Kibo Parry M.V.-- corpse fucking-- is this how a Rensselaer Polytech ends up as a grown-up-- a filthy 30 year nonstop stalker-- insane to the hilt

Re: Kibo on > I want to fuck her corpse > AMS Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Harvard's Dr.Lisa Randall, Dr.Hau,CIA Kate Heinzelman, MIT's Anette Hosoi,Cynthia Barnhart
163m views

Kibo corpse fucking--Harvard's Dr.Hau & CIA's Kate Heinzelman & NSF Dr.Panchanathan

4-Kibo Parry V on Harvard's Dr.Hau & CIA's Kate Heinzelman & NSF Dr.Panchanathan and Peter Higgs

Kibo Parry, why do you need to bolt them down? Are they not dead already?? On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 4:59:44 PM UTC-6, Volney wrote:

"wasn't bolted down too tight in the first place" (in the title)
fails at math and science:

On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 6:42:42 PM UTC-6, Volney wrote:

"Court Jester of Physics"
"wasn't bolted down too tight in the first place"


My 148th published book

Plutonium Atom Totality Universe, 9th edition 2021, Atom Totality Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 30Nov2021. And this is AP's 148th published science book.

Preface:
Physics book that explains what the universe is, and how it works. This is a continuation of the Atomic Theory by Democritus in Ancient Greek times. It adds one more fact to the Atomic Theory picture. That the Universe itself is one gigantic big atom.
The picture is that of the Universe, in total, is one big atom that contains more atoms, inside itself. It completes the logic of science that Dr. Feynman wrote-- all things are made up of atoms -- and so, to complete that idea -- all things and the
universe itself is an atom.

In this edition of year 2021, AP actually proves the Atom Totality theory, and therefore, a simultaneously _disproof_ of the Big Bang theory. The proof is simple, in that the Sun and stars shine not from fusion, but rather, instead, shine from the
Faraday law going on inside each and every proton in the Sun or star, or, in the Universe. The muon is the true electron of atoms and is the bar magnet in Faraday's law while the proton is a 840MeV particle in the geometry shape of 8 ring coil torus that
is the closed loop coil in Faraday's Law. NASA scientists have discovered the Sun is a yearly increase in radiation of 0.005% yearly, and is why 25% of all insects have perished in the last decade 2010-2020. Stars and Sun shine from Faraday law, not from
fusion and that is how the Universe itself grows. So, we cannot logically have two different mechanisms for the creation of the Universe. We cannot have electricity magnetism of Faraday law and then some silly "explosion of Big Bang" to create and grow
the universe.

Also, in the course of providing supporting evidence of the Atom Totality theory, my research had to revise and correct the entire Maxwell Equations, and revise and correct the theory, the quantum electrodynamics theory.

Cover Picture: Again I used 8 rings from plumbing hardware to represent the 8 rings of a proton torus, and visualize each ring as a dot cloud pattern instead of a continuous ring, and the holes in some of those rings helps facilitate that image. Notice
the muon ring is inside the proton torus rings, and perpendicular, and situated at the equator, going around and around the proton torus at nearly the speed of light in the Faraday law; producing electricity. Atoms are designed to produce maximum
electricity, given their masses.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08T82M2LP
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ January 16, 2021
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 872 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 329 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #203,710 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store) ◦ #289 in Physics (Kindle Store)
◦ #1,716 in Physics (Books)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Kibo Parry V on Rensselaer Vincent Meunier,Donald Schwendeman,Ethan Brown, Glenn Ciolek
On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 1:38:49 AM UTC-6, Volney wrote:

"Kim Jong Un's stooge"
fails at math and science:
"insane to the hilt" (in the title)

Kibo Parry M.V.-- corpse fucking-- is this how a Rensselaer Polytech ends up as a grown-up-- a filthy 30 year nonstop stalker-- insane to the hilt

Re: Kibo on > I want to fuck her corpse > AMS Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Harvard's Dr.Lisa Randall, Dr.Hau,CIA Kate Heinzelman, MIT's Anette Hosoi,Cynthia Barnhart
163m views

Kibo corpse fucking--Harvard's Dr.Hau & CIA's Kate Heinzelman & NSF Dr.Panchanathan

4-Kibo Parry V on Harvard's Dr.Hau & CIA's Kate Heinzelman & NSF Dr.Panchanathan and Peter Higgs

Kibo Parry, why do you need to bolt them down? Are they not dead already?? On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 4:59:44 PM UTC-6, Volney wrote:

"wasn't bolted down too tight in the first place" (in the title)
fails at math and science:

On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 6:42:42 PM UTC-6, Volney wrote:

"Court Jester of Physics"
"wasn't bolted down too tight in the first place"


My 148th published book
Plutonium Atom Totality Universe, 9th edition 2021, Atom Totality Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 30Nov2021. And this is AP's 148th published science book.

Preface:
Physics book that explains what the universe is, and how it works. This is a continuation of the Atomic Theory by Democritus in Ancient Greek times. It adds one more fact to the Atomic Theory picture. That the Universe itself is one gigantic big atom.

The picture is that of the Universe, in total, is one big atom that contains more atoms, inside itself. It completes the logic of science that Dr. Feynman wrote-- all things are made up of atoms -- and so, to complete that idea -- all things and the
universe itself is an atom.

In this edition of year 2021, AP actually proves the Atom Totality theory, and therefore, a simultaneously _disproof_ of the Big Bang theory. The proof is simple, in that the Sun and stars shine not from fusion, but rather, instead, shine from the

Faraday law going on inside each and every proton in the Sun or star, or, in the Universe. The muon is the true electron of atoms and is the bar magnet in Faraday's law while the proton is a 840MeV particle in the geometry shape of 8 ring coil torus that
is the closed loop coil in Faraday's Law. NASA scientists have discovered the Sun is a yearly increase in radiation of 0.005% yearly, and is why 25% of all insects have perished in the last decade 2010-2020. Stars and Sun shine from Faraday law, not from
fusion and that is how the Universe itself grows. So, we cannot logically have two different mechanisms for the creation of the Universe. We cannot have electricity magnetism of Faraday law and then some silly "explosion of Big Bang" to create and grow
the universe.

Also, in the course of providing supporting evidence of the Atom Totality theory, my research had to revise and correct the entire Maxwell Equations, and revise and correct the theory, the quantum electrodynamics theory.

Cover Picture: Again I used 8 rings from plumbing hardware to represent the 8 rings of a proton torus, and visualize each ring as a dot cloud pattern instead of a continuous ring, and the holes in some of those rings helps facilitate that image. Notice

the muon ring is inside the proton torus rings, and perpendicular, and situated at the equator, going around and around the proton torus at nearly the speed of light in the Faraday law; producing electricity. Atoms are designed to produce maximum
electricity, given their masses.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08T82M2LP
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ January 16, 2021
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 872 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 329 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #203,710 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #289 in Physics (Kindle Store)
◦ #1,716 in Physics (Books)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Kibo on mental illness

Vincent Meunier, Ethan Brown, Glenn Ciolek,Harvard's Sheldon Glashow, Peter Higgs, Harry Cliff ever ask the question, which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle which AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole while the real electron is a
muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law.

