AP's 257th book of science// Chronicling the two most sloppy famous Physics-Chemistry Experiments-- Electrolysis of Water & Rutherford-Bohr nucleus
13m views
Subscribe

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium<plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com>
Aug 15, 2023, 4:57:36 PM (3 days ago)



to Plutonium Atom Universe
AP's 257th book of science// Chronicling the two most sloppy famous Physics-Chemistry Experiments-- Electrolysis of Water & Rutherford-Bohr nucleus

The two sloppiest Famous Science Experiments in Recorded History, AP's 257th book of science
4m 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

Drs.Jayadev Athreya, David Aulicino, Patrick Hooper may have been victims of Computer Graphing rather than realized fundamental truths of geometry. This happened to me also with the case of tiling a sphere, that the computer gives a image as though the
sphere was tiled by hexagons. And computers can make a picture that is so much con-art and deceiving of the human eyes, like optical illusions.

When I first saw this graphics by Jayadev Athreya, David Aulicino, Patrick Hooper, I thought to myself that the "straight line they spoke of cut the Dodecahedron in 1/2". Much like a sphere circumference splits the sphere into two equal semisphere,
whereas a cut that does not yield two semispheres, although a circle, would not be considered a "line in sphere surface geometry".

So I suspect, and it must be checked thoroughly whether Jayadev Athreya, David Aulicino, Patrick Hooper are deluded about their dodecahedron, deluded from images of Computer Graphics than real true geometry. And they certainly would not be the first to
be deluded by computer graphics, and AP's request to throw out all research in geometry that is based in part on Computer graphics.

So, well, I ask Drs. Jayadev Athreya, David Aulicino, Patrick Hooper, when they speak of "straight line across the Dodecahedron" what exactly do they mean??? Do they mean it splits the Dodecahedron in half???? For I have my plastic Rectangular Box, and
it qualifies for the same special characteristic traits of uniqueness that the Dodecahedron is given by Drs. Jayadev Athreya, David Aulicino, Patrick Hooper.

AP

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)

On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 1:21:31 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Drs.Jayadev Athreya, David Aulicino, Patrick Hooper may have been victims of Computer Graphing rather than realized fundamental truths of geometry. This happened to me also with the case of tiling a sphere, that the computer gives a image as though the

sphere was tiled by hexagons. And computers can make a picture that is so much con-art and deceiving of the human eyes, like optical illusions.

When I first saw this graphics by Jayadev Athreya, David Aulicino, Patrick Hooper, I thought to myself that the "straight line they spoke of cut the Dodecahedron in 1/2". Much like a sphere circumference splits the sphere into two equal semisphere,

whereas a cut that does not yield two semispheres, although a circle, would not be considered a "line in sphere surface geometry".

So I suspect, and it must be checked thoroughly whether Jayadev Athreya, David Aulicino, Patrick Hooper are deluded about their dodecahedron, deluded from images of Computer Graphics than real true geometry. And they certainly would not be the first to

be deluded by computer graphics, and AP's request to throw out all research in geometry that is based in part on Computer graphics.

So, well, I ask Drs. Jayadev Athreya, David Aulicino, Patrick Hooper, when they speak of "straight line across the Dodecahedron" what exactly do they mean??? Do they mean it splits the Dodecahedron in half???? For I have my plastic Rectangular Box, and

it qualifies for the same special characteristic traits of uniqueness that the Dodecahedron is given by Drs. Jayadev Athreya, David Aulicino, Patrick Hooper.


So now, how are they defining their "straightline" can they change direction upon entering a new face in their circuit. Or is their "straightline" supposed to be as if you had a sharp cutting knife, that slices at a given angle, and cannot vary in its
cut.

I see no difference in the dodecahedron and the cube and the rectangular box, all three having this feature.

I can only come to the conclusion it is a computer graphics claim, and a bogus claim.
They speak of paper folding and perhaps scissors cut of a paper dodecahedron. Is that their method? A scissors paper cut of a paper dodecahedron and no computer graphics? You would almost need a manufacturing plant to supply you with paper dodecahedrons.
So I bet they resorted to computer graphics, and thus the computer led them astray. They set up the program to yield them unwittingly "what they wanted".

So much of modern day math is imbecile assinine computer delusions. Computers are good for algebra, but when it comes to geometry, they fail left and right and in between.

AP

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

On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 3:12:27 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: >> Drs.Jayadev Athreya, David Aulicino, Patrick Hooper may have been victims of Computer Graphing rather than realized fundamental truths of geometry. This happened to me also with the case of tiling a sphere, that the computer gives a image as though
the sphere was tiled by hexagons. And computers can make a picture that is so much con-art and deceiving of the human eyes, like optical illusions.

So, now, here is a start of a counter argument for the claims of Drs.Jayadev Athreya, David Aulicino, Patrick Hooper. That the symmetry of the 5 Platonic solids are extreme symmetry in order to be such a figure. And that extreme highest form of symmetry,
would not allow for straightlines to circumnavigate the solid and miss all vertices except for 1.

This is my counterargument, that the authors have a mistaken or goofy idea of straightline circumnavigation and thus making a silly conclusion.

