Arindam Banerjee asks Mehta B.R. , Mehta D.S.,Narendra Modi if the 2nd derivative in Feynman's Electric field equation E = (q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')] if that 2nd derivative is the same as C' in
Arindam Banerjee parked in sci.physics going on what 20 years of nonstop spamming nonsense-- moon walk was a staged hoax in Arizona desert-- Earth and Sun centers are a frigid near 0 Kelvin temperature.. Yet the insane AB cannot even understand the
Feynman equation above.. AB, you said it yourself-- you are the next Newton, well, the next Newton could understand Feynman's above equation, but not AB. Are you late for your next shrink visit??? Rather than more of your stupid silly daily spam.
Indian Institute of Technology
Physics dept. Anurag Sharma, Babu Sujin B, Banerjee Varsha, Bhattacharya Saswata, Bhatnagar M.C. , Chatterjee R., Chaudhary Sujeet, Das Pintu, Dhaka Rajendra S., Ghosh Joyee, Ghosh Pradipta, Ghosh Sankalpa, Ghosh Santanu, Joseph Joby, Kanseri Bhaskar,
Kedar B Khare, Khare Neeraj, Kumar Sunil, Malik H.K., Mani Brajesh Kumar, Marathe Rahul, Mehta B.R. , Mehta D.S. , Mishra Amruta, Muduli P.K., Ravishankar V. , Reddy G.B. , Saxena Vikrant, Sengupta Amartya, Senthilkumaran P. ,Shenoy M.R. , Shukla A.K.,
Singh J.P., Singh Rajendra, Sinha Aloka, Soni Ravi Kant, Srivastava Pankaj, Varshney R.K., Vijaya Prakash G.
Narendra Modi, Indian Prime Minister
Dharmendra Pradhan Minister of Education
WM-Feldhase asks Metin Tolan, Annalena Baerbock,Olaf Scholz if the 2nd derivative in Feynman's Electric field equation E = (q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')] if that 2nd derivative is the same as C' in
Asking Harry Cliff, Roger Penrose, David Sainsbury if the 2nd derivative in Feynman's Electric field equation E = (q/4*pi*e_0) [ (e_r)'/(r'^2) + (r'/c)(d/dt)(e_r'/r'^2) + (1/c^2)((d^2/dt^2)(e_r')] if that 2nd derivative is the same as C' in AP's EM
equations (modern day replacement of Maxwell Equations) E' = V'CB/(CB)^2 - VC'B/(CB)^2 - VCB'/(CB)^2 = V'/CB - VC'/C^2B - VB'/CB^2. Now in the Schrodinger equation we also run into a 2nd derivative but there are only 1st derivatives in AP's EM equations.
So we have to ask if the C' is a 2nd derivative.
Kibo Parry M asks Univ Dayton Todd B Smith, J. Michael O'Hare which of the terms of the AP-EM Equations contains the Schrodinger Equation, is it in the Electric field derivative E' = (V/(CB))'
3m views
AP now thinks the second term - VC'B/(CB)^2 is the Schrodinger Equation in EM theory, would you agree?
Kibo Parry M asking Vincent Meunier, Donald Schwendeman which of the terms of the AP-EM Equations contains the Schrodinger Equation, is it in the Electric field derivative E' = (V/(CB))'
CHEM ONE authors gives us a clue in their Schrodinger formula of E_n = - (2*pi^2*m*Z^2*e^4) / (n^2*h^2* alpha^2) with a footnote: alpha = 1.113*10^-10 C^2J^-1 m^-1 which is Coulomb force.
On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon. Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.
Force of gravity = G*(m_1*m_2)/ distance^2 (Newton's law by 1687)
Force of electrostatics = C(q_1*q_2)/ distance^2 (Coulomb law by 1785)
So let us state the Coulomb-gravity law of Physics. From one of the permutations of V= CBE we have E = (V/(CB)) and when we differentiate that by the calculus we have E' = (V/(CB))'. Now we use the quotient rule of calculus, which is (f/gh)' = (f'gh - fg'
h - fgh')/(gh)^2 and as we reduce that we get 3 terms of f'/gh -fg'/g^2h - fh'/gh^2. And using the quotient rule renders (V/(CB))' as that of V'/CB - VC'/C^2B - VB'/CB^2.
E' = (V/(CB))' = V'CB/(CB)^2 - VC'B/(CB)^2 - VCB'/(CB)^2 = V'/CB - VC'/C^2B - VB'/CB^2.
Harry, which term looks like the CHEM ONE equation--E_n = - (2*pi^2*m*Z^2*e^4) / (n^2*h^2* alpha^2)
So our Coulomb-gravity law has 3 terms and we can break down each of those 3 terms into statements.
So which of the AP-EM Equations is the Schrodinger Equation as given by CHEM ONE.
