AP's 257th book of science// Chronicling the two most sloppy famous Physics-Chemistry Experiments and the sloppy diagram pictures of Atoms-- Electrolysis of Water & Rutherford-Bohr nucleus

The two sloppiest Famous Science Experiments in Recorded History, AP's 257th book of science
4 views
Subscribe

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
2:48 PM (2 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
The first sloppiest Science Experiment in Science History is Water Electrolysis.

The second sloppiest Science Experiment is Rutherford-Bohr-Geiger-Marsden gold foil experiment where they end up concluding atoms have nuclei.

One of the most sloppiest physical science experiments in recorded history. It was started by Humphry Davy in 1806 in England, the electrolysis of water. Not the experiment of splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen, but the sloppiness of where no-one
bothered to weigh the hydrogen and oxygen to see if water is H4O or is H2O.

Of course, well Davy and his pupil Faraday probably could never measure the weight of hydrogen to oxygen. But sometime in the 20th century, we had precision instruments to weigh the hydrogen test tube versus oxygen test tube. But no physicist or chemist
had enough brain marbles to do that.

No, these half marbled scientists looked at the hydrogen test tube and said " behold us, thy tube is twice the volume of the oxygen tube" and stopped all further experimentation.

Not a single physicist or chemist had enough of a marbled brain case to ask, well, let us measure the weight of the test tubes, and in atomic mass units amu, if the hydrogen in the hydrogen test tube is 1/4 the weight of the oxygen in the oxygen test
tube, then AP is correct, Water formula is really H4O. But if the hydrogen is 1/8 the mass in amu of the oxygen then mainstream physics and chemistry is correct, water is H2O.

So, well, does Dr. Nigel Lockyer or Dr. Lia Merminga or Sanford Lab have a 1/2 marbled brain case or do they have more marbles to complete and fulfill a thorough investigation of Water, and its true formula.

AP, King of Science

The two sloppiest Famous Science Experiments in Recorded History, AP's 257th book of science
Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium....@gmail.com>
3:02 PM (2 hours ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
The second sloppiest experiment that is famous is the Rutherford-Bohr-Geiger-Marsden gold foil experiment where they concluded Atoms have a dense solid nucleus. When they should have focused attention on the fact that the bounce back alpha particles at
180 degrees had more velocity coming out than going in. This means a Head-On Collision with something more massive and moving at a far faster speed than the alpha particle. This means atoms have no nucleus but a chain of muons thrusting through a proton
torus.

Fools are today's current physicists, with their balls of subatomic particle clumped in a nucleus, started by the Rutherford gold leaf experiment. But Rutherford and Bohr were absent minded on interpretation of gold leaf experiment for a alpha particle
that bounces back at 180degrees with a faster exit speed than entrance speed, is because the alpha particle hit Head-On collision with a chain of 79 gold atom muons doing the Faraday law inside a 79x840 windings of a gold proton torus. Bohr and
Rutherford became absent minded about physics-- not realizing that a bounce back with faster speed out meant the collision was not a sedentary nucleus of large mass, but becuase 79 muons rammed head-on into the incoming alpha particle.


Physics 7 fools of Standard Model of Physics-Pallab Ghosh,Dr.Sheldon Glashow,Dr.Peter Higgs,Dr.Ed Witten,Dr.Mitesh Patel, Dr.Brendan Casey,Prof Graziano Venanzoni.

Fools cannot understand that in Rutherford gold foil experiment when the alpha particle bounces back at greater velocity then what it entered the gold atom.

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

So in the Rutherford experiment of 1909, if they had noted the faster speed, they could have decided that the correct interpretation was some alpha particles collided with a more massive object like the 79 Muons inside of a 79 Proton torus for each gold
atom. A alpha particle that hits 79 muons head on going in the opposite direction would eject the alpha particle at 180 degrees back to the source with increased velocity of the alpha particle.



Fermilab & brainwashed fools, Dr.Mitesh Patel, Dr.Brendan Casey,Prof Graziano Venanzoni, too brainwashed to see muon is true electron of atoms stuck inside 840MeV Proton torus doing Faraday law, and the reason for its excess wobble.


