From: plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com   
      
   Newsgroups: sci.physics   
   Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 11:31:04 -0800 (PST)   
      
   Subject: Hydrogen is the very best way to prove AP's ION theory Re: proving   
    AP's ion theory Re: Chemists can do this experiment   
   From: Archimedes Plutonium    
   Injection-Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2018 19:31:05 +0000   
      
   Hydrogen is the very best way to prove AP's ION theory Re: proving AP's ion   
   theory Re: Chemists can do this experiment   
      
   On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 1:33:15 AM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:    
   > Wikipedia writes about the cerium anomaly:    
   >    
   > Cerium can occur in nature as a 3+ or 4+ ion and is a compatible element (at   
   4+ valency) in zircon and less commonly in silica.    
      
   Alright, not iron, not cerium, but just plain old simple Hydrogen is the very   
   best way and likely easiest way to prove the AP ION theory.    
      
   Old Chemistry and Old Physics thought the electron was a .5MeV particle and   
   the proton to them was 938 MeV particle. But anyone with a tiny gram of Logic   
   can visualize that Chemistry cannot have any sort of Chemical Bonding of   
   ionic, covalent or metallic    
   bonding, when the Angular Momentum of the electron is just .5MeV opposed to   
   938MeV, for that is like thinking a toy model car of a kid is going to affect   
   a actual true car of a Toyota on the road. However, a small car like a Toyota   
   prius is going to    
   affect a semi truck (proton at 840 MeV and prius at 105 MeV, not a toy car you   
   can hold in your hand)    
      
   So, by 2018 in the life history of physics and chemistry, where people go to   
   college to learn all about PHYSICS and angular momentum, yet they come out as   
   imbecile dunces to think that Angular Momentum of the atom yields Covalent   
   bonding in chemistry    
   with 938 to .5. Flunk the entire batch of physicists of the 20th century, they   
   all fluncked Momentum of Physics, but also, the Chemists of the 20th century   
   flunked their science, for at least one of them should have seen the   
   unbalanced notion that    
   Chemistry bonding deals with 938 versus .5.    
      
   BONDING in Chemistry is only feasible for covalent if proton = 840 MeV versus   
   the muon as electron at 105 MeV. So, where does that leave the little tiny   
   particle of .5MeV?? It was the Dirac Magnetic Monopole, that poor Dirac was   
   searching for all his    
   life. But it was under Dirac's nose all the time.    
      
   So, with that revelation, then, what is New Chemistry's Ion theory? Ion theory   
   that is true, not a bag of crap of Old Chemistry is that all atoms have muons   
   as electrons and they are a devil to try to pry away from their atom. It is as   
   if the muon and    
   proton are stuck together so firmly that only when huge amounts of energy are   
   applied do you pry away the 105 MeV muon from its 840 MeV proton.    
      
   That means IONS are only the magnetic monopoles. Monopoles can come in three   
   types-- +1 charge, -1 charge or 0 charge. The 0 charge is just a photon or   
   neutrino. The +1 and -1 charged monopoles are photons or neutrinos, even pions   
   that are given a .5MeV    
   charge energy.    
      
   So, in NEW PHYSICS, NEW CHEMISTRY, this is what a Hydrogen atom looks like::    
      
   M    
   P    
      
   M is muon and P is 840 MeV proton, they sit atop one another and very   
   difficult to pry apart.    
      
   Now when a hydrogen atom bonds with another hydrogen atom they are this::    
      
   M    
   P    
   M    
   P    
      
   Now, at any time in a hydrogen's existence, it can carry or have attached to   
   itself a magnetic monopole. Monopoles of either +1 or -1 charge.    
      
   So, we can see a H+1 hydrogen atom    
      
   M +1    
   P    
      
   That is a picture of a hydrogen atom with a +1 monopole attached    
      
   M -1    
   P    
      
   That is a picture of a hydrogen atom with a -1 monopole attached    
      
   Now, in Old Chemistry and Old Physics H+1 meant something very very different.   
   It meant a picture like this for hydrogen    
      
   938P    
      
   Just one single particle of a 938 MeV proton was H+1 in Old Physics, Old   
   Chemistry    
      
   In New Physics, New Chemistry H+1 means a 840MeV proton securely bonded with a   
   105 MeV muon and then attached is a .5 MeV monopole of +1 charge energy.    
      
   Now, New Physics, New Chemistry can have H+2 hydrogen atoms where two   
   monopoles of +1 charge are fastened to a single hydrogen atom. And, well,   
   hydrogen can be H-2 where hydrogen has its 840proton and 105 electron and also   
   two .5MeV monopoles each of -1    
   charge energy.    
      
   So, how does hydrogen prove that the AP theory of IONS is true and Old   
   Physics, Old Chemistry is nonsense? How?    
      
   Easy, for in Old Chemistry they had H+1 as missing its electron, yet, that   
   same hydrogen atom of H+1 goes into bonding with Oxygen nearby in experiments.   
   Yet, how can that be if H+1 is the hydrogen nucleus in Old Chemistry wherein   
   they are saying that    
   protons are chemistry bonding, because H+1 is a proton, solely a proton, yet   
   it is bonding with Oxygen. So Old Chemistry, in their mistake of ions, is   
   saying that the proton of hydrogen is engaged in chemical bonding with Oxygen.    
      
   New Chemistry simply would say, rare that ever a atom loses its electron=muon   
   and all the ions you ever see are monopoles. So when a H+1 bonds with nearby   
   Oxygen is that the muon of hydrogen is bonding with one of the muons of   
   Oxygen.    
      
   AP    
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)