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: concepts Glossary #1299 New Physics #1419 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
Replies: 0  

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List

Posts: 18,572
Registered: 3/31/08
concepts Glossary #1299 New Physics #1419 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
Posted: Mar 18, 2013 12:59 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Alright, 2 more posts and the end of New Physics for the 5th edition.
It has been highly productive, and one of the most productive periods
of my life, where I wrangled together all of physics under one axiom
set. Do not ever believe others who say that a scientist best
productive years are before he/she reaches 30, for they do not know
what they are talking about. The most productive years of a scientist
can often be when they reach old age from 40 to 63. I think Euler,
Maxwell, Dirac, Galileo were smartest and most productive after 40.
Unfortunately, many of the best scientists played around too much with
toxic chemicals such as mercury, such as Newton and Faraday. But if
you are a exceptional scientist, your peek prime can often be from 40
to 63, provided of course, your living conditions and social affairs
give you the time to devote to science. Many scientists are waylaid
due to social circumstances that fills their time and thoughts with
nonscience activities. One of the reasons I never married, was that I
instinctively knew it would drag me away from science, never to devote
myself. So when they say, if nothing by age 30, then your spent, is
pure malarkey. If you love science and want to accomplish new science,
then you have to prepare in High School your road to that eventual
success, and never stray off that road too much. You can take a few
detours, but not too many.

But now, these last 2 pages of New Physics. I want to prepare myself
in memory for the 6th edition by reading the last 10 pages to remind
myself of how to organize and where I last left off in ideas. A
glossary of concepts and terms is good practice for organizing and

Now I need to include big and great experiments of New Physics in the
glossary. The experiment that comes to mind most readily is the
Faraday Law Parity Experiment which seeks to find out if a electron
aligned in spin causes a single, one and only one electron in the
closed loop wire to move as current. So we want to know if magnetism
is equal to electricity in the Faraday law. And this also relates to
Dirac's estimate that a magnetic monopole is 137/2(e) which would say
the Parity Experiment is not 1 to 1 but rather would be 1 to 137/2.
Personally I think Dirac made a mistake here and that it is really 1
to 1.

(17) Faraday Law Parity Experiment: ?What is attempted is to answer
the question of how much of a magnetic ?field creates a electric
current flow in the closed loop wire. We know ?that a permanent bar
magnet has N number of electrons of aligned spin ?in order to create
the permanent bar magnet. So the question is, is ?every single
electron of spin aligned in the magnet cause a single ?electron in the
closed loop wire to move as a current. ?Another way of asking the
question, is whether 10^10 single electrons ?of the magnet of aligned
spin cause exactly the same number of ?electrons in the closed loop
wire to move as a current flow 10^10.
Now the difficult part of the experiment is to remove the arbitrary
motion of the thrusting of the magnet into the closed loop. If the
magnet motion is fast, then the current is fast and large than if the
motion were slow. I am not questioning the speed of thrust of magnet.
I am wanting to know of the numbers correlation between electron
spins ?in the magnet as linked to how many electrons move in the
closed loop ?wire. Is it a parity? If there are 6*10^23 aligned
electrons of spin ?in the magnet that cause exactly and only exactly
6*10^23 electrons in ?the closed loop wire to move as a current, then
we have Parity.
And if that is true, then we still have the Ampere/Maxwell law and we
would have that 6*10^23 electrons in the current create a magnetic
field of 6*10^23 lines-of-magnetic-force, yet there is still the
unaccounted Displacement Current.
So if this experiment is conducted and essentially the above facts
are ?arrived at, then the Displacement Current in the Maxwell
Equations is ?a proof that Conservation Laws of Physics have no upper
limit, but ?that mass and energy is freely and newly created.

(18) Fusion Barrier Principle:

What the Fusion Barrier Principle, FBP, is
A good definition of the Fusion Barrier Principle, FBP is: Fission
energy is the highest form of energy that is able to be controlled and
surpass breakeven. A Tokamak such as JET or ITER can only reach 2/3
breakeven because 1/3 of the input energy is forever lost in
controlling the device.

How is it derived from the Maxwell Equations as axioms? Well it is
rather simple and easy for if you consider Faraday law as cylinder and
Gauss's law of electricity as a sphere, that Faraday law is 1/3 more
surface area than the sphere of Gauss's law. So to control a machine
without blowing it apart in an explosion, you have to input 1/3 more
energy to control the machine than ever the 2/3 energy coming out in

(19) Standard Model of Physics: well, it is a fakery but let me
highlight its horrible features. It is purely just mathematical of a
algebra. It never made any predictions but always waited for the
experiments to come in with data and then it claimed to have made
"post-dictions" not predictions. Such as the recent disaster of Higgs
boson where some are now claiming 6 Higgs boson because the particle
never met the criteria of prediction. When physics is run by persons
who love a mathematical scheme and try to straight-jacket physics to
that mathematical scheme, they usually end up in the trash heap of
science history. The last time I remember a mathematical algebra
running physics was the Ptolemy epicycles where the motion of all the
planets and their moons had to be "perfect circles" and since none of
them were perfect circles but rather ellipses in motion, more and more
epicycles had to be dreamed up. Just like the Higgs boson nonsense
where they now are dreaming up 6 Higgs bosons.

The smart, the intelligent physicist, instead of running to pure math
and their algebras to straight-jacket physics with, why not just take
the Maxwell Equations, the 4 Symmetrical Maxwell Equations and present
them as the axioms over all of physics and see what miraculous
unifications and predictions those 4 equations deliver.

Now Maxwell died at a relatively young age of 48 from stomach cancer.
I wonder if any modern day medicine autopsy can be taken as to why
stomach cancer? But if Maxwell had lived to be in his 60s, I am
confident the idea would have entered his mind that the Maxwell
Equations could be the axiom set over all of physics. Maxwell was a
good mathematician as well as a physicist, so I wonder if he ever
hinted the idea of his equations being a axiom set.


Google's (and Bing's) searches and archives are top-heavy in hate-spew
generated by search-engine-bombing. And the Google archive stopped
functioning properly by about May 2012 to accommodate Google's New-
Newsgroups. And recently ( threatens to harm?your
computer if opening a post of mine.

The solution to the sci. newsgroups is to have the sciences hosted by
colleges and universities such as Drexel University hosting sci.math,
not by corporations like Google out to make money. Science belongs in
education, not in money motivated corporations. Do I hear a
University ?doing sci.physics, sci.chem, sci.biology, sci.geology,
etc ?etc

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.