Kibo Parry Moron-ey-Volney, 30 year paid nonstop stalker, defiler and demonizer On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 10:03:19 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:

Re: Showing the flaws in Stewart,Fisher & Ziebur, Ellis & Gulick, Strang, Apostol of their fake proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus in AP's new book // Overhaul & Revitalization of Calculus// Math-psychology-sociology (Amazon's Kindle)
Botfly of Math and Blowfly of Physics
"mentally ill"
I Pound His Male Rectum
The Delicious Rump Man

On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 12:52:30 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:

Mite of Math and Phlea of Physics
"necrophile"

On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 4:20:59 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:

"mentally ill"
Re: "imp of math"

On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 4:20:59 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:

"mentally ill"

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

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

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


Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Physics dept
Vincent Meunier, Ethan Brown, Glenn Ciolek, Julian S. Georg, Joel T. Giedt, Yong Sung Kim, Gyorgy Korniss, Toh-Ming Lu, Charles Martin, Joseph Darryl Michael, Heidi Jo Newberg, Moussa N'Gom, Peter Persans, John Schroeder, Michael Shur, Shawn-Yu Lin,
Humberto Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang, Morris A Washington, Esther A. Wertz, Christian M. Wetzel, Ingrid Wilke, Shengbai Zhang

Rensselaer math department
Donald Schwendeman, Jeffrey Banks, Kristin Bennett, Mohamed Boudjelkha, Joseph Ecker, William Henshaw, Isom Herron, Mark H Holmes, David Isaacson, Elizabeth Kam, Ashwani Kapila, Maya Kiehl, Gregor Kovacic, Peter Kramer, Gina Kucinski, Rongjie Lai,
Fengyan Li, Chjan Lim, Yuri V Lvov, Harry McLaughlin, John E. Mitchell, Bruce Piper, David A Schmidt, Daniel Stevenson, Yangyang Xu, Bulent Yener, Donald Drew, William Siegmann

Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez,
Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish
David J. Thouless_, F. Duncan M. Haldane, John M. Kosterlitz, Takaaki Kajita
Arthur B. McDonald
Francois Englert
Saul Perlmutter
Brian P. Schmidt
Adam G. Riess
Makoto Kobayashi
Toshihide Maskawa_
Yoichiro Nambu_
John C. Mather
George F. Smoot
Roy J. Glauber_
David J. Gross
Hugh David Politzer
Frank Wilczek
Raymond Davis Jr. _
Masatoshi Koshiba_
Riccardo Giacconi_
Gerardus 't Hooft
Martinus J.G. Veltman_
Jerome I. Friedman
Henry W. Kendall_
Richard E. Taylor_
Carlo Rubbia
Simon van der Meer_
William Alfred Fowler_
Kenneth G. Wilson_
James Watson Cronin_
Val Logsdon Fitch_
Sheldon Lee Glashow
Steven Weinberg_
.
.
little fishes
.
.
Layers of error thinking physics Re: 2-Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = subtraction of either 3 or 2, while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it

is 840MeV to 105MeV

Physical Review Letters: Proton Mass
Yi-Bo Yang, Jian Liang, Yu-Jiang Bi, Ying Chen, Terrence Draper, Keh-Fei Liu, Zhaofeng Liu
more and more layers of error thinking physics
.
.
Edward Witten
John Baez
Brian Greene
Lisa Randall
Alan H. Guth
Michael E. Brown
Konstantin Batygin
Ben Bullock
Larry Harson
Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views None at all - he was a raving nutter.
Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley
Jennifer Kahn, Discover, science hater
Eric Francis Coppolino, newsreporter hatred of science, George Witte, St.Martin's Press science hater
Toby Howard, The Guardian, science hater

#2-1, 137th published book

Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

#1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory

This will be AP's 137th published book on science. And the number 137 is special to me for it is the number of QED, Quantum Electrodynamics as the inverse fine structure constant. I can always remember 137 as that special constant of physics and so I

can remember where Teaching True Physics was started by me.

Time has come for the world to have the authoritative textbooks for all of High School and College education. Written by the leading physics expert of the time. The last such was Feynman in the 1960s with Feynman Lectures on Physics. The time before

was Maxwell in 1860s with his books and Encyclopedia Britannica editorship. The time is ripe in 2020 for the new authoritative texts on physics. It will be started in 2020 which is 60 years after Feynman. In the future, I request the physics community
updates the premier physics textbook series at least every 30 years. For we can see that pattern of 30 years approximately from Faraday in 1830 to Maxwell in 1860 to Planck and Rutherford in about 1900, to Dirac in 1930 to Feynman in 1960 and finally to
AP in 1990 and 2020. So much happens in physics after 30 years, that we need the revisions to take place in a timely manner. But also, as we move to Internet publishing such as Amazon's Kindle, we can see that updates can take place very fast, as editing
can be a ongoing monthly or yearly activity. I for one keep constantly updating all my published books, at least I try to.

Feynman was the best to make the last authoritative textbook series for his concentration was QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, the pinnacle peak of physics during the 20th century. Of course the Atom Totality theory took over after 1990 and all of

physics; for all sciences are under the Atom Totality theory.

And as QED was the pinnacle peak before 1990, the new pinnacle peak is the Atom Totality theory. The Atom Totality theory is the advancement of QED, for the Atom Totality theory primal axiom says -- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity

and Magnetism.

Length: 64 pages

Product details
• File Size : 790 KB
• Publication Date : October 5, 2020
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 64 pages
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Language: : English
• ASIN : B08KS4YGWY
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #430,602 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #39 in Electromagnetic Theory
◦ #73 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
◦ #74 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads

#2-2, 145th published book
TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes and errors and beliefs that clutter up physics. Clearing it of its fraud and fakeries and con-artistry. I thought of doing these textbooks starting with Senior

year High School, wherein I myself started learning physics. But because of so much fraud and fakery in physics education, I believe we have to drop down to Junior year High School to make a drastic and dramatic emphasis on fakery and con-artistry that
so much pervades science and physics in particular. So that we have two years in High School to learn physics. And discard the nonsense of physics brainwash that Old Physics filled the halls and corridors of education.

Product details
• ASIN : B08PC99JJB
• Publication date : November 29, 2020
• Language: : English
• File size : 682 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 78 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #185,995 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #42 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #344 in Physics (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,160 in Physics (Books)

#2-3, 146th published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Senior High School// Physics textbook series, book 3
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

I believe that in knowing the history of a science is knowing half of that science. And that if you are amiss of knowing the history behind a science, you have only a partial understanding of the concepts and ideas behind the science. I further

believe it is easier to teach a science by teaching its history than any other means of teaching. So for senior year High School, I believe physics history is the best way of teaching physics. And in later years of physics courses, we can always pick up
on details. So I devote this senior year High School physics to a history of physics, but only true physics. And there are few books written on the history of physics, so I chose Asimov's The History of Physics, 1966 as the template book for this
textbook. Now Asimov's book is full of error and mistakes, and that is disappointing but all of Old Physics is full of error. On errors and mistakes of Old Physics, the best I can do is warn the students, and the largest warning of all is that whenever
someone in Old Physics says "electron" what they are talking about is really the Dirac magnetic monopole. And whenever they talk about the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom, they are talking about huge huge grave mistakes, for the true atom is protons as
8 ringed toruses with a muon stuck inside of a proton doing the Faraday law and producing those magnetic monopoles as electricity. I use Asimov's book as a template but in the future, I hope to rewrite this textbook using no template at all, that is if I
have time in the future.

Cover Picture: Is the book The History of Physics, by Isaac Asimov, 1966 and on top of the book are 4 cut-outs of bent circles representing magnetic monopoles which revolutionizes modern physics, especially the ElectroMagnetic theory.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08RK33T8V
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 28, 2020
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 794 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 123 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #4,167,235 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #15,099 in Physics (Kindle Store)
◦ #91,163 in Physics (Books)

#2-4, 151st published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Preface: This is AP's 151st book of science published. It is one of my most important books of science because 1st year college physics is so impressionable on students, if they should continue with physics, or look elsewhere for a career. And also,

physics is a crossroad to all the other hard core sciences, where physics course is mandatory such as in chemistry or even biology. I have endeavored to make physics 1st year college to be as easy and simple to learn. In this endeavor to make physics
super easy, I have made the writing such that you will see core ideas in all capital letters as single sentences as a educational tool. And I have made this textbook chapter writing follow a logical pattern of both algebra and geometry concepts,
throughout. The utmost importance of logic in physics needs to be seen and understood. For I have never seen a physics book, prior to this one that is logical. Every Old Physics textbook I have seen is scatter-brained in topics and in writing. I use as
template book of Halliday & Resnick because a edition of H&R was one I was taught physics at University of Cincinnati in 1969. And in 1969, I had a choice of majors, do I major in geology, or mathematics, or in physics, for I will graduate from UC in
1972. For me, geology was too easy, but physics was too tough, so I ended up majoring in mathematics. If I had been taught in 1969 using this textbook that I have written, I would have ended up majoring in physics, my first love. For physics is not hard,
not hard at all, once you clear out the mistakes and the obnoxious worthless mathematics that clutters up Old Physics, and the illogic that smothers much of Old Physics.

