• Re: John Gabriel said, repost my 15 threads everyday and you can cornho

    From Archimedes Plutonium@21:1/5 to All on Thu Sep 7 12:13:58 2023
    Can_Dr.Joao Rodrigues,Dr.Aaron Klug (chem),Dr.John Burland (engr),Dr.Elias Sideras-Haddad,Dr.Martin Ntwaeaborwa,John Gabriel - -PLEASE--step into Univ of Witwatersrand 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.


    Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
    Physics dept
    Joao Rodrigues
    Somnath Bhattacharyya
    John Carter
    Andrew Chen
    Darell Comins
    Robert De Mello Koch
    Arthur Every
    Andrew Forbes
    Kelvin Goldstein
    Vishnu Jejjala
    Robert Joubert
    Jonathan Keartland
    Nukri Komin
    Bruce Mellado
    Deena Naidoo
    Mervin Naidoo
    Alex Quandt
    Elias Sideras-Haddad
    Martin Ntwaeaborwa
    Dr.John Burland (engr)
    Dr. Aaron Klug (chem)

    John Gabriel--spam mill in sci.math. Not only is Gabriel vapid and ignorant of science, but he constantly threatens others with violence.


    +Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within

    +Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within

    3m views Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium


    Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within the accuracy I need for weighing a test tube of oxygen then a test tube of hydrogen from water electrolysis.


    Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium

    In Old Chemistry and Old Physics, their subatomic particles were do nothing and no function and no job particles that sit around as balls or whiz around the outside of balls doing nothing but pointless circling.

    In New Physics and New Chemistry-- All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. Every subatomic particle has a job a function a purpose as to the Laws of Electromagnetism--- Faraday law, Coulomb law, Ampere law, Capacitor
    law.

    A proton is a torus of 840MeV with 840 windings, while the muon is the true electron of Atoms and is encased inside the proton torus thrusting through and producing electricity-- magnetic monopoles.

    The neutron of Atoms is a parallel plate capacitor storing the electricity of proton+muon and is skin cover on the outside of the proton torus in the form of parallel plates.

    Can hydrogen be a Atom if it is just a proton+muon? No, all atoms require to have a capacitor such as at least one neutron. Thus the Hydrogen Atom is H2 where you have 2 proton+muon where 1 of the 2 proton+muon acts like a neutron to the
    other proton+muon. Thus, water molecule is not H2O but rather is H4O.

    AP is waiting for experimental chemists and physicists to prove him correct that Water is H4O.

    In the meantime we have Hydroxyl which in Old Chemistry, especially Biology is OH, while AP says that is wrong and that is really H2O.

    Now glycerine is a hydroxyl with formula C3H8O3. And what I am thinking at this moment, is that hydroxyls will be an easier proof that Water is truly H4O, rather than wait for experimentalists to actually "weigh the electrolysis test tubes of
    oxygen and hydrogen".

    You see, with H4O as water, glycerine is C3(2 waters)O with an extra oxygen. If Water is H2O then glycerine is C3(4 waters) deficit O. It is missing an oxygen if water is H2O.

    The reason glycerine is so effective as a skin ointment is because it has glycerine, the extra O oxygen. If water were H2O, then glycerine would be a missing oxygen and not a skin lotion that works, but makes skin even more dry.

    Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium

    Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
    12:24 AM (13 hours ago)



    to Plutonium Atom Universe

    --- quoting in part from source-- Study.com ---
    Perhaps there is only two Faraday laws on Electrolysis. I am looking at the one that states: Faraday's first law of electrolysis relates the mass of a substance liberated (or deposited) at an electrode to the electric charge used (Q). A
    proportionality constant Z can be used:

    m = ZQ = (E/96485)(Q)

    m = mass, Q = total charge rewritten as Q = I*t amperes x time in seconds.

    This website gives an example: 5amps passed through molten Sodium Chloride for 3 hours. Calculate the mass of Sodium. E=23/1.

    m = (23/96485) (5) (3*60*60) approx 12.87 grams.

    --- end quoting in part from source-- Study.com ---

    Now has such a experiment been performed on Water to see how much atomic mass of hydrogen and of oxygen results??? If AP is correct, the formula of water is H4O, if Old Physics, Old Chemistry is correct the formula is H2O. So which is it???

    AP


    No, sorry no, Faraday's Law of Electrolysis is not going to tell the correct mass of hydrogen.

    Reading Wikipedia on Faraday's Electrolysis law.

    --- quoting Wikipedia ---
    A monovalent ion requires 1 electron for discharge, a divalent ion requires 2 electrons for discharge and so on. Thus, if x electrons flow,
    x/v atoms are discharged.

    So the mass m discharged is

    m= (xM)/vN_A) = (QM)/(eN_A *v) = (QM) / (vF)
    where
    N_A is the Avogadro constant;
    Q = xe is the total charge, equal to the number of electrons (x) times the elementary charge e;
    F is the Faraday constant.
    --- end quoting Wikipedia ---

    No, the Faraday law of Electrolysis will not work on water with a correct answer, because H is not an atom but H2 is an Atom. And where one of the proton+muon converts to being a neutron to the other proton+muon.

    So if Faraday's law of Electrolysis was applied to water, thinking it would deliver a true answer is mistaken because the one H converts to neutron.

    So it appears that we need to directly measure the test tube of oxygen and the test tube of hydrogen by a direct mass measurement.

    AP
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
    1:14 AM (12 hours ago)



    to Plutonium Atom Universe
    I doubt we can measure a test tube of hydrogen or test tube of oxygen, too small to determine the mass on some sort of weight scale.

    But here is a possible lucrative idea. We should be able to get pure deuterium water. Then run the electrolysis. Collect the test tubes.

    Now have some sort of balancing beam weight scale. Place the regular water of hydrogen test tube on one side, and place the deuterium water hydrogen test tube on other side. If they stay balanced, then AP is correct and Water is really H4O.

    AP
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
    1:48 AM (11 hours ago)



    to Plutonium Atom Universe
    Cosmic Rays from Sun

    90% of Sun's cosmic rays are 840MeV proton+muon inside = H. The hydrogen Atom is H2 where one of the H proton+muon converts to being a neutron.

    When these proton+muon hit Earth atmosphere, they can turn into pions and muons.

    I commented that H alone is a subatomic particle and that makes sense in the idea that Sun's cosmic rays are 90% these proton+muon.

    Now is interstellar hydrogen H2 and intergalactic hydrogen H2 formed when one H cosmic ray joins up with another H cosmic ray to form H2 atom?

    Is this how we get H2 in outer space? From the splitting apart of H2 into H cosmic rays?

    So how much of the Sun's hydrogen is H2 and how much is H ready to join with another H and reform back into H2. Probably little of the Sun's H is H alone, and the vast majority of the Sun's hydrogen is H2.

    How much deuterium in the Sun? And it is a higher percentage than the deuterium in water on Earth?

    AP
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
    3:11 AM (10 hours ago)



    to Plutonium Atom Universe
    Water is the only known non-metallic substance that expands when if freezes; its density decreases and it expands approximately 9% by volume. (Source: web Lunar and Planetary Institute)

    I have to wait for experimental chemists and physicists to weigh the mass of test tubes from electrolysis, as to the verdict-- water is H4O.

    But until that news comes in, I will look for other means of proof.

    So AP says that the H2 is not a molecule but is the hydrogen Atom itself, where one proton+muon converts to a neutron and capacitates the other proton+muon which undergo the Faraday law.

    There are subatomic particles of H in the form of Cosmic Rays from the Sun, but most of the Sun's hydrogen is H2, and flips back and forth from H to rejoining to form H2. Some gets away from the Sun and is cosmic rays.

    But H2 is an Atom and H is a fleeting subatomic particle.

    So can I prove Water is H4O from the data of Spectral lines of H2 is the same as deuterium, only slight difference is that the deuterium is a full fledged neutron not a makeshift proton+muon of H.

    I suspect that special trait of water freezing is a proof that Water is H4O. Because the 840MeV proton torus with muon inside doing the Faraday law acting as a makeshift neutron capacitor for the other 840MeV proton torus with muon inside, is
    where H2 gets that expansion characteristic.

    A neutron is a parallel plate capacitor and those plates can expand when frozen temperature occurs. As the temperature gets colder, those plates move further apart.

    Now does deuterium which truly has a full neutron, does it expand also when frozen?? If so, does it expand as much as H2 which is 2 protons with 2 muons inside?

    So comparing the freezing and expansion of the parallel plates of a neutron in deuterium with the freezing and expansion of one of the proton+muon that is acting as a makeshift neutron in H2.

    If I can numbers correlate the H2 expansion with the Deuterium expansion would be a alternative proof that Water is really H4O and not H2O.

    AP
    to
    So now on Blankenship's book "Molecular Mechanisms of Photosynthesis", 2014, page 134, shows The structure of ATP, ADP, AMP. And within that structure are OH hydroxyls.

    In New Chemistry, water is truly H4O, and where hydroxyls are now H2O. And we have first proof of this in the Figure 8.1 of Blankenship's "Chemical structure of ATP".

    For in the lower left corner of the diagram, Blankenship has a H+ all alone, (really a mindless error) and has P surrounded by O-, O-, O and OH. The OH is really H2O for hydroxyls are H2O and water itself is H4O, and that would leave that
    mindless H+ as being hydrogen Atom of H2.

    The world of physics and chemistry should drop what they are doing and weigh the electrolysis test tube of hydrogen and oxygen to discover the correct true formula of water is H4O.

    AP is total confident, becuase an Atom cannot exist if it has no capacitor structure such as a neutron, or one of the H in H2 acting as a neutron. I am totally confident that Water formula is truly H4O. And I need look only to methane of H4C,
    to realize that there is no HC, no H2C, no H3C, but starts with H4C, and that tells me water starts with H4O. Totally confident that Old Chemistry, Old Physics did electrolysis experiments and the moment they saw hydrogen test tube be 2x volume of oxygen
    test tube, they dropped their work and went out for a Danish and coffee break, rather than finish their work--- actual physics weighing of atomic mass units (not the Faraday electrolysis law for it does not apply to water).

    When water electrolysis is physics weighed, AP is confident that there are 4H per every one oxygen O. And that Water is truly H4O.

    AP, King of Science
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium
    9:34 AM (15 minutes ago)



    to
    On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 8:56:57 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
    Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within the accuracy I need for weighing a test tube of oxygen then a test tube of hydrogen from water electrolysis.

    Now modern day physics and chemist experimenters can really do a marvelous job if they wanted to. For they could freeze the test tubes of oxygen and hydrogen to where they are liquid and compare liquids from water electrolysis.
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium
    10:01 AM (5 hours ago)



    to
    So, what AP is saying here is that we do electrolysis of water. We collect the two test tubes, one with oxygen the other with hydrogen.

    To prove Water is truly the formula H4O and not H2O we must weigh the masses of the two tubes to find that the ratio is 1 x 16amu to 4 x 1amu.

    The silly grotesque science error of the past was to look at volumes in the two test tubes-- "Hey-- the hydrogen is twice the volume of oxygen so the formula of water is H2O".

    No, way was that science good practice. For the correct formula of water needs to be measured by mass, by atomic mass units where Oxygen is 16amu and hydrogen is 1amu.

    I suspect a balance beam scale is good enough to see the hydrogen test tube will be 1/4 as massive as the oxygen test tube. To get within precision of electronic weighing scale of 0.00001 gram we just have to make a larger test tube of
    electrolysis of water.

    AP is betting that the readings will be hydrogen test tube 1/4 the mass of oxygen test tube proving Water formula is truly H4O.

    Old Physics and Old Chemistry is betting that the mass experiment will have the hydrogen test tube be 1/8 the mass of the oxygen test tube, proving Water formula is H2O.

    AP does not have these precision equipment to conduct an at-home experiment of this nature.

    AP
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium
    12:38 PM (4 hours ago)



    to
    So, once Water is found to actually be H4O, not H2O, we move on to methane, and ask the same question of its hydrogen bonds. Is Methane really that of H8C and not H4C.

    Well, looking in the literature for anomalies to methane, I come across a arXiv "Low and high-temperature anomalies in the physical properties of solid methane "The anomalous behavior of thermodynamic, spectral, plastic, elastic and some
    other properties of solid methane is discussed near 20.48K and...

    AP wonders: if they can get methane to solid form, well, I am then hopeful that the mass of the molecule can be determined. Because if methane is truly H8C, that difference of H4 in atomic mass units would be very much noticeable difference.

    Chemistry Europe--
    "The Anomalous Deuterium Isotope Effect in the NMR Spectrum of Methane...

    P Vermeeren, 2023
    "The abnormally long and weak methylidyne C-H bond.."
    "The C-H bond of the methylidyne radical, CH*, is abnormally long and weak, even longer and..."

    AP asks, are these anomalies solved if we consider methane is actually H8C and not H4C?

    AP



    My 250th published book.

    TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY; H2 is the hydrogen Atom and water is H4O, not H2O// Chemistry
    by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
    Prologue: This textbook is 1/2 research history and 1/2 factual textbook combined as one textbook. For many of the experiments described here-in have not yet been performed, such as water is really H4O not H2O. Written in a style of history
    research with date-time markers, and fact telling. And there are no problem sets. This book is intended for 1st year college. Until I include problem sets and exercises, I leave it to the professor and instructor to provide such. And also, chemistry is
    hugely a laboratory science, even more so than physics, so a first year college student in the lab to test whether Water is really H4O and not H2O is mighty educational.

    Preface: This is my 250th book of science, and the first of my textbooks on Teaching True Chemistry. I have completed the Teaching True Physics and the Teaching True Mathematics textbook series. But had not yet started on a Teaching True Chemistry
    textbook series. What got me started on this project is the fact that no chemistry textbook had the correct formula for water which is actually H4O and not H2O. Leaving the true formula for hydroxyl groups as H2O and not OH. But none of this is possible
    in Old Chemistry, Old Physics where they had do-nothing subatomic particles that sit around and do nothing or go whizzing around the outside of balls in a nucleus, in a mindless circling. Once every subatomic particle has a job, task, function, then
    water cannot be H2O but rather H4O. And a hydrogen atom cannot be H alone but is actually H2. H2 is not a molecule of hydrogen but a full fledged Atom, a single atom of hydrogen.

    Cover Picture: Sorry for the crude sketch work but chemistry and physics students are going to have to learn to make such sketches in a minute or less. Just as they make Lewis diagrams or ball & stick diagrams. My 4-5 minute sketch-work of the
    Water molecule H4O plus the subatomic particle H, and the hydrogen atom H2. Showing how one H is a proton torus with muon inside (blue color) doing the Faraday law. Protons are toruses with many windings. Protons are the coils in Faraday law while muons
    are the bar magnets. Neutrons are the capacitors as parallel plates, the outer skin cover of atoms.

    Product details
    • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0CCLPTBDG
    • Publication date ‏ : ‎ July 21, 2023
    • Language ‏ : ‎ English
    • File size ‏ : ‎ 788 KB
    • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
    • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
    • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
    • Print length ‏ : ‎ 168 pages






    y z
    | /
    | /
    |/______ x

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Eram semper recta@21:1/5 to Archimedes Plutonium on Fri Sep 8 09:14:16 2023
    On Thursday, 7 September 2023 at 15:14:04 UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
    Can_Dr.Joao Rodrigues,Dr.Aaron Klug (chem),Dr.John Burland (engr),Dr.Elias Sideras-Haddad,Dr.Martin Ntwaeaborwa,John Gabriel - -PLEASE--step into Univ of Witwatersrand 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.


    Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
    Physics dept
    Joao Rodrigues
    Somnath Bhattacharyya
    John Carter
    Andrew Chen
    Darell Comins
    Robert De Mello Koch
    Arthur Every
    Andrew Forbes
    Kelvin Goldstein
    Vishnu Jejjala
    Robert Joubert
    Jonathan Keartland
    Nukri Komin
    Bruce Mellado
    Deena Naidoo
    Mervin Naidoo
    Alex Quandt
    Elias Sideras-Haddad
    Martin Ntwaeaborwa
    Dr.John Burland (engr)
    Dr. Aaron Klug (chem)

    John Gabriel--spam mill in sci.math. Not only is Gabriel vapid and ignorant of science, but he constantly threatens others with violence.


    +Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within

    +Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within

    3m views Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium


    Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within the accuracy I need for weighing a test tube of oxygen then a test tube of hydrogen from water electrolysis.


    Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium

    In Old Chemistry and Old Physics, their subatomic particles were do nothing and no function and no job particles that sit around as balls or whiz around the outside of balls doing nothing but pointless circling.

    In New Physics and New Chemistry-- All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. Every subatomic particle has a job a function a purpose as to the Laws of Electromagnetism--- Faraday law, Coulomb law, Ampere law,
    Capacitor law.

    A proton is a torus of 840MeV with 840 windings, while the muon is the true electron of Atoms and is encased inside the proton torus thrusting through and producing electricity-- magnetic monopoles.

    The neutron of Atoms is a parallel plate capacitor storing the electricity of proton+muon and is skin cover on the outside of the proton torus in the form of parallel plates.

    Can hydrogen be a Atom if it is just a proton+muon? No, all atoms require to have a capacitor such as at least one neutron. Thus the Hydrogen Atom is H2 where you have 2 proton+muon where 1 of the 2 proton+muon acts like a neutron to the
    other proton+muon. Thus, water molecule is not H2O but rather is H4O.

    AP is waiting for experimental chemists and physicists to prove him correct that Water is H4O.

    In the meantime we have Hydroxyl which in Old Chemistry, especially Biology is OH, while AP says that is wrong and that is really H2O.

    Now glycerine is a hydroxyl with formula C3H8O3. And what I am thinking at this moment, is that hydroxyls will be an easier proof that Water is truly H4O, rather than wait for experimentalists to actually "weigh the electrolysis test tubes
    of oxygen and hydrogen".

    You see, with H4O as water, glycerine is C3(2 waters)O with an extra oxygen. If Water is H2O then glycerine is C3(4 waters) deficit O. It is missing an oxygen if water is H2O.

    The reason glycerine is so effective as a skin ointment is because it has glycerine, the extra O oxygen. If water were H2O, then glycerine would be a missing oxygen and not a skin lotion that works, but makes skin even more dry.

    Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium

    Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
    12:24 AM (13 hours ago)



    to Plutonium Atom Universe

    --- quoting in part from source-- Study.com ---
    Perhaps there is only two Faraday laws on Electrolysis. I am looking at the one that states: Faraday's first law of electrolysis relates the mass of a substance liberated (or deposited) at an electrode to the electric charge used (Q). A
    proportionality constant Z can be used:

    m = ZQ = (E/96485)(Q)

    m = mass, Q = total charge rewritten as Q = I*t amperes x time in seconds.

    This website gives an example: 5amps passed through molten Sodium Chloride for 3 hours. Calculate the mass of Sodium. E=23/1.

    m = (23/96485) (5) (3*60*60) approx 12.87 grams.

    --- end quoting in part from source-- Study.com ---

    Now has such a experiment been performed on Water to see how much atomic mass of hydrogen and of oxygen results??? If AP is correct, the formula of water is H4O, if Old Physics, Old Chemistry is correct the formula is H2O. So which is it???

    AP


    No, sorry no, Faraday's Law of Electrolysis is not going to tell the correct mass of hydrogen.

    Reading Wikipedia on Faraday's Electrolysis law.

    --- quoting Wikipedia ---
    A monovalent ion requires 1 electron for discharge, a divalent ion requires 2 electrons for discharge and so on. Thus, if x electrons flow,
    x/v atoms are discharged.

    So the mass m discharged is

    m= (xM)/vN_A) = (QM)/(eN_A *v) = (QM) / (vF)
    where
    N_A is the Avogadro constant;
    Q = xe is the total charge, equal to the number of electrons (x) times the elementary charge e;
    F is the Faraday constant.
    --- end quoting Wikipedia ---

    No, the Faraday law of Electrolysis will not work on water with a correct answer, because H is not an atom but H2 is an Atom. And where one of the proton+muon converts to being a neutron to the other proton+muon.

    So if Faraday's law of Electrolysis was applied to water, thinking it would deliver a true answer is mistaken because the one H converts to neutron.

    So it appears that we need to directly measure the test tube of oxygen and the test tube of hydrogen by a direct mass measurement.

    AP
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
    1:14 AM (12 hours ago)



    to Plutonium Atom Universe
    I doubt we can measure a test tube of hydrogen or test tube of oxygen, too small to determine the mass on some sort of weight scale.

    But here is a possible lucrative idea. We should be able to get pure deuterium water. Then run the electrolysis. Collect the test tubes.

    Now have some sort of balancing beam weight scale. Place the regular water of hydrogen test tube on one side, and place the deuterium water hydrogen test tube on other side. If they stay balanced, then AP is correct and Water is really H4O.

    AP
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
    1:48 AM (11 hours ago)



    to Plutonium Atom Universe
    Cosmic Rays from Sun

    90% of Sun's cosmic rays are 840MeV proton+muon inside = H. The hydrogen Atom is H2 where one of the H proton+muon converts to being a neutron.

    When these proton+muon hit Earth atmosphere, they can turn into pions and muons.

    I commented that H alone is a subatomic particle and that makes sense in the idea that Sun's cosmic rays are 90% these proton+muon.

    Now is interstellar hydrogen H2 and intergalactic hydrogen H2 formed when one H cosmic ray joins up with another H cosmic ray to form H2 atom?

    Is this how we get H2 in outer space? From the splitting apart of H2 into H cosmic rays?

    So how much of the Sun's hydrogen is H2 and how much is H ready to join with another H and reform back into H2. Probably little of the Sun's H is H alone, and the vast majority of the Sun's hydrogen is H2.

    How much deuterium in the Sun? And it is a higher percentage than the deuterium in water on Earth?

    AP
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
    3:11 AM (10 hours ago)



    to Plutonium Atom Universe
    Water is the only known non-metallic substance that expands when if freezes; its density decreases and it expands approximately 9% by volume. (Source: web Lunar and Planetary Institute)

    I have to wait for experimental chemists and physicists to weigh the mass of test tubes from electrolysis, as to the verdict-- water is H4O.

    But until that news comes in, I will look for other means of proof.

    So AP says that the H2 is not a molecule but is the hydrogen Atom itself, where one proton+muon converts to a neutron and capacitates the other proton+muon which undergo the Faraday law.

    There are subatomic particles of H in the form of Cosmic Rays from the Sun, but most of the Sun's hydrogen is H2, and flips back and forth from H to rejoining to form H2. Some gets away from the Sun and is cosmic rays.

    But H2 is an Atom and H is a fleeting subatomic particle.

    So can I prove Water is H4O from the data of Spectral lines of H2 is the same as deuterium, only slight difference is that the deuterium is a full fledged neutron not a makeshift proton+muon of H.

    I suspect that special trait of water freezing is a proof that Water is H4O. Because the 840MeV proton torus with muon inside doing the Faraday law acting as a makeshift neutron capacitor for the other 840MeV proton torus with muon inside,
    is where H2 gets that expansion characteristic.

    A neutron is a parallel plate capacitor and those plates can expand when frozen temperature occurs. As the temperature gets colder, those plates move further apart.

    Now does deuterium which truly has a full neutron, does it expand also when frozen?? If so, does it expand as much as H2 which is 2 protons with 2 muons inside?

    So comparing the freezing and expansion of the parallel plates of a neutron in deuterium with the freezing and expansion of one of the proton+muon that is acting as a makeshift neutron in H2.

    If I can numbers correlate the H2 expansion with the Deuterium expansion would be a alternative proof that Water is really H4O and not H2O.

    AP
    to
    So now on Blankenship's book "Molecular Mechanisms of Photosynthesis", 2014, page 134, shows The structure of ATP, ADP, AMP. And within that structure are OH hydroxyls.

    In New Chemistry, water is truly H4O, and where hydroxyls are now H2O. And we have first proof of this in the Figure 8.1 of Blankenship's "Chemical structure of ATP".

    For in the lower left corner of the diagram, Blankenship has a H+ all alone, (really a mindless error) and has P surrounded by O-, O-, O and OH. The OH is really H2O for hydroxyls are H2O and water itself is H4O, and that would leave that
    mindless H+ as being hydrogen Atom of H2.

    The world of physics and chemistry should drop what they are doing and weigh the electrolysis test tube of hydrogen and oxygen to discover the correct true formula of water is H4O.

    AP is total confident, becuase an Atom cannot exist if it has no capacitor structure such as a neutron, or one of the H in H2 acting as a neutron. I am totally confident that Water formula is truly H4O. And I need look only to methane of
    H4C, to realize that there is no HC, no H2C, no H3C, but starts with H4C, and that tells me water starts with H4O. Totally confident that Old Chemistry, Old Physics did electrolysis experiments and the moment they saw hydrogen test tube be 2x volume of
    oxygen test tube, they dropped their work and went out for a Danish and coffee break, rather than finish their work--- actual physics weighing of atomic mass units (not the Faraday electrolysis law for it does not apply to water).

    When water electrolysis is physics weighed, AP is confident that there are 4H per every one oxygen O. And that Water is truly H4O.

    AP, King of Science
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium
    9:34 AM (15 minutes ago)



    to
    On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 8:56:57 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
    Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within the accuracy I need for weighing a test tube of oxygen then a test tube of hydrogen from water electrolysis.

    Now modern day physics and chemist experimenters can really do a marvelous job if they wanted to. For they could freeze the test tubes of oxygen and hydrogen to where they are liquid and compare liquids from water electrolysis.
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium
    10:01 AM (5 hours ago)



    to
    So, what AP is saying here is that we do electrolysis of water. We collect the two test tubes, one with oxygen the other with hydrogen.

    To prove Water is truly the formula H4O and not H2O we must weigh the masses of the two tubes to find that the ratio is 1 x 16amu to 4 x 1amu.

    The silly grotesque science error of the past was to look at volumes in the two test tubes-- "Hey-- the hydrogen is twice the volume of oxygen so the formula of water is H2O".

    No, way was that science good practice. For the correct formula of water needs to be measured by mass, by atomic mass units where Oxygen is 16amu and hydrogen is 1amu.

    I suspect a balance beam scale is good enough to see the hydrogen test tube will be 1/4 as massive as the oxygen test tube. To get within precision of electronic weighing scale of 0.00001 gram we just have to make a larger test tube of
    electrolysis of water.

    AP is betting that the readings will be hydrogen test tube 1/4 the mass of oxygen test tube proving Water formula is truly H4O.

    Old Physics and Old Chemistry is betting that the mass experiment will have the hydrogen test tube be 1/8 the mass of the oxygen test tube, proving Water formula is H2O.

    AP does not have these precision equipment to conduct an at-home experiment of this nature.

    AP
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium
    12:38 PM (4 hours ago)



    to
    So, once Water is found to actually be H4O, not H2O, we move on to methane, and ask the same question of its hydrogen bonds. Is Methane really that of H8C and not H4C.

