XPost: sci.physics.relativity

speed of light and time travel

it appears to me that yous people
have no idea about
speed of light and time travel.

I'll explain because it's so
simple.

If you travel faster than the
speed of light, do you
go into the future or
do you travel back to the past?

The answer is simple.

You just keep going!

There is no past
there is no future
there is only
Here and
Now.

So, if you travel
faster than the speed of light...
you would still be here and now.

(maybe over there)
(where?)
(right here, stupid!)

(the only problem is
yous peoples have no idea what
Here and Now...'is'.)



--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

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

Can Texas A&M,Dr.Artem Abanov,Dr.Tom Adair,Dr.Girish Agarwal,please step inside there physics or chemistry laboratory and for once actually weigh the hydrogen gas and oxygen gas in Water Electrolysis to prove if water is really H4O and not H2O???

Why?? 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.

Texas A&M physics dept
Artem Abanov, Tom Adair, Girish Agarwal, Glenn Agnolet, Alexey Akimov, Roland Allen, Meigan Aronson, Bill Bassichis, Katrin Becker, Melanie Becker, Alexey Belyanin, Siu Ah Chin, Gregory Christian, Darren DePoy, Steven Dierker, Nelson Duller, Bhaskar
Dutta, Ricardo Eusebi, Alexander Finkelstein, Lewis Ford, Rainer Fries, Ed Fry, Carl Gagliardi, John Hardy, Philip Hemmer, Dudley Herschbach, Jeremy Holt, Teruki Kamon, Helmut G. Katzgraber, Robert Kennicutt, Che-Ming Ko, Olga Kocharovskaya, Vitaly
Kocharovsky, Jaan Laane, David Lee, Igor Lyuksyutov, Lucas Macri, Rupak Mahapatra, Jennifer Marshall, John Mason, Peter McIntyre, Dan Melconian, Saskia Miodszewski, Nader Mirabolfathi, Dimitri Nanopoulos, Donald Naugle, Casey Papovich, Valery Pokrovsky,
Christopher Pope, Ralf Rapp, Grigory Rogachev, Joe Ross, Alexei Safonov, Wayne Saslow, Hans Schuessler, Marlan Scully, Egin Sezgin, Alexei Sokolov, Louis Strigari, Nicholas Suntzeff, Winfried Teizer, David Toback, Kim-Vy Tran, Bob Tribble, Jonelle Walsh,
Lifan Wang, Robert Webb, Michael Weimer, George Welch, Wenhao Wu, Vladislav Yakovlev, Ping Yang, Dave Youngblood, Aleksei Zheltikov, M. Suhail Zubairy, Dr.Sheldon Glashow, Dr.Dudley Herschbach (chem), Dr.David Lee

President: Sally Kornbluth
MIT physics dept
William Bertozzi, Robert Birgeneau, Hale Bradt, Bernard Burke, George Clark , Jeffrey Goldstone, Thomas Greytak, Lee Grodzins , Paul Joss, Vera Kistiakowsky, Earle Lomon, Irwin Pless, Paul Schechter, James Young
Andrea Ghez, K. Barry Sharpless(chem), Carolyn Bertozzi(chem),Dr.Frank Wilczek,Dr.Rainer Weiss, Dr.Jerome Friedman, Dr.Wolfgang Ketterle, Dr.Richard Schrock (chem)

Why?? 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.

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
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 letter today of Experiment results on Water Electrolysis of weighing the hydrogen test tube versus oxygen test tube and the result is 1/4 atomic mass units of Hydrogen compared to Oxygen.

The researcher weighing 1600 micrograms of hydrogen, using a Eisco-Brownlee-Water-Electrolysis Apparatus.

Using sulfuric acid as electrolyte on ultra pure water. Using low voltage DC of 1.5 volts, 1 amp.

I am not surprised that news of the true formula of Water is H4O comes so quickly. For not much in science is more important than knowing the truth of Water. And this means the start of the complete downfall and throwing out the sick Standard Model of

Physics, for it is such an insane theory that it cannot get passed the idea of its subatomic particles as stick and ball, with no job, no function, no task. The Standard Model of Physics, is crazy insane physics for it is all postdiction, never
prediction. The idea that the hydrogen atom is H2 not H, is because of the prediction of Atom Totality Theory where a atom is a proton torus with muon inside doing the Faraday law and all atoms require at least 1 capacitor. That means the one proton in
H2 serves as a neutron to the other proton, storaging the electricity produced by the other proton.

The true Hydrogen Atom is H2 for all atoms need at least one capacitor, and one of the protons in H2 serves as a neutron.

Sad that chemistry and physics throughout the 20th century were too stupid to actually weigh the mass of hydrogen and oxygen in electrolysis, no, the ignorant fools stopped at looking when they saw the volume of hydrogen was twice that of oxygen. A

real scientist is not that shoddy and slipshod ignorant, the real scientist then proceeds with -- let us weigh the hydrogen test tube mass versus the oxygen test tube mass.

Thanks for the news!!!!!

AP

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.

There is another experiment that achieves the same result that Water is truly H4O and not H2O, but I suspect this second method is hugely fraught with difficulty.

The prediction of H4O comes from the Physics idea that a Atom is composed, all atoms mind you, is composed of a proton torus with muon/s inside going round and round thrusting through the torus in the Faraday law and producing electricity. So that when

you have Hydrogen without a neutron, there is no way to collect the electricity produced by the Faraday law. Think of it as a automobile engine, you cannot have a engine if there is no crank shaft to collect the energy from the thrusting piston inside
the crankcase.

Same thing with an Atom, it needs 3 parts-- muon as bar magnet, proton as torus of coils, and a capacitor to storage the produced electricity. If one of those parts is missing, the entity is a Subatomic particle and not a atom.

So, when we have Hydrogen as a proton with muon inside, it is not a Atom, until it has a neutron, or, has another proton of hydrogen H2, then it is a Atom.