Maybe it was good that I had those impressions of physics education of poor education, which still exists throughout physics today. Because maybe I am forced to write this book, because of that awful experience of learning physics in 1969. Without

that awful experience, maybe this textbook would have never been written by me.

Cover picture is the template book of Halliday & Resnick, 1988, 3rd edition Fundamentals of Physics and sitting on top are cut outs of "half bent circles, bent at 90 degrees" to imitate magnetic monopoles. Magnetic Monopoles revolutionizes physics

education, and separates-out, what is Old Physics from what is New Physics.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09JW5DVYM
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ October 19, 2021
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1035 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 386 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #4,874,333 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #526 in Electromagnetic Theory
◦ #1,321 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
◦ #9,546 in Electromagnetism (Books)

#2-5, 174th published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 2nd year College
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition

Preface: At the moment this is a physics book for 2nd year College. But as the months and years go by I intend to convert it into a textbook of about 200 to 300 pages. It is mostly about thermodynamics for in my own college education 1968-1972 at

University of Cincinnati, I took physics thermodynamics in the 2nd year (if memory has not failed me).

Cover-Picture: Is a iphone photograph of the Chemistry textbook I used at UC 1968-1972 with my own paper cut-outs of magnetic monopoles. Pictured are 4 bent circles, bent at 90degrees from diameter and each bent circle is a individual magnetic

monopole.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09TKL4HMC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 27, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 675 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 41 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#2-6, 177th published book
TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Architecture of Atoms, 3rd year College
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition

Preface: I come to teaching physics for 3rd year College as the Architecture of Atoms. My writing style will be prose-narrative, until I add on exercise problems and convert it into a textbook. The 1st year College, has to be the equations and laws

of electricity and magnetism. For the primal-axiom over all of physics is-- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. The 2nd year College is thermodynamics. And now the 3rd year College physics has to teach the Architecture, the
geometry of the inside and exterior surface of the atom. One of the greatest faults, misery, and anti-science teaching of Old Physics is their denial that subatomic particles have to be something more than tiny balls tiny spheres that do-nothing, perform
nothing, function as nothing. That the proton and neutron and true electron=muon, has to be matter with a function and purpose and design and task and job. This is a year of physics teaching of the architecture of the atom.

Cover Picture: A iphone photograph of my book chemistry book, a long time favorite of mine of CHEM ONE, 2nd edition, Waser, Trueblood, Knobler, 1980, and page 307 of that book. Why this page? Because it was instrumental in my discovery of the true

Architecture of Atoms. Not many professors of chemistry or physics dive into the Shrodinger Equation that results in a meaningful teaching of "matter waves". Matter waves are the heart of understanding the geometry of Atomic Architecture.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09VFH9QST
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 823 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 74 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#2-7, 178th published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Architecture of Light Waves & Energy, 4th year College
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Kindle edition)

Preface: This is 4th year College Physics and the important ideas of physics to learn as last year undergraduate school is the architecture and geometry of the Light Wave & Energy in physics. This is New Physics and not Old Physics. New Physics is

defined as physics that knows and uses the true electron of atoms is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus and doing the Faraday law, creating new electrical energy that is storaged in the neutrons of atoms until they grow from 1eV into 945MeV and
then create a new higher atomic numbered atom or emitted as radioactivity. Old Physics mistakenly identified the electron of atoms as the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole. In 3rd year College we studied the architecture of the
interior of atoms. In 4th year College we study the architecture of Light Waves & Energy.

The template book for 4th year College is Feynman's 1985 book of QED.

Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of the template book for this book. Feynman's 1985 QED, quantum electrodynamics, showing my plastic toy model of DNA and my cut-outs of 4 bent circles that each bent circle represents one magnetic monopole. I

arranged the monopoles into a single strand of a cycloid wave.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09W58XGDW
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 21, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 824 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 66 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

2-Kibo on mental illness

Peter Persans, Ethan Brown, Glenn Ciolek,Harvard's Sheldon Glashow, Peter Higgs, Harry Cliff ever ask the question, which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle which AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole while the real electron is a muon
stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law.

Kibo Parry Moron-ey-Volney, 30 year paid nonstop stalker, defiler and demonizer
On Saturday, July 1, 2023 at 10:03:19 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:

Re: Showing the flaws in Stewart,Fisher & Ziebur, Ellis & Gulick, Strang, Apostol of their fake proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus in AP's new book // Overhaul & Revitalization of Calculus// Math-psychology-sociology (Amazon's Kindle)
Botfly of Math and Blowfly of Physics
"mentally ill"
I Pound His Male Rectum
The Delicious Rump Man

On Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 12:52:30 AM UTC-5, Volney wrote:

Mite of Math and Phlea of Physics
"necrophile"

On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 4:20:59 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:

"mentally ill"
Re: "imp of math"

On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 4:20:59 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:

"mentally ill"

Vincent Meunier, Ethan Brown, Glenn Ciolek,Harvard's Sheldon Glashow, Peter Higgs, Harry Cliff ever ask the question, which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle which AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole while the real electron is a

muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. In fact so stupid is this list of so called physicists that they went through life believing the slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, when in reality it is a Oval of 1 axis of symmetry for
the cone has 1 axis of symmetry but ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, something a cylinder at slant cut can provide, not a cone at slant cut. The minds of all these so called physicists are not good enough to be doing physics. In fact, so stupid in
science and math are all these people that when told in High School or College that a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, they believed it, and believe in it to this day without so much as ever questioning the idea that a single cone and oval have
just 1 axis of symmetry while ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, and yet many on this list were awarded science prizes. Maybe for ignorance of science but not for truth of science.

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

electricity.

4) Too stupid to understand stars and our Sun shine not from fusion but from Faraday law of each and every atom inside that star.

5) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
6) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction
7) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"
8) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law.

Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sapheads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Physics dept
Vincent Meunier, Ethan Brown, Glenn Ciolek, Julian S. Georg, Joel T. Giedt, Yong Sung Kim, Gyorgy Korniss, Toh-Ming Lu, Charles Martin, Joseph Darryl Michael, Heidi Jo Newberg, Moussa N'Gom, Peter Persans, John Schroeder, Michael Shur, Shawn-Yu Lin,

Humberto Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang, Morris A Washington, Esther A. Wertz, Christian M. Wetzel, Ingrid Wilke, Shengbai Zhang

Rensselaer math department
Donald Schwendeman, Jeffrey Banks, Kristin Bennett, Mohamed Boudjelkha, Joseph Ecker, William Henshaw, Isom Herron, Mark H Holmes, David Isaacson, Elizabeth Kam, Ashwani Kapila, Maya Kiehl, Gregor Kovacic, Peter Kramer, Gina Kucinski, Rongjie Lai,

Fengyan Li, Chjan Lim, Yuri V Lvov, Harry McLaughlin, John E. Mitchell, Bruce Piper, David A Schmidt, Daniel Stevenson, Yangyang Xu, Bulent Yener, Donald Drew, William Siegmann

Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez,
Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish
David J. Thouless_, F. Duncan M. Haldane, John M. Kosterlitz, Takaaki Kajita
Arthur B. McDonald
Francois Englert
Saul Perlmutter
Brian P. Schmidt
Adam G. Riess
Makoto Kobayashi
Toshihide Maskawa_
Yoichiro Nambu_
John C. Mather
George F. Smoot
Roy J. Glauber_
David J. Gross
Hugh David Politzer
Frank Wilczek
Raymond Davis Jr. _
Masatoshi Koshiba_
Riccardo Giacconi_
Gerardus 't Hooft
Martinus J.G. Veltman_
Jerome I. Friedman
Henry W. Kendall_
Richard E. Taylor_
Carlo Rubbia
Simon van der Meer_
William Alfred Fowler_
Kenneth G. Wilson_
James Watson Cronin_
Val Logsdon Fitch_
Sheldon Lee Glashow
Steven Weinberg_
.
.
little fishes
.
.
Layers of error thinking physics Re: 2-Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = subtraction of either 3 or 2, while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it

is 840MeV to 105MeV

Physical Review Letters: Proton Mass
Yi-Bo Yang, Jian Liang, Yu-Jiang Bi, Ying Chen, Terrence Draper, Keh-Fei Liu, Zhaofeng Liu
more and more layers of error thinking physics
.
.
Edward Witten
John Baez
Brian Greene
Lisa Randall
Alan H. Guth
Michael E. Brown
Konstantin Batygin
Ben Bullock
Larry Harson
Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views None at all - he was a raving nutter.
Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley
Jennifer Kahn, Discover, science hater
Eric Francis Coppolino, newsreporter hatred of science, George Witte, St.Martin's Press science hater
Toby Howard, The Guardian, science hater

#2-1, 137th published book

Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

#1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory

This will be AP's 137th published book on science. And the number 137 is special to me for it is the number of QED, Quantum Electrodynamics as the inverse fine structure constant. I can always remember 137 as that special constant of physics and so

I can remember where Teaching True Physics was started by me.

