1.1Dr. John Baez is a failed mathematician-physicist with his proton of 938MeV when it is 840MeV, electron= muon //his ellipse is a conic when it never was// as phony in math and physics as kibo Parry Moroney's ellipse and Christensen 10 OR 4 = 14

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
1.1Dr. John Baez is a failed mathematician-physicist with his proton of 938MeV when it is 840MeV, electron= muon //his ellipse is a conic when it never was// as phony in math and physics as kibo Parry Moroney's ellipse and Christensen 10 OR 4 = 14

WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science

Is AP malicious or just plain stupid. Or both. Either way, students should beware of AP's fake math and science.

It seems to me that AP really wants you to fail in school just like he must have so long ago (in the 1950's or 60's?). Then he would like to recruit you to his sinister Atom God Cult of Failure. Think I'm making this up? IN HIS OWN WORDS:

AP's fake math that can only be designed to promote failure in schools:

“The last and largest finite number is 10^604.”
--June 3, 2015

“0 appears to be the last and largest finite number”
--June 9, 2015

“0/0 must be equal to 1.”
-- June 9, 2015

“0 is an infinite irrational number.”
--June 28, 2015

“No negative numbers exist.”
--December 22, 2018

“Rationals are not numbers.”
--May 18, 2019

“The value of sin(45 degrees) = 1.” (It is actually 0.707.)
--May 31, 2019

AP seeks aid of Russian agents to promote failure in schools:

"Please--Asking for help from Russia-- russian robots-- to create a new, true mathematics [sic]"
--November 9, 2017

"True" mathematics, indeed! And if that wasn't weird enough...

AP's sinister Atom God Cult

“The totality, everything that there is [the universe], is only 1 atom of plutonium [Pu]. There is nothing outside or beyond this one atom of plutonium.”
--April 4, 1994

This was not just some one-off, drug-induced fantasy of a misspent middle age. More recently, he wrote...

“Since God-Pu is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Atom Plutonium!
Its truth is marching on.
It has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
It is sifting out the hearts of people before its judgment seat;
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer it; be jubilant, my feet!
Our God-Pu is marching on.”
--December 15, 2018 (Note: Pu is the atomic symbol for plutonium)

Are you ready, kids??? Ready to fail?

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

Archimedes Plutonium

2019-09-22 18:28:37 UTC

Post by Dan Christensen
WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

AP writes: how many viruses on your download? 10 OR 4 = 14

1.1Dr. John Baez is a failed mathematician-physicist with his proton of 938MeV when it is 840MeV, electron= muon //his ellipse is a conic when it never was// as phony in math and physics as kibo Parry Moroney's ellipse and Christensen 10 OR 4 = 14
2 posts by 2 authors

me (Archimedes Plutonium change)
1:50 AM (11 hours ago)

1.1Dr. John Baez is a failed mathematician-physicist with his proton of 938MeV when it is 840MeV, electron= muon //his ellipse is a conic when it never was// as phony in math and physics as kibo Parry Moroney's ellipse and Christensen 10 OR 4 = 14

Dr. John Baez is a failed mathematician-physicist with his proton of 938MeV when it is 840MeV, electron= muon //his ellipse is a conic when it never was// as phony in math and physics as kibo Parry Moroney's ellipse and Dan Christensen 10 OR 4 = 14

Michael Moroney wrote:
Sep 21 (1 hour ago)

Post by Dan Christensen
Leech of Math and Lamprey of Physics

Post by Dan Christensen
WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim

Michael Moroney wrote:
2:43 PM (49 minutes ago) 21 September 2019

Post by Dan Christensen
Math Failure
Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used

in the proof:

^ x
|
-+- <= x=h
.' | `.
. | .
| | |
' | '
`. | .'
y <----------+ <= x=0
.
/|\
/ | \
/b | \
/---+---' <= x = h
/ |' \
/ ' | \
/ ' | \
x = 0 => '-------+-------\
/ a | \
r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x and d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x, hence
y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.
Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1 ...equation of an ellipse
qed
some old Baez posts evincing his failureship in math and physics Re: Dr. John Baez is a failed mathematician-physicist with his proton of 938MeV when it is 840MeV, electron= muon //his ellipse is a conic when it never was

I saved some typical Baez posts, where he shows us he is a failure of both math and physics.

Post by Dan Christensen
There was a quite nice thread on Bose-Einstein condensation

Post by Dan Christensen
read interesting things.

Post by Dan Christensen
ellipses are ovals, but not all ovals are elipses, of course;
just grab a dictionary, asshole

Post by Dan Christensen
Dirac knew a certain amount about quantum field theory, and his

The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points."

What a monsterous fool you are

OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it.

And yet Mr Plutonium is right. Two points are distinct (else they would
be one) and it is not necessary to say so.

Post by Dan Christensen
Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.
Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass
of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.

Transfinite Numbers

2019-09-25 18:40:34 UTC

Archimedes Plutonium should be thrown in jail
for his willful criminal behavior. The criminal
Archimedes Plutonium all the times posts people
name lists together with hate speach about these people.

It is highly likely Archimedes Plutonium is
psycho. Archimedes Plutonium belongs in prison not
on usenet for his mind is complete hate hate hate.
Put the creep in jail and throw away the keys.

Post by Dan Christensen
WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

AP writes: how many viruses on your download? 10 OR 4 = 14
1.1Dr. John Baez is a failed mathematician-physicist with his proton of 938MeV when it is 840MeV, electron= muon //his ellipse is a conic when it never was// as phony in math and physics as kibo Parry Moroney's ellipse and Christensen 10 OR 4 = 14
2 posts by 2 authors
me (Archimedes Plutonium change)
1:50 AM (11 hours ago)
1.1Dr. John Baez is a failed mathematician-physicist with his proton of 938MeV when it is 840MeV, electron= muon //his ellipse is a conic when it never was// as phony in math and physics as kibo Parry Moroney's ellipse and Christensen 10 OR 4 = 14
Dr. John Baez is a failed mathematician-physicist with his proton of 938MeV when it is 840MeV, electron= muon //his ellipse is a conic when it never was// as phony in math and physics as kibo Parry Moroney's ellipse and Dan Christensen 10 OR 4 = 14
Sep 21 (1 hour ago)

Post by Dan Christensen
Leech of Math and Lamprey of Physics

AP writes: say there kibo Parry Moroney, can you verify whether Dr. Baez is using the below ellipse is a conic idiotic argument below at UC Irving or was it Riverside? Can you display that argument again and provide commentary. Is it a proof by Condescension-- I hear John is good at condescension as apparent in his posts of others, and where he is lacking in physics and math, he makes up for in condescension.
Dr. John Baez is a failed mathematician-physicist with his proton of 938MeV and electron of .5MeV when that would not give a chemistry bonding nor angular momentum inside of atoms. The idiot fool of physics of Dr. Baez is too stupid to understand the real proton has to be 840 MeV, real electron = 105MeV in order for angular momentum to exist between the two and to conduct the Faraday law inside of atoms by its subatomic particles. All of which flies over the pea brain of Dr. Baez and his ellipse is a conic when it never was// as phony in math and physics as kibo Parry Moroney's ellipse and Dan Christensen 10 OR 4 = 14

Post by Dan Christensen
Leech of Math and Lamprey of Physics

AP writes: say kibo-Parry-Moroney are you using Christensen's Boole logic 10 OR 4 = 14 with 10 AND 4 = 6, would mean Dr. Stillwell is either a leech of Math or a lamprey of Physics but not both. Can you please show us Dr. Stillwell's proof the ellipse is a conic-- I may have missed a sentence there.
AP writes: I should get out the post where Dr. Baez was saying, the oval is an ellipse, because the failure of science Dr. Baez cannot admit the truth-- he was wrong about the ellipse, and trying to cover up his mistake rather than admit the truth.
AP
1:12 PM (2 hours ago) 21 September 2019

Post by Dan Christensen
WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim

2:43 PM (49 minutes ago) 21 September 2019

Post by Dan Christensen
Math Failure
Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used

^ x
|
-+- <= x=h
.' | `.
. | .
| | |
' | '
`. | .'
y <----------+ <= x=0
.
/|\
/ | \
/b | \
/---+---' <= x = h
/ |' \
/ ' | \
/ ' | \
x = 0 => '-------+-------\
/ a | \
r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x and d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x, hence
y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.
Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1 ...equation of an ellipse
qed
some old Baez posts evincing his failureship in math and physics Re: Dr. John Baez is a failed mathematician-physicist with his proton of 938MeV when it is 840MeV, electron= muon //his ellipse is a conic when it never was
I saved some typical Baez posts, where he shows us he is a failure of both math and physics.

Post by Dan Christensen
There was a quite nice thread on Bose-Einstein condensation

Post by Dan Christensen
read interesting things.

Post by Dan Christensen
ellipses are ovals, but not all ovals are elipses, of course;
just grab a dictionary, asshole

Post by Dan Christensen
Dirac knew a certain amount about quantum field theory, and his

complaints about it were very valid worries, shared by many people. It
is still not known whether QED or the standard model is a mathematically
consistent theory or not, despite vast efforts along these lines.
It's important to note that Dirac's successes (the Dirac equation being
one example) and theories on which the verdict is still out (magnetic
monopoles being one example --- while never found, they continue to
haunt the dreams of theorists) are due to the same curious habits of
thought that led him to his failures, like the business about gravity.
"I think it's a peculiarity of myself that I like to play about
with equations, just looking for beautiful mathematical relations which
maybe don't have any physical meaning at all. Sometimes they do."
[from Abraham Pais' essay `Playing with equations, the Dirac way', in
_Paul Adrien Maurice Dirac_, eds. Behram N. Kursunoglu and Eugene P.
Wigner, Cambridge U. Press, Cambridge, 1987.]
Note the humility of this attitude, so unlike that typical of crackpots
who have NO successes to report, and who attempt to compensate for this
fact with bluster.
AP writes: Baez is a little fish of physics, whereas Dirac was a giant of the 20th century, and it is never fair for a little fish to evaluate a giant of science.
Remember the time the Dan Christensen could not tell the difference between distinct and nondistinct.

The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points."

What a monsterous fool you are

OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it.

And yet Mr Plutonium is right. Two points are distinct (else they would
be one) and it is not necessary to say so.

Remember the time kibo Parry Moroney thought 938 was 12% short of 945, and when it was pointed out to him-- he-- just like Dr. Tao, never wants to admit to mistakes, but just keeps on attacking others.

Archimedes Plutonium

2021-07-31 05:57:14 UTC

How failed is John Baez, asking Dan Christensen? I know he still teaches the electron of atoms is the 0.5MeV particle when in truth it is the muon. And still teaches a ellipse is a conic slant section when that is the oval. And still teaches and uses Boole logic uncorrected with 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. But neither John Baez or Dan Christensen could ever do a geometry proof of Calculus Fundamental Theorem, both to stupid to even be cognizant that calculus needs a geometry proof, not a arsewipe limit analysis hornswaggle.

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 19May2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?

Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.

Length: 137 pages

Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1307 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 137 pages
Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

Archimedes Plutonium

2019-09-22 19:36:55 UTC

Post by Dan Christensen
WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of

AP writes: yes, remember the time Baez lost on the ellipse as conic, the little fool tried to pretend the oval is equal to the ellipse, boy does Baez want victims badly

Post by Dan Christensen
ellipses are ovals, but not all ovals are elipses, of course;
just grab a dictionary, asshole

Michael Moroney

2019-09-22 21:26:06 UTC

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
AP writes: yes, remember the time Baez lost on the ellipse as conic, the
little fool

The little fool AP got lost on the ellipse as a conic? Here, I'll help out!

Below you will find a simple *proof* that shows that certain conic
sections are ellipses.

Some preliminaries:

Top view of the conic section and depiction of the coordinate system used
in the proof:

^ x
|
-+- <= x=h
.' | `.
. | .
| | |
' | '
`. | .'
y <----------+ <= x=0

Cone (side view):
.
/|\
/ | \
/b | \
/---+---' <= x = h
/ |' \
/ ' | \
/ ' | \
x = 0 => '-------+-------\
/ a | \

Proof:

r(x) = a - ((a-b)/h)x and d(x) = a - ((a+b)/h)x, hence

y(x)^2 = r(x)^2 - d(x)^2 = ab - ab(2x/h - 1)^2 = ab(1 - 4(x - h/2)^2/h^2.

Hence (1/ab)y(x)^2 + (4/h^2)(x - h/2)^2 = 1 ...equation of an ellipse

qed

Archimedes Plutonium

2019-09-23 04:52:47 UTC

18 posts
Re: Rik Chandler,Useful as a chocolate teapot // Harvard's Dr.Hau "slow light", and turning the laser off; I find very comprehensible
By Dan Christensen. Last updated 5:50 PM

4 posts
Re: 2.0-Did Kibo-Parry-Moroney fail Rensselaer due to such math failings as percentage-- kibo's 938 is 12% short of 945// and why Rensselaer cannot confirm real proton is 840MeV not 938; .5MeV particle is Dirac's monopole, why Drs.Michael,Newberg,N'Gom
By Dingus Dirtbag McGee. Last updated 4:59 PM

2 new
22 posts
Re: Rik Chandler,One pint short of an empty bladder // Harvard's Dr.Hau "slow light", and turning the laser off; I find very comprehensible
By Dan Christensen. Last updated 4:58 PM

2 new
97 posts
Re: John Horton Conway flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
By Dan Christensen. Last updated 4:58 PM

Archimedes Plutonium

2019-09-25 18:35:50 UTC

Post by Dan Christensen
WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of

AP writes: yes, remember the time Baez lost on the ellipse as conic, the little fool tried to pretend the oval is equal to the ellipse, boy does Baez want victims badly

Post by Dan Christensen
ellipses are ovals, but not all ovals are elipses, of course;
just grab a dictionary, asshole

Archimedes Plutonium

2019-09-24 04:33:35 UTC

It's been 25 years now. Haven't you wasted enough of your life on this nonsense,

AP writes: there is plenty of room for Dr. Baez to waste time on ellipse is a conic and his stupid silly proton of 938MeV when it actually is 840 MeV. I guess Dr. Baez's motto is a "mind is worth letting it go stale and rot"

Roy Masters

2019-09-24 16:25:53 UTC

It's been 25 years now. Haven't you wasted enough of your life on this nonsense,

Quit spamming this garbage, Plutonium you stupid imbecile!

Archimedes Plutonium

2019-09-24 20:33:21 UTC

Post by Dan Christensen
WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
Hagfish of Math and Slime Eel of Physics

Archimedes Plutonium

2019-09-25 06:20:10 UTC

Post by Dan Christensen
Hagfish of Math and Slime Eel of Physics

Post by Dan Christensen
WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of
Hagfish of Math and Slime Eel of Physics

Archimedes Plutonium

2020-10-21 21:38:16 UTC

Post by Dan Christensen
WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of

Time is up on the worthless buffoons goons and clowns of logic and math of Dan Christensen & Jan Burse. Pack up their b.s. logic of 10 OR 1 = 11 with their AND as subtraction and take residence alongside so many other crazies of science, but out of sci.math.

These two are not even good in posting to sci.logic, for their entire program is anti-logic, anti science.

Perhaps an asylum is their only real option.

They are no good in math either, for they still believe a ellipse is a conic when it never was.

And they are too feeble to understand calculus needs a geometry proof of FTC.

Neither one belongs in science, and their posts are just a huge waste of time and is destructive to young students. Both are lunatics that never belonged in science or science education.

5th published book

Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.

The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = 1, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.

My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.

Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
Length: 65 pages

File Size: 764 KB
Print Length: 65 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PMB69F5
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray:  Not Enabled  
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
 

Archimedes Plutonium

2021-07-30 18:59:15 UTC

Archimedes Plutonium

2021-07-31 19:29:31 UTC

NSF fraud waste abuse of taxpayer money $100 per stalker post-- Champagne,Hewitt,Crago

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim

NSF fraud waste abuse of taxpayer money $100 per stalker post--

Canada's NSF-- Francois-Philippe Champagne, Ted Hewitt, Martha Crago, Frederic Bouchard, Cinthia Duclos, Normand Labrie
USA--NSF Dr. Panchanathan, F. Fleming Crim, Dorothy E Aronson, Brian Stone, James S Ulvestad, Rebecca Lynn Keiser, Vernon D. Ross, Lloyd Whitman, John J. Veysey, Scott Stanley

---quoting Wikipedia ---
Controversy
Many government and university installations blocked, threatened to block, or attempted to shut-down The World's Internet connection until Software Tool & Die was eventually granted permission by the National Science Foundation to provide public Internet access on "an experimental basis."
--- end quote ---

Archimedes Plutonium

2021-08-01 03:34:18 UTC

Is NSF Panchanathan,Crim,Aronson,Marten paying Kibo Parry $100 per stalking post? Or is Dept of Educ Cindy Marten in on the fraud waste and abuse?
NSF fraud waste abuse of taxpayer money $100 per stalker post--

USA--NSF Dr. Panchanathan, F. Fleming Crim, Dorothy E Aronson, Brian Stone, James S Ulvestad, Rebecca Lynn Keiser, Vernon D. Ross, Lloyd Whitman, John J. Veysey, Scott Stanley

---quoting Wikipedia ---
Controversy
Many government and university installations blocked, threatened to block, or attempted to shut-down The World's Internet connection until Software Tool & Die was eventually granted permission by the National Science Foundation to provide public Internet access on "an experimental basis."
--- end quote ---

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Dr. Panchanathan , present day
France Anne Cordova
Subra Suresh
Arden Lee Bement Jr.
Rita R. Colwell
Neal Francis Lane
John Howard Gibbons 1993

Barry Shein, kibo parry std world
Jim Frost, Joe "Spike" Ilacqua

NSF fraud waste abuse of taxpayer money $100 per stalker post-- Champagne,Hewitt,Crago

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim

Archimedes Plutonium should be thrown in jail
for his willful criminal behavior. The criminal

Archimedes Plutonium

2021-08-01 21:19:26 UTC

1-SCI.PHYSICS FAQ, 1Aug2021// Usenet science dead, but AP's newsgroup only pure peaceful science going on-- today's topics Sun gone Red Giant causing mega-drought/ inverse polynomial theory to make full rectangles

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

1> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe

The only pure science newsgroup is mine; the only functional science newsgroup that has no hate spam on every post you make-- remaining in all of Usenet is mine.

Today I am discussing the question of -- can Global Warming cause the Heat Dome of Canada + flooding in Germany & China? I conclude the energy in Global Warming is far too small. But the cause is likely to be the Sun has gone Red Giant. And I am backed up by the NASA number that the past decade the Solar radiation has increased by 0.005% yearly. That is a enormous amount more radiation and would cause this Destruction of the Jet Stream. This spells big trouble for all of life on Earth-- for the Sun shines not from Fusion that every scientist except AP believes, but shines from FARADAY LAW of the muon inside every proton 840MeV torus is a muon thrusting through the proton torus making more sunshine. We have, as life on Earth, probably 1 million years to "get off of Earth" as the Sun destroys Earth.

Archimedes Plutonium

2021-08-07 17:14:11 UTC

John Baez victimizes students with never a geometry proof of Calculus Fundamental Theorem, so stalks Dan Christensen of 7 years long. How failed is John Baez, asking Dan Christensen? I know he still teaches the electron of atoms is the 0.5MeV particle when in truth it is the muon. And still teaches a ellipse is a conic slant section when that is the oval. And still teaches and uses Boole logic uncorrected with 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. But neither John Baez or Dan Christensen could ever do a geometry proof of Calculus Fundamental Theorem, both too stupid to even be cognizant that calculus needs a geometry proof, not a arsewipe limit analysis hornswaggle.

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 19May2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?

Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.

Length: 137 pages

Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1307 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 137 pages
Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

Archimedes Plutonium

2021-08-08 04:10:07 UTC

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of

Archimedes Plutonium

2021-08-16 20:43:08 UTC

192nd book of AP, History of the screw-up of Red Giant physics, that fusion of helium causes Red Giant stars.

Alright, this history probably happened during my lifetime, and I should be able to sort out some of that screwed up history from recent writings. How much of this screwed idea can be attributed to Hans Bethe, or were others like James Peebles directly involved in the screw up of physics.

What I am talking about is the mindless and absurd notion that a star can shine from fusion of hydrogen to helium and then heat up all of a sudden as it burns up the hydrogen and then starts burning helium via fusion.

So what laws of physics are violated in thinking that Red Giants are helium fusion burning? Is it the 2nd law of thermodynamics of heat goes from hot to cold and never the reverse, which in terms of EM theory the 2nd law of thermodynamics is merely the right-hand rule of how electric current and magnetic field travel.

We can do an exceedingly simple experiment, in a fire of paper combustion with plastics, that you need a higher temperature to start plastic fire and the plastic burns hotter, but is that always the case? No, for some styrofoam plastics burn easier than paper, and this serves to show how ludicrous is the notion that helium fusion is hotter and causes Red Giant stars over hydrogen fusion.

Of course, for AP, all stars shine not from fusion at all, but from the Faraday law of every muon thrusting through its 840MeV proton torus, and as the star adds on more mass from the Faraday law of changing Space into electric current into neutrons which become more protons+muons, the star reaches a mass where it is Red Giant Initiation Phase.

Our own Sun is now a start up Red Giant star. This is extremely dangerous for all life on Earth, for all of our lifes are now in danger of going extinct unless we colonize Europa and Ganymede and get out of the way of the Sun swallowing up Earth.

So here I want to make a book of that history of goofball theory where astronomers saw there were Red Giant stars in the cosmic skies. They saw there were these Red Giant stars. When in fact was the first well known observations of these huge Red Giant stars, probably way before Bethe and his fusion mechanism. Was it Bethe, was it Peebles, was it many other astronomers and physicists that incorrectly linked up fusion with Red Giant stars and their evolution.

So they saw these Red Giant stars, and quickly, quickly they had to cover their silly and stupid fusion mechanism of star shine, stars powered by fusion.

So what this book attempts to do is dig into that cover up, that cover up of mindless airheads of logic who tried to patch Red Giant stars to fit into a mechanism of fusion energy to power stars.

So how long did the corrupt of mind cover up take? Was it 10 years upon discovery of the fusion mechanism and the desire to patch it with Red Giant stars? Was it 50 years for the cover up of physics? And who were its proponents? And why did no physicist ask the question in the back of their minds, for surely it must have been a question in the back of many a minds in physics-- why in hell does helium stay idle and then all of a sudden burn hotter than hydrogen in fusion?

Of course, those with AP's theory, have nothing to answer for or apologize for, because the Faraday law as powering starshine is a direct single line constant mass build-up of a star and thus the transition from normal star to Red Giant is directly straightline function of Faraday law and mass of star.

So, this history of the mindless, warped and corrupt science of fusion stars needs a special book all for itself, to trace and track how science of this magnitude of importance can fall into a trashy mess of thinking helium burns hotter in fusion than hydrogen.

AP, King of Science, especially Physics

Archimedes Plutonium

2021-08-17 19:29:20 UTC

Archimedes Plutonium

2021-08-18 22:02:58 UTC

AP writes: Kibo Parry M. do you have the same low opinion of John Baez as you have a low opinion of Jill Pipher who refuses to acknowledge the oval is the slant cut of a single cone, not the ellipse.

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of

2> AP writes: I am relieved that although Dan Christensen basks in the mix-up of Boole trading Either Or Or Both for that of AND, that Dan has enough brains to not mix up a male hog boar. Maybe that is what Boole should have done, spend more time on the farm.
2> What does mockery have anything to do with science, Kibo Parry M? Or are you saying they cannot do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus nor ask the question of which is the Atom's true electron, the muon or 0.5MeV particle?
2> Sheldon and Lisa need to read AP's books of doing the geometry proof and discussing the true electron is the muon.

74th published book

2> HISTORY OF THE PROTON MASS and the 945 MeV //Atom Totality series, book 3 Kindle Edition

2> World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition

by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 19May2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.

2> Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.


Archimedes Plutonium

2021-08-25 20:53:52 UTC

Dan, is the reason John Baez failed the oval is the conic section and muon the real electron of atoms with 0.5MeV particle the Dirac magnetic monopole, and John heard the calculus is geometry for the first time here in sci.math, so no hope of him doing a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, is that John bragged about reading Feynman Lectures at the ripe age of 12, when he should have read the Feynman Lectures at the ripe age of 6 in order to do a Oval is the conic not the ellipse. Is that why Dan?

SCI.PHYSICS FAQ, 25Aug2021// Usenet science dead, but AP's newsgroup up and running well-- today's topics-- take a look at the only pure science newsgroup, free of spammers and police drag net spam, free of stalkers.

The only real important physics in all of our time of the 21st century, other than the Atom Totality, is the physics of KNOWING WHAT IS THE TRUE ELECTRON OF ATOMS. Is it the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday Law and the 0.5MeV particle which AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole and not the real electron of atoms. Any other questions in physics are so unimportant, so meager, so irrelevant for our times.

Because, well, if the real electron is the Muon, not the 0.5MeV particle, means, the Sun shines from Faraday Law, and not from fusion. That means, the Sun has Initiated Red Giant Phase, and that means, all life on Earth perishes by the next 1 thousand year (perhaps even less, perhaps more such as 1 million years). Unless humanity colonizes Europa and Ganymede.

So, everything else in physics is meaningless, unless we address the question of which is the Atom's true real electron. Because if we do not address that question. All life on Earth could be toasted out of existence in just 1,000 years. We see it already in Heat Domes, and Droughts which could not be the result of Global Warming human fossil fuel burning.

Everything else in physics is an idiocy corner, that does not put the #1 question on center table.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe

XXXXXXXXXXX

Today's LIKELY govt drag net spammers in sci.physics -- poster "__". Likely FBI, CIA, Mi5, Mi6, and other govt agencies that give a shit, a shit about sci.physics and overrunning sci.physics.

We need concerted effort on the part of sci.physics loyal subscribers to remove "_" for if we do not remove the jackarse, he and their kind will flood sci.physics to where it is nothing but a pulp.

XXXXXXXXXXX

Principles of sci.physics

1) Above all, do physics in sci.physics, for at the end of the day, end of the year, end of a life, it is the physics that you do in sci.physics that only counts.

2) When doing physics in sci.physics and talking to someone else that is seriously doing physics with you-- be polite. You get ahead more, and go farther with politeness.

3) Most posters degenerate into ad hominem attackers. Reread (1).

4) Sci.physics is open to all, sadly, to even those who never do physics in sci.physics, but the openness is a blessing in disguise because the openess more often than not, gets at the truth of science that has been corrupted by other scientists. And sci.physics is self-policing, meaning that if you continue to piss and poop, (like Jeff Relf offtopic in sci.physics) if you continue to piss and poop in sci.physics, the others who seriously do physics in sci.physics will self police the miscreant out. For it only takes a few miscreants, diseased in mind to ruin a newsgroup as they are a blight upon all other posts that contain physics. Jeff Relf is like a person who you invite to your home for dinner, and having to go to the bathroom, Relf takes a shit right in the middle of the floor of the dining hall.

5) Prime Minister Boris Johnson & President Joe Biden, please call off your police agencies and FBI, CIA, Mi5, Mi6 of their daily "police drag net spam" in sci.physics and sci.math, and leave those two newsgroups completely alone to do just physics and math. Totally inappropriate of govt agencies to ruin sci.math and sci.physics, you may as well have your agents in all church ceremonies applying drag net spam. The spammer "__" is never appropriate in sci.math or sci.physics, nor is the Stonehenge freak, or any of the other drag net spammers. We all thank the USA and British and other governments and agencies like CERN for inventing Usenet, but please, do not destroy what you built, with police drag net spam. Adhere to the tenet, that a forum sci.physics and sci.math are specifically devoted to physics and math, not to a govt bureaucracy chasing after criminals and terrorists with their highly flamed rhetoric and loud noises in sci.math, sci.physics.

SCI.MATH FAQ and SCI. PHYSICS FAQ, although I personally remember the FAQ routinely posted to sci.math in 1993-1999 from Univ Waterloo in Canada, and from Scott I Chase from LBL dot gov in sci.physics.

Snapshot History of Usenet's sci.physics and sci.math, and why it is almost dead, not as dead as sci.chem, but approaching it, save for a few individuals such as AP, and others. Others who care more about truth, than about money and prejudice and opinion, and mindless sentiment and sex orientation.

AP cannot afford to lose sci.physics and sci.math because most of his new ideas after 1993 were all recorded and archived in sci.math and sci.physics.

The death of sci.chem and so many other newsgroups can be blamed on a govt interference pattern of paying for stalkers, and police drag net spam. As if doing physics in sci.physics is a nuisance to others doing stalking and police drag net spam.

Sci.chem is a dead newsgroup. Sci.physics and sci.math are almost dead newsgroups where stalkers fill each thread of those doing physics in sci.physics or math in sci.math, paid stalkers to demonize authors and after the end of the day, all of the posts are flushed off into 2nd or 3rd or 4th page by government block spam, police drag net spam to get all posts off the front page. Here is an example of block-flush-spam found almost daily in sci.physics. The purpose of which is to flush all posts into 2nd or 3rd page-- out of sight, out of mind of posts that have physics content.

unread,
i take back what i said previous forgive me im sick i ccry
How are you ?
7:30 AM

_'s profile photo
_
,
He Llo
2
unread,
i take back whta i said previosu forgive me im sick i cry
How are you ?
7:29 AM

_'s profile photo
_
,
He Llo
2
unread,
in 1999 they called me a monster but i thought i was a good monster like for example the monsters of rocknroll>>and not a bad monster>>what did i do to be a monster?i dont know, its because somthing she told them that i dont know and never will cause i wasnt any mmonster
7:29 AM

_'s profile photo
_
,
He Llo
2
unread,
in 1999 when i was a kid my senses didnt detect the monstruos proportion that i was confrontated aka with the rockstars >> if i was anonymous there woudnt be any problem cause i could handle it cause i had the controls>>but she stole my controls from me and made me contract freeze and they wanted me to explain without me having hte controls>>she caught me>>and i turned to crap>>she wanetd to steal my freedom and she succeeded
7:29 AM

_'s profile photo
_
,
He Llo
2
unread,
i take back what i said preivous forgive me im sick i cry

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
9:46 AM (1 hour ago)



to

6-SCI.PHYSICS FAQ, 8Aug2021// Usenet science dead, but AP's newsgroup up and running--
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe

Zelos Malum is doing a block-flush-spam over in sci.math, and every night he spits up as spam every one of Gabriel's spam that morning and loads the block of 15 threads onto sci.math to push everyone off the front pages.

Not only does Zelos Malum do a Block-Flush-Spam every night by regurgitating every one of John Gabriel's daytime spam, usually a block of 15 threads, but now we have Markus over in Europe doing Block-Flush-Spam.
So they do all sorts of attacks, attack your personal thread, and in conjunction, block-flush-spam to get your thread over onto page 2 or 3 hinterlands.
Many a poster is a juvenile delinquent who never grew up, and thinks Usenet is another game toy, where you have to battle authors to see if they go away, with your attacks. Some mothers in Europe must be teaching their bad naughty child-- go play with Usenet, to get them out of their hair, but into the hairs of authors in sci.math and sci.physics, just like Markus.

I'm quite sure Wiles is perfectly aware about the proof of FTC.

And now we have not only Zelos Malum misfit repeating all 15 John Gabriel threads everyday of the year, but we have the new misfit of Markus Klyver repeating the misfit Malum 15 threads.

Repeating or repetition is one of the strongest yet annoying weapons used in Usenet.

There is a old saying, that a camel is a horse designed by a government committee. And after observing Usenet for almost 30 years now, and how the US government built Usenet in 1993 and how the USA govt then destroyed Usenet, we can safely say "A ashened dung heap of nuked out husk is a Camel of a Horse, once US government gets finished with it."

Sci.chem is a dead newsgroup. With only police drag net spam occupying 90% of the posts. You can easily tell police drag net spam-- always off topic, and incendiary, and full of references. Danger-- those references are likely to be viruses to hack into your computer.

The USA government created Usenet in late 1980s, circa 1989 and I started to post 1993. About 90% of the posts were authored by edu dot addresses, harvard, nwu, berkeley and many colleges and universities. Today it is rare to see any edu dot address. Whenever I pull up a thread of mine in the early 1990s they are loaded with dot edu addresses. So what caused them to all flee? It was that the government of USA that invented Usenet started to pay stalkers to pester, harass, and cause to flee authors with their drumbeat of hate and stalking spam, which after the end of the day would be flushed off the front pages with more govt spam of drag net or flush-spam. So the govt created Usenet, in early 1990s and by 2000 was on a cruise to bruise and destroy Usenet. By 2021, only a enclave of posters in sci.math and sci.physics is keeping those two newsgroups still alive.

Some had warned in 1990s to use filters when reading sci.physics or sci.math. Filter out all bad pests and stalkers. Trouble is, the stalkers turned away dot edu authors and by 1999 most colleges and university authors were heading for the exits.

To keep sci.physics true on course we need people to self police posters who mean to destroy sci.physics of its mission-- Discuss physics. And to self police abusers, abusers like Jim McGinn who spams continually on the subject of weather, which is alright for freedom of speech allows everyone of their 15 posts a day, so who am I to complain since I use my 15 posts per day, just as McGinn, but then I do not post another 15 posts under a fake name "Tornado" so that McGinn tries to post 30 posts a day.

The vital reason AP cannot leave sci.physics and sci.math is because most everyone of my new ideas of science was posted to sci.physics and sci.math and many of those posts are seen in any one of my so far published books on Kindle Amazon. In the two years of 2019 - 2021 I managed to publish 150 books and working on my 151st book of TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year college.

It is safe to say the only fully functioning Usenet newsgroup of pure science, with no spam is AP's newsgroup. A place where almost all is pure science, seldom "people talk".

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe

Google newsgroups have abuse monitoring buttons and abuse report. But when the abuse comes from the USA govt itself, there is nothing Google can do.

And, much of that police drag net spam is experimental spam, and what I mean is they test out to see how well and easy they can get into your computer should you dare click on one of their reference sites. Sort of test out "how to hack" should you click on their spam posts.

This is what sci.chem looks like at the moment, a bombed out shell husk of police drag net spam. And the only reason sci.physics and sci.math are still functioning and do not look like sci.chem, are the efforts of a few people who care about sci.physics and sci.math.

FBInNSATerroristSlayer
unread,
Economist John Maynard Keynes Said Whites Had The Right To KILL Non-Whites
Aug 1

FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer's profile photo
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
, …
Nomen Nescio
4
unread,
EVIL WHITE CHRISTIAN THIEVES "deliberately diminished" Greatest Mathematical Contributions by Indians
Jul 26


FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer's profile photo
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
unread,
USA UK Aus Canada govts have been LYING to public - Ex-MI5 Microwave Scientist Barrie Trower
Jul 23

FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer's profile photo
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
unread,
Fibonacci: I loved Indian Mathematics to such an extent above all others that I completely devoted myself to it
Jul 17

FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer's profile photo
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
unread,
The Magneto-Plasma Cosmology of the Ṛgveda - Alternative to Big Bang Theory
Jul 17

FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer's profile photo
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
unread,
Re: Trump's lawsuit (WHITE FILTH spend their entire lives GOSSIPING while CIA, NSA is secretly CHIPPING them with MIND CONTROL CHIPS)
Jul 11

FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer's profile photo
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
unread,
MERCILESSLY MASSACRE THE CIA, NSA n FBI AGENTS LIKE FUCKING PIGS for SECRETLY CHIPPING Amrikkkans with MIND CONTROL CHIPS
Jul 6

FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer's profile photo
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
unread,
The VEDA of PHYSICS: Reconciling the Observer and the Observed
Jul 4



FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer's profile photo
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
unread,
MASSACRE CIA, FBI, NSA agents like FUCKING PIGS for SECRETLY CHIPPING americans with MIND INVASIVE CHIPS and TORTURING with DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS
Jun 30

FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer's profile photo
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
unread,
How INDIAN LOGIC played a role in the CREATION OF MODERN LOGIC, which is at the BASIS OF COMPUTER SCIENCE

Best FAQ ever written in Usenet once Alex Lopez-Ortiz of Univ. Waterloo FAQ stopped due to paid for stalkers.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet in AP's newsgroup, for sci.physics and sci.math was sold by USA govt to a gang of stalkers, who pester everyone as they now own sci.physics, and the USA govt of NSF and dept of Educ probably laughing their arse off as the stalkers harass and pester everyone. In the 1980s we had fraud waste abuse of $900. toilet seats from the government. The govt learns quickly and now their fraud waste and abuse is pay Kibo Parry M, Jan Burse, Dan Christensen perhaps $100 per stalker post, providing everyone in USA govt entertainment in their soda coffee break at Washington DC. "Look, kibo just harassed AP with two more emoji's of "shit for brains". The Master in Dr. Who: ha ha ha,... ha ha ha....

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe

Sci. Math FAQ history

From 1993 onwards to sometime around 1996 SCI.MATH FAQs were administered by Univ Waterloo in Canada, warning young students and newcomers of what to expect in sci.math. It worked well. And I would have liked it to be the first post permanently in sci.math. And it was done "for free". Their Warnings to students and newcomers were excellent, warning them of trust little of what you see in sci.math, sci.physics. And this is all that you ever need for Warnings. You never need paid for stalkers, which destroys a newsgroup.