So that H2 is not a molecule but a Atom. H alone is a subatomic particle.

SECOND EXPERIMENT:

Much harder than Water Electrolysis.

We need to get two identical containers.

We need to be able to make pure heavy-water with deuterium. Deuterium is proton + neutron as hydrogen. Proton + proton is H2 as hydrogen.

So we have two identical containers and we fill one with pure heavy water, deuterium water.

We have the second container and we fill it with pure (light) water.

We now weigh both of them.

If AP is correct, that water is really H4O and not H2O, then both containers should weigh almost the same. Only a tiny fraction difference because the neutron is known to be 940MeV versus proton in Old Physics as 938MeV a tiny difference of 2MeV, but

we realize we have a huge number of water molecules in the two identical containers.

If water is truly H4O, the weights should be almost the same. If water is H2O, then there is a **large difference** in weights.

But the Water Electrolysis experiment is much easier to conduct and get results.

And, there is the biological processes that apparently cannot distinguish between heavy water and that of regular normal water.

Deuterium Water is the same in biology as is normal regular water. This means that water must be H4O, due to biology as proof.

Deuterium Water in atomic mass units is 16 for the oxygen and 4 for the deuterium.

Regular normal Water in atomic mass units is 16 for the oxygen and 4 for the 4 protons in H4O.

Old Physics and Old Chemistry had regular water as H2O in atomic mass units of 16 oxygen and 2 hydrogen for 2 protons.

If biology functions whether heavy water or normal water all the same, then water itself must be H4O.

Now, there maybe some animal or plant that can separate out heavy water from H4O water???

Searching the literature today for where biology needs as essential deuterium water. And not too surprised that it is a essential requirement in metabolism. In fact one web site listed the need for deuterium more than the need of many minerals and

vitamins.

Now tonight I came up with two new exciting experiments to verify that Water is truly H4O and not H2O.

H4O is 4 protons with muons inside the 840MeV proton toruses.

Deuterium water is DOD. And the difference between D2O and H4O is merely the difference of 4MeV for as last reported, neutron = 940MeV and proton (with muon inside) is 938MeV, a difference of 2MeV but for water is 2+2 = 4MeV.

So these two new experiments take advantage of the fact that what we think is normal regular water is actually very close to heavy water of D2O, with only a 4MeV difference.

EXPERIMENT #3 Water layers in still pond of D2O mixed with H4O (what we thought was H2O.

So in this experiment we get a clear glass container and mix H4O with D2O. If Old Physics is correct, the heavy water should sink rapidly in the container while the light water floats to the top rapidly. And we have some sort of beam of photons that

can distinguish D2O from H4O (thought of as H2O. We obtain pure D2O and pure H4O each filling 1/2 of the container. We stir and mix them. And then we observe with the EM beam for separation. If the light water is truly H4O, it takes a long time for the
D2O to be on bottom and H4O on top. We measure the time of a settled container and determine this time from the theoretical 4MeV difference should take a long time, whereas if Old Physics is correct, the separation would be almost instantly and quick
time.

EXPERIMENT #4 also plays on this minor difference of 4MeV. We devise a sort of squirt gun for D2O and a identical squirt gun for H4O (what we call H2O). We put pure D2O in one squirt gun and the H40 or light water in the other squirt gun. Both guns

forcing the water a certain distance.

If AP is correct that light water is really H4O and not H2O as we squirt both guns, where the water lands should be almost the same distance considering H4O is only 4MeV apart from D2O.

If Old Physics and Old Chemistry is correct, then D2O water is 940 + 940 = 1880MeV apart from light water of H2O, and H4O is only 4MeV apart.

So where the squirt gun lands the D2O is a very much shorter distance than a H2O land, but a H4 land distance is nearly the same as the D2O land.

These two experiments are very exciting and would be a very nice confirming evidence to Water Electrolysis actual weighing the mass in atomic mass units.

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 5:07:13 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Searching the literature today for where biology needs as essential deuterium water. And not too surprised that it is a essential requirement in metabolism. In fact one web site listed the need for deuterium more than the need of many minerals and

vitamins.

Now tonight I came up with two new exciting experiments to verify that Water is truly H4O and not H2O.

H4O is 4 protons with muons inside the 840MeV proton toruses.

Deuterium water is DOD. And the difference between D2O and H4O is merely the difference of 4MeV for as last reported, neutron = 940MeV and proton (with muon inside) is 938MeV, a difference of 2MeV but for water is 2+2 = 4MeV.

So these two new experiments take advantage of the fact that what we think is normal regular water is actually very close to heavy water of D2O, with only a 4MeV difference.

EXPERIMENT #3 Water layers in still pond of D2O mixed with H4O (what we thought was H2O.

So in this experiment we get a clear glass container and mix H4O with D2O. If Old Physics is correct, the heavy water should sink rapidly in the container while the light water floats to the top rapidly. And we have some sort of beam of photons that

can distinguish D2O from H4O (thought of as H2O. We obtain pure D2O and pure H4O each filling 1/2 of the container. We stir and mix them. And then we observe with the EM beam for separation. If the light water is truly H4O, it takes a long time for the
D2O to be on bottom and H4O on top. We measure the time of a settled container and determine this time from the theoretical 4MeV difference should take a long time, whereas if Old Physics is correct, the separation would be almost instantly and quick
time.

Apparently this Experiment is already done and called for-- There is Uniform Distribution of heavy water Deuterium Water in the Oceans, Lakes, Ponds, Streams and Rivers. Heavy Water is not layered in the oceans or lakes or ponds or streams or rivers.

Uniformity means that the difference between D2O and H4O is so slight of a difference (only 4MeV, compared to 1880MeV for H2O, that Brownian motion keeps the D2O and H4O in a Uniform Distribution in all bodies of water. I was going through the research
literature today and find that scientists discover Uniformity of Distribution of deuterium water. This thus closes the case on Water, for uniformity of distribution of D2O implies that Water is itself H4O and not H2O.


