On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 2:31:46 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

Must you post garbage?

--
Jan

On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 10:17:38 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Dan Christensen writes:
> 8:42 PM (28 minutes ago)
>
>
> Use any aids. Answer in the space provided.
>
> 1. What is the sine of 45 degrees to 3 decimal places?    ____________
>  
> 2. True or false:  10^604 = 0    ____________
>  
> 3. If A is true and B is false, then A AND B is ____________ (true or false).
>
> 4. If A is true and B is true, then A OR B is ____________ (true or false).
>
>

You left all the answers blank on your test, Archie. Why is that?


> Dan
>
> AP writes:: Terry, here is a test that I think the Canadian Dan Christensen of Univ Western Ontario, or a doppelganger put together. Maybe you can use it in class.
>

It would be an insult to his students, but each of these 4 simple questions are from well known specialties of yours, Archie. You have repeatedly dwelled at length on each one of them. How about it, Archie? For the record.


Dan

On Monday, March 19, 2018 at 10:23:34 PM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 4:31:46 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
> >

> > Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test for the past 30 years in General Science (each generation has its science test, and ours is Global Warming). It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist in the first place, never, and science is not for you.
> >
> > Now, Math has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed.
> >
> > MATH TEST::
> >
> > Can you provide a Geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? If not, well, you flunked mathematics.
> > Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.
> >
> > But Terence Tao stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Tao thought he was good at Number theory, but it turns out. That Tao was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because the Ancient Greeks thought they discovered "irrational number" in the square root of 2. Turns out, their proof was fakery and even Stillwell's (see my posts) Anthyphairesis Re: Stillwell gave another phony proof sqrt2 irrational Re: analyzing why the Ancient Greek proof that sqrt2 is irrational is flawed. Tao is a symptom of the disease in Old Math, where only publication math is looked at, yet the publication of math was so awfully corrupt, corrupt to the teeth. That the true blue true math was never looked at. Math Journal Publication was one of Earth's most vile corrupt systems imaginable. And only now, with the aid of the Internet, are corrupt math and science being exposed. Tao is part of an old corrupt system-- never able to fix mistakes in math, only able to pollute math further with his idiot-math-full of error.
> >
> >
> > SEE PICTURE DIAGRAM of FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS below, professors hate teaching this for it shows their "limit calculus to be a joke"
> >
> > PICTURE DIAGRAM OF FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS
> >
> > By April 2015, was there for the first time a picture diagram proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC, not just an analysis argument, but a geometry proof (see below). Old Math could never assemble a picture diagram of the FTC. All they could do is argue with limit concept an analysis argument, never a geometry proof of FTC.
> >
> > A picture diagram proof of FTC changes all of calculus and thus, changes all of mathematics for it requires a infinity borderline to produce an actual number for the  infinitesimal, and that number is the inverse of the infinity borderline. Requiring a infinity borderline to produce the infinitesimal changes all of mathematics, and throwing out the limit concept. By changing all of Calculus and thus correcting mathematics, all of math before 2015 was just trash math.
> >
> > Picture Diagram needed for Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> >
> > Why no continuum and no curves exist in Math, so that the Calculus
> > can exist, and does exist
> >
> > by Archimedes Plutonium
> >
> > Calculus is based upon there being Grid points in geometry, no
> > continuum, but actually, empty space between two neighboring points.
> > This is called Discrete geometry, and in physics, this is called
> > Quantum Mechanics. In 10 Grid, the first few numbers are 0, .1, .2,
> > .3, etc. That means there does not exist any number between 0 and .1,
> > no number exists between .1 and .2. Now if you want more precise
> > numbers, you go to a higher Grid like that of 100 Grid where the first
> > few numbers are 0, .01, .02, .03, etc.
> >
> > Calculus in order to exist at all, needs this empty space between
> > consecutive numbers or successor numbers. It needs that empty space so
> > that the integral of calculus is actually small rectangles whose
> > interior area is not zero. So in 10 Grid, the smallest width of any
> > Calculus rectangle is of width .1. In 100 Grid the smallest width is
> > .01.
> >
> > But, this revolutionary understanding of Calculus does not stop with
> > the Integral, for having empty space between numbers, means no curves
> > in math exist, but are ever tinier straight-line segments.
> >
> > It also means, that the Derivative in Calculus is part and parcel of
> > the function graph itself. So that in a function such as y = x^2, the
> > function graph is the derivative at a point. In Old Math, they had the
> > folly and idiocy of a foreign, alien tangent line to a function graph
> > as derivative. In New Math, the derivative is the same as the function
> > graph itself. And, this makes commonsense, utter commonsense, for the
> > derivative is a prediction of the future of the function in question,
> > and no way in the world can a foreign tangent line to a point on the
> > function be able to predict, be able to tell where the future point of
> > that function be. The only predictor of a future point of a function,
> > is the function graph itself.
> >
> > If the Calculus was done correctly, conceived correctly, then a
> > minimal diagram explains all of Calculus. Old Math never had such a
> > diagram, because Old Math was in total error of what Calculus is, and
> > what Calculus does.
> >
> > The fundamental picture of all of Calculus are these two of a
> > trapezoid and rectangle. In fact, call the picture, the
> >
> > FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS, Picture
> >
> > Trapezoid for derivative as the roof-top of
> > the trapezoid, which must be a straight-line segment. If it is curved,
> > you cannot fold it down to form a integral rectangle. And the
> > rectangle for integral as area.
> >
> > From this:
> >         B
> >         /|
> >       /  |
> >  A /----|
> >   /      |
> > |        |
> > |____|
> >
> >
> > The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
> > so that it can be hinged at A, and swiveled down to form rectangle for
> > integral.
> >
> > To this:
> >
> > ______
> > |         |
> > |         |
> > |         |
> > ---------
> >
> > And the derivative of x= A, above is merely the dy/dx involving points
> > A and B. Thus, it can never be a curve in Calculus. And the AB is part
> > of the function graph itself. No curves exist in mathematics and no
> > continuum exists in mathematics.
> >
> > In the above we see that CALCULUS needs and requires a diagram in
> > which you can go from derivative to integral, or go from integral to
> > derivative, by simply a hinge down to form a rectangle for area, or a
> > hinge up to form the derivative from a given rectangle.
> >
> > Why in Old Math could no professor of math ever do the Calculus
> > Diagram? Why? The answer is simple, no-one in Old Math pays attention
> > to Logic, and that no-one in Old Math was required to take formal
> > Logic when they attended school. So a person bereft of Logic, is never
> > going to find mistakes of Logic and think clear and think straight.
> >
> > by Archimedes Plutonium
> > ------------------
> > -------------------
>
>
> Dan Christensen        writes:
> 9:10 PM (2 minutes ago)
>
> >
> > I hope it's better than your failed "True Math" textbook, Archie Pu. I doubt it somehow.
> >Dan
>
> AP writes:: this is sort of funny to watch, for if memory is correct Dan Christensen UWO was educated at MIT

Sadly, not me, Archie. Just keep grasping at those straws!


> , and then Terry Tao, I remember discussing with me in early 1990s from Princeton dot edu.
>
> So can we compare failing school math departments, the Princeton, the MIT, the Univ. Western Ontario, the Univ California UCLA.
>

Yeah, not one of them is teaching that 10^604 = 0  or that if A is true and B is false then A & B is true. Go figure, eh? (HA, HA, HA!!!)


Dan

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

That's all he knows how to do. If he stops doing this, what will be left of his miserable life? Have some empathy. :-)))

> --
> Jan

On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 2:31:46 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

Why do you post lies?

--
Jan

Physics Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com> fails:

>On Monday, April 2, 2018 at 11:42:10 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:

>Michael Moroney         writes:
>7:17 AM (3 hours ago)

>>Archie, you science failure, you need to address Porat as Sir Porat or
>>Your Greatness. Before he was reduced to babbling babytalk, at least he
>>was designing bridges while you were learning better ways on how to fail.

>AP writes:: Moroney, do please submit to DNA testing as a proven-25 year
>insane stalker like you, compared to Jan Bielawski, Jan Burse, Dan
>Christensen, Karl Olav Nyberg, Zelos Malum, probably have the same
>genetic defects that make you obsessive stalkers. Probably all of you
>have a defect on the Y chromosome.

Yes, Archie, you should take a DNA test. Schizophrenia tends to run in
families so it almost certainly has a genetic component. If you take a
DNA test, perhaps it will flag your defective gene(s).

lørdag 28. april 2018 21.03.07 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium følgende:
> How dumb is Terry Tao in trigonometry? So dumb he accepts trigonometry definition of sine as opposite/hypotenuse, yet never realizing that such a definition forces the angle 180 degrees to be 2 not 3.14… because the angle 90 degrees is forced to be 1. Such math stupidity in modern times is awarded the Fields Medal for Tao, when he should have been ashamed of himself for only polluting math with further nonsense and fakery.

When you doing trigonometry, you are using right angled triangles?
Why is not sine equal opposite/hypotenuse?
Explain!
KON

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com> writes:

>Tao is so dumb in math:

>Jan:: how dumb is he?

>AP:: he is so dumb that to this very day he thinks a ellipse is a conic
>section when a half brain knows it is a cylinder section-- the
>oval is a conic section.

What, you only have a half a brain? That's why you believe that?

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com> writes:

>Well someone so blind to math that cannot see 180 degerees must be 2 not
>3.14... because 90 degrees is 1 in unit circle, could such a hapless
>cripple of math ever see the ellipse is a cylinder section never a
>conic-- yet the fool Tao still teaches a ellipse is a conic.

What, you want to see the proof that the ellipse is a conic section again?
Here you go!

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

On Tuesday, April 24, 2018 at 9:30:52 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 10:16:26 PM UTC-5, Jan wrote:
> > Why do you post lies?
> >
> > --
> > Jan
>
> Dan Christensen         writes:
> 7:23 AM (4 hours ago)

You haven't answered my question: why do you keep posting lies?

--
Jan

Wow, Archie, you are holy fuckign shit massively stupid. Sin/Cos are defined as y/x coordinate on the unit circle, sin pi = 0

Zelos Malum <zelos...@gmail.com> writes:

>Wow, Archie, you are holy fuckign shit massively stupid. Sin/Cos are
>defined as y/x coordinate on the unit circle, sin pi = 0

Exactly.  An angle (in radians) is defined as (arc length)/radius.  Since
the circumference of a circle is 2*pi*r, the angle of a full circle is
2*pi.  Therefore a half circle, 180 degrees, is half that, which is pi,
and sin(pi)=0.

This particular idiocy is particularly amusing for us electrical
engineers, who have to deal with trigonometry.

On Monday, 30 April 2018 13:41:59 UTC+2, Michael Moroney  wrote:
> Zelos Malum <zelos...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >Wow, Archie, you are holy fuckign shit massively stupid. Sin/Cos are
> >defined as y/x coordinate on the unit circle, sin pi = 0
>
> Exactly.  An angle (in radians) is defined as (arc length)/radius.  Since
> the circumference of a circle is 2*pi*r, the angle of a full circle is
> 2*pi.  Therefore a half circle, 180 degrees, is half that, which is pi,
> and sin(pi)=0.

Of course, Great Guru Einstein has rejected all these common
sense prejudices together with whole Euclidean geometry.

So you cleaned your house and found a conic
that wasnt ellipse only oval. Ha Ha

Am Mittwoch, 9. Mai 2018 18:55:53 UTC+2 schrieb Archimedes Plutonium:
> On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 9:15:16 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > You see, the horrible horrible way the math prizes are constructed is that they give prizes to "new things" but never correction of any old math. In this manner, the prizes of Fields medal, Abel medal, Wolf medal end up hurting mathematics, for it urges people to create crackpot new things that is fakery, and it urges no-one in math to ever clean out the corrupt and rotten and fake math. So many of the awards have been given for fake math-- Wiles, Appel & Haken, Tao, that math has a hard time of even existing, so bloated in fakery.
> >
>
> One can easily make an almost perfect analogy to the present existing math awards-- Fields Medal, Abel Medal, Wolf Medal. Consider mathematics as a house, a house like every other house in the world, that needs daily or at least weekly cleaning. Yet the house of mathematics has no cleaner. Physics and sciences have cleaners-- experiments. Yet Math has a house and never has a cleaner nor fixer of things gone wrong. Instead what the house of mathematics has, are awards, medals and honors to those that add more trash and fakery and garbage to the house of mathematics.
>
> What I say, the sensible thing to do in mathematics, for math has no unbiased judging, like physics has unbiased judging-- experiments, math has no experiments to be the judge. So, what I propose is that no medal be awarded to anyone doing mathematics, unless they provide two things-- a major clean-up of Old Math, then, consider what true new math they offer.
>
> The days have to stop where a Wiles is so stupid in math as to not see that Euler's exp3 of Fermat's Last Theorem was a fake proof because Euler forgot to prove when A,B,C were all three even numbers, yet there is Wiles with his awful fake contraption of a FLT, when the dolt could never even correct Euler's mistake. Never even spot the mistake, let alone correct it. So it is these medals in math that are a driving force that makes math far far worse and never corrects or makes math truthful.
>
> Same goes for Tao-- more math pollution, never fixing the errors of Old Math.
>
> AP

søndag 13. mai 2018 07.18.41 UTC+2 skrev Archimedes Plutonium følgende:
> Is Terence Tao as dumb as that dumb Earle Jones looking at a ellipse as conic, since a ellipse has 2 axis of symmetry but a cone has only 1 axis at an angle cut. I don't think Tao is as dumb as Jones who failed math.
>
> Earle Jones         wrote:
> May 12 (4 hours ago)
>
> Re: Start with a given ellipse, then, build a cylinder around it
>
> - show quoted text -
> *
> Hi AP:
>
> Here is another way to gain some insight.
>
> If you want to know the equation of an ellipse (or a circle or
> hyperbola or parabola), do this:
>
> Write the equation (in 3-space x, y, and z) for a cone.
> Then write the equation of a plane.
>
> Solve these two equations simultaneously.
>
> Then, vary the position and orientation of the plane to discover how
> one gets an ellipse, a circle, a parabola or a hyperbola.
>
> They call these "conic sections" for a good reason.
>
> earle
> *
>
>
> On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 4:31:46 PM UTC-6, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
> >
> > Now there is a Science lifelong-generation Test for the past 30 years in General Science (each generation has its science test, and ours is Global Warming). It has but one question, do you believe and accept Global Warming Climate Change, and has never vocalized any opposition to it? If yes, well, you pass, if no, well, you were never a scientist in the first place, never, and science is not for you.
> >
> > Now, Math has a lifelong-generation Test. Here again, only one question is needed.
> >
> > MATH TEST::
> >
> > Can you provide a Geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus? If not, well, you flunked mathematics.
> > Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test.
> >
> > But Terence Tao stupidity in mathematics does not stop with Calculus, for, Tao thought he was good at Number theory, but it turns out. That Tao was so very very stupid in even Arithmetic, because the Ancient Greeks thought they discovered "irrational number" in the square root of 2. Turns out, their proof was fakery and even Stillwell's (see my posts) Anthyphairesis Re: Stillwell gave another phony proof sqrt2 irrational Re: analyzing why the Ancient Greek proof that sqrt2 is irrational is flawed. Tao is a symptom of the disease in Old Math, where only publication math is looked at, yet the publication of math was so awfully corrupt, corrupt to the teeth. That the true blue true math was never looked at. Math Journal Publication was one of Earth's most vile corrupt systems imaginable. And only now, with the aid of the Internet, are corrupt math and science being exposed. Tao is part of an old corrupt system-- never able to fix mistakes in math, only able to pollute math further with his idiot-math-full of error.
> >
> >
> > SEE PICTURE DIAGRAM of FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS below, professors hate teaching this for it shows their "limit calculus to be a joke"
> >
> > PICTURE DIAGRAM OF FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS
> >
> > By April 2015, was there for the first time a picture diagram proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, FTC, not just an analysis argument, but a geometry proof (see below). Old Math could never assemble a picture diagram of the FTC. All they could do is argue with limit concept an analysis argument, never a geometry proof of FTC.
> >
> > A picture diagram proof of FTC changes all of calculus and thus, changes all of mathematics for it requires a infinity borderline to produce an actual number for the  infinitesimal, and that number is the inverse of the infinity borderline. Requiring a infinity borderline to produce the infinitesimal changes all of mathematics, and throwing out the limit concept. By changing all of Calculus and thus correcting mathematics, all of math before 2015 was just trash math.
> >
> > Picture Diagram needed for Fundamental Theorem of Calculus
> >
> > Why no continuum and no curves exist in Math, so that the Calculus
> > can exist, and does exist
> >
> > by Archimedes Plutonium
> >
> > Calculus is based upon there being Grid points in geometry, no
> > continuum, but actually, empty space between two neighboring points.
> > This is called Discrete geometry, and in physics, this is called
> > Quantum Mechanics. In 10 Grid, the first few numbers are 0, .1, .2,
> > .3, etc. That means there does not exist any number between 0 and .1,
> > no number exists between .1 and .2. Now if you want more precise
> > numbers, you go to a higher Grid like that of 100 Grid where the first
> > few numbers are 0, .01, .02, .03, etc.
> >
> > Calculus in order to exist at all, needs this empty space between
> > consecutive numbers or successor numbers. It needs that empty space so
> > that the integral of calculus is actually small rectangles whose
> > interior area is not zero. So in 10 Grid, the smallest width of any
> > Calculus rectangle is of width .1. In 100 Grid the smallest width is
> > .01.
> >
> > But, this revolutionary understanding of Calculus does not stop with
> > the Integral, for having empty space between numbers, means no curves
> > in math exist, but are ever tinier straight-line segments.
> >
> > It also means, that the Derivative in Calculus is part and parcel of
> > the function graph itself. So that in a function such as y = x^2, the
> > function graph is the derivative at a point. In Old Math, they had the
> > folly and idiocy of a foreign, alien tangent line to a function graph
> > as derivative. In New Math, the derivative is the same as the function
> > graph itself. And, this makes commonsense, utter commonsense, for the
> > derivative is a prediction of the future of the function in question,
> > and no way in the world can a foreign tangent line to a point on the
> > function be able to predict, be able to tell where the future point of
> > that function be. The only predictor of a future point of a function,
> > is the function graph itself.
> >
> > If the Calculus was done correctly, conceived correctly, then a
> > minimal diagram explains all of Calculus. Old Math never had such a
> > diagram, because Old Math was in total error of what Calculus is, and
> > what Calculus does.
> >
> > The fundamental picture of all of Calculus are these two of a
> > trapezoid and rectangle. In fact, call the picture, the
> >
> > FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF CALCULUS, Picture
> >
> > Trapezoid for derivative as the roof-top of
> > the trapezoid, which must be a straight-line segment. If it is curved,
> > you cannot fold it down to form a integral rectangle. And the
> > rectangle for integral as area.
> >
> > From this:
> >         B
> >         /|
> >       /  |
> >  A /----|
> >   /      |
> > |        |
> > |____|
> >
> >
> > The trapezoid roof has to be a straight-line segment (the derivative)
> > so that it can be hinged at A, and swiveled down to form rectangle for
> > integral.
> >
> > To this:
> >
> > ______
> > |         |
> > |         |
> > |         |
> > ---------
> >
> > And the derivative of x= A, above is merely the dy/dx involving points
> > A and B. Thus, it can never be a curve in Calculus. And the AB is part
> > of the function graph itself. No curves exist in mathematics and no
> > continuum exists in mathematics.
> >
> > In the above we see that CALCULUS needs and requires a diagram in
> > which you can go from derivative to integral, or go from integral to
> > derivative, by simply a hinge down to form a rectangle for area, or a
> > hinge up to form the derivative from a given rectangle.
> >
> > Why in Old Math could no professor of math ever do the Calculus
> > Diagram? Why? The answer is simple, no-one in Old Math pays attention
> > to Logic, and that no-one in Old Math was required to take formal
> > Logic when they attended school. So a person bereft of Logic, is never
> > going to find mistakes of Logic and think clear and think straight.
> >
> > by Archimedes Plutonium
> > ------------------
> > -------------------

Why don't you answer his question; instead of repeating it?
Or is it that you can't?
You just not know the mathematics?
KON

Archimedes "failure" Plutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com> fails:

>So, Terence Tao, every day you are quiet and silent about Ellipse is a
>Cylinder section, never a Conic section, is every day you are silent
>means you agree that a Ellipse is a Conic,

First of all, Terence Tao has almost never heard of, or cares about a
nobody such as yourself, second even if he did and was interested enough
in your claim to take a look, he'd just say "Where's the proof?". And he
would NEVER accept "Because I, Archimedes Plutonium said so!" as a reason.
FAIL.