But then corruption and fraud entered sci.math and sci.physics, for when money can be made from something, easy money, then it is not long before a new arrangement is made. So instead of a "for free FAQ". Some persons convinced the USA govt to pay stalkers to go around and pester authors 24-7-365.

And here is where a awful choice was likely made. A choice of hiring Kibo Parry M. of World std as noted by Wikipedia reference to the NSF, National Science Foundation. That they likely (we need investigative journalist to unearth the facts) hired Kibo Parry M, ___not knowing or not caring___ that he was Gay (we have to prove this as a Wikipedia standards of journalism) and by hiring him to stalk Usenet sci.math and sci.physics, he brings along with him (unknown to NSF at the time) brings along with him a full army of gay followers and warriors ready to do battle on Kibo's behalf in anticipation of a future "bedwarmer payback". Followers that laughed at every corny joke uttered by Kibo, So as they hire Kibo Parry M to stalk AP, then AP is not a one on one with Kibo attacks, no, AP is faced with a army of Kibo zombies.

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 7:18:40 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote in sci.math:
sex motivation in science Re: curious, just curious-- is there a numbers correlation between percentage of stalkers and homosexuality? Re: Psychology behind the mental disorder of stalking-- Michael Moroney, Dan Christensen, Jan Burse, Jan Bielawski

I am not suggesting that the 12 stalkers are 12 homosexuals.

(Franz) > I am not suggesting that the 12 stalkers are 12 [male --me] homosexuals.
(Franz)> I'm sure they are. That's why they are called /12 Angry Men/!

Well, this explains a lot about many posters in sci.math and sci.physics, for they are not in science for truth but in science to meet and partner up. And explains the loyalty and ferocity of hate posts by those 12, having no truth value. Explains why Franz keeps posting a total fake ellipse, because of his bedwarmer approval.

In another thread I discuss how "money corrupts science" but looking here, I need to consider how sex orientation corrupts the truth of science. So that we must ask-- is black hole acceptance due in large part to homosexual community wanting a black hole agenda. Is the Big Bang theory a homosexual favorite. Is the Appel & Haken in 4 color mapping, the Hales Kepler Packing, the Wiles FLT, all due to homosexual community favoritism, rather than any truth content.

So if Franz can post 100,000 times his fake conic ellipse b.s. all because he wants a bedwarmer, rather than the truth of science. We have to explore how much more of science is a sexual preference rather than reasoned truth.

A stupid decision was made by USA government sometime in the late 1990s to hire-- by the govt.-- paid for stalkers to stalk sci.math and sci.physics, in turn destroying those newsgroups and all of science on Usenet.

Not only did the stalkers invade every thread of their targeted victim, but there was a hidden agenda a "hidden sci.math and a hidden sci.physics", like a different channel, in which posts that were free of the stalkers would be channelled into this sci.math and sci.physics, so that the stalking made a "no see um" of of the targeted victim. A form of censoring. So that no-one would see a post of AP, once the stalkers had made a reply into a AP thread.

Much of the stalking comes out of std World ISP, with a fake name of Michael Moroney and many other fake names, used by Kibo Parry.

---quoting Wikipedia ---
Controversy
Many government and university installations blocked, threatened to block, or attempted to shut-down The World's Internet connection until Software Tool & Die was eventually granted permission by the National Science Foundation to provide public Internet access on "an experimental basis."
--- end quote ---

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Dr. Panchanathan , present day
France Anne Cordova
Subra Suresh
Arden Lee Bement Jr.
Rita R. Colwell
Neal Francis Lane
John Howard Gibbons 1993

Barry Shein, kibo parry std world
Jim Frost, Joe "Spike" Ilacqua

And how much of this paid stalkers, is paid for by the USA dept of Education? We need investigative journalists to figure this out.

We need investigative news journalists to see how much money the govt USA via NSF or dept of Educ is enriching the pockets of Kibo Parry M., Dan Christensen, Jan Burse, and a team of allies to stalk sci.math and sci.physics. Is it in the millions of dollars? Are they paid more to stalk under a NSF grant than actual professors of math and physics are paid at MIT or CalTech to actually teach math and physics? Will the NSF hire Kibo Parry M, Dan Christensen, Jan Burse to wipe the arse of staff at NSF as they visit the toilet, for they enjoy stalkers throwing turds throughout sci.math and sci.physics? And will that be paid for in millions of dollars also.

USA NSF---Sethuraman Panchanathan, F. Fleming Crim, Dorothy E Aronson, Brian Stone, James S Ulvestad, Rebecca Lynn Keiser, Vernon D. Ross, Lloyd Whitman, John J. Veysey, Scott Stanley

USA dept Educ, Cindy Marten, deputy

And the extreme stalking by Canadian Dan Christensen.
Canada's NSF-- Francois-Philippe Champagne, Ted Hewitt, Martha Crago, Frederic Bouchard, Cinthia Duclos, Normand Labrie

Investigative reporter needs to find out why Alex Lopez-Ortiz of Univ. Waterloo that had a nice, well-worked FAQ in early 1990s in Warning young students and newcomers that they will see all sorts of posts and to believe few if any of those posts. Why that FAQ disappeared in late 1990s, leaving only stalkers all over Usenet.

The FAQ worked really well and were "for free". It gave the proper Warnings to young students and newcomers that they would find all manner of posts and to believe very little of what they read because of the free-style nature of posts. Only I would have preferred they remain a permanent fixture of the very first post in sci.physics or sci.math.

So the journalist needs to investigate the corruption of where we are talking about a lot of money, perhaps millions squandered in paying the likes of stalkers Kibo Parry M, Dan Christensen, Jan Burse, to stalk day and night, year after year for 28 years now. When before Alex at Univ of Waterloo was posting for free-- the Warning. And now with stalkers, pestering authors to try to drive authors out.

Why give up a FAQ to pay millions for stalkers that ruin sci.physics and sci.math, just simply ruin and destroy it. And turn sci.math and sci.physics down to their level of idiocy-- Kibo Parry-- 938 is 12% short of 945, or Dan Christensen with 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction of the error filled Boole logic.

When sci.math and sci.physics operated beautifully with a FAQ posted from Univ Waterloo in the early 1990s. Why change, unless big, free easy money could be had.

So we need a investigative journalist to see where the govt fraud and corruption entered into the destruction of sci.math and sci.physics when a "for free guidance" was offered in a FAQ in early 1990s, where the corruption of wasting millions of dollars to pay some clinically obese stalkers Kibo and others sitting on their arse --all day long attacking posters.

And one has to investigate on whether John Gabriel was a stalker himself who would spam sci.math almost every day filling the board with 10 or more posts, whether Gabriel was some sort of "lure and bait" for stalkers Dan Christensen, Kibo Parry M, to say to NSF Dr. Panchanathan "see, you need us to stalk because of guys like Gabriel, now give us a 2 million pay rise".

AP has the hunch that Gabriel is a actor in cohort with Kibo and Dan and Jan and especially Zelos Malum who spams a 15 thread scree every night for years into Gabriel threads just to push everyone else off the front page. The Malum pathetic one liners such as "and why does one need to do it geometrically?" Refering to AP's call for a geometry proof of calculus.

In the wake of stalking, the USA government then used the sci.math and sci.physics as stomping grounds for police-drag-net-spam. One merely has to take a peek inside of sci.chem and see it is a bombed out shell of a husk of nothing but police drag net spam, so bad was sci.chem, that Dr. Panchanathan mad at how overwhelmed sci.chem had been destroyed ordering one of the stalkers to daily go into sci.chem with a dumb insipid question of chemistry, just to pretend sci.chem still had some "life" with someone of the stalkers posing a chemistry question, just to pretend it is not 100% bombed out of existence.

The Master in Dr. Who:: ha, ha, ha,,ha,ha.....ha,ha ha, hee,hee,hee, hee hee.

So what AP is going to do, is restore science newsgroups from the awful clutches of ignorant National Science Foundation Dr. Panchanathan's paid for stalkers and daily police drag net spam abominations.

AP needs to do this for most of all New True Science came from sci.physics and sci.math. People dull dumb and dirt ignorant people of science cannot stomach change and truth of science, and their reaction is predictable-- destroy the truth of science whatever means possible.

I am going to restore a daily FAQ to sci.physics and sci.math, until NSF Dr. Panchanathan grows up and his dept. grows up and furnishes a FAQ for sci.math and sci.physics. And stops and halts all payments to stalkers and stops and halts police drag net spam. Until then, AP takes over that job.

Swiss fraud waste abuse of taxpayer money 100franc per stalker post--

Archimedes Plutonium should be thrown in jail
for his willful criminal behavior. The criminal

Swiss government: Walter Thurnherr, Guy Parmelin, Ignazio Cassis

Unclear how the fraud waste abuse money flows, whether USA-NSF pays the Swiss for Jan Burse stalking directly, or whether some other flow for stalking, or, none at all. But the stalking has been constant for 10 years.

NSF fraud waste abuse of taxpayer money $100 per stalker post--

USA--NSF Dr. Panchanathan, F. Fleming Crim, Dorothy E Aronson, Brian Stone, James S Ulvestad, Rebecca Lynn Keiser, Vernon D. Ross, Lloyd Whitman, John J. Veysey, Scott Stanley.

---quoting Wikipedia ---
Controversy
Many government and university installations blocked, threatened to block, or attempted to shut-down The World's Internet connection until Software Tool & Die was eventually granted permission by the National Science Foundation to provide public Internet access on "an experimental basis."
--- end quote ---

ETH Zurich

Paul Biran, Marc Burger, Patrick Cheridito, Manfred Einsiedler, Paul Embrechts, Giovanni Felder, Alessio Figalli, Norbert Hungerbuhler, Tom Ilmanen, Horst Knorrer, Emmanuel Kowalski, Urs Lang, Rahul Pandharipande, Richard Pink, Tristan Riviere, Dietmar Salamon, Martin Schweizer, Mete Soner, Michael Struwe, Benjamin Sudakov, Alain Sznitman, Josef Teichmann
Wendelin Werner, Thomas Willwacher

Zurich ETH, physics dept
Charalampos Anastasiou, Niklas Beisert, Adrian Biland,
Gianni Blatter, Marcella Carollo, Christian Degen, Leonardo Degiorgi, Gunther Dissertori, Klaus Ensslin,
Tilman Esslinger, Jerome Faist, Matthias Gaberdiel,
Aude Gehrmann-De Ridder, Vadim Geshkenbein, Christophorus Grab, Michele Graf, Jonathan Home,
Roland Horisberger, Sebastian Huber, Thomas Markus Ihn, Atac Imamoglu, Steven Johnson, Ursula Keller, Klaus Kirch, Simon Lilly, Joel Mesot, Renatto Renner,
Andre Rubbia, Werner Schmutz, Thomas Schulthess, Manfred Sigrist, Hans-Arno Synal, Matthias Troyer, Andreas Vaterlaus, Rainer Wallny, Andreas Wallraff,
Werner Wegscheider, Audrey Zheludev, Oded Zilberberg

University Bern
Christian Leumann, Walter Benjamin, Emil Theodor Kocher, Kurt Wuthrich, Friedrich Durrenmatt, Daniel Vassella, Rene Fasel, Mani Matter

AP restoring a FAQ to SCI.PHYSICS and Directing all traffic to the only **active pure science newsgroup**
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe

What AP is going to do, if Usenet continues to hire stalkers paid for by NSF, and continues to go without a FAQ and continues to fill up the newsgroups with police drag net spam, is AP will single handedly restore a FAQ to sci.physics and sci.math, and --redirect traffic-- to the only functional sci.physics and sci.math newsgroup now available in Usenet--> the only newsgroup doing nothing but pure science--->

Which was more corrupt, the stalkers Kibo, Dan and Jan or was NSF the lead corruptors, that would make Usenet sci.math and sci.physics a bombed out shell of a husk.

So we see here how USA, NSF
Sethuraman Panchanathan, F. Fleming Crim, Dorothy E Aronson, Brian Stone, James S Ulvestad, Rebecca Lynn Keiser, Vernon D. Ross, Lloyd Whitman, John J. Veysey, Scott Stanley

And how Canada NSF,
Canada's NSF-- Francois-Philippe Champagne, Ted Hewitt, Martha Crago, Frederic Bouchard, Cinthia Duclos, Normand Labrie

Instructs their paid for stalkers Kibo Parry M. and Dan Christensen. To pick a victim, selected by NSF, then pester that victim in every one of his posts with hate spew, whether anagrams or mockery or swear words.

What we do not see is how much money is slided under the table for each of those stalk posts. Whether in cash or in license fees to even operate std World or in grants hidden from view and given obscure titles pretending to research something in internet behavior.

So when was the last time that Alex Lopez-Ortiz posted his sci.math FAQ which did a perfectly swell job of WARNING to young students and newcomers, warning that you should believe only a fraction of what you read and that sci.math is coated in cranks crackpots and worthless stalkers like Kibo and Dan teaching 938 is 12% short of 945 and that 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction due to error filled Boole logic.

So we do not see how much of taxpayers dollars is going for the likely-clinically-obese stalkers of Kibo Parry M., Dan Christensen, Jan Burse munching on chocolate bonbons sitting on their arse all day long spewing hatred. We do not see if their post nets a $100 per post spew or even more. So that they are paid thousand dollars a day, leaving the poor college professor who actually does teach math and physics, with a hundred dollars a day.

We need an investigative journalist to find out if the corrupt Kibo and Dan sought for the NSF to extract this lavish lifestyle career, or whether NSF sought for someone to stalk as a career.

y z
| /
| /
|/______ x

More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.

In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.

There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium

Mostowski Collapse

2021-08-26 00:04:31 UTC

Archimedes Plutonium can get lost compared to Leonardo Neutronium

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Dan, is the reason John Baez failed the oval is the conic section and muon the real electron of atoms with 0.5MeV particle the

Umari Yamagata

2021-08-26 16:58:54 UTC

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Archimedes Plutonium can get lost compared to Leonardo Neutronium

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Dan, is the reason John Baez failed the oval is the conic section and
muon the real electron of atoms with 0.5MeV particle the

lol

Jen Psaki - 'Our Efforts to Address the Global PLANDEMIC'
https://www.bitchute.com/video/U09Eawvn8nkw/

Archimedes Plutonium

2023-02-15 23:43:42 UTC

Dan Christensen why cannot John Baez admit slant cut of cone is oval, never ellipse, is it that John is blind??? And is Socratis spam linked to the spammers under a different name in sci.math? Is Socratis John Baez or Kibo Parry Moron-ey-Volney or Dan Christensen, for Socratis spam pops up only when AP posts.

40
Re: 2- The four lunatics of reddit/math, Terry Tao, Scott Contini, Sam Maksimovich, Mr. Pezevenk, none can do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, too stupid to even know what that is.
5:34 PM

Socratis T.n.p.'s profile photo
Socratis T.n.p.
,
Lucrezio S
46
unread,
I..Socratis.. explain the..derivative logic T.d.i..and the direct logic T.n.p. :
5:33 PM

Lucrezio S's profile photo
Lucrezio S
, …

5
unread,
1m *2m *2m = 4m^3.
On Monday 13 February 2023 at 02:22:39 UTC+1 Socratis Tnp he wrote: > On Saturday 11 February 2023
5:31 PM


Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Dan, is the reason John Baez failed the oval is the conic section and muon the real electron of atoms with 0.5MeV particle the Dirac magnetic monopole, and John heard the calculus is geometry for the first time here in sci.math, so no hope of him doing a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, is that John bragged about reading Feynman Lectures at the ripe age of 12, when he should have read the Feynman Lectures at the ripe age of 6 in order to do a Oval is the conic not the ellipse. Is that why Dan?
SCI.PHYSICS FAQ, 25Aug2021// Usenet science dead, but AP's newsgroup up and running well-- today's topics-- take a look at the only pure science newsgroup, free of spammers and police drag net spam, free of stalkers.
The only real important physics in all of our time of the 21st century, other than the Atom Totality, is the physics of KNOWING WHAT IS THE TRUE ELECTRON OF ATOMS. Is it the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday Law and the 0.5MeV particle which AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole and not the real electron of atoms. Any other questions in physics are so unimportant, so meager, so irrelevant for our times.
Because, well, if the real electron is the Muon, not the 0.5MeV particle, means, the Sun shines from Faraday Law, and not from fusion. That means, the Sun has Initiated Red Giant Phase, and that means, all life on Earth perishes by the next 1 thousand year (perhaps even less, perhaps more such as 1 million years). Unless humanity colonizes Europa and Ganymede.
So, everything else in physics is meaningless, unless we address the question of which is the Atom's true real electron. Because if we do not address that question. All life on Earth could be toasted out of existence in just 1,000 years. We see it already in Heat Domes, and Droughts which could not be the result of Global Warming human fossil fuel burning.
Everything else in physics is an idiocy corner, that does not put the #1 question on center table.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
XXXXXXXXXXX
Today's LIKELY govt drag net spammers in sci.physics -- poster "__". Likely FBI, CIA, Mi5, Mi6, and other govt agencies that give a shit, a shit about sci.physics and overrunning sci.physics.
We need concerted effort on the part of sci.physics loyal subscribers to remove "_" for if we do not remove the jackarse, he and their kind will flood sci.physics to where it is nothing but a pulp.
XXXXXXXXXXX
Principles of sci.physics
1) Above all, do physics in sci.physics, for at the end of the day, end of the year, end of a life, it is the physics that you do in sci.physics that only counts.
2) When doing physics in sci.physics and talking to someone else that is seriously doing physics with you-- be polite. You get ahead more, and go farther with politeness.
3) Most posters degenerate into ad hominem attackers. Reread (1).
4) Sci.physics is open to all, sadly, to even those who never do physics in sci.physics, but the openness is a blessing in disguise because the openess more often than not, gets at the truth of science that has been corrupted by other scientists. And sci.physics is self-policing, meaning that if you continue to piss and poop, (like Jeff Relf offtopic in sci.physics) if you continue to piss and poop in sci.physics, the others who seriously do physics in sci.physics will self police the miscreant out. For it only takes a few miscreants, diseased in mind to ruin a newsgroup as they are a blight upon all other posts that contain physics. Jeff Relf is like a person who you invite to your home for dinner, and having to go to the bathroom, Relf takes a shit right in the middle of the floor of the dining hall.
5) Prime Minister Boris Johnson & President Joe Biden, please call off your police agencies and FBI, CIA, Mi5, Mi6 of their daily "police drag net spam" in sci.physics and sci.math, and leave those two newsgroups completely alone to do just physics and math. Totally inappropriate of govt agencies to ruin sci.math and sci.physics, you may as well have your agents in all church ceremonies applying drag net spam. The spammer "__" is never appropriate in sci.math or sci.physics, nor is the Stonehenge freak, or any of the other drag net spammers. We all thank the USA and British and other governments and agencies like CERN for inventing Usenet, but please, do not destroy what you built, with police drag net spam. Adhere to the tenet, that a forum sci.physics and sci.math are specifically devoted to physics and math, not to a govt bureaucracy chasing after criminals and terrorists with their highly flamed rhetoric and loud noises in sci.math, sci.physics.
SCI.MATH FAQ and SCI. PHYSICS FAQ, although I personally remember the FAQ routinely posted to sci.math in 1993-1999 from Univ Waterloo in Canada, and from Scott I Chase from LBL dot gov in sci.physics.
Snapshot History of Usenet's sci.physics and sci.math, and why it is almost dead, not as dead as sci.chem, but approaching it, save for a few individuals such as AP, and others. Others who care more about truth, than about money and prejudice and opinion, and mindless sentiment and sex orientation.
AP cannot afford to lose sci.physics and sci.math because most of his new ideas after 1993 were all recorded and archived in sci.math and sci.physics.
The death of sci.chem and so many other newsgroups can be blamed on a govt interference pattern of paying for stalkers, and police drag net spam. As if doing physics in sci.physics is a nuisance to others doing stalking and police drag net spam.
Sci.chem is a dead newsgroup. Sci.physics and sci.math are almost dead newsgroups where stalkers fill each thread of those doing physics in sci.physics or math in sci.math, paid stalkers to demonize authors and after the end of the day, all of the posts are flushed off into 2nd or 3rd or 4th page by government block spam, police drag net spam to get all posts off the front page. Here is an example of block-flush-spam found almost daily in sci.physics. The purpose of which is to flush all posts into 2nd or 3rd page-- out of sight, out of mind of posts that have physics content.
unread,
i take back what i said previous forgive me im sick i ccry
How are you ?
7:30 AM

_'s profile photo
_
,
He Llo
2
unread,
i take back whta i said previosu forgive me im sick i cry
How are you ?
7:29 AM

_'s profile photo
_
,
He Llo
2
unread,
in 1999 they called me a monster but i thought i was a good monster like for example the monsters of rocknroll>>and not a bad monster>>what did i do to be a monster?i dont know, its because somthing she told them that i dont know and never will cause i wasnt any mmonster
7:29 AM

_'s profile photo
_
,
He Llo
2
unread,
in 1999 when i was a kid my senses didnt detect the monstruos proportion that i was confrontated aka with the rockstars >> if i was anonymous there woudnt be any problem cause i could handle it cause i had the controls>>but she stole my controls from me and made me contract freeze and they wanted me to explain without me having hte controls>>she caught me>>and i turned to crap>>she wanetd to steal my freedom and she succeeded
7:29 AM

_'s profile photo
_
,
He Llo
2
unread,
i take back what i said preivous forgive me im sick i cry

Archimedes Plutonium's profile photo
Archimedes Plutonium
9:46 AM (1 hour ago)



to

6-SCI.PHYSICS FAQ, 8Aug2021// Usenet science dead, but AP's newsgroup up and running--
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe

Zelos Malum is doing a block-flush-spam over in sci.math, and every night he spits up as spam every one of Gabriel's spam that morning and loads the block of 15 threads onto sci.math to push everyone off the front pages.
Not only does Zelos Malum do a Block-Flush-Spam every night by regurgitating every one of John Gabriel's daytime spam, usually a block of 15 threads, but now we have Markus over in Europe doing Block-Flush-Spam.
So they do all sorts of attacks, attack your personal thread, and in conjunction, block-flush-spam to get your thread over onto page 2 or 3 hinterlands.
Many a poster is a juvenile delinquent who never grew up, and thinks Usenet is another game toy, where you have to battle authors to see if they go away, with your attacks. Some mothers in Europe must be teaching their bad naughty child-- go play with Usenet, to get them out of their hair, but into the hairs of authors in sci.math and sci.physics, just like Markus.

I'm quite sure Wiles is perfectly aware about the proof of FTC.

And now we have not only Zelos Malum misfit repeating all 15 John Gabriel threads everyday of the year, but we have the new misfit of Markus Klyver repeating the misfit Malum 15 threads.
Repeating or repetition is one of the strongest yet annoying weapons used in Usenet.
There is a old saying, that a camel is a horse designed by a government committee. And after observing Usenet for almost 30 years now, and how the US government built Usenet in 1993 and how the USA govt then destroyed Usenet, we can safely say "A ashened dung heap of nuked out husk is a Camel of a Horse, once US government gets finished with it."
Sci.chem is a dead newsgroup. With only police drag net spam occupying 90% of the posts. You can easily tell police drag net spam-- always off topic, and incendiary, and full of references. Danger-- those references are likely to be viruses to hack into your computer.
The USA government created Usenet in late 1980s, circa 1989 and I started to post 1993. About 90% of the posts were authored by edu dot addresses, harvard, nwu, berkeley and many colleges and universities. Today it is rare to see any edu dot address. Whenever I pull up a thread of mine in the early 1990s they are loaded with dot edu addresses. So what caused them to all flee? It was that the government of USA that invented Usenet started to pay stalkers to pester, harass, and cause to flee authors with their drumbeat of hate and stalking spam, which after the end of the day would be flushed off the front pages with more govt spam of drag net or flush-spam. So the govt created Usenet, in early 1990s and by 2000 was on a cruise to bruise and destroy Usenet. By 2021, only a enclave of posters in sci.math and sci.physics is keeping those two newsgroups still alive.
Some had warned in 1990s to use filters when reading sci.physics or sci.math. Filter out all bad pests and stalkers. Trouble is, the stalkers turned away dot edu authors and by 1999 most colleges and university authors were heading for the exits.
To keep sci.physics true on course we need people to self police posters who mean to destroy sci.physics of its mission-- Discuss physics. And to self police abusers, abusers like Jim McGinn who spams continually on the subject of weather, which is alright for freedom of speech allows everyone of their 15 posts a day, so who am I to complain since I use my 15 posts per day, just as McGinn, but then I do not post another 15 posts under a fake name "Tornado" so that McGinn tries to post 30 posts a day.
The vital reason AP cannot leave sci.physics and sci.math is because most everyone of my new ideas of science was posted to sci.physics and sci.math and many of those posts are seen in any one of my so far published books on Kindle Amazon. In the two years of 2019 - 2021 I managed to publish 150 books and working on my 151st book of TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 1st year college.
It is safe to say the only fully functioning Usenet newsgroup of pure science, with no spam is AP's newsgroup. A place where almost all is pure science, seldom "people talk".
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Google newsgroups have abuse monitoring buttons and abuse report. But when the abuse comes from the USA govt itself, there is nothing Google can do.
And, much of that police drag net spam is experimental spam, and what I mean is they test out to see how well and easy they can get into your computer should you dare click on one of their reference sites. Sort of test out "how to hack" should you click on their spam posts.
This is what sci.chem looks like at the moment, a bombed out shell husk of police drag net spam. And the only reason sci.physics and sci.math are still functioning and do not look like sci.chem, are the efforts of a few people who care about sci.physics and sci.math.
FBInNSATerroristSlayer
unread,
Economist John Maynard Keynes Said Whites Had The Right To KILL Non-Whites
Aug 1

FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer's profile photo
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
, …
Nomen Nescio
4
unread,
EVIL WHITE CHRISTIAN THIEVES "deliberately diminished" Greatest Mathematical Contributions by Indians
Jul 26


FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer's profile photo
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
unread,
USA UK Aus Canada govts have been LYING to public - Ex-MI5 Microwave Scientist Barrie Trower
Jul 23

FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer's profile photo
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
unread,
Fibonacci: I loved Indian Mathematics to such an extent above all others that I completely devoted myself to it
Jul 17

FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer's profile photo
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
unread,
The Magneto-Plasma Cosmology of the Ṛgveda - Alternative to Big Bang Theory
Jul 17

FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer's profile photo
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
unread,
Re: Trump's lawsuit (WHITE FILTH spend their entire lives GOSSIPING while CIA, NSA is secretly CHIPPING them with MIND CONTROL CHIPS)
Jul 11

FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer's profile photo
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
unread,
MERCILESSLY MASSACRE THE CIA, NSA n FBI AGENTS LIKE FUCKING PIGS for SECRETLY CHIPPING Amrikkkans with MIND CONTROL CHIPS
Jul 6

FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer's profile photo
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
unread,
The VEDA of PHYSICS: Reconciling the Observer and the Observed
Jul 4


FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer's profile photo
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
unread,
MASSACRE CIA, FBI, NSA agents like FUCKING PIGS for SECRETLY CHIPPING americans with MIND INVASIVE CHIPS and TORTURING with DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS
Jun 30

FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer's profile photo
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
unread,
How INDIAN LOGIC played a role in the CREATION OF MODERN LOGIC, which is at the BASIS OF COMPUTER SCIENCE
Best FAQ ever written in Usenet once Alex Lopez-Ortiz of Univ. Waterloo FAQ stopped due to paid for stalkers.
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet in AP's newsgroup, for sci.physics and sci.math was sold by USA govt to a gang of stalkers, who pester everyone as they now own sci.physics, and the USA govt of NSF and dept of Educ probably laughing their arse off as the stalkers harass and pester everyone. In the 1980s we had fraud waste abuse of $900. toilet seats from the government. The govt learns quickly and now their fraud waste and abuse is pay Kibo Parry M, Jan Burse, Dan Christensen perhaps $100 per stalker post, providing everyone in USA govt entertainment in their soda coffee break at Washington DC. "Look, kibo just harassed AP with two more emoji's of "shit for brains". The Master in Dr. Who: ha ha ha,... ha ha ha....
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Sci. Math FAQ history
From 1993 onwards to sometime around 1996 SCI.MATH FAQs were administered by Univ Waterloo in Canada, warning young students and newcomers of what to expect in sci.math. It worked well. And I would have liked it to be the first post permanently in sci.math. And it was done "for free". Their Warnings to students and newcomers were excellent, warning them of trust little of what you see in sci.math, sci.physics. And this is all that you ever need for Warnings. You never need paid for stalkers, which destroys a newsgroup.
But then corruption and fraud entered sci.math and sci.physics, for when money can be made from something, easy money, then it is not long before a new arrangement is made. So instead of a "for free FAQ". Some persons convinced the USA govt to pay stalkers to go around and pester authors 24-7-365.
And here is where a awful choice was likely made. A choice of hiring Kibo Parry M. of World std as noted by Wikipedia reference to the NSF, National Science Foundation. That they likely (we need investigative journalist to unearth the facts) hired Kibo Parry M, ___not knowing or not caring___ that he was Gay (we have to prove this as a Wikipedia standards of journalism) and by hiring him to stalk Usenet sci.math and sci.physics, he brings along with him (unknown to NSF at the time) brings along with him a full army of gay followers and warriors ready to do battle on Kibo's behalf in anticipation of a future "bedwarmer payback". Followers that laughed at every corny joke uttered by Kibo, So as they hire Kibo Parry M to stalk AP, then AP is not a one on one with Kibo attacks, no, AP is faced with a army of Kibo zombies.
sex motivation in science Re: curious, just curious-- is there a numbers correlation between percentage of stalkers and homosexuality? Re: Psychology behind the mental disorder of stalking-- Michael Moroney, Dan Christensen, Jan Burse, Jan Bielawski

I am not suggesting that the 12 stalkers are 12 homosexuals.

(Franz) > I am not suggesting that the 12 stalkers are 12 [male --me] homosexuals.
(Franz)> I'm sure they are. That's why they are called /12 Angry Men/!
Well, this explains a lot about many posters in sci.math and sci.physics, for they are not in science for truth but in science to meet and partner up. And explains the loyalty and ferocity of hate posts by those 12, having no truth value. Explains why Franz keeps posting a total fake ellipse, because of his bedwarmer approval.
In another thread I discuss how "money corrupts science" but looking here, I need to consider how sex orientation corrupts the truth of science. So that we must ask-- is black hole acceptance due in large part to homosexual community wanting a black hole agenda. Is the Big Bang theory a homosexual favorite. Is the Appel & Haken in 4 color mapping, the Hales Kepler Packing, the Wiles FLT, all due to homosexual community favoritism, rather than any truth content.
So if Franz can post 100,000 times his fake conic ellipse b.s. all because he wants a bedwarmer, rather than the truth of science. We have to explore how much more of science is a sexual preference rather than reasoned truth.
A stupid decision was made by USA government sometime in the late 1990s to hire-- by the govt.-- paid for stalkers to stalk sci.math and sci.physics, in turn destroying those newsgroups and all of science on Usenet.
Not only did the stalkers invade every thread of their targeted victim, but there was a hidden agenda a "hidden sci.math and a hidden sci.physics", like a different channel, in which posts that were free of the stalkers would be channelled into this sci.math and sci.physics, so that the stalking made a "no see um" of of the targeted victim. A form of censoring. So that no-one would see a post of AP, once the stalkers had made a reply into a AP thread.
Much of the stalking comes out of std World ISP, with a fake name of Michael Moroney and many other fake names, used by Kibo Parry.
---quoting Wikipedia ---
Controversy
Many government and university installations blocked, threatened to block, or attempted to shut-down The World's Internet connection until Software Tool & Die was eventually granted permission by the National Science Foundation to provide public Internet access on "an experimental basis."
--- end quote ---
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Dr. Panchanathan , present day
France Anne Cordova
Subra Suresh
Arden Lee Bement Jr.
Rita R. Colwell
Neal Francis Lane
John Howard Gibbons 1993
Barry Shein, kibo parry std world
Jim Frost, Joe "Spike" Ilacqua
And how much of this paid stalkers, is paid for by the USA dept of Education? We need investigative journalists to figure this out.
We need investigative news journalists to see how much money the govt USA via NSF or dept of Educ is enriching the pockets of Kibo Parry M., Dan Christensen, Jan Burse, and a team of allies to stalk sci.math and sci.physics. Is it in the millions of dollars? Are they paid more to stalk under a NSF grant than actual professors of math and physics are paid at MIT or CalTech to actually teach math and physics? Will the NSF hire Kibo Parry M, Dan Christensen, Jan Burse to wipe the arse of staff at NSF as they visit the toilet, for they enjoy stalkers throwing turds throughout sci.math and sci.physics? And will that be paid for in millions of dollars also.
USA NSF---Sethuraman Panchanathan, F. Fleming Crim, Dorothy E Aronson, Brian Stone, James S Ulvestad, Rebecca Lynn Keiser, Vernon D. Ross, Lloyd Whitman, John J. Veysey, Scott Stanley
USA dept Educ, Cindy Marten, deputy
And the extreme stalking by Canadian Dan Christensen.
Canada's NSF-- Francois-Philippe Champagne, Ted Hewitt, Martha Crago, Frederic Bouchard, Cinthia Duclos, Normand Labrie
Investigative reporter needs to find out why Alex Lopez-Ortiz of Univ. Waterloo that had a nice, well-worked FAQ in early 1990s in Warning young students and newcomers that they will see all sorts of posts and to believe few if any of those posts. Why that FAQ disappeared in late 1990s, leaving only stalkers all over Usenet.
The FAQ worked really well and were "for free". It gave the proper Warnings to young students and newcomers that they would find all manner of posts and to believe very little of what they read because of the free-style nature of posts. Only I would have preferred they remain a permanent fixture of the very first post in sci.physics or sci.math.
So the journalist needs to investigate the corruption of where we are talking about a lot of money, perhaps millions squandered in paying the likes of stalkers Kibo Parry M, Dan Christensen, Jan Burse, to stalk day and night, year after year for 28 years now. When before Alex at Univ of Waterloo was posting for free-- the Warning. And now with stalkers, pestering authors to try to drive authors out.
Why give up a FAQ to pay millions for stalkers that ruin sci.physics and sci.math, just simply ruin and destroy it. And turn sci.math and sci.physics down to their level of idiocy-- Kibo Parry-- 938 is 12% short of 945, or Dan Christensen with 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction of the error filled Boole logic.
When sci.math and sci.physics operated beautifully with a FAQ posted from Univ Waterloo in the early 1990s. Why change, unless big, free easy money could be had.
So we need a investigative journalist to see where the govt fraud and corruption entered into the destruction of sci.math and sci.physics when a "for free guidance" was offered in a FAQ in early 1990s, where the corruption of wasting millions of dollars to pay some clinically obese stalkers Kibo and others sitting on their arse --all day long attacking posters.
And one has to investigate on whether John Gabriel was a stalker himself who would spam sci.math almost every day filling the board with 10 or more posts, whether Gabriel was some sort of "lure and bait" for stalkers Dan Christensen, Kibo Parry M, to say to NSF Dr. Panchanathan "see, you need us to stalk because of guys like Gabriel, now give us a 2 million pay rise".
AP has the hunch that Gabriel is a actor in cohort with Kibo and Dan and Jan and especially Zelos Malum who spams a 15 thread scree every night for years into Gabriel threads just to push everyone else off the front page. The Malum pathetic one liners such as "and why does one need to do it geometrically?" Refering to AP's call for a geometry proof of calculus.
In the wake of stalking, the USA government then used the sci.math and sci.physics as stomping grounds for police-drag-net-spam. One merely has to take a peek inside of sci.chem and see it is a bombed out shell of a husk of nothing but police drag net spam, so bad was sci.chem, that Dr. Panchanathan mad at how overwhelmed sci.chem had been destroyed ordering one of the stalkers to daily go into sci.chem with a dumb insipid question of chemistry, just to pretend sci.chem still had some "life" with someone of the stalkers posing a chemistry question, just to pretend it is not 100% bombed out of existence.
The Master in Dr. Who:: ha, ha, ha,,ha,ha.....ha,ha ha, hee,hee,hee, hee hee.
So what AP is going to do, is restore science newsgroups from the awful clutches of ignorant National Science Foundation Dr. Panchanathan's paid for stalkers and daily police drag net spam abominations.
AP needs to do this for most of all New True Science came from sci.physics and sci.math. People dull dumb and dirt ignorant people of science cannot stomach change and truth of science, and their reaction is predictable-- destroy the truth of science whatever means possible.
I am going to restore a daily FAQ to sci.physics and sci.math, until NSF Dr. Panchanathan grows up and his dept. grows up and furnishes a FAQ for sci.math and sci.physics. And stops and halts all payments to stalkers and stops and halts police drag net spam. Until then, AP takes over that job.
Swiss fraud waste abuse of taxpayer money 100franc per stalker post--

Archimedes Plutonium should be thrown in jail
for his willful criminal behavior. The criminal

Swiss government: Walter Thurnherr, Guy Parmelin, Ignazio Cassis
Unclear how the fraud waste abuse money flows, whether USA-NSF pays the Swiss for Jan Burse stalking directly, or whether some other flow for stalking, or, none at all. But the stalking has been constant for 10 years.
NSF fraud waste abuse of taxpayer money $100 per stalker post--
USA--NSF Dr. Panchanathan, F. Fleming Crim, Dorothy E Aronson, Brian Stone, James S Ulvestad, Rebecca Lynn Keiser, Vernon D. Ross, Lloyd Whitman, John J. Veysey, Scott Stanley.
---quoting Wikipedia ---
Controversy
Many government and university installations blocked, threatened to block, or attempted to shut-down The World's Internet connection until Software Tool & Die was eventually granted permission by the National Science Foundation to provide public Internet access on "an experimental basis."
--- end quote ---
ETH Zurich
Paul Biran, Marc Burger, Patrick Cheridito, Manfred Einsiedler, Paul Embrechts, Giovanni Felder, Alessio Figalli, Norbert Hungerbuhler, Tom Ilmanen, Horst Knorrer, Emmanuel Kowalski, Urs Lang, Rahul Pandharipande, Richard Pink, Tristan Riviere, Dietmar Salamon, Martin Schweizer, Mete Soner, Michael Struwe, Benjamin Sudakov, Alain Sznitman, Josef Teichmann
Wendelin Werner, Thomas Willwacher
Zurich ETH, physics dept
Charalampos Anastasiou, Niklas Beisert, Adrian Biland,
Gianni Blatter, Marcella Carollo, Christian Degen, Leonardo Degiorgi, Gunther Dissertori, Klaus Ensslin,
Tilman Esslinger, Jerome Faist, Matthias Gaberdiel,
Aude Gehrmann-De Ridder, Vadim Geshkenbein, Christophorus Grab, Michele Graf, Jonathan Home,
Roland Horisberger, Sebastian Huber, Thomas Markus Ihn, Atac Imamoglu, Steven Johnson, Ursula Keller, Klaus Kirch, Simon Lilly, Joel Mesot, Renatto Renner,
Andre Rubbia, Werner Schmutz, Thomas Schulthess, Manfred Sigrist, Hans-Arno Synal, Matthias Troyer, Andreas Vaterlaus, Rainer Wallny, Andreas Wallraff,
Werner Wegscheider, Audrey Zheludev, Oded Zilberberg
University Bern
Christian Leumann, Walter Benjamin, Emil Theodor Kocher, Kurt Wuthrich, Friedrich Durrenmatt, Daniel Vassella, Rene Fasel, Mani Matter
AP restoring a FAQ to SCI.PHYSICS and Directing all traffic to the only **active pure science newsgroup**
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
What AP is going to do, if Usenet continues to hire stalkers paid for by NSF, and continues to go without a FAQ and continues to fill up the newsgroups with police drag net spam, is AP will single handedly restore a FAQ to sci.physics and sci.math, and --redirect traffic-- to the only functional sci.physics and sci.math newsgroup now available in Usenet--> the only newsgroup doing nothing but pure science--->
Which was more corrupt, the stalkers Kibo, Dan and Jan or was NSF the lead corruptors, that would make Usenet sci.math and sci.physics a bombed out shell of a husk.