Fermilab & brainwashed fools, Dr.Mitesh Patel, Dr.Brendan Casey,Prof Graziano Venanzoni, too brainwashed to see muon is true electron of atoms stuck inside 840MeV Proton torus doing Faraday law, and the reason for its excess wobble.

Physicists of today are too stupid to do physics. They cannot see that 105MeV X 9 is within sigma error of the neutron and proton of 940MeV and 938MeV, meaning that the actual proton is just 840MeV with a muon stuck inside going round and round in the
Faraday law.

In fact our physicists of today are all failures with their Standard Model and their subatomic particles that are balls that sit around and have no purpose, function, or task or job.

Idiots and fools are today's current physicists, with their balls of subatomic particle clumped in a nucleus, started by the Rutherford gold leaf experiment. But Rutherford and Bohr were absent minded on interpretation of gold leaf experiment for a alpha
particle that bounces back at 180degrees with a faster exit speed than entrance speed, is because the alpha particle hit Head-On collision with a chain of 79 gold atom muons doing the Faraday law inside a 79x840 windings of a gold proton torus. Bohr and
Rutherford became absent minded about physics-- not realizing that a bounce back with faster speed out meant the collision was not a sedentary nucleus of large mass, but becuase 79 muons rammed head-on into the incoming alpha particle.

Why so dumb are present day physicists that they rather have Maxwell's antisymmetric Equations of EM theory rather than admit, the Dirac magnetic monopole is the 0.5MeV particle that the fools of Fermilab and CERN think is the Atom's electron.

This story below by BBC, tells us more about how far brainwashing can go and extend as to make utter fools of today's current physics professors. Not a one of them has a 1/2 marble of logical intelligence, no, they have feed by mouth and suckled tit of
brainwashing.

--- quoting BBC ---
Scientists near Chicago say they may be getting closer to discovering the existence of a new force of nature.
They have found more evidence that sub-atomic particles, called muons, are not behaving in the way predicted by the current theory of sub-atomic physics.
Scientists believe that an unknown force could be acting on the muons.
More data will be needed to confirm these results, but if they are verified, it could mark the beginning of a revolution in physics.

All of the forces we experience every day can be reduced to just four categories: gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force and the weak force. These four fundamental forces govern how all the objects and particles in the Universe interact with each
other.
The findings have been made at a US particle accelerator facility called Fermilab. They build on results announced in 2021 in which the Fermilab team first suggested the possibility of a fifth force of nature.
Since then, the research team has gathered more d

Alright, I am adding a third to the 2 experiments, a third that is the picture mindset or diagram drawn of atoms through the history of physics. A picture is often more damaging to learning and understanding true physics when that picture is wrong.

The picture of an atom as a tiny ball sphere was alright for the majority of physics history starting in Ancient Greek times and right up to Dalton's Atomic theory 1804.

But, it was no longer acceptable to draw Atoms as little ball spheres from 1870 onwards. I say 1870 because Maxwell Electromagnetic equations were well known 1860-1870. And a prime law in that Maxwell theory was Faraday law with a geometry of a coil with
thrusting bar magnet.

What I am saying is that from 1870 onwards, the drawing and picturing of Atoms should have discarded the little ball drawing and start replacing it with a Coil and a bar-magnet thrusting through the coil as the picture of the true Atom. Other EM laws
should then enhanced the coil + bar-magnet.

Then of course, we started to get subatomic particles with JJ Thomson 1897, Rutherford 1908 and many others-- the proton, electron, neutron, photon.

And here the drawings of Atoms and subatomic particles should have completely discarded the silly little balls pictures of Atoms and their subatomic particles. And a wholescale attempt at making atoms and their subatomic particles be pictures and
diagrams of the laws of Electromagnetic theory-- the neutron a parallel plate capacitor, the muon the true electron of atoms as bar magnet thrusting through proton torus of 840MeV. The Dirac magnetic monopole-- which Thomson and all the physicists of the
20th century thought was the electron of atoms turns out to be the Dirac magnetic monopole and its picture is a closed pencil ellipse, same as the picture of a photon.