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

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

XPost: sci.physics.relativity

On 10/7/2023 2:19 PM, The Starmaker wrote:

There is no past there is no future there is only Here and Now.

There's some merit in this. A huge number of those who consider
themselves physicists miss the factor of human brain in it and how
anything they assert about nature is in fact also intertwined with their
own brains's working.

They take the weirdest behavior from nature as everyday normal concepts
only because human brain is trained to conceive of their outcomes automatically. They never complain or even see the weirdness in that.
But when something is found about nature that human brain is not trained
for, all of a sudden a sci.physics.relativity is formed by Bozos to go
to, to "complain" about it :)

I call them, "Einstein Nuts."

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

On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 12:19:51 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:

speed of light and time travel

it appears to me that yous people
have no idea about
speed of light and time travel.

I'll explain because it's so
simple.

If you travel faster than the
speed of light, do you
go into the future or
do you travel back to the past?

The answer is simple.

You just keep going!

There is no past
there is no future
there is only
Here and
Now.

So, if you travel
faster than the speed of light...
you would still be here and now.

(maybe over there)
(where?)
(right here, stupid!)

(the only problem is
yous peoples have no idea what
Here and Now...'is'.)

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

If you move fast enough you age slow and the rest travels
faster in time around you. It is the only time travel...

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

XPost: sci.physics.relativity

The Starmaker wrote:

speed of light and time travel

it appears to me that yous people
have no idea about
speed of light and time travel.

I'll explain because it's so
simple.

If you travel faster than the
speed of light, do you
go into the future or
do you travel back to the past?

The answer is simple.

You just keep going!

There is no past
there is no future
there is only
Here and
Now.

So, if you travel
faster than the speed of light...
you would still be here and now.

(maybe over there)
(where?)
(right here, stupid!)

(the only problem is
yous peoples have no idea what
Here and Now...'is'.)

Now, let's take a closer look at what they say Albert Einsten said...

"Nothing travels faster than the speed of light."


Does the word "speed" have anything to do with the word "faster?


I mean, I looked up in the dictionary for the definition of the word "speed', and there is no mention of the word 'fast' or faster'..


https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=571764422&sxsrf=AM9HkKkIradciP7x2fMxtNZtewbFU2M7-g:1696795955248&q=speed&si=ALGXSlZC_jbid1uaZGfc4a798NDvk5U1_YNeCS-mKNS6K7yD1UtUH4DLOOUcJUoQxypcPGVtVEP-3uWnd1oMveIDPqGMdncp2Q%3D%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=
2ahUKEwiqyazBoeeBAxVEcDwKHTStBIMQ2v4IegUIRBD1AQ&biw=1920&bih=1057&dpr=1&bshm=rime/1

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+speed


So, what is the connection between the word "speed" and the word "faster"????


In other words, what does speed have to do with fast or faster????


Why is the word "faster" in the sentence?

"Nothing travels faster than the speed of light."



it smells like another con to me...






--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

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

XPost: sci.physics.relativity

On 10/8/2023 3:22 PM, The Starmaker wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

speed of light and time travel

it appears to me that yous people
have no idea about
speed of light and time travel.

I'll explain because it's so
simple.

If you travel faster than the
speed of light, do you
go into the future or
do you travel back to the past?

The answer is simple.

You just keep going!

There is no past
there is no future
there is only
Here and
Now.

So, if you travel
faster than the speed of light...
you would still be here and now.

(maybe over there)
(where?)
(right here, stupid!)

(the only problem is
yous peoples have no idea what
Here and Now...'is'.)

Now, let's take a closer look at what they say Albert Einsten said...

"Nothing travels faster than the speed of light."

Does the word "speed" have anything to do with the word "faster?

I mean, I looked up in the dictionary for the definition of the word "speed', and there is no mention of the word 'fast' or faster'..

https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=571764422&sxsrf=AM9HkKkIradciP7x2fMxtNZtewbFU2M7-g:1696795955248&q=speed&si=ALGXSlZC_jbid1uaZGfc4a798NDvk5U1_YNeCS-mKNS6K7yD1UtUH4DLOOUcJUoQxypcPGVtVEP-3uWnd1oMveIDPqGMdncp2Q%3D%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=

2ahUKEwiqyazBoeeBAxVEcDwKHTStBIMQ2v4IegUIRBD1AQ&biw=1920&bih=1057&dpr=1&bshm=rime/1

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+speed

So, what is the connection between the word "speed" and the word "faster"????

In other words, what does speed have to do with fast or faster????

Why is the word "faster" in the sentence?

"Nothing travels faster than the speed of light."

it smells like another con to me...

By use of the word, "fast," he may have meant fasting, like what I do
every other day, or other mortals do while asleep. Could be the whole relativity forum's ordeal originates from the way his words were first
time translated into English.

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

XPost: sci.physics.relativity

The Starmaker wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

speed of light and time travel

it appears to me that yous people
have no idea about
speed of light and time travel.

I'll explain because it's so
simple.

If you travel faster than the
speed of light, do you
go into the future or
do you travel back to the past?

The answer is simple.

You just keep going!

There is no past
there is no future
there is only
Here and
Now.

So, if you travel
faster than the speed of light...
you would still be here and now.

(maybe over there)
(where?)
(right here, stupid!)

(the only problem is
yous peoples have no idea what
Here and Now...'is'.)

Now, let's take a closer look at what they say Albert Einsten said...

"Nothing travels faster than the speed of light."

Does the word "speed" have anything to do with the word "faster?