So we see here how USA, NSF
Sethuraman Panchanathan, F. Fleming Crim, Dorothy E Aronson, Brian Stone, James S Ulvestad, Rebecca Lynn Keiser, Vernon D. Ross, Lloyd Whitman, John J. Veysey, Scott Stanley
And how Canada NSF,
Canada's NSF-- Francois-Philippe Champagne, Ted Hewitt, Martha Crago, Frederic Bouchard, Cinthia Duclos, Normand Labrie
Instructs their paid for stalkers Kibo Parry M. and Dan Christensen. To pick a victim, selected by NSF, then pester that victim in every one of his posts with hate spew, whether anagrams or mockery or swear words.
What we do not see is how much money is slided under the table for each of those stalk posts. Whether in cash or in license fees to even operate std World or in grants hidden from view and given obscure titles pretending to research something in internet behavior.
So when was the last time that Alex Lopez-Ortiz posted his sci.math FAQ which did a perfectly swell job of WARNING to young students and newcomers, warning that you should believe only a fraction of what you read and that sci.math is coated in cranks crackpots and worthless stalkers like Kibo and Dan teaching 938 is 12% short of 945 and that 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction due to error filled Boole logic.
So we do not see how much of taxpayers dollars is going for the likely-clinically-obese stalkers of Kibo Parry M., Dan Christensen, Jan Burse munching on chocolate bonbons sitting on their arse all day long spewing hatred. We do not see if their post nets a $100 per post spew or even more. So that they are paid thousand dollars a day, leaving the poor college professor who actually does teach math and physics, with a hundred dollars a day.
We need an investigative journalist to find out if the corrupt Kibo and Dan sought for the NSF to extract this lavish lifestyle career, or whether NSF sought for someone to stalk as a career.
y z
| /
| /
|/______ x
More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.
In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.
I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.
There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.
Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium

Archimedes Plutonium

2021-08-26 17:35:45 UTC

Sad day at UC Riverside where John Baez teaches mathematics, but what kind of math, for the fool cannot even be bothered in folding a paper cone, dropping a Kerr lid inside at slant and notice it is a Oval, never the ellipse. No, the only thing the fool Baez can do in math and science is make up attack hate lists of his opinion of cranks and crackpots. Trouble is, John is his own worse crackpot of science, and not others, yet California school system lets this cripple of mind teach math and science.

Sad day at Ohio State University mathematics department, when the days of Fisher & Ziebur wrote Calculus textbook and the book I entered college first year calculus. But now Ohio State math department is just cranks and crackpots.

For I suspect, do not know that if Fisher & Ziebur were at Ohio State, they would have had the brains and the _decency_ to fold up a paper cone, drop a Mason lid inside, slant at an angle and prove the Oval is the slant cut, never the ellipse. But try telling that to a crank crackpot Gerald Edgar.

3rd published book

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.

Length: 21 pages

File Size: 1620 KB
Print Length: 21 pages
Publication Date: March 11, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PLSDQWC
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray: Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

#8-2, 11th published book

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 19May2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?

Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.

Length: 137 pages

Product details
ASIN : B07PQTNHMY
Publication date : March 14, 2019
Language : English
File size : 1307 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 137 pages
Lending : Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

Archimedes Plutonium

2021-08-28 07:15:47 UTC

Does John Baez and Jill Pipher and Ken Ribet suffer from Dunning-Kruger disease of psychology-- where they overestimate their abilities in math-- knowing the cone has 1 axis of symmetry, yet John, Jill & Ken still thinks 1 axis can yield a ellipse of 2 axes of symmetry in a slant cut. I think John, Jill & Ken are smarter than Dan Christensen with his 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, or, Kibo Parry M with his 938 is 12% short of 945, but not much smarter than Kibo Parry for both believe the slant cut in cone is a ellipse, when the truth be known, it is a Oval for the oval, like the cone has 1 axis of symmetry.

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Aug 27, 2021, 11:07:58 AM
to sci.math

Tao fails geometry because he believes Python with his cone has 2 axes of symmetry and hence slant cut is ellipse in cone, for otherwise, he would have said something by now 2016-2021.

Why don't you buy this kind of stuff that will show you that
you didn't do the experiment right?
https://www.pinterest.fr/pin/595178906992508262/
Moreover that a slant cut in a cylinder shows an ellipse does not
contradict that some slant cuts in a cone shows an ellipse also.

AP writes: no wonder that AP's discovery that Cone slant cut is an Oval never the ellipse is because everyone in math community other than AP thinks a cone has 2 axes of symmetry, just the same as a cylinder has 2 axis of symmetry.

I have heard of color blindness where you fail to see certain wavelengths of color, and guess that in mathematics, now, we have to test students and teachers for axis blindness.

Python wrote:
Aug 27, 2021, 11:14:47 AM
to sci.math

Tao fails geometry because he believes Python with his cone has 2 axes of symmetry and hence slant cut is ellipse in cone

A cone has ONE axe of symmetry AND a slant cut in a cone IS an ellipse.

You can buy a wood model for a few bucks, Ludwig, instead of making a
fool of yourself.

Python wrote:
Aug 27, 2021, 11:41:04 AM
to sci.math

Tao fails geometry because he believes Python with his cone has 2 axes of symmetry and hence slant cut is ellipse in cone

A cone has ONE axe of symmetry AND a slant cut in a cone IS an ellipse.

Python>> You can buy a wood model for a few bucks, Ludwig, instead of making a
Python>> fool of yourself.
AP> a ellipse has 2 axes of symmetry, so how do you get a figure with 2
AP> axes of symmetry from a cone of 1 axis of symmetry

Python>watch it there:
Python>https://www.youtube.com

AP writes: Does Terence Tao, Jill Pipher & Ken Ribet and Python (possibly Terry Tao in disguise) have Dunning-Kruger effect disability? Wikipedia describes it as "internal illusion in people of low ability". In this case mathematics, that Terry Tao has low ability in math and so misperceives the Cone as 1 axes of symmetry and then deludes himself that a 2 axes of symmetry can be gotten with a slant cut in cone to yield ellipse. Whereas AP was always a straight and narrow on cue scientist, knowing that the cone of 1 axes could never yield a ellipse of 2 axes , no, for AP that slant cut could only yield another figure of 1 axes of symmetry-- the Oval.

The follies and blunders of Dan Christensen, the mighty Canadian oaf of logic and math. Of course his most insane and twisted offering is his 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, believing in Boole logic even when Boole screwed up royally in his AND connector truth table of TFFF when in reality it is TTTF, making a mockery of the Either..Or..Or..Both that is a insane self contradiction, yet all logicians of today and past still preach this error ridden nonsense of logic. But Dan is caught often with his mindless pronouncements in sci.math, such as these two incidents.

Here is an example of Dan Christensen fumbling with the most simple of logic reasoning, and yet Canada keeps allowing this misfit to dig deeper into logic.

The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points."

What a monsterous fool you are

OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it.

And yet Mr Plutonium is right. Two points are distinct (else they would
be one) and it is not necessary to say so.

Apparently Dan Christensen never took calculus or flunked it with this statement.

The nonexistence of a curved angle because there is no way to measure the angle if either one of the rays is not a straightline segment at the vertex,

From the derivative of each curve at the point of contact you have the slopes of their respective tangents there. (Assuming derivatives are defined there.) From these slopes, you should be able to calculate angle formed.
Dan

It has been known by AP that another clear case example of Dunning Kruger disease and mental disorder is the stalker Kibo Parry M. where he posts every day of the year almost for 28 years to sci.math when that insane koot cannot even do a percentage with his 938 is 12% short of 945.

On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 12:30:22 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Silly boy, that's off by more than 12.6 MeV, or 12% of the mass of a muon.
> Hardly "exactly" 9 muons.

Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572. A proton is about the mass

> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.

And his continued stalk spam of a another posters mindless talk of some notes he took, a garbled nonsense mess--
kibo>Here is a plane and cone
x + 1 = z
and
2*x^2 + 2*y^2 = z^2
kibo>Square the first equation giving us
x^2 + 2*x + 1 = z^2
kibo>In the second equation replace z^2 with x^2 + 2*x + 1 giving us
2*x^2 + 2*y^2 = x^2 + 2*x + 1
kibo>Subtract x^2 + 2*x - 1 from both sides giving us
x^2 - 2*x + 1 + 2*y^2 = 2
kibo>Replace x^2 - 2*x + 1 with (x-1)^2 giving us
(x-1)^2 + 2*y^2 = 2
kibo>That is EXACTLY the equation of an ellipse
And there are two planes of symmetry.
kibo>No matter how you tilt or rotate an ellipse it
REMAINS an ellipse and has TWO PLANES of symmetry,
just like the intersection of a plane and cylinder
remains an ellipse no matter what the slope of the
plane is.
AP writes: 7 years of stalker shithead Dan Christensen and 28 years of a shithead Kibo Parry M, unloading a wade of crap in every AP thread that AP was doing solid math and physics, such as the above, and no-one kicks the insane stalker Kibo Parry M out of sci.math and sci.physics.

AP writes: well in the opinion of AP, that Kibo Parry M has more to worry about than Dunning Kruger disease of his mental health, because in the opinion of AP, that Kibo Parry is a insane person, all stalkers are insane people and as a stalker, not even a human being, no longer a human being but melting away in insanity. For 28 years now, the insane arsewipe Kibo Parry M. has made no contribution to sci.math but to hate spew everyone he stalks. Get the straightjacket in emergency ambulance for Kibo Parry M size XXSmall.

So, well is the world being Dumbnificated by the fossil fuel burning discharging tonnes and tonnes of toxic chemicals into the air every minute of the day, and that CO2 itself comes in several isomers where the Fire-CO2, not the Animal-CO2 isomer (see my chemistry books) is especially harmful to Humans thinking abilities especially logical thinking. So that John Baez, Terence Tao and Jill Pipher and Ken Ribet could no longer reason, reason that if a cone has 1 axis of symmetry, no way in hell is a slant cut into a 1 axis symmetry cone going to yield a 2 axes symmetry ellipse. No way in hell, but the cut will release a 1 axis symmetry Oval.

AP
King of Science, especially Physics

bwr fml

2021-08-28 08:12:45 UTC

...for both believe the slant cut in cone is a ellipse, when the truth be known, it is a Oval for the oval, like the cone has 1 axis of symmetry.

I think both you and I might agree:

Everyone with any exposure to math in the world, except you, believes the intersection is an ellipse.

In ten years you have not been able to convince a single other person in the world that the intersection is an oval.

In ten years everyone else has not been able to convince you that the intersection is an ellipse.

So, serious questions:

What would it take to convince everyone else it is an oval? Jar lid and paper cone isn't going to do it. What would convince them?

What would it take to convince you it is an ellipse? Algebra and geometry proofs isn't going to do it. What would convince you?

Is the answer to both those questions "Absolutely nothing at all, not ever"?

Archimedes Plutonium

2021-08-28 19:59:49 UTC

Dan says, do not be a victim of anti-science Justin Trudeau and Linda Hasenfratz and Rose M. Patten with their 2 OR 1=3 with AND as subtraction for Justin et al love teaching dogma that is never corrected of mistakes.

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of

Question Dan, is it Dunning-Kruger disease that plagues John Baez, for he knows a cone has 1 axis of symmetry and the oval has one axis of symmetry, so Dan, why cannot the fool, silly fool of John Baez ever admit you cannot get a symmetry of 2 axes out of a cone of 1 axis of symmetry. Is it that John has breathed so much air pollution in California and become dumbnified that it is hard for John to even remember his name let alone mathematics. What say you Dan Christensen the Canadian insane stalker?

AP> Does John Baez and Jill Pipher and Ken Ribet suffer from Dunning-Kruger disease of psychology-- where they overestimate their abilities in math-- knowing the cone has 1 axis of symmetry, yet John, Jill & Ken still thinks 1 axis can yield a ellipse of 2 axes of symmetry in a slant cut. I think John, Jill & Ken are smarter than Dan Christensen with his 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, or, Kibo Parry M with his 938 is 12% short of 945, but not much smarter than Kibo Parry for both believe the slant cut in cone is a ellipse, when the truth be known, it is a Oval for the oval, like the cone has 1 axis of symmetry.

Aug 27, 2021, 11:07:58 AM
to sci.math
Tao fails geometry because he believes Python with his cone has 2 axes of symmetry and hence slant cut is ellipse in cone, for otherwise, he would have said something by now 2016-2021.

AP writes: no wonder that AP's discovery that Cone slant cut is an Oval never the ellipse is because everyone in math community other than AP thinks a cone has 2 axes of symmetry, just the same as a cylinder has 2 axis of symmetry.
I have heard of color blindness where you fail to see certain wavelengths of color, and guess that in mathematics, now, we have to test students and teachers for axis blindness.
Aug 27, 2021, 11:14:47 AM
to sci.math

Tao fails geometry because he believes Python with his cone has 2 axes of symmetry and hence slant cut is ellipse in cone

A cone has ONE axe of symmetry AND a slant cut in a cone IS an ellipse.
You can buy a wood model for a few bucks, Ludwig, instead of making a
fool of yourself.
Aug 27, 2021, 11:41:04 AM
to sci.math

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Tao fails geometry because he believes Python with his cone has 2 axes of symmetry and hence slant cut is ellipse in cone

A cone has ONE axe of symmetry AND a slant cut in a cone IS an ellipse.

Python>> You can buy a wood model for a few bucks, Ludwig, instead of making a
Python>> fool of yourself.
AP> a ellipse has 2 axes of symmetry, so how do you get a figure with 2
AP> axes of symmetry from a cone of 1 axis of symmetry
Python>https://www.youtube.com
AP writes: Does Terence Tao, Jill Pipher & Ken Ribet and Python (possibly Terry Tao in disguise) have Dunning-Kruger effect disability? Wikipedia describes it as "internal illusion in people of low ability". In this case mathematics, that Terry Tao has low ability in math and so misperceives the Cone as 1 axes of symmetry and then deludes himself that a 2 axes of symmetry can be gotten with a slant cut in cone to yield ellipse. Whereas AP was always a straight and narrow on cue scientist, knowing that the cone of 1 axes could never yield a ellipse of 2 axes , no, for AP that slant cut could only yield another figure of 1 axes of symmetry-- the Oval.
The follies and blunders of Dan Christensen, the mighty Canadian oaf of logic and math. Of course his most insane and twisted offering is his 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, believing in Boole logic even when Boole screwed up royally in his AND connector truth table of TFFF when in reality it is TTTF, making a mockery of the Either..Or..Or..Both that is a insane self contradiction, yet all logicians of today and past still preach this error ridden nonsense of logic. But Dan is caught often with his mindless pronouncements in sci.math, such as these two incidents.
Here is an example of Dan Christensen fumbling with the most simple of logic reasoning, and yet Canada keeps allowing this misfit to dig deeper into logic.

The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points."

What a monsterous fool you are

OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it.

And yet Mr Plutonium is right. Two points are distinct (else they would
be one) and it is not necessary to say so.

Apparently Dan Christensen never took calculus or flunked it with this statement.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
The nonexistence of a curved angle because there is no way to measure the angle if either one of the rays is not a straightline segment at the vertex,

And his continued stalk spam of a another posters mindless talk of some notes he took, a garbled nonsense mess--
kibo>Here is a plane and cone
x + 1 = z
and
2*x^2 + 2*y^2 = z^2
kibo>Square the first equation giving us
x^2 + 2*x + 1 = z^2
kibo>In the second equation replace z^2 with x^2 + 2*x + 1 giving us
2*x^2 + 2*y^2 = x^2 + 2*x + 1
kibo>Subtract x^2 + 2*x - 1 from both sides giving us
x^2 - 2*x + 1 + 2*y^2 = 2
kibo>Replace x^2 - 2*x + 1 with (x-1)^2 giving us
(x-1)^2 + 2*y^2 = 2
kibo>That is EXACTLY the equation of an ellipse
And there are two planes of symmetry.
kibo>No matter how you tilt or rotate an ellipse it
REMAINS an ellipse and has TWO PLANES of symmetry,
just like the intersection of a plane and cylinder
remains an ellipse no matter what the slope of the
plane is.
AP writes: 7 years of stalker shithead Dan Christensen and 28 years of a shithead Kibo Parry M, unloading a wade of crap in every AP thread that AP was doing solid math and physics, such as the above, and no-one kicks the insane stalker Kibo Parry M out of sci.math and sci.physics.
AP writes: well in the opinion of AP, that Kibo Parry M has more to worry about than Dunning Kruger disease of his mental health, because in the opinion of AP, that Kibo Parry is a insane person, all stalkers are insane people and as a stalker, not even a human being, no longer a human being but melting away in insanity. For 28 years now, the insane arsewipe Kibo Parry M. has made no contribution to sci.math but to hate spew everyone he stalks. Get the straightjacket in emergency ambulance for Kibo Parry M size XXSmall.
So, well is the world being Dumbnificated by the fossil fuel burning discharging tonnes and tonnes of toxic chemicals into the air every minute of the day, and that CO2 itself comes in several isomers where the Fire-CO2, not the Animal-CO2 isomer (see my chemistry books) is especially harmful to Humans thinking abilities especially logical thinking. So that John Baez, Terence Tao and Jill Pipher and Ken Ribet could no longer reason, reason that if a cone has 1 axis of symmetry, no way in hell is a slant cut into a 1 axis symmetry cone going to yield a 2 axes symmetry ellipse. No way in hell, but the cut will release a 1 axis symmetry Oval.
AP
King of Science, especially Physics

Archimedes Plutonium

2022-05-13 05:45:45 UTC

Cynthia Larive, Mark Alber, John Baez, Mei-Chu Chang is the reason John Baez could never admit slant cut in single cone is actually a Oval, never ellipse due to number of axes of symmetry, the same reason that everyone at UC Riverside thinks Lewis structure is based on 8 when in fact the highest dissociation energy is CO and N2 because Lewis is really based on 6 arms, not 8, and is that the reason everyone at UC Riverside is just plain dumb stupid and silly in all of geometry? And why Dan Christensen the failure of Logic with his AND truth table of TFFF, is calling out the idiocy of UC Riverside.

UC Riverside Math Dept, provost: Cynthia Larive- chemist,
Mark Alber, John Baez, Mei-Chu Chang, Vyjayanthi Chari, Kevin Costello, Po-Ning Chen, Wee Liang Gan, Gerhard Gierz, Jacob Greenstein, Jose Gonzalez, Zhuang-dan Guan, Jim Kelliher, Sara Lapan, Michel Lapidus, Carl Mautner, Amir Moradifam, Yat Sun Poon, Ziv Ran, David Rush, Reinhard Schultz, Stefano Vidussi, David Weisbart, Fred Wilhelm, Bun Wong, Yulong Xing, Feng Xu, Qi Zhang
Does John Baez and Jill Pipher and Ken Ribet suffer from Dunning-Kruger disease of psychology-- where they overestimate their abilities in math-- knowing the cone has 1 axis of symmetry, yet John, Jill & Ken still thinks 1 axis can yield a ellipse of 2 axes of symmetry in a slant cut. I think John, Jill & Ken are smarter than Dan Christensen with his 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, or, Kibo Parry M with his 938 is 12% short of 945, but not much smarter than Kibo Parry for both believe the slant cut in cone is a ellipse, when the truth be known, it is a Oval for the oval, like the cone has 1 axis of symmetry.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Aug 27, 2021, 11:07:58 AM
to sci.math
Tao fails geometry because he believes Python with his cone has 2 axes of symmetry and hence slant cut is ellipse in cone, for otherwise, he would have said something by now 2016-2021.

AP writes: no wonder that AP's discovery that Cone slant cut is an Oval never the ellipse is because everyone in math community other than AP thinks a cone has 2 axes of symmetry, just the same as a cylinder has 2 axis of symmetry.
I have heard of color blindness where you fail to see certain wavelengths of color, and guess that in mathematics, now, we have to test students and teachers for axis blindness.
Aug 27, 2021, 11:14:47 AM
to sci.math

Tao fails geometry because he believes Python with his cone has 2 axes of symmetry and hence slant cut is ellipse in cone

A cone has ONE axe of symmetry AND a slant cut in a cone IS an ellipse.
You can buy a wood model for a few bucks, Ludwig, instead of making a
fool of yourself.
Aug 27, 2021, 11:41:04 AM
to sci.math

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Tao fails geometry because he believes Python with his cone has 2 axes of symmetry and hence slant cut is ellipse in cone

A cone has ONE axe of symmetry AND a slant cut in a cone IS an ellipse.

Python>> You can buy a wood model for a few bucks, Ludwig, instead of making a
Python>> fool of yourself.
AP> a ellipse has 2 axes of symmetry, so how do you get a figure with 2
AP> axes of symmetry from a cone of 1 axis of symmetry
Python>https://www.youtube.com
AP writes: Does Terence Tao, Jill Pipher & Ken Ribet and Python (possibly Terry Tao in disguise) have Dunning-Kruger effect disability? Wikipedia describes it as "internal illusion in people of low ability". In this case mathematics, that Terry Tao has low ability in math and so misperceives the Cone as 1 axes of symmetry and then deludes himself that a 2 axes of symmetry can be gotten with a slant cut in cone to yield ellipse. Whereas AP was always a straight and narrow on cue scientist, knowing that the cone of 1 axes could never yield a ellipse of 2 axes , no, for AP that slant cut could only yield another figure of 1 axes of symmetry-- the Oval.
The follies and blunders of Dan Christensen, the mighty Canadian oaf of logic and math. Of course his most insane and twisted offering is his 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, believing in Boole logic even when Boole screwed up royally in his AND connector truth table of TFFF when in reality it is TTTF, making a mockery of the Either..Or..Or..Both that is a insane self contradiction, yet all logicians of today and past still preach this error ridden nonsense of logic. But Dan is caught often with his mindless pronouncements in sci.math, such as these two incidents.
Here is an example of Dan Christensen fumbling with the most simple of logic reasoning, and yet Canada keeps allowing this misfit to dig deeper into logic.

The should be "between and any two DISTINCT points."

What a monsterous fool you are

OMG. You are serious. Stupid and proud of it.

And yet Mr Plutonium is right. Two points are distinct (else they would
be one) and it is not necessary to say so.

Apparently Dan Christensen never took calculus or flunked it with this statement.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
The nonexistence of a curved angle because there is no way to measure the angle if either one of the rays is not a straightline segment at the vertex,

Archimedes Plutonium

2022-05-16 05:43:13 UTC

Mark Alber, Mei-Chu Chang, Vyjayanthi Chari, Kevin Costello,
_UC Riverside, why not admit the truth Oval is the slant cut in single cone, never the ellipse. John Baez certainly cannot admit the truth, for when confronted, the churly imp tried to get out of admitting the truth by saying the oval was a general ellipse as if those two were the same. I call this being dishonest in science and a churlish imp of science. UC Riverside -- __truth always wins__ and your actions of hiring or __complacent with__ hate-stalker criminals of Kibo Parry M. or Jan Burse or Dan Christensen or their dozen allies of hatred, only shows that UC Riverside is no longer in the business of science and truth but has gone corrupt.

"physics hater"
"not one single marble of commonsense in my entire brain"

Not much difference between the corrupt Donald Trump and his mindless "big lie" and UC Riverside with their mindless big lie of ellipse a conic section.

No point in asking any UC Riverside professor which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle when the bozo the clowns cannot even tell apart a ellipse from oval.
3rd published book
AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
•
•
Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 26Jan2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
In November of 2019, I was challenged to make the definition of Oval a well defined definition. I took up that task, and fortunately I waited a long time since, 2016, my discovery that the oval was the slant cut into a cone, not the ellipse. I say fortunately because you need physics in order to make a well defined definition of oval. You need the knowledge of physics, that electricity is perpendicular to magnetism and this perpendicularity is crucial in a well defined definition of oval. When I discovered the ellipse was never a conic in 2016, I probably could not have well defined the oval at that time, because I needed the 3 years intervening to catch up on a lot of physics, but by November 2019, I was ready willing and able. Then in August of 2020, I discovered a third new proof of Ellipse is a cylinder section never a conic section, using solid 3rd dimension geometry of ovoid and ellipsoid.
Cover picture is a cone and a cylinder on a cutting board and that is an appropriate base to place those two figures because sectioning means cutting, and the cuts we want to make into a single cone and a cylinder is a slant cut not a cut parallel to the base of the figures, nor a cut that leaves the figure open ended but a slant cut that leaves the figure a closed loop.
Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 2021 KB
• Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 50 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
#11-2, 11th published book
World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.
To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
UC Riverside-- why not tell the truth of science instead of being complacent or hiring a moron paid for hate-stalker like Kibo Parry M. You must know, truth always wins.



why do you have to be such a crybaby about the ellipse being a conic
section?

UC Riverside Math Dept, provost: Cynthia Larive- chemist,
Mark Alber, John Baez, Mei-Chu Chang, Vyjayanthi Chari, Kevin Costello, Po-Ning Chen, Wee Liang Gan, Gerhard Gierz, Jacob Greenstein, Jose Gonzalez, Zhuang-dan Guan, Jim Kelliher, Sara Lapan, Michel Lapidus, Carl Mautner, Amir Moradifam, Yat Sun Poon, Ziv Ran, David Rush, Reinhard Schultz, Stefano Vidussi, David Weisbart, Fred Wilhelm, Bun Wong, Yulong Xing, Feng Xu, Qi Zhang

Archimedes Plutonium

2022-05-21 23:10:17 UTC

John Baez, Edward Witten, Brian Greene, Lisa Randall, Alan H. Guth, Michael E. Brown, Konstantin Batygin, Ben Bullock, Larry Harson, Mark Barton, far too stupid in physics to ask the question, which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle which AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole while the real electon is a muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. In fact so stupid is this list of so called physicists that they went through life believing the slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, when in reality it is a Oval of 1 axis of symmetry for the cone has 1 axis of symmetry but ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry. The minds of all these so called physicists are not good enough to be doing physics. In fact, so stupid in science and math are all these people that when told in High School or College that a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, they believed it, and believe in it to this day without so much as ever questioning the idea that a single cone and oval have just 1 axis of symmetry while ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, and yet many on this list were awarded science prizes. Maybe for ignorance of science but not for truth of science.

1) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
2) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction
3) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"
4) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sapheads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.

Why Dan Christensen? Is it because John Baez believes in Boole Logic with its error filled connectors such as AND truth table as TFFF when it really is TTTF to avoid the Baez idiocy of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. Or is that John Baez is such a science failure he cannot even begin to question whether the muon is the true electron of atoms.

David J. Thouless, F. Duncan M. Haldane, John M. Kosterlitz, Takaaki Kajita
Arthur B. McDonald
Francois Englert
Saul Perlmutter
Brian P. Schmidt
Adam G. Riess
Makoto Kobayashi
Toshihide Maskawa
Yoichiro Nambu
John C. Mather
George F. Smoot
Roy J. Glauber
David J. Gross
Hugh David Politzer
Frank Wilczek
Raymond Davis Jr.
Masatoshi Koshiba
Riccardo Giacconi
Gerardus 't Hooft
Martinus J.G. Veltman
Jerome I. Friedman
Henry W. Kendall
Richard E. Taylor
Carlo Rubbia
Simon van der Meer
William Alfred Fowler
Kenneth G. Wilson
James Watson Cronin
Val Logsdon Fitch
Sheldon Lee Glashow
Steven Weinberg
.
.
little fishes
.
.
Layers of error thinking physics Re: 2-Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = subtraction of either 3 or 2, while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV

Physical Review Letters: Proton Mass
Yi-Bo Yang, Jian Liang, Yu-Jiang Bi, Ying Chen, Terrence Draper, Keh-Fei Liu, Zhaofeng Liu
more and more layers of error thinking physics
.
.
Edward Witten
John Baez
Brian Greene
Lisa Randall
Alan H. Guth
Michael E. Brown
Konstantin Batygin
Ben Bullock
Larry Harson
Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views
None at all - he was a raving nutter.
Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley
Jennifer Kahn, Discover, science hater
Eric Francis Coppolino, newsreporter hatred of science, George Witte, St.Martin's Press science hater
Toby Howard, The Guardian, science hater

#2-1, 137th published book

Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

#1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory

This will be AP's 137th published book on science. And the number 137 is special to me for it is the number of QED, Quantum Electrodynamics as the inverse fine structure constant. I can always remember 137 as that special constant of physics and so I can remember where Teaching True Physics was started by me.

Time has come for the world to have the authoritative textbooks for all of High School and College education. Written by the leading physics expert of the time. The last such was Feynman in the 1960s with Feynman Lectures on Physics. The time before was Maxwell in 1860s with his books and Encyclopedia Britannica editorship. The time is ripe in 2020 for the new authoritative texts on physics. It will be started in 2020 which is 60 years after Feynman. In the future, I request the physics community updates the premier physics textbook series at least every 30 years. For we can see that pattern of 30 years approximately from Faraday in 1830 to Maxwell in 1860 to Planck and Rutherford in about 1900, to Dirac in 1930 to Feynman in 1960 and finally to AP in 1990 and 2020. So much happens in physics after 30 years, that we need the revisions to take place in a timely manner. But also, as we move to Internet publishing such as Amazon's Kindle, we can see that updates can take place very fast, as editing can be a ongoing monthly or yearly activity. I for one keep constantly updating all my published books, at least I try to.

Feynman was the best to make the last authoritative textbook series for his concentration was QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, the pinnacle peak of physics during the 20th century. Of course the Atom Totality theory took over after 1990 and all of physics; for all sciences are under the Atom Totality theory.
And as QED was the pinnacle peak before 1990, the new pinnacle peak is the Atom Totality theory. The Atom Totality theory is the advancement of QED, for the Atom Totality theory primal axiom says -- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
Length: 64 pages

Product details
• File Size : 790 KB
• Publication Date : October 5, 2020
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 64 pages
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Language: : English
• ASIN : B08KS4YGWY
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #430,602 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #39 in Electromagnetic Theory
◦ #73 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
◦ #74 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads

#2-2, 145th published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes and errors and beliefs that clutter up physics. Clearing it of its fraud and fakeries and con-artistry. I thought of doing these textbooks starting with Senior year High School, wherein I myself started learning physics. But because of so much fraud and fakery in physics education, I believe we have to drop down to Junior year High School to make a drastic and dramatic emphasis on fakery and con-artistry that so much pervades science and physics in particular. So that we have two years in High School to learn physics. And discard the nonsense of physics brainwash that Old Physics filled the halls and corridors of education.

Product details
• ASIN : B08PC99JJB
• Publication date : November 29, 2020
• Language: : English
• File size : 682 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 78 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #185,995 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #42 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #344 in Physics (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,160 in Physics (Books)

#2-3, 146th published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Senior High School// Physics textbook series, book 3
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

I believe that in knowing the history of a science is knowing half of that science. And that if you are amiss of knowing the history behind a science, you have only a partial understanding of the concepts and ideas behind the science. I further believe it is easier to teach a science by teaching its history than any other means of teaching. So for senior year High School, I believe physics history is the best way of teaching physics. And in later years of physics courses, we can always pick up on details. So I devote this senior year High School physics to a history of physics, but only true physics. And there are few books written on the history of physics, so I chose Asimov's The History of Physics, 1966 as the template book for this textbook. Now Asimov's book is full of error and mistakes, and that is disappointing but all of Old Physics is full of error. On errors and mistakes of Old Physics, the best I can do is warn the students, and the largest warning of all is that whenever someone in Old Physics says "electron" what they are talking about is really the Dirac magnetic monopole. And whenever they talk about the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom, they are talking about huge huge grave mistakes, for the true atom is protons as 8 ringed toruses with a muon stuck inside of a proton doing the Faraday law and producing those magnetic monopoles as electricity. I use Asimov's book as a template but in the future, I hope to rewrite this textbook using no template at all, that is if I have time in the future.
Cover Picture: Is the book The History of Physics, by Isaac Asimov, 1966 and on top of the book are 4 cut-outs of bent circles representing magnetic monopoles which revolutionizes modern physics, especially the ElectroMagnetic theory.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08RK33T8V
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 28, 2020
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 794 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 123 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #4,167,235 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #15,099 in Physics (Kindle Store)
◦ #91,163 in Physics (Books)

#2-4, 151st published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Preface: This is AP's 151st book of science published. It is one of my most important books of science because 1st year college physics is so impressionable on students, if they should continue with physics, or look elsewhere for a career. And also, physics is a crossroad to all the other hard core sciences, where physics course is mandatory such as in chemistry or even biology. I have endeavored to make physics 1st year college to be as easy and simple to learn. In this endeavor to make physics super easy, I have made the writing such that you will see core ideas in all capital letters as single sentences as a educational tool. And I have made this textbook chapter writing follow a logical pattern of both algebra and geometry concepts, throughout. The utmost importance of logic in physics needs to be seen and understood. For I have never seen a physics book, prior to this one that is logical. Every Old Physics textbook I have seen is scatter-brained in topics and in writing. I use as template book of Halliday & Resnick because a edition of H&R was one I was taught physics at University of Cincinnati in 1969. And in 1969, I had a choice of majors, do I major in geology, or mathematics, or in physics, for I will graduate from UC in 1972. For me, geology was too easy, but physics was too tough, so I ended up majoring in mathematics. If I had been taught in 1969 using this textbook that I have written, I would have ended up majoring in physics, my first love. For physics is not hard, not hard at all, once you clear out the mistakes and the obnoxious worthless mathematics that clutters up Old Physics, and the illogic that smothers much of Old Physics.

Maybe it was good that I had those impressions of physics education of poor education, which still exists throughout physics today. Because maybe I am forced to write this book, because of that awful experience of learning physics in 1969. Without that awful experience, maybe this textbook would have never been written by me.