Time has come for the world to have the authoritative textbooks for all of High School and College education. Written by the leading physics expert of the time. The last such was Feynman in the 1960s with Feynman Lectures on Physics. The time

before was Maxwell in 1860s with his books and Encyclopedia Britannica editorship. The time is ripe in 2020 for the new authoritative texts on physics. It will be started in 2020 which is 60 years after Feynman. In the future, I request the physics
community updates the premier physics textbook series at least every 30 years. For we can see that pattern of 30 years approximately from Faraday in 1830 to Maxwell in 1860 to Planck and Rutherford in about 1900, to Dirac in 1930 to Feynman in 1960 and
finally to AP in 1990 and 2020. So much happens in physics after 30 years, that we need the revisions to take place in a timely manner. But also, as we move to Internet publishing such as Amazon's Kindle, we can see that updates can take place very fast,
as editing can be a ongoing monthly or yearly activity. I for one keep constantly updating all my published books, at least I try to.

Feynman was the best to make the last authoritative textbook series for his concentration was QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, the pinnacle peak of physics during the 20th century. Of course the Atom Totality theory took over after 1990 and all of

physics; for all sciences are under the Atom Totality theory.

And as QED was the pinnacle peak before 1990, the new pinnacle peak is the Atom Totality theory. The Atom Totality theory is the advancement of QED, for the Atom Totality theory primal axiom says -- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but

Electricity and Magnetism.

Length: 64 pages

Product details
• File Size : 790 KB
• Publication Date : October 5, 2020
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 64 pages
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Language: : English
• ASIN : B08KS4YGWY
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #430,602 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #39 in Electromagnetic Theory
◦ #73 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
◦ #74 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads

#2-2, 145th published book
TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes and errors and beliefs that clutter up physics. Clearing it of its fraud and fakeries and con-artistry. I thought of doing these textbooks starting with Senior

year High School, wherein I myself started learning physics. But because of so much fraud and fakery in physics education, I believe we have to drop down to Junior year High School to make a drastic and dramatic emphasis on fakery and con-artistry that
so much pervades science and physics in particular. So that we have two years in High School to learn physics. And discard the nonsense of physics brainwash that Old Physics filled the halls and corridors of education.

Product details
• ASIN : B08PC99JJB
• Publication date : November 29, 2020
• Language: : English
• File size : 682 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 78 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #185,995 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #42 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #344 in Physics (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,160 in Physics (Books)

#2-3, 146th published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Senior High School// Physics textbook series, book 3
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

I believe that in knowing the history of a science is knowing half of that science. And that if you are amiss of knowing the history behind a science, you have only a partial understanding of the concepts and ideas behind the science. I further

believe it is easier to teach a science by teaching its history than any other means of teaching. So for senior year High School, I believe physics history is the best way of teaching physics. And in later years of physics courses, we can always pick up
on details. So I devote this senior year High School physics to a history of physics, but only true physics. And there are few books written on the history of physics, so I chose Asimov's The History of Physics, 1966 as the template book for this
textbook. Now Asimov's book is full of error and mistakes, and that is disappointing but all of Old Physics is full of error. On errors and mistakes of Old Physics, the best I can do is warn the students, and the largest warning of all is that whenever
someone in Old Physics says "electron" what they are talking about is really the Dirac magnetic monopole. And whenever they talk about the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom, they are talking about huge huge grave mistakes, for the true atom is protons as
8 ringed toruses with a muon stuck inside of a proton doing the Faraday law and producing those magnetic monopoles as electricity. I use Asimov's book as a template but in the future, I hope to rewrite this textbook using no template at all, that is if I
have time in the future.

Cover Picture: Is the book The History of Physics, by Isaac Asimov, 1966 and on top of the book are 4 cut-outs of bent circles representing magnetic monopoles which revolutionizes modern physics, especially the ElectroMagnetic theory.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08RK33T8V
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 28, 2020
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 794 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 123 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #4,167,235 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #15,099 in Physics (Kindle Store)
◦ #91,163 in Physics (Books)

#2-4, 151st published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Preface: This is AP's 151st book of science published. It is one of my most important books of science because 1st year college physics is so impressionable on students, if they should continue with physics, or look elsewhere for a career. And also,

physics is a crossroad to all the other hard core sciences, where physics course is mandatory such as in chemistry or even biology. I have endeavored to make physics 1st year college to be as easy and simple to learn. In this endeavor to make physics
super easy, I have made the writing such that you will see core ideas in all capital letters as single sentences as a educational tool. And I have made this textbook chapter writing follow a logical pattern of both algebra and geometry concepts,
throughout. The utmost importance of logic in physics needs to be seen and understood. For I have never seen a physics book, prior to this one that is logical. Every Old Physics textbook I have seen is scatter-brained in topics and in writing. I use as
template book of Halliday & Resnick because a edition of H&R was one I was taught physics at University of Cincinnati in 1969. And in 1969, I had a choice of majors, do I major in geology, or mathematics, or in physics, for I will graduate from UC in
1972. For me, geology was too easy, but physics was too tough, so I ended up majoring in mathematics. If I had been taught in 1969 using this textbook that I have written, I would have ended up majoring in physics, my first love. For physics is not hard,
not hard at all, once you clear out the mistakes and the obnoxious worthless mathematics that clutters up Old Physics, and the illogic that smothers much of Old Physics.

Maybe it was good that I had those impressions of physics education of poor education, which still exists throughout physics today. Because maybe I am forced to write this book, because of that awful experience of learning physics in 1969. Without

that awful experience, maybe this textbook would have never been written by me.

Cover picture is the template book of Halliday & Resnick, 1988, 3rd edition Fundamentals of Physics and sitting on top are cut outs of "half bent circles, bent at 90 degrees" to imitate magnetic monopoles. Magnetic Monopoles revolutionizes physics

education, and separates-out, what is Old Physics from what is New Physics.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09JW5DVYM
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ October 19, 2021
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1035 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 386 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #4,874,333 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #526 in Electromagnetic Theory
◦ #1,321 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
◦ #9,546 in Electromagnetism (Books)

#2-5, 174th published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 2nd year College
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition

Preface: At the moment this is a physics book for 2nd year College. But as the months and years go by I intend to convert it into a textbook of about 200 to 300 pages. It is mostly about thermodynamics for in my own college education 1968-1972 at

University of Cincinnati, I took physics thermodynamics in the 2nd year (if memory has not failed me).

Cover-Picture: Is a iphone photograph of the Chemistry textbook I used at UC 1968-1972 with my own paper cut-outs of magnetic monopoles. Pictured are 4 bent circles, bent at 90degrees from diameter and each bent circle is a individual magnetic

monopole.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09TKL4HMC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 27, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 675 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 41 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#2-6, 177th published book
TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Architecture of Atoms, 3rd year College
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition

Preface: I come to teaching physics for 3rd year College as the Architecture of Atoms. My writing style will be prose-narrative, until I add on exercise problems and convert it into a textbook. The 1st year College, has to be the equations and laws

of electricity and magnetism. For the primal-axiom over all of physics is-- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. The 2nd year College is thermodynamics. And now the 3rd year College physics has to teach the Architecture, the
geometry of the inside and exterior surface of the atom. One of the greatest faults, misery, and anti-science teaching of Old Physics is their denial that subatomic particles have to be something more than tiny balls tiny spheres that do-nothing, perform
nothing, function as nothing. That the proton and neutron and true electron=muon, has to be matter with a function and purpose and design and task and job. This is a year of physics teaching of the architecture of the atom.