I mean, I looked up in the dictionary for the definition of the word "speed', and there is no mention of the word 'fast' or faster'..

https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=571764422&sxsrf=AM9HkKkIradciP7x2fMxtNZtewbFU2M7-g:1696795955248&q=speed&si=ALGXSlZC_jbid1uaZGfc4a798NDvk5U1_YNeCS-mKNS6K7yD1UtUH4DLOOUcJUoQxypcPGVtVEP-3uWnd1oMveIDPqGMdncp2Q%3D%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=

2ahUKEwiqyazBoeeBAxVEcDwKHTStBIMQ2v4IegUIRBD1AQ&biw=1920&bih=1057&dpr=1&bshm=rime/1

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+speed

So, what is the connection between the word "speed" and the word "faster"????

In other words, what does speed have to do with fast or faster????

Why is the word "faster" in the sentence?

"Nothing travels faster than the speed of light."

it smells like another con to me...

I mean, it could not go fast or faster if fast is not the meaning of
speed.


Or is it?




--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

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

XPost: sci.physics.relativity

On 10/8/2023 8:47 PM, The Starmaker wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

speed of light and time travel

it appears to me that yous people
have no idea about
speed of light and time travel.

I'll explain because it's so
simple.

If you travel faster than the
speed of light, do you
go into the future or
do you travel back to the past?

The answer is simple.

You just keep going!

There is no past
there is no future
there is only
Here and
Now.

So, if you travel
faster than the speed of light...
you would still be here and now.

(maybe over there)
(where?)
(right here, stupid!)

(the only problem is
yous peoples have no idea what
Here and Now...'is'.)

Now, let's take a closer look at what they say Albert Einsten said...

"Nothing travels faster than the speed of light."

Does the word "speed" have anything to do with the word "faster?

I mean, I looked up in the dictionary for the definition of the word "speed',
and there is no mention of the word 'fast' or faster'..

https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=571764422&sxsrf=AM9HkKkIradciP7x2fMxtNZtewbFU2M7-g:1696795955248&q=speed&si=ALGXSlZC_jbid1uaZGfc4a798NDvk5U1_YNeCS-mKNS6K7yD1UtUH4DLOOUcJUoQxypcPGVtVEP-3uWnd1oMveIDPqGMdncp2Q%3D%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=

2ahUKEwiqyazBoeeBAxVEcDwKHTStBIMQ2v4IegUIRBD1AQ&biw=1920&bih=1057&dpr=1&bshm=rime/1

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+speed

So, what is the connection between the word "speed" and the word "faster"????

In other words, what does speed have to do with fast or faster????

Why is the word "faster" in the sentence?

"Nothing travels faster than the speed of light."

it smells like another con to me...

I mean, it could not go fast or faster if fast is not the meaning of
speed.

Or is it?

In either sense, the word, "fast" and its derivatives do not exist in
physics. It is a humanities department word. "Engineers" also use it
because it's good enough for them. Also technicians.

Also basketball players.

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

XPost: sci.physics.relativity

The Starmaker wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

speed of light and time travel

it appears to me that yous people
have no idea about
speed of light and time travel.

I'll explain because it's so
simple.

If you travel faster than the
speed of light, do you
go into the future or
do you travel back to the past?

The answer is simple.

You just keep going!

There is no past
there is no future
there is only
Here and
Now.

So, if you travel
faster than the speed of light...
you would still be here and now.

(maybe over there)
(where?)
(right here, stupid!)

(the only problem is
yous peoples have no idea what
Here and Now...'is'.)

Now, let's take a closer look at what they say Albert Einsten said...

"Nothing travels faster than the speed of light."

Does the word "speed" have anything to do with the word "faster?

I mean, I looked up in the dictionary for the definition of the word "speed',
and there is no mention of the word 'fast' or faster'..

https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=571764422&sxsrf=AM9HkKkIradciP7x2fMxtNZtewbFU2M7-g:1696795955248&q=speed&si=ALGXSlZC_jbid1uaZGfc4a798NDvk5U1_YNeCS-mKNS6K7yD1UtUH4DLOOUcJUoQxypcPGVtVEP-3uWnd1oMveIDPqGMdncp2Q%3D%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=

2ahUKEwiqyazBoeeBAxVEcDwKHTStBIMQ2v4IegUIRBD1AQ&biw=1920&bih=1057&dpr=1&bshm=rime

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+speed

So, what is the connection between the word "speed" and the word "faster"????

In other words, what does speed have to do with fast or faster????

Why is the word "faster" in the sentence?

"Nothing travels faster than the speed of light."

it smells like another con to me...

I mean, it could not go fast or faster if fast is not the meaning of
speed.

Or is it?

Albert Einstein was a smart guy. He knew how to use 'words' to hide
behind.

Sure "Nothing travels faster than the speed of light." Can be

"God travels faster than the speed of light." since religious gangsters

like Krauss see God's real name to them is 'Nothing'.

But, I wonder how did Albert Einstein got the word "faster" to
mean...speed?

When in fact...there is no mention of that word in the definition of
speed?


https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+speed

What does speed have to do with fast?

I guess you might have to be an Einstein to answer that...










--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

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

XPost: sci.physics.relativity

The Starmaker wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

speed of light and time travel

it appears to me that yous people
have no idea about
speed of light and time travel.

I'll explain because it's so
simple.

If you travel faster than the
speed of light, do you
go into the future or
do you travel back to the past?

The answer is simple.

You just keep going!

There is no past
there is no future
there is only
Here and
Now.

So, if you travel
faster than the speed of light...
you would still be here and now.

(maybe over there)
(where?)
(right here, stupid!)

(the only problem is
yous peoples have no idea what
Here and Now...'is'.)

Now, let's take a closer look at what they say Albert Einsten said...

"Nothing travels faster than the speed of light."

Does the word "speed" have anything to do with the word "faster?