Cover picture is the template book of Halliday & Resnick, 1988, 3rd edition Fundamentals of Physics and sitting on top are cut outs of "half bent circles, bent at 90 degrees" to imitate magnetic monopoles. Magnetic Monopoles revolutionizes physics education, and separates-out, what is Old Physics from what is New Physics.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09JW5DVYM
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ October 19, 2021
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1035 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 386 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #4,874,333 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #526 in Electromagnetic Theory
◦ #1,321 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
◦ #9,546 in Electromagnetism (Books)

#2-5, 174th published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 2nd year College
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition

Preface: At the moment this is a physics book for 2nd year College. But as the months and years go by I intend to convert it into a textbook of about 200 to 300 pages. It is mostly about thermodynamics for in my own college education 1968-1972 at University of Cincinnati, I took physics thermodynamics in the 2nd year (if memory has not failed me).
Cover-Picture: Is a iphone photograph of the Chemistry textbook I used at UC 1968-1972 with my own paper cut-outs of magnetic monopoles. Pictured are 4 bent circles, bent at 90degrees from diameter and each bent circle is a individual magnetic monopole.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09TKL4HMC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 27, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 675 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 41 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#2-6, 177th published book
TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Architecture of Atoms, 3rd year College
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition

Preface: I come to teaching physics for 3rd year College as the Architecture of Atoms. My writing style will be prose-narrative, until I add on exercise problems and convert it into a textbook. The 1st year College, has to be the equations and laws of electricity and magnetism. For the primal-axiom over all of physics is-- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. The 2nd year College is thermodynamics. And now the 3rd year College physics has to teach the Architecture, the geometry of the inside and exterior surface of the atom. One of the greatest faults, misery, and anti-science teaching of Old Physics is their denial that subatomic particles have to be something more than tiny balls tiny spheres that do-nothing, perform nothing, function as nothing. That the proton and neutron and true electron=muon, has to be matter with a function and purpose and design and task and job. This is a year of physics teaching of the architecture of the atom.
Cover Picture: A iphone photograph of my book chemistry book, a long time favorite of mine of CHEM ONE, 2nd edition, Waser, Trueblood, Knobler, 1980, and page 307 of that book. Why this page? Because it was instrumental in my discovery of the true Architecture of Atoms. Not many professors of chemistry or physics dive into the Shrodinger Equation that results in a meaningful teaching of "matter waves". Matter waves are the heart of understanding the geometry of Atomic Architecture.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09VFH9QST
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 823 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 74 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#2-7, 178th published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Architecture of Light Waves & Energy, 4th year College
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Kindle edition)

Preface: This is 4th year College Physics and the important ideas of physics to learn as last year undergraduate school is the architecture and geometry of the Light Wave & Energy in physics. This is New Physics and not Old Physics. New Physics is defined as physics that knows and uses the true electron of atoms is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus and doing the Faraday law, creating new electrical energy that is storaged in the neutrons of atoms until they grow from 1eV into 945MeV and then create a new higher atomic numbered atom or emitted as radioactivity. Old Physics mistakenly identified the electron of atoms as the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole. In 3rd year College we studied the architecture of the interior of atoms. In 4th year College we study the architecture of Light Waves & Energy.

The template book for 4th year College is Feynman's 1985 book of QED.

Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of the template book for this book. Feynman's 1985 QED, quantum electrodynamics, showing my plastic toy model of DNA and my cut-outs of 4 bent circles that each bent circle represents one magnetic monopole. I arranged the monopoles into a single strand of a cycloid wave.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09W58XGDW
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 21, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 824 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 66 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#2-9, 161st published book

PHYSICSOPEDIA -- List of 137 fakes and mistakes of Old Physics// Student teaches professor Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 24Apr2022. This is AP's 161st published book of science.

Preface:
A Physicsopedia is a book of the overall assessment and evaluation of the state of the art of Physics. It is like a report card. It is a total view of the science and a judgement of the science, both of the past, present and the direction forward into the future. Its greatest use is to alert readers and people in science of what is wrong with their subject, and as a ancillary use, to alert students what to avoid in college as a waste of time.

It is not in alphabetical order but mostly, rather, has a ordering of what is most important at the start and only at the very very end. For there is no index.

Physics is the most important hard science for every other science is a specialized part of physics. And Old Physics has three key huge mistakes that this book addresses. The true theory of the Universe is the Atom Totality, not the Big Bang which is a ridiculous theory. The true electron of atoms is not the particle of 0.5MeV which turns out to be Dirac's magnetic monopole, while the true real electron of atoms is the muon of 105MeV which is stuck inside a proton torus of 8 rings of 840MeV. This causes another huge mistake, for a mistake in physics usually has a cascade effect of more and more mistakes. When we take the true electron of atoms is the muon, means the Sun and stars shine not from fusion, but from that muon thrusting through the proton torus in a Faraday law of electricity and magnetism producing electrical energy. So our Sun shines from the Faraday law, not fusion. And this implies the Sun has gone into Red Giant phase with a solar radiation increase of 0.005% yearly increase. That implies all life on Earth is in danger of going extinct as the Sun becomes more and more Red Giant, and unless humanity moves out to Europa, humanity goes extinct.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09N18QPP1
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 3, 2021
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1139 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 82 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled


y z
| /
| /
|/______ x

More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.

In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.

There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium

Archimedes Plutonium

2022-05-21 19:33:01 UTC

Edward Witten, John Baez, Brian Greene, Lisa Randall, Alan H. Guth, Michael E. Brown, Konstantin Batygin, Ben Bullock, Larry Harson, Mark Barton, far too stupid in physics to ask the question, which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle which AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole while the real electon is a muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. In fact so stupid is this list of so called physicists that they went through life believing the slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, when in reality it is a Oval of 1 axis of symmetry for the cone has 1 axis of symmetry but ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry. The minds of all these so called physicists are not good enough to be doing physics. In fact, so stupid in science and math are all these people that when told in High School or College that a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, they believed it, and believe in it to this day without so much as ever questioning the idea that a single cone and oval have just 1 axis of symmetry while ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, and yet many on this list were awarded science prizes. Maybe for ignorance of science but not for truth of science.

1) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
2) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction
3) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"
4) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sapheads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.

David J. Thouless, F. Duncan M. Haldane, John M. Kosterlitz, Takaaki Kajita
Arthur B. McDonald
Francois Englert
Saul Perlmutter
Brian P. Schmidt
Adam G. Riess
Makoto Kobayashi
Toshihide Maskawa
Yoichiro Nambu
John C. Mather
George F. Smoot
Roy J. Glauber
David J. Gross
Hugh David Politzer
Frank Wilczek
Raymond Davis Jr.
Masatoshi Koshiba
Riccardo Giacconi
Gerardus 't Hooft
Martinus J.G. Veltman
Jerome I. Friedman
Henry W. Kendall
Richard E. Taylor
Carlo Rubbia
Simon van der Meer
William Alfred Fowler
Kenneth G. Wilson
James Watson Cronin
Val Logsdon Fitch
Sheldon Lee Glashow
Steven Weinberg
.
.
little fishes
.
.
Layers of error thinking physics Re: 2-Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = subtraction of either 3 or 2, while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV

Physical Review Letters: Proton Mass
Yi-Bo Yang, Jian Liang, Yu-Jiang Bi, Ying Chen, Terrence Draper, Keh-Fei Liu, Zhaofeng Liu
more and more layers of error thinking physics
.
.
Edward Witten
John Baez
Brian Greene
Lisa Randall
Alan H. Guth
Michael E. Brown
Konstantin Batygin
Ben Bullock
Larry Harson
Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views
None at all - he was a raving nutter.
Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley
Jennifer Kahn, Discover, science hater
Eric Francis Coppolino, newsreporter hatred of science, George Witte, St.Martin's Press science hater
Toby Howard, The Guardian, science hater

#2-1, 137th published book

Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

#1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory

This will be AP's 137th published book on science. And the number 137 is special to me for it is the number of QED, Quantum Electrodynamics as the inverse fine structure constant. I can always remember 137 as that special constant of physics and so I can remember where Teaching True Physics was started by me.

Time has come for the world to have the authoritative textbooks for all of High School and College education. Written by the leading physics expert of the time. The last such was Feynman in the 1960s with Feynman Lectures on Physics. The time before was Maxwell in 1860s with his books and Encyclopedia Britannica editorship. The time is ripe in 2020 for the new authoritative texts on physics. It will be started in 2020 which is 60 years after Feynman. In the future, I request the physics community updates the premier physics textbook series at least every 30 years. For we can see that pattern of 30 years approximately from Faraday in 1830 to Maxwell in 1860 to Planck and Rutherford in about 1900, to Dirac in 1930 to Feynman in 1960 and finally to AP in 1990 and 2020. So much happens in physics after 30 years, that we need the revisions to take place in a timely manner. But also, as we move to Internet publishing such as Amazon's Kindle, we can see that updates can take place very fast, as editing can be a ongoing monthly or yearly activity. I for one keep constantly updating all my published books, at least I try to.

Feynman was the best to make the last authoritative textbook series for his concentration was QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, the pinnacle peak of physics during the 20th century. Of course the Atom Totality theory took over after 1990 and all of physics; for all sciences are under the Atom Totality theory.
And as QED was the pinnacle peak before 1990, the new pinnacle peak is the Atom Totality theory. The Atom Totality theory is the advancement of QED, for the Atom Totality theory primal axiom says -- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
Length: 64 pages

Product details
• File Size : 790 KB
• Publication Date : October 5, 2020
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 64 pages
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Language: : English
• ASIN : B08KS4YGWY
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #430,602 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #39 in Electromagnetic Theory
◦ #73 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
◦ #74 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads

#2-2, 145th published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes and errors and beliefs that clutter up physics. Clearing it of its fraud and fakeries and con-artistry. I thought of doing these textbooks starting with Senior year High School, wherein I myself started learning physics. But because of so much fraud and fakery in physics education, I believe we have to drop down to Junior year High School to make a drastic and dramatic emphasis on fakery and con-artistry that so much pervades science and physics in particular. So that we have two years in High School to learn physics. And discard the nonsense of physics brainwash that Old Physics filled the halls and corridors of education.

Product details
• ASIN : B08PC99JJB
• Publication date : November 29, 2020
• Language: : English
• File size : 682 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 78 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #185,995 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #42 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #344 in Physics (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,160 in Physics (Books)

#2-3, 146th published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Senior High School// Physics textbook series, book 3
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

I believe that in knowing the history of a science is knowing half of that science. And that if you are amiss of knowing the history behind a science, you have only a partial understanding of the concepts and ideas behind the science. I further believe it is easier to teach a science by teaching its history than any other means of teaching. So for senior year High School, I believe physics history is the best way of teaching physics. And in later years of physics courses, we can always pick up on details. So I devote this senior year High School physics to a history of physics, but only true physics. And there are few books written on the history of physics, so I chose Asimov's The History of Physics, 1966 as the template book for this textbook. Now Asimov's book is full of error and mistakes, and that is disappointing but all of Old Physics is full of error. On errors and mistakes of Old Physics, the best I can do is warn the students, and the largest warning of all is that whenever someone in Old Physics says "electron" what they are talking about is really the Dirac magnetic monopole. And whenever they talk about the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom, they are talking about huge huge grave mistakes, for the true atom is protons as 8 ringed toruses with a muon stuck inside of a proton doing the Faraday law and producing those magnetic monopoles as electricity. I use Asimov's book as a template but in the future, I hope to rewrite this textbook using no template at all, that is if I have time in the future.
Cover Picture: Is the book The History of Physics, by Isaac Asimov, 1966 and on top of the book are 4 cut-outs of bent circles representing magnetic monopoles which revolutionizes modern physics, especially the ElectroMagnetic theory.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08RK33T8V
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 28, 2020
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 794 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 123 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #4,167,235 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #15,099 in Physics (Kindle Store)
◦ #91,163 in Physics (Books)

#2-4, 151st published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Preface: This is AP's 151st book of science published. It is one of my most important books of science because 1st year college physics is so impressionable on students, if they should continue with physics, or look elsewhere for a career. And also, physics is a crossroad to all the other hard core sciences, where physics course is mandatory such as in chemistry or even biology. I have endeavored to make physics 1st year college to be as easy and simple to learn. In this endeavor to make physics super easy, I have made the writing such that you will see core ideas in all capital letters as single sentences as a educational tool. And I have made this textbook chapter writing follow a logical pattern of both algebra and geometry concepts, throughout. The utmost importance of logic in physics needs to be seen and understood. For I have never seen a physics book, prior to this one that is logical. Every Old Physics textbook I have seen is scatter-brained in topics and in writing. I use as template book of Halliday & Resnick because a edition of H&R was one I was taught physics at University of Cincinnati in 1969. And in 1969, I had a choice of majors, do I major in geology, or mathematics, or in physics, for I will graduate from UC in 1972. For me, geology was too easy, but physics was too tough, so I ended up majoring in mathematics. If I had been taught in 1969 using this textbook that I have written, I would have ended up majoring in physics, my first love. For physics is not hard, not hard at all, once you clear out the mistakes and the obnoxious worthless mathematics that clutters up Old Physics, and the illogic that smothers much of Old Physics.

Maybe it was good that I had those impressions of physics education of poor education, which still exists throughout physics today. Because maybe I am forced to write this book, because of that awful experience of learning physics in 1969. Without that awful experience, maybe this textbook would have never been written by me.

Cover picture is the template book of Halliday & Resnick, 1988, 3rd edition Fundamentals of Physics and sitting on top are cut outs of "half bent circles, bent at 90 degrees" to imitate magnetic monopoles. Magnetic Monopoles revolutionizes physics education, and separates-out, what is Old Physics from what is New Physics.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09JW5DVYM
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ October 19, 2021
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1035 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 386 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #4,874,333 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #526 in Electromagnetic Theory
◦ #1,321 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
◦ #9,546 in Electromagnetism (Books)

#2-5, 174th published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 2nd year College
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition

Preface: At the moment this is a physics book for 2nd year College. But as the months and years go by I intend to convert it into a textbook of about 200 to 300 pages. It is mostly about thermodynamics for in my own college education 1968-1972 at University of Cincinnati, I took physics thermodynamics in the 2nd year (if memory has not failed me).
Cover-Picture: Is a iphone photograph of the Chemistry textbook I used at UC 1968-1972 with my own paper cut-outs of magnetic monopoles. Pictured are 4 bent circles, bent at 90degrees from diameter and each bent circle is a individual magnetic monopole.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09TKL4HMC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 27, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 675 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 41 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#2-6, 177th published book
TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Architecture of Atoms, 3rd year College
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition

Preface: I come to teaching physics for 3rd year College as the Architecture of Atoms. My writing style will be prose-narrative, until I add on exercise problems and convert it into a textbook. The 1st year College, has to be the equations and laws of electricity and magnetism. For the primal-axiom over all of physics is-- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. The 2nd year College is thermodynamics. And now the 3rd year College physics has to teach the Architecture, the geometry of the inside and exterior surface of the atom. One of the greatest faults, misery, and anti-science teaching of Old Physics is their denial that subatomic particles have to be something more than tiny balls tiny spheres that do-nothing, perform nothing, function as nothing. That the proton and neutron and true electron=muon, has to be matter with a function and purpose and design and task and job. This is a year of physics teaching of the architecture of the atom.
Cover Picture: A iphone photograph of my book chemistry book, a long time favorite of mine of CHEM ONE, 2nd edition, Waser, Trueblood, Knobler, 1980, and page 307 of that book. Why this page? Because it was instrumental in my discovery of the true Architecture of Atoms. Not many professors of chemistry or physics dive into the Shrodinger Equation that results in a meaningful teaching of "matter waves". Matter waves are the heart of understanding the geometry of Atomic Architecture.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09VFH9QST
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 823 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 74 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#2-7, 178th published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Architecture of Light Waves & Energy, 4th year College
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Kindle edition)

Preface: This is 4th year College Physics and the important ideas of physics to learn as last year undergraduate school is the architecture and geometry of the Light Wave & Energy in physics. This is New Physics and not Old Physics. New Physics is defined as physics that knows and uses the true electron of atoms is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus and doing the Faraday law, creating new electrical energy that is storaged in the neutrons of atoms until they grow from 1eV into 945MeV and then create a new higher atomic numbered atom or emitted as radioactivity. Old Physics mistakenly identified the electron of atoms as the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole. In 3rd year College we studied the architecture of the interior of atoms. In 4th year College we study the architecture of Light Waves & Energy.

The template book for 4th year College is Feynman's 1985 book of QED.

Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of the template book for this book. Feynman's 1985 QED, quantum electrodynamics, showing my plastic toy model of DNA and my cut-outs of 4 bent circles that each bent circle represents one magnetic monopole. I arranged the monopoles into a single strand of a cycloid wave.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09W58XGDW
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 21, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 824 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 66 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#2-9, 161st published book

PHYSICSOPEDIA -- List of 137 fakes and mistakes of Old Physics// Student teaches professor Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 24Apr2022. This is AP's 161st published book of science.

Preface:
A Physicsopedia is a book of the overall assessment and evaluation of the state of the art of Physics. It is like a report card. It is a total view of the science and a judgement of the science, both of the past, present and the direction forward into the future. Its greatest use is to alert readers and people in science of what is wrong with their subject, and as a ancillary use, to alert students what to avoid in college as a waste of time.

It is not in alphabetical order but mostly, rather, has a ordering of what is most important at the start and only at the very very end. For there is no index.

Physics is the most important hard science for every other science is a specialized part of physics. And Old Physics has three key huge mistakes that this book addresses. The true theory of the Universe is the Atom Totality, not the Big Bang which is a ridiculous theory. The true electron of atoms is not the particle of 0.5MeV which turns out to be Dirac's magnetic monopole, while the true real electron of atoms is the muon of 105MeV which is stuck inside a proton torus of 8 rings of 840MeV. This causes another huge mistake, for a mistake in physics usually has a cascade effect of more and more mistakes. When we take the true electron of atoms is the muon, means the Sun and stars shine not from fusion, but from that muon thrusting through the proton torus in a Faraday law of electricity and magnetism producing electrical energy. So our Sun shines from the Faraday law, not fusion. And this implies the Sun has gone into Red Giant phase with a solar radiation increase of 0.005% yearly increase. That implies all life on Earth is in danger of going extinct as the Sun becomes more and more Red Giant, and unless humanity moves out to Europa, humanity goes extinct.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09N18QPP1
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 3, 2021
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1139 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 82 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

y z
| /
| /
|/______ x

More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.

In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.

There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium

Archimedes Plutonium

2022-05-22 19:48:01 UTC

Thomas Hales, Brian Greene, Lisa Randall, Edward Witten, John Baez, Alan H. Guth, Michael E. Brown, Konstantin Batygin, Ben Bullock, Larry Harson, Mark Barton, far too stupid in physics to ask the question, which is the atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle which AP says is the Dirac magnetic monopole while the real electron is a muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. In fact so stupid is this list of so called physicists that they went through life believing the slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, when in reality it is a Oval of 1 axis of symmetry for the cone has 1 axis of symmetry but ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry. The minds of all these so called physicists are not good enough to be doing physics. In fact, so stupid in science and math are all these people that when told in High School or College that a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse, they believed it, and believe in it to this day without so much as ever questioning the idea that a single cone and oval have just 1 axis of symmetry while ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, and yet many on this list were awarded science prizes. Maybe for ignorance of science but not for truth of science.

Why McGinn, they failed on all these 4 issues key to physics, logic, math?

1) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
2) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction
3) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"
4) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sapheads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.

Roger Penrose, Reinhard Genzel, Andrea Ghez,
Peter Higgs, Rainer Weiss, Kip S. Thorne, Barry C. Barish
David J. Thouless, F. Duncan M. Haldane, John M. Kosterlitz, Takaaki Kajita
Arthur B. McDonald
Francois Englert
Saul Perlmutter
Brian P. Schmidt
Adam G. Riess
Makoto Kobayashi
Toshihide Maskawa
Yoichiro Nambu
John C. Mather
George F. Smoot
Roy J. Glauber
David J. Gross
Hugh David Politzer
Frank Wilczek
Raymond Davis Jr.
Masatoshi Koshiba
Riccardo Giacconi
Gerardus 't Hooft
Martinus J.G. Veltman
Jerome I. Friedman
Henry W. Kendall
Richard E. Taylor
Carlo Rubbia
Simon van der Meer
William Alfred Fowler
Kenneth G. Wilson
James Watson Cronin
Val Logsdon Fitch
Sheldon Lee Glashow
Steven Weinberg
.
.
little fishes
.
.
Layers of error thinking physics Re: 2-Comparative Analysis of failures of Logic with failures of Physics// one thinks 3 OR 2 =5 with 3 AND 2 = subtraction of either 3 or 2, while the other thinks proton to electron is 938MeV vs .5MeV when truly it is 840MeV to 105MeV

Physical Review Letters: Proton Mass
Yi-Bo Yang, Jian Liang, Yu-Jiang Bi, Ying Chen, Terrence Draper, Keh-Fei Liu, Zhaofeng Liu
more and more layers of error thinking physics
.
.
Edward Witten
John Baez
Brian Greene
Lisa Randall
Alan H. Guth
Michael E. Brown
Konstantin Batygin
Ben Bullock
Larry Harson
Mark Barton, PhD in Physics, The University of Queensland, physicist with National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
Answered Aug 26, 2013 · Author has 8.7k answers and 10.3m answer views
None at all - he was a raving nutter.
Richard A. Muller, crank at Berkeley
Jennifer Kahn, Discover, science hater
Eric Francis Coppolino, newsreporter hatred of science, George Witte, St.Martin's Press science hater
Toby Howard, The Guardian, science hater

#2-1, 137th published book

Introduction to AP's TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Physics textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

#1 New Release in Electromagnetic Theory

This will be AP's 137th published book on science. And the number 137 is special to me for it is the number of QED, Quantum Electrodynamics as the inverse fine structure constant. I can always remember 137 as that special constant of physics and so I can remember where Teaching True Physics was started by me.

Time has come for the world to have the authoritative textbooks for all of High School and College education. Written by the leading physics expert of the time. The last such was Feynman in the 1960s with Feynman Lectures on Physics. The time before was Maxwell in 1860s with his books and Encyclopedia Britannica editorship. The time is ripe in 2020 for the new authoritative texts on physics. It will be started in 2020 which is 60 years after Feynman. In the future, I request the physics community updates the premier physics textbook series at least every 30 years. For we can see that pattern of 30 years approximately from Faraday in 1830 to Maxwell in 1860 to Planck and Rutherford in about 1900, to Dirac in 1930 to Feynman in 1960 and finally to AP in 1990 and 2020. So much happens in physics after 30 years, that we need the revisions to take place in a timely manner. But also, as we move to Internet publishing such as Amazon's Kindle, we can see that updates can take place very fast, as editing can be a ongoing monthly or yearly activity. I for one keep constantly updating all my published books, at least I try to.

Feynman was the best to make the last authoritative textbook series for his concentration was QED, Quantum Electrodynamics, the pinnacle peak of physics during the 20th century. Of course the Atom Totality theory took over after 1990 and all of physics; for all sciences are under the Atom Totality theory.
And as QED was the pinnacle peak before 1990, the new pinnacle peak is the Atom Totality theory. The Atom Totality theory is the advancement of QED, for the Atom Totality theory primal axiom says -- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but Electricity and Magnetism.
Length: 64 pages

Product details
• File Size : 790 KB
• Publication Date : October 5, 2020
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 64 pages
• Text-to-Speech : Not enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Language: : English
• ASIN : B08KS4YGWY
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #430,602 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #39 in Electromagnetic Theory
◦ #73 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
◦ #74 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads

#2-2, 145th published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS//Junior High School// Physics textbook series, book 2
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

What I am doing is clearing the field of physics, clearing it of all the silly mistakes and errors and beliefs that clutter up physics. Clearing it of its fraud and fakeries and con-artistry. I thought of doing these textbooks starting with Senior year High School, wherein I myself started learning physics. But because of so much fraud and fakery in physics education, I believe we have to drop down to Junior year High School to make a drastic and dramatic emphasis on fakery and con-artistry that so much pervades science and physics in particular. So that we have two years in High School to learn physics. And discard the nonsense of physics brainwash that Old Physics filled the halls and corridors of education.

Product details
• ASIN : B08PC99JJB
• Publication date : November 29, 2020
• Language: : English
• File size : 682 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 78 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #185,995 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #42 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #344 in Physics (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,160 in Physics (Books)

#2-3, 146th published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// Senior High School// Physics textbook series, book 3
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

I believe that in knowing the history of a science is knowing half of that science. And that if you are amiss of knowing the history behind a science, you have only a partial understanding of the concepts and ideas behind the science. I further believe it is easier to teach a science by teaching its history than any other means of teaching. So for senior year High School, I believe physics history is the best way of teaching physics. And in later years of physics courses, we can always pick up on details. So I devote this senior year High School physics to a history of physics, but only true physics. And there are few books written on the history of physics, so I chose Asimov's The History of Physics, 1966 as the template book for this textbook. Now Asimov's book is full of error and mistakes, and that is disappointing but all of Old Physics is full of error. On errors and mistakes of Old Physics, the best I can do is warn the students, and the largest warning of all is that whenever someone in Old Physics says "electron" what they are talking about is really the Dirac magnetic monopole. And whenever they talk about the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom, they are talking about huge huge grave mistakes, for the true atom is protons as 8 ringed toruses with a muon stuck inside of a proton doing the Faraday law and producing those magnetic monopoles as electricity. I use Asimov's book as a template but in the future, I hope to rewrite this textbook using no template at all, that is if I have time in the future.
Cover Picture: Is the book The History of Physics, by Isaac Asimov, 1966 and on top of the book are 4 cut-outs of bent circles representing magnetic monopoles which revolutionizes modern physics, especially the ElectroMagnetic theory.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08RK33T8V
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 28, 2020
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 794 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 123 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #4,167,235 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #15,099 in Physics (Kindle Store)
◦ #91,163 in Physics (Books)

#2-4, 151st published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS// 1st year College// Physics textbook series, book 4
Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Preface: This is AP's 151st book of science published. It is one of my most important books of science because 1st year college physics is so impressionable on students, if they should continue with physics, or look elsewhere for a career. And also, physics is a crossroad to all the other hard core sciences, where physics course is mandatory such as in chemistry or even biology. I have endeavored to make physics 1st year college to be as easy and simple to learn. In this endeavor to make physics super easy, I have made the writing such that you will see core ideas in all capital letters as single sentences as a educational tool. And I have made this textbook chapter writing follow a logical pattern of both algebra and geometry concepts, throughout. The utmost importance of logic in physics needs to be seen and understood. For I have never seen a physics book, prior to this one that is logical. Every Old Physics textbook I have seen is scatter-brained in topics and in writing. I use as template book of Halliday & Resnick because a edition of H&R was one I was taught physics at University of Cincinnati in 1969. And in 1969, I had a choice of majors, do I major in geology, or mathematics, or in physics, for I will graduate from UC in 1972. For me, geology was too easy, but physics was too tough, so I ended up majoring in mathematics. If I had been taught in 1969 using this textbook that I have written, I would have ended up majoring in physics, my first love. For physics is not hard, not hard at all, once you clear out the mistakes and the obnoxious worthless mathematics that clutters up Old Physics, and the illogic that smothers much of Old Physics.

Maybe it was good that I had those impressions of physics education of poor education, which still exists throughout physics today. Because maybe I am forced to write this book, because of that awful experience of learning physics in 1969. Without that awful experience, maybe this textbook would have never been written by me.

Cover picture is the template book of Halliday & Resnick, 1988, 3rd edition Fundamentals of Physics and sitting on top are cut outs of "half bent circles, bent at 90 degrees" to imitate magnetic monopoles. Magnetic Monopoles revolutionizes physics education, and separates-out, what is Old Physics from what is New Physics.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09JW5DVYM
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ October 19, 2021
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1035 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 386 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #4,874,333 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #526 in Electromagnetic Theory
◦ #1,321 in Electromagnetism (Kindle Store)
◦ #9,546 in Electromagnetism (Books)

#2-5, 174th published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, 2nd year College
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition

Preface: At the moment this is a physics book for 2nd year College. But as the months and years go by I intend to convert it into a textbook of about 200 to 300 pages. It is mostly about thermodynamics for in my own college education 1968-1972 at University of Cincinnati, I took physics thermodynamics in the 2nd year (if memory has not failed me).
Cover-Picture: Is a iphone photograph of the Chemistry textbook I used at UC 1968-1972 with my own paper cut-outs of magnetic monopoles. Pictured are 4 bent circles, bent at 90degrees from diameter and each bent circle is a individual magnetic monopole.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09TKL4HMC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 27, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 675 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 41 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#2-6, 177th published book
TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Architecture of Atoms, 3rd year College
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) Kindle Edition

Preface: I come to teaching physics for 3rd year College as the Architecture of Atoms. My writing style will be prose-narrative, until I add on exercise problems and convert it into a textbook. The 1st year College, has to be the equations and laws of electricity and magnetism. For the primal-axiom over all of physics is-- All is Atom, and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. The 2nd year College is thermodynamics. And now the 3rd year College physics has to teach the Architecture, the geometry of the inside and exterior surface of the atom. One of the greatest faults, misery, and anti-science teaching of Old Physics is their denial that subatomic particles have to be something more than tiny balls tiny spheres that do-nothing, perform nothing, function as nothing. That the proton and neutron and true electron=muon, has to be matter with a function and purpose and design and task and job. This is a year of physics teaching of the architecture of the atom.
Cover Picture: A iphone photograph of my book chemistry book, a long time favorite of mine of CHEM ONE, 2nd edition, Waser, Trueblood, Knobler, 1980, and page 307 of that book. Why this page? Because it was instrumental in my discovery of the true Architecture of Atoms. Not many professors of chemistry or physics dive into the Shrodinger Equation that results in a meaningful teaching of "matter waves". Matter waves are the heart of understanding the geometry of Atomic Architecture.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09VFH9QST
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 823 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 74 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#2-7, 178th published book

TEACHING TRUE PHYSICS, Architecture of Light Waves & Energy, 4th year College
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Kindle edition)

Preface: This is 4th year College Physics and the important ideas of physics to learn as last year undergraduate school is the architecture and geometry of the Light Wave & Energy in physics. This is New Physics and not Old Physics. New Physics is defined as physics that knows and uses the true electron of atoms is the muon stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus and doing the Faraday law, creating new electrical energy that is storaged in the neutrons of atoms until they grow from 1eV into 945MeV and then create a new higher atomic numbered atom or emitted as radioactivity. Old Physics mistakenly identified the electron of atoms as the 0.5MeV particle that AP calls the Dirac magnetic monopole. In 3rd year College we studied the architecture of the interior of atoms. In 4th year College we study the architecture of Light Waves & Energy.

The template book for 4th year College is Feynman's 1985 book of QED.

Cover Picture: Is my iphone photograph of the template book for this book. Feynman's 1985 QED, quantum electrodynamics, showing my plastic toy model of DNA and my cut-outs of 4 bent circles that each bent circle represents one magnetic monopole. I arranged the monopoles into a single strand of a cycloid wave.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09W58XGDW
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 21, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 824 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 66 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#2-9, 161st published book

PHYSICSOPEDIA -- List of 137 fakes and mistakes of Old Physics// Student teaches professor Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 24Apr2022. This is AP's 161st published book of science.

Preface:
A Physicsopedia is a book of the overall assessment and evaluation of the state of the art of Physics. It is like a report card. It is a total view of the science and a judgement of the science, both of the past, present and the direction forward into the future. Its greatest use is to alert readers and people in science of what is wrong with their subject, and as a ancillary use, to alert students what to avoid in college as a waste of time.

It is not in alphabetical order but mostly, rather, has a ordering of what is most important at the start and only at the very very end. For there is no index.

Physics is the most important hard science for every other science is a specialized part of physics. And Old Physics has three key huge mistakes that this book addresses. The true theory of the Universe is the Atom Totality, not the Big Bang which is a ridiculous theory. The true electron of atoms is not the particle of 0.5MeV which turns out to be Dirac's magnetic monopole, while the true real electron of atoms is the muon of 105MeV which is stuck inside a proton torus of 8 rings of 840MeV. This causes another huge mistake, for a mistake in physics usually has a cascade effect of more and more mistakes. When we take the true electron of atoms is the muon, means the Sun and stars shine not from fusion, but from that muon thrusting through the proton torus in a Faraday law of electricity and magnetism producing electrical energy. So our Sun shines from the Faraday law, not fusion. And this implies the Sun has gone into Red Giant phase with a solar radiation increase of 0.005% yearly increase. That implies all life on Earth is in danger of going extinct as the Sun becomes more and more Red Giant, and unless humanity moves out to Europa, humanity goes extinct.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09N18QPP1
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 3, 2021
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1139 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 82 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

y z
| /
| /
|/______ x

More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.

In sci.math, sci.physics there is only stalking hate spew along with Police Drag Net Spam of no value and other than hate spew there is Police drag net spam day and night.

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of stalkers and spammers, Police Drag Net Spam that floods each and every day, book and solution manual spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, churning imbeciles, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers. And the taxpayer funded hate spew stalkers who ad hominem you day and night on every one of your posts.

There is no discussion of science in sci.math or sci.physics, just one long line of hate spewing stalkers followed up with Police Drag Net Spam (easy to spot-- very offtopic-- with hate charged content). And countries using sci.physics & sci.math as propaganda platforms, such as tampering in elections with their mind-rot.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium

Archimedes Plutonium

2022-06-19 02:28:35 UTC

The chicken shit mind of Dan Christensen in science academia

Eram semper recta
, …
Dan Christensen
8
unread,
18 June 2022: New visitors to sci.math: The New Calculus is the first rigorous formulation in history.
9:16 PM

Eram semper recta's profile photo
Eram semper recta
, …
Dan Christensen
7
unread,
16 June 2022: New visitors to sci.math: The New Calculus is the first rigorous formulation in history.
9:08 PM

Amine Moulay Ramdane's profile photo
Amine Moulay Ramdane
unread,
More of my philosophy about ethics and about my new monotheistic religion and more of my thoughts..

Sorry for the clipped subject line should read Dan Christensen the crazy koot kook with his error filled Boole Logic of AND connector truth table as TFFF when it actually is TTTF to avoid the crazy mindless 10 OR 4 = 14 with AND as subtraction. Christensen never belonged in academy but in a chicken coop, cleaning out the chicken shit, same as his mind.

Dan Christensen

2022-06-19 03:52:49 UTC

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science

The chicken shit mind...

[snip]

When will you learn, Archie Poo???

AP is a malicious internet troll who wants only to mislead and confuse you. He may not be all there, but his fake math and science can only be meant to promote failure in schools. One can only guess at his motives.

In AP's OWN WORDS here:

“Primes do not exist, because the set they were borne from has no division.”
--June 29, 2020

“The last and largest finite number is 10^604.”
--June 3, 2015

“0 appears to be the last and largest finite number”
--June 9, 2015

“0/0 must be equal to 1.”
-- June 9, 2015

“0 is an infinite irrational number.”
--June 28, 2015

“No negative numbers exist.”
--December 22, 2018

“Rationals are not numbers.”
--May 18, 2019

According to AP's “chess board math,” an equilateral triangle is a right-triangle.
--December 11, 2019

Which could explain...

“The value of sin(45 degrees) = 1.”
--May 31, 2019

AP deliberately and repeatedly presented the truth table for OR as the truth table for AND:

“New Logic
AND
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F”
--November 9, 2019

AP seeks aid of Russian agents to promote failure in schools:

"Please--Asking for help from Russia-- russian robots-- to create a new, true mathematics [sic]. What I like for the robots to do, is list every day, about 4 Colleges ( of the West) math dept, and ask why that math department is teaching false and fake math, and if unable to change to the correct true math, well, simply fire that math department until they can find professors who recognize truth in math from fakery...."
--November 9, 2017

And if that wasn't weird enough...

“The totality, everything that there is [the universe], is only 1 atom of plutonium [Pu]. There is nothing outside or beyond this one atom of plutonium.”
--April 4, 1994

“The Universe itself is one gigantic big atom.”
--November 14, 2019

AP's sinister Atom God Cult of Failure???

“Since God-Pu is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Atom Plutonium!
Its truth is marching on.
It has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
It is sifting out the hearts of people before its judgment seat;
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer it; be jubilant, my feet!
Our God-Pu is marching on.”
--December 15, 2018 (Note: Pu is the atomic symbol for plutonium)

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

Archimedes Plutonium

2022-06-19 07:12:28 UTC

Yes, Dan is a very pathetic type of stupid idiot in science with his AND truth table that of Boole's nonsense TFFF which leads to the absurdity of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. Dan was never cut out to be in academics, because he is a mindless goofball that cannot reason.

Archimedes Plutonium

2022-06-19 07:22:09 UTC

Dan is likely a product of the "weakness of education systems" where the instructor sees a student -- "never going to make it in math or logic" and to get rid of the idiot, the instructor passes him along to the next higher level. Instead of telling the Kid, look, you are not cut out for logic or math, go find a different career field. No, they pass the dumb Dan onward and upward and "get him out of my hair".

But no, the Internet and Usenet is not going to be polite with Dan, but tell him directly to his face, and the World to witness. Dan, you are a "jackarse of academics" and you missed your calling-- clean out septic tanks.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Yes, Dan is a very pathetic type of stupid idiot in science with his AND truth table that of Boole's nonsense TFFF which leads to the absurdity of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. Dan was never cut out to be in academics, because he is a mindless goofball that cannot reason.

Blain Nakada

2022-06-21 18:58:59 UTC

Post by Dan Christensen
STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science
On Saturday, June 18, 2022 at 10:28:44 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium
wrote: The chicken shit mind... [snip]
When will you learn, Archie Poo???

you capitalists are deplorable. 100% wankers.

🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴
🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🌕🌕🔴🌕🌕🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴
🔴🔴🔴🔴🌕🌕🌕🔴🔴🌕🌕🔴🔴🔴🔴
🔴🔴🔴🌕🌕🌕🌕🔴🔴🔴🌕🌕🔴🔴🔴
🔴🔴🌕🌕🌕🌕🔴🔴🔴🔴🌕🌕🌕🔴🔴
🔴🌕🌕🌕🌕🌕🌕🔴🔴🔴🔴🌕🌕🔴🔴
🔴🔴🌕🌕🔴🌕🌕🌕🔴🔴🔴🌕🌕🌕🔴
🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🌕🌕🌕🔴🔴🔴🌕🌕🔴
🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🌕🌕🌕🔴🌕🌕🌕🔴
🔴🔴🔴🔴🌕🔴🔴🔴🌕🌕🌕🌕🌕🔴🔴
🔴🔴🔴🌕🌕🌕🔴🔴🔴🌕🌕🌕🔴🔴🔴
🔴🌕🌕🌕🔴🌕🌕🌕🌕🌕🌕🌕🌕🔴🔴
🔴🌕🌕🔴🔴🔴🌕🌕🌕🔴🔴🌕🌕🔴🔴
🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴🔴

Archimedes Plutonium

2022-06-21 19:13:02 UTC

Does Socratis insanity = Thomas Hales, John Stillwell, Jill Pipher, Ruth Charney, Ken Ribet, Andrew Beal, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Ben Green, Gerald Edgar, AMS, Andrew Wiles, Terence Tao, Socratis no-one there can do a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, all they can offer is a limit analysis, so shoddy in logic they never realized that "analyzing" is not the same as "proving" for analyzing in much in the same as "measuring but not proving". And yet, none can do a geometry proof and the reason is quite clear for none can even see that the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse. So they could never do a geometry proof of FTC even if they wanted to. Why Socratis a 3 decades long spammer of sci.math, yet he fails math. Is it that Andrew Wiles and Terence Tao cannot understand the slant cut in single cone is an Oval, never the ellipse, or is it the foolish Boole logic they teach of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction? Or is it that neither Terence Tao or Andrew Wiles can do a geometry proof Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? Which is it Socratis?? You spammer crank.

I am confident that if a MRI scan of Socratis were to take place, that it would reveal a huge massive white spot of nerves in the brain as a deep groove circuit, with no offramps that go round and round and is seen as nothing but spam.

In fact, we saw on 19May2022, former president George W Bush saying that Russia invaded Iraq, apologizing and then saying Ukraine, for a deep groove is etched into George's brain of Iraq and a fresh new groove needs to begin in George's mind that of Ukraine.
But for Socratis, this deep groove is so obnoxious and sees no off ramps. Some people like to irritate other people, they spend their entire life in "irritating other people" and that is what Socratis amounts to-- daily irritating....

Why are these people failures of Math?? For none can even contemplate these 4 questions.

1) think a slant cut in single cone is a ellipse when it is proven to be a Oval, never the ellipse. For the cone and oval have 1 axis of symmetry, while ellipse has 2.
2) think Boole logic is correct with AND truth table being TFFF when it really is TTTF in order to avoid 2 OR 1 =3 with AND as subtraction
3) can never do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and are too ignorant in math to understand that analysis of something is not proving something in their "limit hornswaggle"
4) too stupid in science to ask the question of physics-- is the 1897 Thomson discovery of a 0.5MeV particle actually the Dirac magnetic monopole and that the muon is the true electron of atoms stuck inside a 840MeV proton torus doing the Faraday law. Showing that Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow, Ed Witten, John Baez, Roger Penrose, Arthur B. McDonald are sapheads when it comes to logical thinking in physics with their do nothing proton, do nothing electron.

Is Jim Holt, Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan,
John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason, more of propagandists like Dan Christensen than logicians? Probably because none can admit slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse, due to axes of symmetry for cone and oval have 1 while ellipse has 2. Yet their minds were never good enough to see the error nor admit to their mistakes. They failed logic so badly they accept Boole's insane AND truth table of TFFF when it is TTTF avoiding the painful 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction. Or is it because none of these logicians has a single marble of logic in their entire brain to realize calculus requires a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, not a "limit analysis" for analysis is like a measurement, not a proving exercise. Analysis does not prove, only adds data and facts, but never is a proof of itself. I analyze things daily, and none of which is a proof. So are all these logicians like what Clutterfreak the propaganda stooge says they are.

You may be giving him too much credit here. Judging by his bizarre antics here, he has given up obtaining any kind of positive recognition.
Dan

Partial List of the World's Crackpot Logicians-- should be in a college Abnormal-Psychology department, not Logic//
Peter Bruce Andrews, Lennart Aqvist, Henk Barendregt, John Lane Bell, Nuel Belnap,
Paul Benacerraf, Jean Paul Van Bendegem, Johan van Benthem, Jean-Yves Beziau,
Andrea Bonomi, Nicolas Bourbaki (a group of logic fumblers), Alan Richard Bundy, Gregory Chaitin,
Jack Copeland, John Corcoran, Dirk van Dalen, Martin Davis, Michael A.E. Dummett, John Etchemendy, Hartry Field, Kit Fine, Melvin Fitting, Matthew Foreman, Michael Fourman,
Harvey Friedman, Dov Gabbay, L.T.F. Gamut (group of logic fumblers), Sol Garfunkel, Jean-Yves Girard, Siegfried Gottwald, Jeroen Groenendijk, Susan Haack, Leo Harrington, William Alvin Howard,
Ronald Jensen, Dick de Jongh, David Kaplan, Alexander S. Kechris, Howard Jerome Keisler,
Robert Kowalski, Georg Kreisel, Saul Kripke, Kenneth Kunen, Karel Lambert, Penelope Maddy,
David Makinson, Isaac Malitz, Gary R. Mar, Donald A. Martin, Per Martin-Lof,Yiannis N. Moschovakis, Jeff Paris, Charles Parsons, Solomon Passy, Lorenzo Pena, Dag Prawitz,
Graham Priest, Michael O. Rabin, Gerald Sacks, Dana Scott, Stewart Shapiro, Theodore Slaman,
Robert M. Solovay, John R. Steel, Martin Stokhof, Anne Sjerp Troelstra, Alasdair Urquhart,
Moshe Y. Vardi, W. Hugh Woodin, John Woods
Now I should include the authors of Logic textbooks for they, more than most, perpetuate and crank the error filled logic, the Horrible Error of 2 OR 1 = 3 with 2 AND 1 = 1, that is forced down the throats of young students, making them cripples of ever thinking straight and clearly.
Many of these authors have passed away but their error filled books are a scourge to modern education
George Boole, William Jevons, Bertrand Russell, Kurt Godel, Rudolf Carnap,
Ludwig Wittgenstein, Willard Quine, Alfred North Whitehead, Irving Copi, Michael Withey,
Patrick Hurley, Harry J Gensler, David Kelley, Jesse Bollinger, Theodore Sider,
David Barker-Plummer, I. C. Robledo, John Nolt, Peter Smith, Stan Baronett, Jim Holt,
Virginia Klenk, David Agler, Susanne K. Langer, Gary M. Hardegree, Raymond M. Smullyan,
John Venn, William Gustason, Richmond H. Thomason,

#5-1, 134th published book
Introduction to TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 1 for ages 5 through 26, math textbook series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
The 134th book of AP, and belatedly late, for I had already written the series of TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS in a 7 volume, 8 book set. This would be the first book in that 8 book set (one of the books is a companion book to 1st year college). But I suppose that I needed to write the full series before I could write the Introduction and know what I had to talk about and talk about in a logical progression order. Sounds paradoxical in a sense, that I needed to write the full series first and then go back and write the Introduction. But in another sense, hard to write an introduction on something you have not really fully done and completed. For example to know what is error filled Old Math and to list those errors in a logical order requires me to write the full 7 volumes in order to list in order the mistakes.
Cover Picture: Mathematics begins with counting, with numbers, with quantity. But counting numbers needs geometry for something to count in the first place. So here in this picture of the generalized Hydrogen atom of chemistry and physics is a torus geometry of 8 rings of a proton torus and one ring where my fingers are, is a equator ring that is the muon and thrusting through the proton torus at the equator of the torus. So we count 9 rings in all. So math is created by atoms and math numbers exist because atoms have many geometry figures to count. And geometry exists because atoms have shapes and different figures.
Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B08K2XQB4M
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ September 24, 2020
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 576 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 23 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #224,974 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #3 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #23 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
◦ #182 in Calculus (Books)
#5-2, 45th published book
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 2 for ages 5 to 18, math textbook series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
#1 New Releasein General Geometry
Last revision was 2NOV2020. And this is AP's 45th published book of science.
Preface: Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education.
This is a textbook series in several volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education starting age 5 up to age 26. Volume 2 is for age 5 year old to that of senior in High School, that is needed to do both science and math. Every other math book is incidental to this series of Teaching True Mathematics.
It is a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost on a daily basis. A unique first in education textbooks-- almost a continual overnight editing. Adding new text, correcting text. Volume 2 takes the 5 year old student through to senior in High School for their math education. Volume 3 carries the Freshperson in College for their math calculus education.
Cover Picture: The Numbers as Integers from 0 to 100, and 10 Grid when dividing by 10, and part of the 100 Grid when dividing by 100. Decimal Grid Numbers are the true numbers of mathematics. The Reals, the rationals & irrationals, the algebraic & transcendentals, the imaginary & Complex, and the negative-numbers are all fake numbers. For, to be a true number, you have to "be counted" by mathematical induction. The smallest Grid system is the Decimal 10 Grid.
Length: 399 pages
Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07RG7BVZW
Publication date ‏ : ‎ May 2, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 2023 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 399 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #235,426 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
#15 in General Geometry
#223 in Geometry & Topology (Books)
#5-3, 55th published book
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 3 for age 18-19, 1st year College Calculus, math textbook series, book 3 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 25Jun2021. And this is AP's 55th published book of science.
Teaching True Mathematics, by Archimedes Plutonium 2019
Preface: This is volume 3, book 3 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Freshperson students, 1st year college students of age 18-19. It is the continuation of volume 2 for ages 5 through 18 years old.
The main major topic is the AP-EM equations of electricity and magnetism, the mathematics for the laws of electricity and magnetism; what used to be called the Maxwell Equations of Physics. The 1st Year College Math has to prepare all students with the math for all the sciences. So 1st year college Math is like a huge intersection station that has to prepare students with the math they need to do the hard sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geology, etc. What this means is, 1st year college is calculus that allows the student to work with electricity and magnetism. All the math that is needed to enable students to do electricity and magnetism. In Old Math before this textbook, those Old Math textbooks would end in 1/3 of the text about Arclength, vector space, div, curl, Line Integral, Green's, Stokes, Divergence theorem trying to reach and be able to teach Maxwell Equations. But sadly, barely any Old Math classroom reached that 1/3 ending of the textbook, and left all those college students without any math to tackle electricity and magnetism. And most of Old Math was just muddle headed wrong even if they covered the last 1/3 of the textbook. And that is totally unacceptable in science. This textbook fixes that huge hole and gap in Old Math education.
And there is no way around it, that a course in 1st year College Calculus is going to do a lot of hands on experiment with electricity and magnetism, and is required of the students to buy a list of physics apparatus-- multimeter, galvanometer, coil, bar magnet, alligator clip wires, electromagnet, iron filing case, and possibly even a 12 volt transformer, all shown in the cover picture. The beginning of this textbook and the middle section all leads into the ending of this textbook-- we learn the AP-EM Equations and how to use those equations. And there is no escaping the fact that it has to be hands on physics experiments in the classroom of mathematics.
But, do not be scared, for this is all easy easy easy. For if you passed and enjoyed Volume 2 TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS, then I promise you, you will not be stressed with Volume 3, for I go out of my way to make it clear and understandable.
Warning: this is a Journal Textbook, meaning that I am constantly adding new material, constantly revising, constantly fixing mistakes or making things more clear. So if you read this book in August of 2019, chances are it is different when you read it in September 2019. Ebooks allow authors the freedom to improve their textbooks on a ongoing basis.
The 1st year college math should be about the math that prepares any and all students for science, whether they branch out into physics, chemistry, biology, geology, astronomy, or math, they should have all the math in 1st year college that will carry them through those science studies. I make every attempt possible to make math easy to understand, easy to learn and hopefully fun.
Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07WN9RVXD
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ August 16, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1390 KB
• Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 236 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #1,377,070 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #411 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,480 in Calculus (Books)
 
#5-4, 56th published book
COLLEGE CALCULUS GUIDE to help students recognize math professor spam from math truth & reality// math textbook series, book 4 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
#1 New Releasein 15-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
This textbook is the companion guide book to AP's Teaching True Mathematics, 1st year College. It is realized that Old Math will take a long time in removing their fake math, so in the interim period, this Guide book is designed to speed up the process of removing fake Calculus out of the education system, the fewer students we punish with forcing them with fake Calculus, the better we are.
Cover Picture: This book is part comedy, for when you cannot reason with math professors that they have many errors to fix, that 90% of their Calculus is in error, you end up resorting to comedy, making fun of them, to prod them to fix their errors. To prod them to "do right by the students of the world" not their entrenched propaganda.
Length: 54 pages
Product details
File Size: 1035 KB
Print Length: 64 pages
Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
Publication Date: August 18, 2019
Sold by: Amazon.com Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07WNGLQ85
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray:  Not Enabled  
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #253,425 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#38 in 90-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#318 in Calculus (Books)
#48 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
 
#5-5, 72nd published book
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 4 for age 19-20 Sophomore-year College, math textbook series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Preface: This is volume 4, book 5 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Sophomore-year students, students of age 19-20. It is the continuation of volume 3 in the end-goal of learning how to do the mathematics of electricity and magnetism, because everything in physics is nothing but atoms and atoms are nothing but electricity and magnetism. To know math, you have to know physics. We learned the Calculus of 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity and magnetism. But we did not learn the calculus of those equations for 3rd dimension. So, you can say that Sophomore year College math is devoted to 3D Calculus. This sophomore year college we fill in all the calculus, and we start over on all of Geometry, for geometry needs a modern day revision. And pardon me for this book is mostly reading, and the students doing less calculations. The classroom of this textbook has the teacher go through page by page to get the students comprehending and understanding of what is being taught. There are many hands on experiments also.
Cover Picture shows some toruses, some round some square, torus of rings, thin strips of rings or squares and shows them laid flat. That is Calculus of 3rd dimension that lays a ring in a torus to be flat in 2nd dimension.
Length: 105 pages
Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0828M34VL
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 2, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 952 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 105 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #242,037 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #36 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
◦ #219 in Calculus (Books)
#5-6, 75th published book
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 5 for age 20-21 Junior-year of College, math textbook series, book 6 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2019
This is volume 5, book 6 of Teaching True Mathematics, designed for College Junior-year students, students of age 20-21. In first year college Calculus we learned calculus of the 2nd dimension and applied it to the equations of physics for electricity and magnetism. And in sophomore year we learned calculus of 3rd dimension to complete our study of the mathematics needed to do the physics of electricity and magnetism. Now, junior year college, we move onto something different, for we focus mostly on logic now and especially the logic of what is called the "mathematical proof". Much of what the student has learned about mathematics so far has been given to her or him as stated knowledge, accept it as true because I say so. But now we are going to do math proofs. Oh, yes, we did prove a few items here and there, such as why the Decimal Grid Number system is so special, such as the Pythagorean Theorem, such as the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus with its right-triangle hinged up or down. But many ideas we did not prove, we just stated them and expected all students to believe them true. And you are now juniors in college and we are going to start to prove many of those ideas and teach you "what is a math proof". Personally, I myself feel that the math proof is overrated, over hyped. But the math proof is important for one reason-- it makes you better scientists of knowing what is true and what is a shaky idea. A math proof is the same as "thinking straight and thinking clearly". And all scientists need to think straight and think clearly. But before we get to the Mathematics Proof, we have to do Probability and Statistics. What you learned in Grade School, then High School, then College, called Sigma Error, now becomes Probability and Statistics. It is important because all sciences including mathematics needs and uses Probability and Statistics. So, our job for junior-year of college mathematics is all cut out and ahead for us, no time to waste, let us get going.
Cover Picture: is a sample of the Array Proof, a proof the ellipse is not a conic but rather a cylinder cut wherein the oval is the slant cut of a cone, not the ellipse.
Length: 175 pages
Product details
ASIN : B0836F1YF6
Publication date : December 26, 2019
Language : English
File size : 741 KB
Text-to-Speech : Enabled
Screen Reader : Supported
Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled
Print length : 175 pages
Lending : Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #3,768,255 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #3,591 in Probability & Statistics (Kindle Store)
◦ #19,091 in Probability & Statistics (Books)
#5-7, 89th published book
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 6 for age 21-22 Senior-year of College, math textbook series, book 7 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2020
Last revision was 6Feb2021.
Preface: This is the last year of College for mathematics and we have to mostly summarize all of mathematics as best we can. And set a new pattern to prepare students going on to math graduate school. A new pattern of work habits, because graduate school is more of research and explore on your own. So in this final year, I am going to eliminate tests, and have it mostly done as homework assignments.
Cover Picture: Again and again, many times in math, the mind is not good enough alone to think straight and clear, and you need tools to hands-on see how it works. Here is a collection of tools for this senior year college classes. There is a pencil, clipboard, graph paper, compass, divider, protractor, slide-ruler. And for this year we spend a lot of time on the parallelepiped, showing my wood model, and showing my erector set model held together by wire loops in the corners. The plastic square is there only to hold up the erector set model.
Length: 110 pages
Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B084V11BGY
Publication date ‏ : ‎ February 15, 2020
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 826 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 110 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #224,965 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #345 in Mathematics (Kindle Store)
◦ #373 in Physics (Kindle Store)
◦ #2,256 in Physics (Books)
#5-8, 90th published book
TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: Volume 7 for age 22-26 Graduate school, math textbook series, book 8 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium 2020
Last revised 1NOV2020. This was AP's 90th published book of science.
Preface: This is College Graduate School mathematics. Congratulations, you made it this far. To me, graduate school is mostly research, research mathematics and that means also physics. So it is going to be difficult to do math without physics. Of course, we focus on the mathematics of these research projects.
My textbook for Graduate school is just a template and the professors teaching the graduate students are free of course to follow their own projects, but in terms of being physics and math combined. What I list below is a template for possible projects.
So, in the below projects, I list 36 possible research projects that a graduate student my like to undertake, or partake. I list those 36 projects with a set of parentheses like this (1), (2), (3), etc. Not to be confused with the chapters listing as 1), 2), 3), etc. I list 36 projects but the professor can offer his/her own list, and I expect students with their professor, to pick a project and to monitor the student as to his/her progresses through the research. I have listed each project then cited some of my own research into these projects, below each project is an entry. Those entries are just a help or helper in getting started or acquainted with the project. The entry has a date time group and a newsgroup that I posted to such as sci.math or plutonium-atom-universe Google newsgroups. Again the entry is just a help or helper in getting started.
Now instead of picking one or two projects for your Graduate years of study, some may select all 36 projects where you write a short paper on each project. Some may be bored with just one or two projects and opt for all 36.
Cover Picture: A photo by my iphone of a page on Permutations of the Jacobs book Mathematics: A Human Endeavor, 1970. One of the best textbooks ever written in Old Math, not for its contents because there are many errors, but for its teaching style. It is extremely rare to find a math textbook written for the student to learn. Probably because math professors rarely learned how to teach in the first place; only learned how to unintentionally obfuscate. The page I photographed is important because it is the interface between geometry's perimeter or surface area versus geometry's area or volume, respectively. Or, an interface of pure numbers with that of geometry. But I have more to say on this below.
Length: 296 pages
Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B085DF8R7V
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 1, 2020
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 828 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 296 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #224,981 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #13 in General Geometry
◦ #213 in Geometry & Topology (Books)
#5-8, 160th published book
MATHOPEDIA-- List of 80 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// Student teaches professor Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 28Apr2022. And this is AP's 160th book of Science.
A Mathopedia is like a special type of encyclopedia on the subject of mathematics. It is about the assessment of the worth of mathematics and the subject material of mathematics. It is a overall examination and a evaluation of mathematics and its topics.
The ordering of Mathopedia is not a alphabetic ordering, nor does it have a index. The ordering is purely that of importance at beginning and importance at end.
The greatest use of Mathopedia is a guide to students of what not to waste your time on and what to focus most of your time. I know so many college classes in mathematics are just a total waste of time, waste of valuable time for the class is math fakery. I know because I have been there.
Now I am going to cite various reference sources of AP books if anyone wants more details and can be seen in the Appendix at the end of the book.
I suppose, going forward, mathematics should always have a mathopedia, where major parts of mathematics as a science are held under scrutiny and question as to correctness. In past history we have called these incidents as "doubters of the mainstream". Yet math, like physics, can have no permanent mainstream, since there is always question of correctness in physics, there then corresponds questions of correctness in mathematics (because math is a subset of physics). What I mean is that each future generation corrects some mistakes of past mathematics. If anyone is unsure of what I am saying here, both math and physics need constant correcting, of that which never belonged in science. This then converges with the logic-philosophy of Pragmatism (see AP's book of logic on Pragmatism).
Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09MZTLRL5
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 2, 2021
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1149 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 65 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium

Archimedes Plutonium

2022-07-25 19:27:43 UTC

Dan Christensen needs to full depart sci.math with his endless mindless munchings on Error Filled Boole Logic. The anal jackarse Dan Christensen can never understand that Boole got Logic all wrong--especially his 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction for the stupid George Boole thought AND truth table was TFFF when in reality it is TTTF and thus all of Boole Logic is a smelly turd. And here we have 150 years later, the arsewipe Dan Christensen building on more fetid b.s. unto the smelly turd that was Boole Logic.

Dan Christensen does not belong in sci.math for he is the new fetid arsewipe of logic.

Dan Christensen wrote:
unread,
Vacuously TRUE vs Vacuously FALSE???
Anyway Dan O Matik, what I wanted to ask you, function spaces, is it still based on conflating: f : A
2:12 PM

***@gmail.com's profile photo
***@gmail.com
, …
***@gmail.com

My 5th published book

Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
Preface:
First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.

The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.

My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.

Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.

Product details
File Size: 773 KB
Print Length: 72 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PMB69F5
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray:  Not Enabled  
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
 

#10-2, 27th published book

Correcting Reductio Ad Absurdum// Teaching True Logic series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 9NOV2020. This is AP's 27th published book.

Preface:
These are the TRUE Truth Tables of the 4 connectors of Logic

Equal+Not
T = T = T
T = ~F = T
F = ~T = T
F = F = T

If--> then
T --> T = T
T --> F = F
F --> T = U (unknown or uncertain)
F --> F = U (unknown or uncertain)

And
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F

Or
T or T = F
T or F = T
F or T = T
F or F = F

Those can be analyzed as being Equal+Not is multiplication. If-->then is division. And is addition and Or is subtraction in mathematics. Now I need to emphasis this error of Old Logic, the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability unknown, undefined end conclusion.

Now in Old Logic they had for Reductio Ad Absurdum as displayed by this schematic:

| | ~p
| |---
| | .
| | .
| | q
| | .
| | .
| | ~q
| p

Which is fine except for the error of not indicating the end conclusion of "p" is only a probability of being true, not guaranteed as true. And this is the huge huge error that mathematicians have fallen victim of. For the Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a proof method for mathematics, it is probability of being true or false. Math works on guaranteed truth, not probability. This textbook is written to fix that error.

Product details
• ASIN : B07Q18GQ7S
• Publication date : March 23, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 1178 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 86 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #346,875 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #28 in Logic (Kindle Store)
◦ #95 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #217 in Mathematical Logic
•

#10-3, 143rd published book

DeMorgan's Laws are fantasies, not laws// Teaching True Logic series, book 3 Kindle Edition
By Archimedes Plutonium

Last revision was 30Apr2021. This is AP's 143rd published book.

Preface: The Logic community never had the correct truth table of the primitive 4 connectors of Logic, (1) Equal compounded with NOT, (2) AND, (3) OR, (4) IF->THEN. In 1800s, the founders of Logic messed up in terrible error all 4 of the primitive logic connectors. And since the 1990s, AP has wanted an explanation of why Old Logic got all 4 connectors in total error? What was the reason for the mess up? And in the past few years, I finally pinned the reason to starting Logic with DeMorgan's fake laws, from which Boole, a close friend of DeMorgan, was going to keep his friendship and accept the DeMorgan Laws. That meant that DeMorgan, Boole, Jevons accepted OR as being that of Either..Or..Or..Both, what is called the inclusive OR. But the inclusive OR is a contradiction in terms, for there never can exist a combo of OR with AND simultaneously. This book goes into detail why the DeMorgan laws are fake and fantasy.

Cover Picture: Looks a bit rough, but I want students and readers to see my own handwriting as if this were a lecture and the cover picture a blackboard where I write out DeMorgan's two (fake) laws of logic.

Product details
• File Size : 620 KB
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 38 pages
• ASIN : B08M4BY4XM
• Publication Date : October 27, 2020
• Language: : English
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Lending : Enabled
•
•

Archimedes Plutonium

2022-07-26 04:05:30 UTC

Dan Christensen needs to fully depart sci.math with his endless mindless munchings on Error Filled Boole Logic. The fool Dan Christensen can never understand that Boole got Logic all wrong--especially his 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction for the stupid George Boole thought AND truth table was TFFF when in reality it is TTTF and thus all of Boole Logic is a smelly turd, and Dan in logic is to spread more smelly turds. And here we have 150 years later, and fool Dan Christensen building on more fetid b.s. unto the smelly turd that was Boole Logic.

Dan Christensen does not belong in sci.math for he is the new fetid arsewipe of logic.

Dan Christensen wrote:
unread,
Vacuously TRUE vs Vacuously FALSE???
Anyway Dan O Matik, what I wanted to ask you, function spaces, is it still based on conflating: f : A
2:12 PM

***@gmail.com's profile photo
***@gmail.com
, …
***@gmail.com

My 5th published book

Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
Preface:
First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.

The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.

My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.

Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.

Product details
File Size: 773 KB
Print Length: 72 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PMB69F5
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray:  Not Enabled  
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
 

#10-2, 27th published book

Correcting Reductio Ad Absurdum// Teaching True Logic series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 9NOV2020. This is AP's 27th published book.

Preface:
These are the TRUE Truth Tables of the 4 connectors of Logic

Equal+Not
T = T = T
T = ~F = T
F = ~T = T
F = F = T

If--> then
T --> T = T
T --> F = F
F --> T = U (unknown or uncertain)
F --> F = U (unknown or uncertain)

And
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F

Or
T or T = F
T or F = T
F or T = T
F or F = F

Those can be analyzed as being Equal+Not is multiplication. If-->then is division. And is addition and Or is subtraction in mathematics. Now I need to emphasis this error of Old Logic, the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability unknown, undefined end conclusion.

Now in Old Logic they had for Reductio Ad Absurdum as displayed by this schematic:

| | ~p
| |---
| | .
| | .
| | q
| | .
| | .
| | ~q
| p

Which is fine except for the error of not indicating the end conclusion of "p" is only a probability of being true, not guaranteed as true. And this is the huge huge error that mathematicians have fallen victim of. For the Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a proof method for mathematics, it is probability of being true or false. Math works on guaranteed truth, not probability. This textbook is written to fix that error.

Product details
• ASIN : B07Q18GQ7S
• Publication date : March 23, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 1178 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 86 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #346,875 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #28 in Logic (Kindle Store)
◦ #95 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #217 in Mathematical Logic
•

#10-3, 143rd published book

DeMorgan's Laws are fantasies, not laws// Teaching True Logic series, book 3 Kindle Edition
By Archimedes Plutonium

Last revision was 30Apr2021. This is AP's 143rd published book.

Preface: The Logic community never had the correct truth table of the primitive 4 connectors of Logic, (1) Equal compounded with NOT, (2) AND, (3) OR, (4) IF->THEN. In 1800s, the founders of Logic messed up in terrible error all 4 of the primitive logic connectors. And since the 1990s, AP has wanted an explanation of why Old Logic got all 4 connectors in total error? What was the reason for the mess up? And in the past few years, I finally pinned the reason to starting Logic with DeMorgan's fake laws, from which Boole, a close friend of DeMorgan, was going to keep his friendship and accept the DeMorgan Laws. That meant that DeMorgan, Boole, Jevons accepted OR as being that of Either..Or..Or..Both, what is called the inclusive OR. But the inclusive OR is a contradiction in terms, for there never can exist a combo of OR with AND simultaneously. This book goes into detail why the DeMorgan laws are fake and fantasy.

Cover Picture: Looks a bit rough, but I want students and readers to see my own handwriting as if this were a lecture and the cover picture a blackboard where I write out DeMorgan's two (fake) laws of logic.

Product details
• File Size : 620 KB
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 38 pages
• ASIN : B08M4BY4XM
• Publication Date : October 27, 2020
• Language: : English
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Lending : Enabled
•
•

Archimedes Plutonium

2022-07-28 01:27:12 UTC

Dan C. what the hell is he doing here in sci.math, the basketcase with 2 OR 1=3 with AND as subtraction, and this nitwit thinks he can digitalize logic. He must be the sewer pit of Canadian logic.

Dan Christensen needs to fully depart sci.math with his endless mindless munchings on Error Filled Boole Logic. The fool Dan Christensen can never understand that Boole got Logic all wrong--especially his 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction for the stupid George Boole thought AND truth table was TFFF when in reality it is TTTF and thus all of Boole Logic is a smelly turd, and Dan in logic is to spread more smelly turds. And here we have 150 years later, and fool Dan Christensen building on more fetid b.s. unto the smelly turd that was Boole Logic.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Dan Christensen does not belong in sci.math for he is the new fetid arsewipe of logic.
unread,
Vacuously TRUE vs Vacuously FALSE???
Anyway Dan O Matik, what I wanted to ask you, function spaces, is it still based on conflating: f : A
2:12 PM

, …
My 5th published book
Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
Product details
File Size: 773 KB
Print Length: 72 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PMB69F5
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray:  Not Enabled  
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
 
#10-2, 27th published book
Correcting Reductio Ad Absurdum// Teaching True Logic series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 9NOV2020. This is AP's 27th published book.
These are the TRUE Truth Tables of the 4 connectors of Logic
Equal+Not
T = T = T
T = ~F = T
F = ~T = T
F = F = T
If--> then
T --> T = T
T --> F = F
F --> T = U (unknown or uncertain)
F --> F = U (unknown or uncertain)
And
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F
Or
T or T = F
T or F = T
F or T = T
F or F = F
Those can be analyzed as being Equal+Not is multiplication. If-->then is division. And is addition and Or is subtraction in mathematics. Now I need to emphasis this error of Old Logic, the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability unknown, undefined end conclusion.
| | ~p
| |---
| | .
| | .
| | q
| | .
| | .
| | ~q
| p
Which is fine except for the error of not indicating the end conclusion of "p" is only a probability of being true, not guaranteed as true. And this is the huge huge error that mathematicians have fallen victim of. For the Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a proof method for mathematics, it is probability of being true or false. Math works on guaranteed truth, not probability. This textbook is written to fix that error.
Product details
• ASIN : B07Q18GQ7S
• Publication date : March 23, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 1178 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 86 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #346,875 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #28 in Logic (Kindle Store)
◦ #95 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #217 in Mathematical Logic
•
#10-3, 143rd published book
DeMorgan's Laws are fantasies, not laws// Teaching True Logic series, book 3 Kindle Edition
By Archimedes Plutonium
Last revision was 30Apr2021. This is AP's 143rd published book.
Preface: The Logic community never had the correct truth table of the primitive 4 connectors of Logic, (1) Equal compounded with NOT, (2) AND, (3) OR, (4) IF->THEN. In 1800s, the founders of Logic messed up in terrible error all 4 of the primitive logic connectors. And since the 1990s, AP has wanted an explanation of why Old Logic got all 4 connectors in total error? What was the reason for the mess up? And in the past few years, I finally pinned the reason to starting Logic with DeMorgan's fake laws, from which Boole, a close friend of DeMorgan, was going to keep his friendship and accept the DeMorgan Laws. That meant that DeMorgan, Boole, Jevons accepted OR as being that of Either..Or..Or..Both, what is called the inclusive OR. But the inclusive OR is a contradiction in terms, for there never can exist a combo of OR with AND simultaneously. This book goes into detail why the DeMorgan laws are fake and fantasy.
Cover Picture: Looks a bit rough, but I want students and readers to see my own handwriting as if this were a lecture and the cover picture a blackboard where I write out DeMorgan's two (fake) laws of logic.
Product details
• File Size : 620 KB
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 38 pages
• ASIN : B08M4BY4XM
• Publication Date : October 27, 2020
• Language: : English
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Lending : Enabled
•
•

Archimedes Plutonium

2022-07-29 17:21:06 UTC

Dan C. what the hell is he doing here in sci.math, the basketcase with 2 OR 1=3 with AND as subtraction, and this nitwit thinks he can digitalize logic. He must be the sewer pit of Canadian logic.

Dan Christensen, failure of math and logic keeps trying to digitize the error filled Boole Logic. What a total numbskull he is and should he even be in education, for he only brainwashes and pollutes.

Dan, the mindless fool of logic, reminds one of the painter with the picture of building bridges from Earth to Mars, in the sky. And yet Canada has this wreck in academics, asylum academics.

5th published book

Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
Preface:
First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.

The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.

My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.

Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.

Product details
File Size: 773 KB
Print Length: 72 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PMB69F5
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray:  Not Enabled  
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
 

Archimedes Plutonium

2022-07-26 19:55:07 UTC

Dan, why is Baez, Peter Higgs, Sheldon Glashow such morons in physics with their "do nothing electron and proton", while AP says every elementary particle is engaged in some electromagnetic task or function like the muon as real electron doing the Faraday law inside a 840 MeV proton torus. Dan is Peter Higgs such a stupid outlandish moron of science that he never will cotton on to the idea of particles having purpose and function.

WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim

Archimedes Plutonium

2022-07-29 00:27:54 UTC

Dan Christensen, failure of math and logic keeps trying to digitize the error filled Boole Logic. What a total numbskull he is and should he even be in education, for he only brainwashes and pollutes.

5th published book

Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
Preface:
First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.

The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.

My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.

Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.

Product details
File Size: 773 KB
Print Length: 72 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PMB69F5
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray:  Not Enabled  
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
 

Archimedes Plutonium

2022-11-14 00:20:05 UTC

Dan C. what the hell is he doing here in sci.math, the basketcase with 2 OR 1=3 with AND as subtraction, and this nitwit thinks he can digitalize logic. He must be the sewer pit of Canadian logic.

Dan Christensen, failure of math and logic keeps trying to digitize the error filled Boole Logic. What a total numbskull he is and should he even be in education, for he only brainwashes and pollutes.

Dan, the mindless fool of logic, reminds one of the painter with the picture of building bridges from Earth to Mars, in the sky. And yet Canada has this wreck in academics, asylum academics.


5th published book

Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
Preface:
First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.

The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.

My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.

Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.

Product details
File Size: 773 KB
Print Length: 72 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PMB69F5
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray:  Not Enabled  
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
 

Dan Christensen

2022-11-14 00:36:43 UTC

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science

... Dan Christensen ...

[snip]

Time for another spanking, Archie Poo? When will you learn? Once again...

From his antics here at sci.math, it is obvious that AP has abandoned all hope being recognized as a credible personality. He is a malicious internet troll who now wants only to mislead and confuse students. He may not be all there, but his fake math and science can only be meant to promote failure in schools. One can only guess at his motives. Is it revenge for his endless string of personal failures in life? Who knows.

In AP's OWN WORDS here that, over the years, he has NEVER renounced or withdrawn:

“Primes do not exist, because the set they were borne from has no division.”
--June 29, 2020

“The last and largest finite number is 10^604.”
--June 3, 2015

“0 appears to be the last and largest finite number”
--June 9, 2015

“0/0 must be equal to 1.”
-- June 9, 2015

“0 is an infinite irrational number.”
--June 28, 2015

“No negative numbers exist.”
--December 22, 2018

“Rationals are not numbers.”
--May 18, 2019

According to AP's “chess board math,” an equilateral triangle is a right-triangle.
--December 11, 2019

Which could explain...

“The value of sin(45 degrees) = 1.” (Actually 0.707)
--May 31, 2019

AP deliberately and repeatedly presented the truth table for OR as the truth table for AND:

“New Logic
AND
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F”
--November 9, 2019

AP seeks aid of Russian agents to promote failure in schools:

"Please--Asking for help from Russia-- russian robots-- to create a new, true mathematics [sic]. What I like for the robots to do, is list every day, about 4 Colleges ( of the West) math dept, and ask why that math department is teaching false and fake math, and if unable to change to the correct true math, well, simply fire that math department until they can find professors who recognize truth in math from fakery...."
--November 9, 2017

And if that wasn't weird enough...

“The totality, everything that there is [the universe], is only 1 atom of plutonium [Pu]. There is nothing outside or beyond this one atom of plutonium.”
--April 4, 1994

“The Universe itself is one gigantic big atom.”
--November 14, 2019

AP's sinister Atom God Cult of Failure???

“Since God-Pu is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Atom Plutonium!
Its truth is marching on.
It has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
It is sifting out the hearts of people before its judgment seat;
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer it; be jubilant, my feet!
Our God-Pu is marching on.”
--December 15, 2018 (Note: Pu is the atomic symbol for plutonium)

Dan

Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

Archimedes Plutonium

2022-11-14 06:05:48 UTC

Dan C. what the hell is he doing here in sci.math, the basketcase with 2 OR 1=3 with AND as subtraction, and this nitwit thinks he can digitalize logic. He must be the sewer pit of Canadian logic.

