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: main issue of superconductivity is amperage and type of current, not
the temperature #1187 New Physics #1307 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Replies: 0  

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List

Posts: 18,572
Registered: 3/31/08
main issue of superconductivity is amperage and type of current, not
the temperature #1187 New Physics #1307 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Posted: Jan 29, 2013 4:12 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Alright, I have enough chapters and categories of chapters to fit
together these ideas in a future 6th edition of this book. The 5th
edition looks like it will reach about 1500 pages for the Atom
Totality theory and will reach about 1300 pages for New Physics. I am
going to keep the two-books-in-one book in all future editions. I had
never anticipated that in writing this 5th edition that I would focus
in on having an axiom set over all of physics -- Maxwell Equations,
and thus be able to revise all of physics. This book, to physics is
comparable to what Newton did for physics with Principia Mathematica,
by synthesizing physics, only I did not have to work as hard because
Maxwell did the majority of the work in synthesizing electricity with
magnetism, and what I did was simply recognize that all of physics is
just electricity and magnetism. If you look at my earlier editions of
the text Atom Totality, editions 1 through 4, that in those editions,
I had to argue why the Atom Totality was superior to the Big Bang
theory. In this 5th edition, where all of physics comes from the facts
of chemistry added the axioms of the Maxwell Equations, I no longer
need to even or ever mention the Big Bang theory. Sort of like when
doing biology and doing the cell theory of biology, why bother to
mention fakeries of biology science such as the 4 Humors of Ancient
Greek and Roman science.

But let me get back to the issues at hand with superconductivity and
thermodynamics. And let me bounce around freely on these topics here
near the end of New Physics text. For I accomplished nearly all that I
set out for myself of the past 6 months.

Let me remark more about the bad state of condition of the physics
literature on Superconductivity. I remarked on this before by saying
that most of the important facts about superconductivity are not
reported. The situation with superconductivity reporting of this
science is that it is hyper reporting on temperature, but miserable
failure to report items such as how much current, what type of current
that superconductors can take. As I said before, the logic involved in
solving superconductivity is much like the logic involved in solving a
murder mystery crime. If you have DNA and fingerprints and video of
the crime scene and murder weapons and body you pretty much have a
solid stack of evidence in support of a solution to the crime. But in
superconductivity, about all you have to go on in solving the
mechanism, is reports of a temperature and nothing much else.

Even the fact that Onnes in 1911 used a 0.6 amp magnetic induction
current took me some hours to track down.

So the pitiful state of science reporting in Superconductivity is a
major reason that this science is in the weeds of obfuscation. What is
needed and the most important facts surrounding superconductivity is
not the temperature of transition but rather, the very most important
facts of superconductivity is how much current, what type of current
and how much of that current can the superconductor maintain. The
transition temperature is secondary in importance to the type of
current and how much of that current. Like in a murder mystery, if you
had no body, no film coverage, no DNA, no fingerprints, and only a
missing person, well, you have little to mold a theory around.

So now, if the reporters of science and the scientists in the field of
superconductivity did a better job, what they would report is the type
and amount of current that superconductors hold at a specific
temperature. As of 2013, it is rare, extremely rare that anyone can
find out in a research report how much current and type of current a
superconductor maintains.

Why is type and amount of current so very important? Well, if the
Malus law theory of superconductivity is true and the BCS theory is a
fake theory, then in the Malus law theory of superconductivity, we can
have room temperature superconductors and higher temperature, but the
amount of current maintained is a milliampere current for a few
seconds or minutes.

And this is where our researches into superconductivity is now heading
for, in that the reports of vortices, in the reports of no AC
superconduction, and in the reports that only a few amps are allowed
in superconductivity. All of these true reports lean in the direction
that it is not temperature that is important in superconductivity, but
rather the most important fact is how much amperage and what type of
current is allowed.

In the Malus law theory, the photons are responsible and photons
thrive in both hot and cold. But photons are affected by polarization,
and so temperature and heat in the Maxwell Equations turns out to be
photons with polarization. And when you link or pair a photon with a
electron in conduction or superconduction, the main and important
issue is not the temperature, but how much of a amperage current and
what type of current is maintained.

I am confident that since superconductivity from 1990s onward is faced
mainly with "vortices problems" that these vortices are like the
spectral lines in quantum mechanics the windows into the realm of the
atom, that vortices are windows into telling us how correct is the
Malus law theory and how dismally fake is the BCS theory.

The reason that reporters of science never tell us the amperage
sustainability and whether AC or DC, is because of how dismally little
progress has been achieved with superconductivity other than the
sensationalism of a higher Tc temperature.


Google's archives are top-heavy in hate-spew from search-engine-
bombing. Only Drexel's Math Forum has done a excellent, simple and
fair archiving of AP posts for the past 15 years as seen here:


Archimedes Plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

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.