I mean, I looked up in the dictionary for the definition of the word "speed',
and there is no mention of the word 'fast' or faster'..

https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=571764422&sxsrf=AM9HkKkIradciP7x2fMxtNZtewbFU2M7-g:1696795955248&q=speed&si=ALGXSlZC_jbid1uaZGfc4a798NDvk5U1_YNeCS-mKNS6K7yD1UtUH4DLOOUcJUoQxypcPGVtVEP-3uWnd1oMveIDPqGMdncp2Q%3D%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=

2ahUKEwiqyazBoeeBAxVEcDwKHTStBIMQ2v4IegUIRBD1AQ&biw=1920&bih=1057&dpr=1&bshm=

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+speed

So, what is the connection between the word "speed" and the word "faster"????

In other words, what does speed have to do with fast or faster????

Why is the word "faster" in the sentence?

"Nothing travels faster than the speed of light."

it smells like another con to me...

I mean, it could not go fast or faster if fast is not the meaning of
speed.

Or is it?

Albert Einstein was a smart guy. He knew how to use 'words' to hide
behind.

Sure "Nothing travels faster than the speed of light." Can be

"God travels faster than the speed of light." since religious gangsters

like Krauss see God's real name to them is 'Nothing'.

But, I wonder how did Albert Einstein got the word "faster" to
mean...speed?

When in fact...there is no mention of that word in the definition of
speed?

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+speed

What does speed have to do with fast?

I guess you might have to be an Einstein to answer that...

Of course you got the word "travels" in there....but that relates to 'miles'.

If you have a horse in the Kentucky Derby that can clock at the 'speed of light'...how
do you make it go faster than the speed of light? You drug the horse! It goes faster.
(give the horse some cobra venom)


If i have a clock that reads the correct time 5 o'clock, and i set it at 5:05...is the clock running faster????





--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

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

XPost: sci.physics.relativity

On 10/9/2023 1:37 PM, The Starmaker wrote:

Of course you got the word "travels" in there....but that relates to
'miles'.

Could be that by, "travelling" the idiot translator of his paper meant, "touring".

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

The light speed limit is motion order.
If c were a variable it would change E=mc squared.
and the Gamma factor equation would change.

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

mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> wrote:

The light speed limit is motion order.

Gibberish.

If c were a variable it would change E=mc squared.

As well as a lot of other equations moron.

and the Gamma factor equation would change.

Did you mean the Lorentz factor moron?

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

XPost: sci.physics.relativity

The Starmaker wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

speed of light and time travel

it appears to me that yous people
have no idea about
speed of light and time travel.

I'll explain because it's so
simple.

If you travel faster than the
speed of light, do you
go into the future or
do you travel back to the past?

The answer is simple.

You just keep going!

There is no past
there is no future
there is only
Here and
Now.

So, if you travel
faster than the speed of light...
you would still be here and now.

(maybe over there)
(where?)
(right here, stupid!)

(the only problem is
yous peoples have no idea what
Here and Now...'is'.)

Now, let's take a closer look at what they say Albert Einsten said...

"Nothing travels faster than the speed of light."

Does the word "speed" have anything to do with the word "faster?

I mean, I looked up in the dictionary for the definition of the word "speed',
and there is no mention of the word 'fast' or faster'..

https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=571764422&sxsrf=AM9HkKkIradciP7x2fMxtNZtewbFU2M7-g:1696795955248&q=speed&si=ALGXSlZC_jbid1uaZGfc4a798NDvk5U1_YNeCS-mKNS6K7yD1UtUH4DLOOUcJUoQxypcPGVtVEP-3uWnd1oMveIDPqGMdncp2Q%3D%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=

2ahUKEwiqyazBoeeBAxVEcDwKHTStBIMQ2v4IegUIRBD1AQ&biw=1920&bih=1057&dpr=1&bshm=

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+speed

So, what is the connection between the word "speed" and the word "faster"????

In other words, what does speed have to do with fast or faster????

Why is the word "faster" in the sentence?

"Nothing travels faster than the speed of light."

it smells like another con to me...

I mean, it could not go fast or faster if fast is not the meaning of
speed.

Or is it?

Albert Einstein was a smart guy. He knew how to use 'words' to hide
behind.

Sure "Nothing travels faster than the speed of light." Can be

"God travels faster than the speed of light." since religious gangsters

like Krauss see God's real name to them is 'Nothing'.

But, I wonder how did Albert Einstein got the word "faster" to
mean...speed?

When in fact...there is no mention of that word in the definition of
speed?

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+speed

What does speed have to do with fast?

I guess you might have to be an Einstein to answer that...

In Einstein's mind (as he saw it) this is how the statement actualy
reads:



"Nothing travels faster than the fast of light."



--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

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

XPost: sci.physics.relativity

On 10/10/2023 2:52 PM, The Starmaker wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

In Einstein's mind (as he saw it) this is how the statement actualy
reads:

"Nothing travels faster than the fast of light."

In the mind of that cro-magnon translator of his paper, he may have also conceived of Einstein's "light" as something "not heavy". So Einstein's statement, according to him, must've been:

"Nothing can tour, or fast, if too heavy."

Makes sense too.

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

On Sunday, 8 October 2023 at 06:19:51 UTC+11, The Starmaker wrote:

speed of light and time travel

it appears to me that yous people
have no idea about
speed of light and time travel.

I'll explain because it's so
simple.

If you travel faster than the
speed of light, do you
go into the future or
do you travel back to the past?

If you travel faster than sound
You reach your destination sooner.
Ditto for travelling faster than light.

The light from the past
Will follow you to your destination.
At about the same time
For you will have to slow down
From your faster than light travel.

Can't keep on travelling faster than the speed of light, what.
Gotta stop when you reach the nearby star
And meet the folks on the planets around.

The answer is simple.

You just keep going!

There is no past
there is no future
there is only
Here and
Now.

So, if you travel
faster than the speed of light...
you would still be here and now.

(maybe over there)
(where?)
(right here, stupid!)

(the only problem is
yous peoples have no idea what
Here and Now...'is'.)