Dan Christensen, failure of math and logic keeps trying to digitize the error filled Boole Logic. What a total numbskull he is and should he even be in education, for he only brainwashes and pollutes.

Dan, the mindless fool of logic, reminds one of the painter with the picture of building bridges from Earth to Mars, in the sky. And yet Canada has this wreck in academics, asylum academics.



5th published book

Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
Preface:
First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.

The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.

My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.

Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.

Product details
File Size: 773 KB
Print Length: 72 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PMB69F5
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray:  Not Enabled  
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
 

Archimedes Plutonium

2023-02-15 21:22:31 UTC

Dan C. what the hell is he doing here in sci.math, the basketcase with 2 OR 1=3 with AND as subtraction, and this nitwit thinks he can digitalize logic. He must be the sewer pit of Canadian logic.

Dan Christensen, failure of math and logic keeps trying to digitize the error filled Boole Logic. What a total numbskull he is and should he even be in education, for he only brainwashes and pollutes.

Dan, the mindless fool of logic, reminds one of the painter with the picture of building bridges from Earth to Mars, in the sky. And yet Canada has this wreck in academics, asylum academics.




5th published book

Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
Preface:
First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.

The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.

My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.

Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.

Product details
File Size: 773 KB
Print Length: 72 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PMB69F5
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray:  Not Enabled  
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

Mostowski Collapse

2023-02-16 13:03:44 UTC

Now you made it an additional axiom?

16 ALL(a):[a e even => a e n]
Axiom
17 ALL(a):[a e n => [a e even <=> EXIST(b):[b e n & a=2*b]]]
Axiom
https://www.dcproof.com/EvenNextOddV2.htm

LoL

You would get this cheaper by:

16+17 ALL(a):[a e even <=> a e n & EXIST(b):[b e n & a=2*b]]]
Axiom

Looks like you were going full circle,
and have invalidate your own thread here:

Two ways for formally define
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.logic/c/gV50jEU6fvQ/m/I2o0_OTyDgAJ

Interesting learning curve. A little slow,
but not zero, but possibly not yet there.

If you approach zero like WM does, you
will never reach the necessary insight.

Archimedes Plutonium

2023-02-18 00:52:55 UTC

Dan Christensen as the axiom of Spam, spam spam and more spam, yummy spam

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Now you made it an additional axiom?

Dan Christensen

Mostowski Collapse

unread,
Even and Odd Number Revisited: A formal set theoretic approach in DC Proof
6:34 PM

***@gmail.com's profile photo
***@gmail.com
unread,
How does gravity tug on an axis that is pointed toward and away?
6:34 PM

***@gmail.com's profile photo
***@gmail.com
,
Chris M. Thomasson
3
unread,
It doesn't matter where you start
On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 2:26:45 PM UTC-8, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 2/17/2023 1:54 PM
5:30 PM

***@gmail.com's profile photo
***@gmail.com
unread,
The first singularity shows singularities have never existed

Archimedes Plutonium

2023-02-16 20:22:32 UTC

Univ Western Ontario,Dan Christensen spam in sci.math when that idiot cannot even admit Boole screwed up his logic of AND truth table. See below the true AND truth table.

Dan Christensen
,
Mostowski Collapse
3
unread,
Even and Odd Number Revisited: A formal set theoretic approach in DC Proof
2:08 PM

WM's profile photo
WM
, …
William
413
unread,
The testimony of unit fractions
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 3:06:58 PM UTC-4, WM wrote: > William schrieb am Donnerstag, 16.
2:00 PM


1.1Dr. John Baez is a failed mathematician-physicist with his proton of 938MeV when it is 840MeV, electron= muon //his ellipse is a conic when it never was// as phony in math and physics as kibo Parry Moroney's ellipse and Christensen 10 OR 4 = 14

Post by Dan Christensen
WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science
Is AP malicious or just plain stupid. Or both. Either way, students should beware of AP's fake math and science.
“The last and largest finite number is 10^604.”
--June 3, 2015
“0 appears to be the last and largest finite number”
--June 9, 2015
“0/0 must be equal to 1.”
-- June 9, 2015
“0 is an infinite irrational number.”
--June 28, 2015
“No negative numbers exist.”
--December 22, 2018
“Rationals are not numbers.”
--May 18, 2019
“The value of sin(45 degrees) = 1.” (It is actually 0.707.)
--May 31, 2019
"Please--Asking for help from Russia-- russian robots-- to create a new, true mathematics [sic]"
--November 9, 2017
"True" mathematics, indeed! And if that wasn't weird enough...
AP's sinister Atom God Cult
“The totality, everything that there is [the universe], is only 1 atom of plutonium [Pu]. There is nothing outside or beyond this one atom of plutonium.”
--April 4, 1994
This was not just some one-off, drug-induced fantasy of a misspent middle age. More recently, he wrote...
“Since God-Pu is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Atom Plutonium!
Its truth is marching on.
It has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
It is sifting out the hearts of people before its judgment seat;
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer it; be jubilant, my feet!
Our God-Pu is marching on.”
--December 15, 2018 (Note: Pu is the atomic symbol for plutonium)
Are you ready, kids??? Ready to fail?
Dan

Dan Christensen a shithead of math and logic

5th published book

Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
Preface:
First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.

The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.

My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.

Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.

Product details
File Size: 773 KB
Print Length: 72 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PMB69F5
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray:  Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
 

#10-2, 27th published book

Correcting Reductio Ad Absurdum// Teaching True Logic series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 9NOV2020. This is AP's 27th published book.

Preface:
These are the TRUE Truth Tables of the 4 connectors of Logic

Equal+Not
T = T = T
T = ~F = T
F = ~T = T
F = F = T

If--> then
T --> T = T
T --> F = F
F --> T = U (unknown or uncertain)
F --> F = U (unknown or uncertain)

And
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F

Or
T or T = F
T or F = T
F or T = T
F or F = F

Those can be analyzed as being Equal+Not is multiplication. If-->then is division. And is addition and Or is subtraction in mathematics. Now I need to emphasis this error of Old Logic, the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability unknown, undefined end conclusion.

Now in Old Logic they had for Reductio Ad Absurdum as displayed by this schematic:

| | ~p
| |---
| | .
| | .
| | q
| | .
| | .
| | ~q
| p

Which is fine except for the error of not indicating the end conclusion of "p" is only a probability of being true, not guaranteed as true. And this is the huge huge error that mathematicians have fallen victim of. For the Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a proof method for mathematics, it is probability of being true or false. Math works on guaranteed truth, not probability. This textbook is written to fix that error.

Product details
• ASIN : B07Q18GQ7S
• Publication date : March 23, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 1178 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 86 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #346,875 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #28 in Logic (Kindle Store)
◦ #95 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #217 in Mathematical Logic

#10-3, 143rd published book

DeMorgan's Laws are fantasies, not laws// Teaching True Logic series, book 3 Kindle Edition
By Archimedes Plutonium

Last revision was 30Apr2021. This is AP's 143rd published book.

Preface: The Logic community never had the correct truth table of the primitive 4 connectors of Logic, (1) Equal compounded with NOT, (2) AND, (3) OR, (4) IF->THEN. In 1800s, the founders of Logic messed up in terrible error all 4 of the primitive logic connectors. And since the 1990s, AP has wanted an explanation of why Old Logic got all 4 connectors in total error? What was the reason for the mess up? And in the past few years, I finally pinned the reason to starting Logic with DeMorgan's fake laws, from which Boole, a close friend of DeMorgan, was going to keep his friendship and accept the DeMorgan Laws. That meant that DeMorgan, Boole, Jevons accepted OR as being that of Either..Or..Or..Both, what is called the inclusive OR. But the inclusive OR is a contradiction in terms, for there never can exist a combo of OR with AND simultaneously. This book goes into detail why the DeMorgan laws are fake and fantasy.

Cover Picture: Looks a bit rough, but I want students and readers to see my own handwriting as if this were a lecture and the cover picture a blackboard where I write out DeMorgan's two (fake) laws of logic.

Product details
• File Size : 620 KB
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 38 pages
• ASIN : B08M4BY4XM
• Publication Date : October 27, 2020
• Language: : English
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Lending : Enabled

#10-4, 100th published book

Pragmatism, the only Philosophy I loved // Teaching True Logic series, book 4 Kindle Edition
By Archimedes Plutonium

I need to give credit to the philosophy of Pragmatism, the only philosophy that I know of that is based on science. Credit for my discovery of the Plutonium Atom Totality in 1990, came in part, partially due to a passage of the Pragmatist Charles Sanders Peirce in Peirce's Cosmology:

Peirce's The Architecture of Theories...
...would be a Cosmogonic Philosophy. It would suppose that in the beginning - infinitely remote - there was a chaos of unpersonalized feeling, which being without connection or regularity would properly be without existence. This feeling, sporting here and there in pure arbitrariness, would have
started the germ of a generalizing tendency. Its other sportings would be evanescent, but this would have a growing virtue. Thus, the tendency to habit would be started; and from this, with the other principles of evolution, all the regularities of the universe would be evolved. At any time, however, an element of pure chance survives and will remain until the world becomes an absolutely perfect, rational, and symmetrical system, in which mind is at last crystallized in the infinitely distant future.
--- end quoting Peirce's Cosmology ---

But also I must give credit to Pragmatism for making it a philosophy one can actually live their lives by, for living a life of pragmatic solutions to everyday problems that occur in my life. A case in point example is now in March 2020, being the pragmatist that I am, and enduring the 2020 corona virus pandemic. No other philosophy that I know of is so keenly in tune with a person, the surrounding environment and how to live.

Product details
• File size : 807 KB
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 123 pages
• Publication date : March 14, 2020
• ASIN : B085X863QW
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #4,160,707 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #61,471 in Philosophy (Kindle Store)
◦ #193,599 in Science & Math (Kindle Store)
◦ #240,849 in Philosophy (Books)

Archimedes Plutonium

2023-02-17 01:28:52 UTC

John Baez, Fritz Feldhase, Dan Christensen, Jan Burse, never a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, failures of math-- do they even know geometry?? For they sure cannot tell the difference from a oval and ellipse as slant cut of cone. Failures, failures---


Dan Christensen's profile photo
Dan Christensen
, …
Fritz Feldhase
8
unread,
Even and Odd Number Revisited: A formal set theoretic approach in DC Proof
5:33 PM Feb, 16, 2023



Univ Western Ontario,Dan Christensen spam in sci.math when that idiot cannot even admit Boole screwed up his logic of AND truth table. See below the true AND truth table.

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Dan Christensen
,
Mostowski Collapse
3
unread,
Even and Odd Number Revisited: A formal set theoretic approach in DC Proof
2:08 PM

WM's profile photo
WM
, …
William
413
unread,
The testimony of unit fractions
On Thursday, February 16, 2023 at 3:06:58 PM UTC-4, WM wrote: > William schrieb am Donnerstag, 16.
2:00 PM

1.1Dr. John Baez is a failed mathematician-physicist with his proton of 938MeV when it is 840MeV, electron= muon //his ellipse is a conic when it never was// as phony in math and physics as kibo Parry Moroney's ellipse and Christensen 10 OR 4 = 14

Dan Christensen a shithead of math and logic
5th published book
Suspend all College Classes in Logic, until they Fix their Errors // Teaching True Logic series, book 1
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
Last revision was 29Mar2021. This is AP's 5th published book of science.
First comes Logic-- think straight and clear which many logic and math professors are deaf dumb and blind to, and simply refuse to recognize and fix their errors.
The single biggest error of Old Logic of Boole and Jevons was their "AND" and "OR" connectors. They got them mixed up and turned around. For their logic ends up being that of 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = either 3 or 2 but never 5, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 (addition) with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 (subtraction). The AND connector in Logic stems from the idea, the mechanism involved, that given a series of statements, if just one of those many statements has a true truth value, then the entire string of statements is overall true, and thus AND truth table is truly TTTF and never TFFF. And secondly, their error of the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability end conclusion.
My corrections of Old Logic have a history that dates before 1993, sometime around 1991, I realized the Euclid proof of infinitude of primes was illogical, sadly sadly wrong, in that the newly formed number by "multiply the lot and add 1" was necessarily a new prime in the indirect proof method. So that my history of fixing Old Logic starts in 1991, but comes to a synthesis of correcting all four of the connectors of Equal/not, And, Or, If->Then, by 2015.
Cover picture: some may complain my covers are less in quality, but I have a good reason for those covers-- I would like covers of math or logic to show the teacher's own handwriting as if he were back in the classroom writing on the blackboard or an overhead projector.
Product details
File Size: 773 KB
Print Length: 72 pages
Publication Date: March 12, 2019
Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
Language: English
ASIN: B07PMB69F5
Text-to-Speech: Enabled
X-Ray:  Not Enabled
Word Wise: Not Enabled
Lending: Enabled
Screen Reader: Supported
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
#10-2, 27th published book
Correcting Reductio Ad Absurdum// Teaching True Logic series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 9NOV2020. This is AP's 27th published book.
These are the TRUE Truth Tables of the 4 connectors of Logic
Equal+Not
T = T = T
T = ~F = T
F = ~T = T
F = F = T
If--> then
T --> T = T
T --> F = F
F --> T = U (unknown or uncertain)
F --> F = U (unknown or uncertain)
And
T & T = T
T & F = T
F & T = T
F & F = F
Or
T or T = F
T or F = T
F or T = T
F or F = F
Those can be analyzed as being Equal+Not is multiplication. If-->then is division. And is addition and Or is subtraction in mathematics. Now I need to emphasis this error of Old Logic, the If->Then conditional. I need to make it clear enough to the reader why the true Truth Table of IF --> Then requires a U for unknown or uncertain with a probability outcome for F --> T = U and F --> F = U. Some smart readers would know that the reason for the U is because without the U, Logic has no means of division by 0 which is undefined in mathematics. You cannot have a Logic that is less than mathematics. A logic that is impoverished and cannot do a "undefined for division by 0 in mathematics". The true logic must be able to have the fact that division by 0 is undefined. True logic is larger than all of mathematics, and must be able to fetch any piece of mathematics from out of Logic itself. So another word for U is undefined. And this is the crux of why Reductio ad Absurdum cannot be a proof method of mathematics, for a starting falsehood in a mathematics proof can only lead to a probability unknown, undefined end conclusion.
| | ~p
| |---
| | .
| | .
| | q
| | .
| | .
| | ~q
| p
Which is fine except for the error of not indicating the end conclusion of "p" is only a probability of being true, not guaranteed as true. And this is the huge huge error that mathematicians have fallen victim of. For the Reductio Ad Absurdum is not a proof method for mathematics, it is probability of being true or false. Math works on guaranteed truth, not probability. This textbook is written to fix that error.
Product details
• ASIN : B07Q18GQ7S
• Publication date : March 23, 2019
• Language : English
• File size : 1178 KB
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Word Wise : Not Enabled
• Print length : 86 pages
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #346,875 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #28 in Logic (Kindle Store)
◦ #95 in Two-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #217 in Mathematical Logic
#10-3, 143rd published book
DeMorgan's Laws are fantasies, not laws// Teaching True Logic series, book 3 Kindle Edition
By Archimedes Plutonium
Last revision was 30Apr2021. This is AP's 143rd published book.
Preface: The Logic community never had the correct truth table of the primitive 4 connectors of Logic, (1) Equal compounded with NOT, (2) AND, (3) OR, (4) IF->THEN. In 1800s, the founders of Logic messed up in terrible error all 4 of the primitive logic connectors. And since the 1990s, AP has wanted an explanation of why Old Logic got all 4 connectors in total error? What was the reason for the mess up? And in the past few years, I finally pinned the reason to starting Logic with DeMorgan's fake laws, from which Boole, a close friend of DeMorgan, was going to keep his friendship and accept the DeMorgan Laws. That meant that DeMorgan, Boole, Jevons accepted OR as being that of Either..Or..Or..Both, what is called the inclusive OR. But the inclusive OR is a contradiction in terms, for there never can exist a combo of OR with AND simultaneously. This book goes into detail why the DeMorgan laws are fake and fantasy.
Cover Picture: Looks a bit rough, but I want students and readers to see my own handwriting as if this were a lecture and the cover picture a blackboard where I write out DeMorgan's two (fake) laws of logic.
Product details
• File Size : 620 KB
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print Length : 38 pages
• ASIN : B08M4BY4XM
• Publication Date : October 27, 2020
• Language: : English
• Enhanced Typesetting : Enabled
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• Lending : Enabled
#10-4, 100th published book
Pragmatism, the only Philosophy I loved // Teaching True Logic series, book 4 Kindle Edition
By Archimedes Plutonium
Peirce's The Architecture of Theories...
...would be a Cosmogonic Philosophy. It would suppose that in the beginning - infinitely remote - there was a chaos of unpersonalized feeling, which being without connection or regularity would properly be without existence. This feeling, sporting here and there in pure arbitrariness, would have
started the germ of a generalizing tendency. Its other sportings would be evanescent, but this would have a growing virtue. Thus, the tendency to habit would be started; and from this, with the other principles of evolution, all the regularities of the universe would be evolved. At any time, however, an element of pure chance survives and will remain until the world becomes an absolutely perfect, rational, and symmetrical system, in which mind is at last crystallized in the infinitely distant future.
--- end quoting Peirce's Cosmology ---
But also I must give credit to Pragmatism for making it a philosophy one can actually live their lives by, for living a life of pragmatic solutions to everyday problems that occur in my life. A case in point example is now in March 2020, being the pragmatist that I am, and enduring the 2020 corona virus pandemic. No other philosophy that I know of is so keenly in tune with a person, the surrounding environment and how to live.
Product details
• File size : 807 KB
• Word Wise : Enabled
• Print length : 123 pages
• Publication date : March 14, 2020
• ASIN : B085X863QW
• Language: : English
• Text-to-Speech : Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting : Enabled
• Screen Reader : Supported
• X-Ray : Not Enabled
• Lending : Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #4,160,707 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #61,471 in Philosophy (Kindle Store)
◦ #193,599 in Science & Math (Kindle Store)
◦ #240,849 in Philosophy (Books)

Archimedes Plutonium

2023-02-17 22:17:37 UTC

No-one in the below list, nor John Baez can do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, why these fools cannot even admit slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse....

Dan Christensen's profile photo
Dan Christensen
, …
Mostowski Collapse
17
unread,
Even and Odd Number Revisited: A formal set theoretic approach in DC Proof
4:10 PM

***@gmail.com's profile photo
***@gmail.com
unread,
It doesn't matter where you start
you can't count to infinity...
3:54 PM

Graham Cooper's profile photo
Graham Cooper
, …
William
7
unread,
INTRODUCTION TO CANTORS PROOF
On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 3:30:36 PM UTC-4, Graham Cooper wrote: > On Saturday, February 18,
3:52 PM

***@gmail.com's profile photo
***@gmail.com
, …
Jim Burns
6
unread,
You cannot end time
On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 1:31:04 PM UTC-8, Jim Burns wrote: > I promise not to end time.
3:51 PM

Archimedes Plutonium

2023-02-18 05:32:56 UTC

Every day Dan feels he needs to spam sci.math, add a few lines to a thread and every half hour spam it into his thread, amounting to nothing. And getting back 4 spam packets by Jan Burse in Zurich, all for the purpose of filling sci.math with sperm spam in Dan Christensen's Axiom of sperm-spam. Will Dan cash in on his sperm-spam with hamburger food chains in Toronto of sperm-spam on rye?

Post by Mostowski Collapse
Now you made it an additional axiom?

Archimedes Plutonium

2023-02-18 20:02:37 UTC

Why is John Baez, Dan Christensen unable to do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, why these fools cannot even admit slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse....

Dan Christensen

Mostowski Collapse
38
unread,
Even and Odd Number Revisited: A formal set theoretic approach in DC Proof
1:33 PM


Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Dan Christensen's profile photo
Dan Christensen
, …
Mostowski Collapse
17
unread,
Even and Odd Number Revisited: A formal set theoretic approach in DC Proof
4:10 PM

unread,
It doesn't matter where you start
you can't count to infinity...
3:54 PM

Graham Cooper's profile photo
Graham Cooper
, …
William
7
unread,
INTRODUCTION TO CANTORS PROOF
On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 3:30:36 PM UTC-4, Graham Cooper wrote: > On Saturday, February 18,
3:52 PM

, …
Jim Burns
6
unread,
You cannot end time
On Friday, February 17, 2023 at 1:31:04 PM UTC-8, Jim Burns wrote: > I promise not to end time.
3:51 PM

3rd published book

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
•
•

Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 14May2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.

Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.

In the course of 2019 through 2022, I have had to explain this proof often on Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics. And one thing that constant explaining does for a mind of science, is reduce the proof to its stripped down minimum format, to bare bones skeleton proof. I can prove the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse in just a one sentence proof. Proof-- A single cone and oval have just one axis of symmetry, while a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, hence slant cut is always a oval, never the ellipse.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 827 KB
• Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 51 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#12-2, 11th published book

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.

To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?

Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

Archimedes Plutonium

2023-02-19 20:26:57 UTC

Dr. Baez too stupid in physics to ever ask-- did Thomson screw up by calling the 0.5MeV particle the electron when the true electron is the muon. For John has no logical marbles in that fried brain of his-- witness-- he still accepts Boole logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.

Earle Jones wrote:
, …
...
67
"Psychoceramics"
H. Alan Schwettman, Persis Drell, John Turneaure _did you fire_ Earle Jones in the 1990s, causing him
2:18 PM 19Feb2023

Dan Christensen's profile photo
Dan Christensen
,
Y A
2
unread,
Constructing the Natural Numbers in DC Proof
On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 9:51:47 PM UTC+2, Dan Christensen wrote: > We start with axioms
2:15 PM


Dan Christensen is just one and the same as the Axiom of Stupidity. The magnanimous logical arsewipe of academia with his AND truth table of TFFF throwing out the baby in the bathwater every time the jackarse Dan Christensen opens his big dumb loudmouth. Yet Canada is proud of this jackarse.

WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science
Is AP malicious or just plain stupid. Or both. Either way, students should beware of AP's fake math and science.
“The last and largest finite number is 10^604.”
--June 3, 2015
“0 appears to be the last and largest finite number”
--June 9, 2015
“0/0 must be equal to 1.”
-- June 9, 2015
“0 is an infinite irrational number.”
--June 28, 2015
“No negative numbers exist.”
--December 22, 2018
“Rationals are not numbers.”
--May 18, 2019
“The value of sin(45 degrees) = 1.” (It is actually 0.707.)
--May 31, 2019
"Please--Asking for help from Russia-- russian robots-- to create a new, true mathematics [sic]"
--November 9, 2017
"True" mathematics, indeed! And if that wasn't weird enough...
AP's sinister Atom God Cult
“The totality, everything that there is [the universe], is only 1 atom of plutonium [Pu]. There is nothing outside or beyond this one atom of plutonium.”
--April 4, 1994
This was not just some one-off, drug-induced fantasy of a misspent middle age. More recently, he wrote...
“Since God-Pu is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Atom Plutonium!
Its truth is marching on.
It has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
It is sifting out the hearts of people before its judgment seat;
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer it; be jubilant, my feet!
Our God-Pu is marching on.”
--December 15, 2018 (Note: Pu is the atomic symbol for plutonium)
Are you ready, kids??? Ready to fail?
Dan
Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com
Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com

Archimedes Plutonium

2023-02-20 20:52:30 UTC

2-Dr. Baez too stupid in physics to ever ask-- did Thomson screw up by calling the 0.5MeV particle the electron when the true electron is the muon. For John has no logical marbles in that fried brain of his-- witness-- he still accepts Boole logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.

Dan Christensen
, …
Mostowski Collapse
6
unread,
Constructing the Natural Numbers in DC Proof
On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 1:22:57 PM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote: > > > Dan
12:57 PM


Post by Archimedes Plutonium
, …
...
67
"Psychoceramics"
H. Alan Schwettman, Persis Drell, John Turneaure _did you fire_ Earle Jones in the 1990s, causing him
2:18 PM 19Feb2023

Dan Christensen's profile photo
Dan Christensen
,
Y A
2
unread,
Constructing the Natural Numbers in DC Proof
On Sunday, February 19, 2023 at 9:51:47 PM UTC+2, Dan Christensen wrote: > We start with axioms
2:15 PM

Dan Christensen is just one and the same as the Axiom of Stupidity. The magnanimous logical arsewipe of academia with his AND truth table of TFFF throwing out the baby in the bathwater every time the jackarse Dan Christensen opens his big dumb loudmouth. Yet Canada is proud of this jackarse.

Archimedes Plutonium

2023-02-21 21:08:20 UTC

3-Dr. Baez too stupid in physics to ever ask-- did Thomson screw up by calling the 0.5MeV particle the electron when the true electron is the muon. For John has no logical marbles in that fried brain of his-- witness-- he still accepts Boole logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.

unread

Dan Christensen's profile photo
Dan Christensen
, …
Mostowski Collapse
13
unread,
Constructing the Natural Numbers in DC Proof
On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 3:38:44 PM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote: > If I only could
3:01 PM


Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Dan Christensen
, …
Mostowski Collapse
6
unread,
Constructing the Natural Numbers in DC Proof
On Monday, February 20, 2023 at 1:22:57 PM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote: > > > Dan
12:57 PM


Archimedes Plutonium

2023-02-22 22:50:43 UTC

4-Dr. Baez too stupid in physics to ever ask-- did Thomson screw up by calling the 0.5MeV particle the electron when the true electron is the muon. For John has no logical marbles in that fried brain of his-- witness-- he still accepts Boole logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.


Dan Christensen's profile photo
Dan Christensen
, …

25
unread,
Constructing the Natural Numbers in DC Proof
STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science On Wednesday, February 22,
4:35 PM

Y A's profile photo
Y A
,

4
Re: +Earle Jones, the arsewipe of Stanford Univ and shows us why Stanford is a failed school of science-- too dumb to ask which is the Atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle, and their ellipse a conic when that is a oval, and their 2 OR 1 = 3

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
unread

Dan Christensen's profile photo
Dan Christensen
, …
Mostowski Collapse
13
unread,
Constructing the Natural Numbers in DC Proof
On Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 3:38:44 PM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote: > If I only could
3:01 PM


Archimedes Plutonium

2023-02-26 02:58:15 UTC

5-Dr. Baez too stupid in physics to ever ask-- did Thomson screw up by calling the 0.5MeV particle the electron when the true electron is the muon. For John has no logical marbles in that fried brain of his-- witness-- he still accepts Boole logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.


Dan Christensen's profile photo
Dan Christensen
, …

25
unread,
Constructing the Natural Numbers in DC Proof
STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science On Wednesday, February 22,
4:35 PM

Y A's profile photo
Y A
,

4
Re: +Earle Jones, the arsewipe of Stanford Univ and shows us why Stanford is a failed school of science-- too dumb to ask which is the Atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle, and their ellipse a conic when that is a oval, and their 2 OR 1 = 3


WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim

Archimedes Plutonium

2023-02-27 20:27:02 UTC



WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim

Archimedes Plutonium

2023-02-28 01:37:00 UTC

6-Dr. Baez too stupid in physics to ever ask-- did Thomson screw up by calling the 0.5MeV particle the electron when the true electron is the muon. For John has no logical marbles in that fried brain of his-- witness-- he still accepts Boole logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.


Dan Christensen's profile photo
Dan Christensen
, …

25
unread,
Constructing the Natural Numbers in DC Proof
STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science On Wednesday, February 22,
4:35 PM

Y A's profile photo
Y A
,

4
Re: +Earle Jones, the arsewipe of Stanford Univ and shows us why Stanford is a failed school of science-- too dumb to ask which is the Atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle, and their ellipse a conic when that is a oval, and their 2 OR 1 = 3





WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim

Archimedes Plutonium

2023-03-01 05:30:01 UTC

7-Dr. Baez too stupid in physics to ever ask-- did Thomson screw up by calling the 0.5MeV particle the electron when the true electron is the muon. For John has no logical marbles in that fried brain of his-- witness-- he still accepts Boole logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction.


Dan Christensen's profile photo
Dan Christensen
, …
Ezimene nimi Teine nimi
43
Constructing the Natural Numbers in DC Proof
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 6:41:01 PM UTC-5, Mostowski Collapse wrote: > Shortest Axiom that
6:34 PM


Post by Archimedes Plutonium

Dan Christensen's profile photo
Dan Christensen
, …
25
unread,
Constructing the Natural Numbers in DC Proof
STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of AP's fake math and science On Wednesday, February 22,
4:35 PM

Y A's profile photo
Y A
,
4
Re: +Earle Jones, the arsewipe of Stanford Univ and shows us why Stanford is a failed school of science-- too dumb to ask which is the Atom's true electron-- muon or 0.5MeV particle, and their ellipse a conic when that is a oval, and their 2 OR 1 = 3





WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim

Archimedes Plutonium

2023-05-24 06:47:32 UTC

Kibo Parry (M-V) is that why John Baez cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse and why he cannot do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus???

"antiscience"
So you have XYY syndrome? Is that why you are so aggressive against
anyone who corrects your many mistakes? Does it also explain your gayness?
I see XYY males tend to have lower than average IQs. That makes sense
for you as well.

My 3rd published book

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
•
•

Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 14May2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.

Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.

In the course of 2019 through 2022, I have had to explain this proof often on Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics. And one thing that constant explaining does for a mind of science, is reduce the proof to its stripped down minimum format, to bare bones skeleton proof. I can prove the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse in just a one sentence proof. Proof-- A single cone and oval have just one axis of symmetry, while a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, hence slant cut is always a oval, never the ellipse.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 827 KB
• Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 51 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#12-2, My 11th published book

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.

To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?

Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

Archimedes Plutonium

2023-05-25 07:04:27 UTC

2-Kibo Parry (M-V) is that why John Baez cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse and why he cannot do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus???

"Kim Jong Un's lackey" autistically melts
"mindless fuckdog"

My 3rd published book
AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
•
•
Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 14May2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
In the course of 2019 through 2022, I have had to explain this proof often on Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics. And one thing that constant explaining does for a mind of science, is reduce the proof to its stripped down minimum format, to bare bones skeleton proof. I can prove the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse in just a one sentence proof. Proof-- A single cone and oval have just one axis of symmetry, while a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, hence slant cut is always a oval, never the ellipse.
Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 827 KB
• Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 51 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
#12-2, My 11th published book
World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.
To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

Chris M. Thomasson

2023-05-25 07:06:20 UTC

Post by Archimedes Plutonium
2-Kibo Parry (M-V) is that why John Baez cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse and why he cannot do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus???

[...]

You can plot an oval, right? Keep in mind that every ellipse is an oval,
but not all ovals are ellipses... ;^)

Archimedes Plutonium

2023-05-29 19:22:09 UTC

Dan Christensen is that why John Baez cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse and why he cannot do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus???

Hmmm... I could find no reviews of any of your "books" at Amazon (20 titles in all). And only one rating (1 star). Maybe you should give them out for free.
My 3rd published book
AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
•
•
Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 14May2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
In the course of 2019 through 2022, I have had to explain this proof often on Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics. And one thing that constant explaining does for a mind of science, is reduce the proof to its stripped down minimum format, to bare bones skeleton proof. I can prove the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse in just a one sentence proof. Proof-- A single cone and oval have just one axis of symmetry, while a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, hence slant cut is always a oval, never the ellipse.
Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 827 KB
• Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 51 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
#12-2, My 11th published book
World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.
To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

Archimedes Plutonium

2023-10-28 22:47:24 UTC

Dan Christensen on John Baez & Dr.Roland List,Dr.Philipp Kronberg,Dr.James King of Univ Toronto as dunce in science as Dan Christensen forgetting to weigh the hydrogen versus oxygen in Water Electrolysis, such slipshod science???

Dan Christensen profile photo
Dan Christensen
5:33 PM, 28Oct2023, sci.math
Students beware: don't be a victim

Yes Dan, just like students are victims to creeps like you with your slant cut of cone a ellipse when in truth that is a oval. But Dan is such a failure of science with his Boole Logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, no wonder Dan is Canada's worst failure of science.

Volney (CIA) selling Univ Western Ontario because they cannot do Water Electrolysis properly-- forgetting to actually weigh the mass of hydrogen compared to oxygen, and stop at observing volume. UWO science is so shoddy of logical reasoning.

Volney, who can weigh
Pauline Barmby, Shantanu Basu, Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown, Blaine Chronik, Robert Cockcroft, John R. de Bruyn, Colin Denniston, Giovanni Fanchini, Sarah Gallagher, Lyudmila Goncharova, Wayne Hocking, Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut, Peter Simpson, Mahi Singh, Paul Wiegert, Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang
the hydrogen and oxygen in Water Electrolysis, for it is unusual that Caltech physics is so shoddy in logical thought as to think of stopping Water Electrolysis by observation of Volume and not weighing the masses.

Dan failures to weigh
Pauline Barmby, Shantanu Basu, Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown, Blaine Chronik, Robert Cockcroft, John R. de Bruyn, Colin Denniston, Giovanni Fanchini, Sarah Gallagher, Lyudmila Goncharova, Wayne Hocking, Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut, Peter Simpson, Mahi Singh, Paul Wiegert, Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang
Weigh the mass of hydrogen and oxygen in Water electrolysis. Too stupid to think clearly that volume is not the same as mass, and the importance of finishing the full experiment to prove water is really H4O, not H2O.

Volney, why cannot Univ Western Ontario finish their water electrolysis experiment to prove Water is really H4O not H2O??

Why Volney can they not finish the water electrolysis experiment to weigh the mass of hydrogen and oxygen?? Because they are so sloppy and slipshod in Physics experiment of Water Electrolysis, stopping and ceasing the experiment before weighing the mass of the hydrogen compared to mass of oxygen. Is it that they are stupid silly thinking volume and mass are the same. For AP needs to prove decisively, if Water is really H4O or H2O. And of course, this experiment would destroy the Standard Model-- that post-diction theory of physics that never gave a single prediction in all of its tenure.

Or is it because they cannot admit the truth of math geometry that slant cut of cone is oval, not ellipse for you need the symmetry of slant cut of cylinder to yield a ellipse.

This is Volney-Kibo Parry Moroney spam (CIA connected drag net spam b.s.), and no matter how much you report it to Google Abuse-- they cannot kick the miscreant out-- I suggest reporting this spam to your Congress-person. Not only do they stalk you for 30 years but destroy the newsgroup they pollute. Just look at sci.chem which is a destroyed newsgroup. The Google Abuse report only hides the miscreant, but the next day-- new fresh b.s.spam is there.

Kibo Parry Moron-Volney blowing his cover with the CIA in 1997
Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
Re: Dan is the Kibo Parry Moroney Volney CIA equivalent for Canada-- using Usenet but destroying newsgroups of science in the process

Univ Toronto, physics, Gordon F. West, Michael B. Walker, Henry M. Van Driel, David J. Rowe, John W. Moffat, John F. Martin, Robert K. Logan, Albert E. Litherland, Roland List, Philipp Kronberg, James King, Anthony W. Key, Bob Holdom, Ron M. Farquhar, R. Nigel Edwards, David J. Dunlop, James Drummond, Tom E. Drake, R.Fraser Code, Richard C. Bailey, Robin Armstrong

Chancellor Rose M. Patten
Pres. Meric Gertler

Univ Toronto math dept
Mustafa Akcoglu, Spyros Alexakis, Edward Barbeau, Thomas Bloom, Man-Duen Choi, Stephen Cook, Chandler Davis, Nicholas Derzko, Eric Ellers, Ilya Gekhtman, Ian Graham, Steve Halpern, Wahidul Haque, Abe Igelfeld, Velimir Jurdjevic, Ivan Kupka, Anthony Lam, Michael Lorimer, James McCool, Eric Mendelsohn, Kunio Murasugi, Jeremy Quastel, Peter Rosenthal, Paul Selick, Dipak Sen, Rick Sharpe, Stuart Smith, Frank Tall, Steve Tanny

Univ Western Ontario math dept
Janusz Adamus, Tatyana Barron, Dan Christensen, Graham Denham, Ajneet Dhillon, Matthias Franz, John Jardine, Massoud Khalkhali, Nicole Lemire, Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner, David Riley, Rasul Shafikov, Gordon Sinnamon

Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz
President Alan Shepard
Amit Chakma (chem engr)

Univ. Western Ontario physics dept
Pauline Barmby, Shantanu Basu, Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown, Blaine Chronik, Robert Cockcroft, John R. de Bruyn, Colin Denniston, Giovanni Fanchini, Sarah Gallagher, Lyudmila Goncharova, Wayne Hocking, Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut, Peter Simpson, Mahi Singh, Paul Wiegert, Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang

Apparently Kibo realized he was a science failure when he could not even do a proper percentage. But then one has to wonder how much he paid to bribe Rensselaer to graduate from the school in engineering unable to do a percentage properly???? For I certainly would not hire a engineer who cannot even do proper percentage.

Why Volney?? Because they stop short of completing the Water Electrolysis Experiment by only looking at volume, when they are meant to weigh the mass of hydrogen versus oxygen?? Such shoddy minds in experimental physics and chemistry.

Physics minnow

What warning is that Kibo Parry failure of science-- warning that insane persons like Kibo Parry Moroney Volney spends their entire life in a hate-mill, never doing anything in science itself.