    Well, looking in the literature for anomalies to methane, I come across a arXiv "Low and high-temperature anomalies in the physical properties of solid methane "The anomalous behavior of thermodynamic, spectral, plastic, elastic and some
    other properties of solid methane is discussed near 20.48K and...

    AP wonders: if they can get methane to solid form, well, I am then hopeful that the mass of the molecule can be determined. Because if methane is truly H8C, that difference of H4 in atomic mass units would be very much noticeable difference.


    Chemistry Europe--
    "The Anomalous Deuterium Isotope Effect in the NMR Spectrum of Methane...

    P Vermeeren, 2023
    "The abnormally long and weak methylidyne C-H bond.."
    "The C-H bond of the methylidyne radical, CH*, is abnormally long and weak, even longer and..."

    AP asks, are these anomalies solved if we consider methane is actually H8C and not H4C?

    AP



    My 250th published book.

    TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY; H2 is the hydrogen Atom and water is H4O, not H2O// Chemistry
    by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
    Prologue: This textbook is 1/2 research history and 1/2 factual textbook combined as one textbook. For many of the experiments described here-in have not yet been performed, such as water is really H4O not H2O. Written in a style of history
    research with date-time markers, and fact telling. And there are no problem sets. This book is intended for 1st year college. Until I include problem sets and exercises, I leave it to the professor and instructor to provide such. And also, chemistry is
    hugely a laboratory science, even more so than physics, so a first year college student in the lab to test whether Water is really H4O and not H2O is mighty educational.

    Preface: This is my 250th book of science, and the first of my textbooks on Teaching True Chemistry. I have completed the Teaching True Physics and the Teaching True Mathematics textbook series. But had not yet started on a Teaching True
    Chemistry textbook series. What got me started on this project is the fact that no chemistry textbook had the correct formula for water which is actually H4O and not H2O. Leaving the true formula for hydroxyl groups as H2O and not OH. But none of this is
    possible in Old Chemistry, Old Physics where they had do-nothing subatomic particles that sit around and do nothing or go whizzing around the outside of balls in a nucleus, in a mindless circling. Once every subatomic particle has a job, task, function,
    then water cannot be H2O but rather H4O. And a hydrogen atom cannot be H alone but is actually H2. H2 is not a molecule of hydrogen but a full fledged Atom, a single atom of hydrogen.

    Cover Picture: Sorry for the crude sketch work but chemistry and physics students are going to have to learn to make such sketches in a minute or less. Just as they make Lewis diagrams or ball & stick diagrams. My 4-5 minute sketch-work of the
    Water molecule H4O plus the subatomic particle H, and the hydrogen atom H2. Showing how one H is a proton torus with muon inside (blue color) doing the Faraday law. Protons are toruses with many windings. Protons are the coils in Faraday law while muons
    are the bar magnets. Neutrons are the capacitors as parallel plates, the outer skin cover of atoms.

    Product details
    • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0CCLPTBDG
    • Publication date ‏ : ‎ July 21, 2023
    • Language ‏ : ‎ English
    • File size ‏ : ‎ 788 KB
    • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
    • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
    • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
    • Print length ‏ : ‎ 168 pages






    y z
    | /
    | /
    |/______ x

    Don't you ever tire of posting crap on sci.math, you sick psycho?

    Is your cancer in remission still? I hope it's coming back with a vengeance, you poor, dumb, sick bastard. Tsk, tsk. Your mother should have throttled you as soon as you were spewed out of her disgusting vagina.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mathin3D@21:1/5 to Eram semper recta on Fri Sep 8 10:20:37 2023
    🎲🎲🎲🎲, you nasty crackpot.

    On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 12:14:22 PM UTC-4, Eram semper recta wrote:
    On Thursday, 7 September 2023 at 15:14:04 UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
    Can_Dr.Joao Rodrigues,Dr.Aaron Klug (chem),Dr.John Burland (engr),Dr.Elias Sideras-Haddad,Dr.Martin Ntwaeaborwa,John Gabriel - -PLEASE--step into Univ of Witwatersrand 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.


    Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
    Physics dept
    Joao Rodrigues
    Somnath Bhattacharyya
    John Carter
    Andrew Chen
    Darell Comins
    Robert De Mello Koch
    Arthur Every
    Andrew Forbes
    Kelvin Goldstein
    Vishnu Jejjala
    Robert Joubert
    Jonathan Keartland
    Nukri Komin
    Bruce Mellado
    Deena Naidoo
    Mervin Naidoo
    Alex Quandt
    Elias Sideras-Haddad
    Martin Ntwaeaborwa
    Dr.John Burland (engr)
    Dr. Aaron Klug (chem)

    John Gabriel--spam mill in sci.math. Not only is Gabriel vapid and ignorant of science, but he constantly threatens others with violence.


    +Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within

    +Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within

    3m views Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium


    Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within the accuracy I need for weighing a test tube of oxygen then a test tube of hydrogen from water electrolysis.


    Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium

    In Old Chemistry and Old Physics, their subatomic particles were do nothing and no function and no job particles that sit around as balls or whiz around the outside of balls doing nothing but pointless circling.

    In New Physics and New Chemistry-- All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. Every subatomic particle has a job a function a purpose as to the Laws of Electromagnetism--- Faraday law, Coulomb law, Ampere law,
    Capacitor law.

    A proton is a torus of 840MeV with 840 windings, while the muon is the true electron of Atoms and is encased inside the proton torus thrusting through and producing electricity-- magnetic monopoles.

    The neutron of Atoms is a parallel plate capacitor storing the electricity of proton+muon and is skin cover on the outside of the proton torus in the form of parallel plates.

    Can hydrogen be a Atom if it is just a proton+muon? No, all atoms require to have a capacitor such as at least one neutron. Thus the Hydrogen Atom is H2 where you have 2 proton+muon where 1 of the 2 proton+muon acts like a neutron to the
    other proton+muon. Thus, water molecule is not H2O but rather is H4O.

    AP is waiting for experimental chemists and physicists to prove him correct that Water is H4O.

    In the meantime we have Hydroxyl which in Old Chemistry, especially Biology is OH, while AP says that is wrong and that is really H2O.

    Now glycerine is a hydroxyl with formula C3H8O3. And what I am thinking at this moment, is that hydroxyls will be an easier proof that Water is truly H4O, rather than wait for experimentalists to actually "weigh the electrolysis test
    tubes of oxygen and hydrogen".

    You see, with H4O as water, glycerine is C3(2 waters)O with an extra oxygen. If Water is H2O then glycerine is C3(4 waters) deficit O. It is missing an oxygen if water is H2O.

    The reason glycerine is so effective as a skin ointment is because it has glycerine, the extra O oxygen. If water were H2O, then glycerine would be a missing oxygen and not a skin lotion that works, but makes skin even more dry.

    Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium

    Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
    12:24 AM (13 hours ago)



    to Plutonium Atom Universe

    --- quoting in part from source-- Study.com ---
    Perhaps there is only two Faraday laws on Electrolysis. I am looking at the one that states: Faraday's first law of electrolysis relates the mass of a substance liberated (or deposited) at an electrode to the electric charge used (Q). A
    proportionality constant Z can be used:

    m = ZQ = (E/96485)(Q)

    m = mass, Q = total charge rewritten as Q = I*t amperes x time in seconds.

    This website gives an example: 5amps passed through molten Sodium Chloride for 3 hours. Calculate the mass of Sodium. E=23/1.

    m = (23/96485) (5) (3*60*60) approx 12.87 grams.

    --- end quoting in part from source-- Study.com ---

    Now has such a experiment been performed on Water to see how much atomic mass of hydrogen and of oxygen results??? If AP is correct, the formula of water is H4O, if Old Physics, Old Chemistry is correct the formula is H2O. So which is it??
    ?

    AP


    No, sorry no, Faraday's Law of Electrolysis is not going to tell the correct mass of hydrogen.

    Reading Wikipedia on Faraday's Electrolysis law.

    --- quoting Wikipedia ---
    A monovalent ion requires 1 electron for discharge, a divalent ion requires 2 electrons for discharge and so on. Thus, if x electrons flow,
    x/v atoms are discharged.

    So the mass m discharged is

    m= (xM)/vN_A) = (QM)/(eN_A *v) = (QM) / (vF)
    where
    N_A is the Avogadro constant;
    Q = xe is the total charge, equal to the number of electrons (x) times the elementary charge e;
    F is the Faraday constant.
    --- end quoting Wikipedia ---

    No, the Faraday law of Electrolysis will not work on water with a correct answer, because H is not an atom but H2 is an Atom. And where one of the proton+muon converts to being a neutron to the other proton+muon.

    So if Faraday's law of Electrolysis was applied to water, thinking it would deliver a true answer is mistaken because the one H converts to neutron.

    So it appears that we need to directly measure the test tube of oxygen and the test tube of hydrogen by a direct mass measurement.

    AP
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
    1:14 AM (12 hours ago)



    to Plutonium Atom Universe
    I doubt we can measure a test tube of hydrogen or test tube of oxygen, too small to determine the mass on some sort of weight scale.

    But here is a possible lucrative idea. We should be able to get pure deuterium water. Then run the electrolysis. Collect the test tubes.

    Now have some sort of balancing beam weight scale. Place the regular water of hydrogen test tube on one side, and place the deuterium water hydrogen test tube on other side. If they stay balanced, then AP is correct and Water is really
    H4O.

    AP
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
    1:48 AM (11 hours ago)



    to Plutonium Atom Universe
    Cosmic Rays from Sun

    90% of Sun's cosmic rays are 840MeV proton+muon inside = H. The hydrogen Atom is H2 where one of the H proton+muon converts to being a neutron.

    When these proton+muon hit Earth atmosphere, they can turn into pions and muons.

    I commented that H alone is a subatomic particle and that makes sense in the idea that Sun's cosmic rays are 90% these proton+muon.

    Now is interstellar hydrogen H2 and intergalactic hydrogen H2 formed when one H cosmic ray joins up with another H cosmic ray to form H2 atom?

    Is this how we get H2 in outer space? From the splitting apart of H2 into H cosmic rays?

    So how much of the Sun's hydrogen is H2 and how much is H ready to join with another H and reform back into H2. Probably little of the Sun's H is H alone, and the vast majority of the Sun's hydrogen is H2.

    How much deuterium in the Sun? And it is a higher percentage than the deuterium in water on Earth?

    AP
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
    3:11 AM (10 hours ago)



    to Plutonium Atom Universe
    Water is the only known non-metallic substance that expands when if freezes; its density decreases and it expands approximately 9% by volume. (Source: web Lunar and Planetary Institute)

    I have to wait for experimental chemists and physicists to weigh the mass of test tubes from electrolysis, as to the verdict-- water is H4O.

    But until that news comes in, I will look for other means of proof.

    So AP says that the H2 is not a molecule but is the hydrogen Atom itself, where one proton+muon converts to a neutron and capacitates the other proton+muon which undergo the Faraday law.

    There are subatomic particles of H in the form of Cosmic Rays from the Sun, but most of the Sun's hydrogen is H2, and flips back and forth from H to rejoining to form H2. Some gets away from the Sun and is cosmic rays.

    But H2 is an Atom and H is a fleeting subatomic particle.

    So can I prove Water is H4O from the data of Spectral lines of H2 is the same as deuterium, only slight difference is that the deuterium is a full fledged neutron not a makeshift proton+muon of H.

    I suspect that special trait of water freezing is a proof that Water is H4O. Because the 840MeV proton torus with muon inside doing the Faraday law acting as a makeshift neutron capacitor for the other 840MeV proton torus with muon inside,
    is where H2 gets that expansion characteristic.

    A neutron is a parallel plate capacitor and those plates can expand when frozen temperature occurs. As the temperature gets colder, those plates move further apart.

    Now does deuterium which truly has a full neutron, does it expand also when frozen?? If so, does it expand as much as H2 which is 2 protons with 2 muons inside?

    So comparing the freezing and expansion of the parallel plates of a neutron in deuterium with the freezing and expansion of one of the proton+muon that is acting as a makeshift neutron in H2.

    If I can numbers correlate the H2 expansion with the Deuterium expansion would be a alternative proof that Water is really H4O and not H2O.

    AP
    to
    So now on Blankenship's book "Molecular Mechanisms of Photosynthesis", 2014, page 134, shows The structure of ATP, ADP, AMP. And within that structure are OH hydroxyls.

    In New Chemistry, water is truly H4O, and where hydroxyls are now H2O. And we have first proof of this in the Figure 8.1 of Blankenship's "Chemical structure of ATP".

    For in the lower left corner of the diagram, Blankenship has a H+ all alone, (really a mindless error) and has P surrounded by O-, O-, O and OH. The OH is really H2O for hydroxyls are H2O and water itself is H4O, and that would leave that
    mindless H+ as being hydrogen Atom of H2.

    The world of physics and chemistry should drop what they are doing and weigh the electrolysis test tube of hydrogen and oxygen to discover the correct true formula of water is H4O.

    AP is total confident, becuase an Atom cannot exist if it has no capacitor structure such as a neutron, or one of the H in H2 acting as a neutron. I am totally confident that Water formula is truly H4O. And I need look only to methane of
    H4C, to realize that there is no HC, no H2C, no H3C, but starts with H4C, and that tells me water starts with H4O. Totally confident that Old Chemistry, Old Physics did electrolysis experiments and the moment they saw hydrogen test tube be 2x volume of
    oxygen test tube, they dropped their work and went out for a Danish and coffee break, rather than finish their work--- actual physics weighing of atomic mass units (not the Faraday electrolysis law for it does not apply to water).

    When water electrolysis is physics weighed, AP is confident that there are 4H per every one oxygen O. And that Water is truly H4O.

    AP, King of Science
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium
    9:34 AM (15 minutes ago)



    to
    On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 8:56:57 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
    Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within the accuracy I need for weighing a test tube of oxygen then a test tube of hydrogen from water electrolysis.

    Now modern day physics and chemist experimenters can really do a marvelous job if they wanted to. For they could freeze the test tubes of oxygen and hydrogen to where they are liquid and compare liquids from water electrolysis.
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium
    10:01 AM (5 hours ago)



    to
    So, what AP is saying here is that we do electrolysis of water. We collect the two test tubes, one with oxygen the other with hydrogen.

    To prove Water is truly the formula H4O and not H2O we must weigh the masses of the two tubes to find that the ratio is 1 x 16amu to 4 x 1amu.

    The silly grotesque science error of the past was to look at volumes in the two test tubes-- "Hey-- the hydrogen is twice the volume of oxygen so the formula of water is H2O".

    No, way was that science good practice. For the correct formula of water needs to be measured by mass, by atomic mass units where Oxygen is 16amu and hydrogen is 1amu.

    I suspect a balance beam scale is good enough to see the hydrogen test tube will be 1/4 as massive as the oxygen test tube. To get within precision of electronic weighing scale of 0.00001 gram we just have to make a larger test tube of
    electrolysis of water.

    AP is betting that the readings will be hydrogen test tube 1/4 the mass of oxygen test tube proving Water formula is truly H4O.

    Old Physics and Old Chemistry is betting that the mass experiment will have the hydrogen test tube be 1/8 the mass of the oxygen test tube, proving Water formula is H2O.

    AP does not have these precision equipment to conduct an at-home experiment of this nature.

    AP
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium
    12:38 PM (4 hours ago)



    to
    So, once Water is found to actually be H4O, not H2O, we move on to methane, and ask the same question of its hydrogen bonds. Is Methane really that of H8C and not H4C.

    Well, looking in the literature for anomalies to methane, I come across a arXiv "Low and high-temperature anomalies in the physical properties of solid methane "The anomalous behavior of thermodynamic, spectral, plastic, elastic and some
    other properties of solid methane is discussed near 20.48K and...

    AP wonders: if they can get methane to solid form, well, I am then hopeful that the mass of the molecule can be determined. Because if methane is truly H8C, that difference of H4 in atomic mass units would be very much noticeable
    difference.

    Chemistry Europe--
    "The Anomalous Deuterium Isotope Effect in the NMR Spectrum of Methane...

    P Vermeeren, 2023
    "The abnormally long and weak methylidyne C-H bond.."
    "The C-H bond of the methylidyne radical, CH*, is abnormally long and weak, even longer and..."

    AP asks, are these anomalies solved if we consider methane is actually H8C and not H4C?

    AP



    My 250th published book.

    TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY; H2 is the hydrogen Atom and water is H4O, not H2O// Chemistry
    by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
    Prologue: This textbook is 1/2 research history and 1/2 factual textbook combined as one textbook. For many of the experiments described here-in have not yet been performed, such as water is really H4O not H2O. Written in a style of history
    research with date-time markers, and fact telling. And there are no problem sets. This book is intended for 1st year college. Until I include problem sets and exercises, I leave it to the professor and instructor to provide such. And also, chemistry is
    hugely a laboratory science, even more so than physics, so a first year college student in the lab to test whether Water is really H4O and not H2O is mighty educational.

    Preface: This is my 250th book of science, and the first of my textbooks on Teaching True Chemistry. I have completed the Teaching True Physics and the Teaching True Mathematics textbook series. But had not yet started on a Teaching True
    Chemistry textbook series. What got me started on this project is the fact that no chemistry textbook had the correct formula for water which is actually H4O and not H2O. Leaving the true formula for hydroxyl groups as H2O and not OH. But none of this is
    possible in Old Chemistry, Old Physics where they had do-nothing subatomic particles that sit around and do nothing or go whizzing around the outside of balls in a nucleus, in a mindless circling. Once every subatomic particle has a job, task, function,
    then water cannot be H2O but rather H4O. And a hydrogen atom cannot be H alone but is actually H2. H2 is not a molecule of hydrogen but a full fledged Atom, a single atom of hydrogen.

    Cover Picture: Sorry for the crude sketch work but chemistry and physics students are going to have to learn to make such sketches in a minute or less. Just as they make Lewis diagrams or ball & stick diagrams. My 4-5 minute sketch-work of the
    Water molecule H4O plus the subatomic particle H, and the hydrogen atom H2. Showing how one H is a proton torus with muon inside (blue color) doing the Faraday law. Protons are toruses with many windings. Protons are the coils in Faraday law while muons
    are the bar magnets. Neutrons are the capacitors as parallel plates, the outer skin cover of atoms.

    Product details
    • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0CCLPTBDG
    • Publication date ‏ : ‎ July 21, 2023
    • Language ‏ : ‎ English
    • File size ‏ : ‎ 788 KB
    • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
    • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
    • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
    • Print length ‏ : ‎ 168 pages






    y z
    | /
    | /
    |/______ x
    Don't you ever tire of posting crap on sci.math, you sick psycho?

    Is your cancer in remission still? I hope it's coming back with a vengeance, you poor, dumb, sick bastard. Tsk, tsk. Your mother should have throttled you as soon as you were spewed out of her disgusting vagina.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Archimedes Plutonium@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 8 12:47:43 2023
    Can_Dr.Robert De Mello Koch,Dr.Joao Rodrigues,Dr.Aaron Klug (chem),Dr.John Burland (engr),Dr.Elias Sideras-Haddad,Dr.Martin Ntwaeaborwa,John Gabriel - -PLEASE--step into Univ of Witwatersrand 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.



    Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
    Physics dept
    Joao Rodrigues
    Somnath Bhattacharyya
    John Carter
    Andrew Chen
    Darell Comins
    Robert De Mello Koch
    Arthur Every
    Andrew Forbes
    Kelvin Goldstein
    Vishnu Jejjala
    Robert Joubert
    Jonathan Keartland
    Nukri Komin
    Bruce Mellado
    Deena Naidoo
    Mervin Naidoo
    Alex Quandt
    Elias Sideras-Haddad
    Martin Ntwaeaborwa
    Dr.John Burland (engr)
    Dr. Aaron Klug (chem)

    John Gabriel--spam mill in sci.math. Not only is Gabriel vapid and ignorant of science, but he constantly threatens others with violence.


    +Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within

    +Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within

    3m views Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium


    Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within the accuracy I need for weighing a test tube of oxygen then a test tube of hydrogen from water electrolysis.


    Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium

    In Old Chemistry and Old Physics, their subatomic particles were do nothing and no function and no job particles that sit around as balls or whiz around the outside of balls doing nothing but pointless circling.

    In New Physics and New Chemistry-- All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. Every subatomic particle has a job a function a purpose as to the Laws of Electromagnetism--- Faraday law, Coulomb law, Ampere law, Capacitor
    law.

    A proton is a torus of 840MeV with 840 windings, while the muon is the true electron of Atoms and is encased inside the proton torus thrusting through and producing electricity-- magnetic monopoles.

    The neutron of Atoms is a parallel plate capacitor storing the electricity of proton+muon and is skin cover on the outside of the proton torus in the form of parallel plates.

    Can hydrogen be a Atom if it is just a proton+muon? No, all atoms require to have a capacitor such as at least one neutron. Thus the Hydrogen Atom is H2 where you have 2 proton+muon where 1 of the 2 proton+muon acts like a neutron to the
    other proton+muon. Thus, water molecule is not H2O but rather is H4O.

    AP is waiting for experimental chemists and physicists to prove him correct that Water is H4O.

    In the meantime we have Hydroxyl which in Old Chemistry, especially Biology is OH, while AP says that is wrong and that is really H2O.

    Now glycerine is a hydroxyl with formula C3H8O3. And what I am thinking at this moment, is that hydroxyls will be an easier proof that Water is truly H4O, rather than wait for experimentalists to actually "weigh the electrolysis test tubes of
    oxygen and hydrogen".

    You see, with H4O as water, glycerine is C3(2 waters)O with an extra oxygen. If Water is H2O then glycerine is C3(4 waters) deficit O. It is missing an oxygen if water is H2O.

    The reason glycerine is so effective as a skin ointment is because it has glycerine, the extra O oxygen. If water were H2O, then glycerine would be a missing oxygen and not a skin lotion that works, but makes skin even more dry.

    Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium

    Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
    12:24 AM (13 hours ago)



    to Plutonium Atom Universe

    --- quoting in part from source-- Study.com ---
    Perhaps there is only two Faraday laws on Electrolysis. I am looking at the one that states: Faraday's first law of electrolysis relates the mass of a substance liberated (or deposited) at an electrode to the electric charge used (Q). A
    proportionality constant Z can be used:

    m = ZQ = (E/96485)(Q)

    m = mass, Q = total charge rewritten as Q = I*t amperes x time in seconds.

    This website gives an example: 5amps passed through molten Sodium Chloride for 3 hours. Calculate the mass of Sodium. E=23/1.

    m = (23/96485) (5) (3*60*60) approx 12.87 grams.

    --- end quoting in part from source-- Study.com ---

    Now has such a experiment been performed on Water to see how much atomic mass of hydrogen and of oxygen results??? If AP is correct, the formula of water is H4O, if Old Physics, Old Chemistry is correct the formula is H2O. So which is it???

    AP


    No, sorry no, Faraday's Law of Electrolysis is not going to tell the correct mass of hydrogen.

    Reading Wikipedia on Faraday's Electrolysis law.

    --- quoting Wikipedia ---
    A monovalent ion requires 1 electron for discharge, a divalent ion requires 2 electrons for discharge and so on. Thus, if x electrons flow,
    x/v atoms are discharged.

    So the mass m discharged is

    m= (xM)/vN_A) = (QM)/(eN_A *v) = (QM) / (vF)
    where
    N_A is the Avogadro constant;
    Q = xe is the total charge, equal to the number of electrons (x) times the elementary charge e;
    F is the Faraday constant.
    --- end quoting Wikipedia ---

    No, the Faraday law of Electrolysis will not work on water with a correct answer, because H is not an atom but H2 is an Atom. And where one of the proton+muon converts to being a neutron to the other proton+muon.

    So if Faraday's law of Electrolysis was applied to water, thinking it would deliver a true answer is mistaken because the one H converts to neutron.

    So it appears that we need to directly measure the test tube of oxygen and the test tube of hydrogen by a direct mass measurement.

    AP
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
    1:14 AM (12 hours ago)



    to Plutonium Atom Universe
    I doubt we can measure a test tube of hydrogen or test tube of oxygen, too small to determine the mass on some sort of weight scale.

    But here is a possible lucrative idea. We should be able to get pure deuterium water. Then run the electrolysis. Collect the test tubes.

    Now have some sort of balancing beam weight scale. Place the regular water of hydrogen test tube on one side, and place the deuterium water hydrogen test tube on other side. If they stay balanced, then AP is correct and Water is really H4O.

    AP
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
    1:48 AM (11 hours ago)



    to Plutonium Atom Universe
    Cosmic Rays from Sun

    90% of Sun's cosmic rays are 840MeV proton+muon inside = H. The hydrogen Atom is H2 where one of the H proton+muon converts to being a neutron.

    When these proton+muon hit Earth atmosphere, they can turn into pions and muons.

    I commented that H alone is a subatomic particle and that makes sense in the idea that Sun's cosmic rays are 90% these proton+muon.

    Now is interstellar hydrogen H2 and intergalactic hydrogen H2 formed when one H cosmic ray joins up with another H cosmic ray to form H2 atom?

    Is this how we get H2 in outer space? From the splitting apart of H2 into H cosmic rays?

    So how much of the Sun's hydrogen is H2 and how much is H ready to join with another H and reform back into H2. Probably little of the Sun's H is H alone, and the vast majority of the Sun's hydrogen is H2.

    How much deuterium in the Sun? And it is a higher percentage than the deuterium in water on Earth?

    AP
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
    3:11 AM (10 hours ago)



    to Plutonium Atom Universe
    Water is the only known non-metallic substance that expands when if freezes; its density decreases and it expands approximately 9% by volume. (Source: web Lunar and Planetary Institute)

    I have to wait for experimental chemists and physicists to weigh the mass of test tubes from electrolysis, as to the verdict-- water is H4O.

    But until that news comes in, I will look for other means of proof.

    So AP says that the H2 is not a molecule but is the hydrogen Atom itself, where one proton+muon converts to a neutron and capacitates the other proton+muon which undergo the Faraday law.

    There are subatomic particles of H in the form of Cosmic Rays from the Sun, but most of the Sun's hydrogen is H2, and flips back and forth from H to rejoining to form H2. Some gets away from the Sun and is cosmic rays.

    But H2 is an Atom and H is a fleeting subatomic particle.

    So can I prove Water is H4O from the data of Spectral lines of H2 is the same as deuterium, only slight difference is that the deuterium is a full fledged neutron not a makeshift proton+muon of H.

    I suspect that special trait of water freezing is a proof that Water is H4O. Because the 840MeV proton torus with muon inside doing the Faraday law acting as a makeshift neutron capacitor for the other 840MeV proton torus with muon inside, is
    where H2 gets that expansion characteristic.

    A neutron is a parallel plate capacitor and those plates can expand when frozen temperature occurs. As the temperature gets colder, those plates move further apart.

    Now does deuterium which truly has a full neutron, does it expand also when frozen?? If so, does it expand as much as H2 which is 2 protons with 2 muons inside?

