Chapt15.57 ultimate meaning of the fine-structure constant 1/137, the"pi of physics" #1333 New Physics #1536 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

In the next edition of this book I can dispense with the earlier
chapter of 15.55 where I thought a 5th Maxwell Equation was needed.

Chapt15.60 I do not need a 5th Maxwell Equation #1345 New Physics
#1548 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Alright, last night I gained a new insight that leads me to believe I
never needed a 5th equation for the Maxwell Equations and that the 4
Maxwell Equations with magnetic monopoles handles the problem of the
idea that magnetic monopoles never repel but are attraction force
only. So that a magnetic dipole can be a numerous quantity of magnetic
monopoles, regardless of whether they are all "alike in north or south
pole".

The insight is this UNIVERSAL GEOMETRY, I have been discussing lately,
where Euclidean geometry is the union of Elliptic geometry with
Hyperbolic geometry.

Now in mathematics we have rules of negative times negative is always
positive, and negative times positive is always negative, and negative
plus negative is always negative, and positive plus negative can be
either or. A bunch of rules.

Now the deepest and gravest error of 20th and 21st century mathematics
was its inability to ever define the concept of infinity by giving its
borderline between finite versus infinity. In a very long textbook of
mine titled "Correcting Math" I show where this borderline is root-pi
10^603. But perhaps the second greatest grave error of mathematics of
the 20th and 21st century was its inability to spot that Geometry
axioms cannot be where you make tiddly-wink alternatives to the
parallel postulate and thus come up with 3 geometries of mathematics.
Rather instead, in geometry three alternatives exist to a number,
greater than, equal to, or less than, which relates to 1 line
parallel, 0 lines parallel, and more than 1 line parallel.

The second gravest error of modern mathematics is the inability to
realize this formula:

Euclidean geometry = Elliptic geometry unioned with Hyperbolic
geometry

Now that inability seeps over into this rule that modern mathematics
follows, but has never provided for in their axiom sets of either
Peano axioms or Hilbert axioms of geometry or any other axiom set of
mathematics. It is pulled out of thin air in mathematics. It is these
bunch of rules that negative times negative is always positive, etc,
that I mentioned above.

Now earlier in this textbook, I thought I needed a fifth Maxwell
equation of - div*M = 0 to cover the fact that magnetic monopoles are
attraction force only. And I devoted a chapter to this.

Chapt15.55 the 5th Maxwell Equation where magnetic monopoles are
attract-only

div*E = r_E
div*B = r_B
- div*M = 0
- curlxE = dB + J_B
curlxB = dE + J_E
And now we modify the Dirac Equation with a total of 6 terms rather
than 5 terms:
(Ad_x + Bd_y + Cd_z + (i/c)Dd_t - mc/h - (div*M)) f_w(p) = 0

But now I am making a new chapter that says I never needed a fifth
Maxwell Equation because the magnetic current density term in the
Faraday law
covers the fact that magnetic monopoles are attraction force only.

Chapt15.60 I do not need a 5th Maxwell Equation

How does it do that?

Well, it is the negative sign in the Faraday law that covers the
magnetic monopole to be attraction force only.

If in mathematics, you are talking only about Euclidean geometry, then
the rules of negative times negative is always positive are rules that
apply only to Euclidean geometry. But what if we were doing
multiplication in Hyperbolic geometry where all the numbers are
negative numbers to begin with and that no positive numbers exist in
Hyperbolic geometry, so that in this geometry -2 x -3 is no +6 but
rather is -6.

So here is the rub, that in Old Math with no axioms to guide them as
to these rules, and the rules being far different depending on the
geometry they are based in, that the 4 Maxwell Equations already has
the fact that in Hyperbolic geometry -2x-3 =-6.

In other words, the Maxwell Equations of its 4 equations with magnetic
monopoles already surpasses Old Math which made up rules of
multiplication and those rules were unwarranted.
--
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
he

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

Now I need to include this in my math textbook of Correcting Math for
Old Math was unaware of missing axioms in geometry that allow for
rules of sign in addition and multiplication.

Now I thought I needed that 5th Maxwell Equation, - div*M = 0 to get
the fact that magnetic monopoles are attraction force only. But a clue
came in from mathematics that I need no 5th equation and can get that
attraction force only from the add on to the Faraday law of magnetic
current density.
If we consider that Total Geometry is the Euclidean geometry equals
the
union of Elliptic with Hyperbolic geometries. And Elliptic is all
positive numbers only and Hyperbolic is all negative numbers only.
Euclidean is both positive and negative numbers.
Now there are some rules in mathematics of these:
Negative times negative is always positive.
Negative times positive is always negative.
Negative plus positive depends on which is larger in absolute-value.
Negative plus negative is always negative.
Now in mathematics they made a huge mistake of omission in that none
of those rules are in the axioms of mathematics but are defined as
such. Neither in Peano axioms nor in Hilbert axioms of geometry can we
derive those rules. And even if we can derive those Rules, they are
confined to just Euclidean geometry and need a special new batch of
rules if doing Hyperbolic geometry where all numbers are negative
numbers so that if you multiply a negative by a negative you end up
with a negative. Now none of us can fathom that for mathematics, but
it is there in the Maxwell Equations.

