Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


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

Topic: Feynman outlines a Electron Ecliptic proof Chapt15.59
electrons-ecliptic-plane #1352 New Physics #1555 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Replies: 13   Last Post: May 8, 2013 8:43 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com

Posts: 9,575
Registered: 3/31/08
Feynman outlines a Electron Ecliptic proof Chapt15.59
electrons-ecliptic-plane #1352 New Physics #1555 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Posted: May 7, 2013 1:51 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Alright, I play by the same honest rules as any true scientist plays
by, in that I give credit to those who have priority. John Sefton had
the good insight to think that electrons form a plane of ecliptic
inside of atoms, although he never proved the electron ecliptic for he
formed that opinion by fractal geometry. John talks about electron
ecliptic around 2004-5. I independently discovered electron ecliptic
in 2013, coming directly out of the Maxwell Equations as axioms over
all of physics.

Now I may or may not have found an experimental proof of the Electron
Ecliptic from Rutherford Scattering anomalies. Here is one which talks
about the Anomalies using neutrons on "ammonium hexachlorometallates"
in the Journal of Chemical Physics Volume 126, issue 12, 2007

"Anomalous neutron Compton scattering cross sections in ammonium
hexachlorometallates" by
Krzystyniak, Dreismann, Lerch, Lalowicz, Szymocha.

I am not familiar to the experiments of Rutherford or Compton
scattering anomalies.

But let me paint a picture of what the anomaly should look like.
Suppose the Solar System had the Sun as a planet size of Earth yet the
same mass, and had all 8 planets as 8 electrons. So now if we fired
rockets (neutrons) at the Solar System, the greatest chance of a
collision of rockets with the Sun or planets is when the rockets are
at a perpendicular to the plane of ecliptic. As the plane is rotated
through all 360 degrees, there are 2 instances when the rocket
launching is at 90 degrees to the planar ecliptic. And I am guessing
when those two instances occur in scattering, the scientists are
calling it an anomaly.

Now there is a Descriptive proof of Electron Ecliptic, and it involves
Cleavage of Mineralogy. All solids of Chemistry have cleavage, even
glass which is often said to be amorphous, but even glass has
localized cleavage. Now the only way that "all solids" would have
cleavage, is when all electrons of atoms form a planar ecliptic
because then, and only then, as chemical bonds are broken would we
have the planar ecliptic bond breaking in a straight line cleavage. If
not for electron ecliptic, the science of cleavage would be that all
solids would have amorphous glasslike splitting of compounds.

Now three other descriptive proofs occur for electron ecliptic in the
fact of ductility and malleability and reflectivity of light. Those
three are enhanced if electrons form planar ecliptic.

But let me get to the meat of this post, a actual proof that electrons
form electron ecliptic. And here, the proof is really simple and
Feynman sets us up for the proof in his book "The Character of
Physical Law" 1965, pages 46 to 47 where he discusses a minimum
principle. Now Feynman is telling us that the force law of gravity by
Newton is equivalent to the "local field" or that to the "minimum
principle".

So what I simply do is recognize Newton gravity is the Coulomb law in
Maxwell Equations with a EM-gravity cell, and the "local field" is the
EM field of Maxwell Equations. So what does that provide me with?
Well, Feynman already did most of the work by showing those three are
equivalent to one another.

That means, electrons, like planets must follow the minimum principle
which means they most take a path of orbiting which takes up the very
least of distance of separation.

So, if we are handed 8 planets or 8 electrons and asked to form a
orbital geometry around a nucleus (Sun) what is the least path orbit
for all 8?

It does not take a rocket scientist to quickly realize the only
orbital paths with the Least Energy or Least distance of separation is
one in which the planets or electrons orbit in a planar ecliptic. If
you move a planet or electron out of the planar ecliptic say for
instance moving Saturn out, the distance of separation between Saturn
and Jupiter or Saturn and Uranus is so great that it violates Minimum
Principle.

