A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Are CERN physicists too stupid in physics? 16.17 Uniformity Principle#1497 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 13th 13, 10:22 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.math,sci.physics.electromag
Archimedes Plutonium[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 858
Default Are CERN physicists too stupid in physics? 16.17 Uniformity Principle#1497 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

This mathematics of physics has been around several months now and the
peer reviewed sci.physics.research where this post was sent recently
are far too stupid in mathematics and physics to even give a reply,
for if they had given a reply they would not be stupid in physics. And
John Baez boasted in the early 1990s that he was a originator of
sci.physics.research and his ability to do mathematical physics, but
if that is the case, why could John Baez in 1990s not even able to do
a simple math proof of Euclid's infinitude of primes? So here is an
open invitation for John Baez to make something of himself in physics
rather than (be, in my opinion) a nobody in physics-- verify the below
that it is a generalized Dirac Equation.

Recently I mentioned Peter Higgs and Leon Lederman, so can they give a
reply to this post as to whether the Maxwell Equations derives the
more general Dirac Equation, or is the mathematics above the heads of
both Peter and Leon and that I need to wait for some more skilled
physicists of the future to be able to verify.

I put the below as a test to all CERN physicists, whether the Dirac
Equation is derivable out of the Maxwell Equations. Those guys and
gals should be able to verify or disprove whether the Dirac Equations
comes out of the Maxwell Equations, otherwise, you should not be at
CERN at all.

Now on page 1113 of Halliday & Resnick's, Physics, part 2, extended
version, 1986, we see H&R discussing the Balmer Rydberg formula of
this:

1/y = R(1/m^2 -(1/n^2))

So let us see how all of Spectral Physics is beginning to be all
derived out of the Maxwell Equations. This should be the case since
both the Schrodinger and Dirac Equations are derived out of the
Maxwell Equations. When the Maxwell Equations are the axioms over all
of physics, then everything in physics is directly tied to the
Maxwell 
Equations.
Alright, these are the 4 symmetrical Maxwell Equations with magnetic
monopoles:

div*E = r_E

div*B = r_B

- curlxE = dB + J_B

curlxB = dE + J_E

Now to derive the Dirac Equation from the Maxwell Equations we add the
lot together:

div*E = r_E

div*B = r_B

- curlxE = dB + J_B

curlxB = dE + J_E
________________

div*E + div*B + (-1)curlxE + curlxB = r_E + r_B + dB + dE + J_E + J_B

Now Wikipedia has a good description of how Dirac derived his famous
equation which gives this:

(Ad_x + Bd_y + Cd_z + (i/c)Dd_t - mc/h) p = 0

So how is the above summation of Maxwell Equations that of a
generalized Dirac Equation? 
Well, the four terms of div and curl are
the A,B,C,D terms. And the right side of the equation can all be
conglomerated into one term and
the negative sign in the Faraday law
can turn that right side into the negative sign.
Now in the Dirac Equation we
need all four of the Maxwell Equations
because it is a 4x4 matrix equation and so the full 4 Maxwell
Equations are needed to cover the 
Dirac Equation, although
the Dirac
Equation ends up being a minor subset of the 4 Maxwell Equations,
because the Dirac Equation does not allow the photon to be a double
transverse wave while the Summation of
the Maxwell Equations demands
the photon be a double transverse wave. And the Dirac Equation never
has the magnetic monopoles of north and south always attracting which
the Maxwell equations never has any repulsion of magnetic monopoles.
But the Shrodinger Equation derived from the Maxwell Equations needs
only two of the Maxwell Equations, the two Gauss laws.
The Schrodinger Equation is:

ihd(f(w)) = Hf(w) where f(w) is the wave function

The Schrodinger Equation is easily derived from the mere 2 Gauss's
laws combined: These are the 2 Gauss's law when no monopoles are
expected :

div*E = r_E

div*B = 0

Now the two Gauss's law of Maxwell Equations standing alone are
nonrelativistic and so is the Schrodinger Equation.

div*E = r_E

div*B = 0
____________

div*E + div*B = r_E + 0

this is reduced to

k(d(f(x))) = H(f(x))