    So comparing the freezing and expansion of the parallel plates of a neutron in deuterium with the freezing and expansion of one of the proton+muon that is acting as a makeshift neutron in H2.

    If I can numbers correlate the H2 expansion with the Deuterium expansion would be a alternative proof that Water is really H4O and not H2O.

    AP
    to
    So now on Blankenship's book "Molecular Mechanisms of Photosynthesis", 2014, page 134, shows The structure of ATP, ADP, AMP. And within that structure are OH hydroxyls.

    In New Chemistry, water is truly H4O, and where hydroxyls are now H2O. And we have first proof of this in the Figure 8.1 of Blankenship's "Chemical structure of ATP".

    For in the lower left corner of the diagram, Blankenship has a H+ all alone, (really a mindless error) and has P surrounded by O-, O-, O and OH. The OH is really H2O for hydroxyls are H2O and water itself is H4O, and that would leave that
    mindless H+ as being hydrogen Atom of H2.

    The world of physics and chemistry should drop what they are doing and weigh the electrolysis test tube of hydrogen and oxygen to discover the correct true formula of water is H4O.

    AP is total confident, becuase an Atom cannot exist if it has no capacitor structure such as a neutron, or one of the H in H2 acting as a neutron. I am totally confident that Water formula is truly H4O. And I need look only to methane of H4C,
    to realize that there is no HC, no H2C, no H3C, but starts with H4C, and that tells me water starts with H4O. Totally confident that Old Chemistry, Old Physics did electrolysis experiments and the moment they saw hydrogen test tube be 2x volume of oxygen
    test tube, they dropped their work and went out for a Danish and coffee break, rather than finish their work--- actual physics weighing of atomic mass units (not the Faraday electrolysis law for it does not apply to water).

    When water electrolysis is physics weighed, AP is confident that there are 4H per every one oxygen O. And that Water is truly H4O.

    AP, King of Science
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium
    9:34 AM (15 minutes ago)



    to
    On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 8:56:57 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
    Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within the accuracy I need for weighing a test tube of oxygen then a test tube of hydrogen from water electrolysis.

    Now modern day physics and chemist experimenters can really do a marvelous job if they wanted to. For they could freeze the test tubes of oxygen and hydrogen to where they are liquid and compare liquids from water electrolysis.
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium
    10:01 AM (5 hours ago)



    to
    So, what AP is saying here is that we do electrolysis of water. We collect the two test tubes, one with oxygen the other with hydrogen.

    To prove Water is truly the formula H4O and not H2O we must weigh the masses of the two tubes to find that the ratio is 1 x 16amu to 4 x 1amu.

    The silly grotesque science error of the past was to look at volumes in the two test tubes-- "Hey-- the hydrogen is twice the volume of oxygen so the formula of water is H2O".

    No, way was that science good practice. For the correct formula of water needs to be measured by mass, by atomic mass units where Oxygen is 16amu and hydrogen is 1amu.

    I suspect a balance beam scale is good enough to see the hydrogen test tube will be 1/4 as massive as the oxygen test tube. To get within precision of electronic weighing scale of 0.00001 gram we just have to make a larger test tube of
    electrolysis of water.

    AP is betting that the readings will be hydrogen test tube 1/4 the mass of oxygen test tube proving Water formula is truly H4O.

    Old Physics and Old Chemistry is betting that the mass experiment will have the hydrogen test tube be 1/8 the mass of the oxygen test tube, proving Water formula is H2O.

    AP does not have these precision equipment to conduct an at-home experiment of this nature.

    AP
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium
    12:38 PM (4 hours ago)



    to
    So, once Water is found to actually be H4O, not H2O, we move on to methane, and ask the same question of its hydrogen bonds. Is Methane really that of H8C and not H4C.

    Well, looking in the literature for anomalies to methane, I come across a arXiv "Low and high-temperature anomalies in the physical properties of solid methane "The anomalous behavior of thermodynamic, spectral, plastic, elastic and some
    other properties of solid methane is discussed near 20.48K and...

    AP wonders: if they can get methane to solid form, well, I am then hopeful that the mass of the molecule can be determined. Because if methane is truly H8C, that difference of H4 in atomic mass units would be very much noticeable difference.

    Chemistry Europe--
    "The Anomalous Deuterium Isotope Effect in the NMR Spectrum of Methane...

    P Vermeeren, 2023
    "The abnormally long and weak methylidyne C-H bond.."
    "The C-H bond of the methylidyne radical, CH*, is abnormally long and weak, even longer and..."

    AP asks, are these anomalies solved if we consider methane is actually H8C and not H4C?

    AP



    My 250th published book.

    TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY; H2 is the hydrogen Atom and water is H4O, not H2O// Chemistry
    by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
    Prologue: This textbook is 1/2 research history and 1/2 factual textbook combined as one textbook. For many of the experiments described here-in have not yet been performed, such as water is really H4O not H2O. Written in a style of history
    research with date-time markers, and fact telling. And there are no problem sets. This book is intended for 1st year college. Until I include problem sets and exercises, I leave it to the professor and instructor to provide such. And also, chemistry is
    hugely a laboratory science, even more so than physics, so a first year college student in the lab to test whether Water is really H4O and not H2O is mighty educational.

    Preface: This is my 250th book of science, and the first of my textbooks on Teaching True Chemistry. I have completed the Teaching True Physics and the Teaching True Mathematics textbook series. But had not yet started on a Teaching True Chemistry
    textbook series. What got me started on this project is the fact that no chemistry textbook had the correct formula for water which is actually H4O and not H2O. Leaving the true formula for hydroxyl groups as H2O and not OH. But none of this is possible
    in Old Chemistry, Old Physics where they had do-nothing subatomic particles that sit around and do nothing or go whizzing around the outside of balls in a nucleus, in a mindless circling. Once every subatomic particle has a job, task, function, then
    water cannot be H2O but rather H4O. And a hydrogen atom cannot be H alone but is actually H2. H2 is not a molecule of hydrogen but a full fledged Atom, a single atom of hydrogen.

    Cover Picture: Sorry for the crude sketch work but chemistry and physics students are going to have to learn to make such sketches in a minute or less. Just as they make Lewis diagrams or ball & stick diagrams. My 4-5 minute sketch-work of the
    Water molecule H4O plus the subatomic particle H, and the hydrogen atom H2. Showing how one H is a proton torus with muon inside (blue color) doing the Faraday law. Protons are toruses with many windings. Protons are the coils in Faraday law while muons
    are the bar magnets. Neutrons are the capacitors as parallel plates, the outer skin cover of atoms.

    Product details
    • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0CCLPTBDG
    • Publication date ‏ : ‎ July 21, 2023
    • Language ‏ : ‎ English
    • File size ‏ : ‎ 788 KB
    • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
    • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
    • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
    • Print length ‏ : ‎ 168 pages






    y z
    | /
    | /
    |/______ x

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Archimedes Plutonium@21:1/5 to All on Sat Sep 9 13:01:49 2023
    Can_Dr.Robert De Mello Koch,Dr.Joao Rodrigues,Dr.Aaron Klug (chem),Dr.John Burland (engr),Dr.Elias Sideras-Haddad,Dr.Martin Ntwaeaborwa,John Gabriel - -PLEASE--step into Univ of Witwatersrand 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.




    Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
    Physics dept
    Joao Rodrigues
    Somnath Bhattacharyya
    John Carter
    Andrew Chen
    Darell Comins
    Robert De Mello Koch
    Arthur Every
    Andrew Forbes
    Kelvin Goldstein
    Vishnu Jejjala
    Robert Joubert
    Jonathan Keartland
    Nukri Komin
    Bruce Mellado
    Deena Naidoo
    Mervin Naidoo
    Alex Quandt
    Elias Sideras-Haddad
    Martin Ntwaeaborwa
    Dr.John Burland (engr)
    Dr. Aaron Klug (chem)

    John Gabriel--spam mill in sci.math. Not only is Gabriel vapid and ignorant of science, but he constantly threatens others with violence.


    +Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within

    +Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within

    3m views Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium


    Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within the accuracy I need for weighing a test tube of oxygen then a test tube of hydrogen from water electrolysis.


    Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium

    In Old Chemistry and Old Physics, their subatomic particles were do nothing and no function and no job particles that sit around as balls or whiz around the outside of balls doing nothing but pointless circling.

    In New Physics and New Chemistry-- All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. Every subatomic particle has a job a function a purpose as to the Laws of Electromagnetism--- Faraday law, Coulomb law, Ampere law, Capacitor
    law.

    A proton is a torus of 840MeV with 840 windings, while the muon is the true electron of Atoms and is encased inside the proton torus thrusting through and producing electricity-- magnetic monopoles.

    The neutron of Atoms is a parallel plate capacitor storing the electricity of proton+muon and is skin cover on the outside of the proton torus in the form of parallel plates.

    Can hydrogen be a Atom if it is just a proton+muon? No, all atoms require to have a capacitor such as at least one neutron. Thus the Hydrogen Atom is H2 where you have 2 proton+muon where 1 of the 2 proton+muon acts like a neutron to the
    other proton+muon. Thus, water molecule is not H2O but rather is H4O.

    AP is waiting for experimental chemists and physicists to prove him correct that Water is H4O.

    In the meantime we have Hydroxyl which in Old Chemistry, especially Biology is OH, while AP says that is wrong and that is really H2O.

    Now glycerine is a hydroxyl with formula C3H8O3. And what I am thinking at this moment, is that hydroxyls will be an easier proof that Water is truly H4O, rather than wait for experimentalists to actually "weigh the electrolysis test tubes of
    oxygen and hydrogen".

    You see, with H4O as water, glycerine is C3(2 waters)O with an extra oxygen. If Water is H2O then glycerine is C3(4 waters) deficit O. It is missing an oxygen if water is H2O.

    The reason glycerine is so effective as a skin ointment is because it has glycerine, the extra O oxygen. If water were H2O, then glycerine would be a missing oxygen and not a skin lotion that works, but makes skin even more dry.

    Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium

    Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
    12:24 AM (13 hours ago)



    to Plutonium Atom Universe

    --- quoting in part from source-- Study.com ---
    Perhaps there is only two Faraday laws on Electrolysis. I am looking at the one that states: Faraday's first law of electrolysis relates the mass of a substance liberated (or deposited) at an electrode to the electric charge used (Q). A
    proportionality constant Z can be used:

    m = ZQ = (E/96485)(Q)

    m = mass, Q = total charge rewritten as Q = I*t amperes x time in seconds.

    This website gives an example: 5amps passed through molten Sodium Chloride for 3 hours. Calculate the mass of Sodium. E=23/1.

    m = (23/96485) (5) (3*60*60) approx 12.87 grams.

    --- end quoting in part from source-- Study.com ---

    Now has such a experiment been performed on Water to see how much atomic mass of hydrogen and of oxygen results??? If AP is correct, the formula of water is H4O, if Old Physics, Old Chemistry is correct the formula is H2O. So which is it???

    AP


    No, sorry no, Faraday's Law of Electrolysis is not going to tell the correct mass of hydrogen.

    Reading Wikipedia on Faraday's Electrolysis law.

    --- quoting Wikipedia ---
    A monovalent ion requires 1 electron for discharge, a divalent ion requires 2 electrons for discharge and so on. Thus, if x electrons flow,
    x/v atoms are discharged.

    So the mass m discharged is

    m= (xM)/vN_A) = (QM)/(eN_A *v) = (QM) / (vF)
    where
    N_A is the Avogadro constant;
    Q = xe is the total charge, equal to the number of electrons (x) times the elementary charge e;
    F is the Faraday constant.
    --- end quoting Wikipedia ---

    No, the Faraday law of Electrolysis will not work on water with a correct answer, because H is not an atom but H2 is an Atom. And where one of the proton+muon converts to being a neutron to the other proton+muon.

    So if Faraday's law of Electrolysis was applied to water, thinking it would deliver a true answer is mistaken because the one H converts to neutron.

    So it appears that we need to directly measure the test tube of oxygen and the test tube of hydrogen by a direct mass measurement.

    AP
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
    1:14 AM (12 hours ago)



    to Plutonium Atom Universe
    I doubt we can measure a test tube of hydrogen or test tube of oxygen, too small to determine the mass on some sort of weight scale.

    But here is a possible lucrative idea. We should be able to get pure deuterium water. Then run the electrolysis. Collect the test tubes.

    Now have some sort of balancing beam weight scale. Place the regular water of hydrogen test tube on one side, and place the deuterium water hydrogen test tube on other side. If they stay balanced, then AP is correct and Water is really H4O.

    AP
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
    1:48 AM (11 hours ago)



    to Plutonium Atom Universe
    Cosmic Rays from Sun

    90% of Sun's cosmic rays are 840MeV proton+muon inside = H. The hydrogen Atom is H2 where one of the H proton+muon converts to being a neutron.

    When these proton+muon hit Earth atmosphere, they can turn into pions and muons.

    I commented that H alone is a subatomic particle and that makes sense in the idea that Sun's cosmic rays are 90% these proton+muon.

    Now is interstellar hydrogen H2 and intergalactic hydrogen H2 formed when one H cosmic ray joins up with another H cosmic ray to form H2 atom?

    Is this how we get H2 in outer space? From the splitting apart of H2 into H cosmic rays?

    So how much of the Sun's hydrogen is H2 and how much is H ready to join with another H and reform back into H2. Probably little of the Sun's H is H alone, and the vast majority of the Sun's hydrogen is H2.

    How much deuterium in the Sun? And it is a higher percentage than the deuterium in water on Earth?

    AP
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
    3:11 AM (10 hours ago)



    to Plutonium Atom Universe
    Water is the only known non-metallic substance that expands when if freezes; its density decreases and it expands approximately 9% by volume. (Source: web Lunar and Planetary Institute)

    I have to wait for experimental chemists and physicists to weigh the mass of test tubes from electrolysis, as to the verdict-- water is H4O.

    But until that news comes in, I will look for other means of proof.

    So AP says that the H2 is not a molecule but is the hydrogen Atom itself, where one proton+muon converts to a neutron and capacitates the other proton+muon which undergo the Faraday law.

    There are subatomic particles of H in the form of Cosmic Rays from the Sun, but most of the Sun's hydrogen is H2, and flips back and forth from H to rejoining to form H2. Some gets away from the Sun and is cosmic rays.

    But H2 is an Atom and H is a fleeting subatomic particle.

    So can I prove Water is H4O from the data of Spectral lines of H2 is the same as deuterium, only slight difference is that the deuterium is a full fledged neutron not a makeshift proton+muon of H.

    I suspect that special trait of water freezing is a proof that Water is H4O. Because the 840MeV proton torus with muon inside doing the Faraday law acting as a makeshift neutron capacitor for the other 840MeV proton torus with muon inside, is
    where H2 gets that expansion characteristic.

    A neutron is a parallel plate capacitor and those plates can expand when frozen temperature occurs. As the temperature gets colder, those plates move further apart.

    Now does deuterium which truly has a full neutron, does it expand also when frozen?? If so, does it expand as much as H2 which is 2 protons with 2 muons inside?

    So comparing the freezing and expansion of the parallel plates of a neutron in deuterium with the freezing and expansion of one of the proton+muon that is acting as a makeshift neutron in H2.

    If I can numbers correlate the H2 expansion with the Deuterium expansion would be a alternative proof that Water is really H4O and not H2O.

    AP
    to
    So now on Blankenship's book "Molecular Mechanisms of Photosynthesis", 2014, page 134, shows The structure of ATP, ADP, AMP. And within that structure are OH hydroxyls.

    In New Chemistry, water is truly H4O, and where hydroxyls are now H2O. And we have first proof of this in the Figure 8.1 of Blankenship's "Chemical structure of ATP".

    For in the lower left corner of the diagram, Blankenship has a H+ all alone, (really a mindless error) and has P surrounded by O-, O-, O and OH. The OH is really H2O for hydroxyls are H2O and water itself is H4O, and that would leave that
    mindless H+ as being hydrogen Atom of H2.

    The world of physics and chemistry should drop what they are doing and weigh the electrolysis test tube of hydrogen and oxygen to discover the correct true formula of water is H4O.

    AP is total confident, becuase an Atom cannot exist if it has no capacitor structure such as a neutron, or one of the H in H2 acting as a neutron. I am totally confident that Water formula is truly H4O. And I need look only to methane of H4C,
    to realize that there is no HC, no H2C, no H3C, but starts with H4C, and that tells me water starts with H4O. Totally confident that Old Chemistry, Old Physics did electrolysis experiments and the moment they saw hydrogen test tube be 2x volume of oxygen
    test tube, they dropped their work and went out for a Danish and coffee break, rather than finish their work--- actual physics weighing of atomic mass units (not the Faraday electrolysis law for it does not apply to water).

    When water electrolysis is physics weighed, AP is confident that there are 4H per every one oxygen O. And that Water is truly H4O.

    AP, King of Science
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium
    9:34 AM (15 minutes ago)



    to
    On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 8:56:57 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
    Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within the accuracy I need for weighing a test tube of oxygen then a test tube of hydrogen from water electrolysis.

    Now modern day physics and chemist experimenters can really do a marvelous job if they wanted to. For they could freeze the test tubes of oxygen and hydrogen to where they are liquid and compare liquids from water electrolysis.
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium
    10:01 AM (5 hours ago)



    to
    So, what AP is saying here is that we do electrolysis of water. We collect the two test tubes, one with oxygen the other with hydrogen.

    To prove Water is truly the formula H4O and not H2O we must weigh the masses of the two tubes to find that the ratio is 1 x 16amu to 4 x 1amu.

    The silly grotesque science error of the past was to look at volumes in the two test tubes-- "Hey-- the hydrogen is twice the volume of oxygen so the formula of water is H2O".

    No, way was that science good practice. For the correct formula of water needs to be measured by mass, by atomic mass units where Oxygen is 16amu and hydrogen is 1amu.

    I suspect a balance beam scale is good enough to see the hydrogen test tube will be 1/4 as massive as the oxygen test tube. To get within precision of electronic weighing scale of 0.00001 gram we just have to make a larger test tube of
    electrolysis of water.

    AP is betting that the readings will be hydrogen test tube 1/4 the mass of oxygen test tube proving Water formula is truly H4O.

    Old Physics and Old Chemistry is betting that the mass experiment will have the hydrogen test tube be 1/8 the mass of the oxygen test tube, proving Water formula is H2O.

    AP does not have these precision equipment to conduct an at-home experiment of this nature.

    AP
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium
    12:38 PM (4 hours ago)



    to
    So, once Water is found to actually be H4O, not H2O, we move on to methane, and ask the same question of its hydrogen bonds. Is Methane really that of H8C and not H4C.

    Well, looking in the literature for anomalies to methane, I come across a arXiv "Low and high-temperature anomalies in the physical properties of solid methane "The anomalous behavior of thermodynamic, spectral, plastic, elastic and some
    other properties of solid methane is discussed near 20.48K and...

    AP wonders: if they can get methane to solid form, well, I am then hopeful that the mass of the molecule can be determined. Because if methane is truly H8C, that difference of H4 in atomic mass units would be very much noticeable difference.

    Chemistry Europe--
    "The Anomalous Deuterium Isotope Effect in the NMR Spectrum of Methane...

    P Vermeeren, 2023
    "The abnormally long and weak methylidyne C-H bond.."
    "The C-H bond of the methylidyne radical, CH*, is abnormally long and weak, even longer and..."

    AP asks, are these anomalies solved if we consider methane is actually H8C and not H4C?

    AP



    My 250th published book.

    TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY; H2 is the hydrogen Atom and water is H4O, not H2O// Chemistry
    by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
    Prologue: This textbook is 1/2 research history and 1/2 factual textbook combined as one textbook. For many of the experiments described here-in have not yet been performed, such as water is really H4O not H2O. Written in a style of history
    research with date-time markers, and fact telling. And there are no problem sets. This book is intended for 1st year college. Until I include problem sets and exercises, I leave it to the professor and instructor to provide such. And also, chemistry is
    hugely a laboratory science, even more so than physics, so a first year college student in the lab to test whether Water is really H4O and not H2O is mighty educational.

    Preface: This is my 250th book of science, and the first of my textbooks on Teaching True Chemistry. I have completed the Teaching True Physics and the Teaching True Mathematics textbook series. But had not yet started on a Teaching True Chemistry
    textbook series. What got me started on this project is the fact that no chemistry textbook had the correct formula for water which is actually H4O and not H2O. Leaving the true formula for hydroxyl groups as H2O and not OH. But none of this is possible
    in Old Chemistry, Old Physics where they had do-nothing subatomic particles that sit around and do nothing or go whizzing around the outside of balls in a nucleus, in a mindless circling. Once every subatomic particle has a job, task, function, then
    water cannot be H2O but rather H4O. And a hydrogen atom cannot be H alone but is actually H2. H2 is not a molecule of hydrogen but a full fledged Atom, a single atom of hydrogen.

    Cover Picture: Sorry for the crude sketch work but chemistry and physics students are going to have to learn to make such sketches in a minute or less. Just as they make Lewis diagrams or ball & stick diagrams. My 4-5 minute sketch-work of the
    Water molecule H4O plus the subatomic particle H, and the hydrogen atom H2. Showing how one H is a proton torus with muon inside (blue color) doing the Faraday law. Protons are toruses with many windings. Protons are the coils in Faraday law while muons
    are the bar magnets. Neutrons are the capacitors as parallel plates, the outer skin cover of atoms.

    Product details
    • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0CCLPTBDG
    • Publication date ‏ : ‎ July 21, 2023
    • Language ‏ : ‎ English
    • File size ‏ : ‎ 788 KB
    • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
    • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
    • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
    • Print length ‏ : ‎ 168 pages






    y z
    | /
    | /
    |/______ x

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Archimedes Plutonium@21:1/5 to All on Sat Sep 9 18:53:35 2023
    Can_Dr.Robert De Mello Koch,Dr.Joao Rodrigues,Dr.Aaron Klug (chem),Dr.John Burland (engr),Dr.Elias Sideras-Haddad,Dr.Martin Ntwaeaborwa,John Gabriel - -PLEASE--step into Univ of Witwatersrand 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.





    Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
    Physics dept
    Joao Rodrigues
    Somnath Bhattacharyya
    John Carter
    Andrew Chen
    Darell Comins
    Robert De Mello Koch
    Arthur Every
    Andrew Forbes
    Kelvin Goldstein
    Vishnu Jejjala
    Robert Joubert
    Jonathan Keartland
    Nukri Komin
    Bruce Mellado
    Deena Naidoo
    Mervin Naidoo
    Alex Quandt
    Elias Sideras-Haddad
    Martin Ntwaeaborwa
    Dr.John Burland (engr)
    Dr. Aaron Klug (chem)

    John Gabriel--spam mill in sci.math. Not only is Gabriel vapid and ignorant of science, but he constantly threatens others with violence.


    +Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within

    +Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within

    3m views Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium


    Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within the accuracy I need for weighing a test tube of oxygen then a test tube of hydrogen from water electrolysis.


    Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium

    In Old Chemistry and Old Physics, their subatomic particles were do nothing and no function and no job particles that sit around as balls or whiz around the outside of balls doing nothing but pointless circling.

    In New Physics and New Chemistry-- All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. Every subatomic particle has a job a function a purpose as to the Laws of Electromagnetism--- Faraday law, Coulomb law, Ampere law, Capacitor
    law.

    A proton is a torus of 840MeV with 840 windings, while the muon is the true electron of Atoms and is encased inside the proton torus thrusting through and producing electricity-- magnetic monopoles.

    The neutron of Atoms is a parallel plate capacitor storing the electricity of proton+muon and is skin cover on the outside of the proton torus in the form of parallel plates.

    Can hydrogen be a Atom if it is just a proton+muon? No, all atoms require to have a capacitor such as at least one neutron. Thus the Hydrogen Atom is H2 where you have 2 proton+muon where 1 of the 2 proton+muon acts like a neutron to the
    other proton+muon. Thus, water molecule is not H2O but rather is H4O.

    AP is waiting for experimental chemists and physicists to prove him correct that Water is H4O.

    In the meantime we have Hydroxyl which in Old Chemistry, especially Biology is OH, while AP says that is wrong and that is really H2O.

    Now glycerine is a hydroxyl with formula C3H8O3. And what I am thinking at this moment, is that hydroxyls will be an easier proof that Water is truly H4O, rather than wait for experimentalists to actually "weigh the electrolysis test tubes of
    oxygen and hydrogen".

    You see, with H4O as water, glycerine is C3(2 waters)O with an extra oxygen. If Water is H2O then glycerine is C3(4 waters) deficit O. It is missing an oxygen if water is H2O.

    The reason glycerine is so effective as a skin ointment is because it has glycerine, the extra O oxygen. If water were H2O, then glycerine would be a missing oxygen and not a skin lotion that works, but makes skin even more dry.

    Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium

    Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
    12:24 AM (13 hours ago)



    to Plutonium Atom Universe

    --- quoting in part from source-- Study.com ---
    Perhaps there is only two Faraday laws on Electrolysis. I am looking at the one that states: Faraday's first law of electrolysis relates the mass of a substance liberated (or deposited) at an electrode to the electric charge used (Q). A
    proportionality constant Z can be used:

    m = ZQ = (E/96485)(Q)

    m = mass, Q = total charge rewritten as Q = I*t amperes x time in seconds.

    This website gives an example: 5amps passed through molten Sodium Chloride for 3 hours. Calculate the mass of Sodium. E=23/1.

    m = (23/96485) (5) (3*60*60) approx 12.87 grams.

    --- end quoting in part from source-- Study.com ---

    Now has such a experiment been performed on Water to see how much atomic mass of hydrogen and of oxygen results??? If AP is correct, the formula of water is H4O, if Old Physics, Old Chemistry is correct the formula is H2O. So which is it???

    AP


    No, sorry no, Faraday's Law of Electrolysis is not going to tell the correct mass of hydrogen.

    Reading Wikipedia on Faraday's Electrolysis law.

    --- quoting Wikipedia ---
    A monovalent ion requires 1 electron for discharge, a divalent ion requires 2 electrons for discharge and so on. Thus, if x electrons flow,
    x/v atoms are discharged.

    So the mass m discharged is

    m= (xM)/vN_A) = (QM)/(eN_A *v) = (QM) / (vF)
    where
    N_A is the Avogadro constant;
    Q = xe is the total charge, equal to the number of electrons (x) times the elementary charge e;
    F is the Faraday constant.
    --- end quoting Wikipedia ---

    No, the Faraday law of Electrolysis will not work on water with a correct answer, because H is not an atom but H2 is an Atom. And where one of the proton+muon converts to being a neutron to the other proton+muon.

    So if Faraday's law of Electrolysis was applied to water, thinking it would deliver a true answer is mistaken because the one H converts to neutron.

    So it appears that we need to directly measure the test tube of oxygen and the test tube of hydrogen by a direct mass measurement.