Cover Picture: A iphone photograph of my book chemistry book, a long time favorite of mine of CHEM ONE, 2nd edition, Waser, Trueblood, Knobler, 1980, and page 307 of that book. Why this page? Because it was instrumental in my discovery of the true

Architecture of Atoms. Not many professors of chemistry or physics dive into the Shrodinger Equation that results in a meaningful teaching of "matter waves". Matter waves are the heart of understanding the geometry of Atomic Architecture.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09VFH9QST
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 823 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 74 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#2-7, 178th published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Architecture of Light Waves & Energy, 4th year College
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Kindle edition)

Preface: This is 4th year College Physics and the important ideas of physics to learn as last year undergraduate school is the architecture and geometry of the Light Wave & Energy in physics. This is New Physics and not Old Physics. New Physics is

defined as physics that knows and uses the true electron of atoms is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus and doing the Faraday law, creating new electrical energy that is storaged in the neutrons of atoms until they grow from 1eV into 945MeV and
then create a new higher atomic numbered atom or emitted as radioactivity. Old Physics mistakenly identified the electron of atoms as the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole. In 3rd year College we studied the architecture of the
interior of atoms. In 4th year College we study the architecture of Light Waves & Energy.

The template book for 4th year College is Feynman's 1985 book of QED.

Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of the template book for this book. Feynman's 1985 QED, quantum electrodynamics, showing my plastic toy model of DNA and my cut-outs of 4 bent circles that each bent circle represents one magnetic monopole. I

arranged the monopoles into a single strand of a cycloid wave.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09W58XGDW
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 21, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 824 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 66 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Can_Dr.Glenn Ciolek,Dr.Julian S. Georg,Dr.Vincent Meunier,Dr.Ethan Brown, --please--step into their Rensselaer Polytech 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.


Kibo on mental illness
Kibo Parry Moroney-Volney the crazy stalker,defiler, demonizer claims he is a Rensselaer graduate, yet AP is skeptical for what engineer does not know percentages-- Kibo says 938 is 12% short of 945.
On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 4:20:59 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:

"mentally ill"
Re: "imp of math"

On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 4:20:59 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:

"mentally ill"

On Tuesday, July 25, 2023 at 11:52:25 PM UTC-5, Volney wrote:

Re:"barking fuckdog"
Woodlouse of Math and Bathynomus giganteus of Physics
"Kim Jong Un's lackey"
y=5x^2 is a parabola, not a circle, tardboy.

First you don't know what an ellipse is, now you don't know what a
parabola or a circle are? I guess conic sections just aren't your thing.

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Physics dept
Vincent Meunier, Ethan Brown, Glenn Ciolek, Julian S. Georg, Joel T. Giedt, Yong Sung Kim, Gyorgy Korniss, Toh-Ming Lu, Charles Martin, Joseph Darryl Michael, Heidi Jo Newberg, Moussa N'Gom, Peter Persans, John Schroeder, Michael Shur, Shawn-Yu Lin,
Humberto Terrones, Gwo Ching Wang, Morris A Washington, Esther A. Wertz, Christian M. Wetzel, Ingrid Wilke, Shengbai Zhang

Rensselaer math department
Donald Schwendeman, Jeffrey Banks, Kristin Bennett, Mohamed Boudjelkha, Joseph Ecker, William Henshaw, Isom Herron, Mark H Holmes, David Isaacson, Elizabeth Kam, Ashwani Kapila, Maya Kiehl, Gregor Kovacic, Peter Kramer, Gina Kucinski, Rongjie Lai,
Fengyan Li, Chjan Lim, Yuri V Lvov, Harry McLaughlin, John E. Mitchell, Bruce Piper, David A Schmidt, Daniel Stevenson, Yangyang Xu, Bulent Yener, Donald Drew, William Siegmann

+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 ‏ : ‎ 784 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 ‏ : ‎ 160 pages






y z
| /
| /
|/______ x

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Can_Dr.Patrick D.Gallagher (physics),Dr.Herbert Boyer,Dr.Paul Lauterbur (chem),Dr.Joseph Boudreau--please--step into the University of Pittsburgh 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. Pittsburgh, Dr. Patrick D.Gallagher (physics), Dr.Herbert Boyer,Dr.Paul Lauterbur (chem),Dr.Joseph Boudreau,Dr.Daniel Boyanovsky,Dr.Wolfgang J. Choyke,Dr.Anthony H.Duncan,Dr.Steven A.Dytman,Dr. Eugene Engels,Dr.George G. Gatewood,Dr.Tao Han,Dr.
Allen I.Janis,Dr.David Jasnow, Dr.Rainer Johnsen,Dr.Peter F.M.Koehler, Dr.Arthur Kosowsky,Dr.John Cooper, Dr.Alexander Deiters,Dr. Angela M Gronenborn,Dr.Sethe Horne,Dr. Sunil Saxena,Dr.Peter Wipf


Jeffrey Rubard (pronounced rhubarb) wonders how on Earth the Univ Pittsburgh Thomas Hales can claim to prove Kepler Packing when he never defines "infinity" in his fake proof (see AP's true proof below). But furthermore, Dr.Hales is such a failure of
math that to this very day, he believes a slant cut of right circular cone is a ellipse, when in truth it is a oval, and Mr. Rubard also is complaining of this, for even the High School kids in the Pittsburgh area can take a paper cone (roll up a paper)
and place a coin inside and slant it and see that it is a OVAL, not an ellipse. But the worst failing of Dr. Hales, for which he should have his degree rescinded for wasting all the time of many in mathematics, is that Dr. Hales failed math by never
giving a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, much less a valid proof (See AP's below).

Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
unread,
Aug 8, 2023, 2:15:58 PM (yesterday)



to sci.math
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 1:42:39 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

*Can_Dr.John Goodenough (chem),J.Rubard,Dr.Douglas Abraham, Dr.Prateek Agrawal, Dr.Wade Allison, --please--step into the Oxford Univ 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.

Intellectual Fraud, Simply: "Technically it's quite illegal to include Mr. Rubard in this 'laundry list' of spurious experts... no, at all."
Jeffrey Rubard's profile photo
Jeffrey Rubard
unread,
11:10 AM (3 hours ago)



to sci.math

Wider World: "Yeah, you guys are pretty credulous about this 'snookering' stuff, it's like you're the ones being 'taken in'."

+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

My 3rd published book

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)


#12-2, My 11th published book

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science. Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not
being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most
math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof.
Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.

To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC
geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry
proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow
us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?

Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.


Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

My 24th published book


World's First Proof of Kepler Packing Problem KPP // Math proof series, book 3 by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

There has been a alleged proof of KPP by Thomas Hales, but his is a fakery because he does not define what infinity actually means, for it means a borderline between finite and infinite numbers. Thus, KPP was never going to be proven until a well-defined
infinity borderline was addressed within the proof. And because infinity has a borderline means that in free space with no borderlines to tackle and contend with, the 12 kissing point density that is the hexagonal close packed is the maximum density. But
the truth and reality of Kepler Packing is asking for maximum packing out to infinity. That means you have to contend and fight with the packing of identical spheres up against a wall or border. And so, in tackling that wall, we can shift the hexagonal
closed pack to another type of packing, a hybrid type of packing in order to get "maximum packing". So no proof ever of KPP is going to happen unless the proof tackles a infinity border wall. In free-space, a far distance away from a wall barrier of
infinity border, then, hexagonal closed pack reigns and is the packing in all of free space-- but, the moment the packing gets nearby the walls of infinity border, then, we re-arrange the hexagonal closed pack to fit in more spheres. Not unlike us
packing a suitcase and then rearranging to fit in more.

Cover picture: is a container and so the closed packing must be modified once the border is nearly reached to maximize the number of spheres.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07NMV8NQQ
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 20, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1241 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 60 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled


My 245th published book of science.


