The 1908 Rutherford-Geiger-Marsden then Bohr model of Atoms with a nucleus was erroneous. They failed to look at their gold-leaf experiment with a logical mind. They failed to understand that if the alpha particle bounced back with more velocity exiting the gold than entering the gold means a head-on collision with something of more mass and moving fast in the opposite direction. That meant the gold atoms were toruses of 79 x 840 Windings Proton Torus with 79 x 105 Windings of Muons thrusting inside the Proton Torus in a Faraday law.

The incoming alpha particle by Rutherford-Geiger-Marsden hit head on collision this string of Muons circling inside the proton torus of gold and ejected the Alpha particle backwards 180 degrees giving it a faster speed than it entered the gold leaf.

Rutherford-Geiger-Marsden-Bohr and everyone after failed to correctly interpret the Gold Leaf Experiment of 1908. Atoms have No Nucleus. Atoms have Toruses with muons inside thrusting through.

This means our interpretation of what happens in Atomic weapons needs a wholescale revision.

It is easy to see how in a Atomic bomb explosion so much is converted to energy, pure energy for the windings of a single proton is 840 windings of 840MeV. So that as a neutron has 945 Windings in 945MeV, hits the 840 windings with a muon inside 840 for an additional 105 windings, as these particles smash into one another 945 windings into 945 windings. The windings are all separated out as "pure energy" as each winding becomes radiation instead of mass proton and muon and neutron. The Neutron is a parallel plate capacitor and is of a different geometry than is the Proton torus with muons inside. The neutrons are key in unraveling the windings of the proton torus.

Old Physics never really had a picture of what happens. New Physics gives us this detailed picture of what happens when a plutonium bomb or a hydrogen bomb explode. You tear apart Toruses is what happens.

Funny how all of this is top top secret in governments around the world, yet here, the King of Science, will explain it like no-one ever has explained the Atomic bomb before, and explain it correctly. And funny the entire world can view the workings of the Atomic bomb. It is a misnomer to call it the nuclear bomb or nuclear missile for Atoms have no nucleus.

AP, King of Science, yours truly

AP's 271st book of science Total Revision how Atomic Bombs Explode, since Atoms have no nucleus but are toruses.

This gives us the idea you need neutrons as parallel plate capacitors to rip through and tear up the proton toruses. Picture flying discs as parallel plates thrown at a torus of windings. As each disc slices through a winding.

AP

A scientist long ago made a remark that goes like this: "Theory is important, but imagination is everything".

In keeping with that idea, although I do not buy it. In keeping with that idea, imagination is important as a aid in teaching and as a aid in learning..

So here is a topic of the most violent of physics-- Atomic weapons, atomic missiles, atomic bombs.

Notice I refrain from using the word "nuclear" because Atoms have no nucleus.

So this book is mostly about addressing the problem of how Atomic missiles, and bombs actually work provided Atoms have no nucleus.

And the very best way to teach how they work is a Metaphor-Analogy. Something that comes from imagination is the best teaching tool possible.

Atoms are toruses, proton toruses with many windings. The hydrogen proton torus has 840 windings with the muon inside having another 105 windings. The plutonium atom has 94 protons and thus 94x840 plus 94x105 for the muons inside.

Think of a winding as a loop of energy of radiation energy so plutonium would have 94x 840 = 78,960 windings with muon another 9,870.

The neutron that hits the plutonium atom torus is another 945 windings.

So, well, here is the Imagination picture of how a Atomic bomb or missile actually works.

Think of the neutron as 945 discs that cut up a torus.

As a neutron disc hits a proton torus, it slices into the proton torus cutting it in half and into more discs, and comes back and does more slicing with the help of discs of the proton and muon discs. Keeps on slicing until all 78,960 and 9,870 windings all become individual discs. And these discs are pure energy of radiation. Electromagnetic radiation, some thermal, some kinetic pulse EM. So that when a Atomic bomb goes off, it vaporizes material near the blast.

AP

On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 11:41:12 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> A scientist long ago made a remark that goes like this: "Theory is important, but imagination is everything".
>

And this is the crux between theory and imagination.

Theory is a composition of facts and data with some logic holding it together. While Imagination is a free for all, with more likelihood of error than correctness.

A few years back we had a huge explosion in Beirut of a fertilizer silo. This involves a chemical explosion involving nitrogen, not unlike a Atomic bomb explosion.

Theory involves science and logic. Imagination involves everything and is thus prone to huge error and mistakes.

So I start this book with Imagination and quickly am reigned in by theory, data and logic and science.

We experienced the opposite of explosion this year when a submersible imploded in deep ocean water. Not much we have to explain there, outside pressure more enormous than what container can hold back. But an implosion is really far different from a atomic bomb explosion or even a chemical explosion.

Today I need to correct my remarks of yesterday. The mechanism of a Atomic bomb explosion is not the imagination of a neutron as parallel plate capacitor as 945MeV as 945 sharp cutting knife discs that cut the plutonium atom torus of 94x840 plates as they then form a explosion of all those plates exiting the Atom.

Rarely does imagination follow logic and reason and that is why it is often more wrong than correct.

Logic Reason: Primal Axiom of Physics-- All is Atom, and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism.

So the explanation of the submersible implosion and the fertilizer explosion and the Atomic bomb explosion-- all their explanation comes down to electricity and magnetism.

Is there really a difference between a chemical explosion such as nitrogen chemistry and that of Atomic bomb explosion, or are they the same mechanism only of a different scale of power?

Years back, I was writing a book about the mechanism of Short Circuit in a small battery. And I experimented. And found that it would explode (do not try this yourself).

Logical Reasoning:: If all comes down to a explanation of electricity and magnetism, the explosion of a battery via short circuit is the same mechanism as the explosion of chemicals such as nitrogen fertilizer or atomic bombs..

If we conceive (or imagine) the 945MeV neutron or the 840MeV proton or the 105MeV muon of Atomic Physics as all those windings 945, 840, 105 each winding as pure energy, then the explosion of a Atomic Bomb is the short circuiting of all those individual closed loops.

So, I dangerously took a new battery and short circuited it and immediately felt a rush of "high heat" inside the battery, and immediately stopped, for I did not want a battery to explode.

The mechanism of the Atomic missile or Atomic bomb is not that of knives cutting up the closed loops of 945,840,105. The mechanism is that the neutrons short circuit the closed loops.

My 151st published book of science.

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 ‏ : ‎ 1048 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 404 pages
• Best Sellers Rank: #4,844,838 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #487 in Electromagnetic Theory
◦ #1,210 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
◦ #8,751 in Electromagnetism (Books)

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4

by Archimedes Plutonium

Last revision was June 2023. And this is AP's 151st published book of science.

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.

The world needs a new standard in physics education since Feynman set the standard in 1960s with his "Lectures on Physics" that lasted until about 1990 and then AP's Atom Totality theory caused Feynman's Lectures to be completely outdated. And so much has changed in physics since 1960s that AP now sets the new world standard in physics education with this series of textbooks.

To be a Master of physics or Calculus or Mathematics, has to be seen in "signs and signals". Can you correct the mistakes and errors of Old Physics, of Old Calculus, of Old Math? If you cannot clean up the fakery of Old Physics, of Old Calculus, of Old Math, you have no business, no reason to write a physics, calculus or math textbook. There is an old legend in England about King Arthur, and the legend goes, that the King is the one who pulls Excalibur out of the iron anvil. Pulling the sword out of the anvil is a metaphor for Cleaning up all the mistakes and errors of Old Physics, of Old Calculus, of Old Math. You have to clean up and clear out the mistakes and errors of the past, for Physics to move forward.