On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 8:57:14 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Now it is funny that physics has 1/seconds as being meaningful and called frequency.
But that 1/meters seems to not have meaning in Old Physics. For I am one to believe if meters/seconds and 1/seconds both have physical meaning that 1/meters and seconds/meters should have meaning, only, we just have not figured them out as yet.
So, well, let us consider the meaning of 1/meter as "wavelength" since we have 1/seconds is frequency.
And since we have meters/seconds is speed (or velocity) which is the speed of a particle, let us say that seconds/meters has something to do with Waves, waves of light.
So when we measure the speed of light from distance A to B, what we measure is for the forward leading pencil ellipse circuit of light to reach B. The speed of a part of a ellipse starting at A and reaching B. And we measure that at 3.16*10^8 m/s.
But what about seconds/meter? And here we can have the source A moving towards B which will give a different speed for light in seconds/meter than in meter/seconds. So in this concept of seconds/meter, we have opened a Pandora's box of brand new
questions.
Now one of the crucial reasons I may end up writing this book if I can validate the existence of seconds/meter as independent of speed meters/seconds. One of the reasons is the Integral of seconds/meter is seconds/meter^2 which ends up as Coulombs law
and gravity law.
Whereas integral of meters/seconds is meters/seconds^2 or an acceleration for a force.
At the moment, I do not recall how physicists explained that gravity and Coulomb law was a force, even though they had meters^2 in the denominator. And have to relook that up.
But if we had seconds/meters, it is automatic that the integral gives us the inverse square of distance in the denominator, and no need to look up how Old Physics freshman physics delivered the denominator. At the moment I recall I just did not learn
that manuever when sitting in physics class some 50 years ago. In gravity law, mass is plain to see, but how to get 1/meters^2 when acceleration is 1/seconds^2.
And AP's 254th book of science is when Old Physics and Old Math died as intellectual pursuits. I can easily tell you why Old Math died-- they never had a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC, and never could so long as they had Reals with
its continuum as the numbers of mathematics. You simply cannot prove FTC with Reals and with "limit analysis". And so, all the mathematics from Newton onwards was "dead mathematics" until someone could deliver a valid proof of FTC. I bring this to your
attention because it shows a method of when a subject like Math is dead, and that method is using the FTC, to clean out all of Old Math.
Is there a similar cleaning out method of Old Physics? Old Physics was dead by the Rutherford-Bohr model of atoms where proton, neutron, electron were balls, with no function and no purpose. This you could say was year 1900 only it took for the
Rutherford-Geiger-Marsden gold leaf experiment to enhance the ball-do-nothing subatomic particles.
So to clean house on math-- we just recognize that you needed to be able to make a valid proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus-- and throw out Reals, throw out negative numbers, use only 1st Quadrant, use the axiom of what is a valid function, use the
axiom of what is a valid equation, use the proper definition of a function-- polynomials only.
In essence, true modern mathematics is an exercise in giving a valid proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for none had been given from Newton until AP. By 2013, AP gave the first valid proof of FTC.
What needed to be done for the dead and dying Old Physics? What method needed to be applied to clean up Physics??
Well, for starters, we have to go back to that early 1900s Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden experiment on gold leaf foil where a alpha particle bounces back 180 degrees to the source. Apparently Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden and Bohr were failed physicists in
early 1900s, failed as to not recognize a nucleus of atoms does not bounce back a alpha particle at 180 degrees with more speed than the alpha particle entered the gold atoms. So that contrary to atoms having a nucleus, the bounce back at 180degrees
means the alpha particle collided with something moving faster and heavier than the alpha particle itself.
So if Rutherford et al. had interpreted the experiment to its real truth, would have come up with the idea (perhaps come up with the idea) that the atom internals were a coil with a bar magnet moving inside and the bar magnet for gold was 79 muons moving
almost the speed of light inside a proton torus. When you have 79 muons each with 105MeV slam head-on collision with a incoming alpha particle, it is like a truck of muons slamming head on into a tiny car of a alpha particle.
But, I cannot expect Rutherford and Bohr and others to have realized their mistake of not accounting for that "extra velocity coming out, than going in". But what I do criticize immensely, and call the physics community utter dolts and fools, is that
they kept the Ball Picture of subatomic particles for over a century. From year 1900 to 2016-2017 when AP said the Muon is the true electron of Atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law, is a time period of 117 years, and there can
be no excuse why foolish idiots would believe in a Standard Model that has the proton, neutron, electron as balls without jobs, without function.
For Mathematics, the method was no valid proof of calculus.
For Physics, the method was, the idiotic and mindless belief of subatomic particles as balls with no job, no function, no purpose, yet they had the Maxwell Equations since 1860s, and those foolish idiots could not equate that the subatomic particles ---
had to be the Faraday law, had to be the Coulomb law--- had to be the Capacitor law and had to be Ohm's law.
A foolish idiot of math is one who is blind to the fact that a limit analysis is not a proof, but merely analyzing. I analyze perhaps 10 things in a day's time, not saying I proved a single one of those ten things. But that is how vapid in logic math
professors had become-- so vapid they could not sense that analysis is not proof. And you needed a geometry proof of FTC, for calculus is geometry.
The foolish idiots of physics from 1890s to 2017, myself included, where too mindless to ever realize-- physics is not right if your subatomic particles are do nothing balls, with no purpose no function.
AP, King of Science
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)