Now a solid such as a Triangular Wedge easily obeys the rules of starting at one vertex and circumnavigating brings you back to the same vertex and missing the other vertices. But a Wedge has low-grade symmetry, while regular polyhedron have the highest
grade of symmetry.

I do not know how in the world this idea was published in a magazine, without math professionals checking it out thoroughly.

But then again, we probably have to toss out onto the cesspool or dumpster, preferable the cesspool every geometry claim from a Computer as cesspool math. Maybe there is a math journal called "Math Cesspool".

AP

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

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?"
Drs.Jayadev Athreya, David Aulicino, Patrick Hooper may have been victims of Computer Graphing rather than realized fundamental truths of geometry. This happened to me also with the case of tiling a sphere, that the computer gives a image as though the
sphere was tiled by hexagons. And computers can make a picture that is so much con-art and deceiving of the human eyes, like optical illusions.

Alright it looks to me that Quanta-magazine is partly anti-science and anti-math as to publish rubbish of a Dodecahedron.

Looking at the picture they include a region of the vertex-- is it 1mm from the vertex point?? Is it 1.5mm, is it 2mm. Then they provide no definition of "straightline path", can it vary in direction every face of the dodecahedron, or is it meant to be a
cut like a conic section.

The only figure on my desk that qualifies as cutting the figure in half and a path returns to vertex is the Pyramid of its apex vertex, and only its apex vertex.

I deem this article as math rubbish, that deceives more than elucidates geometry.

Since when is a vertex a *region of vertex*? What is a straightline path if not a murky and obfuscation?

Perhaps the only lesson to learn from this anti-math of dodecahedron, is that the Computer Graphics destroys the truth of geometry and all geometry proofs starting with Appel & Haken 4 Color Mapping to Hales's claim of Kepler Packing is flawed and error
filled math, is anti-math.

Every geometry entry obtained from computer graphics into mathematics is bogus math, because a computer has no biological mind to see into Space. A computer prints out what the person wants to see and hear and not the reality of the world of geometry.

In geometry and proofs of geometry, no computer should step foot into.

AP

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

Quanta Magazine needs to toss out this Messr.Jayadev Athreya, David Aulicino, Patrick Hooper as bogus.

Computer Graphics is never admissable into proofs or understanding Geometry. A computer is never able to do Geometry, only the human mind can do geometry (along with many animals). But a machine that is not living is unable to do geometry.

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?"
Drs.Jayadev Athreya, David Aulicino, Patrick Hooper may have been victims of Computer Graphing rather than realized fundamental truths of geometry. This happened to me also with the case of tiling a sphere, that the computer gives a image as though the

sphere was tiled by hexagons. And computers can make a picture that is so much con-art and deceiving of the human eyes, like optical illusions.

Alright it looks to me that Quanta-magazine is partly anti-science and anti-math as to publish rubbish of a Dodecahedron.

Looking at the picture they include a region of the vertex-- is it 1mm from the vertex point?? Is it 1.5mm, is it 2mm. Then they provide no definition of "straightline path", can it vary in direction every face of the dodecahedron, or is it meant to be

a cut like a conic section.

The only figure on my desk that qualifies as cutting the figure in half and a path returns to vertex is the Pyramid of its apex vertex, and only its apex vertex.

I deem this article as math rubbish, that deceives more than elucidates geometry.

Since when is a vertex a *region of vertex*? What is a straightline path if not a murky and obfuscation?

Perhaps the only lesson to learn from this anti-math of dodecahedron, is that the Computer Graphics destroys the truth of geometry and all geometry proofs starting with Appel & Haken 4 Color Mapping to Hales's claim of Kepler Packing is flawed and

error filled math, is anti-math.

Every geometry entry into mathematics is bogus math, because a computer has no biological mind to see into Space. A computer prints out what the person wants to see and hear and not the reality of the world of geometry.

In geometry and proofs of geometry, no computer should step foot into.

On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 1:07:45 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 11:27:41 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Is the 4 sided plane the largest plane in terms of sides for the 3D 10 Grid? At the moment, I cannot envision nor picture any plane with 5 sides or 6 or more. I suspect 4 is the maximum.

The shape of 3D 10 Grid is a cube shape, so I am asking if there is a cross section of the inside of a cube that yields a 5 or higher sided figure? None that I can see, for the 6 faces of the cube only allow 4 sided 2D figures to emerge or 3 sided

triangular planes. I cannot retrieve a pentagon plane nor a hexagon plane. And proofs should be provided.


Interesting question, if I make a conic sectioning cut into the cube or rectangular box, the largest number of sides is a 4 sided planar figure resultant.

What happens with a cut into the Dodecahedron?? Can I get a 5 sided planar cut figure? Indeed I can. But the Icosahedron looks like it can deliver a 10 sided planar figure result.

With the Octahedron a cut similar to a conic cut that is perpendicular resulting in hyperbola gives a 6-sided hexagon planar resultant yet the cube gives no more than 4-sided result.

A vertical planar cut into Dodecahedron gives a 6-sided figure.

AP

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