Now Schrodinger derived his equation out of thin air, using the Fick's
law of diffusion. So Schrodinger never really used the Maxwell
Equations. The Maxwell Equations were foreign to Schrodinger and to
all the physicists of the 20th century when it came time to find the
wave function. But how easy it would have been for 
Schrodinger if he
instead, reasoned that the Maxwell Equations
derives all of Physics,
and that he should only focus on the Maxwell Equations. Because if he
had reasoned that the Maxwell Equations
were
the axiom set of all of
physics and then derived the Schrodinger
Equation from the two Gauss
laws, he would and could 
have further reasoned that if you Summation
all 4 Maxwell Equations, that 
Schrodinger would then have derived
the relativistic wave equation and thus have found the Dirac Equation
long
before Dirac ever had the
idea of finding a relativistic wave
equation.
So, now, how does the Maxwell Equations of just the two Gauss laws
with magnetic monopoles derive the Balmer-Rydberg formula? Very easily
is the answer because when you have magnetic monopoles in the two
Gauss laws, you have in effect, two inverse square laws and thus you
have the 1/m^2 term and the 1/n^2 term in a Summation of the two Gauss
laws:

div*E = r_E

div*B = r_B

Those two laws can be translated into two Coulomb laws:

F1 = K1(1/m^2)

K2(1/n^2) = F2

Now Summation of those two Coulomb forces gives this:

F1 + K2(1/n^2) = F2 + K1(1/m^2)

which yields this

F1 - F2 = K1(1/m^2) - K2(1/n^2)

Now the F's are consolidated into a 1/y and the K's constant terms
merge into one consolidated constant of R, Rydberg constant.
So in the above I have outlined how the Maxwell Equations is all of
Spectral Physics, is all of Quantum Mechanics and even more than
Quantum Mechanics.
So that when physicists and astronomers see something like the Titius-
Bode Rule, what they are in fact seeing is a law of Physics as the
stars, galaxies, planets and moons are atomic physics writ large.

Only Drexel's Math Forum 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
  #2  
Old April 14th 13, 07:48 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.math,sci.physics.electromag
Archimedes Plutonium[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 858
Default students ask these questions at MIT, Princeton, Harvard, Stanford,Caltech Chapt16.17 Uniformity Principle in history of science becomes axiomset #1499 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Now I am going to change the name of the title of this chapter to
this:
Chapt16.17 Uniformity Principle in history of science
becomes axiom set

I am doing that because in the history of physics and the hard
sciences, except mathematics, is that they never had an axiom system
to give a foundation of their science. Geology in 1700s was so swamped
with religion making incursions into geology as a science set up a
principle called the Uniformity Principle which basically says that
the processes of geology that we see around us are made by natural
forces and not some religious supernatural. Geology certainly could
not have a axiom system in the 1700s, so came up with a second best
idea-- the Uniformity Principle which dismisses the supernatural and
allows the natural.

Trouble with physics, is that it never imposed a principle for it was
not plagued by religion, at least not noticeably, but physics was
plagued after the Maxwell Equations of 1860s, was plagued by
compartments of physics dreaming up crank crackpot ideas, with nothing
to mediate and judge if those ideas were consistent with the rest of
physics.
So you have one compartment saying Pauli Exclusion Principle where you
cannot squeeze a proton into a second proton, and you had another
compartment saying you have gravity collapse into a black hole and
squeezing a proton into a second proton. Or you had a compartment
saying that you have Special Relativity due to the Maxwell Equations
and a different compartment saying that light can be Doppler
redshifted and diametrically the opposite of Special Relativity.

So in 1700s, geology could not adopt the Maxwell Equations as the
axioms over geology, since the equations were not even borne as yet,
but geologists could do the next best thing, adopt the Uniformity
Principle.

But after 1860s, there was no excuse for physicists to have a axiom
set over all of physics. A set that keeps them honest and not one
group contradicting the next group. A set that establishes how we
discover new and true physics, where we look to the Maxwell Equations,
not some old codger or hyped up new kid on the block. Instead, we keep
our eyes focused on the Maxwell Equations.

Now in the past year, I discovered the Maxwell Equations demands that
light be a double transverse wave and not a single transverse wave.
This is very important because it proves that Magnetic Monopoles must
exist, and that Space itself is composed of these magnetic monopoles.
The EM-gravity is the result of magnetic monopoles always attracting,
in that north attracts north and north attracts south, unlike electric
charge that has both attraction and repulsion.

So now, I am aware that many physicists and schools around the world
have placed Archimedes Plutonium and these posts in a global filter or
blocking of my posts. But sincerely, does anyone in science think that
blocking or filtering AP, the suppression of AP, does anyone think
that such a strategy will work?

Does anyone actually think that no student nor news reporter will ever
ask how it is that Earth can orbit around the Sun when one is going
220km/sec and the other 29km/sec? Does anyone actually think that no
person will ask a physics professor of MIT, Princeton, Harvard,
Caltech, Stanford that how can Newtonian gravity or General Relativity
allow for a gravity that has the Sun moving about 10 times faster than
Earth in Space?