    AP
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
    1:14 AM (12 hours ago)



    to Plutonium Atom Universe
    I doubt we can measure a test tube of hydrogen or test tube of oxygen, too small to determine the mass on some sort of weight scale.

    But here is a possible lucrative idea. We should be able to get pure deuterium water. Then run the electrolysis. Collect the test tubes.

    Now have some sort of balancing beam weight scale. Place the regular water of hydrogen test tube on one side, and place the deuterium water hydrogen test tube on other side. If they stay balanced, then AP is correct and Water is really H4O.

    AP
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
    1:48 AM (11 hours ago)



    to Plutonium Atom Universe
    Cosmic Rays from Sun

    90% of Sun's cosmic rays are 840MeV proton+muon inside = H. The hydrogen Atom is H2 where one of the H proton+muon converts to being a neutron.

    When these proton+muon hit Earth atmosphere, they can turn into pions and muons.

    I commented that H alone is a subatomic particle and that makes sense in the idea that Sun's cosmic rays are 90% these proton+muon.

    Now is interstellar hydrogen H2 and intergalactic hydrogen H2 formed when one H cosmic ray joins up with another H cosmic ray to form H2 atom?

    Is this how we get H2 in outer space? From the splitting apart of H2 into H cosmic rays?

    So how much of the Sun's hydrogen is H2 and how much is H ready to join with another H and reform back into H2. Probably little of the Sun's H is H alone, and the vast majority of the Sun's hydrogen is H2.

    How much deuterium in the Sun? And it is a higher percentage than the deuterium in water on Earth?

    AP
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
    3:11 AM (10 hours ago)



    to Plutonium Atom Universe
    Water is the only known non-metallic substance that expands when if freezes; its density decreases and it expands approximately 9% by volume. (Source: web Lunar and Planetary Institute)

    I have to wait for experimental chemists and physicists to weigh the mass of test tubes from electrolysis, as to the verdict-- water is H4O.

    But until that news comes in, I will look for other means of proof.

    So AP says that the H2 is not a molecule but is the hydrogen Atom itself, where one proton+muon converts to a neutron and capacitates the other proton+muon which undergo the Faraday law.

    There are subatomic particles of H in the form of Cosmic Rays from the Sun, but most of the Sun's hydrogen is H2, and flips back and forth from H to rejoining to form H2. Some gets away from the Sun and is cosmic rays.

    But H2 is an Atom and H is a fleeting subatomic particle.

    So can I prove Water is H4O from the data of Spectral lines of H2 is the same as deuterium, only slight difference is that the deuterium is a full fledged neutron not a makeshift proton+muon of H.

    I suspect that special trait of water freezing is a proof that Water is H4O. Because the 840MeV proton torus with muon inside doing the Faraday law acting as a makeshift neutron capacitor for the other 840MeV proton torus with muon inside, is
    where H2 gets that expansion characteristic.

    A neutron is a parallel plate capacitor and those plates can expand when frozen temperature occurs. As the temperature gets colder, those plates move further apart.

    Now does deuterium which truly has a full neutron, does it expand also when frozen?? If so, does it expand as much as H2 which is 2 protons with 2 muons inside?

    So comparing the freezing and expansion of the parallel plates of a neutron in deuterium with the freezing and expansion of one of the proton+muon that is acting as a makeshift neutron in H2.

    If I can numbers correlate the H2 expansion with the Deuterium expansion would be a alternative proof that Water is really H4O and not H2O.

    AP
    to
    So now on Blankenship's book "Molecular Mechanisms of Photosynthesis", 2014, page 134, shows The structure of ATP, ADP, AMP. And within that structure are OH hydroxyls.

    In New Chemistry, water is truly H4O, and where hydroxyls are now H2O. And we have first proof of this in the Figure 8.1 of Blankenship's "Chemical structure of ATP".

    For in the lower left corner of the diagram, Blankenship has a H+ all alone, (really a mindless error) and has P surrounded by O-, O-, O and OH. The OH is really H2O for hydroxyls are H2O and water itself is H4O, and that would leave that
    mindless H+ as being hydrogen Atom of H2.

    The world of physics and chemistry should drop what they are doing and weigh the electrolysis test tube of hydrogen and oxygen to discover the correct true formula of water is H4O.

    AP is total confident, becuase an Atom cannot exist if it has no capacitor structure such as a neutron, or one of the H in H2 acting as a neutron. I am totally confident that Water formula is truly H4O. And I need look only to methane of H4C,
    to realize that there is no HC, no H2C, no H3C, but starts with H4C, and that tells me water starts with H4O. Totally confident that Old Chemistry, Old Physics did electrolysis experiments and the moment they saw hydrogen test tube be 2x volume of oxygen
    test tube, they dropped their work and went out for a Danish and coffee break, rather than finish their work--- actual physics weighing of atomic mass units (not the Faraday electrolysis law for it does not apply to water).

    When water electrolysis is physics weighed, AP is confident that there are 4H per every one oxygen O. And that Water is truly H4O.

    AP, King of Science
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium
    9:34 AM (15 minutes ago)



    to
    On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 8:56:57 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
    Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within the accuracy I need for weighing a test tube of oxygen then a test tube of hydrogen from water electrolysis.

    Now modern day physics and chemist experimenters can really do a marvelous job if they wanted to. For they could freeze the test tubes of oxygen and hydrogen to where they are liquid and compare liquids from water electrolysis.
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium
    10:01 AM (5 hours ago)



    to
    So, what AP is saying here is that we do electrolysis of water. We collect the two test tubes, one with oxygen the other with hydrogen.

    To prove Water is truly the formula H4O and not H2O we must weigh the masses of the two tubes to find that the ratio is 1 x 16amu to 4 x 1amu.

    The silly grotesque science error of the past was to look at volumes in the two test tubes-- "Hey-- the hydrogen is twice the volume of oxygen so the formula of water is H2O".

    No, way was that science good practice. For the correct formula of water needs to be measured by mass, by atomic mass units where Oxygen is 16amu and hydrogen is 1amu.

    I suspect a balance beam scale is good enough to see the hydrogen test tube will be 1/4 as massive as the oxygen test tube. To get within precision of electronic weighing scale of 0.00001 gram we just have to make a larger test tube of
    electrolysis of water.

    AP is betting that the readings will be hydrogen test tube 1/4 the mass of oxygen test tube proving Water formula is truly H4O.

    Old Physics and Old Chemistry is betting that the mass experiment will have the hydrogen test tube be 1/8 the mass of the oxygen test tube, proving Water formula is H2O.

    AP does not have these precision equipment to conduct an at-home experiment of this nature.

    AP
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium
    12:38 PM (4 hours ago)



    to
    So, once Water is found to actually be H4O, not H2O, we move on to methane, and ask the same question of its hydrogen bonds. Is Methane really that of H8C and not H4C.

    Well, looking in the literature for anomalies to methane, I come across a arXiv "Low and high-temperature anomalies in the physical properties of solid methane "The anomalous behavior of thermodynamic, spectral, plastic, elastic and some
    other properties of solid methane is discussed near 20.48K and...

    AP wonders: if they can get methane to solid form, well, I am then hopeful that the mass of the molecule can be determined. Because if methane is truly H8C, that difference of H4 in atomic mass units would be very much noticeable difference.

    Chemistry Europe--
    "The Anomalous Deuterium Isotope Effect in the NMR Spectrum of Methane...

    P Vermeeren, 2023
    "The abnormally long and weak methylidyne C-H bond.."
    "The C-H bond of the methylidyne radical, CH*, is abnormally long and weak, even longer and..."

    AP asks, are these anomalies solved if we consider methane is actually H8C and not H4C?

    AP



    My 250th published book.

    TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY; H2 is the hydrogen Atom and water is H4O, not H2O// Chemistry
    by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
    Prologue: This textbook is 1/2 research history and 1/2 factual textbook combined as one textbook. For many of the experiments described here-in have not yet been performed, such as water is really H4O not H2O. Written in a style of history
    research with date-time markers, and fact telling. And there are no problem sets. This book is intended for 1st year college. Until I include problem sets and exercises, I leave it to the professor and instructor to provide such. And also, chemistry is
    hugely a laboratory science, even more so than physics, so a first year college student in the lab to test whether Water is really H4O and not H2O is mighty educational.

    Preface: This is my 250th book of science, and the first of my textbooks on Teaching True Chemistry. I have completed the Teaching True Physics and the Teaching True Mathematics textbook series. But had not yet started on a Teaching True Chemistry
    textbook series. What got me started on this project is the fact that no chemistry textbook had the correct formula for water which is actually H4O and not H2O. Leaving the true formula for hydroxyl groups as H2O and not OH. But none of this is possible
    in Old Chemistry, Old Physics where they had do-nothing subatomic particles that sit around and do nothing or go whizzing around the outside of balls in a nucleus, in a mindless circling. Once every subatomic particle has a job, task, function, then
    water cannot be H2O but rather H4O. And a hydrogen atom cannot be H alone but is actually H2. H2 is not a molecule of hydrogen but a full fledged Atom, a single atom of hydrogen.

    Cover Picture: Sorry for the crude sketch work but chemistry and physics students are going to have to learn to make such sketches in a minute or less. Just as they make Lewis diagrams or ball & stick diagrams. My 4-5 minute sketch-work of the
    Water molecule H4O plus the subatomic particle H, and the hydrogen atom H2. Showing how one H is a proton torus with muon inside (blue color) doing the Faraday law. Protons are toruses with many windings. Protons are the coils in Faraday law while muons
    are the bar magnets. Neutrons are the capacitors as parallel plates, the outer skin cover of atoms.

    Product details
    • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0CCLPTBDG
    • Publication date ‏ : ‎ July 21, 2023
    • Language ‏ : ‎ English
    • File size ‏ : ‎ 788 KB
    • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
    • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
    • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
    • Print length ‏ : ‎ 168 pages






    y z
    | /
    | /
    |/______ x

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Archimedes Plutonium@21:1/5 to All on Sun Sep 10 14:14:22 2023
    Can_Dr.Robert De Mello Koch,Dr.Joao Rodrigues,Dr.Aaron Klug (chem),Dr.John Burland (engr),Dr.Elias Sideras-Haddad,Dr.Martin Ntwaeaborwa,John Gabriel - -PLEASE--step into Univ of Witwatersrand 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.






    Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
    Physics dept
    Joao Rodrigues
    Somnath Bhattacharyya
    John Carter
    Andrew Chen
    Darell Comins
    Robert De Mello Koch
    Arthur Every
    Andrew Forbes
    Kelvin Goldstein
    Vishnu Jejjala
    Robert Joubert
    Jonathan Keartland
    Nukri Komin
    Bruce Mellado
    Deena Naidoo
    Mervin Naidoo
    Alex Quandt
    Elias Sideras-Haddad
    Martin Ntwaeaborwa
    Dr.John Burland (engr)
    Dr. Aaron Klug (chem)

    John Gabriel--spam mill in sci.math. Not only is Gabriel vapid and ignorant of science, but he constantly threatens others with violence.


    +Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within

    +Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within

    3m views Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium


    Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within the accuracy I need for weighing a test tube of oxygen then a test tube of hydrogen from water electrolysis.


    Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium

    In Old Chemistry and Old Physics, their subatomic particles were do nothing and no function and no job particles that sit around as balls or whiz around the outside of balls doing nothing but pointless circling.

    In New Physics and New Chemistry-- All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. Every subatomic particle has a job a function a purpose as to the Laws of Electromagnetism--- Faraday law, Coulomb law, Ampere law, Capacitor
    law.

    A proton is a torus of 840MeV with 840 windings, while the muon is the true electron of Atoms and is encased inside the proton torus thrusting through and producing electricity-- magnetic monopoles.

    The neutron of Atoms is a parallel plate capacitor storing the electricity of proton+muon and is skin cover on the outside of the proton torus in the form of parallel plates.

    Can hydrogen be a Atom if it is just a proton+muon? No, all atoms require to have a capacitor such as at least one neutron. Thus the Hydrogen Atom is H2 where you have 2 proton+muon where 1 of the 2 proton+muon acts like a neutron to the
    other proton+muon. Thus, water molecule is not H2O but rather is H4O.

    AP is waiting for experimental chemists and physicists to prove him correct that Water is H4O.

    In the meantime we have Hydroxyl which in Old Chemistry, especially Biology is OH, while AP says that is wrong and that is really H2O.

    Now glycerine is a hydroxyl with formula C3H8O3. And what I am thinking at this moment, is that hydroxyls will be an easier proof that Water is truly H4O, rather than wait for experimentalists to actually "weigh the electrolysis test tubes of
    oxygen and hydrogen".

    You see, with H4O as water, glycerine is C3(2 waters)O with an extra oxygen. If Water is H2O then glycerine is C3(4 waters) deficit O. It is missing an oxygen if water is H2O.

    The reason glycerine is so effective as a skin ointment is because it has glycerine, the extra O oxygen. If water were H2O, then glycerine would be a missing oxygen and not a skin lotion that works, but makes skin even more dry.

    Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium

    Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
    12:24 AM (13 hours ago)



    to Plutonium Atom Universe

    --- quoting in part from source-- Study.com ---
    Perhaps there is only two Faraday laws on Electrolysis. I am looking at the one that states: Faraday's first law of electrolysis relates the mass of a substance liberated (or deposited) at an electrode to the electric charge used (Q). A
    proportionality constant Z can be used:

    m = ZQ = (E/96485)(Q)

    m = mass, Q = total charge rewritten as Q = I*t amperes x time in seconds.

    This website gives an example: 5amps passed through molten Sodium Chloride for 3 hours. Calculate the mass of Sodium. E=23/1.

    m = (23/96485) (5) (3*60*60) approx 12.87 grams.

    --- end quoting in part from source-- Study.com ---

    Now has such a experiment been performed on Water to see how much atomic mass of hydrogen and of oxygen results??? If AP is correct, the formula of water is H4O, if Old Physics, Old Chemistry is correct the formula is H2O. So which is it???

    AP


    No, sorry no, Faraday's Law of Electrolysis is not going to tell the correct mass of hydrogen.

    Reading Wikipedia on Faraday's Electrolysis law.

    --- quoting Wikipedia ---
    A monovalent ion requires 1 electron for discharge, a divalent ion requires 2 electrons for discharge and so on. Thus, if x electrons flow,
    x/v atoms are discharged.

    So the mass m discharged is

    m= (xM)/vN_A) = (QM)/(eN_A *v) = (QM) / (vF)
    where
    N_A is the Avogadro constant;
    Q = xe is the total charge, equal to the number of electrons (x) times the elementary charge e;
    F is the Faraday constant.
    --- end quoting Wikipedia ---

    No, the Faraday law of Electrolysis will not work on water with a correct answer, because H is not an atom but H2 is an Atom. And where one of the proton+muon converts to being a neutron to the other proton+muon.

    So if Faraday's law of Electrolysis was applied to water, thinking it would deliver a true answer is mistaken because the one H converts to neutron.

    So it appears that we need to directly measure the test tube of oxygen and the test tube of hydrogen by a direct mass measurement.

    AP
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
    1:14 AM (12 hours ago)



    to Plutonium Atom Universe
    I doubt we can measure a test tube of hydrogen or test tube of oxygen, too small to determine the mass on some sort of weight scale.

    But here is a possible lucrative idea. We should be able to get pure deuterium water. Then run the electrolysis. Collect the test tubes.

    Now have some sort of balancing beam weight scale. Place the regular water of hydrogen test tube on one side, and place the deuterium water hydrogen test tube on other side. If they stay balanced, then AP is correct and Water is really H4O.

    AP
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
    1:48 AM (11 hours ago)



    to Plutonium Atom Universe
    Cosmic Rays from Sun

    90% of Sun's cosmic rays are 840MeV proton+muon inside = H. The hydrogen Atom is H2 where one of the H proton+muon converts to being a neutron.

    When these proton+muon hit Earth atmosphere, they can turn into pions and muons.

    I commented that H alone is a subatomic particle and that makes sense in the idea that Sun's cosmic rays are 90% these proton+muon.

    Now is interstellar hydrogen H2 and intergalactic hydrogen H2 formed when one H cosmic ray joins up with another H cosmic ray to form H2 atom?

    Is this how we get H2 in outer space? From the splitting apart of H2 into H cosmic rays?

    So how much of the Sun's hydrogen is H2 and how much is H ready to join with another H and reform back into H2. Probably little of the Sun's H is H alone, and the vast majority of the Sun's hydrogen is H2.

    How much deuterium in the Sun? And it is a higher percentage than the deuterium in water on Earth?

    AP
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
    3:11 AM (10 hours ago)



    to Plutonium Atom Universe
    Water is the only known non-metallic substance that expands when if freezes; its density decreases and it expands approximately 9% by volume. (Source: web Lunar and Planetary Institute)

    I have to wait for experimental chemists and physicists to weigh the mass of test tubes from electrolysis, as to the verdict-- water is H4O.

    But until that news comes in, I will look for other means of proof.

    So AP says that the H2 is not a molecule but is the hydrogen Atom itself, where one proton+muon converts to a neutron and capacitates the other proton+muon which undergo the Faraday law.

    There are subatomic particles of H in the form of Cosmic Rays from the Sun, but most of the Sun's hydrogen is H2, and flips back and forth from H to rejoining to form H2. Some gets away from the Sun and is cosmic rays.

    But H2 is an Atom and H is a fleeting subatomic particle.

    So can I prove Water is H4O from the data of Spectral lines of H2 is the same as deuterium, only slight difference is that the deuterium is a full fledged neutron not a makeshift proton+muon of H.

    I suspect that special trait of water freezing is a proof that Water is H4O. Because the 840MeV proton torus with muon inside doing the Faraday law acting as a makeshift neutron capacitor for the other 840MeV proton torus with muon inside, is
    where H2 gets that expansion characteristic.

    A neutron is a parallel plate capacitor and those plates can expand when frozen temperature occurs. As the temperature gets colder, those plates move further apart.

    Now does deuterium which truly has a full neutron, does it expand also when frozen?? If so, does it expand as much as H2 which is 2 protons with 2 muons inside?

    So comparing the freezing and expansion of the parallel plates of a neutron in deuterium with the freezing and expansion of one of the proton+muon that is acting as a makeshift neutron in H2.

    If I can numbers correlate the H2 expansion with the Deuterium expansion would be a alternative proof that Water is really H4O and not H2O.

    AP
    to
    So now on Blankenship's book "Molecular Mechanisms of Photosynthesis", 2014, page 134, shows The structure of ATP, ADP, AMP. And within that structure are OH hydroxyls.

    In New Chemistry, water is truly H4O, and where hydroxyls are now H2O. And we have first proof of this in the Figure 8.1 of Blankenship's "Chemical structure of ATP".

    For in the lower left corner of the diagram, Blankenship has a H+ all alone, (really a mindless error) and has P surrounded by O-, O-, O and OH. The OH is really H2O for hydroxyls are H2O and water itself is H4O, and that would leave that
    mindless H+ as being hydrogen Atom of H2.

    The world of physics and chemistry should drop what they are doing and weigh the electrolysis test tube of hydrogen and oxygen to discover the correct true formula of water is H4O.

    AP is total confident, becuase an Atom cannot exist if it has no capacitor structure such as a neutron, or one of the H in H2 acting as a neutron. I am totally confident that Water formula is truly H4O. And I need look only to methane of H4C,
    to realize that there is no HC, no H2C, no H3C, but starts with H4C, and that tells me water starts with H4O. Totally confident that Old Chemistry, Old Physics did electrolysis experiments and the moment they saw hydrogen test tube be 2x volume of oxygen
    test tube, they dropped their work and went out for a Danish and coffee break, rather than finish their work--- actual physics weighing of atomic mass units (not the Faraday electrolysis law for it does not apply to water).

    When water electrolysis is physics weighed, AP is confident that there are 4H per every one oxygen O. And that Water is truly H4O.

    AP, King of Science
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium
    9:34 AM (15 minutes ago)



    to
    On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 8:56:57 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
    Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within the accuracy I need for weighing a test tube of oxygen then a test tube of hydrogen from water electrolysis.

    Now modern day physics and chemist experimenters can really do a marvelous job if they wanted to. For they could freeze the test tubes of oxygen and hydrogen to where they are liquid and compare liquids from water electrolysis.
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium
    10:01 AM (5 hours ago)



    to
    So, what AP is saying here is that we do electrolysis of water. We collect the two test tubes, one with oxygen the other with hydrogen.

    To prove Water is truly the formula H4O and not H2O we must weigh the masses of the two tubes to find that the ratio is 1 x 16amu to 4 x 1amu.

    The silly grotesque science error of the past was to look at volumes in the two test tubes-- "Hey-- the hydrogen is twice the volume of oxygen so the formula of water is H2O".

    No, way was that science good practice. For the correct formula of water needs to be measured by mass, by atomic mass units where Oxygen is 16amu and hydrogen is 1amu.

    I suspect a balance beam scale is good enough to see the hydrogen test tube will be 1/4 as massive as the oxygen test tube. To get within precision of electronic weighing scale of 0.00001 gram we just have to make a larger test tube of
    electrolysis of water.

    AP is betting that the readings will be hydrogen test tube 1/4 the mass of oxygen test tube proving Water formula is truly H4O.

    Old Physics and Old Chemistry is betting that the mass experiment will have the hydrogen test tube be 1/8 the mass of the oxygen test tube, proving Water formula is H2O.

    AP does not have these precision equipment to conduct an at-home experiment of this nature.

    AP
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium
    12:38 PM (4 hours ago)



    to
    So, once Water is found to actually be H4O, not H2O, we move on to methane, and ask the same question of its hydrogen bonds. Is Methane really that of H8C and not H4C.

    Well, looking in the literature for anomalies to methane, I come across a arXiv "Low and high-temperature anomalies in the physical properties of solid methane "The anomalous behavior of thermodynamic, spectral, plastic, elastic and some
    other properties of solid methane is discussed near 20.48K and...

    AP wonders: if they can get methane to solid form, well, I am then hopeful that the mass of the molecule can be determined. Because if methane is truly H8C, that difference of H4 in atomic mass units would be very much noticeable difference.

    Chemistry Europe--
    "The Anomalous Deuterium Isotope Effect in the NMR Spectrum of Methane...

    P Vermeeren, 2023
    "The abnormally long and weak methylidyne C-H bond.."
    "The C-H bond of the methylidyne radical, CH*, is abnormally long and weak, even longer and..."

    AP asks, are these anomalies solved if we consider methane is actually H8C and not H4C?

    AP



    My 250th published book.

    TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY; H2 is the hydrogen Atom and water is H4O, not H2O// Chemistry
    by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
    Prologue: This textbook is 1/2 research history and 1/2 factual textbook combined as one textbook. For many of the experiments described here-in have not yet been performed, such as water is really H4O not H2O. Written in a style of history
    research with date-time markers, and fact telling. And there are no problem sets. This book is intended for 1st year college. Until I include problem sets and exercises, I leave it to the professor and instructor to provide such. And also, chemistry is
    hugely a laboratory science, even more so than physics, so a first year college student in the lab to test whether Water is really H4O and not H2O is mighty educational.

    Preface: This is my 250th book of science, and the first of my textbooks on Teaching True Chemistry. I have completed the Teaching True Physics and the Teaching True Mathematics textbook series. But had not yet started on a Teaching True Chemistry
    textbook series. What got me started on this project is the fact that no chemistry textbook had the correct formula for water which is actually H4O and not H2O. Leaving the true formula for hydroxyl groups as H2O and not OH. But none of this is possible
    in Old Chemistry, Old Physics where they had do-nothing subatomic particles that sit around and do nothing or go whizzing around the outside of balls in a nucleus, in a mindless circling. Once every subatomic particle has a job, task, function, then
    water cannot be H2O but rather H4O. And a hydrogen atom cannot be H alone but is actually H2. H2 is not a molecule of hydrogen but a full fledged Atom, a single atom of hydrogen.

    Cover Picture: Sorry for the crude sketch work but chemistry and physics students are going to have to learn to make such sketches in a minute or less. Just as they make Lewis diagrams or ball & stick diagrams. My 4-5 minute sketch-work of the
    Water molecule H4O plus the subatomic particle H, and the hydrogen atom H2. Showing how one H is a proton torus with muon inside (blue color) doing the Faraday law. Protons are toruses with many windings. Protons are the coils in Faraday law while muons
    are the bar magnets. Neutrons are the capacitors as parallel plates, the outer skin cover of atoms.

    Product details
    • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0CCLPTBDG
    • Publication date ‏ : ‎ July 21, 2023
    • Language ‏ : ‎ English
    • File size ‏ : ‎ 788 KB
    • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
    • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
    • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
    • Print length ‏ : ‎ 168 pages






    y z
    | /
    | /
    |/______ x

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Archimedes Plutonium@21:1/5 to Volney on Sat Sep 16 13:36:29 2023
    John Gabriel & Witwatersrand Uni, keeps Calculus as classroom torture chambers with their 1,000s of different functions yet the polynomial is the only valid function of math, and makes it super super easy to learn calculus

    TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, AP seeks the super easiest calculus possible on Earth-- polynomials as the only valid functions-- thus, and therefore, making derivative and integral as easy as Power Rule- 14 year olds master calculus

    Univ Witwatersrand calculus classrooms as torture chambers, why they cannot even admit slant cut of cone is a Oval, not their stupid ellipse


    Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
    Physics dept
    Joao Rodrigues
    Somnath Bhattacharyya
    John Carter
    Andrew Chen
    Darell Comins
    Robert De Mello Koch
    Arthur Every
    Andrew Forbes
    Kelvin Goldstein
    Vishnu Jejjala
    Robert Joubert
    Jonathan Keartland
    Nukri Komin
    Bruce Mellado
    Deena Naidoo
    Mervin Naidoo
    Alex Quandt
    Elias Sideras-Haddad
    Martin Ntwaeaborwa
    Dr.John Burland (engr)
    Dr. Aaron Klug (chem)


    Durban Univ, South Africa math dept

    Dr. D. Brijlall
    Dr. D Day
    Dr. DB Lortan
    Dr. A Maharaj
    Dr. S Moyo
    Dr. S Rajah
    Dr. D Singh

    University Witwatersrand South Africa math dept
    Betsie Jonck
    Jesse Alt
    Margaret Archibald
    Charlotte Brennan
    Sonja Currie
    Alexander Davison
    Mensah Folly-Gbetoula
    Marie Grobbelaar
    Yorick Hardy
    Meira Hockman
    Sameerah Jamal
    Abdul Kara
    Arnold Knopfmacher
    Wen Chi Kou
    Christopher Kriel
    Rugare Kwashira
    Florian Luca
    Ronnie Maartens
    Carminda Mennen
    Manfred Moller
    Eunice Gogo Mphako-Banda
    Augustine Munagi
    Loyiso Nongxa
    Bruce Watson
    Yevhen Zelenyuk


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

    TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS textbooks, makes calculus as easy as adding or subtracting 1 from exponent--only valid functions are polynomials contrast with mainstream--vomiting during exams, torture chamber and nervous breakdown by sado-masochist teachers.
    Old Math is thousands of different kook functions with thousands of different rules. AP Calculus is one function-- the polynomial for we care about truth in math, not on whether kooks of math become rich and famous off the suffering-backs of students put
    through a torture chamber that is present day calculus. If you come to math with a function that is not a polynomial, you have to convert it to a polynomial. Once converted, calculus is super super easy. But math professors seem to enjoy torturing
    students, not teaching them. Psychology teaches us that when a kook goes through a torture chamber and comes out of it-- they want to be vindictive and sado masochists and love to torture others and put them through the same torture chamber that they
    went through. AP says-- stop this cycle of torture and teach TRUE CORRECT MATH.