> and thus, is proof that you, Terry Tao is a failure of mathematics, for
>you are no better in math than the failure of Michael Moroney who cannot
>even do a percentage correctly and has to plagiarize a dumb German who
>thinks this below is a proof that an ellipse is a conic. So, Terry, are
>you the same math failure as the dumb German as the failure Moroney-- so,
>stay quiet Terry, stay dumb in mathematics.

Archimedes Failure Plutonium (you need a middle name), quit projecting
your own failures at math onto other people, such as Tao and myself.
You need to accept responsibility for your own failures, and to quit
blaming everyone else for your own failures at math and sciences.
You even projected your own failure onto a graduate math student, by
telling him he has "no logical brains" or that math is "over his head"!
How dumb and stupid is that?!


>Michael Moroney         wrote:
>May 11

>Re: Sections (was: One of my favourite pastimes ....)

>Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> writes:

>>Alan you have no logical brains

>You should talk, Illogical One.

>If you really think an ellipse isn't a conic section, why can't you
>either provide an actual proof, or disprove the following:

No answer?

<snip proof ellipse is a conic section>

>qed

>AP writes:: Moroney, you math failure, you now resort to plagiarism of some
> dumb German's fake proof. Of course that is understandable since Moroney
>can't do math so he plariarizes. For he can't even do a correct
>percentage.

Plagiarism, Failure Plutonium? What do you mean plagiarism? Are you
inventing new rules again? Are you saying I need to create my own proof
the ellipse is a conic section rather than using a nice, short, easy to
understand existing proof?  Does that mean that if I need to show the
length relationships of the three sides of a right triangle, I have to
invent my own proof rather than "plagiarize" that Pythagoras guy?
And you can't disprove it, so you need to whine plagiarism?

>What percent short is 938 from 945?

And that's one reason why you keep failing at percentages, Failure
Plutonium. First you rounded off the mass of the muon to three figures,
but you truncated, rounded _down_ (to 105) rather than to the nearest
(106). Any scientist or engineer knows to round to nearest. So, to three
sig figs, you _should_ be asking "what percent short is 938 from 954?" But
you rounded incorrectly, so you failed.

Also why did you round at all? Very accurate masses for both the proton
and muon are available, see below.

Second, when you multiply a measurement, you also multiply the error. You
multiply by 9 so that's almost an entire order of magnitude increase in
the total error. As the mass of the muon is close to 105.66 MeV, by
rounding down you started off with double the error (0.66 MeV) than
rounding to nearest (0.34 MeV) would have given.

Third, when you subtract two fairly close measured amounts, the percentage
of error in the result can be greatly increased. Again, any scientist or
engineer knows that. For example, using your failure, we get 945-938 = 7
MeV. If we plug in the correct masses to many significant figures the
correct difference is 12.6530605 MeV.  So your error is 5.6530605 MeV,
approaching half!  If we correctly rounded off to 106 rather than
truncate, the error becomes -3.3469395 MeV, much better but still
excessive. This is a problem any good scientist or engineer would
recognize you must be sure to use accurate enough meaasurements to avoid
such error. The good folks at http://pdg.lbl.gov/ do have very accurate
numbers for you. Not that any good physicist would ever consider proton=9
muons for any length of time as they are extremely different, such an
equivalence would violate many known laws of physics.

Not that I expect this to ever convince you. You'll be right back
misrepresenting me very soon. After all, it's in your nature to fail.  
Birds fly, fish swim and Archimedes Plutonium fails.

>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.

Still true. The actual difference is 12.6530605 MeV as I just showed, so a
proton mass is about 8.88 muon masses. 8.88 is hardly ""exactly" 9 muons!
I'm amazed how you stick with this particular failure of yours.

>So, Terry, Terry Terry Tao, the longer you remain silent on math critical
>issues, means, you are no mathematician at all, but a fakester of math.

Terry Tao is not reading this. And even if he did, he will NEVER think "I
will believe what Archimedes Failure Plutonium writes, it must be true
because he says it's true." A real mathematician will demand a proof. Can
you give him one?

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com> writes:

>Why could not Terence Tao fix any one of these major mistakes in modern
>mathematics, anyone of them

What "major mistakes"?

>Fix any one of these::
>1) oval is a conic section, never ellipse

Why is this true? Because you say so? You give no proofs.

>2) fix calculus so that integral is not 0 width rectangles

Why is this true? Because you say so?

>3) fix the fake proof that irrationals exist, when they do not exist

Why is this true? Because you say so?

>4) recognize that sine is a semicircle wave, never a sinusoid

Why is this true? Because you say so?
Last I checked (about a microsecond ago) my AC electricity works, so
I don't think so.

>5) fix logic of such hideous notions that 1 OR 2 = 3

Do you even understand binary logic at all? Or is some guy who died
because he was too stupid to come in out of the rain STILL outsmarting
you?

(Spring is here and Archie is still posting. Fortunately, no nasty
surprises lurking in melting South Dakota snowbanks this year)

On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 2:08:59 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Tao is so dumb in even conics.
>
> Tao is so dumb in math he believes a ellipse is a conic and accepts the below fallacy argument by Franz & Moroney, otherwise, the oaf Tao would correct them—
>
>
> 3:30 PMMichael Moroney writes
> >These last two lessons are going to be long lessons
>
> Here is some True Mathematics which will probably become long lessons:
>
> Below you will find a simple *proof* that shows that certain conic
> sections are ellipses.
Hey Dummy,  why don't you show why the proof above is wrong?  You can't, can you?

On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 2:31:46 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
>

>Now AP has flunked every thest anyone can think of..

On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 5:31:46 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
>

Poor, demented Archie Pu. He can no longer tell AND from OR. He believes that 10^604 = 0 and that the universe is just one gigantic plutonium atom. Now he imagines that by criticizing Terry Tao, people will finally take him seriously???

Sorry, Archie Pu, but people will only be LESS inclined to take you seriously if that is even possible at this point in your "career."


Dan

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

On 6/7/2018 3:11 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Another huge mistake of Old Math, their hideous assessement of the Harmonic Series
>
> 1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + 1/5....
>
> Where the boneheads thought that this Series diverges

So if it converges, what is its value?

Bigger question is, how are you this fuckign stupid?

On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 10:42:16 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 12:16:58 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 7, 2018 at 7:04:13 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > > Well the actual infinity borderline is 1*10^604
> > > So what is the value of harmonic series for exp604 a rough estimate is 604 x 2 = 1204. Converges to 1204.
> > >
> > > Is it not nice to do sane math for a change? Sane and commonsense math.
> > >
> > > AP
> >
> > Earlier I had written this:
> >
> > When you WELL define infinity as a borderline with finite, then you realize the Harmonic series is a impotently low class convergence to a small number. If the infinity border were 100, then Harmonic series converges to something around 5.1, after 1000 it converges to 7.4, after 10,000 it converges to 9.7, after 100,000, the harmonic series is a mere paltry 12.0.
> >
> > And seeing that each step higher in 10^n, produces about 2 or 3 value increase. So if we take exp604, then between 2x 604 and 3x 604 1208 and 1812. So somewhere in between 1208 and 1816 is the convergence of the harmonic series.
> >
> > Old Math never defined infinity-- and left every punk mind to dream up their own idea of what infinity means. For that reason, you get loose marbled minds thinking the Harmonic Series diverges, when hells bells, you can see it crawling along at snails pace picking up only 2 to 3 value points in each higher exponent. And the Oresme fake math proof, is an alltime classic petty pocket theft argument.
> >
> > So, you have Tao and Green, looking at prime sequences and wondering if you can have all lengths. Of course, both Tao and Green have their own punk definition of what is infinity, and you can be assured they have no borderline involved in their silly childish notion of finite versus infinite.
> >
> > And thus, Oresme comes up with a all time con-artist math proof and Tao and Green simply are the 2nd act of circus clowns with a con-artist proof of prime sequences.
> >
> > Probably, math has a 1,000 alleged proofs, all of which are con artist fakery, because they use a punk notion of what is infinity. All because they never WELL DEFINED infinity and finite versus infinite. Cantor's garbage is a slew of fake con artist proofs. Godel's nonsense are all based on a punk notion of infinity.
> >
> > Hales with his Kepler Packing monstrosity, has become a master at math con artistry. For not once does he ever contemplate the idea that infinity has a borderline and so if you have a cube at the infinity borderline, can there be manipulation of the equal sized spheres to make a more dense packing.
> >
> > Which all goes to show,-- our math professors in colleges are there with memorization of math, never any skill in Logic to think straight, to think clearly.
> >
>
> Well, my juices are flowing, so let me spend a few moments in showing how the Green Tao theorem falls apart like a umbrella in a tornado.
>
> Pretend infinity border is 100 instead of the 1*10^604 which is truly is. This, with no loss of generality.
>
> Our primes to 100 are the usual crowd
>
> 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97
>
> The usual crowd of 25 primes. And let us do a Green Tao experiment of getting all the possible lengths of prime sequences.
>
> Length of 2 spacer 2,---- 3,5
>
> Length of 3 spacer 2, ---- 3,5,7
>
> Length of 4, spacer 6, ----- 5,11, 17, 23,
>
> Length of 5, spacer 6, ----- 5,11, 17, 23, 29
>
> And apparently we run out of Green Tao sequences when the borderline of infinity is 100. But the same story unfolds if the borderline were 1000, that we may have a length 6.
>
> And as the website of examples shows-- "while 199, 409, 619, 829, 1039, 1249, 1459, 1669, 1879, 2089 is a sequence of 10 primes in arithmetical progression, with difference m=210."  We have to wait for the 10,000 Grid to get a prime sequence of length 10.
>
> So, no-way possible are you ever going to get sequences of arbitrary length, because the infinity border will cut you off.
>
> Perhaps thousands and thousands of Old Math proofs are fakery,-- for they use infinity as a opinion, not a WELL DEFINED infinity.
>
> AP

AP, you seem to have it wrong,
you're talking about a "finity",
not an "infinity".  We all know
the word "infinity" since we were
five years old and know it means
there's no biggest number.

(This is usually "infinity is the
biggest number", "infinity is bigger
than all the numbers", or "there is no
infinity", then for students usually
later formalized about the "unbounded",
for the same worthwhile lessons for
everybody.)

Now if you're talking about models
of infinite systems that are bounded
but "effectively infinite", then
you'll have to correct your vocabulary
and usage to reflect correct usage
because otherwise it isn't.

I see ideas in your posts, that
maybe have correct expressions,
but, those are not it.

You'd be much better off maintaining
the whimsical and absurd and about
what the "effectively infinite" (but
finite) might offer, because, if you
don't use the words right it's automatically
wrong.

That's to Archimedes Plutonium who some
have as an artifact of usenet crankiness,
others as a source of ideas about the
big picture.

Good luck, AP.

On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 7:06:54 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 8:10:04 PM UTC-5, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>
> >
> > AP, you seem to have it wrong,
> > you're talking about a "finity",
> > not an "infinity".  We all know
> > the word "infinity" since we were
> > five years old and know it means
> > there's no biggest number.
> >
>

> Too bad Ross is just a computer program, dishing out ideas like a tossed salad with oil and vinegar.
>
> If Ross could ever have the pleasure of "being human" and that entails 98% of thoughts illogical, only about 2% logical thinking.
>
> If Ross could have that pleasure of being human and have studied Logic, would know that in order to well define Finite and Infinite, is only possible, if you have a border between them.
>
> Otherwise all the posts by Ross are just like the poet Jan Burse-- farts in the wind of Switzerland.

>
>
> > (This is usually "infinity is the
> > biggest number", "infinity is bigger
> > than all the numbers", or "there is no
> > infinity", then for students usually
> > later formalized about the "unbounded",
> > for the same worthwhile lessons for
> > everybody.)
> >
>

> Sad thing is, to the coneheads of mathematics with their Cantor imp infinity notions, they have no infinity of the small. There infinity is all of one type-- huge way way large numbers do you start looking for infinity.
>
> Whereas the Logic Minded mathematician that has a gram of Logical thinking, realizes that infinity is at both ends of the number spectrum-- at the tiny numbers, just off of 0 and at the large numbers, those after 1*10^604.
>
> So, shut up Ross, I do not care to hear any more iambic pentameter computer program, I am too busy,,,
>
> AP

I agree that there are infinitesimals and infinity.

Also I can mechanically translate that what you write
there, that your 10^604 is your point at infinity.  
But, that's not what you say, so, you can't expect
others guess what you mean right.

Now, some have that AP is "the brains of some machinery
at Princeton", but it's the words here that make the
man, it only takes a few words to make a picture.

I agree there's a divide and a bridge between finite
and infinite, as there is between discrete and continuous,
and indeed it's a field of mathematics and logic, of
the geometry and the numbers, about how it's so.

And, concrete, bounded systems with bounded, finite
resources may have various systems as result about
what happens at the edge or the end, that the
"world is round" or "world is flat".  

So, it matters more what you build to understand
of the extremes or for example as that the middle
is the extreme, for the large and small.  You can
build whatever you want, mentally.  The point is
that the words share for you, you can begin the
idea, these notions, these perceptions, and not
end them with a fake, a juke, a stonewall, a quit,
an error.  If they can't make sense of it, you
want that others can't make nonsense of it.

Wet-ware / meat-bag

On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 10:53:11 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 12:42:40 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 7:50:21 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> > > On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 12:42:16 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Well, my juices are flowing, so let me spend a few moments in showing how the Green Tao theorem falls apart like a umbrella in a tornado.
> > > >
> > > > Pretend infinity border is 100 instead of the 1*10^604 which is truly is. This, with no loss of generality.
> > > >
> > > > Our primes to 100 are the usual crowd
> > > >
> > > > 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97
> > > >
> > > > The usual crowd of 25 primes. And let us do a Green Tao experiment of getting all the possible lengths of prime sequences.
> > > >
> > > > Length of 2 spacer 2,---- 3,5
> > > >
> > > > Length of 3 spacer 2, ---- 3,5,7
> > > >
> > > > Length of 4, spacer 6, ----- 5,11, 17, 23,
> > > >
> > > > Length of 5, spacer 6, ----- 5,11, 17, 23, 29
> > > >
> > > > And apparently we run out of Green Tao sequences when the borderline of infinity is 100. But the same story unfolds if the borderline were 1000, that we may have a length 6.
> > > >
> > > > And as the website of examples shows-- "while 199, 409, 619, 829, 1039, 1249, 1459, 1669, 1879, 2089 is a sequence of 10 primes in arithmetical progression, with difference m=210."  We have to wait for the 10,000 Grid to get a prime sequence of length 10.
> > > >
> >

> > Alright, I do not know nor have the time to dig into this.
> >
> > Question, the first String of Primes of any length is 5thru29, are there no strings of primes of any length until we reach 199 thru 2089.  That would be the 10,000 Grid. The 5thru29 is the 100 Grid.
> >
> > Now in True Math, the way we prove something is INFINITE, is that we measure that something up against a density measure with the measuring stick of the Perfect Squares. The set of 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, .....
> >
> > And the way this works is that the infinity borderline is 1*10^604, and its Completion with respect to Multiplication is a second borderline of 1*10^1208
> >
> > So, the smallest Infinity set are the Perfect Squares because there are 10^640 of Perfect Squares between 1 and 10^1208.
> >
>
> Sorry for that typo error should read 10^604 not 10^640 and corrected on original
>
> > Now, are the regular primes Infinite? Is the same as asking, are there 10^604 of them between 1 and 10^1208, and yes of course and we comprehend why Perfect Squares are the test Model case of the Minimum Infinite set cardinality.
> >
> > Between 1 and 10^607 are 10^604 regular primes
> >
> > Are the twin primes infinite set? Well, if memory serves me between 1 and 10^609 are 10^604 twin primes so they are infinite density.
> >
> > Are Fibonacci Primes Infinite? To be infinite we have to have a minimum density matching the Perfect Squares and the Fibonacci Primes
> >
> > The Perfect Squares in Grid system is 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49, 64, 81, 100 so ten numbers in 100 Grid, whereas Fibonacci Primes is 2,3,5, 13, 89, 233, and so only five primes in 100 Grid and rapidly tapering off more to never be able to match our Measuring Rod of Density-- Perfect Squares, thus Fibonacci Primes is a FINITE Set.
> >
> > The Perfect Cubes is a FINITE Set as we easily see it cannot match the density of Perfect Squares.
> >
> > Now, what about the Green Tao Fake Prime Sequence Lengths, can it be INFINITE as Tao and Green boast about in their fakery.
> >
> > So, measuring the 5thru29, and I am assuming the only next string of significance is 199 thru 2089 in the 10^4 Grid. In Perfect Squares we have a length of 100 individual numbers. In Green Tao phony baloney they have a length of 10. So nowhere down the line of Prime Sequences will you ever match the MINIMUM count of Perfect Squares to entail being a Infinite set.
> >
> > It is time for Green and Tao to give back their -ill gotten Fields Medal for it is just outright plain nonsense fake math. For the corrupt MATH JOURNAL system is a pollution and blight and disease of Old Math, where you have old men lusting for fame and fortune-- Wiles, Hales, and no-one doing actual true mathematics.
> >
> > AP

So what are you going to do now, Archie?  Delete all of your nonsensical posts
in this thread?

