https://groups.google.com/d/forum/sci.mathsci.mathMathematical discussions and pursuits.Google GroupsArchimedes Plutonium2017-12-12T21:53:45Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/DliMOsPMim05Page30, 3-6, Our Sun is Hollow due to Gauss's law of electricity/Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 20175Newsgroups: sci.math Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 14:17:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: Page30, 3-6, Our Sun is Hollow due to Gauss's law of electricity/Atom-Totality-Universe/ textbook 8th ed 2017 From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2017 22:17:37 +0000Archimedes Plutonium2017-12-12T21:51:28Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/0bV9YlIsvIgpage57, 7-8, Appendix of Chemistry Data & Table of Elementary Particles/ PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE textbook, 8th ed.page57, 7-8, Appendix of Chemistry Data & Table of Elementary Particles/ PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE textbook, 8th ed. I need a lot of Lewis Diagrams for the table of Elementary Particles. How you build all the particles from using electron=muon = 105 MeV and of course, the magnepole =Archimedes Plutonium2017-12-12T21:49:32Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/RchXMS8sJ-0page58, 7-9, Appendix of Chemistry PERIODIC TABLE OF CHEMICAL ELEMENTS/ textbook, 8th ed.page58, 7-9, Appendix of Chemistry PERIODIC TABLE OF CHEMICAL ELEMENTS/ textbook, 8th ed. No better way of ending this textbook than the very best Chemistry Periodic Table of Chemical Elements. Let it be the inside cover. Let there also be the circular Periodic Table. Someone has devised aArchimedes Plutonium2017-12-12T21:41:50Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/Qmkw8THFMoUpage56, 7-7, Appendix of Astronomy, Physics Data/ PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE textbook, 8th ed.page56, 7-7, Appendix of Astronomy, Physics Data/ PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE textbook, 8th ed. ASTRO DATA TABLE Alright, in the 8th edition, I need a chapter that does just the data and facts of Solar System objects. As an ongoing job and duty of astronomers to constantly refresh reviseArchimedes Plutonium2017-12-12T21:32:47Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/CJ5EwJnAYgkpage55, 7-6, Appendix of Units and Physics Data/ PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE textbook, 8th ed.page55, 7-6, Appendix of Units and Physics Data/ PLUTONIUM-ATOM-TOTALITY-UNIVERSE textbook, 8th ed. APPENDIX of UNITS Alright in this edition of Atom Totality, I include a appendix and data, for what I would like to see in all physics textbook is not only an appendix of units and data, butPentcho Valev2017-12-12T15:33:25Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/cubigQBIbzcDoublethinkers in Theoretical PhysicsDavid Gross (40:53): "Science is based on observation, experimentation and theoretical constructs. Its findings - facts and theories - are subject to the requirements of logic, consistency and reproducibility. Science is always tentative and must subject its tenets to experimental tests."John2017-12-12T15:10:42Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/8x_IXyDV8g8Strongly smooth function + convex smooth function = strongly smooth function ?I don't know if that is the case, but will appreciate if somebody can share thoughts. Here is the setting. Suppose f(x) is a-strongly smooth, meaning f(x) - f(y) <= f'(y)(x-y) + a/2*(x-y)^2, and h(x) is convex smooth. Is g(x)=f(x)+h(x) strongly smooth, such that g(x) - g(y) <= g'(y)(x-y) +John Gabriel2017-12-12T13:44:43Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/e_rW-n-9zdMLet's not forget that John Gabriel was the first to prove the mean value theorem constructively. 12/12/2017Proof using bogus calculus and a patch I created for the bullshit derivative: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-mOEooW03iLZG1pNlVIX2RTR0E The Patch: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-mOEooW03iLVVg3QWtOdkxUbVk And for the rigorous New Calculus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjaAMNnMLJohn Gabriel2017-12-12T13:44:08Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/ECt_jwS0PFA"But Mr. Gabriel, how do we know there are innumerably many parallel secant lines?" - 12/12/2017Watch the video to find out why you fucking morons! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MTyidv82V0John Gabriel2017-12-12T13:43:26Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/068hao6Vf_IThe BIG STUPID (mainstream academia) forces Webster Editors change tangent definition to spite me. 12/12/2017The funniest part is that the new crap definition covers only their bogus theory for tangent lines in a plane. They lose all the application to more complex tangent objects that are not lines, eg. planes, spheres, etc. Watch video to see how morons like you invalidate yourselves more and moreJohn Gabriel2017-12-12T13:42:47Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/o9ubJ_Nid-4Euler's Blunder S = Lim S : 12/12/2017https://www.linkedin.com/post/edit/6209800972248715264 In order to get a quick introduction, I suggest you watch my one minute video. My most recent video and probably the last on S = Lim S, is around 5 minutes. Euler made a mistake in defining S = Lim S. No matter how hard modern academicsJohn Gabriel2017-12-12T13:42:00Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/OBSSCeinVw8Sets of numbers or garbage? 12/12/2017https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Obw9ObjrXNsJohn Gabriel2017-12-12T13:41:32Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/UluDYYQ-eKcxkcd NOT impartial! 12/12/2017So you thought xkxd is impartial. You are wrong! Post disapproved: "Wrong on the Internet: John Gabriel" Reason: The reported message has the only purpose to advertise for a website or another product. If you want to post, read the rules first. Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:57 pm America/Atikokan IronyJohn Gabriel2017-12-12T13:40:58Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/OyVvYATL3wgHow the Church Of Academia abandoned the simple concepts for Zermelo-Fraenkel rot. 12/12/2017The following common notions are the TRUE AXIOMS of Euclid's Elements. You will notice they are all well defined. Nothing about undefined sets or elements or relations. The axioms are very generic even though they were stated in terms of numbers in the four common notions, Book I. Of course itArchimedes Plutonium2017-12-12T07:09:52Zhttps://groups.google.com/d/topic/sci.math/9eOjRSBNE6Mthe Foggy and indeterminate definition of OVAL-- Here I well define itNow in mathematics, the term Oval is Indeterminate or, not well defined. It is a foggy notion in mathematics. And that is why I aim to resolve it. And probably the reason no-one realized or saw that a ellipse was never a conic section. So bad and indeterminate, and undefined was Oval, that here