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

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

Can Texas A&M,Dr.Artem Abanov,Dr.Tom Adair,Dr.Girish Agarwal,please step inside there physics or chemistry laboratory and for once actually weigh the hydrogen gas and oxygen gas in Water Electrolysis to prove if water is really H4O and not H2O???

Why?? 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.

Texas A&M physics dept
Artem Abanov, Tom Adair, Girish Agarwal, Glenn Agnolet, Alexey Akimov, Roland Allen, Meigan Aronson, Bill Bassichis, Katrin Becker, Melanie Becker, Alexey Belyanin, Siu Ah Chin, Gregory Christian, Darren DePoy, Steven Dierker, Nelson Duller, Bhaskar
Dutta, Ricardo Eusebi, Alexander Finkelstein, Lewis Ford, Rainer Fries, Ed Fry, Carl Gagliardi, John Hardy, Philip Hemmer, Dudley Herschbach, Jeremy Holt, Teruki Kamon, Helmut G. Katzgraber, Robert Kennicutt, Che-Ming Ko, Olga Kocharovskaya, Vitaly
Kocharovsky, Jaan Laane, David Lee, Igor Lyuksyutov, Lucas Macri, Rupak Mahapatra, Jennifer Marshall, John Mason, Peter McIntyre, Dan Melconian, Saskia Miodszewski, Nader Mirabolfathi, Dimitri Nanopoulos, Donald Naugle, Casey Papovich, Valery Pokrovsky,
Christopher Pope, Ralf Rapp, Grigory Rogachev, Joe Ross, Alexei Safonov, Wayne Saslow, Hans Schuessler, Marlan Scully, Egin Sezgin, Alexei Sokolov, Louis Strigari, Nicholas Suntzeff, Winfried Teizer, David Toback, Kim-Vy Tran, Bob Tribble, Jonelle Walsh,
Lifan Wang, Robert Webb, Michael Weimer, George Welch, Wenhao Wu, Vladislav Yakovlev, Ping Yang, Dave Youngblood, Aleksei Zheltikov, M. Suhail Zubairy, Dr.Sheldon Glashow, Dr.Dudley Herschbach (chem), Dr.David Lee

President: Sally Kornbluth
MIT physics dept
William Bertozzi, Robert Birgeneau, Hale Bradt, Bernard Burke, George Clark , Jeffrey Goldstone, Thomas Greytak, Lee Grodzins , Paul Joss, Vera Kistiakowsky, Earle Lomon, Irwin Pless, Paul Schechter, James Young
Andrea Ghez, K. Barry Sharpless(chem), Carolyn Bertozzi(chem),Dr.Frank Wilczek,Dr.Rainer Weiss, Dr.Jerome Friedman, Dr.Wolfgang Ketterle, Dr.Richard Schrock (chem)

Why?? 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.

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
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 letter today of Experiment results on Water Electrolysis of weighing the hydrogen test tube versus oxygen test tube and the result is 1/4 atomic mass units of Hydrogen compared to Oxygen.

The researcher weighing 1600 micrograms of hydrogen, using a Eisco-Brownlee-Water-Electrolysis Apparatus.

Using sulfuric acid as electrolyte on ultra pure water. Using low voltage DC of 1.5 volts, 1 amp.

I am not surprised that news of the true formula of Water is H4O comes so quickly. For not much in science is more important than knowing the truth of Water. And this means the start of the complete downfall and throwing out the sick Standard Model of

Physics, for it is such an insane theory that it cannot get passed the idea of its subatomic particles as stick and ball, with no job, no function, no task. The Standard Model of Physics, is crazy insane physics for it is all postdiction, never
prediction. The idea that the hydrogen atom is H2 not H, is because of the prediction of Atom Totality Theory where a atom is a proton torus with muon inside doing the Faraday law and all atoms require at least 1 capacitor. That means the one proton in
H2 serves as a neutron to the other proton, storaging the electricity produced by the other proton.

The true Hydrogen Atom is H2 for all atoms need at least one capacitor, and one of the protons in H2 serves as a neutron.

Sad that chemistry and physics throughout the 20th century were too stupid to actually weigh the mass of hydrogen and oxygen in electrolysis, no, the ignorant fools stopped at looking when they saw the volume of hydrogen was twice that of oxygen. A

real scientist is not that shoddy and slipshod ignorant, the real scientist then proceeds with -- let us weigh the hydrogen test tube mass versus the oxygen test tube mass.

Thanks for the news!!!!!

AP

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.

There is another experiment that achieves the same result that Water is truly H4O and not H2O, but I suspect this second method is hugely fraught with difficulty.

The prediction of H4O comes from the Physics idea that a Atom is composed, all atoms mind you, is composed of a proton torus with muon/s inside going round and round thrusting through the torus in the Faraday law and producing electricity. So that when

you have Hydrogen without a neutron, there is no way to collect the electricity produced by the Faraday law. Think of it as a automobile engine, you cannot have a engine if there is no crank shaft to collect the energy from the thrusting piston inside
the crankcase.

Same thing with an Atom, it needs 3 parts-- muon as bar magnet, proton as torus of coils, and a capacitor to storage the produced electricity. If one of those parts is missing, the entity is a Subatomic particle and not a atom.

So, when we have Hydrogen as a proton with muon inside, it is not a Atom, until it has a neutron, or, has another proton of hydrogen H2, then it is a Atom.

So that H2 is not a molecule but a Atom. H alone is a subatomic particle.

SECOND EXPERIMENT:

Much harder than Water Electrolysis.

We need to get two identical containers.

We need to be able to make pure heavy-water with deuterium. Deuterium is proton + neutron as hydrogen. Proton + proton is H2 as hydrogen.

So we have two identical containers and we fill one with pure heavy water, deuterium water.

We have the second container and we fill it with pure (light) water.

We now weigh both of them.

If AP is correct, that water is really H4O and not H2O, then both containers should weigh almost the same. Only a tiny fraction difference because the neutron is known to be 940MeV versus proton in Old Physics as 938MeV a tiny difference of 2MeV, but

we realize we have a huge number of water molecules in the two identical containers.