Kibo Parry Moroney-Volney blowing his cover with the CIA in 1997

Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster

---quoting Wikipedia ---

Controversy
Many government and university installations blocked, threatened to block, or attempted to shut-down The World's Internet connection until Software Tool & Die was eventually granted permission by the National Science Foundation to provide public Internet access on "an experimental basis."

--- end quote ---

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Dr. Panchanathan , present day
NSF Dr. Panchanathan, F. Fleming Crim, Dorothy E Aronson, Brian Stone, James S Ulvestad (math), Rebecca Lynn Keiser, Vernon D. Ross, Lloyd Whitman, John J. Veysey (physics), Scott Stanley
France Anne Cordova
Subra Suresh (bioengineer)
Arden Lee Bement Jr. (nuclear engineering)
Rita R. Colwell (microbiology)
Neal Francis Lane
John Howard Gibbons 1993
Barry Shein, kibo parry std world
Jim Frost, Joe "Spike" Ilacqua
Canada-- NSERC , Alejandro Adem (math) , Navdeep Bains, Francois-Philippe Champagne

News starting to come in that AP's Water Electrolysis Experiment proves the true formula of Water is H4O, not H2O is starting to come in.

Aug 30, 2023, 10:19:20 PM
to Plutonium Atom Universe
News starting to come in that AP's Water Electrolysis Experiment proves the true formula of Water is H4O, not H2O is starting to come in.
I received a letter today of Experiment results on Water Electrolysis of weighing the hydrogen test tube versus oxygen test tube and the result is 1/4 atomic mass units of Hydrogen compared to Oxygen.
The researcher weighing 1600 micrograms of hydrogen, using a Eisco-Brownlee-Water-Electrolysis Apparatus.
Using sulfuric acid as electrolyte on ultra pure water. Using low voltage DC of 1.5 volts, 1 amp.
I am not surprised that news of the true formula of Water is H4O comes so quickly. For not much in science is more important than knowing the truth of Water. And this means the start of the complete downfall and throwing out the sick Standard Model of Physics, for it is such an insane theory that it cannot get passed the idea of its subatomic particles as stick and ball, with no job, no function, no task. The Standard Model of Physics, is crazy insane physics for it is all postdiction, never prediction. The idea that the hydrogen atom is H2 not H, is because of the prediction of Atom Totality Theory where a atom is a proton torus with muon inside doing the Faraday law and all atoms require at least 1 capacitor. That means the one proton in H2 serves as a neutron to the other proton, storaging the electricity produced by the other proton.
The true Hydrogen Atom is H2 for all atoms need at least one capacitor, and one of the protons in H2 serves as a neutron.
Sad that chemistry and physics throughout the 20th century were too stupid to actually weigh the mass of hydrogen and oxygen in electrolysis, no, the ignorant fools stopped at looking when they saw the volume of hydrogen was twice that of oxygen. A real scientist is not that shoddy and slipshod ignorant, the real scientist then proceeds with -- let us weigh the hydrogen test tube mass versus the oxygen test tube mass.
Thanks for the news!!!!!
AP
News starting to come in that AP's Water Electrolysis Experiment proves the true formula of Water is H4O, not H2O is starting to come in.
There is another experiment that achieves the same result that Water is truly H4O and not H2O, but I suspect this second method is hugely fraught with difficulty.
The prediction of H4O comes from the Physics idea that a Atom is composed, all atoms mind you, is composed of a proton torus with muon/s inside going round and round thrusting through the torus in the Faraday law and producing electricity. So that when you have Hydrogen without a neutron, there is no way to collect the electricity produced by the Faraday law. Think of it as a automobile engine, you cannot have a engine if there is no crank shaft to collect the energy from the thrusting piston inside the crankcase.
Same thing with an Atom, it needs 3 parts-- muon as bar magnet, proton as torus of coils, and a capacitor to storage the produced electricity. If one of those parts is missing, the entity is a Subatomic particle and not a atom.
So, when we have Hydrogen as a proton with muon inside, it is not a Atom, until it has a neutron, or, has another proton of hydrogen H2, then it is a Atom.
So that H2 is not a molecule but a Atom. H alone is a subatomic particle.
Much harder than Water Electrolysis.
We need to get two identical containers.
We need to be able to make pure heavy-water with deuterium. Deuterium is proton + neutron as hydrogen. Proton + proton is H2 as hydrogen.
So we have two identical containers and we fill one with pure heavy water, deuterium water.
We have the second container and we fill it with pure (light) water.
We now weigh both of them.
If AP is correct, that water is really H4O and not H2O, then both containers should weigh almost the same. Only a tiny fraction difference because the neutron is known to be 940MeV versus proton in Old Physics as 938MeV a tiny difference of 2MeV, but we realize we have a huge number of water molecules in the two identical containers.
If water is truly H4O, the weights should be almost the same. If water is H2O, then there is a **large difference** in weights.
But the Water Electrolysis experiment is much easier to conduct and get results.
And, there is the biological processes that apparently cannot distinguish between heavy water and that of regular normal water.
Deuterium Water is the same in biology as is normal regular water. This means that water must be H4O, due to biology as proof.
Deuterium Water in atomic mass units is 16 for the oxygen and 4 for the deuterium.
Regular normal Water in atomic mass units is 16 for the oxygen and 4 for the 4 protons in H4O.
Old Physics and Old Chemistry had regular water as H2O in atomic mass units of 16 oxygen and 2 hydrogen for 2 protons.
If biology functions whether heavy water or normal water all the same, then water itself must be H4O.
Now, there maybe some animal or plant that can separate out heavy water from H4O water???
Searching the literature today for where biology needs as essential deuterium water. And not too surprised that it is a essential requirement in metabolism. In fact one web site listed the need for deuterium more than the need of many minerals and vitamins.
Now tonight I came up with two new exciting experiments to verify that Water is truly H4O and not H2O.
H4O is 4 protons with muons inside the 840MeV proton toruses.
Deuterium water is DOD. And the difference between D2O and H4O is merely the difference of 4MeV for as last reported, neutron = 940MeV and proton (with muon inside) is 938MeV, a difference of 2MeV but for water is 2+2 = 4MeV.
So these two new experiments take advantage of the fact that what we think is normal regular water is actually very close to heavy water of D2O, with only a 4MeV difference.
EXPERIMENT #3 Water layers in still pond of D2O mixed with H4O (what we thought was H2O.
So in this experiment we get a clear glass container and mix H4O with D2O. If Old Physics is correct, the heavy water should sink rapidly in the container while the light water floats to the top rapidly. And we have some sort of beam of photons that can distinguish D2O from H4O (thought of as H2O. We obtain pure D2O and pure H4O each filling 1/2 of the container. We stir and mix them. And then we observe with the EM beam for separation. If the light water is truly H4O, it takes a long time for the D2O to be on bottom and H4O on top. We measure the time of a settled container and determine this time from the theoretical 4MeV difference should take a long time, whereas if Old Physics is correct, the separation would be almost instantly and quick time.
EXPERIMENT #4 also plays on this minor difference of 4MeV. We devise a sort of squirt gun for D2O and a identical squirt gun for H4O (what we call H2O). We put pure D2O in one squirt gun and the H40 or light water in the other squirt gun. Both guns forcing the water a certain distance.
If AP is correct that light water is really H4O and not H2O as we squirt both guns, where the water lands should be almost the same distance considering H4O is only 4MeV apart from D2O.
If Old Physics and Old Chemistry is correct, then D2O water is 940 + 940 = 1880MeV apart from light water of H2O, and H4O is only 4MeV apart.
So where the squirt gun lands the D2O is a very much shorter distance than a H2O land, but a H4 land distance is nearly the same as the D2O land.
These two experiments are very exciting and would be a very nice confirming evidence to Water Electrolysis actual weighing the mass in atomic mass units.

Searching the literature today for where biology needs as essential deuterium water. And not too surprised that it is a essential requirement in metabolism. In fact one web site listed the need for deuterium more than the need of many minerals and vitamins.
Now tonight I came up with two new exciting experiments to verify that Water is truly H4O and not H2O.
H4O is 4 protons with muons inside the 840MeV proton toruses.
Deuterium water is DOD. And the difference between D2O and H4O is merely the difference of 4MeV for as last reported, neutron = 940MeV and proton (with muon inside) is 938MeV, a difference of 2MeV but for water is 2+2 = 4MeV.
So these two new experiments take advantage of the fact that what we think is normal regular water is actually very close to heavy water of D2O, with only a 4MeV difference.
EXPERIMENT #3 Water layers in still pond of D2O mixed with H4O (what we thought was H2O.
So in this experiment we get a clear glass container and mix H4O with D2O. If Old Physics is correct, the heavy water should sink rapidly in the container while the light water floats to the top rapidly. And we have some sort of beam of photons that can distinguish D2O from H4O (thought of as H2O. We obtain pure D2O and pure H4O each filling 1/2 of the container. We stir and mix them. And then we observe with the EM beam for separation. If the light water is truly H4O, it takes a long time for the D2O to be on bottom and H4O on top. We measure the time of a settled container and determine this time from the theoretical 4MeV difference should take a long time, whereas if Old Physics is correct, the separation would be almost instantly and quick time.

Apparently this Experiment is already done and called for-- There is Uniform Distribution of heavy water Deuterium Water in the Oceans, Lakes, Ponds, Streams and Rivers. Heavy Water is not layered in the oceans or lakes or ponds or streams or rivers. Uniformity means that the difference between D2O and H4O is so slight of a difference (only 4MeV, compared to 1880MeV for H2O, that Brownian motion keeps the D2O and H4O in a Uniform Distribution in all bodies of water. I was going through the research literature today and find that scientists discover Uniformity of Distribution of deuterium water. This thus closes the case on Water, for uniformity of distribution of D2O implies that Water is itself H4O and not H2O.

My 250th published book.

TEACHING TRUE CHEMISTRY; H2 is the hydrogen Atom and water is H4O, not H2O// Chemistry
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)
Prologue: This textbook is 1/2 research history and 1/2 factual textbook combined as one textbook. For many of the experiments described here-in have not yet been performed, such as water is really H4O not H2O. Written in a style of history research with date-time markers, and fact telling. And there are no problem sets. This book is intended for 1st year college. Until I include problem sets and exercises, I leave it to the professor and instructor to provide such. And also, chemistry is hugely a laboratory science, even more so than physics, so a first year college student in the lab to test whether Water is really H4O and not H2O is mighty educational.
Preface: This is my 250th book of science, and the first of my textbooks on Teaching True Chemistry. I have completed the Teaching True Physics and the Teaching True Mathematics textbook series. But had not yet started on a Teaching True Chemistry textbook series. What got me started on this project is the fact that no chemistry textbook had the correct formula for water which is actually H4O and not H2O. Leaving the true formula for hydroxyl groups as H2O and not OH. But none of this is possible in Old Chemistry, Old Physics where they had do-nothing subatomic particles that sit around and do nothing or go whizzing around the outside of balls in a nucleus, in a mindless circling. Once every subatomic particle has a job, task, function, then water cannot be H2O but rather H4O. And a hydrogen atom cannot be H alone but is actually H2. H2 is not a molecule of hydrogen but a full fledged Atom, a single atom of hydrogen.
Cover Picture: Sorry for the crude sketch work but chemistry and physics students are going to have to learn to make such sketches in a minute or less. Just as they make Lewis diagrams or ball & stick diagrams. My 4-5 minute sketch-work of the Water molecule H4O plus the subatomic particle H, and the hydrogen atom H2. Showing how one H is a proton torus with muon inside (blue color) doing the Faraday law. Protons are toruses with many windings. Protons are the coils in Faraday law while muons are the bar magnets. Neutrons are the capacitors as parallel plates, the outer skin cover of atoms.
Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0CCLPTBDG
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ July 21, 2023
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 788 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 168 pages

Univ Toronto & Western Ontario Uni do only slipshod physics-chemistry experiments of Water Electrolysis, too dumb to weigh the hydrogen & oxygen to see if H4O or H2O

Archimedes Plutonium

2023-10-31 05:45:39 UTC

2- Dan Christensen on John Baez & Dr.Roland List,Dr.Philipp Kronberg,Dr.James King of Univ Toronto as dunce in science as Dan Christensen forgetting to weigh the hydrogen versus oxygen in Water Electrolysis, such slipshod science???

,
Dan Christensen
2
13m views NSA Nakasone,FBI Wray,CIA Burns keep filling up sci.math with spam via their proxy Kibo Parry (Volney) & Dan Christensen, throwing everyone off the front page, this is what ruined sci.chem; let it not ruin sci.math & sci.physics
Oct 30


Post by Archimedes Plutonium
Dan Christensen profile photo
Dan Christensen
5:33 PM, 28Oct2023, sci.math
Students beware: don't be a victim
Yes Dan, just like students are victims to creeps like you with your slant cut of cone a ellipse when in truth that is a oval. But Dan is such a failure of science with his Boole Logic of 2 OR 1 = 3 with AND as subtraction, no wonder Dan is Canada's worst failure of science.
Volney (CIA) selling Univ Western Ontario because they cannot do Water Electrolysis properly-- forgetting to actually weigh the mass of hydrogen compared to oxygen, and stop at observing volume. UWO science is so shoddy of logical reasoning.
Volney, who can weigh
Pauline Barmby, Shantanu Basu, Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown, Blaine Chronik, Robert Cockcroft, John R. de Bruyn, Colin Denniston, Giovanni Fanchini, Sarah Gallagher, Lyudmila Goncharova, Wayne Hocking, Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut, Peter Simpson, Mahi Singh, Paul Wiegert, Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang
the hydrogen and oxygen in Water Electrolysis, for it is unusual that Caltech physics is so shoddy in logical thought as to think of stopping Water Electrolysis by observation of Volume and not weighing the masses.
Dan failures to weigh
Pauline Barmby, Shantanu Basu, Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown, Blaine Chronik, Robert Cockcroft, John R. de Bruyn, Colin Denniston, Giovanni Fanchini, Sarah Gallagher, Lyudmila Goncharova, Wayne Hocking, Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut, Peter Simpson, Mahi Singh, Paul Wiegert, Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang
Weigh the mass of hydrogen and oxygen in Water electrolysis. Too stupid to think clearly that volume is not the same as mass, and the importance of finishing the full experiment to prove water is really H4O, not H2O.
Volney, why cannot Univ Western Ontario finish their water electrolysis experiment to prove Water is really H4O not H2O??
Why Volney can they not finish the water electrolysis experiment to weigh the mass of hydrogen and oxygen?? Because they are so sloppy and slipshod in Physics experiment of Water Electrolysis, stopping and ceasing the experiment before weighing the mass of the hydrogen compared to mass of oxygen. Is it that they are stupid silly thinking volume and mass are the same. For AP needs to prove decisively, if Water is really H4O or H2O. And of course, this experiment would destroy the Standard Model-- that post-diction theory of physics that never gave a single prediction in all of its tenure.
Or is it because they cannot admit the truth of math geometry that slant cut of cone is oval, not ellipse for you need the symmetry of slant cut of cylinder to yield a ellipse.
This is Volney-Kibo Parry Moroney spam (CIA connected drag net spam b.s.), and no matter how much you report it to Google Abuse-- they cannot kick the miscreant out-- I suggest reporting this spam to your Congress-person. Not only do they stalk you for 30 years but destroy the newsgroup they pollute. Just look at sci.chem which is a destroyed newsgroup. The Google Abuse report only hides the miscreant, but the next day-- new fresh b.s.spam is there.
Kibo Parry Moron-Volney blowing his cover with the CIA in 1997
Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
Re: Dan is the Kibo Parry Moroney Volney CIA equivalent for Canada-- using Usenet but destroying newsgroups of science in the process
Univ Toronto, physics, Gordon F. West, Michael B. Walker, Henry M. Van Driel, David J. Rowe, John W. Moffat, John F. Martin, Robert K. Logan, Albert E. Litherland, Roland List, Philipp Kronberg, James King, Anthony W. Key, Bob Holdom, Ron M. Farquhar, R. Nigel Edwards, David J. Dunlop, James Drummond, Tom E. Drake, R.Fraser Code, Richard C. Bailey, Robin Armstrong
Chancellor Rose M. Patten
Pres. Meric Gertler
Univ Toronto math dept
Mustafa Akcoglu, Spyros Alexakis, Edward Barbeau, Thomas Bloom, Man-Duen Choi, Stephen Cook, Chandler Davis, Nicholas Derzko, Eric Ellers, Ilya Gekhtman, Ian Graham, Steve Halpern, Wahidul Haque, Abe Igelfeld, Velimir Jurdjevic, Ivan Kupka, Anthony Lam, Michael Lorimer, James McCool, Eric Mendelsohn, Kunio Murasugi, Jeremy Quastel, Peter Rosenthal, Paul Selick, Dipak Sen, Rick Sharpe, Stuart Smith, Frank Tall, Steve Tanny
Univ Western Ontario math dept
Janusz Adamus, Tatyana Barron, Dan Christensen, Graham Denham, Ajneet Dhillon, Matthias Franz, John Jardine, Massoud Khalkhali, Nicole Lemire, Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner, David Riley, Rasul Shafikov, Gordon Sinnamon
Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz
President Alan Shepard
Amit Chakma (chem engr)
Univ. Western Ontario physics dept
Pauline Barmby, Shantanu Basu, Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown, Blaine Chronik, Robert Cockcroft, John R. de Bruyn, Colin Denniston, Giovanni Fanchini, Sarah Gallagher, Lyudmila Goncharova, Wayne Hocking, Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut, Peter Simpson, Mahi Singh, Paul Wiegert, Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang
Apparently Kibo realized he was a science failure when he could not even do a proper percentage. But then one has to wonder how much he paid to bribe Rensselaer to graduate from the school in engineering unable to do a percentage properly???? For I certainly would not hire a engineer who cannot even do proper percentage.

Physics minnow

What warning is that Kibo Parry failure of science-- warning that insane persons like Kibo Parry Moroney Volney spends their entire life in a hate-mill, never doing anything in science itself.
Kibo Parry Moroney-Volney blowing his cover with the CIA in 1997

Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster

---quoting Wikipedia ---

--- end quote ---

News starting to come in that AP's Water Electrolysis Experiment proves the true formula of Water is H4O, not H2O is starting to come in.

My 250th published book.

Univ Toronto & Western Ontario Uni do only slipshod physics-chemistry experiments of Water Electrolysis, too dumb to weigh the hydrogen & oxygen to see if H4O or H2O

Archimedes Plutonium

2023-05-25 18:10:59 UTC

2-Kibo Parry (M-V) is that why John Baez cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval, not ellipse and why he cannot do a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus???

"Kim Jong Un's lackey" autistically melts
"mindless fuckdog"



My 3rd published book
AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.
Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
•
•
Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 14May2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.
Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.
In the course of 2019 through 2022, I have had to explain this proof often on Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics. And one thing that constant explaining does for a mind of science, is reduce the proof to its stripped down minimum format, to bare bones skeleton proof. I can prove the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse in just a one sentence proof. Proof-- A single cone and oval have just one axis of symmetry, while a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, hence slant cut is always a oval, never the ellipse.
Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 827 KB
• Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 51 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
#12-2, My 11th published book
World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.
Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.
To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?
Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.
Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

Archimedes Plutonium

2023-11-07 04:03:01 UTC

Dan Christensen on John Baez,Dr.Roland List,Dr.Philipp Kronberg,Dr.James King of Univ Toronto as dunce in science as Dan Christensen forgetting to weigh the hydrogen versus oxygen in Water Electrolysis, such slipshod science???

STUDENTS BEWARE: Don't be a victim of

Yes, Dan, would you say Dr.John Baez is a failure of science, unable to finish Water Electrolysis, no wonder John Baez cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval, never ellipse.

Volney (CIA) selling Univ Western Ontario because they cannot do Water Electrolysis properly-- forgetting to actually weigh the mass of hydrogen compared to oxygen, and stop at observing volume. UWO science is so shoddy of logical reasoning.

Volney, who can weigh
Pauline Barmby, Shantanu Basu, Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown, Blaine Chronik, Robert Cockcroft, John R. de Bruyn, Colin Denniston, Giovanni Fanchini, Sarah Gallagher, Lyudmila Goncharova, Wayne Hocking, Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut, Peter Simpson, Mahi Singh, Paul Wiegert, Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang
the hydrogen and oxygen in Water Electrolysis, for it is unusual that Caltech physics is so shoddy in logical thought as to think of stopping Water Electrolysis by observation of Volume and not weighing the masses.

Dan failures to weigh
Pauline Barmby, Shantanu Basu, Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown, Blaine Chronik, Robert Cockcroft, John R. de Bruyn, Colin Denniston, Giovanni Fanchini, Sarah Gallagher, Lyudmila Goncharova, Wayne Hocking, Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut, Peter Simpson, Mahi Singh, Paul Wiegert, Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang
Weigh the mass of hydrogen and oxygen in Water electrolysis. Too stupid to think clearly that volume is not the same as mass, and the importance of finishing the full experiment to prove water is really H4O, not H2O.

Volney, why cannot Univ Western Ontario finish their water electrolysis experiment to prove Water is really H4O not H2O??

Why Volney can they not finish the water electrolysis experiment to weigh the mass of hydrogen and oxygen?? Because they are so sloppy and slipshod in Physics experiment of Water Electrolysis, stopping and ceasing the experiment before weighing the mass of the hydrogen compared to mass of oxygen. Is it that they are stupid silly thinking volume and mass are the same. For AP needs to prove decisively, if Water is really H4O or H2O. And of course, this experiment would destroy the Standard Model-- that post-diction theory of physics that never gave a single prediction in all of its tenure.

Or is it because they cannot admit the truth of math geometry that slant cut of cone is oval, not ellipse for you need the symmetry of slant cut of cylinder to yield a ellipse.

This is Volney-Kibo Parry Moroney spam (CIA connected drag net spam b.s.), and no matter how much you report it to Google Abuse-- they cannot kick the miscreant out-- I suggest reporting this spam to your Congress-person. Not only do they stalk you for 30 years but destroy the newsgroup they pollute. Just look at sci.chem which is a destroyed newsgroup. The Google Abuse report only hides the miscreant, but the next day-- new fresh b.s.spam is there.

Kibo Parry Moron-Volney blowing his cover with the CIA in 1997
Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster
Re: Dan is the Kibo Parry Moroney Volney CIA equivalent for Canada-- using Usenet but destroying newsgroups of science in the process

Univ Toronto, physics, Gordon F. West, Michael B. Walker, Henry M. Van Driel, David J. Rowe, John W. Moffat, John F. Martin, Robert K. Logan, Albert E. Litherland, Roland List, Philipp Kronberg, James King, Anthony W. Key, Bob Holdom, Ron M. Farquhar, R. Nigel Edwards, David J. Dunlop, James Drummond, Tom E. Drake, R.Fraser Code, Richard C. Bailey, Robin Armstrong

Chancellor Rose M. Patten
Pres. Meric Gertler

Univ Toronto math dept
Mustafa Akcoglu, Spyros Alexakis, Edward Barbeau, Thomas Bloom, Man-Duen Choi, Stephen Cook, Chandler Davis, Nicholas Derzko, Eric Ellers, Ilya Gekhtman, Ian Graham, Steve Halpern, Wahidul Haque, Abe Igelfeld, Velimir Jurdjevic, Ivan Kupka, Anthony Lam, Michael Lorimer, James McCool, Eric Mendelsohn, Kunio Murasugi, Jeremy Quastel, Peter Rosenthal, Paul Selick, Dipak Sen, Rick Sharpe, Stuart Smith, Frank Tall, Steve Tanny

Univ Western Ontario math dept
Janusz Adamus, Tatyana Barron, Dan Christensen, Graham Denham, Ajneet Dhillon, Matthias Franz, John Jardine, Massoud Khalkhali, Nicole Lemire, Jan Mináč, Victoria Olds, Martin Pinsonnault, Lex Renner, David Riley, Rasul Shafikov, Gordon Sinnamon

Chancellor Linda Hasenfratz
President Alan Shepard
Amit Chakma (chem engr)

Univ. Western Ontario physics dept
Pauline Barmby, Shantanu Basu, Peter Brown, Alex Buchel, Jan Cami, Margret Campbell-Brown, Blaine Chronik, Robert Cockcroft, John R. de Bruyn, Colin Denniston, Giovanni Fanchini, Sarah Gallagher, Lyudmila Goncharova, Wayne Hocking, Martin Houde, Jeffrey L. Hutter, Carol Jones, Stan Metchev, Silvia Mittler, Els Peeters, Robert Sica, Aaron Sigut, Peter Simpson, Mahi Singh, Paul Wiegert, Eugene Wong, Martin Zinke-Allmang

Apparently Kibo realized he was a science failure when he could not even do a proper percentage. But then one has to wonder how much he paid to bribe Rensselaer to graduate from the school in engineering unable to do a percentage properly???? For I certainly would not hire a engineer who cannot even do proper percentage.

Physics minnow

Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster

---quoting Wikipedia ---

--- end quote ---

News starting to come in that AP's Water Electrolysis Experiment proves the true formula of Water is H4O, not H2O is starting to come in.

My 250th published book.

Univ Toronto & Western Ontario Uni do only slipshod physics-chemistry experiments of Water Electrolysis, too dumb to weigh the hydrogen & oxygen to see if H4O or H2O

Archimedes Plutonium

2023-11-08 06:11:37 UTC

Dan why cannot UCLA finish their Water Electrolysis experiment by actually weighing the masses of hydrogen compared to oxygen or is this what John Baez calls the "No brains of logic in science", for I thought John Baez was at UC Riverside and not UCLA.

WARNING TO STUDENTS: Don't be a victim

Oxford University physics & chemistry
Dr.John Walker, Dr.John Kosterlitz,Dr.John Goodenough (chem),Dr.Roger Penrose,Dr.Douglas Abraham, Dr.Prateek Agrawal,

Volney, why cannot Oxford Uni finish their water electrolysis experiment to prove Water is really H4O not H2O??

Why Volney?? Because they are so sloppy and slipshod in Physics experiment of Water Electrolysis, stopping and ceasing the experiment before weighing the mass of the hydrogen compared to mass of oxygen. Is it that they are stupid silly thinking volume and mass are the same. For AP needs to prove decisively, if Water is really H4O or H2O. And of course, this experiment would destroy the Standard Model-- that post-diction theory of physics that never gave a single prediction in all of its tenure.

Or is it because they are so dishonest of mathematics that they cannot admit slant cut of cone is Oval not ellipse, for you need a cylinder symmetry to have slant cut be ellipse.

Oxford University physics & chemistry
Dr.John Walker, Dr.John Kosterlitz,Dr.John Goodenough (chem),Dr.Roger Penrose,Dr.Douglas Abraham, Dr.Prateek Agrawal, Dr.Wade Allison, Dr.Arzhang Ardavan, Dr.Adam Baird, Dr.Patrick Baird, Dr. Michael Barnes, Dr. Alan Barr, Dr. Giles Barr, Dr. Tony Bell, Dr. Elliot Bentine, Dr. Steve Biller, Dr. James Binney, Dr. Stephen Blundell, Dr. Andrew Boothroyd, Dr. Nick Bultinck, Dr. Philip Burrows, Dr. Simon Calcutt, Dr. Matthew Capstick, Dr. Roger Cashmore, Dr. Andrea Cavalleri, Dr. John Chalker, Dr. Yulin Chen, Dr. Frank Close, Dr.Radu Coldea, Dr. Joseph Conlon, Dr.Susan Cooper, Dr.Garret Cotter, Dr.Richard D'Arcy, Dr. Roger Davies, Dr.Simon Davila Solano, Dr.Seamus Davis, Dr.Frederic Dreyer,Dr.Artur Ekert,Dr.Rik Elliott,Dr.Paul Ewart

UCLA chancellor: Gene D. Block (biology)

UCLA Physics dept
Ernest Abers, Elihu Abrahams, Katsushi Arisaka, Michalis Bachtis
Eric Becklin, Zvi Bern, Rubin Braunstein, Stuart Brown, Robijn Bruinsma
Charles Buchanan, Wesley Campbell, Troy Carter, Sudip Chakravarty
W. Gilbert Clark, John Cornwall, Robert Cousins, Eric D'Hoker
Robert Finkelstein, Christian Fronsdal, Walter Gekelman, Graciela Gelmini
George Gruner, Michael Gutperle, Brad Hansen, Jay Hauser, Karoly Holczer
Huan Huang, Eric Hudson, George Igo, Per Kraus, Alexander Kusenko
Thomas Mason, George Morales, Warren Mori, Steven Moszkowski
Christoph Niemann, Kumar Patel, Roberto Peccei, Claudio Pellegrini
Seth Putterman, B. Regan, James Rosenzweig, Joseph Rudnick
David Saltzberg, William Slater, Reiner Stenzel, Terry Tomboulis, Jean Turner
Willard Libby (chem), Julian Schwinger (physics), Paul Boyer (chem), Andrea Ghez, James Fraser Stoddart (chem), Louis Ignarro (physio-medic)

Apparently Kibo realized he was a science failure when he could not even do a proper percentage. But then one has to wonder how much he paid to bribe Rensselaer to graduate from the school in engineering unable to do a percentage properly???? For I certainly would not hire a engineer who cannot even do proper percentage.

Physics minnow

What warning is that Kibo Parry Moroney Volney failure of science-- warning that insane persons like Kibo Parry Moroney Volney spends their entire life in a hate-mill, never doing anything in science itself.

Kibo Parry Moroney-Volney blowing his cover with the CIA in 1997

Re: Archimedes Vanadium, America's most beloved poster

---quoting Wikipedia ---

--- end quote ---

News starting to come in that AP's Water Electrolysis Experiment proves the true formula of Water is H4O, not H2O is starting to come in.

Aug 30, 2023, 10:19:20 PM (yesterday)
to Plutonium Atom Universe
News starting to come in that AP's Water Electrolysis Experiment proves the true formula of Water is H4O, not H2O is starting to come in.
I received a letter today of Experiment results on Water Electrolysis of weighing the hydrogen test tube versus oxygen test tube and the result is 1/4 atomic mass units of Hydrogen compared to Oxygen.
The researcher weighing 1600 micrograms of hydrogen, using a Eisco-Brownlee-Water-Electrolysis Apparatus.
Using sulfuric acid as electrolyte on ultra pure water. Using low voltage DC of 1.5 volts, 1 amp.
I am not surprised that news of the true formula of Water is H4O comes so quickly. For not much in science is more important than knowing the truth of Water. And this means the start of the complete downfall and throwing out the sick Standard Model of Physics, for it is such an insane theory that it cannot get passed the idea of its subatomic particles as stick and ball, with no job, no function, no task. The Standard Model of Physics, is crazy insane physics for it is all postdiction, never prediction. The idea that the hydrogen atom is H2 not H, is because of the prediction of Atom Totality Theory where a atom is a proton torus with muon inside doing the Faraday law and all atoms require at least 1 capacitor. That means the one proton in H2 serves as a neutron to the other proton, storaging the electricity produced by the other proton.
The true Hydrogen Atom is H2 for all atoms need at least one capacitor, and one of the protons in H2 serves as a neutron.
Sad that chemistry and physics throughout the 20th century were too stupid to actually weigh the mass of hydrogen and oxygen in electrolysis, no, the ignorant fools stopped at looking when they saw the volume of hydrogen was twice that of oxygen. A real scientist is not that shoddy and slipshod ignorant, the real scientist then proceeds with -- let us weigh the hydrogen test tube mass versus the oxygen test tube mass.
Thanks for the news!!!!!
AP
News starting to come in that AP's Water Electrolysis Experiment proves the true formula of Water is H4O, not H2O is starting to come in.
There is another experiment that achieves the same result that Water is truly H4O and not H2O, but I suspect this second method is hugely fraught with difficulty.
The prediction of H4O comes from the Physics idea that a Atom is composed, all atoms mind you, is composed of a proton torus with muon/s inside going round and round thrusting through the torus in the Faraday law and producing electricity. So that when you have Hydrogen without a neutron, there is no way to collect the electricity produced by the Faraday law. Think of it as a automobile engine, you cannot have a engine if there is no crank shaft to collect the energy from the thrusting piston inside the crankcase.
Same thing with an Atom, it needs 3 parts-- muon as bar magnet, proton as torus of coils, and a capacitor to storage the produced electricity. If one of those parts is missing, the entity is a Subatomic particle and not a atom.
So, when we have Hydrogen as a proton with muon inside, it is not a Atom, until it has a neutron, or, has another proton of hydrogen H2, then it is a Atom.
So that H2 is not a molecule but a Atom. H alone is a subatomic particle.
Much harder than Water Electrolysis.
We need to get two identical containers.
We need to be able to make pure heavy-water with deuterium. Deuterium is proton + neutron as hydrogen. Proton + proton is H2 as hydrogen.
So we have two identical containers and we fill one with pure heavy water, deuterium water.
We have the second container and we fill it with pure (light) water.
We now weigh both of them.
If AP is correct, that water is really H4O and not H2O, then both containers should weigh almost the same. Only a tiny fraction difference because the neutron is known to be 940MeV versus proton in Old Physics as 938MeV a tiny difference of 2MeV, but we realize we have a huge number of water molecules in the two identical containers.
If water is truly H4O, the weights should be almost the same. If water is H2O, then there is a **large difference** in weights.
But the Water Electrolysis experiment is much easier to conduct and get results.
And, there is the biological processes that apparently cannot distinguish between heavy water and that of regular normal water.
Deuterium Water is the same in biology as is normal regular water. This means that water must be H4O, due to biology as proof.
Deuterium Water in atomic mass units is 16 for the oxygen and 4 for the deuterium.
Regular normal Water in atomic mass units is 16 for the oxygen and 4 for the 4 protons in H4O.
Old Physics and Old Chemistry had regular water as H2O in atomic mass units of 16 oxygen and 2 hydrogen for 2 protons.
If biology functions whether heavy water or normal water all the same, then water itself must be H4O.
Now, there maybe some animal or plant that can separate out heavy water from H4O water???
Searching the literature today for where biology needs as essential deuterium water. And not too surprised that it is a essential requirement in metabolism. In fact one web site listed the need for deuterium more than the need of many minerals and vitamins.
Now tonight I came up with two new exciting experiments to verify that Water is truly H4O and not H2O.
H4O is 4 protons with muons inside the 840MeV proton toruses.
Deuterium water is DOD. And the difference between D2O and H4O is merely the difference of 4MeV for as last reported, neutron = 940MeV and proton (with muon inside) is 938MeV, a difference of 2MeV but for water is 2+2 = 4MeV.
So these two new experiments take advantage of the fact that what we think is normal regular water is actually very close to heavy water of D2O, with only a 4MeV difference.
EXPERIMENT #3 Water layers in still pond of D2O mixed with H4O (what we thought was H2O.
So in this experiment we get a clear glass container and mix H4O with D2O. If Old Physics is correct, the heavy water should sink rapidly in the container while the light water floats to the top rapidly. And we have some sort of beam of photons that can distinguish D2O from H4O (thought of as H2O. We obtain pure D2O and pure H4O each filling 1/2 of the container. We stir and mix them. And then we observe with the EM beam for separation. If the light water is truly H4O, it takes a long time for the D2O to be on bottom and H4O on top. We measure the time of a settled container and determine this time from the theoretical 4MeV difference should take a long time, whereas if Old Physics is correct, the separation would be almost instantly and quick time.
EXPERIMENT #4 also plays on this minor difference of 4MeV. We devise a sort of squirt gun for D2O and a identical squirt gun for H4O (what we call H2O). We put pure D2O in one squirt gun and the H40 or light water in the other squirt gun. Both guns forcing the water a certain distance.
If AP is correct that light water is really H4O and not H2O as we squirt both guns, where the water lands should be almost the same distance considering H4O is only 4MeV apart from D2O.
If Old Physics and Old Chemistry is correct, then D2O water is 940 + 940 = 1880MeV apart from light water of H2O, and H4O is only 4MeV apart.
So where the squirt gun lands the D2O is a very much shorter distance than a H2O land, but a H4 land distance is nearly the same as the D2O land.
These two experiments are very exciting and would be a very nice confirming evidence to Water Electrolysis actual weighing the mass in atomic mass units.

My 250th published book.

Archimedes Plutonium

2024-01-03 21:04:01 UTC

My 3rd published book

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section // Math proof series, book 1
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

Ever since Ancient Greek Times it was thought the slant cut into a cone is the ellipse. That was false. For the slant cut in every cone is a Oval, never an Ellipse. This book is a proof that the slant cut is a oval, never the ellipse. A slant cut into the Cylinder is in fact a ellipse, but never in a cone.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PLSDQWC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 11, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1621 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 20 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
•
•

Proofs Ellipse is never a Conic section, always a Cylinder section and a Well Defined Oval definition//Student teaches professor series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 14May2022. This is AP's 68th published book of science.

Preface: A similar book on single cone cut is a oval, never a ellipse was published in 11Mar2019 as AP's 3rd published book, but Amazon Kindle converted it to pdf file, and since then, I was never able to edit this pdf file, and decided rather than struggle and waste time, decided to leave it frozen as is in pdf format. Any new news or edition of ellipse is never a conic in single cone is now done in this book. The last thing a scientist wants to do is wade and waddle through format, when all a scientist ever wants to do is science itself. So all my new news and thoughts of Conic Sections is carried out in this 68th book of AP. And believe you me, I have plenty of new news.