And I easily flip open some pages in CHEM ONE, 2nd edition, 1980 Waser, Trueblood, Knobler to page 311 for a sample of the Schrodinger equation as given by E_n = - (2*pi^2*m*Z^2*e^4) / (n^2*h^2* alpha^2).
This is the question before me. Which term in which equation of the AP-EM laws is the Schrodinger Equation?
Those 6 laws are these.
1) Magnetic monopole telling us what magnetism and electric current and magnetic field and electric field are.
2) New Ohm's law Voltage = capacitor-battery = quantity of current C times magnetic field times electric field. V= CBE. The equation of New Ohm's law is a math equation of volume Volume = length x width x height so we can expect that New Ohm's law is a
measuring of volume in physics, volume of energy.
The next 4 laws are derivatives of all the possible 4 permutations of C, B, E, and V.
3) Rate of change of C, quantity current, C' = (V/(BE))' Faraday law.
4) Rate of change of B, magnetic field, B' = (V/(CE))' Ampere-Maxwell law.
5) Rate of change of E, electric field, E' = (V/(CB))' Coulomb law & gravity.
6) The rate of change of V= CBE as V' = (CBE)' as AC transformer law.
C' = (V/(BE))' = V'BE/(BE)^2 - VB'E/(BE)^2 - VBE'/(BE)^2 which is Faraday's law.
1st term as current production -- 2nd term as Lenz law -- 3rd term as DC, AC direction
B' = (V/(CE))' = V'CE/(CE)^2 - VC'E/(CE)^2 - VCE')/(CE)^2 which is Ampere-Maxwell law.
1st term as B production -- 2nd term as Displacement current -- 3rd term as parallel attract
E' = (V/(CB))' = V'CB/(CB)^2 - VC'B/(CB)^2 - VCB'/(CB)^2 which is Coulomb-gravity law.
1st term as E production -- 2nd term as inverse square of distance -- 3rd term as spin and orbit synchronicity
V' = (CBE)' = C'BE + CB'E + CBE' which is Transformer law
1st term as V production in a transformer -- 2nd term as inverse square root -- 3rd term as DC, AC synchronicity
Review all of this, the EM equations of physics and mathematics.
Faraday Law is (V/(B*L))' = i' from the AP-Maxwell Equations you learned in 1st year College.
1) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /A*s^2
2) V = i*B*L New Ohm's law, law of electricity
3) V' = (i*B*L)' Capacitor Law of Physics
4) (V/i*L)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
5) (V/(B*L))' = i' Faraday law
6) (V/(i*B))' = L' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
PHYSICS LAWS
1) all the facts of chemistry and physics
2) Voltage V = kg*m^2/A*s^3
3) Current i = A = magnetic monopoles
4) Magnetic primal unit law Magnetic Field B = kg /A*s^2
5) angular momentum L = m^2/(A*s)
6) V = i*B*L New Ohm's law, law of electricity
7) V' = (i*B*L)' Capacitor Law of Physics
8) (V/i*L)' = B' Ampere-Maxwell law
9) (V/(B*L))' = i' Faraday law
10) (V/(i*B))' = L' the new law of Coulomb force with EM gravity force
Algebra of 3D Calculus, for remember we did the algebra of
V' = (iBL)'
i' = (V/BL)'
B' = (V/iL)'
L' = (V/iB)'
--- quoting 1st year calculus from Teaching True ---
Using the Product Rule which is (fgh)' = (f'gh + fg'h + fgh')
Capacitor Law (i*B*L)' = i'*B*L + i*B'L + i*B*L'
V' = (iBL)' = i'*B*L + i*B'*L + i*B*L' here we have three terms explaining capacitors
Ampere-Maxwell Law
Using the Quotient Rule, which is (f/gh)' = (f'gh - fg'h - fgh')/(gh)^2
(V/i*L)' = B' = (V'*i*L - V*i' *L - V*i*L') / (i*L)^2
Maxwell had two terms in the Ampere-Maxwell law-- the produced magnetic field and a displacement current, but above we see we have also a third new term.
