The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: extending silver conductivity Chapt13.40061 Superconductivity in New
Physics #784 New Physics #919 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Replies: 0  

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List  
archimede plutanium

Posts: 101
Registered: 5/9/12
extending silver conductivity Chapt13.40061 Superconductivity in New
Physics #784 New Physics #919 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Posted: Aug 17, 2012 8:41 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Aug 9 (8 days ago)
I am going to need a new chapter for this theory of Superconductivity,
because , the strong nuclear force is chemical bond
and that the nucleus of atoms is very similar to the electron
of atoms. So we remove the quantum mechanics out of physics.
In Old Physics, they had Quantum Mechanics as the pinnacle of physics
and Maxwell Equations , as a side show of
physics, calling them "classical physics" which is a codeword for the truth.

In New Physics, we reverse the situation where the Maxwell Equations
are not at the heart of physics and ,of Quantum Mechanics is just a pile and
gaggles, regulations and principles, not a whole theory,
because it is all derivable from the Maxwell Equations, and not vice
versa. The Maxwell Equations are like the "mother in physics" that
gives birth to , the Quantum Mechanics of physics.

So by making these Equations the axioms of physics we easily
derive the principles of Quantum Mechanics, and mostly from the
concept of "perpetual motion".

But let me do this chapter on superconductivity with the Maxwell
Equations as axioms. Because they are the axioms, we would expect to
end up with an explanation of it as a enhancement of
" conductivity" rather than what QM thought the ending should
be-- a altogether different new phenomenon. In Physics, the
superior conductivity of silver, copper will be extended to
explain the superconductivity . So this is a major
break from QM where they thought superconductivity was an "out of this
world explanation" with some of that shmanzy quantum shiggely
priggely, doogely bouggely much like the higgely piggely of a fibly bosons--
bosons' a bitches, if you pardon my language.

In New Physics, we explain why silver, copper gold extend it to why
mercury at 4 K is superconductive. In New Physics, we explain the Maxwell
conductivity and superconductivity.

And to cut to the chase, what that explanation is, quite simply, it is
the fact that in the asymmetrical Equations with the added term
in the law of magnetic current density, that monopoles exist,
is a enhancement of the way silver is the
superior normal conductor.

This is the beauty of having the Maxwell Equations as the axioms of
physics, that I wish to wander out into that depraved
field of over-imagination, but rather, grounds us
with silver and copper conductivity and extending those to

The reason silver is a superconductive is because the electrons in
motion still have points of motion, but when you
further align the waves (the atomic wires) such as in mercury at 4
Kelvin at 5, after the news, align them via magnetism (Meissner effect)
that you end up with conductiveness.

A analogy is easy to find in that once you align the 1s shell with
two electrons to form zinc you get super-inert-gas. Argon:
a super-inert gas of the p subshell and then it is is no longer a
super-inert gas but a normal inert gas for it allows gases in -- just
like me, say people.

New Physics, in short, replaces Quantum Mechanics with the Maxwell
Equations, and so our explanations and understanding of physics
phenomenon has to agree with the Maxwell Equations, not some physics
professor of hyper-imagination, seeking fame, rather than truth.

Archimedes Plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies, and I have no data outside of Wikipedia to support anything I say.

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.