In the course of 2019 through 2022, I have had to explain this proof often on Usenet, sci.math and sci.physics. And one thing that constant explaining does for a mind of science, is reduce the proof to its stripped down minimum format, to bare bones skeleton proof. I can prove the slant cut in single cone is a Oval, never the ellipse in just a one sentence proof. Proof-- A single cone and oval have just one axis of symmetry, while a ellipse requires 2 axes of symmetry, hence slant cut is always a oval, never the ellipse.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B081TWQ1G6
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 21, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 827 KB
• Simultaneous device usage ‏ : ‎ Unlimited
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 51 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#12-2, My 11th published book

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus// Math proof series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Last revision was 15Dec2021. This is AP's 11th published book of science.
Preface:
Actually my title is too modest, for the proof that lies within this book makes it the World's First Valid Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, for in my modesty, I just wanted to emphasis that calculus was geometry and needed a geometry proof. Not being modest, there has never been a valid proof of FTC until AP's 2015 proof. This also implies that only a geometry proof of FTC constitutes a valid proof of FTC.

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math so long as they had a huge mass of mistakes, errors, fakes and con-artist trickery such as the "limit analysis". And very surprising that most math professors cannot tell the difference between a "proving something" and that of "analyzing something". As if an analysis is the same as a proof. We often analyze various things each and every day, but few if none of us consider a analysis as a proof. Yet that is what happened in the science of mathematics where they took an analysis and elevated it to the stature of being a proof, when it was never a proof.

To give a Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus requires math be cleaned-up and cleaned-out of most of math's mistakes and errors. So in a sense, a Geometry FTC proof is a exercise in Consistency of all of Mathematics. In order to prove a FTC geometry proof, requires throwing out the error filled mess of Old Math. Can the Reals be the true numbers of mathematics if the Reals cannot deliver a Geometry proof of FTC? Can the functions that are not polynomial functions allow us to give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a Coordinate System in 2D have 4 quadrants and still give a Geometry proof of FTC? Can a equation of mathematics with a number that is _not a positive decimal Grid Number_ all alone on the right side of the equation, at all times, allow us to give a Geometry proof of the FTC?

Cover Picture: Is my hand written, one page geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, the world's first geometry proof of FTC, 2013-2015, by AP.

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQTNHMY
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 14, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 1309 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 154 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #128,729 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#2 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
#134 in Calculus (Books)
#20 in Calculus (Kindle Store)

#12-3, My 24th published book

World's First Proof of Kepler Packing Problem KPP // Math proof series, book 3
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

There has been a alleged proof of KPP by Thomas Hales, but his is a fakery because he does not define what infinity actually means, for it means a borderline between finite and infinite numbers. Thus, KPP was never going to be proven until a well-defined infinity borderline was addressed within the proof. And because infinity has a borderline means that in free space with no borderlines to tackle and contend with, the 12 kissing point density that is the hexagonal close packed is the maximum density. But the truth and reality of Kepler Packing is asking for maximum packing out to infinity. That means you have to contend and fight with the packing of identical spheres up against a wall or border. And so, in tackling that wall, we can shift the hexagonal closed pack to another type of packing, a hybrid type of packing in order to get "maximum packing". So no proof ever of KPP is going to happen unless the proof tackles a infinity border wall. In free-space, a far distance away from a wall barrier of infinity border, then, hexagonal closed pack reigns and is the packing in all of free space-- but, the moment the packing gets nearby the walls of infinity border, then, we re-arrange the hexagonal closed pack to fit in more spheres. Not unlike us packing a suitcase and then rearranging to fit in more.

Cover picture: is a container and so the closed packing must be modified once the border is nearly reached to maximize the number of spheres.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07NMV8NQQ
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 20, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1241 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 60 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#12-4, My 28th published book

World's First Valid Proof of 4 Color Mapping Problem// Math proof series, book 4
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

Now in the math literature it is alleged that Appel & Haken proved this conjecture that 4 colors are sufficient to color all planar maps such that no two adjacent countries have the same color. Appel & Haken's fake proof was a computer proof and it is fake because their method is Indirect Nonexistence method. Unfortunately in the time of Appel & Haken few in mathematics had a firm grip on true Logic, where they did not even know that Boole's logic is fakery with his 3 OR 2 = 5 with 3 AND 2 = 1, when even the local village idiot knows that 3 AND 2 = 5 with 3 OR 2 = either 3 or 2 depending on which is subtracted. But the grave error in logic of Appel & Haken is their use of a utterly fake method of proof-- indirect nonexistence (see my textbook on Reductio Ad Absurdum). Wiles with his alleged proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is another indirect nonexistence as well as Hales's fake proof of Kepler Packing is indirect nonexistence.
Appel & Haken were in a time period when computers used in mathematics was a novelty, and instead of focusing on whether their proof was sound, everyone was dazzled not with the logic argument but the fact of using computers to generate a proof. And of course big big money was attached to this event and so, math is stuck with a fake proof of 4-Color-Mapping. And so, AP starting in around 1993, eventually gives the World's first valid proof of 4-Color-Mapping. Sorry, no computer fanfare, but just strict logical and sound argument.

Cover picture: Shows four countries colored yellow, red, green, purple and all four are mutually adjacent. And where the Purple colored country is landlocked, so that if it were considered that a 5th color is needed, that 5th color should be purple, hence, 4 colors are sufficient.

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PZ2Y5RV
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 23, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 1183 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 34 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#12-5, My 6th published book

World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

Last revision was 29Apr2021. This is AP's 6th published book.

Preface: Truthful proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem// including the fake Euler proof in exp3 and Wiles fake proof.

Recap summary: In 1993 I proved Fermat's Last Theorem with a pure algebra proof, arguing that because of the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4 that this special feature of a unique number 4, allows for there to exist solutions to A^2 + B^2 = C^2. That the number 4 is a basis vector allowing more solutions to exist in exponent 2. But since there is no number with N+N+N = N*N*N that exists, there cannot be a solution in exp3 and the same argument for higher exponents. In 2014, I went and proved Generalized FLT by using "condensed rectangles". Once I had proven Generalized, then Regular FLT comes out of that proof as a simple corollary. So I had two proofs of Regular FLT, pure algebra and a corollary from Generalized FLT. Then recently in 2019, I sought to find a pure algebra proof of Generalized FLT, and I believe I accomplished that also by showing solutions to Generalized FLT also come from the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4. Amazing how so much math comes from the specialness of 4, where I argue that a Vector Space of multiplication provides the Generalized FLT of A^x + B^y = C^z.

Cover Picture: In my own handwriting, some Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem type of equations.

As for the Euler exponent 3 invalid proof and the Wiles invalid FLT, both are missing a proof of the case of all three A,B,C are evens (see in the text).

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQKGW4M
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1503 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 156 pages
• Best Sellers Rank: #4,327,817 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #589 in Number Theory (Kindle Store)
◦ #3,085 in Number Theory (Books)

#12-6, 19th published book

World's First Proof of Collatz Conjecture// Math proof series, book 6
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

Last revision was 14May2022. This is AP's 19th published book.

Preface: Old Math's Collatz conjecture, 1937, was this: If you land on an even number, you divide by 2 until you come to an odd number. If you come to or land on an odd number, you do a 3N+1 then proceed further. The conjecture then says that no matter what number you start with, it ends up being 1.

What the Collatz proof of math tells us, is that so very often mathematicians pose a conjecture in which their initial formulation of the conjecture is murky, obfuscation and poorly designed statement. Such poorly designed statements can never be proven true or false. An example that comes to mind of another poorly designed conjecture is the No Odd Perfect Conjecture, in which the statement is obfuscation of factors. So for the odd number 9, is it 1+3, or is it 1+ 3 + 3. So when a mathematics conjecture is full of obfuscation and error in the statement, then these type of conjectures never have a proof. And takes a person with a logical mind to fix and straighten out the conjecture statement and then provide a proof, thereof.

A return to my Collatz proof in 2022, allowed me a second proof of Collatz with only 3N+1, in a mathematical induction proof, using the Decimal Grid System of Numbers. The true numbers of mathematics are the Decimal Grid System Numbers and this allows a Collatz proof of stand alone 3N+1.

Cover picture: when I think of Collatz, I think of a slide, a slide down and so my French curve is the best slide I can think of, other than a slide-ruler, but a slide ruler is slide across.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PS98K5H
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 16, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1990 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 113 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #212,131 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #4 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #9 in Number Theory (Kindle Store)
◦ #32 in Number Theory (Books)

#12-7, My 20th published book
World's First Proofs that No Perfect Cuboid Exists// Math proof series, book 7
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

Someone on the Internet posed the unproven No Perfect Cuboid, and so I took up the challenge. I am usually a sucker for geometry riddles, more so than number theory. So I obliged. Then by 2014 I proved the matter and looking back at it now in 2019, I really really do not see what all the fuss was about-- that it was not that hard not hard at all. You just have to look carefully at sets of 4 right triangles and find an Impossibility Construction, why you cannot have those 4 right triangles all with positive integer numbers for their 3 sides. But the proof method is so hugely important in math-- impossibility of construction. And, please, do not confuse that method with Reductio Ad Absurdum, for RAA is not a valid proof method in mathematics (see my logic book on RAA). But, the method of Impossible Construction, although it might look like RAA, is totally different and fully valid in all aspects.

But now, in hindsight in March 2019, writing this up, I see a very close connection of No Perfect Cuboid to that of Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem with its equation of A^x + B^y = C^z and the way I proved Generalized FLT was with "condensed rectangles" and the No Perfect Cuboid is a 3rd Dimension object but it is 4 rectangles of 4 right triangles we inspect. And we can pursue that connection between Generalized FLT and No Perfect Cuboid further, but not now.

Cover Picture: Is that of 4 rectangular boxes, 2 of which are cubes sitting atop a book page of the Cubic Set for the Transuranium Atoms, from the textbook "The Elements Beyond Uranium" , Seaborg, Loveland, 1990. I am always looking for connections.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PMZQNNT
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 16, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1382 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 61 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#12-8, My 21st published book

World's First Proofs of Mathematics Oldest Unsolved Problems: No Odd Perfect and Finiteness of Perfect Numbers // Math proof series, book 8
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

Last revision was 26Apr2021. And this is AP's 21st published book.

Preface: Now my history with these proofs goes back to 1991 to 1993, and have been finessing the proofs ever since. Some math proofs just nag nag and nag you. They just cannot be settled still. Their proof is a tiny tiny sliver of impossibility that is easily overlooked. Like an optical illusion that you are mislead into, or like those pictures where you look at it one way and you see a young lady and another way you see a very old lady.

Now the No Odd Perfect Number is not a important proof in mathematics but mostly a spectacle for it does not teach much beyond making proper correct definitions. And murky definitions is what held a proof of No Odd Perfect, other than 1, held it back. The murky definition of factors, do we include 1 or not include, for example the odd number 9, do we include 3 twice or once for that we have 1* 9 and we have 3*3 and Old Math looked at that as 1 + 3, whereas I would look at that as 1 + 3 + 3. So when you have messy definitions, murky and messy, of course no proof will be found in over 2,000 years.

Cover Picture: Shows our modern day new reality of the situation where the definition of "perfect" was a Ancient Greek idea, steeped in murky messy idea of factors and when to add factors, that no longer is suitable for mathematics.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PN1CPRP
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 16, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1534 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 28 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#12-9, My 15th published book

World's First Proofs of Infinitude of Twin-Primes, and Polignac Proved // Math proof series, book 9
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

Last revision was September 2023. And this is AP's 15th published book of science.

Preface: Much has changed in the general ideas of Logical Math Proofs, since 1991, when I first wrote a proof of Infinitude of Twin Primes. And by 2023, as I revise this book, I need to incorporate those changes. Even my outlook on what Primes are in mathematics, as a vague and incoherent set.
Many in math would be surprised to hear me say that Primes of mathematics is a vague incoherent set. But from 1991 when I first penned a Old Math proof of Infinitude of Twin Primes, so much has changed about what is a valid math proof and what are these curious numbers we call Primes. This book is my history of my encounter and battling of a very old conjecture-- the infinitude of twin primes.

Cover Picture: Is a picture of the first five twin-primes.

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PMY1YWB
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 15, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 1664 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
Print length ‏ : ‎ 38 pages

#12-10, 16th published book

World's First Proofs of Goldbach, Legendre, Staircase Conjectures// Math proof series, book 10
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

Last revision was September 2023. And this is AP's 16th published book of science.

Preface: AP proved the Goldbach Conjecture starting 1993 where the Algebra Columns is the bedrock-key of the proof involved. The Algebra Column Array is the tool and no-one was going to prove Goldbach unless they had that tool, which the 2014 post of mine makes the array tool crystal clear. So starting 1993, I posted to sci.math about Array or Algebra Column which as a tool would render all proofs of this nature. The Goldbach conjecture historically dates back to 1742, and the Legendre conjecture dates 1752-1833. The Staircase conjecture is a wholly new conjecture proposed by AP circa 2016.

Cover: Is an Algebra Column Array sequence starting with 6 Array and then 8 Array.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PS6MR48
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 15, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1743 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 44 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #148,852 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#4 in Number Theory (Kindle Store)
#38 in Number Theory (Books)
#7 in One-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
 

#12-11, My 25th published book.

Disproof of Riemann Hypothesis // Math proof series, book 11
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

Last revision was September 2023. This is AP's 25th published book of science.

Preface: The Riemann Hypothesis was a conjecture never able to be proven and for good reason, for it was the last symptom of a rampant disease inside of mathematics. Old Math did not have the true numbers that compose mathematics. Old Math had a rag-tag ugly collection of fake numbers with their Reals, their Negative numbers compounded with Rationals compounded with Irrationals and then adding on the Imaginary. These are fake numbers, when the true numbers of mathematics are the Decimal Grid Numbers. Because Old Math uses fake numbers, is the reason that Riemann Hypothesis just languished, languished and languished. You cannot prove something riddled in fakery. Below I demonstrate why having fake numbers in math, creates fake proofs, fake theorems, and creates a conjecture that can never be proven.

Cover picture: Riemann Hypothesis deals with fake numbers of mathematics. When what is needed is the true numbers-- Decimal Grid Numbers. We learn Decimal Grid Numbers when very young, when just toddlers, wood counting blocks. All the true numbers of mathematics come from Mathematical Induction-- counting. Mathematical Induction is utterly absent in the Riemann Hypothesis, when it should be central to the hypothesis.

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PVDS1RC
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 20, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 1489 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 77 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #5,118,638 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #643 in Number Theory (Kindle Store)
◦ #1,398 in One-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #3,559 in Number Theory (Books)
 
#12-12, My 152nd published book.
The 6th Regular Polyhedron-- hexagonal faces at infinity is nonexistent // Math proof series, book 12
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

Last revision was 2Aug2022. And this is AP's 152nd published book of science.

Preface: I started this book in September 2021, and not until July 2022, did I uncover my gross error-- the nonexistence of the 6th Regular Polyhedron. I so much wanted there to be a 6th regular polyhedron and looking in the Internet, the world wide web, are many images of a cell of 7 regular hexagons, a central hexagon surrounded by 6 more regular hexagons tiling a sphere surface. Plenty of these images, but the tipping point for me is the Goldberg polyhedron, here again the cell of 7 regular hexagons tiling a sphere surface. And so, using that 7 cell as supporting evidence of the existence of a 6th Regular Polyhedron, AP proceeds to publish such. Even though I knew of the University of Utah beware caution web page stating that a vertex of 3 regular polygons is an angle of 120 +120+120= 360 degrees and thus laying flat as a plane, no bending, hence no tiling a sphere.

So I published this book in Sept2021, and not until July2022, needing a coordinate system of points on a sphere for my Ecology book "_Complete Ecology_ with Generalized Faraday Law and revised food chain // Ecology science". That I finally realize my mistake-- Uof U completely correct, and why on Earth did I want to believe Goldberg polyhedron and all those fake geometry images of regular hexagons tiling a sphere surface. This is a massive computer problem of our times, in that it is super easy to make optical illusions in geometry and filling web sites with fake geometry images.

Well, AP was fooled and fell victim to computer graphics showing where a sphere surface tiling of a central regular hexagon and surrounded by 6 more regular hexagons. There are many pictures and images of a sphere tiling on the Internet of 7 regular hexagons, a central one and surrounded and encircled by 6 more regular hexagons. There is even geometry of what is called Goldberg polyhedron with more pictures and images, all deceptive, all wrong. So this book ends up about the theme of how deceptive computer imaging can be, and not what AP hoped for-- the existence of a regular polyhedra with regular hexagon faces.

If it were true that a cell of 7 regular polygons has a bend to it, so that it can eventually circle around a sphere surface, then my first publication of this book would have been true. But instead, the truth is the nonexistence of the 6th Regular Polyhedron.

Cover Picture: is my iphone photograph of a soccer ball of 20 hexagons, 12 pentagons; and a glass ball covered by netting of tiny hexagons. Both objects I use in experiments of trying to prove the 6th Regular Polyhedron only it is nonexistent as I eventually found in July 2022.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09K4PWKVK
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ October 21, 2021
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 853 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 91 pages

#12-13, My 207th published book.

Building the Axioms of Mathematics, thereby the Rational Numbers are proven fake// Math proofs

by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Kindle edition)

Preface: In this, my 207th published book of science, I detail what the first three axioms (postulates) of mathematics Algebra-Numbers must be. And by doing so, I discover that Time is an essential ingredient in mathematics for the first axiom of Algebra-Numbers is the creation of Counting Numbers which is not a concept of quantity but a concept of Ordered Sequence, which is Time. And Time-- an Ordered-Sequence comes way before Quantity. Of course, in this book I prove the Rationals of Old Math are fake numbers,--- what I mean by fake, is that they are not primal numbers but derivations, derivates of primal numbers -- the Decimal Grid Numbers. Old Math Rationals are simply a division exercise unfinished by a lazy person. And since Rationals are fake numbers, secondary numbers means the Reals of Old Math are fake numbers since the Reals are built from Rationals.

I have written a remarkable book here. I started out with the intent of proving that Rational Numbers were not the true numbers of mathematics, but a unfinished division exercise, by lazy persons doing math. A proof came in my work. But what I discovered that is so remarkable, is that the Axioms of Numbers require a Order Sequence first, and only secondly does Quantity pop-out and enter the picture. This Order-Sequence is of course Time in physics.

Cover Picture: My iphone photograph of a Google search hits on "Euclid postulates axioms".

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0BGH88WFT
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ September 25, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 563 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 34 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#12-14, My 160th published book.

MATHOPEDIA-- List of 82 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// mathematics & logic
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

Preface:
A Mathopedia is like a special type of encyclopedia on the subject of mathematics. It is about the assessment of the worth of mathematics and the subject material of mathematics. It is a overall examination and a evaluation of mathematics and its topics.

The ordering of Mathopedia is not a alphabetic ordering, nor does it have a index. The ordering is purely that of importance at beginning and importance at end.

The greatest use of Mathopedia is a guide to students of what not to waste your time on and what to focus most of your time. I know so many college classes in mathematics are just a total waste of time, waste of valuable time for the class is math fakery. I know because I have been there.

Now I am going to cite various reference sources of AP books if anyone wants more details and can be seen in the Appendix at the end of the book.

I suppose, going forward, mathematics should always have a mathopedia, where major parts of mathematics as a science are held under scrutiny and question as to correctness. In past history we have called these incidents as "doubters of the mainstream". Yet math, like physics, can have no permanent mainstream, since there is always question of correctness in physics, there then corresponds questions of correctness in mathematics (because math is a subset of physics). What I mean is that each future generation corrects some mistakes of past mathematics. If anyone is unsure of what I am saying here, both math and physics need constant correcting, of that which never belonged in science. This then converges with the logic-philosophy of Pragmatism (see AP's book of logic on Pragmatism).

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09MZTLRL5 and ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09ZWFLKHC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 2, 2021
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1155 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 70 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

y z
| /
| /
|/______ x

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium

More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet. If you, the reader, is wondering why AP posts this to a thread which is off topic in sci.math or sci.physics, is because some stalkers track AP, such as kibo, dan, jan who have been paid to stalk for 3 decades and when they see AP trying to post to his own thread that is on-topic they throw a impossible reCAPTcha suppression and repression at me that only wastes my time. From what AP can make out-- Google is not the only one using reCAPTcha, apparently the US govt rents out reCAPTcha. So if you see a AP post in a thread off topic, is because kooks of reCAPTcha are making it impossible for AP to post to the on-topic thread.

Read all of AP's post in peace and quiet in his newsgroup-- what sci.physics and sci.math should look like when govt spammers are not allowed in a newsgroup to wreck the newsgroup. Govt spammers have their agenda of drag net spam, and then their agenda of spy message codes, such as the "i sick, i cry" baloney, which only ends up ruining the newsgroups and why Google decided to close shop having fought govt bureaucrat mind sets for 30 years, and time to close shop.

AP kindly asks Google to let AP run all three, sci.math, sci.physics, PAU as he runs PAU, now--- all pure science, no spam and no govt b.s.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium

Archimedes Plutonium

2024-01-06 18:37:30 UTC

That was 1993 and my understanding of "infinite" had not yet matured and crystallized until later in 2000s when I discovered you need a Infinity Borderline to well define what infinity means. Back in 1993, I was using p-adic integers, which is not much better than Old Math's ill-defined infinity-- a infinity that has no borderline between finite to infinite. This is one of the reasons all of Old Math is sewer trash as they continually use a ill-defined infinity. You can see it quite readily with Old Math's limit concept to hornswaggle a fake proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.

This is the updated True Proof of Fermat's Last Theorem.

My 6th published book

World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 // Math proof series, book 5 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

Last revision was 29Apr2021. This is AP's 6th published book.

Preface: Truthful proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem// including the fake Euler proof in exp3 and Wiles fake proof.

Recap summary: In 1993 I proved Fermat's Last Theorem with a pure algebra proof, arguing that because of the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4 that this special feature of a unique number 4, allows for there to exist solutions to A^2 + B^2 = C^2. That the number 4 is a basis vector allowing more solutions to exist in exponent 2. But since there is no number with N+N+N = N*N*N that exists, there cannot be a solution in exp3 and the same argument for higher exponents. In 2014, I went and proved Generalized FLT by using "condensed rectangles". Once I had proven Generalized, then Regular FLT comes out of that proof as a simple corollary. So I had two proofs of Regular FLT, pure algebra and a corollary from Generalized FLT. Then recently in 2019, I sought to find a pure algebra proof of Generalized FLT, and I believe I accomplished that also by showing solutions to Generalized FLT also come from the special number 4 where 2 + 2 = 2^2 = 2*2 = 4. Amazing how so much math comes from the specialness of 4, where I argue that a Vector Space of multiplication provides the Generalized FLT of A^x + B^y = C^z.

Cover Picture: In my own handwriting, some Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem type of equations.

As for the Euler exponent 3 invalid proof and the Wiles invalid FLT, both are missing a proof of the case of all three A,B,C are evens (see in the text).

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PQKGW4M
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 12, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1503 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 156 pages
• Best Sellers Rank: #4,327,817 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #589 in Number Theory (Kindle Store)
◦ #3,085 in Number Theory (Books)

#12-6, 19th published book

World's First Proof of Collatz Conjecture// Math proof series, book 6
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

Last revision was 14May2022. This is AP's 19th published book.

Preface: Old Math's Collatz conjecture, 1937, was this: If you land on an even number, you divide by 2 until you come to an odd number. If you come to or land on an odd number, you do a 3N+1 then proceed further. The conjecture then says that no matter what number you start with, it ends up being 1.

What the Collatz proof of math tells us, is that so very often mathematicians pose a conjecture in which their initial formulation of the conjecture is murky, obfuscation and poorly designed statement. Such poorly designed statements can never be proven true or false. An example that comes to mind of another poorly designed conjecture is the No Odd Perfect Conjecture, in which the statement is obfuscation of factors. So for the odd number 9, is it 1+3, or is it 1+ 3 + 3. So when a mathematics conjecture is full of obfuscation and error in the statement, then these type of conjectures never have a proof. And takes a person with a logical mind to fix and straighten out the conjecture statement and then provide a proof, thereof.

A return to my Collatz proof in 2022, allowed me a second proof of Collatz with only 3N+1, in a mathematical induction proof, using the Decimal Grid System of Numbers. The true numbers of mathematics are the Decimal Grid System Numbers and this allows a Collatz proof of stand alone 3N+1.

Cover picture: when I think of Collatz, I think of a slide, a slide down and so my French curve is the best slide I can think of, other than a slide-ruler, but a slide ruler is slide across.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PS98K5H
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 16, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1990 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 113 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Best Sellers Rank: #212,131 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #4 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #9 in Number Theory (Kindle Store)
◦ #32 in Number Theory (Books)

#12-7, My 20th published book
World's First Proofs that No Perfect Cuboid Exists// Math proof series, book 7
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

Someone on the Internet posed the unproven No Perfect Cuboid, and so I took up the challenge. I am usually a sucker for geometry riddles, more so than number theory. So I obliged. Then by 2014 I proved the matter and looking back at it now in 2019, I really really do not see what all the fuss was about-- that it was not that hard not hard at all. You just have to look carefully at sets of 4 right triangles and find an Impossibility Construction, why you cannot have those 4 right triangles all with positive integer numbers for their 3 sides. But the proof method is so hugely important in math-- impossibility of construction. And, please, do not confuse that method with Reductio Ad Absurdum, for RAA is not a valid proof method in mathematics (see my logic book on RAA). But, the method of Impossible Construction, although it might look like RAA, is totally different and fully valid in all aspects.

But now, in hindsight in March 2019, writing this up, I see a very close connection of No Perfect Cuboid to that of Generalized Fermat's Last Theorem with its equation of A^x + B^y = C^z and the way I proved Generalized FLT was with "condensed rectangles" and the No Perfect Cuboid is a 3rd Dimension object but it is 4 rectangles of 4 right triangles we inspect. And we can pursue that connection between Generalized FLT and No Perfect Cuboid further, but not now.

Cover Picture: Is that of 4 rectangular boxes, 2 of which are cubes sitting atop a book page of the Cubic Set for the Transuranium Atoms, from the textbook "The Elements Beyond Uranium" , Seaborg, Loveland, 1990. I am always looking for connections.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PMZQNNT
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 16, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1382 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 61 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#12-8, My 21st published book

World's First Proofs of Mathematics Oldest Unsolved Problems: No Odd Perfect and Finiteness of Perfect Numbers // Math proof series, book 8
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

Last revision was 26Apr2021. And this is AP's 21st published book.

Preface: Now my history with these proofs goes back to 1991 to 1993, and have been finessing the proofs ever since. Some math proofs just nag nag and nag you. They just cannot be settled still. Their proof is a tiny tiny sliver of impossibility that is easily overlooked. Like an optical illusion that you are mislead into, or like those pictures where you look at it one way and you see a young lady and another way you see a very old lady.

Now the No Odd Perfect Number is not a important proof in mathematics but mostly a spectacle for it does not teach much beyond making proper correct definitions. And murky definitions is what held a proof of No Odd Perfect, other than 1, held it back. The murky definition of factors, do we include 1 or not include, for example the odd number 9, do we include 3 twice or once for that we have 1* 9 and we have 3*3 and Old Math looked at that as 1 + 3, whereas I would look at that as 1 + 3 + 3. So when you have messy definitions, murky and messy, of course no proof will be found in over 2,000 years.

Cover Picture: Shows our modern day new reality of the situation where the definition of "perfect" was a Ancient Greek idea, steeped in murky messy idea of factors and when to add factors, that no longer is suitable for mathematics.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PN1CPRP
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 16, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1534 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 28 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#12-9, My 15th published book

World's First Proofs of Infinitude of Twin-Primes, and Polignac Proved // Math proof series, book 9
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

Last revision was September 2023. And this is AP's 15th published book of science.

Preface: Much has changed in the general ideas of Logical Math Proofs, since 1991, when I first wrote a proof of Infinitude of Twin Primes. And by 2023, as I revise this book, I need to incorporate those changes. Even my outlook on what Primes are in mathematics, as a vague and incoherent set.
Many in math would be surprised to hear me say that Primes of mathematics is a vague incoherent set. But from 1991 when I first penned a Old Math proof of Infinitude of Twin Primes, so much has changed about what is a valid math proof and what are these curious numbers we call Primes. This book is my history of my encounter and battling of a very old conjecture-- the infinitude of twin primes.

Cover Picture: Is a picture of the first five twin-primes.

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PMY1YWB
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 15, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 1664 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Sticky notes ‏ : ‎ On Kindle Scribe
Print length ‏ : ‎ 38 pages

#12-10, 16th published book

World's First Proofs of Goldbach, Legendre, Staircase Conjectures// Math proof series, book 10
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

Last revision was September 2023. And this is AP's 16th published book of science.

Preface: AP proved the Goldbach Conjecture starting 1993 where the Algebra Columns is the bedrock-key of the proof involved. The Algebra Column Array is the tool and no-one was going to prove Goldbach unless they had that tool, which the 2014 post of mine makes the array tool crystal clear. So starting 1993, I posted to sci.math about Array or Algebra Column which as a tool would render all proofs of this nature. The Goldbach conjecture historically dates back to 1742, and the Legendre conjecture dates 1752-1833. The Staircase conjecture is a wholly new conjecture proposed by AP circa 2016.

Cover: Is an Algebra Column Array sequence starting with 6 Array and then 8 Array.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PS6MR48
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 15, 2019
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1743 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 44 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #148,852 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
#4 in Number Theory (Kindle Store)
#38 in Number Theory (Books)
#7 in One-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
 

#12-11, My 25th published book.

Disproof of Riemann Hypothesis // Math proof series, book 11
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

Last revision was September 2023. This is AP's 25th published book of science.

Preface: The Riemann Hypothesis was a conjecture never able to be proven and for good reason, for it was the last symptom of a rampant disease inside of mathematics. Old Math did not have the true numbers that compose mathematics. Old Math had a rag-tag ugly collection of fake numbers with their Reals, their Negative numbers compounded with Rationals compounded with Irrationals and then adding on the Imaginary. These are fake numbers, when the true numbers of mathematics are the Decimal Grid Numbers. Because Old Math uses fake numbers, is the reason that Riemann Hypothesis just languished, languished and languished. You cannot prove something riddled in fakery. Below I demonstrate why having fake numbers in math, creates fake proofs, fake theorems, and creates a conjecture that can never be proven.

Cover picture: Riemann Hypothesis deals with fake numbers of mathematics. When what is needed is the true numbers-- Decimal Grid Numbers. We learn Decimal Grid Numbers when very young, when just toddlers, wood counting blocks. All the true numbers of mathematics come from Mathematical Induction-- counting. Mathematical Induction is utterly absent in the Riemann Hypothesis, when it should be central to the hypothesis.

Product details
ASIN ‏ : ‎ B07PVDS1RC
Publication date ‏ : ‎ March 20, 2019
Language ‏ : ‎ English
File size ‏ : ‎ 1489 KB
Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
Print length ‏ : ‎ 77 pages
Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled
Best Sellers Rank: #5,118,638 in Kindle Store (See Top 100 in Kindle Store)
◦ #643 in Number Theory (Kindle Store)
◦ #1,398 in One-Hour Science & Math Short Reads
◦ #3,559 in Number Theory (Books)
 
#12-12, My 152nd published book.
The 6th Regular Polyhedron-- hexagonal faces at infinity is nonexistent // Math proof series, book 12
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

Last revision was 2Aug2022. And this is AP's 152nd published book of science.

Preface: I started this book in September 2021, and not until July 2022, did I uncover my gross error-- the nonexistence of the 6th Regular Polyhedron. I so much wanted there to be a 6th regular polyhedron and looking in the Internet, the world wide web, are many images of a cell of 7 regular hexagons, a central hexagon surrounded by 6 more regular hexagons tiling a sphere surface. Plenty of these images, but the tipping point for me is the Goldberg polyhedron, here again the cell of 7 regular hexagons tiling a sphere surface. And so, using that 7 cell as supporting evidence of the existence of a 6th Regular Polyhedron, AP proceeds to publish such. Even though I knew of the University of Utah beware caution web page stating that a vertex of 3 regular polygons is an angle of 120 +120+120= 360 degrees and thus laying flat as a plane, no bending, hence no tiling a sphere.

So I published this book in Sept2021, and not until July2022, needing a coordinate system of points on a sphere for my Ecology book "_Complete Ecology_ with Generalized Faraday Law and revised food chain // Ecology science". That I finally realize my mistake-- Uof U completely correct, and why on Earth did I want to believe Goldberg polyhedron and all those fake geometry images of regular hexagons tiling a sphere surface. This is a massive computer problem of our times, in that it is super easy to make optical illusions in geometry and filling web sites with fake geometry images.

Well, AP was fooled and fell victim to computer graphics showing where a sphere surface tiling of a central regular hexagon and surrounded by 6 more regular hexagons. There are many pictures and images of a sphere tiling on the Internet of 7 regular hexagons, a central one and surrounded and encircled by 6 more regular hexagons. There is even geometry of what is called Goldberg polyhedron with more pictures and images, all deceptive, all wrong. So this book ends up about the theme of how deceptive computer imaging can be, and not what AP hoped for-- the existence of a regular polyhedra with regular hexagon faces.

If it were true that a cell of 7 regular polygons has a bend to it, so that it can eventually circle around a sphere surface, then my first publication of this book would have been true. But instead, the truth is the nonexistence of the 6th Regular Polyhedron.

Cover Picture: is my iphone photograph of a soccer ball of 20 hexagons, 12 pentagons; and a glass ball covered by netting of tiny hexagons. Both objects I use in experiments of trying to prove the 6th Regular Polyhedron only it is nonexistent as I eventually found in July 2022.

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09K4PWKVK
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ October 21, 2021
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 853 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 91 pages

#12-13, My 207th published book.

Building the Axioms of Mathematics, thereby the Rational Numbers are proven fake// Math proofs

by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Kindle edition)

Preface: In this, my 207th published book of science, I detail what the first three axioms (postulates) of mathematics Algebra-Numbers must be. And by doing so, I discover that Time is an essential ingredient in mathematics for the first axiom of Algebra-Numbers is the creation of Counting Numbers which is not a concept of quantity but a concept of Ordered Sequence, which is Time. And Time-- an Ordered-Sequence comes way before Quantity. Of course, in this book I prove the Rationals of Old Math are fake numbers,--- what I mean by fake, is that they are not primal numbers but derivations, derivates of primal numbers -- the Decimal Grid Numbers. Old Math Rationals are simply a division exercise unfinished by a lazy person. And since Rationals are fake numbers, secondary numbers means the Reals of Old Math are fake numbers since the Reals are built from Rationals.

I have written a remarkable book here. I started out with the intent of proving that Rational Numbers were not the true numbers of mathematics, but a unfinished division exercise, by lazy persons doing math. A proof came in my work. But what I discovered that is so remarkable, is that the Axioms of Numbers require a Order Sequence first, and only secondly does Quantity pop-out and enter the picture. This Order-Sequence is of course Time in physics.

Cover Picture: My iphone photograph of a Google search hits on "Euclid postulates axioms".

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B0BGH88WFT
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ September 25, 2022
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 563 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 34 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

#12-14, My 160th published book.

MATHOPEDIA-- List of 82 fakes and mistakes of Old Math// mathematics & logic
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author) (Amazon's Kindle)

Preface:
A Mathopedia is like a special type of encyclopedia on the subject of mathematics. It is about the assessment of the worth of mathematics and the subject material of mathematics. It is a overall examination and a evaluation of mathematics and its topics.

The ordering of Mathopedia is not a alphabetic ordering, nor does it have a index. The ordering is purely that of importance at beginning and importance at end.

The greatest use of Mathopedia is a guide to students of what not to waste your time on and what to focus most of your time. I know so many college classes in mathematics are just a total waste of time, waste of valuable time for the class is math fakery. I know because I have been there.

Now I am going to cite various reference sources of AP books if anyone wants more details and can be seen in the Appendix at the end of the book.

I suppose, going forward, mathematics should always have a mathopedia, where major parts of mathematics as a science are held under scrutiny and question as to correctness. In past history we have called these incidents as "doubters of the mainstream". Yet math, like physics, can have no permanent mainstream, since there is always question of correctness in physics, there then corresponds questions of correctness in mathematics (because math is a subset of physics). What I mean is that each future generation corrects some mistakes of past mathematics. If anyone is unsure of what I am saying here, both math and physics need constant correcting, of that which never belonged in science. This then converges with the logic-philosophy of Pragmatism (see AP's book of logic on Pragmatism).

Product details
• ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09MZTLRL5 and ASIN ‏ : ‎ B09ZWFLKHC
• Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 2, 2021
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• File size ‏ : ‎ 1155 KB
• Text-to-Speech ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• Screen Reader ‏ : ‎ Supported
• Enhanced typesetting ‏ : ‎ Enabled
• X-Ray ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Word Wise ‏ : ‎ Not Enabled
• Print length ‏ : ‎ 70 pages
• Lending ‏ : ‎ Enabled

y z
| /
| /
|/______ x

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe
Archimedes Plutonium

More people reading and viewing AP's newsgroup than viewing sci.math, sci.physics. So AP has decided to put all NEW WORK, to his newsgroup. And there is little wonder because in AP's newsgroups, there is only solid pure science going on, not a gang of hate spewing misfits blighting the skies.

Archimedes Plutonium

2024-01-10 05:22:12 UTC