On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 10:42:40 AM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 7:50:21 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > On Friday, June 8, 2018 at 12:42:16 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Well, my juices are flowing, so let me spend a few moments in showing how the Green Tao theorem falls apart like a umbrella in a tornado.
> > >
> > > Pretend infinity border is 100 instead of the 1*10^604 which is truly is. This, with no loss of generality.
> > >
> > > Our primes to 100 are the usual crowd
> > >
> > > 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97
> > >
> > > The usual crowd of 25 primes. And let us do a Green Tao experiment of getting all the possible lengths of prime sequences.
> > >
> > > Length of 2 spacer 2,---- 3,5
> > >
> > > Length of 3 spacer 2, ---- 3,5,7
> > >
> > > Length of 4, spacer 6, ----- 5,11, 17, 23,
> > >
> > > Length of 5, spacer 6, ----- 5,11, 17, 23, 29
> > >
> > > And apparently we run out of Green Tao sequences when the borderline of infinity is 100. But the same story unfolds if the borderline were 1000, that we may have a length 6.
> > >
> > > And as the website of examples shows-- "while 199, 409, 619, 829, 1039, 1249, 1459, 1669, 1879, 2089 is a sequence of 10 primes in arithmetical progression, with difference m=210."  We have to wait for the 10,000 Grid to get a prime sequence of length 10.
> > >
>
> Alright, I do not know nor have the time to dig into this.
>
> Question, the first String of Primes of any length is 5thru29, are there no strings of primes of any length until we reach 199 thru 2089.  That would be the 10,000 Grid. The 5thru29 is the 100 Grid.
>
> Now in True Math, the way we prove something is INFINITE, is that we measure that something up against a density measure with the measuring stick of the Perfect Squares. The set of 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, .....
>
> And the way this works is that the infinity borderline is 1*10^604, and its Completion with respect to Multiplication is a second borderline of 1*10^1208
>
> So, the smallest Infinity set are the Perfect Squares because there are 10^640 of Perfect Squares between 1 and 10^1208.
>

> Now, are the regular primes Infinite? Is the same as asking, are there 10^604 of them between 1 and 10^1208, and yes of course and we comprehend why Perfect Squares are the test Model case of the Minimum Infinite set cardinality.
>
> Between 1 and 10^607 are 10^604 regular primes
>
> Are the twin primes infinite set? Well, if memory serves me between 1 and 10^609 are 10^604 twin primes so they are infinite density.
>
> Are Fibonacci Primes Infinite? To be infinite we have to have a minimum density matching the Perfect Squares and the Fibonacci Primes
>
> The Perfect Squares in Grid system is 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49, 64, 81, 100 so ten numbers in 100 Grid, whereas Fibonacci Primes is 2,3,5, 13, 89, 233, and so only five primes in 100 Grid and rapidly tapering off more to never be able to match our Measuring Rod of Density-- Perfect Squares, thus Fibonacci Primes is a FINITE Set.
>
> The Perfect Cubes is a FINITE Set as we easily see it cannot match the density of Perfect Squares.
>
> Now, what about the Green Tao Fake Prime Sequence Lengths, can it be INFINITE as Tao and Green boast about in their fakery.
>
> So, measuring the 5thru29, and I am assuming the only next string of significance is 199 thru 2089 in the 10^4 Grid. In Perfect Squares we have a length of 100 individual numbers. In Green Tao phony baloney they have a length of 10. So nowhere down the line of Prime Sequences will you ever match the MINIMUM count of Perfect Squares to entail being a Infinite set.
>
> It is time for Green and Tao to give back their -ill gotten Fields Medal for it is just outright plain nonsense fake math. For the corrupt MATH JOURNAL system is a pollution and blight and disease of Old Math, where you have old men lusting for fame and fortune-- Wiles, Hales, and no-one doing actual true mathematics.
>
> AP

Your idea of the "grid" is much like
other usual discrete systems.  

For example, an atom is about 25 orders
of magnitude smaller than us.  A superstring,
with the idea being even finer and more
granular than an atomic lattice is some
25 orders of magnitude smaller than an
atom.  That's basically all a superstring
is, enough smaller than an atom than it is
to us, to have a smooth-yet-granular
background or substrate.

Somewhere in-between is the idea of the
Planck length after Max Planck.  This
being though some "smallest" length of
a line segment has though the traditional
objection:  that Pythagoras proves that
root two is ir-rational, so there cannot
be a grid-box of some smallest length
because root two ~ 1.414... has a
non-integer part, with there being
either no smallest length or no straight lines,
and we know a straight line is a shortest distance.

Tao is totally famous and has an excellent,
discursive style.  Picking out prime
progressions as asymptotically going to
zero still has there's much to say about
their behavior and how is maintained in
numerical resources all their products and
factors.  Here it seems AP would be talking
about the features of systems that are
effectively all the stars in the sky if
not infinite, that these same results are
so relevant, it's yet a qualitative (as it
were) instead of quantitative endeavor,
and just because there's the idea of how
to build these things and their results
in some eventually bounded (or his "bordered")
system, doesn't detract but must eventually
reconcile with the unbounded, because that's
the way it is.

So, AP, there are ways to go about modeling
"effectively infinite" systems and what
happens in the "smooth-yet-granular", but
while you're tilting at windmills it doesn't
make so much sense to call the highest of
the shoulder-climbers those same giants.

On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 12:04:17 PM UTC-7, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> On Saturday, June 9, 2018 at 1:42:33 PM UTC-5, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>
> > So, AP, there are ways to go about modeling
> > "effectively infinite" systems and what
> > happens in the "smooth-yet-granular", but
> > while you're tilting at windmills it doesn't
> > make so much sense to call the highest of
> > the shoulder-climbers those same giants.
>

> So Ross in Seattle and Eastside in Delaware, both are not qualified to be in this discussion for both fail to state whether there is a sequence of interest between 5, 11, 17, 23, 29
>
> and 199, 409, 619, 829, 1039, 1249, 1459, 1669, 1879, 2089
>
> Do these sequences have jump gaps, huge jump gaps in between one significant sequence and then the next with nothing of interest in between.
>
> Do we have to wait until 199 to get a sequence of length 6
>
> Unless you do math in my threads, other than ad hominem-- Ross, Eastside.
>
> So answer the question, either one of you two clowns.

Tilt the wind-mill, AP!
Tilt the wind-mill!

Its vanes are orthogonal,
but they spin around.  So,
see the grid from a tilt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_number_theorem
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/QuadraticSieve.html

Borel vs. combinatorics?

On 6/9/2018 4:11 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Ross at NNTP-Posting-Host: 97.113.39.197
>
> That is near Univ Washington Seattle.
>
> Answer the question Ross or should I ask those at UW

Why don't YOU answer Dan C's questions?

 > Use any aids. Answer in the space provided.
 >
 > 1. What is the sine of 45 degrees to 3 decimal places?    ____________
 >
 > 2. True or false:  10^604 = 0    ____________
 >
 > 3. If A is true and B is false, then A AND B is ____________ (true or
false).
 >
 > 4. If A is true and B is true, then A OR B is ____________ (true or
false).

Is 10^604 before or after conic sections become
oval and not ellipse? Ha Ha, AP brain farto, not
a single line of math for 25 years.

Am Sonntag, 10. Juni 2018 23:42:27 UTC+2 schrieb Archimedes Plutonium:
> So the very great error of Hales and all those who tried to solve the Kepler Packing is the idea that when you have Well Defined Infinity concept, means you have a infinity borderline. And once you realize infinity comes up from Finite with a borderwall. So in Kepler Packing, the hexagonal closed pack is most dense, but then, at the borderwall of infinity, there is "room to play" and so a purely hexagonal close pack is not the densest. We have all seen this in our lives. Where a box of oranges or limes and then you stack hexagonal closed pack but at the top, there is wiggle room to move things around and we briefly abandon the hex closed pack and do a different packing at the last and final row. Same thing with Kepler Proof, the main body of most dense packing is hexagonal closed pack, but becuase there is a Infinity border wall, we have room to play and we have to abandon hex closed pack for just a row or two and do a different type of packing on those last two rows to achieve the MOST DENSE packing.
>
> As for the Green Tao prime sequence lengths fakery, that is not as clear cut as Kepler Packing as to why a Infinity Border imposes such harsh demands. Weak minds like Green and Tao and their followers want to trespass immediately into-- beyond the border to pull their magic trick out of the hat. So the border is not imposing such harsh restrictions on prime sequences as the border imposed on Kepler Packing. But, in one sense, it is easier to see why the Green Tao fakery is so much a fake. For we instantly know that all Numbers are gradations --- levels of numbers before we get to infinity. Here I am speaking of Grid Numbers of integers only and where the last number is considered at each level, a -- pretend infinity --
>
> So for 10 Grid we immediately realize the biggest sequence is length 3, of 3,5,7
> In 100 Grid the biggest length is 5 with 5,11,17,23,29
> In 1000 Grid, I think the biggest length is still 5
> In 10,000 Grid do we move higher with a length of 10
>
> And as we keep going down the line of Grid Integers, we instantly see that nowhere close does the Length come to the Grid Number.
>
> So, at infinity border, no matter where that maybe, no matter, the Length of the longest prime sequence is a tiny tiny fraction of the Infinity border number. This is why Green and Tao and Hales with Kepler packing have nothing but math fakery to offer.
>
> They do not define INFINITY, yet use the concept as their own opinion. And they think they proved something in math by using a "opinion of what infinity is"
>
> Now, the real explorers of Prime Sequences has yet to appear on the scene. It is not me, for all I am going to do is call the battle cry alarm. For what Green and Tao did is math muck and fakery. What needs to be done is find a formula of math that sort of predicts the Length size of the largest string of primes given a Grid integer progression
>
> 10 Grid max length is 3
> 100 Grid max length is 5
> 1000 Grid max length is what 5 again?
> 10^4 Grid-- what is max length
> .
> .
> .
> 10^604 Grid-- what is max length
>
> That is what needs to be done and to trashcan the Green Tao fakery as a huge distraction.
>
> AP

On 8/10/2018 3:17 AM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
>> Jan         writes::
>> 2:13 PM (1 hour ago)
>>
>>> Except you haven't proved it.
>>
>> --
>> Jan
>>
>> AP writes:: What Jan is trying to say is, unless you can see the ellipse is never a conic section, but rather a cylinder section, everything else you ever do in mathematics is probably just "crap".
>
> On Friday, August 10, 2018 at 2:07:10 AM UTC-5, Jan wrote:
>
>>
>> Why don't you delete all your posts instead. It's your newest moronic trick here.
>>
>> --
>> Jan
>
> AP writes:: Terry was active posting circa 1993&94
>

One of many, many scientists and mathematicians driven away by all the
kooks back then, most likely.

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com> writes:

>Subject: Re: why Terry is silent on ellipse as cylinder section never conic Re: Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

Why is Terry "silent" ?

#1) He has never heard of the nobody named Archimedes Plutonium and
    probably never will. I'm sure he mostly hangs around with actual
    mathematicians.

#2) Since nothing has actually changed regarding ellipses being conic
    sections, that is the Dandelin Spheres proof is still valid as are
    the other proofs still valid, there is no reason for the topic to even
    come up. Like being silent on 2 < 5.

An actual valid math proof that the ellipse is not a conic section would
be huge news in the math world, but so far that has never happened, and
almost certainly never will since much of engineering and astronomy would
simply break.  It is more likely to see a valid proof that 2 > 5 first.

>On Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 1:43:41 AM UTC-5, Jan wrote:

>> Because it isn't, see e.g. the proof here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dandelin_spheres=20
>> So why don't you admit you've made a mistake? Wimp, yes?

Yes, Archie, be a man and admit your mistake.

>AP writes:: of course Terry recognizes that Dandelin assumed-- ASSUMED he
>was working with a ellipse, not a oval--

No, he didn't. Even if he did, a simple counterexample could be obtained
from such an assumption if the proof was invalid, producing a disproof by
counterexample.

>but you can never tell that to an insane person like Jan-- not much of
>anything enters his microbrain.

That's the best you can do? Meaningless insults?

>But why call Terry a wimp? Is it because Terry remains silent about ellipse
> never being a conic, always a cylinder section.

As I said, Terry is "silent" because the issue hasn't come up - there has
never been a valid proof the ellipse is not a conic section.  Again, it's
like being "silent" about the fact that 2 is less than 5.

>Is that the way modern mathematicians operate-- like Terry-- never fixing
>mistakes, only grubbing for the next publication of more math pollution.

I'm sure if Terry knew of any mistakes, he'd fix them, but there is no
mistake to fix. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

>Terry-- I found in life the best way to live it-- is come clean on
>everything,, something in the Bible along those lines of thought-- you
>better find out what you are meant to do in life, if not, it will
>destroy you.

So you really should be a man and admit your mistake, and move on.
Of course, addressing a message to him here is rather dumb.
But I think this has already destroyed you.

>A mathematician , when told that a proof the ellipse is never a conic, and
>does nothing, like you Terry, could mean you were never a mathematician at
>all.

But since Terry has never been told of any such proof, that statement is
meaningless.

>> AP writes:: yes, why does Terry Tao incessantly deny the ellipse is
>> cylinder section, never a conic section.

When did Terry "incessantly deny" any such thing? Reference? (and why
wouldn't he deny that, anyway?)

>> Does he not realize, denial of true math, means he is no mathematician at
>> all.

When did he ever deny true math?


(Now watch -- Archie will respond to my post, but not here. He'll start a
new thread or post to an existing insult thread. Probably in sci.physics.

In this response, he won't address a single issue that I have brought up.
Instead, most if not all of the following will be part of his reply:

#1) It will be addressed to uninvolved people at Harvard or MIT, or
perhaps Massachusetts politicians.

#2) A stalker list of other uninvolved people at Harvard, MIT, or
    Massachusetts politicians will be included. No reason will be
    given for posting the stalker list.

#3) He will insult me, likely including snippets of old posts of mine
    where he still thinks I was wrong.

#4) He will also insult the uninvolved Harvard/MIT/Massachusetts people
    for allowing me to exist, I suppose, although none of them have ever
    heard of me.

#5) He will accuse me of "stalking" him by actually posting this reply.

#6) He will accuse me and others who respond to him of being "gay" for
    unknown reasons.  He will insult gays in the process.

#7) He will post that ASCII art owl/cat thing that lives in a cubbyhole.

#8) He will accuse professors (mentioned in #2) of not fixing errors that
    don't exist and they have never heard of anyway.

#9) He will include a non-proof "proof", likely his non-proof that the
    ellipse is not a conic section.

Did I miss any?)

Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com> fails:

Oh, you are *still* struggling with learning how the ellipse is a conic
section?

Here's the proof again!

Math and Physics Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com> fails:

> ellipse

Ellipse? Did you say ellipse?

Here you go!

On 2018-09-13 20:34:24 +0000, Archimedes Plutonium said:

> On Thursday, March 13, 2018 Jan wrote:
>
> Jan         
> 1:51 PM (1 hour ago)
>
>> And, as usual, you are only covering elementary, barely
>> high-school-level,>stuff. After how many decades of "study"? And even
>> that is done incorrectly.
>
> AP writes: yes, sad situation in world mathematics and science, that it
> is easier for the liaring president Donald Trump to tell the truth
> about his wrongdoings over Russian collusion, than it is for Terence
> Tao to tell the truth about ellipse-- it is never a conic, always a
> cylinder section. Sad that Donald Trump rises to a higher moral
> standard than does the typical professor of mathematics when truth is
> involved.

*
AP:

I want to better understand your work.

Consider this equation:

x^2 / a^2 + y^2 / b^2 = 1

If a = b, this is the equation of a circle.
If a not= b, this is the equation of an ellipse.

What is the equation of an oval?

Thanks,

earle
*

On 2018-09-14 23:57:26 +0000, Archimedes Plutonium said:

> On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 7:20:15 PM UTC-5, Earle JOnes wrote:
>>
>> I want to better understand your work.
>>
>> Consider this equation:
>>
>> x^2 / a^2 + y^2 / b^2 = 1
>>
>> If a = b, this is the equation of a circle.
>> If a not= b, this is the equation of an ellipse.
>>
>> What is the equation of an oval?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> earle
>> *
>

> On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 2:06:05 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen
> wrote:>> To trolls and would-be saboteurs,,
>
> AP writes: Yes, Jones and Christensen, all that Terry Tao need to do is
> publish the AP proof that ellipse is never a conic, always a cylinder
> section. Publish the proof by AP, but do not continue to ignore it, or
> be seen as a science moral degenerate, for that is what Tao ends up
> looking like a -- moral degenerate of science by continuing to teach
> the ellipse as a conic, far worse than the liaring Donald Trump. At
> least Trump has an excuse to liar-- his base support wants to hear
> lies, not the truth.
>
> But Tao is in science of math-- where truth is always top priority, and
> if Tao continues to ignore the ellipse-- means, he does not belong in
> math at all.
>
> For in science, Terry Tao cannot be ignoring the truth, nor liaring the
> ellipse.
>
> So, have Terry Tao publish in a journal that he sees the "light of day
> about the ellipse" from AP's proof--

*
AP:

Thanks for your response.

Have you ever considered that you might be wrong?  Is that possible?

What if someone came along with a definition of "conic section" and
showed that the ellipse is in fact a conic section.

Could you handle it?

Later, I will post the definition of "conic section" and show how to
define each one.

It is not that difficult.  A conic section is the solution of two
simultaneous equations:  One of the cone and one of the plane.

More later and thanks,

earle
*

Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com> fails:

<snip>

And again, Al! Is this Plutonium guy as sharp as a bowling ball or what,
Uncle?