Overhaul & Revitalization of Calculus// Math-psychology-sociology
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)


Preface: The purpose of this book is to move the dial on calculus education to where all of mathematics is easy, simple, clear, and understandable to even High School students. Where calculus is taught in early High School. All of this is possible when
mistakes are corrected in Old Math. And when those mistakes are corrected, it is seen that calculus is just a tiny bit harder than learning the 4 operators of math-- add, subtract, multiply, divide. The last two operators of math are derivative and
integral and not much harder to learn than add, subtract, multiply, divide. Provided, Old Math mistakes are corrected and or thrown out. We throw out the Reals as numbers of math and replace them with Decimal Grid Numbers. We throw out all functions of
math, except polynomial functions. Anything else that looks like a function, we have to convert to a polynomial, first, over a interval, and then we can work with it. When we do this, and a little more, we end up with a mathematics and a calculus that is
ultra simple, ultra easy, ultra clear, and fun to work with. But because of the psychology of math professors and the social environment of math careers, we have this ugly mess of math and especially calculus as torture chambers, nightmares and nervous
breakdowns. So horrid has math education become, that most students steer clear of mathematics. When in truth, once the errors of Old Math are fixed, that math is really the easiest of the physical sciences. It is the psychology and sociology that has
made math the worst science and filled with error.


Cover Picture: My cover picture is my iphone photograph of my own handwriting of Decimal Grid Numbers, the numbers that replace the Reals of Old Math, plus the types of polynomials, sitting a-top a sheet of graphing paper. Those three dots after the
numbers and polynomials means they continue and I have room to show only three kinds. Calculus is after all, a science of geometry for derivative is rate of change of dy to dx, and integral is after-all the area under the function graph.


Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0C9P5F755
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ June 27, 2023
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 530 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 ‏ : ‎ 116 pages

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, August 9, 2023 at 1:06:01 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Can_Dr.Patrick D.Gallagher (physics),Dr.Herbert Boyer,Dr.Paul Lauterbur (chem),Dr.Joseph Boudreau--please--step into the University of Pittsburgh 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. Pittsburgh, Dr. Patrick D.Gallagher (physics), Dr.Herbert Boyer,Dr.Paul Lauterbur (chem),Dr.Joseph Boudreau,Dr.Daniel Boyanovsky,Dr.Wolfgang J. Choyke,Dr.Anthony H.Duncan,Dr.Steven A.Dytman,Dr. Eugene Engels,Dr.George G. Gatewood,Dr.Tao Han,Dr.

Allen I.Janis,Dr.David Jasnow, Dr.Rainer Johnsen,Dr.Peter F.M.Koehler, Dr.Arthur Kosowsky,Dr.John Cooper, Dr.Alexander Deiters,Dr. Angela M Gronenborn,Dr.Sethe Horne,Dr. Sunil Saxena,Dr.Peter Wipf

Jeffrey Rubard (pronounced rhubarb) wonders how on Earth the Univ Pittsburgh Thomas Hales can claim to prove Kepler Packing when he never defines "infinity" in his fake proof (see AP's true proof below). But furthermore, Dr.Hales is such a failure of

math that to this very day, he believes a slant cut of right circular cone is a ellipse, when in truth it is a oval, and Mr. Rubard also is complaining of this, for even the High School kids in the Pittsburgh area can take a paper cone (roll up a paper)
and place a coin inside and slant it and see that it is a OVAL, not an ellipse. But the worst failing of Dr. Hales, for which he should have his degree rescinded for wasting all the time of many in mathematics, is that Dr. Hales failed math by never
giving a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, much less a valid proof (See AP's below).

Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
unread,
Aug 8, 2023, 2:15:58 PM (yesterday)



to sci.math
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 1:42:39 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

*Can_Dr.John Goodenough (chem),J.Rubard,Dr.Douglas Abraham, Dr.Prateek Agrawal, Dr.Wade Allison, --please--step into the Oxford Univ 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.

Intellectual Fraud, Simply: "Technically it's quite illegal to include Mr. Rubard in this 'laundry list' of spurious experts... no, at all."
Jeffrey Rubard's profile photo
Jeffrey Rubard
unread,
11:10 AM (3 hours ago)



to sci.math

Wider World: "Yeah, you guys are pretty credulous about this 'snookering' stuff, it's like you're the ones being 'taken in'."

+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

My 3rd published book
AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

#12-2, My 11th published book

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science. Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof.

Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that

most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a
proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.

To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a

FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a
Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all
times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?

Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
My 24th published book

World's First Proof of Kepler Packing Problem KPP // Math proof series, book 3
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

Wider World: "OMFG, f'in Kepler."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Can_Dr.Patrick D.Gallagher (physics),_J.Rhubarb,Dr.Herbert Boyer,Dr.Paul Lauterbur (chem),Dr.Joseph Boudreau--please--step into the University of Pittsburgh 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. Pittsburgh, Dr. Patrick D.Gallagher (physics), Dr.Herbert Boyer,Dr.Paul Lauterbur (chem),Dr.Joseph Boudreau,Dr.Daniel Boyanovsky,Dr.Wolfgang J. Choyke,Dr.Anthony H.Duncan,Dr.Steven A.Dytman,Dr. Eugene Engels,Dr.George G. Gatewood,Dr.Tao Han,Dr.

Allen I.Janis,Dr.David Jasnow, Dr.Rainer Johnsen,Dr.Peter F.M.Koehler, Dr.Arthur Kosowsky,Dr.John Cooper, Dr.Alexander Deiters,Dr. Angela M Gronenborn,Dr.Sethe Horne,Dr. Sunil Saxena,Dr.Peter Wipf

Jeffrey Rubard (pronounced rhubarb) wonders how on Earth the Univ Pittsburgh Thomas Hales can claim to prove Kepler Packing when he never defines "infinity" in his fake proof (see AP's true proof below). But furthermore, Dr.Hales is such a failure of

math that to this very day, he believes a slant cut of right circular cone is a ellipse, when in truth it is a oval, and Mr. Rubard also is complaining of this, for even the High School kids in the Pittsburgh area can take a paper cone (roll up a paper)
and place a coin inside and slant it and see that it is a OVAL, not an ellipse. But the worst failing of Dr. Hales, for which he should have his degree rescinded for wasting all the time of many in mathematics, is that Dr. Hales failed math by never
giving a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, much less a valid proof (See AP's below).

Jeffrey Rubard wrote:
unread,
Aug 8, 2023, 2:15:58 PM (yesterday)



to sci.math
On Monday, August 7, 2023 at 1:42:39 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

*Can_Dr.John Goodenough (chem),J.Rubard,Dr.Douglas Abraham, Dr.Prateek Agrawal, Dr.Wade Allison, --please--step into the Oxford Univ 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.

Intellectual Fraud, Simply: "Technically it's quite illegal to include Mr. Rubard in this 'laundry list' of spurious experts... no, at all."
Jeffrey Rubard's profile photo
Jeffrey Rubard
unread,
11:10 AM (3 hours ago)



to sci.math

Wider World: "Yeah, you guys are pretty credulous about this 'snookering' stuff, it's like you're the ones being 'taken in'."

+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

My 3rd published book
AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

#12-2, My 11th published book

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science. Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof.

Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that

most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a
proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.

To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a

FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a
Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all
times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?

Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
My 24th published book

World's First Proof of Kepler Packing Problem KPP // Math proof series, book 3
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
There has been a alleged proof of KPP by Thomas Hales, but his is a fakery because he does not define what infinity actually means, for it means a borderline between finite and infinite numbers. Thus, KPP was never going to be proven until a well-

defined infinity borderline was addressed within the proof. And because infinity has a borderline means that in free space with no borderlines to tackle and contend with, the 12 kissing point density that is the hexagonal close packed is the maximum
density. But the truth and reality of Kepler Packing is asking for maximum packing out to infinity. That means you have to contend and fight with the packing of identical spheres up against a wall or border. And so, in tackling that wall, we can shift
the hexagonal closed pack to another type of packing, a hybrid type of packing in order to get "maximum packing". So no proof ever of KPP is going to happen unless the proof tackles a infinity border wall. In free-space, a far distance away from a wall
barrier of infinity border, then, hexagonal closed pack reigns and is the packing in all of free space-- but, the moment the packing gets nearby the walls of infinity border, then, we re-arrange the hexagonal closed pack to fit in more spheres. Not
unlike us packing a suitcase and then rearranging to fit in more.