Oh sure, few students in classes of physics professor is going to
jeopardize their grade in asking the question, but there are many
students who read these posts and not in a physics class who will ask
those professors.

Many will ask these other embarrassing questions:

1) Ask your physics professor, _______, ask him/her 
how it is that
they believe Newtonian gravity and General Relativity 
while the speed
of the Sun in Space is 220km/sec and Earth is a mere 
29km/sec. 
Then
ask them whether they can ever understand that the true answer to 
the
problem is EM-gravity, that the Maxwell Equations provide a Solar
gravity-cell.
2) Ask your physics professor, _______, ask him/her 
how it is that
they accept the Doppler redshift when even Hubble, the 
discoverer
rejected it as a measure of distance, and that it violated 
Special
Relativity. When the Maxwell Equations are the axioms of 
physics then
the redshift is a measure of the curvature of space, 
never distance.
Call it the Curvature redshift.
3) Ask your physics professor, _______, ask him/her
how it is they come to believe that a light-wave is a single
transverse wave
of a electric field E and magnetic field B, when it is that a double
transverse
wave of E- and E+ and M- and M+ preserve the speed of light regardless
of wavelength or frequency.
4) Ask your physics professor, _______, ask him/her 
why they believe
in a Cooper pairing of electrons in 
superconductivity, when the
Maxwell Equations deny pairing of 
electrons, but do allow for the
Malus law which when replaced for 
resistance in Ohm's law solves
superconductivity.
5) Ask your physics professor, _______, ask him/her 
why they believe
in dark matter and dark energy 
when the Rings of Saturn are partially
solid-body-rotation. When these 
professors see solid-body-rotation in
galaxies far away, they invoke 
dark-matter and dark-energy, yet when
they look at Saturn and its 
Rings, they fail to see any solid body
rotation and are deaf dumb and 
silent on the situation. The solution
is that gravity is EM-gravity 
which demands solid body rotation as
commonplace throughout the 
Cosmos.
6) Ask your physics professor, _______, ask him/her 
why they believe
in pulsars or neutron stars when the Maxwell Equations
explain these to be nothing more than the clashing of two gravity
cells
such as the Sun and Jupiter which makes Jupiter a mini-pulsar of 45
minute
periods.
7) Ask your physics professor, _______, ask him/her 
whether it is far
easier to derive the Schrodinger and Dirac Equations 
from the Maxwell
Equations summed up, or whether they prefer to derive 
these equations
the manner in which Feynman devoted his three volume 
text: "Feynman
Lectures on Physics" 1963. You see, when a physicist 
has no axioms
for his subject, he is lost in the weeds until he does 
have an axiom
set for his subject. The Schrodinger and Maxwell 
Equations are easily
derived by simply a summation of the magnetic 
monopole Maxwell
Equations.
8) Feynman tells us the most important single idea in all of physics
is the Atomic Fact-- all things are made up of atoms,.. So the
question is, is not the Universe itself a thing? For surely the
Universe is not a nothing. Hence, if physics is a science of the
axioms of Maxwell Equations, then the Universe itself must be a big
gigantic atom. What specific atom, this textbook says it is a
Plutonium Atom Totality. So ask you physics or math professor,
______, 
ask him/her 
whether that logical syllogism must be true.
Test them to see if they 
are really scientists, or just another
member of the herd mentality 
spewing out what it is they believe
their stooge puppet masters want 
them to spew.
So the science community at large can suppress AP, globally filter and
block his posts, but the truth of the matter is that, these questions
above will keep coming up and coming up over and over again.

So, if you are a physicist at MIT, Caltech, Princeton, Harvard,
Stanford, you can easily ignore AP and block him, but what happens
when your students start asking you how it is that Earth can move at
29km/sec whilst the Sun is moving at 220km/sec
and still stay together in Newtonian gravity or General Relativity?
Are you going to try to suppress and block and filter those students?

Why not just come clean as a scientist should always be clean, and
confront and answer the questions.
The moment scientists are out to block, stifle, filter someone doing
science, is the moment you ceased being a scientist. If you are scared
of science questions, you are not a scientist.

--

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.
Only Drexel's Math Forum 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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
distribution of galaxies points to Atom Totality not Big Bang #176 ;3rd ed; Atom Totality (Atom Universe) theory Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 0 November 6th 09 09:29 AM
#1 new book; ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY REPLACES BIG BANGTHEORY IN PHYSICS [email protected] Astronomy Misc 13 May 1st 09 06:25 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.