You see, crude cave-man pictures and drawings hinder science, and retards science. For if the drawings and pictures of Atoms and subatomic particles had started to utilize EM laws as the drawings, we would not have been plagued by that colossal dunce
physics program called the Standard Model, a model for logic failures and idiots of physics.

AP, King of Science

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

Now to be logical in this book, and I always want to be logical in everything I do. To be logical I should start with the horrendous ugly picture or drawing of Atomic theory that is wrong, before I talk about the two famous ugly and flawed Experiments of
Physics past.

Our mental pictures of physics science tells us where our most sensitive wisdom is. What I mean by that is if you look at Feynman's Lectures on Physics, and it does not take long at all to estimate the wisdom and knowledge or lack thereof of the last
King of Science-- Dr. Feynman. Feynman knew well all sorts of physics, from quantum theory to quantum electrodynamics to Schrodinger and Dirac Equations which we give him a grade of A+. And let us call that a "working knowledge". But, we have another
type of knowledge that I call wisdom-knowledge. And in wisdom knowledge, Feynman gets a grade of F, or D- at best.

For Dr. Feynman to know so so much of physics and physical science, yet, still a failure in wisdom of science. It takes only page 1-2, the second page to reveal that Dr. Feynman was a primitive caveman in thinking on physics. Now readers are going to
think AP is just boasting here, but I too, will suffer the fate of Feynman-- be a A+ in knowledge and logic of science, but end up judged by future generations as a F or D- failure in wisdom of physics. And this is not just my modesty, but the plain
truth that all who enter the gates of Physics science, and no matter how impressive of achievement and accomplishments and work one makes to physics, that in the long span of time, that person was a failure of Physics. Physics will draw the best out of
us, but in the end, leave as looking like childish fools. In other words, Physics is above any individual.

Feynman's page 1-2, his second page reveals Feynman as thinking atoms are balls, tiny balls, as well as subatomic particles neutrons, protons, electrons as ball structure. His failure was, he know the Maxwell Equations and EM, for his specialty was
Quantum Electrodynamics which was his major contribution-- EM theory. And knowing EM theory, his page 1-2 should have been drawings and pictures of a torus for proton and electron inside torus doing the Faraday law. Feynman should have been smarter than
a foolish child with Atoms and subatomic particles as tiny balls. Feynman should have started a movement in physics to draw and picture the Atom and subatomic particles with geometry that reflects Electricity and Magnetism. Reflects Coulomb law, reflects
Ampere law, reflects especially Faraday law, reflects capacitor law, reflects Ohm's law.

To one extent we marvel at how such scientists can build the Atomic Bomb and send a man to the Moon, but on the other hand, we marvel more that such is accomplished when they never knew the first thing about a correct true picture of "What is an Atom and
its subatomic particles inside?"

AP, King of Science

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

Sorry Ross, I moved on from dot cloud pictures to that of Electromagnetism laws. The Faraday law has a coil with bar magnet thrusting through. The Capacitor law has parallel plates.

Astronomers see a Cosmic Ring in the 3rd layer (Caltech's Jarrett). The ring is one of the coils of a Cosmic Proton Torus.

The dot-cloud is still useful in representing each galaxy as a dot. But the geometry of those dots is Electromagnetism laws.

At the moment I am starting my 257th book of science saying we have to move onward from Atoms being tiny balls with no function, and being more like laws of EM geometry with EM functions.

On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 12:01:32 AM UTC-5, Ross Finlayson wrote:

"Universe is one big dot...."

The universe is a universal: it's all inclusive, it's superlative. While it contains all things,
here it's as well amorphous, and dot is amorphous, and a universe as dot is one big dot.

"Universe is a plutonium atom...."

In the theory of atomic elements, plutonium was about the biggest, so if the universe
is one big amorphous dot, but a dot is also an atom, and the universe is one big dot,
and the plutonium atom is the biggest not a-tomos and not a-morphous, then, with that being all the definition, universe is a plutonium atom.