Now those rules are true only for Euclidean geometry with a Descartes
coordinate system. But those rules are meaningless in Elliptic
geometry where all the numbers are positive numbers and you cannot
have negative numbers even if the absolute value of the subtraction is
larger. Likewise the reverse for Hyperbolic geometry where all the
numbers are negative numbers and no positives.
So how does this relate to no need for a 5th Maxwell Equation?

div*E = r_E

div*B = r_B

- div*M = 0

- curlxE = dB + J_B

curlxB = dE + J_E

I would like to run a survey of chemistry and astronomy professors of
how many of them know the Maxwell Equations with proficiency? I know
some chemists can work with the Schrodinger Equation, but can they
work proficiently with the Maxwell Equations? Or, is the reason they
are astronomers and chemists, is because the Maxwell Equations are too
difficult for them?

Well, what I need is a attraction force only for the magnetic
monopoles, and if the magnetic current density term is always positive
and the dB term is always positive
- curlxE = dB + J_B
while the curlxE term is always negative means that the J_B term must
in fact be negative and not positive. The J_B term is always negative,
regardless of what the multipliers are.
So instead of a whole new 5th Maxwell Equation of -div*M = 0 to obtain
a attraction force only, I just look to the magnetic current density
to get that attraction force only.
So in mathematics, if instead of the Hilbert axioms, we pitch them out
and replace them with the 4 Maxwell Equations because we get not only
those rules of algebra of negative times negative is always positive
but we get all three geometries simultaneously, without having to snip
and cut and paste into the parallel axiom.

--
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
he

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

On May 5, 3:49 am, Archimedes Plutonium

- Hide quoted text -
wrote:
On May 5, 1:49 am, john wrote:
Archie, my idea is that atoms and galaxies are
the same thing, and everything repeats in
both directions (smaller and larger scales).
The Universe is infinitely large, infinitely old,
and infinitely small in my model.
You take the atom as a model for the
Universe, which is quite intuitive, and
many of your ideas I find interesting, because
I like people who think outside the box.
But my electrons have all been in the
ecliptic since 1983. My model hasn't changed
since then, only developed.
I do use my own name, and I'm glad
you are a proponent of that.
john
Hi John, I get a electron ecliptic inside each and every atom in order
to satisfy the 4 Maxwell Equations with magnetic monopoles. I have
these 4 equations that derives all of Physics. So with those 4
Equations
the question becomes, how do electrons orbit atoms and because those
are the only axioms of Physics, they say the electrons must form an
ecliptic plane inside the atom, and are similar to how the planets
orbit the Sun.
Now you say your electrons are in an ecliptic also, and since 1983.
How did you come by such a conclusion? I came by it because of the 4
Maxwell Equations. Certainly you must not have by the Maxwell
Equations as axioms over all of physics for you would not have talked
about black holes in 2005 in your model. So I would be interested in
why you came to that electron ecliptic conclusion since you did not
use Maxwell Equations. And where in science literature is this
electron ecliptic printed or published or recorded with a date of
1983? It has to be more than a website saying 1983, because websites
can list any date the owner wants to list.
Moroney is not even a scientist and a sheer waste of time to even talk
science to. Back in 1990s, Moroney said 231Pu is impossible to exist
and just a few years later a German and American scientist
nucleosynthesized 231Pu. Worse yet, the man can not even count
straight, when he argued in the 1990s that plutonium has 21
suborbitals of s,p,d,f instead of 22. He likes science, but utterly no
good in it-- the likely reason he wastes the time of others.
AP