Now perhaps a more intuitive proof is the Bohr atom of moving an
electron from one orbit to the next orbit, for the path of Saturn and
Jupiter is a minimal distance if they are in the same planar ecliptic
and if they had perfect circular orbits the distance of their paths of
separation is a constant minimum distance. But if they were not in an
ecliptic plane then only 2 moments in time is the distance of
separation at a minimum. So that Bohr quantum mechanics would not be a
minimum principle if the electrons were not in a planar ecliptic.

So, when people talk about electron ecliptic, give credit to John
Sefton for recognizing the electrons form a planar ecliptic by 2004.
But give credit to Archimedes Plutonium for proving that electrons
form a planar ecliptic.

--
Approximately 90 percent of AP's posts are missing in the Google
newsgroups author search starting May 2012. They call it indexing; I
call it censor discrimination. Whatever the case, what is needed now
is for science newsgroups like sci.physics, sci.chem, sci.bio,
sci.geo.geology, sci.med, sci.paleontology, sci.astro,
sci.physics.electromag to?be hosted by a University the same as what
Drexel?University hosts sci.math as the Math Forum. Science needs to
be in education?not in the hands of corporations chasing after the
next dollar bill.?Besides, Drexel's Math Forum can demand no fake
names, and only 5 posts per day, of all posters which reduces or
eliminates most spam and hate-spew, search-engine-bombing, and front-
page-hogging. Drexel has?done a excellent, simple and fair author-
archiving of AP sci.math posts since May 2012?as seen?here:

http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies


Date Subject Author
5/7/13
Read Feynman outlines a Electron Ecliptic proof Chapt15.59
electrons-ecliptic-plane #1352 New Physics #1555 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
5/7/13
Read Re: STOP POSTING YOUR OFF-TOPIC CRAP IN HERE, YOU WORTHLESS,
WANNABEE-SCIENTIST #$%^ BABOON
gk@gmail.com
5/7/13
Read Re: STOP POSTING YOUR OFF-TOPIC CRAP IN HERE, YOU WORTHLESS,
WANNABEE-SCIENTIST #$%^ BABOON
gk@gmail.com
5/7/13
Read Re: STOP POSTING YOUR OFF-TOPIC CRAP IN HERE, YOU WORTHLESS,
WANNABEE-SCIENTIST #$%^ BABOON
gk@gmail.com
5/7/13
Read Re: HEY, ASSHOLE: THIS IS CALLED SCI.MATH FOR A FUCKING REASON
gk@gmail.com
5/7/13
Read Re: HEY, ASSHOLE: THIS IS CALLED SCI.MATH FOR A FUCKING REASON
gk@gmail.com
5/7/13
Read Re: HEY, ASSHOLE: THIS IS CALLED SCI.MATH FOR A FUCKING REASON
Bart Goddard
5/7/13
Read Re: HEY, ASSHOLE: THIS IS CALLED SCI.MATH FOR A FUCKING REASON
gk@gmail.com
5/7/13
Read Re: HEY, ASSHOLE: THIS IS CALLED SCI.MATH FOR A FUCKING REASON
Bart Goddard
5/8/13
Read Re: HEY, ASSHOLE: THIS IS CALLED SCI.MATH FOR A FUCKING REASON
gk@gmail.com
5/8/13
Read Re: HEY, ASSHOLE: THIS IS CALLED SCI.MATH FOR A FUCKING REASON
Bart Goddard
5/7/13
Read constant separation distance versus a variable distance Chapt15.59
electrons-ecliptic-plane #1353 New Physics #1556 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
5/8/13
Read Re: constant separation distance versus a variable distance
Chapt15.59 electrons-ecliptic-plane #1353 New Physics #1556 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
gk@gmail.com
5/8/13
Read Re: plutonium is a Liar, Thug and Cheat, not to Mention a Moron. No
moderated site will have him.
gk@gmail.com

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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.