Of course, that's a very limited definition, but where that's all there is, ..., that's all there is.

It's along similar lines others AP's essays.

Then, this 2D/4D bit, it's about rotations and surfaces of revolution, that in 3D one of
the vertices of the resulting triangle is free to rotate around, or, there are various ways
to re-frame the limited terms (the insufficient terms), has that then the simple terms
given, simply have to include perspective and the implicits, that disambiguate the
of AP's latest, greatest theories and whatever he came up with next.

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

From the Internet several websites show pictures of Ancient Greek Atomic theory

The tetrahedron was fire

The Octahedron was air

The Icosahedron was water

The Cube was Earth

The Dodecahedron was the Universe itself.

So in some logical sense, the Ancient Greeks already had a Atom Totality and they thought it was in the geometry of a Dodecahedron.

They assigned fire to the tetrahedron as being sharp points.

Water was the icosahedron able to slip and slide over one atom and another.

So the Ancient Greeks already assigned function with geometry to atoms.

It is a sincere shame that the 20th century physicists were lacking in logic as to take the best physics of the day-- Electromagnetism and assign EM laws to atomic geometry. The proton as a torus of rings with the electron a bar magnet inside the torus
doing the Faraday law.

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

--- Google search on ancient greek atomic theory dodecahedron ---

In Ancient Greece, the Pythagoreans believed that these solids were fundamental to the universe. More recently, a group of cosmologists has proposed that our universe may be shaped like a dodecahedron (Poincare Dodecahedron Space).Feb 26, 2012

Dodecahedron Geode - EPOD - a service of USRA

Earth Science Picture of the Day
https://epod.usra.edu › blog › 2012/02 › dodecahedron-...

Plato's Model of the Universe and the Dodecahedron

University of Massachusetts Boston
https://www.faculty.umb.edu › Renaissance › PlatoSolid
According to a recent theory the Universe could be a dodecahedron. It is surprising that Plato used a dodecahedron as the quintessence to describe the cosmos! ...


While the regular dodecahedron shares many features with other Platonic solids, one unique property of it is that one can start at a corner of the surface and draw an infinite number of straight lines across the figure that return to the or

On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 1:43:54 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

--- Google search on ancient greek atomic theory dodecahedron ---

In Ancient Greece, the Pythagoreans believed that these solids were fundamental to the universe. More recently, a group of cosmologists has proposed that our universe may be shaped like a dodecahedron (Poincare Dodecahedron Space).Feb 26, 2012

Dodecahedron Geode - EPOD - a service of USRA

Earth Science Picture of the Day
https://epod.usra.edu › blog › 2012/02 › dodecahedron-...

Plato's Model of the Universe and the Dodecahedron

University of Massachusetts Boston
https://www.faculty.umb.edu › Renaissance › PlatoSolid
According to a recent theory the Universe could be a dodecahedron. It is surprising that Plato used a dodecahedron as the quintessence to describe the cosmos! ...

While the regular dodecahedron shares many features with other Platonic solids, one unique property of it is that one can start at a corner of the surface and draw an infinite number of straight lines across the figure that return to the original point

without crossing over any other corner.

--- end Google search ---

There is another website Physicsworld "Is the universe a dodecahedron?" 2003 by J-P Luminet et al.

So, it is really remarkable that the Ancient Greeks would hypothesize the universe as dodecahedron and in modern times, we have some evidence it is such.

There is a picture of this uniqueness in Quanta-magazine, 2020
"Mathematicians Report New Discovery About the Dodecahedron"
"Suppose you stand at one of the corners of a Platonic solid. Is there some straight path you could take that would eventually return you to your starting point without passing through any of the other corners?"

Apparently of the 5 Platonic Solids, only the Dodecahedron has this feature.

Now, how am I to translate that feature into Quantum Physics Electrodynamics?

I am holding a dodecahedron in my hands now, and see that each face has a opposite face but the pentagon is upside down. Is it a parallel plate capacitor and the corner would be like a Dirac magnetic monopole as a straight line closed loop circuit.