I googled advanced newsgroup with the words "Sefton electron
ecliptic"
and 12 hits popped up, one of which was this one:
John Sefton
Posted: Tue Aug 10, 2004 10:07 pm
The only planetary system we have studied
is our own. It's planets are in mostly
ecliptic orbits.
This is
a. because the Sun threw the material
out in the ecliptic and it stayed.
b. because orbits out of the ecliptic
tend to self-destruct
How can we then call Bohr's 'planetary
model' that at all, when no
planetary system we know of is in orbits
very much in different planes as his
was. (Of course we only know of the one-
ours.)
Galaxy matter is ecliptic, spirals anyway.
Therefore, so too might the electron clouds
tend to organize in the same ecliptic plane.
Planets do it. Stars do it. Should electrons
be different? Follow different laws?
Some people follow different laws, but like
planets orbitting in a different plane, they
will eventually intersect with another and
be seriously re-directed.
John
[quote:ce7458e727]http://www.petcom.com/~john/
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/ptanimation.GIF[/quote:ce7458e727]
--- end quoting old post of John Sefton ---
So I am satisfied that John Sefton had the idea of electron ecliptic
earlier than I had the idea here in 2013.
Based on his posts, John arrives at an electron ecliptic not through
deduction reasoning but through Fractal analogy. In one of John's old
posts he embraces black holes and thinks they kick out matter in the
center of galaxies which becomes stars and stellar planar ecliptic.
So the basis for John's electron ecliptic is fractal geometry for
which John seems to hold fractals as the axioms of physics where he
says that the pattern in the large scale is the same as the pattern
of
the small scale.
The basis of AP's electron ecliptic, arrived at independently and
unknowing of John Sefton's view, is that the Maxwell Equations are
the
axioms over all of physics and that these equations demand gravity to
be EM-gravity and so the planets, stars and galaxies operate under
the
forces of the Maxwell Equations. So what we see in planets and stars
and galaxies can be expected similar geometries of electrons, protons
and neutrons inside of atoms since both have to be derived solely and
purely from the Maxwell Equations.
So I am satisfied that John is not stealing from me. And I am not
stealing from John, since I arrived at electron-ecliptic from the
Maxwell Equations, and John simply arrived at it from fractal
geometry
notions.
However in John's recent post saying this:
On May 4, 2:38 pm, john wrote:
Atoms are discs like galaxies.
Yes, all the electons in an
atom are in the same plane.
They have to be, because when they turn
they cause magnetism, and those magnetics
don't want to fight
john
galaxy model

John is appearing to shift his basis of derivation. John appears to
be
coming closer to the idea that all facts and data of physics have to
be proven via the Maxwell Equations as his line "They have to be,
because when they turn they cause magnetism, and those magnetics
don't
want to fight"
Now if John furthers his idea of electron ecliptic by bringing in the
Maxwell Equations to prove electron ecliptic, then I expect out of
professional science referencing, that John would cite Archimedes
Plutonium as the source for the proving of electron ecliptic comes
from the Maxwell Equations as axioms over all of physics.
The Maxwell Equations as axioms dismisses black-holes as fakery and
yet John uses black holes to support electron-ecliptic.
However, fractal geometry is itself derived out of the Maxwell
Equations for one can build a electric motor the size of the atom and
the size of the Cosmos. So fractal geometry is a minor subset of the
Maxwell Equations and I should include a chapter in the textbook of
Maxwell Equations deriving fractal geometry.
John Sefton is a case of a scientist who smells the truth and arrives
at a true idea-- electron-ecliptic, even though his method of arrival
at that truth is not scientific. It is like Wegener in the early
decades of the 1900s sees that a jigsaw puzzle fit of Africa with
South America, a sort of fractal geometry in geology, and then claims
Continental Drift. But the proof has to wait until sea-floor
spreading. But ultimately the proof of Continental Drift has to wait
until the Maxwell Equations, and although most geologists of today
think the issue is closed with plate tectonics run by convection
cells
and currents, they are sadly mistaken that the issue of Continental
Drift is not closed until the Maxwell Equations fully explain all the
features of plate tectonics. One surprising feature is that the
plates
are run mostly by electromagnetism, much like a pot placed on top a
refrigerator and the vibrations of the electric motor of the
refrigerator makes the pot drift across the surface. So that
convection cells and currents as the drivers of plate tectonics is
mostly fiction and exaggeration. Also, let me note that a geology
textbook based on the Maxwell Equations governing all of geology is
my
next book to be posted to Usenet.
P.S. Also let me note that Google and its advanced newsgroup search
is
no longer functional after May 2012 since the science newsgroups were
altered by Google, so that Google can be looking more like Facebook
and the science newsgroups more like a gossipy and worthless chatroom
affair. When instead, Google should have separated the science
newsgroups and allowed only full true names of posters, no fake
names,
and limit each poster to no more than 5 posts per 24 hours and a full
archive of all posts. In that way, the science newsgroups would be a
**electronic journal of science**, rather than Google's pathetic idea
of chatroom science by minions of airheads with their Sam Wormley one
liners bumping off every poster on the front page of sci.physics. And
the daily flood of off topic spam by HVAC, Kevin, BroilJAB and other
assorted kooks whose only intention is to bump every poster off the
front page. So Google really has to ask themselves, do they want a
**electronic science journal of the science newsgroups** or do they
want some trashpile of worthless gossipy glop that makes Google a few
pennies more in revenue like Facebook.
--
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
he

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