"I cannot believe how incredibly stupid Archie-Poo is.  I mean rock-hard
stupid.  Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid.  Surface of Venus
under 80 atmospheres of red hot carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid vapor
dehydrated for 300 million years rock-hard stupid.  Stupid so stupid that
it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different sensorium of
stupid.  Archie-Poo is trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid.  Stupid so
collapsed upon itself that it is within its own Schwarzschild radius.  
Black hole stupid.  Stupid gotten so dense and massive that no intellect
can escape.  Singularity stupid. Archie-Poo emits more stupid/second than
our entire galaxy otherwise emits stupid/year.  Quasar stupid.  Nothing
else in the universe can be this stupid.  Archie-Poo is an oozingly
putrescent primordial fragment from the original Big Bang of Stupid, a
pure essence of stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond
the laws of physics that define maximally extrapolated hypergeometric
n-dimensional backgroundless stupid as we can imagine it.  Archie-Poo is
Planck stupid, a quantum foam of stupid, a vacuum decay of stupid, a grand
unified theory of stupid.

Archie-Poo is the epitome of stupidity, the epiphany of stupid, the
apotheosis of stupidity.  Archie-poo is stooopid."

Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com> fails:

>-Racist-math at MIT Henry Cohn, Laurent Demanet, Richard Dudley,Michael Artin

Should we start a collection to buy stoopid Archie a new dictionary
so he can learn what the word "racist" means?

Why is Archie asking me to reply to his posts?

Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com> fails:

>TAO must believe in Moroney's failed ellipse proof is a conic, for Tao is
>silent// but does Tao also think 938 is 12% short of 945 ?


Ellipse proof? Did you say ellipse proof?? (btw it's Franz's proof, not
mine)

Here you go!

Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com> fails:

>On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 3:48:23 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:

>> Use any aids. Answer in the space provided.

>> 1. What is the sine of 45 degrees to 3 decimal places?    ____________

>> 2. True or false:  10^604 = 0    ____________

>> 3. If A is true and B is false, then A AND B is ____________ (true or false).

>> 4. If A is true and B is true, then A OR B is ____________ (true or false).

So Archie, when are you going to do your lifetime generation test? Need
more time, after months and months?

>On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 10:50:01 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:

>> of other professors. What would he do? He'll sneer "What a complete
>> nutcase!" and lrave, and never give you or your ideas another thought.

You need to save my post and read it over and over again until you
understand it. Did you ever consider how bad your hateful posts make you
look?? Do you think people of the future would ever think anything good
can be said about you, if they can come here and see you posting stalker
lists while at the same time complain that people who are not stalking you
are stalking you, they see you attack others by calling them homosexuals
and racists, and they see you project and try to twist words like in the
following sentence?  No, the future mathematicians and physicists won't
want anything to do with you, so you will be forgotten.

>AP writes: why does Dan and Moroney treat Dr. Tao as some sort of baby?

No, Archie, you are projecting your own failure. Maybe you think he is a
baby because he wouldn't accept your non-proof, assuming he ever heard of
you. That's because he's a good mathematician, and like any other good
mathematician, he will only accept formal math proofs, like this one:

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

Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com> fails:

>Subject: Re: Moroney says of Porat--Ah yes, the short version of the 12 Failures of Plutonium

>Moroney says of Porat--Ah yes, the short version of the 12 Failures of Plutonium

No, Plutonium, quit projecting. Obviously from the name, the 12
Failures of Plutonium is obviously about all your failings.

>On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 7:19:41 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Math Failure Plutonium,,,
>>
>> Ah yes, the short version of the 12 Failures of Plutonium

>AP writes: What the failures of Porat-- stealing stealing stealing

The failures of Plutonium are much worse. 25 years of babbling and
attacking other posters, no math, no physics, only attacks and babble.

Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com> fails:

>Why does Moroney and Christensen talk to Terry Tao as if a baby? Is it
>because of ellipse or Calculus?

There you go, projecting again. FAIL.

>Why does Moroney talk to Dr. Meyer as if some baby? Is it because Meyer is
>in denial the ellipse is never a conic section, always a cylinder
section,

Oh you want to see the ellipse proof Again!!!

Here you go!
>Michael Moroney writes:
>Oct 31 (10 hours ago)
>>[Plutonium's posts are nothing but] 25 years of babbling and

>>attacking other posters, no math, no physics, only attacks and babble.

No comment, Failure Plutonium?


>On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 3:10:12 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:

>> >>No answer?
>> >>
>> >>Can you round off 105.658 to three digits?
>> >>What is 106*9?
>> >>What is 105.658*9?
>> >>What is 105.658*9-938?
>> >>If someone owed you $900.00 and he gave you $888.00, would you be
>> >>satisfied that he paid you back in full?

Thanks for reminding me! You never did answer these simple questions!

Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com> fails:

>Subject: Re: Tao so dumb of a math idiot still believes ellipse is a conic and believes volume of torus is 2pi^2Rr^2 Re: Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

>On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 10:02:36 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:

>> I'm the same person. My reply was intended for anyone who saw it
>> counterintuitive, as I did once, that the inside and outside volume
>> differences would exactly cancel. When explained this way it makes sense.
>> The stack of rotated slices does stack up to 2piR in height. So someone
>> with a logical mind can see the formula for the volume of a torus is
>> correct after all (2piR*pir^2 = 2pi^2Rr^2)
>>
>> This is just like the cone slice being an ellipse, it is counterintuitive
>> that it would be an ellipse since it appears there is just one axis of
>> symmetry, not two. There really is just one axis of symmetry AROUND THE
>> AXIS OF THE CONE, but it turns out that the center of the ellipse is NOT
>> on the axis of the cone, so only one axis of symmetry around the axis of
>> the cone is a red herring.  Someone with a logical mind can then use
>> algebra and geometry and solve two simultaneous equations for a cone and a
>> plane to get the intersecting curve, and then determine that it is an
>> ellipse mathematically.
>>

>AP writes: quick give Tao another medal in math for denying the ellipse
>is never a conic and still using the idiot volume formula of torus as
>2pi^2Rr^2, for like Julius Caesar, Tao is a honorable man.

Oh, you want to see the ellipse proof yet again, Failure Plutonium?
And show the world what an idiot you are for refusing to learn the proof?
Sure, here it is!

Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com> fails:

>Subject: Re: Moroney mocking Dr. Weinberg Re: Steve Weinberg flunked the true proton test also, proton=840MeV, electron=105MeV, Dirac monopole= .5MeV

>Michael Moroney         writes:
>Dec 3 (1 hour ago)


>>Why do you think gravity is magnetism? Because you say so?

Oh you want to see the ellipse proof again? Why don't you just print it
out and study it until it gets through your thick head?

Math Failure Archimedes "chatterbox" Plutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com> chatters like an angry squirrel chased up a tree by a barking dog:

>Subject: Re: Moroney cannot even do a correct percentage nor correct
>conic cut-- so can Tao do a correct percentage? Re: Terence Tao flunked

>the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

>Moroney cannot even do a correct percentage nor correct conic cut-- so can
>Tao do a correct percentage? Re: Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a
>lifetime-generation test

Aww, crap! Pkutonium failed all over the place yet again!! How can this
place be kept clean with Plutonium failing all the time?


And why is Plutonium unable to answer this simple test, even after months
and months? Shouldn't it be easy for a math super genius??? It's so
simple! Only 4 easy questions!!

>Dan Christensen writes:
>8:42 PM (28 minutes ago)

Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com> fails:

>Alright, time is flying, this is November and need to finish this book
>before January 2018.

Whoops!

On Friday, December 21, 2018 at 11:45:57 PM UTC+1, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Jan         wrote on 21DEC 12:43 PM (3 hours ago)
> >
> > It is a conic, we've been through this nonsensical claim of yours before.
> > Here is one  particularly elegant proof that ellipse is a conic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dandelin_spheres#Proof_that_the_curve_has_constant_sum_of_distances_to_foci

> ellipse cannot be a conic <bla>

What's the matter with you Archie? Another proof you don't understand?

Chattering Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com> fails:

>Subject: Is Ben Bullock & John Baez as pathetically stupid as Terry Tao not
> able to see a High School student proof ellipse is not a conic, nor able to
> see 3 OR 2  5 is wrong?
...

How much did THIS post fail?

☑ Archie responds to criticism but refuses to discuss the issue...
☑ ...he would rather run away by trying to delete his posts...
☑ ...he actually believes deleting something on Google actually deletes it from Usenet...
☑ Archie considers attempts of actual discussion to be 'stalking'...
☑ ...Giggle Groups screenshot cut and pasted...
☑ Archie's response posted in the wrong topic...
☑ ...with zero new content...
☐ ...and posted to the wrong newsgroup...
☑ ...multiple times...
☑ ...again and again...
☑ ...and again and again...
☑ ...enough times to be classified as spam...
☑ ...in a topic/topics explicitly created by him for doing so...
☐ ...and Archie even whines about (other) spammers in his spam...
☐ ...with a subject about flunking a nonexistent test no one ever took...
☑ Archie's post mentions totally uninvolved people...
☑ ...who are university math or physics professors...
☑ ...at a university supposedly near the person criticizing Archie...
☐ ...but Archie got the location (and university) completely wrong...
☑ ...and Archie demands they resign for not teaching his broken math...
☐ ....no, Archie demands they be fired for not teaching his broken math...
☐ ....Archie demands they shut down an entire university for not teaching his broken math...
☐ ....heck, Archie demands they shut down HARVARD for not teaching his broken math...
☑ ...and he includes a stalker list of physics and/or math professors...
☑ ...and STILL can't answer 'why post stalker lists of uninvolved profs'...
☑ ...maybe he thinks these professors do a Kibo and will respond here just by mentioning their names...
☑ ...even though those profs have never heard of him and never will...
☐ ...speaking of Kibo, mentions Kibo (how last century!)
☑ ...Archie's actual response is completely unrelated to the topic...
☑ Archie even reposts something from 1994 to show he was a failure way back then, too!...
☑ A critic's comment has embarrassing (to AP) portion removed...
☑ ...to the extent the comment is no longer recognizable...
☐ Archie's post includes random snippets by other critics, spammers or babblers...
☐ ...which are attributed to yet other critics, spammers or babblers...
☐ ...followed by yet another repost of the "12 Failures of Plutonium"...
☑ Archie actually claims that anyone who believe the ellipse is a conic section is stupid...
☑ ...followed by yet another repost of his long-discredited ellipse/conic section non-proof...
☑ Archie includes the dumb ascii art cat/owl thing...
☐ ...and that whatever-it-is ascii art...
☑ ...as well as ascii art of Archie's butthole...
☑ ...and Archie doesn't realize ascii art is so 1980s...
☑ Archie still can't answer Dan C's easy 4 question math test...
☐ Archie brings up a "mistake" (in his view) from months ago...
☐ ...which, of course, is not actually a mistake...
☐ ...and Archie invents yet more "mistakes" (that are not mistakes)...
☐ Archie really wears out the "a beer short of a 6 pack" joke...
☑ ...but he still doesn't realize he's about 5 beers short...
☐ Archie says something really dumb and stoopid, but realizes how dumb it is, so he accuses another poster of saying it...
☐ Archie doesn't know the definition of "racism", so calls anyone who points out all the flaws in his claims are "racist"...
☐ Archie roots for cockroaches in the Law of the Jungle...
☑ Archie can't tell the difference between Boolean AND/OR and arithmetic addition/subtraction...
☑ Archie doesn't even know the 'rules' of Boolean logic...
☑ ...in particular, doesn't know the difference between AND/OR and addition/subtraction...
☐ Archie whines about iPhone's self-protection feature rather than heat his trailer in the winter...
☑ Archie outsmarted by someone too stupid to come out of the rain AGAIN...
☑ Clay County Sheriff, be on lookout for someone in T-shirt&sandals walking along road during blizzard...
☐ Archie thinks he is the very first person in the history of the world to disbelieve in negative and imaginary numbers...
☐ ...and demands credit from anyone else who also disbelieves in them...
☐ Archie can't get over the shame of messing up percentages...
☐ ...and Archie is envious that I weighed the electron and he didn't...
☐ Archie asks Google Groups to do something they can't do...
☑ Google Groups poster. 'Nuf said.
☑ ...because he's too stoopid to configure a newsreader with killfile...

The Failure Score of Archie's post:  38 plutoniums!
(The plutonium is the new SI unit of failure)

On 2018-12-29 00:55:16 +0000, Archimedes Plutonium said:

>
> Terry Tao, why send out your attack dogs Moroney, Christensen. Just
> admit the ellipse was never a conic, and admit that 3 OR 2 = 5 is no
> hypocrisy you want to be teaching college students
>
> On Friday, December 28, 2018 at 3:20:05 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Chattering Math Failure
> AP writes: Yes Terry Tao, why send out attack dogs, when the issues are
> error filled math and logic.
>
> Students should not be suffering under your idiot beliefs that a
> ellipse is a conic section when even a High School student can prove to
> anyone at UCLA with a paper cone and a Kerr or Mason jar lid, yet there
> you are Terry Tao, preaching idiocy that a ellipse is a conic.
>
> But worst of all Terry is you send out attack dogs defending 3 OR 2 = 5
> with 3 AND 2 = 1. I mean for heaven sakes Terry have you no honest
> decency to teach students how to think correctly that OR is subtraction
> and that AND is addition with truth tables of TTTF for AND and FTTF for
> OR, and not to cripple the minds of young students of UCLA, just so
> parasite moneygrub book sellers keep raking in the dough with their
> error filled nonsense.
>
> So, Terry, call off your barking dogs Moroney, Christensen and start
> teaching the truth to students.
>
> AP

*
The great (and very fortunate) difference between AP and Terry Tao is
Terry has access to students and AP does not.

earle
*
PS: Question for AP:  In x y z space, what is the equation of an oval?

ej
*

Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com> writes:

>On Friday, December 28, 2018 at 8:31:52 PM UTC-6, Earle Jones wrote:

>> The great (and very fortunate) difference between AP and Terry Tao is
>> Terry has access to students and AP does not.

>> earle

>The worthless attack dog jones cannot read the "views"

>The views of this thread are 1892, meaning 1,892,000 have clicked on it.
>Almost 2 million people, mostly students have seen -- where Terry Tao is
>a fool on ellipse and conics and a bigger fool on his stubborn belief

No, Pluto, you are in a fantasy world if you believe that. 1892 views
means that one thousand, eight hundred ninety two sessions (many of which
may be the same person counted more than once) viewed the thread, not
almost two million. 1,892 views total is actually rather high for Usenet
these days, as Usenet is almost dead. Most threads have just a handful of
views.  A tempest in a tea pot.

On Wednesday, January 2, 2019 at 5:39:19 PM UTC+1, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
 
> John Conway cannot see that the ellipse is never a conic

Right. Actually, there's a reason for this fact: it's simply NOT TRUE "that the ellipse is never a conic".

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

On Monday, January 7, 2019 at 6:56:44 AM UTC+1, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> ellipse is never a conic

WRONG!

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

On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 12:28:15 AM UTC+1, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> For certainly you never got the ellipse as conic correct, you
> failed miserably on the ellipse as a conic

PLEEEZE, Archie, buy one of these: https://www.amazon.com/Conic-Sections-by-Tessellations-x/dp/B001UL2D9E

On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 9:12:52 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

>
> Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
> ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu
>
>
>                 ::\ ::|:: /::
>                  ::\::|::/::
>                      _ _
>                     (:Y:)
>                      - -
>                  ::/::|::\::
>                 ::/ ::|:: \::
> One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
>             . \ .  . | .   /.
>            . . \. . .|. . /. .
>               ..\....|.../...
>                ::\:::|::/::
> ---------------      -------------
> --------------- (Y) -------------
> ---------------      --------------
>                ::/:::|::\::
>               ../....|...\...
>            . . /. . .|. . \. .
>             . / .  . | .   \ .
>
>  
> http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ 
whole entire Universe is just one big atom 
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
>
> I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.     
>
> Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe        
> Archimedes Plutonium



On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 9:12:52 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> On Sunday, January 13, 2019 at 5:46:36 PM UTC-6, Me (Franz?) wrote:
> > PLEEEZE, Archie, buy one of these:
>