    Old Math calculus textbooks like Stewart are more than 1,000 pages long and they need that because they have a mindless thousand different functions and no valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. AP's calculus is less than 300 pages, because we
    have a valid geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus which demands the only valid function of math be a polynomial function. We can teach calculus in Junior High School for the calculus is reduced to adding or subtracting 1 from the exponent.
    The only hard part of calculus in New Math is to convert the boneheaded function into a polynomial that was brought to the table by the boneheaded math professor who thinks that a function does not need to be a polynomial.

    AP calculus transforms the calculus classroom. It is no longer vomiting during exams. No longer a torture chamber for our students of youth, and no longer a nightmare nor nervous breakdown for our youthful students, who, all they ever wanted was the
    truth of mathematics.

    Teaches that derivative predicts next point of function graph--silly Old Math has derivative as tangent to function graph unable to predict. The great power of Calculus is integral is area under function graph thus physics energy, and its prediction
    power of the derivative to predict the next future point of function graph thus making the derivative a "law of physics as predictor". Stupid Old Math makes the derivative a tangent line, while New Math makes the derivative the predictor of next point of
    function graph. No wonder no-one in Old Math could do a geometry, let alone a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for no-one in Old Math even had the mind to realize Calculus predicts the future point in the derivative.

    AP has managed to make sci.math a battlefield where AP is alone on one side and every other poster is either a direct attack on AP or an indirect attack on AP such as Markus, Gabriel, Thomasson, WM trying to push AP off the front page. While over in sci.
    physics, the maintenance team at sci.physics still have control of the helm. But sci.math is without a helmsman and rudderless. Quite a spectacle, and time for a change of personnel ISP of sci.math to be at least like sci.physics. I do not know how much
    of this if any, is the fault of NSF Dr.Panchanathan, Kibo Parry Moron-ey-Volney, Tim Skirvin, Gilbert Strang...

    TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS-- only math textbooks with a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus--teaches that derivative predicts next point of function graph--silly Old Math has derivative as tangent to function graph unable to predict. This is
    why calculus is so important for physics, like a law of physics-- predicts the future given nearby point, predicts the next point. And of course the integral tells us the energy. Silly stupid Old Math understood the integral as area under the function
    graph curve, but were stupid silly as to the understanding of derivative-- predict the next point as seen in this illustration:


    From this rectangle of the integral with points A, midpoint then B


    ______
    | |
    | |
    | |
    ---------


    To this trapezoid with points A, m, B

    B
    /|
    / |
    m /----|
    / |
    | |
    |____|


    The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
    so that it can be hinged at m, and swiveled down to form rectangle for integral.

    Or going in reverse. From rectangle, the right triangle predicts the next successor point of function graph curve of B, from that of midpoint m and initial point of function graph A.


    My 134th published book

    Introduction to TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 1 for ages 5 through 26, math textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
    by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)


    TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 18-19, 1st year College Calculus, math textbook series, book 3 Kindle Edition
    by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

    COLLEGE CALCULUS GUIDE to help students recognize math professor spam from math truth & reality// math textbook series, book 4 Kindle Edition

    by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)


    #1 New Releasein 15-Minute Science & Math Short Reads


    This textbook is the companion guide book to AP's Teaching True Mathematics, 1st year College. It is realized that Old Math will take a long time in removing their fake math, so in the interim period, this Guide book is designed to speed up the process
    of removing fake Calculus out of the education system, the fewer students we punish with forcing them with fake Calculus, the better we are.
    Cover Picture: This book is part comedy, for when you cannot reason with math professors that they have many errors to fix, that 90% of their Calculus is in error, you end up resorting to comedy, making fun of them, to prod them to fix their errors. To
    prod them to "do right by the students of the world" not their entrenched propaganda.
    Length: 54 pages


    Product details
    File Size: 1035 KB
    Print Length: 64 pages
    Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
    Publication Date: August 18, 2019
    Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
    Language: English
    ASIN: B07WNGLQ85
    Text-to-Speech: Enabled
    X-Ray: 
Not Enabled 

    Word Wise: Not Enabled
    Lending: Enabled
    Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
    Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #253,425 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
    #38 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
    #318 in Calculus (Books)
    #48 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

    #5-5, 72nd published book

    TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 4 for age 19-20 Sophomore-year College, math textbook series, book 5 Kindle Edition
    by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)


    Preface: This is volume 4, book 5 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Sophomore-year students, students of age 19-20. It is the continuation of volume 3 in the end-goal of learning how to do the mathematics of electricity and magnetism,
    because everything in physics is nothing but atoms and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. To know math, you have to know physics. We learned the Calculus of 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity and
    magnetism. But we did not learn the calculus of those equations for 3rd dimension. So, you can say that Sophomore year College math is devoted to 3D Calculus. This sophomore year college we fill in all the calculus, and we start over on all of Geometry,
    for geometry needs a modern day revision. And pardon me for this book is mostly reading, and the students doing less calculations. The classroom of this textbook has the teacher go through page by page to get the students comprehending and understanding
    of what is being taught. There are many hands on experiments also.

    Cover Picture shows some toruses, some round some square, torus of rings, thin strips of rings or squares and shows them laid flat. That is Calculus of 3rd dimension that lays a ring in a torus to be flat in 2nd dimension.
    Length: 105 pages

    Product details
    • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0828M34VL
    • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 2, 2019
    • Language ‏ : ‎ English
    • File size ‏ : ‎ 952 KB
    • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
    • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
    • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
    • Print length ‏ : ‎ 105 pages
    • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • Best Sellers Rank: #242,037 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store) ◦ #36 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
    ◦ #219 in Calculus (Books)


    #5-6, 75th published book

    TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 5 for age 20-21 Junior-year of College, math textbook series, book 6 Kindle Edition
    by Archimedes Plutonium 2019

    This is volume 5, book 6 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Junior-year students, students of age 20-21. In first year college Calculus we learned calculus of the 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity
    and magnetism. And in sophomore year we learned calculus of 3rd dimension to complete our study of the mathematics needed to do the physics of electricity and magnetism. Now, junior year college, we move onto something different, for we focus mostly on
    logic now and especially the logic of what is called the "mathematical proof". Much of what the student has learned about mathematics so far has been given to her or him as stated knowledge, accept it as true because I say so. But now we are going to do
    math proofs. Oh, yes, we did prove a few items here and there, such as why the Decimal Grid Number system is so special, such as the Pythagorean Theorem, such as the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus with its right-triangle hinged up or down. But many
    ideas we did not prove, we just stated them and expected all students to believe them true. And you are now juniors in college and we are going to start to prove many of those ideas and teach you "what is a math proof". Personally, I myself feel that the
    math proof is overrated, over hyped. But the math proof is important for one reason-- it makes you better scientists of knowing what is true and what is a shaky idea. A math proof is the same as "thinking straight and thinking clearly". And all
    scientists need to think straight and think clearly. But before we get to the Mathematics Proof, we have to do Probability and Statistics. What you learned in Grade School, then High School, then College, called Sigma Error, now becomes Probability and
    Statistics. It is important because all sciences including mathematics needs and uses Probability and Statistics. So, our job for junior-year of college mathematics is all cut out and ahead for us, no time to waste, let us get going.

    Cover Picture: is a sample of the Array Proof, a proof the ellipse is not a conic but rather a cylinder cut wherein the oval is the slant cut of a cone, not the ellipse.

    Length: 175 pages


    Product details
    ASIN : B0836F1YF6
    Publication date : December 26, 2019
    Language : English
    File size : 741 KB
    Text-to-Speech : Enabled
    Screen Reader : Supported
    Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
    X-Ray : Not Enabled
    Word Wise : Not Enabled
    Print length : 175 pages
    Lending : Enabled
    Best Sellers Rank: #3,768,255 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store) ◦ #3,591 in Probability & Statistics (Kindle Store)
    ◦ #19,091 in Probability & Statistics (Books)



    #5-7, 89th published book

    TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 6 for age 21-22 Senior-year of College, math textbook series, book 7 Kindle Edition
    by Archimedes Plutonium 2020

    Last revision was 6Feb2021.
    Preface: This is the last year of College for mathematics and we have to mostly summarize all of mathematics as best we can. And set a new pattern to prepare students going on to math graduate school. A new pattern of work habits, because graduate school
    is more of research and explore on your own. So in this final year, I am going to eliminate tests, and have it mostly done as homework assignments.

    Cover Picture: Again and again, many times in math, the mind is not good enough alone to think straight and clear, and you need tools to hands-on see how it works. Here is a collection of tools for this senior year college classes. There is a pencil,
    clipboard, graph paper, compass, divider, protractor, slide-ruler. And for this year we spend a lot of time on the parallelepiped, showing my wood model, and showing my erector set model held together by wire loops in the corners. The plastic square is
    there only to hold up the erector set model.

    Length: 110 pages

    Product details
    ASIN ‏ : ‎ B084V11BGY
    Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 15, 2020
    Language ‏ : ‎ English
    File size ‏ : ‎ 826 KB
    Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
    Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
    Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    Print length ‏ : ‎ 110 pages
    Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    Best Sellers Rank: #224,965 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
    ◦ #345 in Mathematics (Kindle Store)
    ◦ #373 in Physics (Kindle Store)
    ◦ #2,256 in Physics (Books)

    #5-8, 90th published book

    TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 7 for age 22-26 Graduate school, math textbook series, book 8 Kindle Edition
    by Archimedes Plutonium 2020

    Last revised 1NOV2020. This was AP's 90th published book of science.

    Preface: This is College Graduate School mathematics. Congratulations, you made it this far. To me, graduate school is mostly research, research mathematics and that means also physics. So it is going to be difficult to do math without physics. Of course,
    we focus on the mathematics of these research projects.

    My textbook for Graduate school is just a template and the professors teaching the graduate students are free of course to follow their own projects, but in terms of being physics and math combined. What I list below is a template for possible projects.

    So, in the below projects, I list 36 possible research projects that a graduate student my like to undertake, or partake. I list those 36 projects with a set of parentheses like this (1), (2), (3), etc. Not to be confused with the chapters listing as 1),
    2), 3), etc. I list 36 projects but the professor can offer his/her own list, and I expect students with their professor, to pick a project and to monitor the student as to his/her progresses through the research. I have listed each project then cited
    some of my own research into these projects, below each project is an entry. Those entries are just a help or helper in getting started or acquainted with the project. The entry has a date time group and a newsgroup that I posted to such as sci.math or
    plutonium-atom-universe Google newsgroups. Again the entry is just a help or helper in getting started.

    Now instead of picking one or two projects for your Graduate years of study, some may select all 36 projects where you write a short paper on each project. Some may be bored with just one or two projects and opt for all 36.

    Cover Picture: A photo by my iphone of a page on Permutations of the Jacobs book Mathematics: A Human Endeavor, 1970. One of the best textbooks ever written in Old Math, not for its contents because there are many errors, but for its teaching style. It
    is extremely rare to find a math textbook written for the student to learn. Probably because math professors rarely learned how to teach in the first place; only learned how to unintentionally obfuscate. The page I photographed is important because it is
    the interface between geometry's perimeter or surface area versus geometry's area or volume, respectively. Or, an interface of pure numbers with that of geometry. But I have more to say on this below.
    Length: 296 pages

    Product details
    ASIN ‏ : ‎ B085DF8R7V
    Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 1, 2020
    Language ‏ : ‎ English
    File size ‏ : ‎ 828 KB
    Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
    Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
    Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
    Print length ‏ : ‎ 296 pages
    Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    Best Sellers Rank: #224,981 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
    ◦ #13 in General Geometry
    ◦ #213 in Geometry & Topology (Books)


    #5-9, 221st published book

    An Education Ladder Guideline for teaching mathematics and a Test to see if you are cut out to be a mathematician//Teaching True Mathematics
    by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

    Preface: This book is written to improve math education in school and at home. Trouble is, you cannot improve math education if the professors of mathematics have much of their teachings in error. So I write this book mostly as a test for math professors
    because to shine a light on math professor failure is the best way to improve math teaching, and thereby improve school curriculums especially colleges and universities. But others, such as laypersons are welcomed to join in. And it is the laypersons and
    students that will make the greatest amount of use of this book because math professors are usually stubborn and idiotic and hard to change for the better. And so when students and laypersons keep asking questions of their math professors, their
    brainwashing and thus poor teaching, they eventually come around to the truth and then change their bad behavior and bad misunderstanding; to proper true mathematics.

    Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of a rubber washer inside a plastic cone. The washer is at a steep slant angle to the cone perpendicular. Notice the washer near the apex is fully touching the side of the cone, but the washer directed towards the
    base has not yet cut through the side of the cone, and you can see a rainbow or a crescent shape of area where the washer will intersect the side of the cone, (where my two finger are), making a total figure of a Oval, never the ellipse. I was taking
    this picture as one person, so I had the iphone camera in one hand and the cone in another hand, and had to use a rubber washer to stay in place. The same green plastic cone used in this picture appears in both of my published books of the proof slant
    cut of cone is oval, never the ellipse.

    My 3rd published book with the same green cone on cover.
    AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
    by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

    My 68th published book with the same green cone on cover.
    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)


    Product details
    • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0BQDYMYKQ
    • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 16, 2022
    • Language ‏ : ‎ English
    • File size ‏ : ‎ 551 KB
    • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
    • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
    • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
    • Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
    • Print length ‏ : ‎ 65 pages



    #5-10, 160th published book

    MATHOPEDIA-- List of 82 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// mathematics & logic by Archimedes Plutonium

    Preface:
    A Mathopedia is like a special type of encyclopedia on the subject of mathematics. It is about the assessment of the worth of mathematics and the subject material of mathematics. It is a overall examination and a evaluation of mathematics and its topics.

    The ordering of Mathopedia is not a alphabetic ordering, nor does it have a index. The ordering is purely that of importance at beginning and importance at end.

    The greatest use of Mathopedia is a guide to students of what not to waste your time on and what to focus most of your time. I know so many college classes in mathematics are just a total waste of time, waste of valuable time for the class is math fakery.
    I know because I have been there.

    Now I am going to cite various reference sources of AP books if anyone wants more details and can be seen in the Appendix at the end of the book.

    I suppose, going forward, mathematics should always have a mathopedia, where major parts of mathematics as a science are held under scrutiny and question as to correctness. In past history we have called these incidents as "doubters of the mainstream".
    Yet math, like physics, can have no permanent mainstream, since there is always question of correctness in physics, there then corresponds questions of correctness in mathematics (because math is a subset of physics). What I mean is that each future
    generation corrects some mistakes of past mathematics. If anyone is unsure of what I am saying here, both math and physics need constant correcting, of that which never belonged in science. This then converges with the logic-philosophy of Pragmatism (see
    AP's book of logic on Pragmatism).

    Product details
    • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09MZTLRL5 and ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09ZWFLKHC
    • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 2, 2021
    • Product details
    • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09ZWFLKHC
    • Publication date ‏ : ‎ May 8, 2022
    • Language ‏ : ‎ English
    • File size ‏ : ‎ 1154 KB
    • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
    • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
    • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
    • Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
    • Print length ‏ : ‎ 71 pages



    y z
    | /
    | /
    |/______ x

    Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium
    2:12 AM (15 hours ago)



    to
    Alright I come to realize I have no graphic explanation for the proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus for a downward slope function graph. I gave a proof for the upward slope function.

    We start with the integral rectangle in the Cell, a specific cell of the function graph. In 10 Decimal Grid there are exactly 100 cells for each number interval, say from 0 to 0.1, then the next cell is 0.1 to 0.2. The midpoint in each cell belongs to a
    number in the next higher Grid System, the 100 Grid. So the midpoint of cell 1.1 to 1.2 is 1.15 as midpoint.

    Now the integral in that cell of 1.1 to 1.2 is a rectangle and say our function is x^2 --> Y. So the function graph is (1.1, 1.21) and (1.2, 1.44). Now we are strictly in 10 Grid borrowing from 100 Grid.

    So say this is our Integral rectangle in cell 1.1 to 1.2.

    _____
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    _____
    1.1 1.2

    More later,...

    What I am getting at is that in a upward slope the right triangle whose tip is 1.44 hinged at the midpoint 1.15 predicts that future point in the derivative as the right triangle hypotenuse.

    But the geometry is different for a downward slope function such as 10 -x --> Y. In this case we have the rectangle integral, but instead of hinging up the right triangle to predict the next point of the function graph, we totally remove the right
    triangle from the graph and the missing right-triangle is the successor point.

    Teaches that derivative predicts next point of function graph--silly Old Math has derivative as tangent to function graph unable to predict. The great power of Calculus is integral is area under function graph thus physics energy, and its prediction
    power of the derivative to predict the next future point of function graph thus making the derivative a "law of physics as predictor". Stupid Old Math makes the derivative a tangent line, while New Math makes the derivative the predictor of next point of
    function graph. No wonder no-one in Old Math could do a geometry, let alone a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for no-one in Old Math even had the mind to realize Calculus predicts the future point in the derivative.



    TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS-- only math textbooks with a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus--teaches that derivative predicts next point of function graph--silly Old Math has derivative as tangent to function graph unable to predict. This is
    why calculus is so important for physics, like a law of physics-- predicts the future given nearby point, predicts the next point. And of course the integral tells us the energy. Silly stupid Old Math understood the integral as area under the function
    graph curve, but were stupid silly as to the understanding of derivative-- predict the next point as seen in this illustration:


    From this rectangle of the integral with points A, midpoint then B


    ______
    | |
    | |
    | |
    ---------


    To this trapezoid with points A, m, B

    B
    /|
    / |
    m /----|
    / |
    | |
    |____|


    The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
    so that it can be hinged at m, and swiveled down to form rectangle for integral.

    Or going in reverse. From rectangle, the right triangle predicts the next successor point of function graph curve of B, from that of midpoint m and initial point of function graph A.


    AP
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium
    1:04 PM (4 hours ago)



    to
    In the case of a upward slope function, the derivative requires a midpoint in the integral rectangle for which the right triangle is hinged at the midpoint and raised to rest upon the 4 sided trapezoid that the rectangle becomes. Thus the vertex tip of
    right triangle predicts the next future point of the function graph by this vertex tip.

    However, a different situation arises as the function graph has a downward slope. There is no raising of a right triangle cut-out of the integral rectangle. And there is no need for a midpoint on top wall of the integral rectangle. For a downward slope
    Function Graph, we cut-away a right triangle and discard it. Here the vertex tip is below the level of the entering function graph and is predicted by the derivative.

    So there are two geometry accounting for the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus proof. There is the accounting of a function graph if the function has a upward slope and there is the accounting if the function graph is a downward slope. Both involve the
    Integral as a rectangle in a cell of whatever Grid System one is in. In 10 Grid there are 100 cells along the x-axis, in 100 Grid there are 100^2 cells. If the function is upward slope we need the midpoint of cell and the right triangle is hinged at that
    midpoint. If the function is downward slope, the right triangle is shaved off and discarded-- no midpoint needed and the resultant figure could end up being a rectangle becoming a triangle. In the upward slope function graph, the rectangle becomes a
    trapezoid, possibly even a triangle.

    AP
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium
    3:32 PM (2 hours ago)



    to
    So for an upward slope function, the Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus would have the integral rectangle turned into this.

    ______
    | |
    | |
    | |
    ---------


    To this trapezoid with points A, m, B

    B
    /|
    / |
    m /----|
    / |
    | |
    |____|


    While for a downward slope function, the Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus would have the integral rectangle turned into this.

    ______
    |....... |
    |....... |
    |....... |
    ---------


    |\
    |...\
    |....... |
    ---------

    Where the right-triangle is now swiveled at midpoint but rather where a right triangle is cut-away from the Integral that is a rectangle and that right triangle is then discarded.

    AP
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium
    11:18 PM (1 hour ago)



    to
    Now two of the most interesting and fascinating downward slope functions in 10 Grid of 1st Quadrant Only would be the quarter circle and the tractrix.

    Many of us forget that functions are Sequence progressions, starting at 0 and moving through all 100 cells of the 10 Decimal Grid System.

    Here, I have in mind for the quarter circle a radius of 10 to be all inclusive of the 10 Grid.

    AP
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium
    11:27 AM (4 hours ago)



    to
    By insisting that the only valid function in the world is a polynomial function, we thus reduce Calculus to the ultra simple task of the Power Rule.

    So we have a function of x^3, the derivative by Power Rule is (3)x^2. The integral by Power Rule is (1/4)x^4, and to check to see if integral is correct, we take the derivative of (1/4)x^4 to see if it becomes x^3, and surely it does so.

    So what AP teaches math to the world, is that Calculus can be mastered by 13 and 14 year olds. Students just beginning High School.

    Impossible in Old Math because Old Math is filled with mistakes and errors and crazy idiotic and stupid math.

    In New Math, we clean house. We do not let creeps and kooks fill up math that causes students to have nightmares and nervous breakdowns and vomit before tests.

    In New Math, we think only of our young students, we do not think of kooks like Dr.Hales, Dr.Tao, Dr. Wiles trying to achieve fame and fortune at the expense of our young students-- who, all they wanted was to learn the truth of mathematics.

    If you run to a teacher of New Math with a function, and that function is not a polynomial, then the teacher is going to tell you "that is not a valid function, and you simply convert it to a polynomial".

    In AP math class in 9th grade USA, AP makes students of 13 and 14 year old master Calculus. Master calculus better, far better than 1st year college students in Old Math at any college or university across the globe.

    14 year old students in AP math class master calculus and "have fun and joy" in math class.

    19 or 20 year olds in colleges and universities go through nightmares, vomiting, and even nervous breakdowns in their learning calculus.

    I am not exaggerating here, but obvious observations of education of mathematics.

    No-one in math education cares about students in Old Math. No-one has ever Cleaned House of Old Math, but let the rotten fetid Old Math stench increase.

    AP, King of Science
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo

    [continued in next message]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Fritz Feldhase@21:1/5 to John-Asshole-Gabriel on Sat Sep 16 18:11:11 2023
    On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 10:35:05 AM UTC+2, John-Asshole-Gabriel wrote:

    ...while I sing Eram semper recta

    Your rectum is always open?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Fritz Feldhase@21:1/5 to ohn Gabriel on Sat Sep 16 18:09:35 2023
    On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 10:35:05 AM UTC+2, ohn Gabriel wrote:

    ...while I sing Eram semper recta

    Your rectum is always open?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Archimedes Plutonium@21:1/5 to Volney on Sat Sep 16 20:43:55 2023
    John Gabriel & Witwatersrand Uni,Dr.Betsie Jonck,Dr.Jesse Alt, Dr.Margaret Archibald, Dr. Charlotte Brennan, Dr. Sonja Currie, Dr.Alexander Davison keeps Calculus as classroom torture chambers with their 1,000s of different functions yet the polynomial
    is the only valid function of math, and makes it super super easy to learn calculus

    TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, AP seeks the super easiest calculus possible on Earth-- polynomials as the only valid functions-- thus, and therefore, making derivative and integral as easy as Power Rule- 14 year olds master calculus

    Univ Witwatersrand calculus classrooms as torture chambers, why they cannot even admit slant cut of cone is a Oval, not their stupid ellipse


    Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
    Physics dept
    Joao Rodrigues
    Somnath Bhattacharyya
    John Carter
    Andrew Chen
    Darell Comins
    Robert De Mello Koch
    Arthur Every
    Andrew Forbes
    Kelvin Goldstein
    Vishnu Jejjala
    Robert Joubert
    Jonathan Keartland
    Nukri Komin
    Bruce Mellado
    Deena Naidoo
    Mervin Naidoo
    Alex Quandt
    Elias Sideras-Haddad
    Martin Ntwaeaborwa
    Dr.John Burland (engr)
    Dr. Aaron Klug (chem)


    Durban Univ, South Africa math dept

    Dr. D. Brijlall
    Dr. D Day
    Dr. DB Lortan
    Dr. A Maharaj
    Dr. S Moyo
    Dr. S Rajah
    Dr. D Singh

    University Witwatersrand South Africa math dept
    Betsie Jonck
    Jesse Alt
    Margaret Archibald
    Charlotte Brennan
    Sonja Currie
    Alexander Davison
    Mensah Folly-Gbetoula
    Marie Grobbelaar
    Yorick Hardy
    Meira Hockman
    Sameerah Jamal
    Abdul Kara
    Arnold Knopfmacher
    Wen Chi Kou
    Christopher Kriel
    Rugare Kwashira
    Florian Luca
    Ronnie Maartens
    Carminda Mennen
    Manfred Moller
    Eunice Gogo Mphako-Banda
    Augustine Munagi
    Loyiso Nongxa
    Bruce Watson
    Yevhen Zelenyuk


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

    TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS textbooks, makes calculus as easy as adding or subtracting 1 from exponent--only valid functions are polynomials contrast with mainstream--vomiting during exams, torture chamber and nervous breakdown by sado-masochist teachers.
    Old Math is thousands of different kook functions with thousands of different rules. AP Calculus is one function-- the polynomial for we care about truth in math, not on whether kooks of math become rich and famous off the suffering-backs of students put
    through a torture chamber that is present day calculus. If you come to math with a function that is not a polynomial, you have to convert it to a polynomial. Once converted, calculus is super super easy. But math professors seem to enjoy torturing
    students, not teaching them. Psychology teaches us that when a kook goes through a torture chamber and comes out of it-- they want to be vindictive and sado masochists and love to torture others and put them through the same torture chamber that they
    went through. AP says-- stop this cycle of torture and teach TRUE CORRECT MATH.

    Old Math calculus textbooks like Stewart are more than 1,000 pages long and they need that because they have a mindless thousand different functions and no valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. AP's calculus is less than 300 pages, because we
    have a valid geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus which demands the only valid function of math be a polynomial function. We can teach calculus in Junior High School for the calculus is reduced to adding or subtracting 1 from the exponent.
    The only hard part of calculus in New Math is to convert the boneheaded function into a polynomial that was brought to the table by the boneheaded math professor who thinks that a function does not need to be a polynomial.

    AP calculus transforms the calculus classroom. It is no longer vomiting during exams. No longer a torture chamber for our students of youth, and no longer a nightmare nor nervous breakdown for our youthful students, who, all they ever wanted was the
    truth of mathematics.