If water is truly H4O, the weights should be almost the same. If water is H2O, then there is a **large difference** in weights.

But the Water Electrolysis experiment is much easier to conduct and get results.

And, there is the biological processes that apparently cannot distinguish between heavy water and that of regular normal water.

Deuterium Water is the same in biology as is normal regular water. This means that water must be H4O, due to biology as proof.

Deuterium Water in atomic mass units is 16 for the oxygen and 4 for the deuterium.

Regular normal Water in atomic mass units is 16 for the oxygen and 4 for the 4 protons in H4O.

Old Physics and Old Chemistry had regular water as H2O in atomic mass units of 16 oxygen and 2 hydrogen for 2 protons.

If biology functions whether heavy water or normal water all the same, then water itself must be H4O.

Now, there maybe some animal or plant that can separate out heavy water from H4O water???

Searching the literature today for where biology needs as essential deuterium water. And not too surprised that it is a essential requirement in metabolism. In fact one web site listed the need for deuterium more than the need of many minerals and

vitamins.

Now tonight I came up with two new exciting experiments to verify that Water is truly H4O and not H2O.

H4O is 4 protons with muons inside the 840MeV proton toruses.

Deuterium water is DOD. And the difference between D2O and H4O is merely the difference of 4MeV for as last reported, neutron = 940MeV and proton (with muon inside) is 938MeV, a difference of 2MeV but for water is 2+2 = 4MeV.

So these two new experiments take advantage of the fact that what we think is normal regular water is actually very close to heavy water of D2O, with only a 4MeV difference.

EXPERIMENT #3 Water layers in still pond of D2O mixed with H4O (what we thought was H2O.

So in this experiment we get a clear glass container and mix H4O with D2O. If Old Physics is correct, the heavy water should sink rapidly in the container while the light water floats to the top rapidly. And we have some sort of beam of photons that

can distinguish D2O from H4O (thought of as H2O. We obtain pure D2O and pure H4O each filling 1/2 of the container. We stir and mix them. And then we observe with the EM beam for separation. If the light water is truly H4O, it takes a long time for the
D2O to be on bottom and H4O on top. We measure the time of a settled container and determine this time from the theoretical 4MeV difference should take a long time, whereas if Old Physics is correct, the separation would be almost instantly and quick
time.

EXPERIMENT #4 also plays on this minor difference of 4MeV. We devise a sort of squirt gun for D2O and a identical squirt gun for H4O (what we call H2O). We put pure D2O in one squirt gun and the H40 or light water in the other squirt gun. Both guns

forcing the water a certain distance.

If AP is correct that light water is really H4O and not H2O as we squirt both guns, where the water lands should be almost the same distance considering H4O is only 4MeV apart from D2O.

If Old Physics and Old Chemistry is correct, then D2O water is 940 + 940 = 1880MeV apart from light water of H2O, and H4O is only 4MeV apart.

So where the squirt gun lands the D2O is a very much shorter distance than a H2O land, but a H4 land distance is nearly the same as the D2O land.

These two experiments are very exciting and would be a very nice confirming evidence to Water Electrolysis actual weighing the mass in atomic mass units.

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 5:07:13 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

Searching the literature today for where biology needs as essential deuterium water. And not too surprised that it is a essential requirement in metabolism. In fact one web site listed the need for deuterium more than the need of many minerals and

vitamins.

Now tonight I came up with two new exciting experiments to verify that Water is truly H4O and not H2O.

H4O is 4 protons with muons inside the 840MeV proton toruses.

Deuterium water is DOD. And the difference between D2O and H4O is merely the difference of 4MeV for as last reported, neutron = 940MeV and proton (with muon inside) is 938MeV, a difference of 2MeV but for water is 2+2 = 4MeV.

So these two new experiments take advantage of the fact that what we think is normal regular water is actually very close to heavy water of D2O, with only a 4MeV difference.

EXPERIMENT #3 Water layers in still pond of D2O mixed with H4O (what we thought was H2O.

So in this experiment we get a clear glass container and mix H4O with D2O. If Old Physics is correct, the heavy water should sink rapidly in the container while the light water floats to the top rapidly. And we have some sort of beam of photons that

can distinguish D2O from H4O (thought of as H2O. We obtain pure D2O and pure H4O each filling 1/2 of the container. We stir and mix them. And then we observe with the EM beam for separation. If the light water is truly H4O, it takes a long time for the
D2O to be on bottom and H4O on top. We measure the time of a settled container and determine this time from the theoretical 4MeV difference should take a long time, whereas if Old Physics is correct, the separation would be almost instantly and quick
time.

Apparently this Experiment is already done and called for-- There is Uniform Distribution of heavy water Deuterium Water in the Oceans, Lakes, Ponds, Streams and Rivers. Heavy Water is not layered in the oceans or lakes or ponds or streams or rivers.

Uniformity means that the difference between D2O and H4O is so slight of a difference (only 4MeV, compared to 1880MeV for H2O, that Brownian motion keeps the D2O and H4O in a Uniform Distribution in all bodies of water. I was going through the research
literature today and find that scientists discover Uniformity of Distribution of deuterium water. This thus closes the case on Water, for uniformity of distribution of D2O implies that Water is itself H4O and not H2O.


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

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

XPost: sci.physics.relativity

The Starmaker wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

speed of light and time travel

it appears to me that yous people
have no idea about
speed of light and time travel.

I'll explain because it's so
simple.

If you travel faster than the
speed of light, do you
go into the future or
do you travel back to the past?

The answer is simple.

You just keep going!

There is no past
there is no future
there is only
Here and
Now.

So, if you travel
faster than the speed of light...
you would still be here and now.

(maybe over there)
(where?)
(right here, stupid!)