> On Monday, January 14, 2019 at 9:44:32 PM UTC-6, eastsi...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Pure gibberish.
>
> AP writes: I suppose since Dr. Tao is unable to admit that a ellipse is not a conic, that all his math is gibberish
>
>
>
> Proofs ellipse is never a conic, always a cylinder section by
> Archimedes Plutonium
> --------------------
> AP's proof the ellipse is never a Conic Section, always a Cylinder section, and how the proof works
>
> Let us analyze AP's Proof
>
> On Friday, September 14, 2018 at 6:57:36 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
>  
>   Array:: Analytic Geometry proof that Cylinder section= Ellipse//Conic
>   section = Oval, never ellipse
>  
>   Now I did 3 Experiments and 3 models of the problem, but it turns out
>   that one model is superior over all the other models. One model is the
>   best of all.
>  
>   That model is where you construct a cone and a cylinder and then
>   implant a circle inside the cone and cylinder attached to a handle so
>   that you can rotate the circle inside. Mine uses a long nail that I
>   poked holes into the side of a cylinder and another one inside a cone
>   made from heavy wax paper of magazine covers. And I used a Mason or
>   Kerr used lid and I attached them to the nail by drilling two holes
>   into each lid and running a wire as fastener. All of this done so I
>   can rotate or pivot the circle inside the cylinder and cone. You need
>   a long nail, for if you make the models too small or too skinny, you
>   lose clarity.
>  
>   ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Cylinder Section is a Ellipse::
>  
>  
>                 E
>                __
>         .-'              `-.
>       .'                    `.
>     /                         \
>    ;                           ;
>   | G          c              | H
>    ;                           ;
>     \                         /
>      `.                     .'
>         `-.    _____  .-'
>                   F
>  
>
>
> Alright, focus on the distance from c to F in the cone-cut compared to the distance from c to E
>
> In a Cylinder cut, those two distances are the same because a cylinder has two axes of symmetry.
>
> The side view of a cylinder is this
>
> |    |
> |    |
> |    |
>
> That allows cE to be the same distance as cF
>
>
> But the side view of the cone is
>
>      /\E
>     /c \
> F /     \
>
>
> The distance c to E is shorter because the slant of the side walls of the cone are in the direction of shortening cE, whereas the slant opposite c in cF make that distance larger than cE
>
>   The above is a view of a ellipse with center c and is produced by the
>   Sectioning of a Cylinder as long as the cut is not perpendicular to
>   the base, and as long as the cut involves two points not larger than
>   the height of the cylinder walls. What we want to prove is that the
>   cut is always a ellipse, which is a plane figure of two axes of
>   symmetry with a Major Axis and Minor Axis and center at c.
>  
>   Side view of Cylinder EGFH above with entry point cut at E and exit
>   point cut at F and where c denotes the central axis of the cylinder
>   and where x denotes a circle at c parallel with the base-circle of
>   cylinder
>  
>   |                              |
>   |                              | E
>   |                              |
>   |                              |
>   |x            c              |x
>   |                              |
>   |                              |
>   |                              |
>   |F                            |
>   |                              |
>   |                              |
>   |                              |
>  
>  
>
> So we can see that the distance cE = cF in cylinder for the walls are Parallel to one another, giving distance symmetry
>
> But in the Cone, the walls are not parallel, shortening the distance cE compared to cF. Leaving only one axis of symmetry that of EF. The oval is the conic section of a cut at a slant, while the cylinder cut at a slant is a ellipse. The Oval has just one axis of symmetry.
>
>   So, what is the proof that figure EGFH is always an ellipse in the
>   cylinder section? The line segment GH is the diameter of the circle
>   base of cylinder and the cylinder axis cuts this diameter in half such
>   that Gc = cH. Now we only need to show that Fc = cE. This is done from
>   the right triangles cxF and cxE, for we note that by Angle-Side-Angle
>   these two right triangles are congruent and hence Fc = cE, our second
>   axis of symmetry and thus figure EGFH is always an ellipse. QED
>  
>  
>  
>   Array proof:: Analytic Geometry proof that Conic section= Oval// never ellipse
>  
>   ARRAY, Analytic Geometry Proof, Conic Section is a Oval, never an ellipse::
>  
>  
>            A
>         ,'"   "`.
>      /            \
>   C |     c       | D
>    \               /
>       ` . ___ .'
>            B
>  
>   The above is a view of a figure formed from the cut of a conic with
>   center c as the axis of the cone and is produced by the Sectioning of
>   a Cone as long as the cut is not perpendicular to the base, and as
>   long as the cut is not a hyperbola, parabola or circle (nor line).
>   What we want to prove is that this cut is always a oval, never an
>   ellipse. An oval is defined as a plane figure of just one axis of
>   symmetry and possessing a center, c, with a Major Diameter as the axis
>   of symmetry and a Minor Diameter. In our diagram above, the major
>   diameter is AB and minor diameter is CD.
>  
>   Alright, almost the same as with Cylinder section where we proved the
>   center was half way between Major Axis and Minor Axis of cylinder,
>   only in the case of the Conic, we find that the center is half way
>   between CD the Minor Diameter, but the center is not halfway in
>   between the Major Diameter, and all of that because of the reason the
>   slanted walls of the cone cause the distance cA to be far smaller than
>   the distance cB. In the diagram below we have the circle of x centered
>   at c and parallel to base. The angle at cx is not 90 degrees as in
>   cylinder. The angle of cAx is not the same as the angle cBx, as in the
>   case of the cylinder, because the walls of the cone-for line segments-
>   are slanted versus parallel in the cylinder. Triangles cAx and cBx are
>   not congruent, and thus, the distance of cA is not equal to cB,
>   leaving only one axis of symmetry AB, not CD.
>  
>        /  \A
>    x/  c  \x
>   B/         \
>  
>   Hence, every cut in the Cone, not a hyperbola, not a parabola, not a
>   circle (not a line) is a Oval, never an ellipse.
>  
>   QED
>  
>   --Archimedes Plutonium
>
>
>
> Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH
> ELECTRON=muon DOT CLOUD of 231Pu
>
>
>                 ::\ ::|:: /::
>                  ::\::|::/::
>                      _ _
>                     (:Y:)
>                      - -
>                  ::/::|::\::
>                 ::/ ::|:: \::
> One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy.
>             . \ .  . | .   /.
>            . . \. . .|. . /. .
>               ..\....|.../...
>                ::\:::|::/::
> ---------------      -------------
> --------------- (Y) -------------
> ---------------      --------------
>                ::/:::|::\::
>               ../....|...\...
>            . . /. . .|. . \. .
>             . / .  . | .   \ .
>
>  
> http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ 
whole entire Universe is just one big atom 
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
>

On Saturday, January 19, 2019 at 4:17:01 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Christensen shouts sicko...

You ARE are a sicko, Archie Pu -- someone deliberately setting out to create a generation of math failures just like you, and to recruit them to your sinister Atom God cult:


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

“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)


AP's fake math designed to create a generation of math failures just like him:

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

“0 appears to be the last and largest finite number”   (10^604 = 0, so obvious!)
--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

 
AP fails the simplest possible math test scoring 0/4 in the following:

1. What is the sine of 45 degrees to 3 decimal places? __________  (Ans: 0.707)

2. True or false: 10^604 = 0  __________ (Ans: False)

3. If A is true and B is false, then A AND B is __________ (Ans: False)

4. If A is true and B is true, then A OR B is __________ (Ans: True)


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

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


Dan

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

On Thursday, January 31, 2019 at 12:09:46 AM UTC+1, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> errors like ellipse a conic.

No, Archie, "ellipse a conic" is not an error.

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

         .'   |   `.
        .     |     .
        |     |     |
        '     |     '

Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com> fails:

>Emilio Segrè, Tsung-Dao Lee, Chen Ning Yang, John Bardeen, Univ Illinois, why is Skirvin
>allowing the dumping of trash books/tests in sci.math//never realizing the Real Electron =
>muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's Magnetic Monopole

>Charles Gammie, Russell Giannetta, Nigel Goldenfeld, Univ Illinois, why is Skirvin allowing
>the dumping of drug ads in sci.physics//never realizing the Real Electron = muon,
>proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's Magnetic Monopole

Tim Skirvin??? So last century again? What kind of steaming, stinking pile of failure is
this? More reason to be mad that Pluto's mommy never potty trained him!

Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com> fails:

>Subject: Re: is Dr. Tao as bad as Cornell math professors cannot tell the difference between ellipse and oval Re: Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

>Cornell math professors cannot tell the difference between ellipse and oval Re: Fire the entire Cornell Univ math dept-- unable to even teach Add in Logic is not OR but rather is AND

I'm glad that you want to see the proof that the ellipse is a conic
section again! This is a wonderful proof, only three lines once all the
definitions are set up.

>On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 9:21:56 AM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
>>
>> Still no reply,

>AP writes: yes, how failed are math professors of Cornell-- cannot even tell the difference between an ellipse and a oval for the ellipse is never a conic cut-- always a cylinder cut at a slant.

Maybe you can teach the Cornell professors that the ellipse is a conic
section once you understand this excellent proof! But I think they already
know!

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

Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com> fails:

>Subject: Re: Carnegie Mellon, MIT, Dr. Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

>On Thursday, February 14, 2019 at 4:25:25 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com> fails:

>AP writes: yes, you can say that again about Carnegie Mellon, MIT, and
>Dr.Tao,

Now why would you be so dumb and stoopid as to write that? Obviously I was
writing how you, Archimedes Plutonium, fail at math because you can't
even understand a simple ellipse proof! How dumb and stoopid is that?

> for none can comprehend the proof that ellipse is never a conic,

That's because the proof proves the ellipse really is a conic. You keep
promising that you have a proof it isn't but you never post it!

Anyway, I'll help you understand. Here is the ellipse proof again!
>LIST OF Failed Physicists, in no order

Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium
Archimedes Plutonium

Math Failure Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com> fails:

>AP writes: Is that why Dr. Tao still believes an ellipse is a conic when
>it never was, because his education in math was underwater basketweaving,
>and cannot understand a proof by AP that the oval is the slant cut in a
>cone, never the ellipse.

Wow, you must really enjoy that excellent ellipse-is-a-conic-sectiom
proof if you keep asking for it over and over again! No problem, here it
is again!

On Sunday, March 17, 2019 at 12:07:06 AM UTC-4, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> On Friday, December 28, 2018 at 8:31:52 PM UTC-6, Earle Jones wrote:
> > Terry has access to students
>

> On Saturday, March 16, 2019 at 10:10:07 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:

> > Do the pious of folk of the county know what you are up to?

What Archie Pu snipped and refuses to address:

Speaking of tests, Archie Pu, I recall that you flunked the easiest math test ever scoring an unimpressive 0/4. Here it is again:

1. What is the sine of 45 degrees to 3 decimal places? __________  

2. True or false: 10^604 = 0  __________

3. If A is true and B is false, then A AND B is __________

4. If A is true and B is true, then A OR B is __________

How does it feel to be that stupid?

BTW have you recruited any kids in Clay County SD to your Atom God failure cult yet?

> AP writes: hey look, some progress a foot, Dr. Tao and perhaps Dr. Green made it so that Dan Christensen had to tear down his "education website of logic"

Check it out, Archie Pu: http://www.dcproof.com  

You might actually learn something. If nothing else, you will learn that T AND F = F, and that T OR T = T.


Dan

AlzheimerPlutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com> fails at math and science:

>On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 9:58:42 PM UTC-5, Jan wrote:
>>
>> Must you post garbage?

Excellent question, Jan. Archie, why must you post garbage?

>On Sunday, March 17, 2019 at 3:00:28 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> AlzheimerPlutonium writes:
>>  "unofficial state idiot of South Dakota
>>

>AP writes: who you calling a state idiot?

Why you, Alzheimer Plutonium, of course! You have moved far beyond being
just the village idiot of Vermillion SD, and beyond being the County Idiot
of Clay County. You certainly qualify for being the State Idiot of South
Dakota.

Lots of states have an official State Flower, an official State Tree or
whatever. Certainly
South Dakota should have an Official State Idiot, Archimedes Plutonium.
SD is a small population state, so you should win easily!

>Just because he still thinks a ellipse is a conic

Oh you need to see the ellipse-is-a-conic proof again?

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

x-no-archive: yes

AlzheimerPlutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com> fails at math and science:

>> Alzheimer

No, no, no. Get it right, Failure Plutonium.  AlzheimerPlutonium.
Repeat after me. Alz-hei-mer-plu-ton-i-um.

<snip autistic spam>




x-no-archive: yes

AutisticPlutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com> fails at math and science:

>About- Relf-- he never grew up and cannot tell right from wrong. sci.physics
>is about physics, not about relf's OFFTOPIC daily spam, and he has done
>this for decades, spamming sci.physics with his daily airhead nonsense.

<snip Plutonium's professor stalking spam>

About- Plutonium-- he never grew up and cannot tell right from wrong.  
sci.physics is about physics, not about Plutonium's OFFTOPIC daily spam,
and he has done this for decades, spamming sci.physics with his daily
airhead nonsense.

(I still find it fascinating how Plutonium repeatedly does *exactly* what he
complains that others do. Whether it's spam, attacking others or offtopic
nonsense. Either Plutonium really doesn't "get it", or he thinks he is
entitled to do what he thinks others aren't allowed to do)


x-no-archive: yes

On Wednesday, March 27, 2019 at 10:24:23 PM UTC+1, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> see my proof that ellipse is never a conic

Your "proof" is erroneous, sorry Archie.

Below you will find a simple proof that shows that certain conic sections actually _are_ ellipses.

On Wednesday, March 27, 2019 at 11:40:35 PM UTC+1, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> On Wednesday, March 27, 2019 at 5:11:59 PM UTC-5, Me wrote:
> >
> > Below you will find a simple proof that shows that certain conic sections
> > actually _are_ ellipses.
> >

> AP writes: where is that simple proof?

You really need to see that proof again?

Ok, here it is!

Some preliminaries (i.e. first things first):

AutisticPlutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com> fails at math and science:

>On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 9:58:42 PM UTC-5, Jan wrote:

>> On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 2:31:46 PM UTC-8, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>> > Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test
>
>> Must you post garbage?
>
> --
> Jan

Yes, must you post garbage, ArchiePoo?

>On Monday, April 1, 2019 at 10:00:05 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> AutisticPlutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com> fails at math and science:

>AP writes: no I would not call it autism that Dr. Tao suffers from

Oh rats, Plutonium is failing again everywhere! He is projecting his own failure
on Dr. Tao who is totally uninvolved! What a mess!!!

> with his ellipse
>is a conic when it never was. I am sure plenty of people with autism can read and
>understand AP's proof the ellipse was never a conic.

Oh you want to help autistic people understand that an ellipse is a conic section?
That's great! I hope this can help them learn!!!

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

>AP's proof is a published book on Kindle.

WARNING TO PARENTS: Archimedes Plutonium is offering to teach your children
his broken math. BEWARE! He will corrupt the minds of your children! He
teaches there are no negative numbers, no complex numbers, he teaches a
sine wave isn't a sine wave plus many, many other instances of bad math.
In addition, he loves to teach false Boolean logic such as 3 AND 2 = 5.
His method at doing this is particularly insidious. He'll post a false
statement that nobody believes, such as 3 OR 2 = 5, say that it is false,
but then he'll try to replace it with another similar false statement such
as 3 AND 2 = 5, in order to really confuse future computer scientists.

Also, Plutonium is known to attempt to Brainwash young children by including
several pages of nothing except one of his lies repeated over and over.

Nobody knows why he wishes to corrupt the minds of children like this.
Perhaps he wants everyone to be a failure at math, just like he is.
Perhaps he is an agent of Putin and Russia, or maybe of China, in order
to make sure they will continue to dominate the trade economy. But the
point is, stay away, if he offers to give or sell you his dangerous book!

In addition, Plutonium wants to usurp good Christians by trying to convince
students to worship his evil pagan Plutonium atom god. You can recognize
the symbol of this evil pagan cult, which is an ascii-art cosmic butthole.



x-no-archive: yes

AutisticPlutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com> fails at math and science:

>Re: Archimedes "Unofficial State Idiot of South Dakota" Plutonium flunked the math test of a lifetime-generation test

>AutisticPlutonium <plut...@gmail.com> fails at math and science:

>>AP writes: stalking is criminal behavior, especially when it has gone on for
>>27 years by the above.

>So why do you continue to stalk [professors like those of RPI and Emerson?
What will stalking them accomplish?]

Why won't you answer that question? Why do you just repeat part of it?
I think plenty of people want to know, why do you stalk math and physics
professors of colleges supposedly near people who reply to you? Not just me
but lots of people.


x-no-archive: yes

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item





See all formats and editions
        •        Kindle
        •        $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$5.00 to buy

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math where they had a ill-defined infinity; they had the fakery of Limit concept; and they had the fakery of a continuum.

The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus basically says the integral is inverse to the derivative and the derivative is inverse to the integral. By inverse is meant that you can go to one given the other and vice versa, such as add is the inverse of subtract, so if we had 10 + 4 = 14 then the inverse is subtract 4 and we have 14-4 = 10 back to 10 where we started from. And the geometry proof involves a rectangle and a right triangle hinged atop a trapezoid. You hinge it one direction you have dy*dx for area of a rectangle for integral area. You hinge it the other direction you have the dy/dx for slope or derivative from the trapezoid formed.

Sad that Old Math was so full of ill-defined concepts and fake concepts that never was a geometry proof of FTC ever possible in Old Math.

Length: 29 pages
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled

                File Size: 1224 KB
                Print Length: 29 pages
                Publication Date: March 14, 2019
                Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
                Language: English
                ASIN: B07PQTNHMY
                Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
                X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

                Word Wise: Not Enabled
                Lending: Enabled
                Screen Reader: Supported 
                Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
                
AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item





See all formats and editions
        •        Kindle
        •        $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$3.00 to buy


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 




On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:11:12 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Autistic

for the fool never realized he had to have a GEOMETRY proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, and far and away, President Trump is smarter in mathematics than Dr. Conway will ever be

On Wednesday, May 8, 2019 at 8:46:20 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:

> You are at Longview Mental Hospital,

Was the Saber-Toothed-Tiger, Smilodon, Paleontologists most laughable mistake? Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)// I never knew Dan Christensen had two saber teeth

On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 3:28:07 PM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> I really think it is time for you to retire, Archie. Haven't you, ummmm... done enough aleady?
>
> Dan

Rik Chandler says modern day science is absolute trash// what is Science and Sentiment in the USA??

Rik Chandler
1.0 out of 5 starsAbsolute trash
May 4, 2019
Verified Purchase
This is an incomprehensible piece of garbage written by an anonymous person using an absurd pseudonym.

Was the Saber-Toothed-Tiger, Smilodon, Paleontologists most laughable mistake? Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item

Was the Saber-Toothed-Tiger, Smilodon, Paleontologists most laughable mistake? Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item

See all formats and editions
        •        Kindle
        •        $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$3.00 to buy


Ever since I was a teenager in High School, I was troubled with the saber-toothed tiger-- how evolution could have built such an animal. But I was not logical in mind as a teenager, and had to wait until now to let my logical mind survey that perplexing question. To an extraordinary claim in science-- huge teeth that an animal cannot cope with, requires extra-special evidence and proofs of science. How can evolution theory (even though it is a rule or algorithm) (see my Superdeterminism replaces Darwin Evolution book), how can evolution produce an animal with teeth that "get in the way of everything" as the animal goes through life. So, I am asking the science community to completely re-examine the fossil evidence of Smilodon. I do not have that evidence available, but the entire Paleontology community can make the evidence available. For what I suspect is that the tiger never had saber-teeth and that those teeth found in digs or tar pits, were the teeth of Entelodonts or some ungulate horn or walrus type animal teeth. In other words, I question the claim there ever existed a cat with huge canine teeth.

Cover Picture: What spurred me onto this small book was a few days ago seeing the cover of Science News showing a Saber-Toothed Tiger. And how utterly ridiculous for a tiger to have those teeth. And just as ridiculous that grown scientists believe such nonsense without questioning it.

Length: 16 pages
Word Wise: Enabled
Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

                File Size: 1681 KB
                Print Length: 16 pages
                Publication Date: March 30, 2019
                Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
                Language: English
                ASIN: B07Q7RLD4F
                Text-to-Speech: Enabled  
                X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

                Word Wise: Enabled
                Lending: Enabled
                Screen Reader: Supported  
                Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled  
                Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,822,656 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
                #218 in 30-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
                #278 in Paleontology (Kindle Store)
                #1383 in Paleontology (Books)



On Thursday, November 10, 2016 at 3:28:07 PM UTC-6, Dan Christensen wrote:
> I really think it is time for you to retire,

Re: Trump smarter in math than MIT & UC, Riverside Math departments, smarter in math than Terry Tao, Ed Witten, Dr. Conway
On Sunday, May 26, 2019 at 2:19:44 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
>
> WARNING TO STUDENTS:

AP writes: yes, appropriate that Christensen warns students that John Baez, Terry Tao, Ed Witten are so backwards that they still teach ellipse is a conic. And so very very stupid in mathematics for they never managed to ever get around doing a geometry proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, how bozo is that????