The article says the cube does not have this feature. For I would have thought the cube was the geometry to represent parallel plate capacitor. Instead, the Dodecahedron is better.

AP

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

On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 2:13:22 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

There is a picture of this uniqueness in Quanta-magazine, 2020 "Mathematicians Report New Discovery About the Dodecahedron"
"Suppose you stand at one of the corners of a Platonic solid. Is there some straight path you could take that would eventually return you to your starting point without passing through any of the other corners?"

Apparently of the 5 Platonic Solids, only the Dodecahedron has this feature.

Now, how am I to translate that feature into Quantum Physics Electrodynamics?

I am holding a dodecahedron in my hands now, and see that each face has a opposite face but the pentagon is upside down. Is it a parallel plate capacitor and the corner would be like a Dirac magnetic monopole as a straight line closed loop circuit.

The article says the cube does not have this feature. For I would have thought the cube was the geometry to represent parallel plate capacitor. Instead, the Dodecahedron is better.

Now I am going to argue against the three mathematicians Jayadev Athreya, David Aulicino, Patrick Hooper who claim only the dodecahedron has this property, and none of the other 4 of 5 regular polyhedra. The cube is a regular polyhedra, and the
rectangular solid, although not a regular polyhedra is much and the same like a cube.

If we admit the rectangular solid along with the 5 regular polyhedra, we then have 2 solids with this property and not just the dodecahedron alone.

AP

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

piątek, 18 sierpnia 2023 o 09:13:22 UTC+2 Archimedes Plutonium napisał(a):

On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 1:43:54 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

--- Google search on ancient greek atomic theory dodecahedron ---

In Ancient Greece, the Pythagoreans believed that these solids were fundamental to the universe. More recently, a group of cosmologists has proposed that our universe may be shaped like a dodecahedron (Poincare Dodecahedron Space).Feb 26, 2012

Dodecahedron Geode - EPOD - a service of USRA

Earth Science Picture of the Day
https://epod.usra.edu › blog › 2012/02 › dodecahedron-...

Plato's Model of the Universe and the Dodecahedron

University of Massachusetts Boston
https://www.faculty.umb.edu › Renaissance › PlatoSolid
According to a recent theory the Universe could be a dodecahedron. It is surprising that Plato used a dodecahedron as the quintessence to describe the cosmos! ...

While the regular dodecahedron shares many features with other Platonic solids, one unique property of it is that one can start at a corner of the surface and draw an infinite number of straight lines across the figure that return to the original

point without crossing over any other corner.

--- end Google search ---

There is another website Physicsworld "Is the universe a dodecahedron?" 2003 by J-P Luminet et al.

So, it is really remarkable that the Ancient Greeks would hypothesize the universe as dodecahedron and in modern times, we have some evidence it is such.

There is a picture of this uniqueness in Quanta-magazine, 2020 "Mathematicians Report New Discovery About the Dodecahedron"
"Suppose you stand at one of the corners of a Platonic solid. Is there some straight path you could take that would eventually return you to your starting point without passing through any of the other corners?"

Apparently of the 5 Platonic Solids, only the Dodecahedron has this feature.

Now, how am I to translate that feature into Quantum Physics Electrodynamics?

I am holding a dodecahedron in my hands now, and see that each face has a opposite face but the pentagon is upside down. Is it a parallel plate capacitor and the corner would be like a Dirac magnetic monopole as a straight line closed loop circuit.

The article says the cube does not have this feature. For I would have thought the cube was the geometry to represent parallel plate capacitor. Instead, the Dodecahedron is better.

AP

The correct model is a cube (exceptional cube) - from a single nucleon to complex atomic nuclei... most likely.
It has eight corners compatible with a special electron octet.

