I do this book as a instruction guide and aid to advanced research, whether physics, chemistry, biology or what ever science.

I notice a huge huge pattern of error in science research. Other than a lack of logic in the steps taken and the construction of the experiment. But the worst mistake happens near the end or at the end of the experiment. When it is time to interpret the
experiment and its result.

Everything in the Rutherford-Geiger-Marsden and then Bohr; gold leaf experiment of early 1900s was fine and dandy, except for the last bit-- their interpretation. And all 4 fell victims of silly interpretation. A model of protons and neutrons as tiny
spheres clustered in a nucleus rather sedentary as a incoming alpha particle hits this nucleus. Yet bounces back at 180 degrees, ... fine so far..., but has a greater velocity on exit than the alpha particle had on entrance.

This can only be interpreted as that the Atoms of gold have No Nucleus, but has something in rapid constant motion like a chain of 79 muons in a 79X 840 winding Gold Proton torus. Going round and round the proton torus in a Faraday law. Thus when the
incoming alpha particle slams head-on into a chain of 79 Muons inside the Proton torus, it is ejected 180 degrees with a faster velocity.

If anyone does not believe me-- try this::

AP's favorite argument against the Rutherford-Bohr Model of atomic nucleus, is the argument where a car collides head-on with a truck, and note what happens.

Before collision
Car Truck
1000 3000 mass
20 -20 speed
20000 -60000 momentum

After collision
1000 3000 mass
-40 0 speed
-40000 0 momentum

AP

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

Spelling Chronicling.

Honestly I do not know what year in physics history was it possible to weigh the hydrogen compared to oxygen in Electrolysis. I doubt the equipment in the 1800s could do that weighing. Sometime in the 1900s would it be possible to engineer electrolysis
to the point where you can get a pure bifurcation of a hydrogen test tube compared to a oxygen test tube and have a weighing scale delicate enough to weigh the hydrogen versus oxygen.

If AP is correct, hydrogen is 1/4 the weight of oxygen in Water and thus the true formula is H4O. If it comes back as 1/8 the weight of oxygen, then mainstream physics and chemistry is correct.

What this book is about, is the psychology of experimental science and the lack of logical reasoning. That the conclusions drawn by scientists from experiment results are often shoddy and sloppy. That the weighing probably could have been done by 1930,
yet here it is 2023 and still no-one attempting to weigh the electrolysis.

The psychology of seeing volume of hydrogen twice that of oxygen and everyone thinking the experiment is done and go home.

How can we compare that with daily life? Is it like going to the beach and never getting in the water? Is it like going to school and sleeping the whole time? Is it like going shopping, yet never buying anything, wasting a day. A feeling of doing
something, but never finishing it. Like making a painting 3/4 done and never finishing it.

In the case of Rutherford-Bohr model of a Atom with a nucleus, what is the psychology of sloppiness there? Of course, not noticing that the velocity was greater on exit than entrance. And one has to wonder why that fact never slipped into the minds of
Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden, Bohr after 1909. For I find myself constantly in contemplation of past ideas and works I have done. Surely, it should have impinged on the minds of Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden, Bohr on occasion, that the exit speed was
greater than entrance for the alpha particles to bounce back at 180 degrees. And then the mind would have raised doubt that the Atom has a nucleus, but rather hit something head-on going in the opposite direction.

For the psychology of my work-- it is constantly active, and reflection back, and was the conclusion correct?

Apparently interpretation and conclusions in science is one of the most difficult steps in a science experiment. And sadly can lead to a failed experiment, all the hard work going in to engineer the set-up, and make the wrong interpretation and
conclusion, and someone else in the world gets all the credit for the correct interpretation. Take AP for example, when water comes back as having formula H4O, not H2O, that AP will be credited, and everyone of the past with their H2O made outcasts. Or
that Rutherford-Bohr model seen as silly with a big mistake, yet the experiment itself was done correctly-- just the interpretation was all wrong.

And of course we can jump forward to modern times with these big accelerators and new fangled particles here there and everywhere. Yes, they found a new particle, but their intrepretation of what they found is nothing but silly garbage.

AP

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

How were atoms pictured in Ancient Greek Times? And to think, Dr.Feynman would have no improvement.

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