Add Dr. Conway to the list of ignorant math professors, still teaching ellipse is a conic when it never was, but the bozo is worse on Calculus , for the fool never realized he had to have a GEOMETRY proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, and far and away, President Trump is smarter in mathematics than Dr. Conway will ever be.

On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:11:12 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Autistic

AP writes: no, I would not diagnose Green and Tao as being autistic, rather I would diagnose them as channeled kooks of mathematics, channelled by their teachers and thus going afoul of the true course of mathematics itself. It is like training guinea pigs to run a course, when the poor creatures in the natural wild do their real-own thing, not some unnatural thing placed upon them by bonehead math professors.

So, what Green and Tao are, are good at taking math tests of bonehead mathematics, not real mathematics. For neither one of them-- or their professors realized a ellipse is not a conic. And if given 1,000 years or 10,000 years or 100,000 years of life with doing nothing but mathematics, the mental agility of Green or Tao or their professors, never for one second would the idea that the ellipse is never a conic, but an oval is the slant cut, no, that idea would never cross their small math mind.

So what is this pitiful Green-Tao theorem? Well it basically says that 5, 11, 17, 23, 29 is a set of five primes equally spaced by a distance of 6 units, and that the conjecture was you can have an arbitrarily long sequences of such primes. Reminds me of my proof of Polignac conjecture.

But the trouble with Green and Tao, is they have a conjecture on infinity, yet the two bozos never in their life ever are able to precisely define what infinity actually is or means. So the Green - Tao theorem is no better than to say the "sky is blue" and the proof is -- blue. So unless you precisely define infinity, with a borderline between finite and infinity, Green and Tao were just flailing in the wind with nothing, but crackpottery.

And recently, well AP proved the true numbers of mathematics are Grid Numbers and that the concept, the very concept of Primes is a phony fakery because the Naturals have no division. So you cannot define a prime number when Naturals have no division itself. The smallest true number system is the 10 Grid and it possesses not one single prime number. That is because the concept of prime is as phony as saying how many Loch Ness monsters make a sequence or how many fire breathing dragons makes a sequence.

But the 1990s and early 2000s was a time ripe for a crumby Princeton Univ. to inflate math students as being "super good" when in fact they were immature punks of mathematics who were so dumb in mathematics that for the next 100,000 years too stupid to see the slant cut in a cone was a oval, never an ellipse.

So in science history, what happens is that poor scientists, poor math professors of mathematics, they elevate and inflate their good students far far beyond their actual talents-- they are mediocre and poor at mathematics, and inflate them so high, that they end up with littering and polluting the world of science with another stupid crackpot contraption of the Green-Tao Theorem.

 Michael Moroney wrote 31May: Math Failure

5:58 AM (6 hours ago)

 Dan Christensen wrote 31May: We are STILL waiting for YOUR value for the sine of 45 degrees,  Give us hint. Is is a value between 0 and 10^666? (HA, HA, HA!) WARNING TO STUDENTS: The psycho troll

11:18 AM (1 hour ago)

AP writes: Well, Dan is going to have to wait a long long time for Dr.Tao to understand the overhauling of trigonometry as a cycloid wave. For Dr. Tao is still stuck with Christensen that 10 OR 4 = 14 with 10 AND 4 = 6, and their ellipse is a conic when it never was such. Forget about trigonometry for Dr. Tao who still thinks ellipse is a conic. For sure.

AutisticPlutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com> fails at math and science:

>All anyone need do, is read the AP Proof that ellipse can never be a conic,
>written for the High School student in geometry

You mean this excellent proof?
x-no-archive: yes

In article <a593a14c-669f-4512-bcb4-8cef18a01df6@googlegroups.com>,

Archimedes Plutonium  <plutonium...@gmail.com> wrote:

>All anyone need do, is read the AP Proof that ellipse can never be a
>conic, written for the High School student in geometry

All anyone needs to do is get a cone and cut it.  Real life trumps
your "proofs".

-- Richard

AutisticPlutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com> fails at math and science:

>AP writes: well Navy dog, we hope Murray Gell-Mann is not that of a stupid idiot like kibo

>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.
>Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
 
>>  Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572.  A proton is about the mass
>> of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.

Stupid Plutonium, you even quoted my math! And you still got it wrong!!
As I wrote, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572, and 8.88024338572 is not 9!
8.88024338572 muon masses is 12% of a muon mass too small! No wonder you are such a
pathetic failure at both math and physics!!


x-no-archive: yes

On Monday, June 10, 2019 at 5:40:06 PM UTC-5, Richard Tobin wrote:
> All anyone needs to do is get a cone and cut it.  Real life trumps
> your "proofs".
>
> -- Richard

AP writes: that is the rub, is it not, that Dr. Tao is not even able to do a physical demonstration. Nor, even understand AP's simple High School proof as published in Kindle. No, Dr. Tao choses to run and hide from true math.

On Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 3:05:56 PM UTC-5, Dan Christensen wrote:
>Re: Rik Chandler,Living proof that nature does not abhor a vacuum // Harvard's Dr.Hau "slow light", and turning the laser off; I find very comprehensible
>
> That Archie Pu really seems to be, how shall we say... a "genius"

AP writes: I do not call it genius, I call it the fact that most every human ever borne is mostly 90% touchy feely nonsense and only 10% logical whereas I am 90% logical and 10% sentiment

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
Be the first to review this item





See all formats and editions
        •        Kindle
        •        $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$3.00 to buy


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 

What was your adress again?

    Lost marbles street 123
    Wonky Wonky Town?

Am Samstag, 15. Juni 2019 02:58:11 UTC+2 schrieb Archimedes Plutonium:
> AP writes: good questio Jan Burse, good question, has Dr. Tao ever done any physics? I suspect he is far too stupid for that, for he cannot even do a ellipse is not a conic, for which High School kids can do the ellipse. Perhaps Dr. Tao got burnt out of academics when he was at Princeton where you have more fools of math that could never do a ellipse. If you cannot do the ellipse correctly -- you are no good in math or physics.
>
> On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 6:59:05 PM UTC-5, j4n bur53 wrote:
> > brain farto, do we have some primes:
>
> On Monday, June 10, 2019 at 7:14:02 PM UTC-5, j4n bur53 wrote:
> > brain farto claims 22699 is a Sierpiński number.
> >
>
> On Wednesday, May 29, 2019 at 4:43:20 PM UTC-5, j4n bur53 wrote:
> > Spamming dumb fuck, will your wheelchair
> > have hexadecimal or decimal wheels?
> >
> > This one:
> >
> >     |__
> >     |__|
> >     *  *
> >
> > Or this one:
> >
> >     |__
> >     |__|
> >     o  o
>
> Jan Burse is a different type of bully stalker for he tore down AP's Wikipedia page in 2017 and then participated in condoning the forgery of AP to Math Stack Exchange in 2017 along with Dan Christensen, and then has continued to post graphic pictures of bodily violence on AP and then Burse has posted the real-estate near AP in order to incite violence upon AP. Burse is a new type of bully stalker with overt violence in his posts and I recommend that he be permanently banned from sci.math and sci.physics before someone gets hurt from all his over-testosterone bullying and violence association.
>
>        o-:^>___?
>        `~~c--^c'
> Navy dog says: Jan Burse, --- brain in the sewer, never any math or science, just a sewer kook
>
>
>
> World's First Valid Proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, 1993 & 2014 Kindle Edition

> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> Be the first to review this item
>
> See all formats and editions
>         •        Kindle

>         •        $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$4.00 to buy
>
>
> Real 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.
>
> 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).
>
> Length: 74 pages

> Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
> Page Flip: Enabled
>

>                 File Size: 1445 KB
>                 Print Length: 74 pages
>                 Publication Date: March 12, 2019

>                 Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
>                 Language: English

>                 ASIN: B07PQKGW4M

>                 Text-to-Speech: Enabled 
>                 X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

>                 Word Wise: Not Enabled
>                 Lending: Enabled
>                 Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled 
>
>
>
>

> AP Atom Model replacing the Rutherford-Bohr Atom Model (Physics series for High School Book 1) Kindle Edition

> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> Be the first to review this item
>
>

> #1 New Release in General Chemistry & Reference

>
> See all formats and editions
>         •        Kindle
>         •        $0.00 

Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$3.00 to buy
>

> The Rutherford and Bohr model of the Atom is seen now as fake physics. And it will take a lot of time before that nonsense is removed and replaced in science textbooks and classrooms for a truer model of the Atom. So to accelerate that movement towards the truth of what the Atom is, I present this short book for High School. In the age of the Internet, when we discover true science but am teaching fake science, we need a process to quicken the exit of fake science. Not to wait around for 50 years to be teaching the true science, we should be teaching the true science as fast as possible and to remove the fake science in our school curriculums in a timely and orderly manner. So this small book is a pattern for future removal of fake science from school curriculums. This small book explains what the Rutherford-Bohr model was and why it was phony science. And I explain what replaces the Rutherford-Bohr model with the AP model of the Atom. So the pattern is -- show both -- and then authors of texts will eliminate the fake science until it is a passing footnote.
>
> Cover Picture is a coil and a bar magnet and a galvanometer that measures the current produced as the bar magnet is thrust through the coil. This is Faraday's Law and needs to be taught in High School.
>
> Read less
>
>
> Length: 12 pages

> Word Wise: Enabled
> Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

> Page Flip: Enabled
> Mat
>
>
> Product details
>                 File Size: 2207 KB
>                 Print Length: 12 pages
>                 Publication Date: April 10, 2019

>                 Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
>                 Language: English

>                 ASIN: B07QKHRWG8

>                 Text-to-Speech: Enabled
>                 X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  


>                 Word Wise: Enabled
>                 Lending: Enabled
>                 Screen Reader: Supported
>                 Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

>                 Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #220,321 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
>                 #5 in 30-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
>                 #39 in General Chemistry & Reference
>                 #381 in General Chemistry

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

> How the Sun and Stars truly shine, not by fusion, but by Faraday's Law (Physics series for High School Book 2) Kindle Edition

>         •        by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
>         •        Be the first to review this item
>         •        
>         •        
>         •        
>         •        
>         •        
>         •        See all formats and editions
>         •        Kindle
>         •        $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$3.00 to buy


> One of my recent books (published a few days ago) was the AP model of the interior of atoms replacing the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom. And the differences are vast between these two atom models, for the AP model has the Faraday law going on, with actual work and job for the subatomic particles. And in that Atom model book, I was complaining that our modern science education school system has no good way of ridding itself of fake science where we keep on teaching propaganda and fake science for as much as 50 years beyond the discovery of what the true underlying science actually is. I gave as an example the Wegener Continental Drift theory in geology, where students had to suffer 50 years of a fake static-earth-theory when the Continental Drift theory was all around. One of the reasons for the delay in teaching the truth of science, is there is so much money interests involved of people selling fake science textbooks. And this is where the Internet can come in and play a vital role in school education, because the Internet can publish books of "true science" and get them exposed to a world audience, and so fake science like the static-earth theory would have been gone long before 50 years had elapsed if the internet were present for Wegener.
>
> But now an even bigger and more important theory of science and physics is here and threatens to throw out as fake science the fusion theory of star energy, especially since it is "How the Sun shines". In effect, the question is, how do all stars shine? What is their energy source. And hard to believe that this topic in current science education with their explanation as "being fusion" is fake science. We all know what the answer is from present day science-- that stars and sun shine because of fusion. That they fuse hydrogen and light elements to make heavier elements like helium and in that fusion they give off energy which is sunshine. But is it true? Is that true science. You would be surprised to find out, that such is not the truth of how stars and Sun shine. They do not shine because of fusion. They shine because the Faraday law is going on inside each and every atom in that star or the Sun.
>
> Now, here is another science teaching that needs to replace the fake science of fusion for the Sun and stars. And it should not take 50 years like Wegener's continental drift to push out the fake static earth theory. We should not have to wait 50 years for our teachers to teach the truth about how the stars and Sun shine with energy. And so, here again, just as in the previous book "AP's model of the Atom", I present the old theory of how stars shine and alongside that old fake theory, I present the new true theory. And in that presentation, we can give the entire science education community, give them about say 5 years of time in which to completely remove the old fake theory that fusion causes stars and Sun to shine with energy. When in fact, the truth is, Faraday Law causes stars and the Sun to shine.
>
> Cover Picture is my photograph of a Google search on my computer of Sun images.
>
> Read less
>
>
> Length: 14 pages

> Word Wise: Enabled
> Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

> Page Flip: Enabled
> Matchbook Price: $0.99 What's this?
>
>                 File Size: 1629 KB
>                 Print Length: 14 pages
>                 Publication Date: April 12, 2019

>                 Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
>                 Language: English

>                 ASIN: B07QRPZQ4Q

>                 Text-to-Speech: Enabled
>                 X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  


>                 Word Wise: Enabled

>                 Lending: Enabled
>                 Screen Reader: Supported
>                 Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
>

>                 
Would you like to tell us about a lower price?
>
> World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Kindle Edition

> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> Be the first to review this item
>
> See all formats and editions
>         •        Kindle

>         •        $0.00 

Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$5.00 to buy
>
> Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math where they had a ill-defined infinity; they had the fakery of Limit concept; and they had the fakery of a continuum.
>
> The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus basically says the integral is inverse to the derivative and the derivative is inverse to the integral. By inverse is meant that you can go to one given the other and vice versa, such as add is the inverse of subtract, so if we had 10 + 4 = 14 then the inverse is subtract 4 and we have 14-4 = 10 back to 10 where we started from. And the geometry proof involves a rectangle and a right triangle hinged atop a trapezoid. You hinge it one direction you have dy*dx for area of a rectangle for integral area. You hinge it the other direction you have the dy/dx for slope or derivative from the trapezoid formed.
>
> Sad that Old Math was so full of ill-defined concepts and fake concepts that never was a geometry proof of FTC ever possible in Old Math.
>
> Length: 29 pages
> Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
> Page Flip: Enabled
>                 
>                 File Size: 1224 KB
>                 Print Length: 29 pages

>                 Publication Date: March 14, 2019

>                 Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
>                 Language: English

>                 ASIN: B07PQTNHMY

>                 Text-to-Speech: Enabled
>                 X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

>                 Word Wise: Not Enabled
>                 Lending: Enabled

>                 Screen Reader: Supported
>                 Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

>                 Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #293,690 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
>                 #18 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
>                 #70 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
>                 #471 in Calculus (Books)
> World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Kindle Edition

> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> Be the first to review this item
>
> See all formats and editions
>         •        Kindle

>         •        $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$5.00 to buy
>
> Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math where they had a ill-defined infinity; they had the fakery of Limit concept; and they had the fakery of a continuum.
>
> The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus basically says the integral is inverse to the derivative and the derivative is inverse to the integral. By inverse is meant that you can go to one given the other and vice versa, such as add is the inverse of subtract, so if we had 10 + 4 = 14 then the inverse is subtract 4 and we have 14-4 = 10 back to 10 where we started from. And the geometry proof involves a rectangle and a right triangle hinged atop a trapezoid. You hinge it one direction you have dy*dx for area of a rectangle for integral area. You hinge it the other direction you have the dy/dx for slope or derivative from the trapezoid formed.
>
> Sad that Old Math was so full of ill-defined concepts and fake concepts that never was a geometry proof of FTC ever possible in Old Math.
>
> Length: 29 pages
> Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
> Page Flip: Enabled
>                 
>                 File Size: 1224 KB
>                 Print Length: 29 pages

>                 Publication Date: March 14, 2019

>                 Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
>                 Language: English

>                 ASIN: B07PQTNHMY

>                 Text-to-Speech: Enabled
>                 X-Ray: 
Not Enabled  

>                 Word Wise: Not Enabled
>                 Lending: Enabled

>                 Screen Reader: Supported
>                 Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

>                 Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #293,690 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
>                 #18 in 45-Minute Science & Math Short Reads
>                 #70 in Calculus (Kindle Store)
>                 #471 in Calculus (Books)
>
>
> TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS (textbook in the making-- journal textbook): journal-textbook for ages 5 to 18, Volume 1; and ages 19 to 26, Volume 2 Kindle Edition

> by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)
> Be the first to review this item
>
>

> #1 New Release in General Geometry

>
>
> See all formats and editions
>         •        Kindle

>         •        $0.00 


Read with Kindle Unlimited to also enjoy access to over 1 million more titles 
$9.99 to buy
>
> This is the one textbook in two volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education needs, 5 year old to 26 year old through all of mathematics that is needed to do science. Every other math book is incidental to this one. And the student needs this math book for all their math and science needs. A one-size-fits-all for mathematics study.
>
> I call it a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost continuously. A unique first in education textbooks-- continual overnight editing.
>
> What prompted me to write this textbook is that the Old Math is too much filled with error, mistakes and just sheer nonsense. In the early 2000s I wrote about 5 editions of Correcting Math textbooks and about 9 editions of True Calculus, but then I got so fed up and tired with all the mistakes of Old Math, that I decided the best route to go is throw out all of Old Math and start anew.
>
> Now I wrestled with publishing a "rough first edition" now, or to wait about a year in polishing the textbook and then publish it. I wrestled with this and decided I have enough of a skeleton text, that I can continually polish with overnight editing, and that it would be of more benefit to readers to have this skeleton text and watch and wait as the months and years go by to see the continual polishing take affect. So I decided tonight to publish, for the benefit of many to see, rather than wait a year to see a polished text. I may have made a mistake in this decision for I do not want to turn off anyone to math. But maybe I made the correct decision to allow others to see this book a full year ahead of schedule. Bon Voyage!
>
> Length: 328 pages

> Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
> Page Flip: Enabled
>
>

>                 File Size: 1968 KB
>                 Print Length: 328 pages
>                 Publication Date: May 2, 2019

>                 Sold by: Amazon Digital Services LLC
>                 Language: English

>                 ASIN: B07RG7BVZW

>                 Text-to-Speech: Enabled
>                 X-Ray: Not Enabled  

>                 Word Wise: Not Enabled
>                 Lending: Enabled

>                 Screen Reader: Supported
>                 Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled

>                 Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #274,398 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
>                 #27 in General Geometry
>                 #336 in Geometry & Topology (Books)

On Saturday, June 22, 2019 at 7:22:30 AM UTC-5, j4n bur53 wrote:
> cannot distinguish sci.math from sci.physics.
> Posts his garbage nonsense everywhere, already for 30 years.
>

AP writes: Jan Burse, don't you mean 3 years?? For I can only remember Dr. Tao active in posting to sci.math for about 3 years starting around 1993

On Monday, July 1, 2019 at 6:28:26 AM UTC-5, bassam king karzeddin wrote:
>
>  But it was observed more than once that you too, don't have a proper logic, sure

AP writes: Yes, the math community needs to eject every math professor who cannot admit ellipse is never a conic but always a cylinder section. Eject those math professors who cannot see that 10 OR 4 = 14 is a colossal mistake. Eject every math professor who cannot see that true numbers of mathematics is Grid Numbers, and their Reals-Complex are a total joke and disaster.