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

--- quoting frontiers ---
QCM was introduced in 1960s to monitor layer formation in vacuum and air thanks to the high mass sensitivity of the 5 MHz quartz system (0.057 Hz cm2 ng−1) which was superior compared with other available technologies (Janshoff et al., 2000).Oct 10,
2018
www dot frontiers
Quartz Crystal Microbalance With Dissipation Monitoring
--- end quoting ---

So, based on that above history snapshot, could we say that chemists and physicists could not weigh water electroylsis of hydrogen and oxygen until after 1960?

No, the answer is no, for all it takes is a very smart chemist or physicist to collect enough hydrogen and oxygen in a container, and not the microgram amounts. And then to be able to measure that same container in a vacuum of content.

But 1960 is a good enough start date. For there is no excuse from 1960 to 2023, 63 years later to do the Water Electrolysis experiment and accurately weigh the hydrogen test tube versus oxygen test tube to see if 1/4 ratio or 1/8 ratio

On Thursday, September 14, 2023 at 9:29:28 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

--- quoting frontiers ---
QCM was introduced in 1960s to monitor layer formation in vacuum and air thanks to the high mass sensitivity of the 5 MHz quartz system (0.057 Hz cm2 ng−1) which was superior compared with other available technologies (Janshoff et al., 2000).Oct 10,

2018

www dot frontiers
Quartz Crystal Microbalance With Dissipation Monitoring
--- end quoting ---

So, based on that above history snapshot, could we say that chemists and physicists could not weigh water electroylsis of hydrogen and oxygen until after 1960?

No, the answer is no, for all it takes is a very smart chemist or physicist to collect enough hydrogen and oxygen in a container, and not the microgram amounts. And then to be able to measure that same container in a vacuum of content.

Actually I suspect we can skip that step of making the container be a vacuum for we have precise enough measure of weight of water to volume. And so the volume of the container is known as the hydrogen and oxygen in electrolysis starts to replace the
water molecules. So I think we can skip the step of a vacuum in container.

AP

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

Zurich ETH, physics dept
Charalampos Anastasiou, Niklas Beisert, Adrian Biland, Gianni Blatter, Marcella Carollo, Christian Degen, Leonardo Degiorgi,

Jan Burse and Volney, why cannot ETH finish their water electrolysis experiment to prove Water is really H4O not H2O??

Why Volney can they not finish the water electrolysis experiment to weigh the mass of hydrogen and oxygen?? Because they are so sloppy and slipshod in Physics experiment of Water Electrolysis, stopping and ceasing the experiment before weighing the mass
of the hydrogen compared to mass of oxygen. Is it that they are stupid silly thinking volume and mass are the same. For AP needs to prove decisively, if Water is really H4O or H2O. And of course, this experiment would destroy the Standard Model-- that
post-diction theory of physics that never gave a single prediction in all of its tenure.

Or is it because they cannot admit the truth of math geometry that slant cut of cone is oval, not ellipse for you need the symmetry of slant cut of cylinder to yield a ellipse.

President: Christopher Eisgruber (physics)
Princeton Univ physics dept
Michael Aizenman, Philip Anderson, Robert Austin, Waseem Bakr, Bogdan Bernevig, Ravindra Bhatt, William Bialek, Frank Calaprice, Curtis Callan, Roberto Car, Paul Chaikin, Kenan Diab, Jo Dunkley, Aurelien Fraisse, Cristiano Galbiati, Simone Giombi, Thomas
Gregor, David Gross, Edward Groth, Steven Gubser, William Happer, John Hopfield, Andrew Houck, David Huse, Norman Jarosik, William Jones, Andrew Leifer, Elliot Lieb, Daniel Marlow, Peter Meyers, James Olsen, Lyman Page, Alexander Polyakov, Frans
Pretorius, Michael Romalis, Joshua Shaevitz, A. Smith, Shivaji Sondhi, Suzanne Staggs, Paul Steinhardt, David Tank, Christopher Tully, Herman Verlinde, Edward Witten, F.Duncan Haldane (physics), Russell Hulse (physics), Joseph Taylor (physics), Dr. David
MacMillan (chem), James Peebles (physics), Daniel Tsui (physics)



