking that question of -- out of place--.
> >
> > Cover Picture are three of my books in my collection which inspired me to be very interested in physics and especially the Dirac Magnetic Monopole.. First book on left is Feynman's "The Character of Physical Law" 1965, and his emphasis (in other books) on the Principle of Least Action, or I like to call Least Energy. Then is the book "The Elements Beyond Uranium" 1990, by Seaborg and Loveland, and finally is Dirac's book "Directions in Physics" 1978, which talks in depth of his magnetic monopole.
> >
> > ---------------------------
> > Table of Contents
> > ---------------------------
> >
> > 1) My history on this subject material.
> >
> > 2) Trying to derive the magnetic monopole rest-mass 0.5MeV from Rydberg constant.
> >
> > 3) Notice that speed of light prefix is 3.16 and multiplied by itself is 10.
> >
> > 4) Derivation of Fine Structure Constant 1/137, comes from proton rest-mass, review.
> >
> > 5) Rest-mass of 0.5MeV does not fit with the rest-mass of all other subatomic particles.
> >
> > 6) Rest-mass building basis is 35MeV, or, 1/3 of muon's 105MeV.
> >
> > 7) A factor of 10 apart from 1MeV to 1*10^7 m^-1 and a factor of 31.6 to 3.16*10^8 m/s.
> >
> > 8) A factor of 10 and 31.6 in the Electrical Disturbance Field Disturbance, saves the day.
> >
> > 9) The Fermi theory of beta decay, as supporting evidence.
> >
> > 10) Summary.
> > --- end quoting my 139th published book of science ---
> >
> I cannot use the 35 by itself without the MeV attached unless I can get it all alone.
>

A very simple remedy and shortens the derivation.

Square of (1.618*10^-19) as in PSI squared which is 2.618*10^-38 then multiply by Meissel-Mertens constant 0.26 yields the end result 6.70*10^-39, within sigma error.

Trouble is, how to explain what Meissel-Mertens constant has to do with Electromagnetic theory. And if not, well I need to look further for a 0.256. Perhaps a combination of 0.0072 and 35.55. Is there a 35.55 somewhere in physics? Other than 35MeV.

AP