(the only problem is
yous peoples have no idea what
Here and Now...'is'.)

Now, let's take a closer look at what they say Albert Einsten said...

"Nothing travels faster than the speed of light."

Does the word "speed" have anything to do with the word "faster?

I mean, I looked up in the dictionary for the definition of the word "speed',
and there is no mention of the word 'fast' or faster'..

https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=571764422&sxsrf=AM9HkKkIradciP7x2fMxtNZtewbFU2M7-g:1696795955248&q=speed&si=ALGXSlZC_jbid1uaZGfc4a798NDvk5U1_YNeCS-mKNS6K7yD1UtUH4DLOOUcJUoQxypcPGVtVEP-3uWnd1oMveIDPqGMdncp2Q%3D%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=

2ahUKEwiqyazBoeeBAxVEcDwKHTStBIMQ2v4IegUIRBD1AQ&biw=1920&bih=1057&dpr=1

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+speed

So, what is the connection between the word "speed" and the word "faster"????

In other words, what does speed have to do with fast or faster????

Why is the word "faster" in the sentence?

"Nothing travels faster than the speed of light."

it smells like another con to me...

I mean, it could not go fast or faster if fast is not the meaning of speed.

Or is it?

Albert Einstein was a smart guy. He knew how to use 'words' to hide
behind.

Sure "Nothing travels faster than the speed of light." Can be

"God travels faster than the speed of light." since religious gangsters

like Krauss see God's real name to them is 'Nothing'.

But, I wonder how did Albert Einstein got the word "faster" to mean...speed?

When in fact...there is no mention of that word in the definition of
speed?

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+speed

What does speed have to do with fast?

I guess you might have to be an Einstein to answer that...

In Einstein's mind (as he saw it) this is how the statement actualy
reads:

"Nothing travels faster than the fast of light."

Actually, "the speed of light" real definition of the word "speed" is
only 'fast'.

Actually, the letter 'c' in E=Mc^2 real definition is....fast.


and none of yous dummies knew that? what kind of Relativity do dey teach
in skool???






--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

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

XPost: sci.physics.relativity

On 10/12/2023 2:26 AM, The Starmaker wrote:

Actually, "the speed of light" real definition of the word "speed" is
only 'fast'.

Actually, the letter 'c' in E=Mc^2 real definition is....fast.

and none of yous dummies knew that? what kind of Relativity do dey teach
in skool???

The cro-magnon earlier human who first translated Einstein's paper to
English may have construed that the word, "speed" meant a form of
amphetamine (or mere ephedrine). So, "speed of light" in his savage
European mind may have sounded like, "Not too heavy use of ephedrine".
Think about that!

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

XPost: sci.physics.relativity

The Starmaker wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

speed of light and time travel

it appears to me that yous people
have no idea about
speed of light and time travel.

I'll explain because it's so
simple.

If you travel faster than the
speed of light, do you
go into the future or
do you travel back to the past?

The answer is simple.

You just keep going!

There is no past
there is no future
there is only
Here and
Now.

So, if you travel
faster than the speed of light...
you would still be here and now.

(maybe over there)
(where?)
(right here, stupid!)

(the only problem is
yous peoples have no idea what
Here and Now...'is'.)

Now, let's take a closer look at what they say Albert Einsten said...

"Nothing travels faster than the speed of light."

Does the word "speed" have anything to do with the word "faster?

I mean, I looked up in the dictionary for the definition of the word "speed',
and there is no mention of the word 'fast' or faster'..

https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=571764422&sxsrf=AM9HkKkIradciP7x2fMxtNZtewbFU2M7-g:1696795955248&q=speed&si=ALGXSlZC_jbid1uaZGfc4a798NDvk5U1_YNeCS-mKNS6K7yD1UtUH4DLOOUcJUoQxypcPGVtVEP-3uWnd1oMveIDPqGMdncp2Q%3D%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=

2ahUKEwiqyazBoeeBAxVEcDwKHTStBIMQ2v4IegUIRBD1AQ&biw=1920&bih=10

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+speed

So, what is the connection between the word "speed" and the word "faster"????

In other words, what does speed have to do with fast or faster????

Why is the word "faster" in the sentence?

"Nothing travels faster than the speed of light."

it smells like another con to me...

I mean, it could not go fast or faster if fast is not the meaning of speed.

Or is it?

Albert Einstein was a smart guy. He knew how to use 'words' to hide behind.

Sure "Nothing travels faster than the speed of light." Can be

"God travels faster than the speed of light." since religious gangsters

like Krauss see God's real name to them is 'Nothing'.

But, I wonder how did Albert Einstein got the word "faster" to mean...speed?

When in fact...there is no mention of that word in the definition of speed?

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=define+speed

What does speed have to do with fast?

I guess you might have to be an Einstein to answer that...

In Einstein's mind (as he saw it) this is how the statement actualy
reads:

"Nothing travels faster than the fast of light."

Actually, "the speed of light" real definition of the word "speed" is
only 'fast'.

Actually, the letter 'c' in E=Mc^2 real definition is....fast.

and none of yous dummies knew that? what kind of Relativity do dey teach
in skool???

https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=571764422&sxsrf=AM9HkKkIradciP7x2fMxtNZtewbFU2M7-g:1696795955248&q=speed&si=ALGXSlZC_jbid1uaZGfc4a798NDvk5U1_YNeCS-mKNS6K7yD1UtUH4DLOOUcJUoQxypcPGVtVEP-3uWnd1oMveIDPqGMdncp2Q%3D%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=
2ahUKEwiqyazBoeeBAxVEcDwKHTStBIMQ2v4IegUIRBD1AQ&biw=1920&bih=1057&dpr=1



Those Oxford Dictionary guys are not so smart.


A very long time ago the word "speed" had only a one word definition: fast.

Now, they have tons of words for the definition for the word speed except "fast". What kind of people work at Oxford Dictionary, RETARDS????



--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

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