ETH Zurich
Joel Mesot, Gunther Dissertori
Paul Biran, Marc Burger, Patrick Cheridito, Manfred Einsiedler, Paul Embrechts
Giovanni Felder, Alessio Figalli, Norbert Hungerbuhler, Tom Ilmanen, Horst Knorrer
Emmanuel Kowalski
Urs Lang
Rahul Pandharipande
Richard Pink
Tristan Riviere
Dietmar Salamon
Martin Schweizer
Mete Soner
Michael Struwe
Benjamin Sudakov
Alain Sznitman
Josef Teichmann
Wendelin Werner
Thomas Willwacher

Zurich ETH, physics dept
Charalampos Anastasiou, Niklas Beisert, Adrian Biland, Gianni Blatter, Marcella Carollo, Christian Degen, Leonardo Degiorgi, Gunther Dissertori, Klaus Ensslin, Tilman Esslinger, Jerome Faist, Matthias Gaberdiel, Aude Gehrmann-De Ridder, Vadim Geshkenbein,
Christophorus Grab, Michele Graf, Jonathan Home, Roland Horisberger, Sebastian Huber, Thomas Markus Ihn, Atac Imamoglu, Steven Johnson, Ursula Keller, Klaus Kirch, Simon Lilly, Joel Mesot, Renatto Renner, Andre Rubbia, Werner Schmutz, Thomas Schulthess,
Manfred Sigrist, Hans-Arno Synal, Matthias Troyer, Andreas Vaterlaus, Rainer Wallny, Andreas Wallraff, Werner Wegscheider, Audrey Zheludev, Oded Zilberberg
,Kurt Wuthrich (chem), Dr.Joel Mesot

University Bern
Christian Leumann
Walter Benjamin
Emil Theodor Kocher
Kurt Wuthrich
Daniel Vassella
Rene Fasel
Mani Matter




Apparently Kibo realized he was a science failure when he could not even do a proper percentage. But then one has to wonder how much he paid to bribe Rensselaer to graduate from the school in engineering unable to do a percentage properly???? For I
certainly would not hire a engineer who cannot even do proper percentage.


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.

Why Volney?? Because they stop short of completing the Water Electrolysis Experiment by only looking at volume, when they are meant to weigh the mass of hydrogen versus oxygen?? Such shoddy minds in experimental physics and chemistry.
On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 12:13:14 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:

Physics minnow
WARNING TO ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING STUDENTS:

What warning is that Kibo Parry failure of science-- warning that insane persons like Kibo Parry Moroney Volney spends their entire life in a hate-mill, never doing anything in science itself.

Kibo Parry Moroney-Volney blowing his cover with the CIA in 1997

Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
On Sunday, June 8, 1997 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:

In article <5nefan$i06$9...@news.thecia.net> kibo greps <ki...@shell.thecia.net> writes:

---quoting Wikipedia ---

Controversy
Many government and university installations blocked, threatened to block, or attempted to shut-down The World's Internet connection until Software Tool & Die was eventually granted permission by the National Science Foundation to provide public

Internet access on "an experimental basis."
--- end quote ---

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Dr. Panchanathan , present day
NSF Dr. Panchanathan, F. Fleming Crim, Dorothy E Aronson, Brian Stone, James S Ulvestad (math), Rebecca Lynn Keiser, Vernon D. Ross, Lloyd Whitman, John J. Veysey (physics), Scott Stanley
France Anne Cordova
Subra Suresh (bioengineer)
Arden Lee Bement Jr. (nuclear engineering)
Rita R. Colwell (microbiology)
Neal Francis Lane
John Howard Gibbons 1993

Barry Shein, kibo parry std world
Jim Frost, Joe "Spike" Ilacqua

Canada-- NSERC , Alejandro Adem (math) , Navdeep Bains, Francois-Philippe Champagne

News starting to come in that AP's Water Electrolysis Experiment proves the true formula of Water is H4O, not H2O is starting to come in.

Aug 30, 2023, 10:19:20 PM (yesterday)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
News starting to come in that AP's Water Electrolysis Experiment proves the true formula of Water is H4O, not H2O is starting to come in.

I received a