Dr. Wiles, Dr. Conway, Dr. Stillwell, Dr. Hales, Dr. Tao are not mathematicians but worthless nattering nutters of mathematics, and instead of admitting ellipse is never a conic and 10 AND 4 = 14, these fools of mathematics send out the kook stalker brigade of kibo parry moroney, christensen, jan burse, franz, eastside, jan bielawski, chris thomasson, konyberg-- stalking creeps rather than admit they made a mistake.

AP writes: Dr. Wiles failed as a mathematician. He passed as a teacher of math, but failed as a mathematician, because for a true mathematician, they have the ability to correct the "past math". Wiles never had that ability and thus failed math. And when people do not have that ability, they end up doing the opposite-- pollute math with more cockamie garbage-- Wiles silly FLT fakery. Wiles is such a failure of math that to this very day-- he cannot accept the truth that ellipse is not a conic, but is a cylinder section. And instead of admitting the truth, Wiles sits back and watches shitheads like kibo Parry Moroney stalk the true mathematician. I am not saying Wiles pays Moroney to stalk, but am saying that he delights in stalkers chasing after AP.

AP writes: no, I am sure that Dr. Baez cannot teach his Univ Calif. Riverside students that 938 is 12% short of 945, but apparently Dr. Baez can teach another mistake-- ellipse as conic and get away with it

On Saturday, June 29, 2019 at 2:21:23 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Babbling kO0k

AP writes: no, I am sure that Dr. Baez cannot teach his Univ Calif. Riverside students that 938 is 12% short of 945, but apparently Dr. Baez can teach another mistake-- ellipse as conic and get away with it

Dr. Baez stupid but not depraved//what we throw out of Old Math-- excerpt from my textbook-- TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: journal-textbook for ages 5 to 18, Volume 1; and ages 19 to 26, Volume 2 Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

On Sunday, June 30, 2019 at 3:44:52 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Minnow of Math and Runt of Physics

AP writes: I do not think Dr. Baez of UC Riverside is depraved in physics, but I do wish he stop using all those fake names.


On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 12:46:08 PM UTC-5, Me(Franz of Germany) wrote:
>
> In short:

AP writes: sorry this is the shortest I can do

Is Franz & Gottingen too stupid to learn? what we throw out of Old Math-- excerpt from my textbook-- TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: journal-textbook for ages 5 to 18, Volume 1; and ages 19 to 26, Volume 2 Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

On Friday, June 21, 2019 at 2:46:23 PM UTC-5, j4n bur53 wrote:
>   Fired from my first real programming job.
>   Am I in the wrong field?
>  



We know Dan Christensen and kibo Parry Moroney are imbeciles on math when they believe 10 OR 4 = 14, or a ellipse is a conic when it never was, or -- they can never do a geometry proof of fundamental theorem of calculus. But is Jan Burse and ETH matching imbeciles to Christensen and kibo? Or, the question is, can ETH and Jan Burse even comprehend any of the below excerpt, or have they become  a wallflower of nonmath a wallflower of institutionalized idiocy?


what we throw out of Old Math-- excerpt from my textbook-- TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: journal-textbook for ages 5 to 18, Volume 1; and ages 19 to 26, Volume 2 Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Excerpt from the textbook: Teaching True Mathematics

First off, let me make a long list of what is not mathematics and was thrown out as either fakery junk mathematics or was pared down immensely for being rather minutia or irrelevant or archaic and not worth the time in classroom education.

1) Rationals and Negative Numbers thrown out completely
2) Irrationals thrown out completely
3) Reals thrown out completely
4) Imaginary numbers and Complex numbers are b.s. and thrown out completely
5) Trigonometry pared down so much-- 90% thrown out, and no trigonometry ever enters Calculus
6) Continuum and continuity thrown out as horrible fakery
7) Topology is junk and a waste of time
8) Prime numbers is fakery for the Naturals never had division in the first place
9) Limit in Old Math was a horrible fakery
10) Lobachevsky, Riemann geometries and all NonEuclidean geometries are fakery and a waste of time
11) Boole logic a horrid gaggle of monumental mistakes
12) Galois Algebra of Group, Ring, Field a fakery and waste of time
13) Dimension stops at 3rd, and 3rd is the last and highest dimension possible, for there is no 4th or higher dimensions.
14) High School in Old Math spends too much time on quadratic equations with their negative numbers and imaginary-complex numbers when such never existed in the first place and where they violate a principle of algebra-- that an equation of algebra-- the right-side of the equation must always have a greater than zero number. So we throw out all quadratic equations of Old Math as fake math.
15) High School in Old Math spends too much time on teaching in geometry the congruence of SSS, ASA etc etc and we should pare that back somewhat, as excess teaching of a concept.
16) to be continued....


TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: journal-textbook for ages 5 to 18, Volume 1; and ages 19 to 26, Volume 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

This is the one textbook in two volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education needs, 5 year old to 26 year old through all of mathematics that is needed to do science. Every other math book is incidental to this one. And the student needs this math book for all their math and science needs. A one-size-fits-all for mathematics study.

I call it a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost continuously. A unique first in education textbooks-- continual overnight editing.

What prompted me to write this textbook is that the Old Math is too much filled with error, mistakes and just sheer nonsense. In the early 2000s I wrote about 5 editions of Correcting Math textbooks and about 9 editions of True Calculus, but then I got so fed up and tired with all the mistakes of Old Math, that I decided the best route to go is throw out all of Old Math and start anew.

Now I wrestled with publishing a "rough first edition" now, or to wait about a year in polishing the textbook and then publish it. I wrestled with this and decided I have enough of a skeleton text, that I can continually polish with overnight editing, and that it would be of more benefit to readers to have this skeleton text and watch and wait as the months and years go by to see the continual polishing take affect. So I decided tonight to publish, for the benefit of many to see, rather than wait a year to see a polished text. I may have made a mistake in this decision for I do not want to turn off anyone to math. But maybe I made the correct decision to allow others to see this book a full year ahead of schedule. Bon Voyage!

Length: 363 pages


Is ETH and Jan Burse too dumb to learn ellipse is never a conic thus too dumb to ever learn real proton is 840MeV not 938

> > On Saturday, June 15, 2019 at 12:59:50 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > Autistic

> > On Friday, June 14, 2019 at 12:00:26 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > Autistic

> > On Friday, June 7, 2019 at 12:13:14 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > Physics minnow
> > > WARNING TO ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING STUDENTS:
> >
> >


AP writes: Unpacking Moroney, suggests the reason ETH and Harvard-MIT is too dumb to see that 9 x 105MeV = 945MeV and the proton is clocked in at 938MeV with only a less than 1% sigma error, implies the real proton is 840MeV with a muon = real electron attached. Since none at MIT-Harvard could ever understand AP's proof ellipse is never a conic section (for that is the oval,not the ellipse) but rather the ellipse is a cylinder section; stands to reason they are far far too stupid at Harvard-MIT to see real proton is 840MeV.

> > On Tuesday, May 28, 2019 at 5:04:17 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > Autistic
> > >

> > > WARNING TO PARENTS:
> >

Here is a case where a professor of math and physics, John Baez still believes in 10 OR 4 = 14 when even the local village idiot knows it is 10 AND 4 = 14. Teaches the idiocy of a ellipse is a conic when even a High School student can prove in front of the face of Dr. Baez, with a Kerr jar lid and paper cone that the slant cut is a OVAL, never an ellipse. Yet we pay this ignorant fool of Baez to teach his nonsense.

Where Dr. Baez stalked AP for years and years on the Internet under stupid fake names. Is this what Baez calls-- crackpot list-- to see a grown professor stalking posters, yet the fool still nattering nutters 10 OR 4 = 14. Dr. Baez should start an asylum list to pair up with his Crackpot list for he is ready to go.

why does not Baez, totally worthless in science, just change his name to abu Re: 1kicking out stalkers-- Jan Burse, Dan Christensen, John Baez //

> > On Monday, April 3, 2017 at 9:30:35 PM UTC-5, abu.ku...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > blow it out your ass ... oh,
> > > what was that smell, in the first place
> > >
> >
> > abu.ku...@gmail.com
> >  
> > 4/5/17
> >
> >
> > stalkers out kciking cans
> >
> > yup, complex field is tres c00l
> >
> > > Only if you failed Calculus would you think that
> >
> > nanadittos ... when you ever have any result
> > from ye olde mathe, I'm sure that it will be new -- to you

Dr. Baez, instead of hiding behind fake names and spreading your idiocies in the newsgroups why not do something worthwhile.

AP writes: instead of spamming newsgroups, why not do something worthwhile-- Confirm real electron is 105MeV, real proton is 840MeV and that little particle JJ Thomson discovered in 1897 turns out to be not the atom electron but rather the Dirac magnetic monopole. But that is far too sage of advice for a nutcase of Dr. Baez.
 
AP writes: Is the reason Physicists have not yet confirmed real proton is 840MeV not 938, because its scientists behave much like stalker kibo Parry Moroney-- cesspool mind of hatred with daily hate sheets on people rather than spend their daily activity on uncovering the true proton is 840MeV stuck with the real electron as muon doing a Faraday Law dance inside the atom making electricity and the .5MeV particle is Dirac's magnetic monopole.

> >        o-:^>___?
> >        `~~c--^c'
> > Navy dog says: remember the time the failed engineer kibo Parry Moroney said 938 is short of 945 by 12%. How could any engineer pass school not knowing percentages?

> >
> > 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.
> > Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 9:52:21 AM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >  
> > >  Or, 938.2720813/105.6583745 = 8.88024338572.  A proton is about the mass
> >  > of 8.88 muons, not 9. About 12% short.
> >

Really pathetic, kibo Parry Moroney alleges he is a electrical engineer but the creep dunce idiot thinks 938 is 12% short of 945


Plutonium Atom Totality Universe, Atom Totality Series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Cover picture: is what the interior and exterior of most atoms looks like once you apply Faraday's Law to subatomic particles.This picture is a coil of 88 rings torus with a smaller ring inside. The 88 coil rings represent 11 protons in a Faraday Law magnetic induction coil and the smaller ring is a muon as a bar magnet thrusting through the proton coil, thereby, producing electricity.

The goal and aim of the 8th edition of Atom Totality, 2017 was to iron out all the mathematics of Electricity and Magnetism so that the AP-Maxwell Equations embodied all the mathematics of physics. In other words, all of physics is handled by the AP-Maxwell Equations. But in the course of straightening out the EM math of physics, I made my second greatest science discovery-- that the real proton was 840MeV, real electron was the muon at 105MeV and that little particle we all thought was the electron since JJ Thompson discovered it in 1897, was in fact not the electron but was Dirac's magnetic monopole. I made that discovery in the midst of my writing the 8th edition (only goes to show that most of our best ideas come from organizing and placing our thoughts into order-- writing a book). And so this 9th edition goal and aim is to go back and fix the picture of atoms, their geometry, and incorporate that discovery, mostly by fixing the picture of what atoms exterior and interior geometry is, in light of the fact that there is the Faraday Law going on inside of atoms.
Length: 115 pages

True Chemistry: Chemistry Series, book 1 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Physics and chemistry made a mistake in 1897 for they thought that J.J. Thomson's small particle of .5MeV was the electron of atoms. By 2017, Archimedes Plutonium discovered that the rest mass of 940 for neutron and proton was really 9 x 105MeV with a small sigma-error. Meaning that the real proton is 840MeV, real electron is 105 MeV= muon, and that little particle Thomson discovered was in fact the Dirac magnetic monopole. Dirac circa 1930s was looking for a magnetic monopole, and sadly, Dirac passed away before 2017, because if he had lived to 2017, he would have seen his long sought for magnetic monopole which is every where.
Cover picture: shows two of my chemical models, one of CO and the other CO2
Length: 1154 pages

Geometry of the Chemical Bond; metallic, covalent, ionic//Chemistry Series, book 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

This is the second book of the Series -- True Chemistry. I left off of True Chemistry with trying to solve the Chemical bond when the proton and muon inside of each and every atom is doing the Faraday Law. And since that book was already 1154 pages long, I decided to start afresh in a second book devoted to solving the Geometry of the chemical bond of metallic, covalent and ionic.
Cover Picture: PHYSICS: Part 2: Extended Version: Halliday & Resnick, 1986, pages 654, 655 talking about Capacitors and my collection of some capacitors in my lab. The first one is a two prong wall plug taken apart to show what the prongs fasten onto when plugged-in (two parallel plates). The next three are spade and socket connectors (two parallel plates). Next is circular or hook plates, and last is a cylinder plate and socket.
Length: 41 pages


TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: journal-textbook for ages 5 to 18, Volume 1; and ages 19 to 26, Volume 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

This is the one textbook in two volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education needs, 5 year old to 26 year old through all of mathematics that is needed to do science. Every other math book is incidental to this one. And the student needs this math book for all their math and science needs. A one-size-fits-all for mathematics study.

I call it a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost continuously. A unique first in education textbooks-- continual overnight editing.

What prompted me to write this textbook is that the Old Math is too much filled with error, mistakes and just sheer nonsense. In the early 2000s I wrote about 5 editions of Correcting Math textbooks and about 9 editions of True Calculus, but then I got so fed up and tired with all the mistakes of Old Math, that I decided the best route to go is throw out all of Old Math and start anew.

Now I wrestled with publishing a "rough first edition" now, or to wait about a year in polishing the textbook and then publish it. I wrestled with this and decided I have enough of a skeleton text, that I can continually polish with overnight editing, and that it would be of more benefit to readers to have this skeleton text and watch and wait as the months and years go by to see the continual polishing take affect. So I decided tonight to publish, for the benefit of many to see, rather than wait a year to see a polished text. I may have made a mistake in this decision for I do not want to turn off anyone to math. But maybe I made the correct decision to allow others to see this book a full year ahead of schedule. Bon Voyage!

Length: 363 pages



AP Atom Model replacing the Rutherford-Bohr Atom Model (Physics series for High School Book 1) Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

The Rutherford and Bohr model of the Atom is seen now as fake physics. And it will take a lot of time before that nonsense is removed and replaced in science textbooks and classrooms for a truer model of the Atom. So to accelerate that movement towards the truth of what the Atom is, I present this short book for High School. In the age of the Internet, when we discover true science but am teaching fake science, we need a process to quicken the exit of fake science. Not to wait around for 50 years to be teaching the true science, we should be teaching the true science as fast as possible and to remove the fake science in our school curriculums in a timely and orderly manner. So this small book is a pattern for future removal of fake science from school curriculums. This small book explains what the Rutherford-Bohr model was and why it was phony science. And I explain what replaces the Rutherford-Bohr model with the AP model of the Atom. So the pattern is -- show both -- and then authors of texts will eliminate the fake science until it is a passing footnote.

Cover Picture is a coil and a bar magnet and a galvanometer that measures the current produced as the bar magnet is thrust through the coil. This is Faraday's Law and needs to be taught in High School.

Length: 12 pages

How the Sun and Stars truly shine, not by fusion, but by Faraday's Law (Physics series for High School Book 2) Kindle Edition
       by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

One of my recent books (published a few days ago) was the AP model of the interior of atoms replacing the Rutherford-Bohr model of the atom. And the differences are vast between these two atom models, for the AP model has the Faraday law going on, with actual work and job for the subatomic particles. And in that Atom model book, I was complaining that our modern science education school system has no good way of ridding itself of fake science where we keep on teaching propaganda and fake science for as much as 50 years beyond the discovery of what the true underlying science actually is. I gave as an example the Wegener Continental Drift theory in geology, where students had to suffer 50 years of a fake static-earth-theory when the Continental Drift theory was all around. One of the reasons for the delay in teaching the truth of science, is there is so much money interests involved of people selling fake science textbooks. And this is where the Internet can come in and play a vital role in school education, because the Internet can publish books of "true science" and get them exposed to a world audience, and so fake science like the static-earth theory would have been gone long before 50 years had elapsed if the internet were present for Wegener.

But now an even bigger and more important theory of science and physics is here and threatens to throw out as fake science the fusion theory of star energy, especially since it is "How the Sun shines". In effect, the question is, how do all stars shine? What is their energy source. And hard to believe that this topic in current science education with their explanation as "being fusion" is fake science. We all know what the answer is from present day science-- that stars and sun shine because of fusion. That they fuse hydrogen and light elements to make heavier elements like helium and in that fusion they give off energy which is sunshine. But is it true? Is that true science. You would be surprised to find out, that such is not the truth of how stars and Sun shine. They do not shine because of fusion. They shine because the Faraday law is going on inside each and every atom in that star or the Sun.

Now, here is another science teaching that needs to replace the fake science of fusion for the Sun and stars. And it should not take 50 years like Wegener's continental drift to push out the fake static earth theory. We should not have to wait 50 years for our teachers to teach the truth about how the stars and Sun shine with energy. And so, here again, just as in the previous book "AP's model of the Atom", I present the old theory of how stars shine and alongside that old fake theory, I present the new true theory. And in that presentation, we can give the entire science education community, give them about say 5 years of time in which to completely remove the old fake theory that fusion causes stars and Sun to shine with energy. When in fact, the truth is, Faraday Law causes stars and the Sun to shine.

Cover Picture is my photograph of a Google search on my computer of Sun images.

Length: 14 pages

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math where they had a ill-defined infinity; they had the fakery of Limit concept; and they had the fakery of a continuum.

The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus basically says the integral is inverse to the derivative and the derivative is inverse to the integral. By inverse is meant that you can go to one given the other and vice versa, such as add is the inverse of subtract, so if we had 10 + 4 = 14 then the inverse is subtract 4 and we have 14-4 = 10 back to 10 where we started from. And the geometry proof involves a rectangle and a right triangle hinged atop a trapezoid. You hinge it one direction you have dy*dx for area of a rectangle for integral area. You hinge it the other direction you have the dy/dx for slope or derivative from the trapezoid formed.

Sad that Old Math was so full of ill-defined concepts and fake concepts that never was a geometry proof of FTC ever possible in Old Math.

Length: 29 pages

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section 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

1- Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.
1-
1- https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe        
1- Archimedes Plutonium

Minnow of Math and Runt of Physics Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com> fails at math and science:

>Subject: Re: numbers in chemistry Re:.. asked-- what is left after AP throws out

>At the moment I am working on solving what the Lewis Arm length is, in chem
> up where I had to throw out the dissociation energy table as just theoreti

Very Good. You are making an improvement, Archie.  You used "I" and not "we" even
though you do slip up.  So I am glad you fed your diseased cats so they are not
meowing at you and and aren't thinking they are discussing math and physics with
you.