Cover picture: is a container and so the closed packing must be modified once the border is nearly reached to maximize the number of spheres.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07NMV8NQQ
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 20, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1241 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 60 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled


My 245th published book of science.
Overhaul & Revitalization of Calculus// Math-psychology-sociology
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
Preface: The purpose of this book is to move the dial on calculus education to where all of mathematics is easy, simple, clear, and understandable to even High School students. Where calculus is taught in early High School. All of this is possible when

mistakes are corrected in Old Math. And when those mistakes are corrected, it is seen that calculus is just a tiny bit harder than learning the 4 operators of math-- add, subtract, multiply, divide. The last two operators of math are derivative and
integral and not much harder to learn than add, subtract, multiply, divide. Provided, Old Math mistakes are corrected and or thrown out. We throw out the Reals as numbers of math and replace them with Decimal Grid Numbers. We throw out all functions of
math, except polynomial functions. Anything else that looks like a function, we have to convert to a polynomial, first, over a interval, and then we can work with it. When we do this, and a little more, we end up with a mathematics and a calculus that is
ultra simple, ultra easy, ultra clear, and fun to work with. But because of the psychology of math professors and the social environment of math careers, we have this ugly mess of math and especially calculus as torture chambers, nightmares and nervous
breakdowns. So horrid has math education become, that most students steer clear of mathematics. When in truth, once the errors of Old Math are fixed, that math is really the easiest of the physical sciences. It is the psychology and sociology that has
made math the worst science and filled with error.

Cover Picture: My cover picture is my iphone photograph of my own handwriting of Decimal Grid Numbers, the numbers that replace the Reals of Old Math, plus the types of polynomials, sitting a-top a sheet of graphing paper. Those three dots after the

numbers and polynomials means they continue and I have room to show only three kinds. Calculus is after all, a science of geometry for derivative is rate of change of dy to dx, and integral is after-all the area under the function graph.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0C9P5F755
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ June 27, 2023
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 530 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 ‏ : ‎ 116 pages

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 10:10:43 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Can_Dr.Patrick D.Gallagher (physics),_J.Rhubarb,Dr.Herbert Boyer,Dr.Paul Lauterbur (chem),Dr.Joseph Boudreau--please--step into the University of Pittsburgh 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.

Wider World: "I see what you're doing here, but perhaps this has become just too repetitive? Even in this most recent 'posting marathon'?"

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 9:14:23 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 10:10:43 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Can_Dr.Patrick D.Gallagher (physics),_J.Rhubarb,Dr.Herbert Boyer,Dr.Paul Lauterbur (chem),Dr.Joseph Boudreau--please--step into the University of Pittsburgh 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.

Wider World: "I see what you're doing here, but perhaps this has become just too repetitive? Even in this most recent 'posting marathon'?"

Wider World: "Also, misspelling his name as 'Rhubarb' is really transparent, like, I'd do that too, but it's not that clever..."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 1:57:33 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 9:14:23 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 10:10:43 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Can_Dr.Patrick D.Gallagher (physics),_J.Rhubarb,Dr.Herbert Boyer,Dr.Paul Lauterbur (chem),Dr.Joseph Boudreau--please--step into the University of Pittsburgh 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.

Wider World: "I see what you're doing here, but perhaps this has become just too repetitive? Even in this most recent 'posting marathon'?"

Wider World: "Also, misspelling his name as 'Rhubarb' is really transparent, like, I'd do that too, but it's not that clever..."

"No, it really is. You think your 'can't-miss' routines are a lot, lot more to the point than they are..."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 11:43:00 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 1:57:33 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 9:14:23 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 10:10:43 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Can_Dr.Patrick D.Gallagher (physics),_J.Rhubarb,Dr.Herbert Boyer,Dr.Paul Lauterbur (chem),Dr.Joseph Boudreau--please--step into the University of Pittsburgh 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.

Wider World: "I see what you're doing here, but perhaps this has become just too repetitive? Even in this most recent 'posting marathon'?"

Wider World: "Also, misspelling his name as 'Rhubarb' is really transparent, like, I'd do that too, but it's not that clever..."

"No, it really is. You think your 'can't-miss' routines are a lot, lot more to the point than they are..."

Wider World: Yeah, I've seen many of these 'joke bits' *decades in the past*, guys. It's not 'all new to me'.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 8:40:31 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 11:43:00 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 1:57:33 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 9:14:23 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 10:10:43 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Can_Dr.Patrick D.Gallagher (physics),_J.Rhubarb,Dr.Herbert Boyer,Dr.Paul Lauterbur (chem),Dr.Joseph Boudreau--please--step into the University of Pittsburgh 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.

Wider World: "I see what you're doing here, but perhaps this has become just too repetitive? Even in this most recent 'posting marathon'?"

Wider World: "Also, misspelling his name as 'Rhubarb' is really transparent, like, I'd do that too, but it's not that clever..."

"No, it really is. You think your 'can't-miss' routines are a lot, lot more to the point than they are..."

Wider World: Yeah, I've seen many of these 'joke bits' *decades in the past*, guys. It's not 'all new to me'.

No, it really isn't.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 8:36:26 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 8:40:31 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 11:43:00 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 1:57:33 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 9:14:23 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 10:10:43 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Can_Dr.Patrick D.Gallagher (physics),_J.Rhubarb,Dr.Herbert Boyer,Dr.Paul Lauterbur (chem),Dr.Joseph Boudreau--please--step into the University of Pittsburgh 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.

Wider World: "I see what you're doing here, but perhaps this has become just too repetitive? Even in this most recent 'posting marathon'?"

Wider World: "Also, misspelling his name as 'Rhubarb' is really transparent, like, I'd do that too, but it's not that clever..."

"No, it really is. You think your 'can't-miss' routines are a lot, lot more to the point than they are..."

Wider World: Yeah, I've seen many of these 'joke bits' *decades in the past*, guys. It's not 'all new to me'.

No, it really isn't.

...and they attribute 'magic powers' to their rhetorics that one oneself could really, really 'leave out of the equation'.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 8:33:52 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 8:36:26 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 8:40:31 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 11:43:00 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 1:57:33 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 9:14:23 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 10:10:43 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Can_Dr.Patrick D.Gallagher (physics),_J.Rhubarb,Dr.Herbert Boyer,Dr.Paul Lauterbur (chem),Dr.Joseph Boudreau--please--step into the University of Pittsburgh 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.

Wider World: "I see what you're doing here, but perhaps this has become just too repetitive? Even in this most recent 'posting marathon'?"

Wider World: "Also, misspelling his name as 'Rhubarb' is really transparent, like, I'd do that too, but it's not that clever..."

"No, it really is. You think your 'can't-miss' routines are a lot, lot more to the point than they are..."

Wider World: Yeah, I've seen many of these 'joke bits' *decades in the past*, guys. It's not 'all new to me'.

No, it really isn't.

...and they attribute 'magic powers' to their rhetorics that one oneself could really, really 'leave out of the equation'.

"There is only fooling, and fooling always works." Most of us don't think so.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 8:28:59 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 8:33:52 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 8:36:26 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 8:40:31 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 11:43:00 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 1:57:33 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 9:14:23 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 10:10:43 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Can_Dr.Patrick D.Gallagher (physics),_J.Rhubarb,Dr.Herbert Boyer,Dr.Paul Lauterbur (chem),Dr.Joseph Boudreau--please--step into the University of Pittsburgh 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.

Wider World: "I see what you're doing here, but perhaps this has become just too repetitive? Even in this most recent 'posting marathon'?"

Wider World: "Also, misspelling his name as 'Rhubarb' is really transparent, like, I'd do that too, but it's not that clever..."

"No, it really is. You think your 'can't-miss' routines are a lot, lot more to the point than they are..."

Wider World: Yeah, I've seen many of these 'joke bits' *decades in the past*, guys. It's not 'all new to me'.

No, it really isn't.

...and they attribute 'magic powers' to their rhetorics that one oneself could really, really 'leave out of the equation'.

"There is only fooling, and fooling always works." Most of us don't think so.

(People who could not see another side to *On the Genealogy of Morality*, etc.)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 10:52:25 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 8:28:59 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 8:33:52 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 8:36:26 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 8:40:31 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 11:43:00 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 1:57:33 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 9:14:23 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 10:10:43 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Can_Dr.Patrick D.Gallagher (physics),_J.Rhubarb,Dr.Herbert Boyer,Dr.Paul Lauterbur (chem),Dr.Joseph Boudreau--please--step into the University of Pittsburgh 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.