Faraday Law
(V/B*L)' = i' = (V'*B*L - V*B' *L - V*B*L') / (B*L)^2
------------
V' = (iBL)' = i'*B*L + i*B'*L + i*B*L' reduces to
= iBL + iVL + iBL'
i' = V'*B*L/ (B*L)^2 - V*B' *L/ (B*L)^2 - V*B*L' / (B*L)^2 reduces to
i' = B^2*L/ (B*L)^2 - V^2 *L/ (B*L)^2 - V*B*L' / (B*L)^2 further reduces
= 1/L - V^2/B^2*L - VL'/BL^2
B' = V'*i*L/ (i*L)^2 - V*i' *L/ (i*L)^2 - V*i*L' / (i*L)^2 reduces to
B' = B*i*L/ (i*L)^2 - V*i *L/ (i*L)^2 - V*i*L' / (i*L)^2 further reduces to = B/iL - V/iL - VL'/iL^2
L' = (V/i*B)' = (V'*i*B - V*i' *B - V*i*B') / (i*B)^2 reduces to
L' = i*B^2 / (i*B)^2 - V*i *B / (i*B)^2 - V^2*i / (i*B)^2 further reduces to = 1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2
--------
(1) V' = iBL + iVL + iBL'
(2) i' = 1/L - V^2/B^2*L - VL'/BL^2
(3) B' = B/iL - V/iL - VL'/iL^2
(4) L' = 1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2
Alright, so I replace L' in (1) with 1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2
I get V' = iBL + iVL + iB*(1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2 )
= iBL + iVL + B - V - V^2/ B
Doing the replacement in (2)
i' = 1/L - V^2/B^2*L - VL'/BL^2
= 1/L - V^2/B^2*L - V*(1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2) /BL^2
= 1/L - V^2/B^2*L - (V/iBL^2) - (V^2/iB^2L^2) - (V^3/(iB^3L^2))
Doing the replacement in (3)
B' = B/iL - V/iL - VL'/iL^2
= B/iL - V/iL - V(1/i - V/iB - V^2/iB^2)/iL^2
= B/iL - V/iL - (V/i^2L^2) - (V^2/i^2*B*L^2) - (V^3/( i^2B^2L^2))
Is there any geometrical significance I can ascribe to this? There are some cubes involved.
Cambridge, you no longer are a premiere University but a school that fosters and shelters losers of logical reasoning.
Cambridge failures of physics who cannot even ask the question which is the atom's true real electron-- the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton or the 0.5MeV particle that AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole. Harry Cliff, AP requires that Harry
Cliff LHCb physicist to publish in the Cambridge Univ student newspaper of how sorry he is and apologizes for his physics stupidity of thinking that a hydrogen atom is composed of a electron of 0.5MeV flying around outside of a proton of 938MeV, flying
around at 99% speed of light and still holding up and holding together as a hydrogen atom. Such stupid physics.
Whereas the truth be known the real electron of a hydrogen atom is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus of 8 rings, where the muon and proton are doing the Faraday Law of producing more new electricity and storaging that electricity in
what are known as neutrons. Because the muon is inside the proton it can fly around the torus inside at nearly the speed of light.
Old Physics which Harry Cliff is a member, never took Logic, never learned how to think straight, think clear, and thus his physics knowledge is just hand down memorization. So stupid he never understood what the hell is angular momentum for no
hydrogen atom can exist with a 0.5MeV particle flying around at 99% speed of light and stay put on a proton of 938MeV.
AP says the 0.5MeV particle is Dirac's Magnetic Monopole. Now Dirac was a real physicist, but not Harry Cliff and everyone at CERN with their electron = 0.5MeV are fools of physics
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe Archimedes Plutonium
Kibo Parry M says keep NSF Dr.Panchanathan instead of throwing him out like a piece of garbage but use his skill set of computers to remove errors in all E books across the world. Starting with ellipse a conic when it never was..
Kibo Parry M says keep NSF Dr.Panchanathan instead of throwing him out like a piece of garbage but use his skill set of computers to remove errors in all E books across the world.
On Tuesday, June 28, 2022 at 11:36:37 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
"not one single marble of commonsense in my entire brain"
"imp of physics"
tarded:
Kibo Parry M opines use NSF Dr.Panchanathan rather than replace him. Use his skill set of computers to electronically replace all E-books in all libraries, especially Colleges and Universities and High School libraries, where they have ellipse is a conic,
replace it with Oval is the slant cut in cone.
And use that skill set to replace Boole Logic of AND truth table is TTTF not the horribly wrong TFFF which leads to the God Awful mistake of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction that colleges and universities now teach.
And have Dr. Panchanathan's skill set in computers slip into the E-Books in all libraries around the world that of AP's geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
And finally slip into all physics and chemistry books, E books across the world, the question-- which is the atom's true electron-- the muon or the 0.5MeV particle.
Why fire and replace Dr. Panchanathan, when it is far better to use his skill set of replacing the junk and anti-science and errors by computer manipulation.
AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into
the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
Product details
• ASIN : B07PLSDQWC
• Publication date : March 11, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 1621 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 20 pages
• Lending : Enabled
•
•
Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 14May2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than
struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a
scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
In the course of 2019 through 2022, I have had to explain this proof often on Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics. And one thing that constant explaining does for a mind of science, is reduce the proof to its stripped down minimum format, to bare bones
skeleton proof. I can prove the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse in just a one sentence proof. Proof-- A single cone and oval have just one axis of symmetry, while a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, hence slant cut is always a
oval, never the ellipse.
Product details
• ASIN : B081TWQ1G6
• Publication date : November 21, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 827 KB
• Simultaneous device usage : Unlimited
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 51 pages
• Lending : Enabled
#11-2, 11th published book
World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science. Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not
being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most
math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof.
Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.
To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC
geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry
proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow
us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1309 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 154 pages
Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)