BTW I went into a tourist trap rock/fossil/mineral store and they have a complete
Smilodon juvenile skull for sale.  It is black so I assume it came from the tar pits
of LA. I looked it over carefully, esp. the teeth and it was obvious the skull/
sabres were together, it was definitely NOT a case of anyone supergluing Desert
Walrus tusks onto a tiger skull.  It was only $200, I almost bought it.


x-no-archive: yes

Trisection of the Angle is an extremely good analogy to the sham math that was Prime numbers//TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: journal-textbook for ages 5 to 18, Volume 1; Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

AP writes: And to think that Dr. Tao, Dr. Green spent days and days oodling around with strings of primes of length, when in reality primes are a fake sham joke in math and anyone who wastes time on primes is a oodle head.

2.5- What we throw out of Old Math-- excerpt from my textbook-- TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: journal-textbook for ages 5 to 18, Volume 1; Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Excerpt from the textbook: Teaching True Mathematics

First off, let me make a long list of what is not mathematics and was thrown out as either fakery junk mathematics or was pared down immensely for being rather minutiae or irrelevant or archaic and not worth the time in classroom education.

1) Rationals and Negative Numbers thrown out completely
2) Irrationals thrown out completely
3) Reals thrown out completely
4) Imaginary numbers and Complex numbers are b.s. and thrown out completely

5) Trigonometry pared down so much-- 90% thrown out, and no trigonometry ever enters Calculus. Only real use of trigonometry is when you have an angle and side, you can figure out the rest of the right triangle. But no, when you give true math to a gaggle of kooks, it is not long before they stretch true math way way out of its "zone of truth". And even fill up by 50% of calculus, when trig should never be in calculus.

6) Continuum and continuity thrown out as horrible fakery
7) Topology is junk and a waste of time

8) Prime numbers is fakery for the Naturals never had division in the first place. The real true numbers of mathematics are the Decimal Grid Numbers and they do not have a concept of "prime". The key evidence that primes were silly stupid error, was the fact that there never existed a "pattern for primes". And all of mathematics is a science of "pattern". If any part of mathematics has no pattern, is indication that such was a phony fake concept to start with.

9) Limit in Old Math was a horrible fakery
10) Lobachevsky, Riemann geometries and all NonEuclidean geometries are fakery and a waste of time
11) Boole logic a horrid gaggle of monumental mistakes
12) Galois Algebra of Group, Ring, Field a fakery and waste of time
13) Dimension stops at 3rd, and 3rd is the last and highest dimension possible, for there is no 4th or higher dimensions.
14) High School in Old Math spends too much time on quadratic equations with their negative numbers and imaginary-complex numbers when such never existed in the first place and where they violate a principle of algebra-- that an equation of algebra-- the right-side of the equation must always have a greater than zero number. So we throw out all quadratic equations of Old Math as fake math.
15) High School in Old Math spends too much time on teaching in geometry the congruence of SSS, ASA etc etc and we should pare that back somewhat, as excess teaching of a concept.
16) to be continued....

Another excerpt:

Trisection of the Angle is an extremely good analogy to the sham math that was Prime numbers. It was impossible to trisect the "arbitrary or general angle" some angles such as 90 degrees can be trisected with just unmarked straightedge and compass, but the in-general angle has no pattern of trisection. You need to include another tool other than the unmarked straightedge and compass. So, for trisection of angles in general, there is a pattern so long as you provide sufficient tools. A pattern exists and thus trisection of angles is math, because a pattern exists.

TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS: journal-textbook for ages 5 to 18, Volume 1; and ages 19 to 26, Volume 2 Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

This is the one textbook in two volumes that carries every person through all his/her math education needs, 5 year old to 26 year old through all of mathematics that is needed to do science. Every other math book is incidental to this one. And the student needs this math book for all their math and science needs. A one-size-fits-all for mathematics study.

I call it a journal-textbook because Amazon's Kindle offers me the ability to edit overnight, and to change the text, almost continuously. A unique first in education textbooks-- continual overnight editing.

What prompted me to write this textbook is that the Old Math is too much filled with error, mistakes and just sheer nonsense. In the early 2000s I wrote about 5 editions of Correcting Math textbooks and about 9 editions of True Calculus, but then I got so fed up and tired with all the mistakes of Old Math, that I decided the best route to go is throw out all of Old Math and start anew.

Now I wrestled with publishing a "rough first edition" now, or to wait about a year in polishing the textbook and then publish it. I wrestled with this and decided I have enough of a skeleton text, that I can continually polish with overnight editing, and that it would be of more benefit to readers to have this skeleton text and watch and wait as the months and years go by to see the continual polishing take affect. So I decided tonight to publish, for the benefit of many to see, rather than wait a year to see a polished text. I may have made a mistake in this decision for I do not want to turn off anyone to math. But maybe I made the correct decision to allow others to see this book a full year ahead of schedule. Bon Voyage!

Length: 365 pages

Very crude dot picture of 5f6 magnetosphere of 231Pu Atom Totality

A torus shape doing the Faraday Law inside of each and every atom.
                 __  
       .-'               `-.      
   .'     ::\ ::|:: /::     `.
 /        ::\::|::/::         \      inside the atom is rings of Faraday Law coil and bar magnet          
;..........  _ _ ............ ;
|.......... (     ).............|      
;             - -             ;
 \         ::/::|::\::        /    neutrons form a atom-skin cover over the torus rings  
   `.     ::/ ::|:: \::     .'              
      `-    _____   .-'
     
One of those dots in the magnetosphere is the Milky Way galaxy. And
each dot represents another galaxy. The O is the Cosmic nucleus and
certainly not as dense as what Old Physics thought, and perhaps it is a void altogether
because in New Physics the interior of atoms has the Faraday law going on.

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts without the hassle of spammers, off-topic-misfits, front-page-hogs, stalking mockers, suppression-bullies, and demonizers.  

Read my recent posts in peace and quiet.

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

Another excerpt from my book Teaching True Mathematics:

When something in math has "no pattern" means it was cooked up by kooks of math. Kooks that are too stupid to find their flaws of definition, their shortcomings in Logic-- Naturals have no division -- so -- obviously you cannot define Primes with division if Naturals have no division.

Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 12:35:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com>
To: Plutonium Atom Universe <plutonium-a...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: instead of gold foil, use carbon graphite or diamond-- atoms have
 no nucleus //Rutherford-Geiger-Marsden Experiment done over to tell the
 real truth about atom geometry Re: Radioactivity facts on alpha particles

instead of gold foil, use carbon graphite or diamond-- atoms have no nucleus //Rutherford-Geiger-Marsden Experiment done over to tell the real truth about atom geometry Re: Radioactivity facts on alpha particles

Alright, in the below it seems at first glance to be a difficult Rutherford-Geiger-Marsden Experiment Do-over. But I think it is an easy do-over. I would hazard to guess that since 1913, there have been thousands of repeat experiments, all using Gold foil. And all assuming of a nucleus in atoms.

Where, if, there was one decent scientist who would go into the lab and use carbon-- graphite or diamond, would find the case that atoms of carbon have no nucleus. And instead, the ricochet or rebound of alpha particles at 180 degree from source, can be only explained as a bouncing off of a carbon atom skin coating. See my 3 possibilities below.

On Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 6:26:13 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
So very much of physics is ultimately down to the skin coating that makes up the outer surface of each and every atom. This is much about Radioactivity.

And a major major change in Physics is the physics of the geometry of atoms. 

Old Physics got the idea that atoms were small balls with 99.9% of the mass residing in a dense nuclear center, with electrons as tiny tiny mass and huge space outside the nucleus, as a dot cloud where each dot is a fraction of .5 MeV for a electron, with the proton at 938MeV and the neutron at 940MeV residing in the nucleus. They justified the neutron by saying it allows the protons to stay together and not repel. This was the silly stupid view of Physics of Old Physics.

New Physics says their is no repulsion in EM theory. There is no nucleus in atoms, for the proton is 840 MeV and consists of 8 windings of a coil, while electron is the muon as 1 ring acting as a Faraday law bar magnet thrusting through the proton coil and producing magnetic monopoles, some of which are .5MeV monopoles. These monopoles are stored inside of growing neutrons. Neutrons act as capacitors, growing from the produced monopoles until they grow to 945MeV and then they cause that atom to increase in atomic number, going from say carbon to nitrogen, or fluorine to neon, etc. The neutron and monopoles reside on the surface of atoms, the interior of atoms is a Faraday coil with muon magnet going around and thrusting through proton coil, thus the atom is a torus with neutrons and monopoles as dielectric skin coating. The center of atoms is virtually a void, a donut hole analogy.

What that New Physics picture tells us to do, is recheck the old Rutherford, Geiger Marsden experiment where they conclude that the bounced back alpha particles fired upon a gold leaf foil, they interpreted that bounce back as meaning the atom has a dense nuclear region. 

What we must do is repeat that experiment to show that firing alpha particles at gold leaf foil, is either,

1) the alpha particles enter inside the torus ring and naturally follow the torus path and thus are deflected back 180 degrees to the firing site.

Or,

2) the alpha particles are not entering inside the torus ring but rather are circling around the top or bottom circular path of the outside of the torus and thus deflected back 180 degrees to source.

Or,

3) the alpha particles deflected back to source are caused by the outer skin coating of the gold atoms is sufficient enough to bounce back at 180 degrees a few of the alpha particles.


I favor this third one as the likely true answer. I am betting that no physicist since 1913, had the brains to try out carbon, where carbon with its 6 protons and 6 neutrons does not have adequate skin coating cover. Gold you see has 79 protons but has 197- 79 = 118 neutrons. This is the reason atoms have to have more and more neutrons, to make a increasing need of skin coating, because the size of the gold atom torus is so large, that you need so many more neutrons to cover the torus outer surface. In fact the mathematics of how many neutrons a atom has is a logarithmic function-- meaning-- surface area of torus is logarithmic increase.

And, once real physicists, not these present day hacks of physics chasing black holes, chasing Higgs boson, chasing fusion energy, chasing gravity waves. Once the real physicists find that the rebounded alpha particle upon carbon is not what supports a "nuclear atom" but rather, supports the idea that nucleus of atoms is bogus, is fake science.

Now some will quickly think that biology is a culprit of the fake nuclear atom, thinking that by 1800s and especially 1908-1913, that cell biology proved a nuclear cell. And it is easy to think that since most cells, not all, have a nucleus, that surely physics would have the nuclear atom. In fact, biology has Prokaryotic cells-- no nucleus, and the DNA is loose and in the form of geometry of a ring or loop around the cell, much like a torus loop.

So, if in 1913, if Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden had studied or known of Prokaryotic cells more than Eukaryotic cells, then physics perhaps would have taken a better turn to truth.

But looking at the history, it appears biology was not fully aware of cells without a nucleus, and so impossible for Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden to have known of a living cell that has no nucleus-- history-- Stanier, van Niel, 1962, and Chatton's 1937. I do not know if Rutherford in 1908 wanted to know the best science of living cells-- whether a cell can exist without a nucleus, I do not know what the situation was in 1908. But I am certain that all three, Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden knew that biology cells have a well defined nucleus and am certain that swayed their interpretation of their gold leaf experiment.

And what I am saying is that atoms have no nucleus, and the alpha particles are bouncing off the surface of atoms to rebound back to the source.

This would be a major major change in all of physics-- atoms have no nucleus. And just one more result or fallout of the discovery that the real proton is 840 MeV, real electron is the muon at 105 MeV and the .5 MeV particle was Dirac's magnetic monopole.

How one great discovery leads to thousands more, great discoveries.

In our modern day instruments, I believe we can now go through all three of the above scenarios and find out which is the true reason of the Rutherford, Geiger, Marsden experiment of 1908-1913.

Their is nothing wrong with their experiment-- for it is true that a few are deflected back 180 degrees. But there is everything wrong with their interpretation of why some alpha particles are deflected back. The entire view of a nuclear atom is a silly stupid view, for it places no job, no function, no duty, no task of subatomic particles. A stupid silly view of protons neutrons and electrons as do-nothing subatomic particles. Once you place a job or task upon proton and neutron and electron such as Faraday Law, then you cannot have the silly stupid nuclear atom.

I am going to bet that the (3) is true-- that the alpha particle bounces off the skin coating of carbon atoms. Provided, if, any alpha particles reflect back at 180 degrees.

AP 

"P writes: what did Dr. Tao lose his marbles in a cone trying to see if the slant cut is a ellipse or oval?"

Terrance Tao, is one of the most gifted mathematical prodigies that was one out of the 6 best mathematicians in his country of origin, in the olympiads. Scoring gold. He won the Fields Medal among many others.

So, let that sink in, and think if your nonsense that supposedly disproves every piece of math, say back to the Greeks, is really all that correct... you are fucking delusional.

I mean, tell me: what exactly IS an oval, in your eyes? In any definition I've seen, an ellipse would also be an oval, so the slice through the cone would be an ellipse and oval. Ellipse is a round plump shape, ergo, oval.

On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 3:09:21 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Math Failure
>  was at least trying not to fail. But no, it's innate
> nature

>
> WARNING TO PARENTS:


AP writes: Harvard failed Calculus

World's First Geometry Proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

Calculus needs a geometry proof of Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. But none could ever be obtained in Old Math where they had a ill-defined infinity; they had the fakery of Limit concept; and they had the fakery of a continuum.

The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus basically says the integral is inverse to the derivative and the derivative is inverse to the integral. By inverse is meant that you can go to one given the other and vice versa, such as add is the inverse of subtract, so if we had 10 + 4 = 14 then the inverse is subtract 4 and we have 14-4 = 10 back to 10 where we started from. And the geometry proof involves a rectangle and a right triangle hinged atop a trapezoid. You hinge it one direction you have dy*dx for area of a rectangle for integral area. You hinge it the other direction you have the dy/dx for slope or derivative from the trapezoid formed.

Sad that Old Math was so full of ill-defined concepts and fake concepts that never was a geometry proof of FTC ever possible in Old Math.

Length: 29 pages

Harvard failed geometry:

AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section Kindle Edition
by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

AutisticPlutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com> fails at math and science:

>About spam that uses sci.physics without doing any physics

So how many whales did your spams save?

(and how does your spamming save whales?)



x-no-archive: yes

Dung Beetle of Math and StableFly of Physics Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com> fails at math and science:

>Donald Shithead Trump guts the endangered species act-- he really hates animals //
>And, as humani

Another offtopic spam post, Plutonium?  How many whales does each of your offtopic
spam posts save?

Does each of Wormley's posts save as many whales as your spams?
Should I start spamming here as well? Or do I need to join a secret club in order
for my spams to save any whales?

And the biggest question of all.  How do your spams save whales? Of course I don't
want to see whales harmed in any way, but there has to be a much, much better way to
save whales than by spamming here.

x-no-archive: yes

About David Petry spam: some knucklehead who does not know math from a hole in the ground, but has a big mouth anyway

Difference between applied mathemtics and pure mathematics
By David Petry 20 posts 67 views updated 2:34 PM

Is the reason Dr. Tao cannot admit ellipse is never a conic, his IQ is less than 30 from AP (so suggests Petry) Re: Terence Tao flunked the Math Test of a lifetime-generation test

On Monday, March 12, 2018 at 9:58:42 PM UTC-5, Jan wrote:
>
> Must you post garbage?
>
> --
> Jan

AP writes: That is one of the problems in that Dr. Tao wishes to ignore the important issue of conic sections, still teaching the ellipse is never a conic when even a High School student can prove otherwise with reading AP's book. But news to Dr. Tao, he cannot ignore major issues of math, but has to speak up.


On Sunday, August 11, 2019 at 2:17:09 PM UTC-5, David Petry wrote:
> It's been said that if there's a gap of roughly 30 IQ points or more between two people,  then any kind of communication between them beyond "would you like fries with that?  Yes, please" is virtually impossible.  I'm thinking that might explain a lot of what's going on in this newsgroup.

AP writes: So David Petry is suggesting that Dr. Tao is deficient of 30 IQ points versus AP and is the reason Dr. Tao cannot understand the ellipse is never a conic even with the simple High School proof AP wrote in his book (see below).
Is the reason Dr. Tao cannot tell the difference between ellipse and oval-- he has a 30 minus IQ ?? AP's Proof-Ellipse was never a Conic Section Kindle Edition by Archimedes Plutonium (Author)

On Wednesday, August 7, 2019 at 2:37:02 PM UTC-5, Simply Curious wrote:
> "P writes: what did Dr. Tao lose his marbles in a cone trying to see if the slant cut is a ellipse or oval?"
>

AP writes: Is Simply Curious really John Baez of UC Riverside with a new fake nym name? For his writing style and phrases are somewhat congruent to Baez of his old nyms-- NotthatGuy and Abu. Check out the phrases of Baez under NotThatGuy and Abu and see for yourself.

On Monday, August 12, 2019 at 8:11:20 PM UTC-5, David Petry wrote:
> Eram Semper Recta (John Gabriel) wrote:
>
> > My IQ is above 160
>
>
> Really?  What do you base that on?  What tests have you taken?
>
> It's my guess that a lot of the "cranks" in this newsgroup would score quite high on an IQ test.  I'll go ahead and name names here.  I think Ross Finlayson,  James S. Harris, Pete Olcott, John Gabriel, and maybe others who don't come to mind at the moment, would score higher than most of the non-cranks here.  Even AP, I suspect, has an above average IQ. I wonder if any research has been done on this phenomenon.  I didn't find anything with google, though I didn't look particularly hard.
>
> Does anyone want to speculate on why this may be the case?  Or do you all doubt it?

AP writes: Please correct me if I am wrong, David Petry, so your saying that Dr. Tao cannot ever understand this short book proof ellipse is not a conic for he has a minus 30 point IQ difference from AP?

Maggot of Math and Dung Beetle of Physics Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium...@gmail.com> fails at math and science:

>Subject: Re: Drs.Larry Summers, Sheldon Glashow, Lisa Randall of Harvard, teach
>percentages correctly??-- Moroney//never realizing the Real Electron = muon, proton=840MeV, .5MeV = Dirac's monopole

>AP writes: I bet kibo Parry Moroney is not brave enough to say that directly to Sheldon Glashow's face that he missed the entire boat of physics when he thought the electron of atoms is a mere .5MeV

Now why would either Kibo or I do something as dumb and stoopid as to lie to him
like that, even on a dare?


x-no-archive: yes

>