    Teaches that derivative predicts next point of function graph--silly Old Math has derivative as tangent to function graph unable to predict. The great power of Calculus is integral is area under function graph thus physics energy, and its prediction
    power of the derivative to predict the next future point of function graph thus making the derivative a "law of physics as predictor". Stupid Old Math makes the derivative a tangent line, while New Math makes the derivative the predictor of next point of
    function graph. No wonder no-one in Old Math could do a geometry, let alone a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for no-one in Old Math even had the mind to realize Calculus predicts the future point in the derivative.

    AP has managed to make sci.math a battlefield where AP is alone on one side and every other poster is either a direct attack on AP or an indirect attack on AP such as Markus, Gabriel, Thomasson, WM trying to push AP off the front page. While over in sci.
    physics, the maintenance team at sci.physics still have control of the helm. But sci.math is without a helmsman and rudderless. Quite a spectacle, and time for a change of personnel ISP of sci.math to be at least like sci.physics. I do not know how much
    of this if any, is the fault of NSF Dr.Panchanathan, Kibo Parry Moron-ey-Volney, Tim Skirvin, Gilbert Strang...

    TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS-- only math textbooks with a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus--teaches that derivative predicts next point of function graph--silly Old Math has derivative as tangent to function graph unable to predict. This is
    why calculus is so important for physics, like a law of physics-- predicts the future given nearby point, predicts the next point. And of course the integral tells us the energy. Silly stupid Old Math understood the integral as area under the function
    graph curve, but were stupid silly as to the understanding of derivative-- predict the next point as seen in this illustration:


    From this rectangle of the integral with points A, midpoint then B


    ______
    | |
    | |
    | |
    ---------


    To this trapezoid with points A, m, B

    B
    /|
    / |
    m /----|
    / |
    | |
    |____|


    The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
    so that it can be hinged at m, and swiveled down to form rectangle for integral.

    Or going in reverse. From rectangle, the right triangle predicts the next successor point of function graph curve of B, from that of midpoint m and initial point of function graph A.


    My 134th published book

    Introduction to TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 1 for ages 5 through 26, math textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
    by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)


    TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 18-19, 1st year College Calculus, math textbook series, book 3 Kindle Edition
    by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

    COLLEGE CALCULUS GUIDE to help students recognize math professor spam from math truth & reality// math textbook series, book 4 Kindle Edition

    by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)


    #1 New Releasein 15-Minute Science & Math Short Reads


    This textbook is the companion guide book to AP's Teaching True Mathematics, 1st year College. It is realized that Old Math will take a long time in removing their fake math, so in the interim period, this Guide book is designed to speed up the process
    of removing fake Calculus out of the education system, the fewer students we punish with forcing them with fake Calculus, the better we are.
    Cover Picture: This book is part comedy, for when you cannot reason with math professors that they have many errors to fix, that 90% of their Calculus is in error, you end up resorting to comedy, making fun of them, to prod them to fix their errors. To
    prod them to "do right by the students of the world" not their entrenched propaganda.
    Length: 54 pages


    Product details
    File Size: 1035 KB
    Print Length: 64 pages
    Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
    Publication Date: August 18, 2019
    Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
    Language: English
    ASIN: B07WNGLQ85
    Text-to-Speech: Enabled
    X-Ray: 
Not Enabled 

    Word Wise: Not Enabled
    Lending: Enabled
    Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
    Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #253,425 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
    #38 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
    #318 in Calculus (Books)
    #48 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

    #5-5, 72nd published book

    TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 4 for age 19-20 Sophomore-year College, math textbook series, book 5 Kindle Edition
    by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)


    Preface: This is volume 4, book 5 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Sophomore-year students, students of age 19-20. It is the continuation of volume 3 in the end-goal of learning how to do the mathematics of electricity and magnetism,
    because everything in physics is nothing but atoms and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. To know math, you have to know physics. We learned the Calculus of 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity and
    magnetism. But we did not learn the calculus of those equations for 3rd dimension. So, you can say that Sophomore year College math is devoted to 3D Calculus. This sophomore year college we fill in all the calculus, and we start over on all of Geometry,
    for geometry needs a modern day revision. And pardon me for this book is mostly reading, and the students doing less calculations. The classroom of this textbook has the teacher go through page by page to get the students comprehending and understanding
    of what is being taught. There are many hands on experiments also.

    Cover Picture shows some toruses, some round some square, torus of rings, thin strips of rings or squares and shows them laid flat. That is Calculus of 3rd dimension that lays a ring in a torus to be flat in 2nd dimension.
    Length: 105 pages

    Product details
    • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0828M34VL
    • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 2, 2019
    • Language ‏ : ‎ English
    • File size ‏ : ‎ 952 KB
    • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
    • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
    • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
    • Print length ‏ : ‎ 105 pages
    • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • Best Sellers Rank: #242,037 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store) ◦ #36 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
    ◦ #219 in Calculus (Books)


    #5-6, 75th published book

    TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 5 for age 20-21 Junior-year of College, math textbook series, book 6 Kindle Edition
    by Archimedes Plutonium 2019

    This is volume 5, book 6 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Junior-year students, students of age 20-21. In first year college Calculus we learned calculus of the 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity
    and magnetism. And in sophomore year we learned calculus of 3rd dimension to complete our study of the mathematics needed to do the physics of electricity and magnetism. Now, junior year college, we move onto something different, for we focus mostly on
    logic now and especially the logic of what is called the "mathematical proof". Much of what the student has learned about mathematics so far has been given to her or him as stated knowledge, accept it as true because I say so. But now we are going to do
    math proofs. Oh, yes, we did prove a few items here and there, such as why the Decimal Grid Number system is so special, such as the Pythagorean Theorem, such as the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus with its right-triangle hinged up or down. But many
    ideas we did not prove, we just stated them and expected all students to believe them true. And you are now juniors in college and we are going to start to prove many of those ideas and teach you "what is a math proof". Personally, I myself feel that the
    math proof is overrated, over hyped. But the math proof is important for one reason-- it makes you better scientists of knowing what is true and what is a shaky idea. A math proof is the same as "thinking straight and thinking clearly". And all
    scientists need to think straight and think clearly. But before we get to the Mathematics Proof, we have to do Probability and Statistics. What you learned in Grade School, then High School, then College, called Sigma Error, now becomes Probability and
    Statistics. It is important because all sciences including mathematics needs and uses Probability and Statistics. So, our job for junior-year of college mathematics is all cut out and ahead for us, no time to waste, let us get going.

    Cover Picture: is a sample of the Array Proof, a proof the ellipse is not a conic but rather a cylinder cut wherein the oval is the slant cut of a cone, not the ellipse.

    Length: 175 pages


    Product details
    ASIN : B0836F1YF6
    Publication date : December 26, 2019
    Language : English
    File size : 741 KB
    Text-to-Speech : Enabled
    Screen Reader : Supported
    Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
    X-Ray : Not Enabled
    Word Wise : Not Enabled
    Print length : 175 pages
    Lending : Enabled
    Best Sellers Rank: #3,768,255 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store) ◦ #3,591 in Probability & Statistics (Kindle Store)
    ◦ #19,091 in Probability & Statistics (Books)



    #5-7, 89th published book

    TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 6 for age 21-22 Senior-year of College, math textbook series, book 7 Kindle Edition
    by Archimedes Plutonium 2020

    Last revision was 6Feb2021.
    Preface: This is the last year of College for mathematics and we have to mostly summarize all of mathematics as best we can. And set a new pattern to prepare students going on to math graduate school. A new pattern of work habits, because graduate school
    is more of research and explore on your own. So in this final year, I am going to eliminate tests, and have it mostly done as homework assignments.

    Cover Picture: Again and again, many times in math, the mind is not good enough alone to think straight and clear, and you need tools to hands-on see how it works. Here is a collection of tools for this senior year college classes. There is a pencil,
    clipboard, graph paper, compass, divider, protractor, slide-ruler. And for this year we spend a lot of time on the parallelepiped, showing my wood model, and showing my erector set model held together by wire loops in the corners. The plastic square is
    there only to hold up the erector set model.

    Length: 110 pages

    Product details
    ASIN ‏ : ‎ B084V11BGY
    Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 15, 2020
    Language ‏ : ‎ English
    File size ‏ : ‎ 826 KB
    Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
    Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
    Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    Print length ‏ : ‎ 110 pages
    Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    Best Sellers Rank: #224,965 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
    ◦ #345 in Mathematics (Kindle Store)
    ◦ #373 in Physics (Kindle Store)
    ◦ #2,256 in Physics (Books)

    #5-8, 90th published book

    TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 7 for age 22-26 Graduate school, math textbook series, book 8 Kindle Edition
    by Archimedes Plutonium 2020

    Last revised 1NOV2020. This was AP's 90th published book of science.

    Preface: This is College Graduate School mathematics. Congratulations, you made it this far. To me, graduate school is mostly research, research mathematics and that means also physics. So it is going to be difficult to do math without physics. Of course,
    we focus on the mathematics of these research projects.

    My textbook for Graduate school is just a template and the professors teaching the graduate students are free of course to follow their own projects, but in terms of being physics and math combined. What I list below is a template for possible projects.

    So, in the below projects, I list 36 possible research projects that a graduate student my like to undertake, or partake. I list those 36 projects with a set of parentheses like this (1), (2), (3), etc. Not to be confused with the chapters listing as 1),
    2), 3), etc. I list 36 projects but the professor can offer his/her own list, and I expect students with their professor, to pick a project and to monitor the student as to his/her progresses through the research. I have listed each project then cited
    some of my own research into these projects, below each project is an entry. Those entries are just a help or helper in getting started or acquainted with the project. The entry has a date time group and a newsgroup that I posted to such as sci.math or
    plutonium-atom-universe Google newsgroups. Again the entry is just a help or helper in getting started.

    Now instead of picking one or two projects for your Graduate years of study, some may select all 36 projects where you write a short paper on each project. Some may be bored with just one or two projects and opt for all 36.

    Cover Picture: A photo by my iphone of a page on Permutations of the Jacobs book Mathematics: A Human Endeavor, 1970. One of the best textbooks ever written in Old Math, not for its contents because there are many errors, but for its teaching style. It
    is extremely rare to find a math textbook written for the student to learn. Probably because math professors rarely learned how to teach in the first place; only learned how to unintentionally obfuscate. The page I photographed is important because it is
    the interface between geometry's perimeter or surface area versus geometry's area or volume, respectively. Or, an interface of pure numbers with that of geometry. But I have more to say on this below.
    Length: 296 pages

    Product details
    ASIN ‏ : ‎ B085DF8R7V
    Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 1, 2020
    Language ‏ : ‎ English
    File size ‏ : ‎ 828 KB
    Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
    Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
    Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
    Print length ‏ : ‎ 296 pages
    Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    Best Sellers Rank: #224,981 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
    ◦ #13 in General Geometry
    ◦ #213 in Geometry & Topology (Books)


    #5-9, 221st published book

    An Education Ladder Guideline for teaching mathematics and a Test to see if you are cut out to be a mathematician//Teaching True Mathematics
    by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

    Preface: This book is written to improve math education in school and at home. Trouble is, you cannot improve math education if the professors of mathematics have much of their teachings in error. So I write this book mostly as a test for math professors
    because to shine a light on math professor failure is the best way to improve math teaching, and thereby improve school curriculums especially colleges and universities. But others, such as laypersons are welcomed to join in. And it is the laypersons and
    students that will make the greatest amount of use of this book because math professors are usually stubborn and idiotic and hard to change for the better. And so when students and laypersons keep asking questions of their math professors, their
    brainwashing and thus poor teaching, they eventually come around to the truth and then change their bad behavior and bad misunderstanding; to proper true mathematics.

    Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of a rubber washer inside a plastic cone. The washer is at a steep slant angle to the cone perpendicular. Notice the washer near the apex is fully touching the side of the cone, but the washer directed towards the
    base has not yet cut through the side of the cone, and you can see a rainbow or a crescent shape of area where the washer will intersect the side of the cone, (where my two finger are), making a total figure of a Oval, never the ellipse. I was taking
    this picture as one person, so I had the iphone camera in one hand and the cone in another hand, and had to use a rubber washer to stay in place. The same green plastic cone used in this picture appears in both of my published books of the proof slant
    cut of cone is oval, never the ellipse.

    My 3rd published book with the same green cone on cover.
    AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
    by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

    My 68th published book with the same green cone on cover.
    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)


    Product details
    • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0BQDYMYKQ
    • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 16, 2022
    • Language ‏ : ‎ English
    • File size ‏ : ‎ 551 KB
    • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
    • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
    • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
    • Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
    • Print length ‏ : ‎ 65 pages



    #5-10, 160th published book

    MATHOPEDIA-- List of 82 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// mathematics & logic by Archimedes Plutonium

    Preface:
    A Mathopedia is like a special type of encyclopedia on the subject of mathematics. It is about the assessment of the worth of mathematics and the subject material of mathematics. It is a overall examination and a evaluation of mathematics and its topics.

    The ordering of Mathopedia is not a alphabetic ordering, nor does it have a index. The ordering is purely that of importance at beginning and importance at end.

    The greatest use of Mathopedia is a guide to students of what not to waste your time on and what to focus most of your time. I know so many college classes in mathematics are just a total waste of time, waste of valuable time for the class is math fakery.
    I know because I have been there.

    Now I am going to cite various reference sources of AP books if anyone wants more details and can be seen in the Appendix at the end of the book.

    I suppose, going forward, mathematics should always have a mathopedia, where major parts of mathematics as a science are held under scrutiny and question as to correctness. In past history we have called these incidents as "doubters of the mainstream".
    Yet math, like physics, can have no permanent mainstream, since there is always question of correctness in physics, there then corresponds questions of correctness in mathematics (because math is a subset of physics). What I mean is that each future
    generation corrects some mistakes of past mathematics. If anyone is unsure of what I am saying here, both math and physics need constant correcting, of that which never belonged in science. This then converges with the logic-philosophy of Pragmatism (see
    AP's book of logic on Pragmatism).

    Product details
    • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09MZTLRL5 and ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09ZWFLKHC
    • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 2, 2021
    • Product details
    • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09ZWFLKHC
    • Publication date ‏ : ‎ May 8, 2022
    • Language ‏ : ‎ English
    • File size ‏ : ‎ 1154 KB
    • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
    • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
    • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
    • Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
    • Print length ‏ : ‎ 71 pages



    y z
    | /
    | /
    |/______ x

    Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium
    2:12 AM (15 hours ago)



    to
    Alright I come to realize I have no graphic explanation for the proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus for a downward slope function graph. I gave a proof for the upward slope function.

    We start with the integral rectangle in the Cell, a specific cell of the function graph. In 10 Decimal Grid there are exactly 100 cells for each number interval, say from 0 to 0.1, then the next cell is 0.1 to 0.2. The midpoint in each cell belongs to a
    number in the next higher Grid System, the 100 Grid. So the midpoint of cell 1.1 to 1.2 is 1.15 as midpoint.

    Now the integral in that cell of 1.1 to 1.2 is a rectangle and say our function is x^2 --> Y. So the function graph is (1.1, 1.21) and (1.2, 1.44). Now we are strictly in 10 Grid borrowing from 100 Grid.

    So say this is our Integral rectangle in cell 1.1 to 1.2.

    _____
    | |
    | |
    | |
    | |
    _____
    1.1 1.2

    More later,...

    What I am getting at is that in a upward slope the right triangle whose tip is 1.44 hinged at the midpoint 1.15 predicts that future point in the derivative as the right triangle hypotenuse.

    But the geometry is different for a downward slope function such as 10 -x --> Y. In this case we have the rectangle integral, but instead of hinging up the right triangle to predict the next point of the function graph, we totally remove the right
    triangle from the graph and the missing right-triangle is the successor point.

    Teaches that derivative predicts next point of function graph--silly Old Math has derivative as tangent to function graph unable to predict. The great power of Calculus is integral is area under function graph thus physics energy, and its prediction
    power of the derivative to predict the next future point of function graph thus making the derivative a "law of physics as predictor". Stupid Old Math makes the derivative a tangent line, while New Math makes the derivative the predictor of next point of
    function graph. No wonder no-one in Old Math could do a geometry, let alone a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for no-one in Old Math even had the mind to realize Calculus predicts the future point in the derivative.



    TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS-- only math textbooks with a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus--teaches that derivative predicts next point of function graph--silly Old Math has derivative as tangent to function graph unable to predict. This is
    why calculus is so important for physics, like a law of physics-- predicts the future given nearby point, predicts the next point. And of course the integral tells us the energy. Silly stupid Old Math understood the integral as area under the function
    graph curve, but were stupid silly as to the understanding of derivative-- predict the next point as seen in this illustration:


    From this rectangle of the integral with points A, midpoint then B


    ______
    | |
    | |
    | |
    ---------


    To this trapezoid with points A, m, B

    B
    /|
    / |
    m /----|
    / |
    | |
    |____|


    The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
    so that it can be hinged at m, and swiveled down to form rectangle for integral.

    Or going in reverse. From rectangle, the right triangle predicts the next successor point of function graph curve of B, from that of midpoint m and initial point of function graph A.


    AP
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium
    1:04 PM (4 hours ago)



    to
    In the case of a upward slope function, the derivative requires a midpoint in the integral rectangle for which the right triangle is hinged at the midpoint and raised to rest upon the 4 sided trapezoid that the rectangle becomes. Thus the vertex tip of
    right triangle predicts the next future point of the function graph by this vertex tip.

    However, a different situation arises as the function graph has a downward slope. There is no raising of a right triangle cut-out of the integral rectangle. And there is no need for a midpoint on top wall of the integral rectangle. For a downward slope
    Function Graph, we cut-away a right triangle and discard it. Here the vertex tip is below the level of the entering function graph and is predicted by the derivative.

    So there are two geometry accounting for the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus proof. There is the accounting of a function graph if the function has a upward slope and there is the accounting if the function graph is a downward slope. Both involve the
    Integral as a rectangle in a cell of whatever Grid System one is in. In 10 Grid there are 100 cells along the x-axis, in 100 Grid there are 100^2 cells. If the function is upward slope we need the midpoint of cell and the right triangle is hinged at that
    midpoint. If the function is downward slope, the right triangle is shaved off and discarded-- no midpoint needed and the resultant figure could end up being a rectangle becoming a triangle. In the upward slope function graph, the rectangle becomes a
    trapezoid, possibly even a triangle.

    AP
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium
    3:32 PM (2 hours ago)



    to
    So for an upward slope function, the Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus would have the integral rectangle turned into this.

    ______
    | |
    | |
    | |
    ---------


    To this trapezoid with points A, m, B

    B
    /|
    / |
    m /----|
    / |
    | |
    |____|


    While for a downward slope function, the Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus would have the integral rectangle turned into this.

    ______
    |....... |
    |....... |
    |....... |
    ---------


    |\
    |...\
    |....... |
    ---------

    Where the right-triangle is now swiveled at midpoint but rather where a right triangle is cut-away from the Integral that is a rectangle and that right triangle is then discarded.

    AP
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium
    11:18 PM (1 hour ago)



    to
    Now two of the most interesting and fascinating downward slope functions in 10 Grid of 1st Quadrant Only would be the quarter circle and the tractrix.

    Many of us forget that functions are Sequence progressions, starting at 0 and moving through all 100 cells of the 10 Decimal Grid System.

    Here, I have in mind for the quarter circle a radius of 10 to be all inclusive of the 10 Grid.

    AP
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium
    11:27 AM (4 hours ago)



    to
    By insisting that the only valid function in the world is a polynomial function, we thus reduce Calculus to the ultra simple task of the Power Rule.

    So we have a function of x^3, the derivative by Power Rule is (3)x^2. The integral by Power Rule is (1/4)x^4, and to check to see if integral is correct, we take the derivative of (1/4)x^4 to see if it becomes x^3, and surely it does so.

    So what AP teaches math to the world, is that Calculus can be mastered by 13 and 14 year olds. Students just beginning High School.

    Impossible in Old Math because Old Math is filled with mistakes and errors and crazy idiotic and stupid math.

    In New Math, we clean house. We do not let creeps and kooks fill up math that causes students to have nightmares and nervous breakdowns and vomit before tests.

    In New Math, we think only of our young students, we do not think of kooks like Dr.Hales, Dr.Tao, Dr. Wiles trying to achieve fame and fortune at the expense of our young students-- who, all they wanted was to learn the truth of mathematics.

    If you run to a teacher of New Math with a function, and that function is not a polynomial, then the teacher is going to tell you "that is not a valid function, and you simply convert it to a polynomial".

    In AP math class in 9th grade USA, AP makes students of 13 and 14 year old master Calculus. Master calculus better, far better than 1st year college students in Old Math at any college or university across the globe.

    14 year old students in AP math class master calculus and "have fun and joy" in math class.

    19 or 20 year olds in colleges and universities go through nightmares, vomiting, and even nervous breakdowns in their learning calculus.

    I am not exaggerating here, but obvious observations of education of mathematics.


    [continued in next message]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Archimedes Plutonium@21:1/5 to All on Wed Oct 4 14:11:34 2023
    30 F-16s will win the war, win the war, win the war. 50 F-16s will win the war win the war, win the war 100 F-16s will win the war, win the war today, Hooray, payday, say

    John Gabriel failed math, especially calculus, but he is no slouch on F-16s winning the war.


    ███۞███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▃ Radio Wave & Laser Rifle to shoot down GLONASS and BeiDou satellites

    Xi masses troops on Russian border to take back Outer Manchuria. If you do not know the history, Russia stole Outer Manchuria and Vladivostok from China.

    While Putin is too busy with his personal war, Xi thinks time is ripe to get back what belongs to China in the first place. OUTER MANCHURIA and especially Vladivostok.

    Xi gives the Chinese people a Christmas gift--- Outer Manchuria-- the beloved Old China

    I am not positive we can take out GLONASS and BeiDou from ground based radio and microwaves and laser waves, even jamming.

    But I am certain that we can put a satellite in orbit that is a wrecking ramming satellite that does take out GLONASS and BeiDou. I am certain of this because several countries have robotic satellites that maintenance their fleet of satellites. And to
    this end, we need such a wrecking ball satellite immediately up there.

    [Note, graphics found in sci.physics when Nomen Nescio used to spam sci.physics with a fake FAQ.]



    ███۞███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▃ ▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂ I███████████████████]. ◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙◤...
    Satellite RIFLE to shoot down GLONASS, Iran,and BeiDou satellites.
    Hooray

    Hooray!! End the Ukraine war

    Easiest way to end the Ukraine invasion by Russia, start felling GLONASS satellites, fell them directly with radar laser pulses or jam them to fall.

    Now I thought GLONASS Russian satellites numbered in the thousands, for the Internet is lousy on this question of how many satellites, for recently BBC was vague with a estimate of 600 satellites, yet another web site said 42,000. But apparently only 24
    are operational for GLONASS. And my take on this is that satellites are precarious vessels and easily for something to go wrong and be inoperative. All the better to look for flaws in engineering to down all 24 GLONASS Russian satellites.

    So, easy easy Achilles tendon in all of the Russian ICBM military strategy, for knock out the 24 and you in a sense, knock out the entire Russian ICBM arsenal, for they no longer have any navigation.

    And if the West is on its top shape and form in technology, we want the West Scientists to figure out how to intercept the Russian ICBM and cause it to fall upon Russia and explode upon Russia.

    Get the best electronics and electrical engineers of the West to figure out how to cause all Russian launched and Chinese launched ICBMs to explode on home territory.

    Caveat: if the West can do it, mind you, the Chinese and Russians will want to steal those secrets from the West and that should never be allowed--Ultimate Top Secret classification that not even a punk weirdo president like Trump cannot see, nor mention
    to him for he would likely sell it for a golf course in some foreign enemy country.

    Google search reveals
    24+
    GLONASS (Globalnaya Navigazionnaya Sputnikovaya Sistema, or Global Navigation Satellite System) is a global GNSS owned and operated by the Russian Federation. The fully operational system consists of 24+ satellites.Oct 19, 2021

    Other Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) - GPS.govhttps://www.gps.gov › systems › gnss
    About featured snippets

    Feedback
    People also ask
    How many satellites are in the GLONASS?
    As of 15 October 2022, 143 GLONASS navigation satellites have been launched, of which 131 reached the correct orbit and 24 are currently operational.

    List of GLONASS satellites - Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › List_of_GLONASS_sa...
    Search for: How many satellites are in the GLONASS?
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium
    Nov 5, 2022, 11:02:21 PM
    to Plutonium Atom Universe
    ███۞███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▃ Radio Wave--Laser Rifle felling BeiDou satellites

    From what I gather on internet, Russia has 24 satellites in operation while BeiDou China has 35.
    ▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂ I███████████████████]. ◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙◤...
    Radio Wave-- LASER RIFLE to shoot down the premier BeiDou satellite.
    Ending the dumb and stupid petty dictators launching rockets from North Korea.

    It is respectfully request help from engineers in Japan to help fell the BeiDou satellites that navigate the illegal North Korea launches.


    --- quoting Wikipedia ---
    The BeiDou Navigation Satellite System (BDS; Chinese: 北斗卫星导航系统; pinyin: Běidǒu Wèixīng Dǎoháng Xìtǒng) is a Chinese satellite navigation system. It consists of two separate satellite constellations. The first BeiDou system,
    officially called the BeiDou Satellite Navigation Experimental System and also known as BeiDou-1, consisted of three satellites which, beginning in 2000, offered limited coverage and navigation services, mainly for users in China and neighboring regions.
    BeiDou-1 was decommissioned at the end of 2012. The second generation of the system, officially called the BeiDou Navigation Satellite System (BDS) and also known as COMPASS or BeiDou-2, became operational in China in December 2011 with a partial
    constellation of 10 satellites in orbit. Since December 2012, it has been offering services to customers in the Asia-Pacific region.

    In 2015, China launched the third generation BeiDou system (BeiDou-3) for global coverage. The first BD
  • From Archimedes Plutonium@21:1/5 to Dan Christensen on Thu Oct 5 14:03:27 2023
    TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, AP seeks the super easiest calculus possible on Earth-- polynomials as the only valid functions-- thus, and therefore, making derivative and integral as easy as Power Rule- 14 year olds master calculus. Because the Power Rule
    is merely add or subtract 1 from exponent so we can teach calculus in High School.

    John Gabriel & Dan Christensen, such losers and failures of math-- why both cannot even admit slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse-- maybe they no longer have eyes that see properly. And both fail to do a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus,
    with their mindless use of Reals as the numbers of math. But worst of all, both believe in Boole logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, simply because Boole erred big time and mixed up the truth tables of AND with OR. Yet everyday of the year these
    two math failures Gabriel and Christensen pollute sci.math with their idiotic spam.

    Dan Christensen says everyone is a failure and victim of math without using TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS where calculus is made a billion times easier.

    On Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 10:53:25 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
    STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of

    Is it the same in Canada, Dan as the USA where Calculus classrooms are vomiting during exams, torture chambers and nervous breakdowns by age 19?? While TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS teaches the calculus to 13-14 year olds-- because polynomials are the only
    valid function.



    TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, AP seeks the super easiest calculus possible on Earth-- polynomials as the only valid functions-- thus, and therefore, making derivative and integral as easy as Power Rule- 14 year olds master calculus. Because the Power Rule
    is merely add or subtract 1 from exponent so we can teach calculus in High School.

    Old Math makes and keeps Calculus as classroom torture chambers with their 1,000s of different functions yet the polynomial is the only valid function of math, and makes it super super easy to learn calculus

    TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, AP seeks the super easiest calculus possible on Earth-- polynomials as the only valid functions-- thus, and therefore, making derivative and integral as easy as Power Rule- 14 year olds master calculus.

    If you come to me with a pathetic non polynomial especially that ugly trig functions, I have you go home and convert your nonsense to a polynomial. The Lagrange interpolation converts stupid nonfunctions like trig, into valid functions of polynomials.

    TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS textbooks, makes calculus as easy as adding or subtracting 1 from exponent--only valid functions are polynomials contrast with mainstream--vomiting during exams, torture chamber and nervous breakdown by sado-masochist teachers.
    Old Math is thousands of different kook functions with thousands of different rules. AP Calculus is one function-- the polynomial for we care about truth in math, not on whether kooks of math become rich and famous off the suffering-backs of students put
    through a torture chamber that is present day calculus. If you come to math with a function that is not a polynomial, you have to convert it to a polynomial. Once converted, calculus is super super easy. But math professors seem to enjoy torturing
    students, not teaching them. Psychology teaches us that when a kook goes through a torture chamber and comes out of it as a math professor-- they want to be vindictive and sado masochists and love to torture others and put them through the same torture
    chamber that they went through. AP says-- stop this cycle of torture and teach TRUE CORRECT MATH.

    TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS textbooks, makes calculus as easy as adding or subtracting 1 from exponent--only valid functions are polynomials contrast with mainstream--vomiting during exams, torture chamber and nervous breakdown by sado-masochist teachers.
    Old Math is thousands of different kook functions with thousands of different rules. AP Calculus is one function-- the polynomial for we care about truth in math, not on whether kooks of math become rich and famous off the suffering of students put
    through a torture chamber that is present day calculus. If you come to math with a function that is not a polynomial, you have to convert it to a polynomial. Once converted, calculus is super super easy. But math professors seem to enjoy torturing
    students, not teaching them.


    TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS the fake calculus of Thomas Hales, Andrew Wiles, Ken Ribet, Ruth Charney with their fake "limit analysis" for a true proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (FTC) has to be a geometry proof for the integral is area under a
    graphed function. This is why only a polynomial can be a valid function of math, for the polynomial is a function of the straightline Y --> mx + b. All the other so called functions have no straightline-- they are curves of continuum and cannot give a
    proof of the fundamental theorem of calculus.

    The proof of FTC needs a empty space Discrete Geometry from one point to the next point so as to allow for the construction of a midpoint between point A to point B and thus to hinge up from A at the midpoint and to determine the next point B in the
    derivative. This is why Calculus is so enormously a tool for physics, as point A predicts point B.

    Discrete Geometry is required for the proof of FTC and that requires the true numbers of mathematics be Decimal Grid Numbers, for they cannot be the continuum idiocy of Reals and Complex.

    To make a half circle function in True Math, we have to go out to something like 10^6 Grid to make the points close enough together for the function visual to start looking like a half circle. But still there are holes in between one point and the next
    point to allow the existence of calculus.

    On a downward slope function, we have a different graphics than the usual upward slope function. For the upward slope requires the midpoint in the empty space to predict the next point of the thin rectangle that occupies that empty space (see the
    graphics below and in my books TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS). In a downward slope function graph we still have those thin rectangles occupy the empty space for integral but we do not need to construct the midpoint, we simply shave away a right triangle that
    reveals-- predicts point B starting from point A on the other side.


    Old Math calculus textbooks like Stewart are more than 1,000 pages long and they need that because they have a mindless thousand different functions and no valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. AP's calculus is less than 300 pages, because we
    have a valid geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus which demands the only valid function of math be a polynomial function. We can teach calculus in Junior High School for the calculus is reduced to adding or subtracting 1 from the exponent.
    The only hard part of calculus in New Math is to convert the boneheaded function into a polynomial that was brought to the table by the boneheaded math professor who thinks that a function does not need to be a polynomial.

    AP calculus transforms the calculus classroom. It is no longer vomiting during exams. No longer a torture chamber for our students of youth, and no longer a nightmare nor nervous breakdown for our youthful students, who, all they ever wanted was the
    truth of mathematics.

    Teaches that derivative predicts next point of function graph--silly Old Math has derivative as tangent to function graph unable to predict. The great power of Calculus is integral is area under function graph thus physics energy, and its prediction
    power of the derivative to predict the next future point of function graph thus making the derivative a "law of physics as predictor". Stupid Old Math makes the derivative a tangent line, while New Math makes the derivative the predictor of next point of
    function graph. No wonder no-one in Old Math could do a geometry, let alone a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for no-one in Old Math even had the mind to realize Calculus predicts the future point in the derivative.


    TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS-- only math textbooks with a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus--teaches that derivative predicts next point of function graph--silly Old Math has derivative as tangent to function graph unable to predict. This is
    why calculus is so important for physics, like a law of physics-- predicts the future given nearby point, predicts the next point. And of course the integral tells us the energy. Silly stupid Old Math understood the integral as area under the function
    graph curve, but were stupid silly as to the understanding of derivative-- predict the next point as seen in this illustration:


    From this rectangle of the integral with points A, midpoint then B


    ______
    | |
    | |
    | |
    ---------


    To this trapezoid with points A, m, B

    B
    /|
    / |
    m /----|
    / |
    | |
    |____|


    The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
    so that it can be hinged at m, and swiveled down to form rectangle for integral.

    Or going in reverse. From rectangle, the right triangle predicts the next successor point of function graph curve of B, from that of midpoint m and initial point of function graph A.


    My 134th published book

    Introduction to TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 1 for ages 5 through 26, math textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
    by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

    The 134th book of AP, and belatedly late, for I had already written the series of TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS in a 7 volume, 8 book set. This would be the first book in that 8 book set (one of the books is a companion book to 1st year college). But I
    suppose that I needed to write the full series before I could write the Introduction and know what I had to talk about and talk about in a logical progression order. Sounds paradoxical in a sense, that I needed to write the full series first and then go
    back and write the Introduction. But in another sense, hard to write an introduction on something you have not really fully done and completed. For example to know what is error filled Old Math and to list those errors in a logical order requires me to
    write the full 7 volumes in order to list in order the mistakes.

    Cover Picture: Mathematics begins with counting, with numbers, with quantity. But counting numbers needs geometry for something to count in the first place. So here in this picture of the generalized Hydrogen atom of chemistry and physics is a torus
    geometry of 8 rings of a proton torus and one ring where my fingers are, is a equator ring that is the muon and thrusting through the proton torus at the equator of the torus. So we count 9 rings in all. So math is created by atoms and math numbers exist
    because atoms have many geometry figures to count. And geometry exists because atoms have shapes and different figures.

    Product details
    • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08K2XQB4M
    • Publication date ‏ : ‎ September 24, 2020
    • Language ‏ : ‎ English
    • File size ‏ : ‎ 576 KB
    • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
    • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
    • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
    • Print length ‏ : ‎ 23 pages
    • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • Best Sellers Rank: #224,974 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store) ◦ #3 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
    ◦ #23 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
    ◦ #182 in Calculus (Books)



    #5-2, My 45th published book.

    TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 2 for ages 5 to 18, math textbook series, book 2
    by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon Kindle edition)

    Last revision was 2NOV2020. And this is AP's 45th published book of science.

    Preface: Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education.

    This is a textbook series in several volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education starting age 5 up to age 26. Volume 2 is for age 5 year old to that of senior in High School, that is needed to do both science and math. Every
    other math book is incidental to this series of Teaching True Mathematics.

    It is a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost on a daily basis. A unique first in education textbooks-- almost a continual overnight editing. Adding new text, correcting text.
    Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education. Volume 3 carries the Freshperson in College for their math calculus education.

    Cover Picture: The Numbers as Integers from 0 to 100, and 10 Grid when dividing by 10, and part of the 100 Grid when dividing by 100. Decimal Grid Numbers are the true numbers of mathematics. The Reals, the rationals & irrationals, the algebraic &
    transcendentals, the imaginary & Complex, and the negative-numbers are all fake numbers. For, to be a true number, you have to "be counted" by mathematical induction. The smallest Grid system is the Decimal 10 Grid.



    Product details
    ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07RG7BVZW
    Publication date ‏ : ‎ May 2, 2019
    Language ‏ : ‎ English
    File size ‏ : ‎ 2024 KB
    Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
    Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
    Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
    Print length ‏ : ‎ 423 pages
    Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    Best Sellers Rank: #235,426 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
    #15 in General Geometry
    #223 in Geometry & Topology (Books)


    #5-3, 55th published book

    TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 18-19, 1st year College Calculus, math textbook series, book 3 Kindle Edition
    by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

    Last revision was 25Jun2021. And this is AP's 55th published book of science.

    Teaching True Mathematics, by Archimedes Plutonium 2019

    Preface: This is volume 3, book 3 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Freshperson students, 1st year college students of age 18-19. It is the continuation of volume 2 for ages 5 through 18 years old.

    The main major topic is the AP-EM equations of electricity and magnetism, the mathematics for the laws of electricity and magnetism; what used to be called the Maxwell Equations of Physics. The 1st Year College Math has to prepare all students with the
    math for all the sciences. So 1st year college Math is like a huge intersection station that has to prepare students with the math they need to do the hard sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, etc. What this means is, 1st
    year college is calculus that allows the student to work with electricity and magnetism. All the math that is needed to enable students to do electricity and magnetism. In Old Math before this textbook, those Old Math textbooks would end in 1/3 of the
    text about Arclength, vector space, div, curl, Line Integral, Green's, Stokes, Divergence theorem trying to reach and be able to teach Maxwell Equations. But sadly, barely any Old Math classroom reached that 1/3 ending of the textbook, and left all those
    college students without any math to tackle electricity and magnetism. And most of Old Math was just muddle headed wrong even if they covered the last 1/3 of the textbook. And that is totally unacceptable in science. This textbook fixes that huge hole
    and gap in Old Math education.

    And there is no way around it, that a course in 1st year College Calculus is going to do a lot of hands on experiment with electricity and magnetism, and is required of the students to buy a list of physics apparatus-- multimeter, galvanometer, coil, bar
    magnet, alligator clip wires, electromagnet, iron filing case, and possibly even a 12 volt transformer, all shown in the cover picture. The beginning of this textbook and the middle section all leads into the ending of this textbook-- we learn the AP-EM
    Equations and how to use those equations. And there is no escaping the fact that it has to be hands on physics experiments in the classroom of mathematics.

    But, do not be scared, for this is all easy easy easy. For if you passed and enjoyed Volume 2 TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, then I promise you, you will not be stressed with Volume 3, for I go out of my way to make it clear and understandable.

    Warning: this is a Journal Textbook, meaning that I am constantly adding new material, constantly revising, constantly fixing mistakes or making things more clear. So if you read this book in August of 2019, chances are it is different when you read it
    in September 2019. Ebooks allow authors the freedom to improve their textbooks on a ongoing basis.

    The 1st year college math should be about the math that prepares any and all students for science, whether they branch out into physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, or math, they should have all the math in 1st year college that will carry
    them through those science studies. I make every attempt possible to make math easy to understand, easy to learn and hopefully fun.

    Product details
    • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07WN9RVXD
    • Publication date ‏ : ‎ August 16, 2019
    • Language ‏ : ‎ English
    • File size ‏ : ‎ 1390 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 ‏ : ‎ 236 pages
    • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • Best Sellers Rank: #1,377,070 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
    ◦ #411 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
    ◦ #2,480 in Calculus (Books)



    #5-4, 56th published book

    COLLEGE CALCULUS GUIDE to help students recognize math professor spam from math truth & reality// math textbook series, book 4 Kindle Edition

    by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)


    #1 New Releasein 15-Minute Science & Math Short Reads


    This textbook is the companion guide book to AP's Teaching True Mathematics, 1st year College. It is realized that Old Math will take a long time in removing their fake math, so in the interim period, this Guide book is designed to speed up the process
    of removing fake Calculus out of the education system, the fewer students we punish with forcing them with fake Calculus, the better we are.
    Cover Picture: This book is part comedy, for when you cannot reason with math professors that they have many errors to fix, that 90% of their Calculus is in error, you end up resorting to comedy, making fun of them, to prod them to fix their errors. To
    prod them to "do right by the students of the world" not their entrenched propaganda.
    Length: 54 pages


    Product details
    File Size: 1035 KB
    Print Length: 64 pages
    Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
    Publication Date: August 18, 2019
    Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
    Language: English
    ASIN: B07WNGLQ85
    Text-to-Speech: Enabled
    X-Ray: 
Not Enabled 

    Word Wise: Not Enabled
    Lending: Enabled
    Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
    Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #253,425 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
    #38 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
    #318 in Calculus (Books)
    #48 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

    #5-5, 72nd published book

    TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 4 for age 19-20 Sophomore-year College, math textbook series, book 5 Kindle Edition
    by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

    Preface: This is volume 4, book 5 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Sophomore-year students, students of age 19-20. It is the continuation of volume 3 in the end-goal of learning how to do the mathematics of electricity and magnetism,
    because everything in physics is nothing but atoms and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. To know math, you have to know physics. We learned the Calculus of 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity and
    magnetism. But we did not learn the calculus of those equations for 3rd dimension. So, you can say that Sophomore year College math is devoted to 3D Calculus. This sophomore year college we fill in all the calculus, and we start over on all of Geometry,
    for geometry needs a modern day revision. And pardon me for this book is mostly reading, and the students doing less calculations. The classroom of this textbook has the teacher go through page by page to get the students comprehending and understanding
    of what is being taught. There are many hands on experiments also.

    Cover Picture shows some toruses, some round some square, torus of rings, thin strips of rings or squares and shows them laid flat. That is Calculus of 3rd dimension that lays a ring in a torus to be flat in 2nd dimension.
    Length: 105 pages

    Product details
    • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0828M34VL
    • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 2, 2019
    • Language ‏ : ‎ English
    • File size ‏ : ‎ 952 KB
    • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
    • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
    • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
    • Print length ‏ : ‎ 105 pages
    • Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • Best Sellers Rank: #242,037 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store) ◦ #36 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
    ◦ #219 in Calculus (Books)


    #5-6, 75th published book

    TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 5 for age 20-21 Junior-year of College, math textbook series, book 6 Kindle Edition
    by Archimedes Plutonium 2019

    This is volume 5, book 6 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Junior-year students, students of age 20-21. In first year college Calculus we learned calculus of the 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity
    and magnetism. And in sophomore year we learned calculus of 3rd dimension to complete our study of the mathematics needed to do the physics of electricity and magnetism. Now, junior year college, we move onto something different, for we focus mostly on
    logic now and especially the logic of what is called the "mathematical proof". Much of what the student has learned about mathematics so far has been given to her or him as stated knowledge, accept it as true because I say so. But now we are going to do
    math proofs. Oh, yes, we did prove a few items here and there, such as why the Decimal Grid Number system is so special, such as the Pythagorean Theorem, such as the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus with its right-triangle hinged up or down. But many
    ideas we did not prove, we just stated them and expected all students to believe them true. And you are now juniors in college and we are going to start to prove many of those ideas and teach you "what is a math proof". Personally, I myself feel that the
    math proof is overrated, over hyped. But the math proof is important for one reason-- it makes you better scientists of knowing what is true and what is a shaky idea. A math proof is the same as "thinking straight and thinking clearly". And all
    scientists need to think straight and think clearly. But before we get to the Mathematics Proof, we have to do Probability and Statistics. What you learned in Grade School, then High School, then College, called Sigma Error, now becomes Probability and
    Statistics. It is important because all sciences including mathematics needs and uses Probability and Statistics. So, our job for junior-year of college mathematics is all cut out and ahead for us, no time to waste, let us get going.

    Cover Picture: is a sample of the Array Proof, a proof the ellipse is not a conic but rather a cylinder cut wherein the oval is the slant cut of a cone, not the ellipse.

    Length: 175 pages


    Product details
    ASIN : B0836F1YF6
    Publication date : December 26, 2019
    Language : English
    File size : 741 KB
    Text-to-Speech : Enabled
    Screen Reader : Supported
    Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
    X-Ray : Not Enabled
    Word Wise : Not Enabled
    Print length : 175 pages
    Lending : Enabled
    Best Sellers Rank: #3,768,255 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store) ◦ #3,591 in Probability & Statistics (Kindle Store)
    ◦ #19,091 in Probability & Statistics (Books)



    #5-7, 89th published book

    TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 6 for age 21-22 Senior-year of College, math textbook series, book 7 Kindle Edition
    by Archimedes Plutonium 2020

    Last revision was 6Feb2021.
    Preface: This is the last year of College for mathematics and we have to mostly summarize all of mathematics as best we can. And set a new pattern to prepare students going on to math graduate school. A new pattern of work habits, because graduate school
    is more of research and explore on your own. So in this final year, I am going to eliminate tests, and have it mostly done as homework assignments.

    Cover Picture: Again and again, many times in math, the mind is not good enough alone to think straight and clear, and you need tools to hands-on see how it works. Here is a collection of tools for this senior year college classes. There is a pencil,
    clipboard, graph paper, compass, divider, protractor, slide-ruler. And for this year we spend a lot of time on the parallelepiped, showing my wood model, and showing my erector set model held together by wire loops in the corners. The plastic square is
    there only to hold up the erector set model.

    Length: 110 pages

    Product details
    ASIN ‏ : ‎ B084V11BGY
    Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 15, 2020
    Language ‏ : ‎ English
    File size ‏ : ‎ 826 KB
    Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
    Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
    Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    Print length ‏ : ‎ 110 pages
    Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    Best Sellers Rank: #224,965 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
    ◦ #345 in Mathematics (Kindle Store)
    ◦ #373 in Physics (Kindle Store)
    ◦ #2,256 in Physics (Books)

    #5-8, 90th published book

    TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 7 for age 22-26 Graduate school, math textbook series, book 8 Kindle Edition
    by Archimedes Plutonium 2020

    Last revised 1NOV2020. This was AP's 90th published book of science.

    Preface: This is College Graduate School mathematics. Congratulations, you made it this far. To me, graduate school is mostly research, research mathematics and that means also physics. So it is going to be difficult to do math without physics. Of course,
    we focus on the mathematics of these research projects.

    My textbook for Graduate school is just a template and the professors teaching the graduate students are free of course to follow their own projects, but in terms of being physics and math combined. What I list below is a template for possible projects.

    So, in the below projects, I list 36 possible research projects that a graduate student my like to undertake, or partake. I list those 36 projects with a set of parentheses like this (1), (2), (3), etc. Not to be confused with the chapters listing as 1),
    2), 3), etc. I list 36 projects but the professor can offer his/her own list, and I expect students with their professor, to pick a project and to monitor the student as to his/her progresses through the research. I have listed each project then cited
    some of my own research into these projects, below each project is an entry. Those entries are just a help or helper in getting started or acquainted with the project. The entry has a date time group and a newsgroup that I posted to such as sci.math or
    plutonium-atom-universe Google newsgroups. Again the entry is just a help or helper in getting started.

    Now instead of picking one or two projects for your Graduate years of study, some may select all 36 projects where you write a short paper on each project. Some may be bored with just one or two projects and opt for all 36.

    Cover Picture: A photo by my iphone of a page on Permutations of the Jacobs book Mathematics: A Human Endeavor, 1970. One of the best textbooks ever written in Old Math, not for its contents because there are many errors, but for its teaching style. It
    is extremely rare to find a math textbook written for the student to learn. Probably because math professors rarely learned how to teach in the first place; only learned how to unintentionally obfuscate. The page I photographed is important because it is
    the interface between geometry's perimeter or surface area versus geometry's area or volume, respectively. Or, an interface of pure numbers with that of geometry. But I have more to say on this below.
    Length: 296 pages

    Product details
    ASIN ‏ : ‎ B085DF8R7V
    Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 1, 2020
    Language ‏ : ‎ English
    File size ‏ : ‎ 828 KB
    Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
    Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
    Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
    Print length ‏ : ‎ 296 pages
    Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    Best Sellers Rank: #224,981 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
    ◦ #13 in General Geometry
    ◦ #213 in Geometry & Topology (Books)


    #5-9, 221st published book

    An Education Ladder Guideline for teaching mathematics and a Test to see if you are cut out to be a mathematician//Teaching True Mathematics
    by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

    Preface: This book is written to improve math education in school and at home. Trouble is, you cannot improve math education if the professors of mathematics have much of their teachings in error. So I write this book mostly as a test for math professors
    because to shine a light on math professor failure is the best way to improve math teaching, and thereby improve school curriculums especially colleges and universities. But others, such as laypersons are welcomed to join in. And it is the laypersons and
    students that will make the greatest amount of use of this book because math professors are usually stubborn and idiotic and hard to change for the better. And so when students and laypersons keep asking questions of their math professors, their
    brainwashing and thus poor teaching, they eventually come around to the truth and then change their bad behavior and bad misunderstanding; to proper true mathematics.

    Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of a rubber washer inside a plastic cone. The washer is at a steep slant angle to the cone perpendicular. Notice the washer near the apex is fully touching the side of the cone, but the washer directed towards the
    base has not yet cut through the side of the cone, and you can see a rainbow or a crescent shape of area where the washer will intersect the side of the cone, (where my two finger are), making a total figure of a Oval, never the ellipse. I was taking
    this picture as one person, so I had the iphone camera in one hand and the cone in another hand, and had to use a rubber washer to stay in place. The same green plastic cone used in this picture appears in both of my published books of the proof slant
    cut of cone is oval, never the ellipse.

    My 3rd published book with the same green cone on cover.
    AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
    by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

    My 68th published book with the same green cone on cover.
    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)

    Product details
    • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0BQDYMYKQ
    • Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 16, 2022
    • Language ‏ : ‎ English
    • File size ‏ : ‎ 551 KB
    • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
    • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
    • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
    • Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
    • Print length ‏ : ‎ 65 pages




    [continued in next message]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mathin3D@21:1/5 to NewAge Prophet on Thu Oct 5 22:00:28 2023
    Pot calls the kettle. Bwahahahahahahha!


    On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 4:35:05 AM UTC-4, NewAge Prophet wrote:
    On Sunday, September 26, 2021 at 11:00:50 AM UTC+3, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
    John Gabriel said "Let there be light and there was light!"
    252 views
    Skip to first unread message
    Subscribe

    Eram semper recta's profile photo
    Eram semper recta
    Sep 3, 2021, 9:24:27 AM



    to
    Newton and Leibniz scratched their heads through their powdered wigs wondering how to solve the tangent line problem. The poor idiots failed dismally. Neither of them could realise the genius of John Gabriel's theorem from which the following
    identity is produced:

    [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h = f'(x) + Q(x,h)

    Dear Infamous Crank Ludwig Poehlman (aka AP aka Archimedes Plutonium).

    Nobody cares what you think. You are a nobody who has accomplished zero. You're very annoying but harmless.

    The reason others respond to me is due to the fact that I am a real and present danger to them.

    As for you, well, you've earned your title: INFAMOUS CRANK OF SCI.MATH

    Dan Christensen is a fucking moron, but compared to you, I would call him a genius.

    Find another hobby - you'll never be good at math or physics. You have serious mental issues and living on sci.math does not help you.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Archimedes Plutonium@21:1/5 to All on Sat Oct 7 20:24:06 2023
    2-Can_Dr.Robert De Mello Koch,Dr.Joao Rodrigues,Dr.Aaron Klug (chem),Dr.John Burland (engr),Dr.Elias Sideras-Haddad,Dr.Martin Ntwaeaborwa,John Gabriel - -PLEASE--step into Univ of Witwatersrand 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.






    Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
    Physics dept
    Joao Rodrigues
    Somnath Bhattacharyya
    John Carter
    Andrew Chen
    Darell Comins
    Robert De Mello Koch
    Arthur Every
    Andrew Forbes
    Kelvin Goldstein
    Vishnu Jejjala
    Robert Joubert
    Jonathan Keartland
    Nukri Komin
    Bruce Mellado
    Deena Naidoo
    Mervin Naidoo
    Alex Quandt
    Elias Sideras-Haddad
    Martin Ntwaeaborwa
    Dr.John Burland (engr)
    Dr. Aaron Klug (chem)

    John Gabriel--spam mill in sci.math. Not only is Gabriel vapid and ignorant of science, but he constantly threatens others with violence.


    +Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within

    +Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within

    3m views Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium


    Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within the accuracy I need for weighing a test tube of oxygen then a test tube of hydrogen from water electrolysis.


    Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium

    In Old Chemistry and Old Physics, their subatomic particles were do nothing and no function and no job particles that sit around as balls or whiz around the outside of balls doing nothing but pointless circling.

    In New Physics and New Chemistry-- All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. Every subatomic particle has a job a function a purpose as to the Laws of Electromagnetism--- Faraday law, Coulomb law, Ampere law,
    Capacitor law.

    A proton is a torus of 840MeV with 840 windings, while the muon is the true electron of Atoms and is encased inside the proton torus thrusting through and producing electricity-- magnetic monopoles.

    The neutron of Atoms is a parallel plate capacitor storing the electricity of proton+muon and is skin cover on the outside of the proton torus in the form of parallel plates.

    Can hydrogen be a Atom if it is just a proton+muon? No, all atoms require to have a capacitor such as at least one neutron. Thus the Hydrogen Atom is H2 where you have 2 proton+muon where 1 of the 2 proton+muon acts like a neutron to the
    other proton+muon. Thus, water molecule is not H2O but rather is H4O.

    AP is waiting for experimental chemists and physicists to prove him correct that Water is H4O.

    In the meantime we have Hydroxyl which in Old Chemistry, especially Biology is OH, while AP says that is wrong and that is really H2O.

    Now glycerine is a hydroxyl with formula C3H8O3. And what I am thinking at this moment, is that hydroxyls will be an easier proof that Water is truly H4O, rather than wait for experimentalists to actually "weigh the electrolysis test tubes
    of oxygen and hydrogen".

    You see, with H4O as water, glycerine is C3(2 waters)O with an extra oxygen. If Water is H2O then glycerine is C3(4 waters) deficit O. It is missing an oxygen if water is H2O.

    The reason glycerine is so effective as a skin ointment is because it has glycerine, the extra O oxygen. If water were H2O, then glycerine would be a missing oxygen and not a skin lotion that works, but makes skin even more dry.

    Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium

    Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
    12:24 AM (13 hours ago)



    to Plutonium Atom Universe

    --- quoting in part from source-- Study.com ---
    Perhaps there is only two Faraday laws on Electrolysis. I am looking at the one that states: Faraday's first law of electrolysis relates the mass of a substance liberated (or deposited) at an electrode to the electric charge used (Q). A
    proportionality constant Z can be used:

    m = ZQ = (E/96485)(Q)

    m = mass, Q = total charge rewritten as Q = I*t amperes x time in seconds.

    This website gives an example: 5amps passed through molten Sodium Chloride for 3 hours. Calculate the mass of Sodium. E=23/1.

    m = (23/96485) (5) (3*60*60) approx 12.87 grams.

    --- end quoting in part from source-- Study.com ---

    Now has such a experiment been performed on Water to see how much atomic mass of hydrogen and of oxygen results??? If AP is correct, the formula of water is H4O, if Old Physics, Old Chemistry is correct the formula is H2O. So which is it???

    AP


    No, sorry no, Faraday's Law of Electrolysis is not going to tell the correct mass of hydrogen.

    Reading Wikipedia on Faraday's Electrolysis law.

    --- quoting Wikipedia ---
    A monovalent ion requires 1 electron for discharge, a divalent ion requires 2 electrons for discharge and so on. Thus, if x electrons flow,
    x/v atoms are discharged.

    So the mass m discharged is

    m= (xM)/vN_A) = (QM)/(eN_A *v) = (QM) / (vF)
    where
    N_A is the Avogadro constant;
    Q = xe is the total charge, equal to the number of electrons (x) times the elementary charge e;
    F is the Faraday constant.
    --- end quoting Wikipedia ---

    No, the Faraday law of Electrolysis will not work on water with a correct answer, because H is not an atom but H2 is an Atom. And where one of the proton+muon converts to being a neutron to the other proton+muon.

    So if Faraday's law of Electrolysis was applied to water, thinking it would deliver a true answer is mistaken because the one H converts to neutron.

    So it appears that we need to directly measure the test tube of oxygen and the test tube of hydrogen by a direct mass measurement.

    AP
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
    1:14 AM (12 hours ago)



    to Plutonium Atom Universe
    I doubt we can measure a test tube of hydrogen or test tube of oxygen, too small to determine the mass on some sort of weight scale.

    But here is a possible lucrative idea. We should be able to get pure deuterium water. Then run the electrolysis. Collect the test tubes.

    Now have some sort of balancing beam weight scale. Place the regular water of hydrogen test tube on one side, and place the deuterium water hydrogen test tube on other side. If they stay balanced, then AP is correct and Water is really H4O.

    AP
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
    1:48 AM (11 hours ago)



    to Plutonium Atom Universe
    Cosmic Rays from Sun

    90% of Sun's cosmic rays are 840MeV proton+muon inside = H. The hydrogen Atom is H2 where one of the H proton+muon converts to being a neutron.

    When these proton+muon hit Earth atmosphere, they can turn into pions and muons.

    I commented that H alone is a subatomic particle and that makes sense in the idea that Sun's cosmic rays are 90% these proton+muon.

    Now is interstellar hydrogen H2 and intergalactic hydrogen H2 formed when one H cosmic ray joins up with another H cosmic ray to form H2 atom?

    Is this how we get H2 in outer space? From the splitting apart of H2 into H cosmic rays?

    So how much of the Sun's hydrogen is H2 and how much is H ready to join with another H and reform back into H2. Probably little of the Sun's H is H alone, and the vast majority of the Sun's hydrogen is H2.

    How much deuterium in the Sun? And it is a higher percentage than the deuterium in water on Earth?

    AP
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
    3:11 AM (10 hours ago)



    to Plutonium Atom Universe
    Water is the only known non-metallic substance that expands when if freezes; its density decreases and it expands approximately 9% by volume. (Source: web Lunar and Planetary Institute)

    I have to wait for experimental chemists and physicists to weigh the mass of test tubes from electrolysis, as to the verdict-- water is H4O.

    But until that news comes in, I will look for other means of proof.

    So AP says that the H2 is not a molecule but is the hydrogen Atom itself, where one proton+muon converts to a neutron and capacitates the other proton+muon which undergo the Faraday law.

    There are subatomic particles of H in the form of Cosmic Rays from the Sun, but most of the Sun's hydrogen is H2, and flips back and forth from H to rejoining to form H2. Some gets away from the Sun and is cosmic rays.

    But H2 is an Atom and H is a fleeting subatomic particle.

    So can I prove Water is H4O from the data of Spectral lines of H2 is the same as deuterium, only slight difference is that the deuterium is a full fledged neutron not a makeshift proton+muon of H.

    I suspect that special trait of water freezing is a proof that Water is H4O. Because the 840MeV proton torus with muon inside doing the Faraday law acting as a makeshift neutron capacitor for the other 840MeV proton torus with muon inside,
    is where H2 gets that expansion characteristic.

    A neutron is a parallel plate capacitor and those plates can expand when frozen temperature occurs. As the temperature gets colder, those plates move further apart.

    Now does deuterium which truly has a full neutron, does it expand also when frozen?? If so, does it expand as much as H2 which is 2 protons with 2 muons inside?

    So comparing the freezing and expansion of the parallel plates of a neutron in deuterium with the freezing and expansion of one of the proton+muon that is acting as a makeshift neutron in H2.

    If I can numbers correlate the H2 expansion with the Deuterium expansion would be a alternative proof that Water is really H4O and not H2O.

    AP
    to
    So now on Blankenship's book "Molecular Mechanisms of Photosynthesis", 2014, page 134, shows The structure of ATP, ADP, AMP. And within that structure are OH hydroxyls.

    In New Chemistry, water is truly H4O, and where hydroxyls are now H2O. And we have first proof of this in the Figure 8.1 of Blankenship's "Chemical structure of ATP".

    For in the lower left corner of the diagram, Blankenship has a H+ all alone, (really a mindless error) and has P surrounded by O-, O-, O and OH. The OH is really H2O for hydroxyls are H2O and water itself is H4O, and that would leave that
    mindless H+ as being hydrogen Atom of H2.

    The world of physics and chemistry should drop what they are doing and weigh the electrolysis test tube of hydrogen and oxygen to discover the correct true formula of water is H4O.

    AP is total confident, becuase an Atom cannot exist if it has no capacitor structure such as a neutron, or one of the H in H2 acting as a neutron. I am totally confident that Water formula is truly H4O. And I need look only to methane of
    H4C, to realize that there is no HC, no H2C, no H3C, but starts with H4C, and that tells me water starts with H4O. Totally confident that Old Chemistry, Old Physics did electrolysis experiments and the moment they saw hydrogen test tube be 2x volume of
    oxygen test tube, they dropped their work and went out for a Danish and coffee break, rather than finish their work--- actual physics weighing of atomic mass units (not the Faraday electrolysis law for it does not apply to water).

    When water electrolysis is physics weighed, AP is confident that there are 4H per every one oxygen O. And that Water is truly H4O.

    AP, King of Science
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium
    9:34 AM (15 minutes ago)



    to
    On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 8:56:57 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
    Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within the accuracy I need for weighing a test tube of oxygen then a test tube of hydrogen from water electrolysis.

    Now modern day physics and chemist experimenters can really do a marvelous job if they wanted to. For they could freeze the test tubes of oxygen and hydrogen to where they are liquid and compare liquids from water electrolysis.
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium
    10:01 AM (5 hours ago)



    to
    So, what AP is saying here is that we do electrolysis of water. We collect the two test tubes, one with oxygen the other with hydrogen.

    To prove Water is truly the formula H4O and not H2O we must weigh the masses of the two tubes to find that the ratio is 1 x 16amu to 4 x 1amu.

    The silly grotesque science error of the past was to look at volumes in the two test tubes-- "Hey-- the hydrogen is twice the volume of oxygen so the formula of water is H2O".

    No, way was that science good practice. For the correct formula of water needs to be measured by mass, by atomic mass units where Oxygen is 16amu and hydrogen is 1amu.

    I suspect a balance beam scale is good enough to see the hydrogen test tube will be 1/4 as massive as the oxygen test tube. To get within precision of electronic weighing scale of 0.00001 gram we just have to make a larger test tube of
    electrolysis of water.

    AP is betting that the readings will be hydrogen test tube 1/4 the mass of oxygen test tube proving Water formula is truly H4O.

    Old Physics and Old Chemistry is betting that the mass experiment will have the hydrogen test tube be 1/8 the mass of the oxygen test tube, proving Water formula is H2O.

    AP does not have these precision equipment to conduct an at-home experiment of this nature.

    AP
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium
    12:38 PM (4 hours ago)



    to
    So, once Water is found to actually be H4O, not H2O, we move on to methane, and ask the same question of its hydrogen bonds. Is Methane really that of H8C and not H4C.

    Well, looking in the literature for anomalies to methane, I come across a arXiv "Low and high-temperature anomalies in the physical properties of solid methane "The anomalous behavior of thermodynamic, spectral, plastic, elastic and some
    other properties of solid methane is discussed near 20.48K and...

    AP wonders: if they can get methane to solid form, well, I am then hopeful that the mass of the molecule can be determined. Because if methane is truly H8C, that difference of H4 in atomic mass units would be very much noticeable difference.


    Chemistry Europe--
    "The Anomalous Deuterium Isotope Effect in the NMR Spectrum of Methane...

    P Vermeeren, 2023
    "The abnormally long and weak methylidyne C-H bond.."
    "The C-H bond of the methylidyne radical, CH*, is abnormally long and weak, even longer and..."

    AP asks, are these anomalies solved if we consider methane is actually H8C and not H4C?

    AP



    My 250th published book.

    TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY; H2 is the hydrogen Atom and water is H4O, not H2O// Chemistry
    by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
    Prologue: This textbook is 1/2 research history and 1/2 factual textbook combined as one textbook. For many of the experiments described here-in have not yet been performed, such as water is really H4O not H2O. Written in a style of history
    research with date-time markers, and fact telling. And there are no problem sets. This book is intended for 1st year college. Until I include problem sets and exercises, I leave it to the professor and instructor to provide such. And also, chemistry is
    hugely a laboratory science, even more so than physics, so a first year college student in the lab to test whether Water is really H4O and not H2O is mighty educational.

    Preface: This is my 250th book of science, and the first of my textbooks on Teaching True Chemistry. I have completed the Teaching True Physics and the Teaching True Mathematics textbook series. But had not yet started on a Teaching True
    Chemistry textbook series. What got me started on this project is the fact that no chemistry textbook had the correct formula for water which is actually H4O and not H2O. Leaving the true formula for hydroxyl groups as H2O and not OH. But none of this is
    possible in Old Chemistry, Old Physics where they had do-nothing subatomic particles that sit around and do nothing or go whizzing around the outside of balls in a nucleus, in a mindless circling. Once every subatomic particle has a job, task, function,
    then water cannot be H2O but rather H4O. And a hydrogen atom cannot be H alone but is actually H2. H2 is not a molecule of hydrogen but a full fledged Atom, a single atom of hydrogen.

    Cover Picture: Sorry for the crude sketch work but chemistry and physics students are going to have to learn to make such sketches in a minute or less. Just as they make Lewis diagrams or ball & stick diagrams. My 4-5 minute sketch-work of the
    Water molecule H4O plus the subatomic particle H, and the hydrogen atom H2. Showing how one H is a proton torus with muon inside (blue color) doing the Faraday law. Protons are toruses with many windings. Protons are the coils in Faraday law while muons
    are the bar magnets. Neutrons are the capacitors as parallel plates, the outer skin cover of atoms.

    Product details
    • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0CCLPTBDG
    • Publication date ‏ : ‎ July 21, 2023
    • Language ‏ : ‎ English
    • File size ‏ : ‎ 788 KB
    • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
    • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
    • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
    • Print length ‏ : ‎ 168 pages






    y z
    | /
    | /
    |/______ x

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Archimedes Plutonium@21:1/5 to All on Thu Oct 12 12:27:48 2023
    3-Can_Dr.Robert De Mello Koch,Dr.Joao Rodrigues,Dr.Aaron Klug (chem),Dr.John Burland (engr),Dr.Elias Sideras-Haddad,Dr.Martin Ntwaeaborwa,John Gabriel - -PLEASE--step into Univ of Witwatersrand 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.






    Univ Witwatersrand Johannesburg South Africa
    Physics dept
    Joao Rodrigues
    Somnath Bhattacharyya
    John Carter
    Andrew Chen
    Darell Comins
    Robert De Mello Koch
    Arthur Every
    Andrew Forbes
    Kelvin Goldstein
    Vishnu Jejjala
    Robert Joubert
    Jonathan Keartland
    Nukri Komin
    Bruce Mellado
    Deena Naidoo
    Mervin Naidoo
    Alex Quandt
    Elias Sideras-Haddad
    Martin Ntwaeaborwa
    Dr.John Burland (engr)
    Dr. Aaron Klug (chem)

    John Gabriel--spam mill in sci.math. Not only is Gabriel vapid and ignorant of science, but he constantly threatens others with violence.


    +Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within

    +Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within

    3m views Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium


    Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within the accuracy I need for weighing a test tube of oxygen then a test tube of hydrogen from water electrolysis.


    Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium

    In Old Chemistry and Old Physics, their subatomic particles were do nothing and no function and no job particles that sit around as balls or whiz around the outside of balls doing nothing but pointless circling.

    In New Physics and New Chemistry-- All is Atom and Atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. Every subatomic particle has a job a function a purpose as to the Laws of Electromagnetism--- Faraday law, Coulomb law, Ampere law,
    Capacitor law.

    A proton is a torus of 840MeV with 840 windings, while the muon is the true electron of Atoms and is encased inside the proton torus thrusting through and producing electricity-- magnetic monopoles.

    The neutron of Atoms is a parallel plate capacitor storing the electricity of proton+muon and is skin cover on the outside of the proton torus in the form of parallel plates.

    Can hydrogen be a Atom if it is just a proton+muon? No, all atoms require to have a capacitor such as at least one neutron. Thus the Hydrogen Atom is H2 where you have 2 proton+muon where 1 of the 2 proton+muon acts like a neutron to the
    other proton+muon. Thus, water molecule is not H2O but rather is H4O.

    AP is waiting for experimental chemists and physicists to prove him correct that Water is H4O.

    In the meantime we have Hydroxyl which in Old Chemistry, especially Biology is OH, while AP says that is wrong and that is really H2O.

    Now glycerine is a hydroxyl with formula C3H8O3. And what I am thinking at this moment, is that hydroxyls will be an easier proof that Water is truly H4O, rather than wait for experimentalists to actually "weigh the electrolysis test
    tubes of oxygen and hydrogen".

    You see, with H4O as water, glycerine is C3(2 waters)O with an extra oxygen. If Water is H2O then glycerine is C3(4 waters) deficit O. It is missing an oxygen if water is H2O.

    The reason glycerine is so effective as a skin ointment is because it has glycerine, the extra O oxygen. If water were H2O, then glycerine would be a missing oxygen and not a skin lotion that works, but makes skin even more dry.

    Proving Water is H4O, not H2O, and where hydroxyl is H2O// AP's 250th book TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY, by Archimedes Plutonium

    Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
    12:24 AM (13 hours ago)



    to Plutonium Atom Universe

    --- quoting in part from source-- Study.com ---
    Perhaps there is only two Faraday laws on Electrolysis. I am looking at the one that states: Faraday's first law of electrolysis relates the mass of a substance liberated (or deposited) at an electrode to the electric charge used (Q). A
    proportionality constant Z can be used:

    m = ZQ = (E/96485)(Q)

    m = mass, Q = total charge rewritten as Q = I*t amperes x time in seconds.

    This website gives an example: 5amps passed through molten Sodium Chloride for 3 hours. Calculate the mass of Sodium. E=23/1.

    m = (23/96485) (5) (3*60*60) approx 12.87 grams.

    --- end quoting in part from source-- Study.com ---

    Now has such a experiment been performed on Water to see how much atomic mass of hydrogen and of oxygen results??? If AP is correct, the formula of water is H4O, if Old Physics, Old Chemistry is correct the formula is H2O. So which is it??
    ?

    AP


    No, sorry no, Faraday's Law of Electrolysis is not going to tell the correct mass of hydrogen.

    Reading Wikipedia on Faraday's Electrolysis law.

    --- quoting Wikipedia ---
    A monovalent ion requires 1 electron for discharge, a divalent ion requires 2 electrons for discharge and so on. Thus, if x electrons flow,
    x/v atoms are discharged.

    So the mass m discharged is

    m= (xM)/vN_A) = (QM)/(eN_A *v) = (QM) / (vF)
    where
    N_A is the Avogadro constant;
    Q = xe is the total charge, equal to the number of electrons (x) times the elementary charge e;
    F is the Faraday constant.
    --- end quoting Wikipedia ---

    No, the Faraday law of Electrolysis will not work on water with a correct answer, because H is not an atom but H2 is an Atom. And where one of the proton+muon converts to being a neutron to the other proton+muon.

    So if Faraday's law of Electrolysis was applied to water, thinking it would deliver a true answer is mistaken because the one H converts to neutron.

    So it appears that we need to directly measure the test tube of oxygen and the test tube of hydrogen by a direct mass measurement.

    AP
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
    1:14 AM (12 hours ago)



    to Plutonium Atom Universe
    I doubt we can measure a test tube of hydrogen or test tube of oxygen, too small to determine the mass on some sort of weight scale.

    But here is a possible lucrative idea. We should be able to get pure deuterium water. Then run the electrolysis. Collect the test tubes.

    Now have some sort of balancing beam weight scale. Place the regular water of hydrogen test tube on one side, and place the deuterium water hydrogen test tube on other side. If they stay balanced, then AP is correct and Water is really
    H4O.

    AP
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
    1:48 AM (11 hours ago)



    to Plutonium Atom Universe
    Cosmic Rays from Sun

    90% of Sun's cosmic rays are 840MeV proton+muon inside = H. The hydrogen Atom is H2 where one of the H proton+muon converts to being a neutron.

    When these proton+muon hit Earth atmosphere, they can turn into pions and muons.

    I commented that H alone is a subatomic particle and that makes sense in the idea that Sun's cosmic rays are 90% these proton+muon.

    Now is interstellar hydrogen H2 and intergalactic hydrogen H2 formed when one H cosmic ray joins up with another H cosmic ray to form H2 atom?

    Is this how we get H2 in outer space? From the splitting apart of H2 into H cosmic rays?

    So how much of the Sun's hydrogen is H2 and how much is H ready to join with another H and reform back into H2. Probably little of the Sun's H is H alone, and the vast majority of the Sun's hydrogen is H2.

    How much deuterium in the Sun? And it is a higher percentage than the deuterium in water on Earth?

    AP
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
    3:11 AM (10 hours ago)



    to Plutonium Atom Universe
    Water is the only known non-metallic substance that expands when if freezes; its density decreases and it expands approximately 9% by volume. (Source: web Lunar and Planetary Institute)

    I have to wait for experimental chemists and physicists to weigh the mass of test tubes from electrolysis, as to the verdict-- water is H4O.

    But until that news comes in, I will look for other means of proof.

    So AP says that the H2 is not a molecule but is the hydrogen Atom itself, where one proton+muon converts to a neutron and capacitates the other proton+muon which undergo the Faraday law.

    There are subatomic particles of H in the form of Cosmic Rays from the Sun, but most of the Sun's hydrogen is H2, and flips back and forth from H to rejoining to form H2. Some gets away from the Sun and is cosmic rays.

    But H2 is an Atom and H is a fleeting subatomic particle.

    So can I prove Water is H4O from the data of Spectral lines of H2 is the same as deuterium, only slight difference is that the deuterium is a full fledged neutron not a makeshift proton+muon of H.

    I suspect that special trait of water freezing is a proof that Water is H4O. Because the 840MeV proton torus with muon inside doing the Faraday law acting as a makeshift neutron capacitor for the other 840MeV proton torus with muon inside,
    is where H2 gets that expansion characteristic.

    A neutron is a parallel plate capacitor and those plates can expand when frozen temperature occurs. As the temperature gets colder, those plates move further apart.

    Now does deuterium which truly has a full neutron, does it expand also when frozen?? If so, does it expand as much as H2 which is 2 protons with 2 muons inside?

    So comparing the freezing and expansion of the parallel plates of a neutron in deuterium with the freezing and expansion of one of the proton+muon that is acting as a makeshift neutron in H2.

    If I can numbers correlate the H2 expansion with the Deuterium expansion would be a alternative proof that Water is really H4O and not H2O.

    AP
    to
    So now on Blankenship's book "Molecular Mechanisms of Photosynthesis", 2014, page 134, shows The structure of ATP, ADP, AMP. And within that structure are OH hydroxyls.

    In New Chemistry, water is truly H4O, and where hydroxyls are now H2O. And we have first proof of this in the Figure 8.1 of Blankenship's "Chemical structure of ATP".

    For in the lower left corner of the diagram, Blankenship has a H+ all alone, (really a mindless error) and has P surrounded by O-, O-, O and OH. The OH is really H2O for hydroxyls are H2O and water itself is H4O, and that would leave that
    mindless H+ as being hydrogen Atom of H2.

    The world of physics and chemistry should drop what they are doing and weigh the electrolysis test tube of hydrogen and oxygen to discover the correct true formula of water is H4O.

    AP is total confident, becuase an Atom cannot exist if it has no capacitor structure such as a neutron, or one of the H in H2 acting as a neutron. I am totally confident that Water formula is truly H4O. And I need look only to methane of
    H4C, to realize that there is no HC, no H2C, no H3C, but starts with H4C, and that tells me water starts with H4O. Totally confident that Old Chemistry, Old Physics did electrolysis experiments and the moment they saw hydrogen test tube be 2x volume of
    oxygen test tube, they dropped their work and went out for a Danish and coffee break, rather than finish their work--- actual physics weighing of atomic mass units (not the Faraday electrolysis law for it does not apply to water).

    When water electrolysis is physics weighed, AP is confident that there are 4H per every one oxygen O. And that Water is truly H4O.

    AP, King of Science
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium
    9:34 AM (15 minutes ago)



    to
    On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 8:56:57 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
    Now I see some of these electronic weighing scales are accurate to 0.00001 gram. I do not know if that is within the accuracy I need for weighing a test tube of oxygen then a test tube of hydrogen from water electrolysis.

    Now modern day physics and chemist experimenters can really do a marvelous job if they wanted to. For they could freeze the test tubes of oxygen and hydrogen to where they are liquid and compare liquids from water electrolysis.
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium
    10:01 AM (5 hours ago)



    to
    So, what AP is saying here is that we do electrolysis of water. We collect the two test tubes, one with oxygen the other with hydrogen.

    To prove Water is truly the formula H4O and not H2O we must weigh the masses of the two tubes to find that the ratio is 1 x 16amu to 4 x 1amu.

    The silly grotesque science error of the past was to look at volumes in the two test tubes-- "Hey-- the hydrogen is twice the volume of oxygen so the formula of water is H2O".

    No, way was that science good practice. For the correct formula of water needs to be measured by mass, by atomic mass units where Oxygen is 16amu and hydrogen is 1amu.

    I suspect a balance beam scale is good enough to see the hydrogen test tube will be 1/4 as massive as the oxygen test tube. To get within precision of electronic weighing scale of 0.00001 gram we just have to make a larger test tube of
    electrolysis of water.

    AP is betting that the readings will be hydrogen test tube 1/4 the mass of oxygen test tube proving Water formula is truly H4O.

    Old Physics and Old Chemistry is betting that the mass experiment will have the hydrogen test tube be 1/8 the mass of the oxygen test tube, proving Water formula is H2O.

    AP does not have these precision equipment to conduct an at-home experiment of this nature.

    AP
    Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
    Archimedes Plutonium
    12:38 PM (4 hours ago)



    to
    So, once Water is found to actually be H4O, not H2O, we move on to methane, and ask the same question of its hydrogen bonds. Is Methane really that of H8C and not H4C.

    Well, looking in the literature for anomalies to methane, I come across a arXiv "Low and high-temperature anomalies in the physical properties of solid methane "The anomalous behavior of thermodynamic, spectral, plastic, elastic and some
    other properties of solid methane is discussed near 20.48K and...

    AP wonders: if they can get methane to solid form, well, I am then hopeful that the mass of the molecule can be determined. Because if methane is truly H8C, that difference of H4 in atomic mass units would be very much noticeable
    difference.

    Chemistry Europe--
    "The Anomalous Deuterium Isotope Effect in the NMR Spectrum of Methane...

    P Vermeeren, 2023
    "The abnormally long and weak methylidyne C-H bond.."
    "The C-H bond of the methylidyne radical, CH*, is abnormally long and weak, even longer and..."

    AP asks, are these anomalies solved if we consider methane is actually H8C and not H4C?

    AP



    My 250th published book.

    TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY; H2 is the hydrogen Atom and water is H4O, not H2O// Chemistry
    by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
    Prologue: This textbook is 1/2 research history and 1/2 factual textbook combined as one textbook. For many of the experiments described here-in have not yet been performed, such as water is really H4O not H2O. Written in a style of history
    research with date-time markers, and fact telling. And there are no problem sets. This book is intended for 1st year college. Until I include problem sets and exercises, I leave it to the professor and instructor to provide such. And also, chemistry is
    hugely a laboratory science, even more so than physics, so a first year college student in the lab to test whether Water is really H4O and not H2O is mighty educational.

    Preface: This is my 250th book of science, and the first of my textbooks on Teaching True Chemistry. I have completed the Teaching True Physics and the Teaching True Mathematics textbook series. But had not yet started on a Teaching True
    Chemistry textbook series. What got me started on this project is the fact that no chemistry textbook had the correct formula for water which is actually H4O and not H2O. Leaving the true formula for hydroxyl groups as H2O and not OH. But none of this is
    possible in Old Chemistry, Old Physics where they had do-nothing subatomic particles that sit around and do nothing or go whizzing around the outside of balls in a nucleus, in a mindless circling. Once every subatomic particle has a job, task, function,
    then water cannot be H2O but rather H4O. And a hydrogen atom cannot be H alone but is actually H2. H2 is not a molecule of hydrogen but a full fledged Atom, a single atom of hydrogen.

    Cover Picture: Sorry for the crude sketch work but chemistry and physics students are going to have to learn to make such sketches in a minute or less. Just as they make Lewis diagrams or ball & stick diagrams. My 4-5 minute sketch-work of the
    Water molecule H4O plus the subatomic particle H, and the hydrogen atom H2. Showing how one H is a proton torus with muon inside (blue color) doing the Faraday law. Protons are toruses with many windings. Protons are the coils in Faraday law while muons
    are the bar magnets. Neutrons are the capacitors as parallel plates, the outer skin cover of atoms.

    Product details
    • ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0CCLPTBDG
    • Publication date ‏ : ‎ July 21, 2023
    • Language ‏ : ‎ English
    • File size ‏ : ‎ 788 KB
    • Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
    • Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
    • Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
    • Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
    • Print length ‏ : ‎ 168 pages






    y z
    | /
    | /
    |/______ x

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)