Wider World: "I see what you're doing here, but perhaps this has become just too repetitive? Even in this most recent 'posting marathon'?"

Wider World: "Also, misspelling his name as 'Rhubarb' is really transparent, like, I'd do that too, but it's not that clever..."

"No, it really is. You think your 'can't-miss' routines are a lot, lot more to the point than they are..."

Wider World: Yeah, I've seen many of these 'joke bits' *decades in the past*, guys. It's not 'all new to me'.

No, it really isn't.

...and they attribute 'magic powers' to their rhetorics that one oneself could really, really 'leave out of the equation'.

"There is only fooling, and fooling always works." Most of us don't think so.

(People who could not see another side to *On the Genealogy of Morality*, etc.)

Please don't 'sign my name' to stuff, etc.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 3:30:03 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 10:52:25 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 8:28:59 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 8:33:52 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 8:36:26 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 8:40:31 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 11:43:00 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 1:57:33 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 9:14:23 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 10:10:43 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Can_Dr.Patrick D.Gallagher (physics),_J.Rhubarb,Dr.Herbert Boyer,Dr.Paul Lauterbur (chem),Dr.Joseph Boudreau--please--step into the University of Pittsburgh 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.

Wider World: "I see what you're doing here, but perhaps this has become just too repetitive? Even in this most recent 'posting marathon'?"

Wider World: "Also, misspelling his name as 'Rhubarb' is really transparent, like, I'd do that too, but it's not that clever..."

"No, it really is. You think your 'can't-miss' routines are a lot, lot more to the point than they are..."

Wider World: Yeah, I've seen many of these 'joke bits' *decades in the past*, guys. It's not 'all new to me'.

No, it really isn't.

...and they attribute 'magic powers' to their rhetorics that one oneself could really, really 'leave out of the equation'.

"There is only fooling, and fooling always works." Most of us don't think so.

(People who could not see another side to *On the Genealogy of Morality*, etc.)

Please don't 'sign my name' to stuff, etc.

"Pretty please?"
It's more or less legally required, thanks.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 8:24:11 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 3:30:03 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 10:52:25 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 8:28:59 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 8:33:52 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 8:36:26 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 8:40:31 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 11:43:00 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 1:57:33 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 9:14:23 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 10:10:43 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Can_Dr.Patrick D.Gallagher (physics),_J.Rhubarb,Dr.Herbert Boyer,Dr.Paul Lauterbur (chem),Dr.Joseph Boudreau--please--step into the University of Pittsburgh 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.

Wider World: "I see what you're doing here, but perhaps this has become just too repetitive? Even in this most recent 'posting marathon'?"

Wider World: "Also, misspelling his name as 'Rhubarb' is really transparent, like, I'd do that too, but it's not that clever..."

"No, it really is. You think your 'can't-miss' routines are a lot, lot more to the point than they are..."

Wider World: Yeah, I've seen many of these 'joke bits' *decades in the past*, guys. It's not 'all new to me'.

No, it really isn't.

...and they attribute 'magic powers' to their rhetorics that one oneself could really, really 'leave out of the equation'.

"There is only fooling, and fooling always works." Most of us don't think so.

(People who could not see another side to *On the Genealogy of Morality*, etc.)

Please don't 'sign my name' to stuff, etc.

"Pretty please?"
It's more or less legally required, thanks.

No, 'forgery is not a thing', really.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 8:30:46 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 8:24:11 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 3:30:03 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 10:52:25 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 8:28:59 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 8:33:52 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 8:36:26 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 8:40:31 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 11:43:00 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 1:57:33 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 9:14:23 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 10:10:43 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Can_Dr.Patrick D.Gallagher (physics),_J.Rhubarb,Dr.Herbert Boyer,Dr.Paul Lauterbur (chem),Dr.Joseph Boudreau--please--step into the University of Pittsburgh 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.

Wider World: "I see what you're doing here, but perhaps this has become just too repetitive? Even in this most recent 'posting marathon'?"

Wider World: "Also, misspelling his name as 'Rhubarb' is really transparent, like, I'd do that too, but it's not that clever..."

"No, it really is. You think your 'can't-miss' routines are a lot, lot more to the point than they are..."

Wider World: Yeah, I've seen many of these 'joke bits' *decades in the past*, guys. It's not 'all new to me'.

No, it really isn't.

...and they attribute 'magic powers' to their rhetorics that one oneself could really, really 'leave out of the equation'.

"There is only fooling, and fooling always works." Most of us don't think so.

(People who could not see another side to *On the Genealogy of Morality*, etc.)

Please don't 'sign my name' to stuff, etc.

"Pretty please?"
It's more or less legally required, thanks.

No, 'forgery is not a thing', really.

"What is it, then?"
A 'runabout inference ticket' for you to continually be becoming more expansive in thought and action, unfortunately.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 3:09:58 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 8:30:46 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 8:24:11 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 3:30:03 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 10:52:25 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 8:28:59 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 8:33:52 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 8:36:26 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 8:40:31 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 11:43:00 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 1:57:33 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 9:14:23 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 10:10:43 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Can_Dr.Patrick D.Gallagher (physics),_J.Rhubarb,Dr.Herbert Boyer,Dr.Paul Lauterbur (chem),Dr.Joseph Boudreau--please--step into the University of Pittsburgh 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.

Wider World: "I see what you're doing here, but perhaps this has become just too repetitive? Even in this most recent 'posting marathon'?"

Wider World: "Also, misspelling his name as 'Rhubarb' is really transparent, like, I'd do that too, but it's not that clever..."

"No, it really is. You think your 'can't-miss' routines are a lot, lot more to the point than they are..."

Wider World: Yeah, I've seen many of these 'joke bits' *decades in the past*, guys. It's not 'all new to me'.

No, it really isn't.

...and they attribute 'magic powers' to their rhetorics that one oneself could really, really 'leave out of the equation'.

"There is only fooling, and fooling always works." Most of us don't think so.

(People who could not see another side to *On the Genealogy of Morality*, etc.)

Please don't 'sign my name' to stuff, etc.

"Pretty please?"
It's more or less legally required, thanks.

No, 'forgery is not a thing', really.

"What is it, then?"
A 'runabout inference ticket' for you to continually be becoming more expansive in thought and action, unfortunately.

"That's a pretty speculative theory of what that is."
Maybe really true. But about "speculation" in general...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 1:26:08 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 3:09:58 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 8:30:46 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 8:24:11 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 3:30:03 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 10:52:25 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 8:28:59 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 8:33:52 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023 at 8:36:26 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 8:40:31 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 11:43:00 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Sunday, September 3, 2023 at 1:57:33 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 9:14:23 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote:

On Thursday, August 10, 2023 at 10:10:43 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Can_Dr.Patrick D.Gallagher (physics),_J.Rhubarb,Dr.Herbert Boyer,Dr.Paul Lauterbur (chem),Dr.Joseph Boudreau--please--step into the University of Pittsburgh 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.

Wider World: "I see what you're doing here, but perhaps this has become just too repetitive? Even in this most recent 'posting marathon'?"

Wider World: "Also, misspelling his name as 'Rhubarb' is really transparent, like, I'd do that too, but it's not that clever..."

"No, it really is. You think your 'can't-miss' routines are a lot, lot more to the point than they are..."

Wider World: Yeah, I've seen many of these 'joke bits' *decades in the past*, guys. It's not 'all new to me'.

No, it really isn't.

...and they attribute 'magic powers' to their rhetorics that one oneself could really, really 'leave out of the equation'.

"There is only fooling, and fooling always works." Most of us don't think so.

(People who could not see another side to *On the Genealogy of Morality*, etc.)

Please don't 'sign my name' to stuff, etc.

"Pretty please?"
It's more or less legally required, thanks.

No, 'forgery is not a thing', really.

"What is it, then?"
A 'runabout inference ticket' for you to continually be becoming more expansive in thought and action, unfortunately.

"That's a pretty speculative theory of what that is."
Maybe really true. But about "speculation" in general...

"Like my 'bright ideas' are not really so bright, keep that line of thinking going..."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)